Posted on 08/25/2012 8:06:08 AM PDT by Jonah Vark
For me, politically speaking, since my goal is taking the Senate and the Presidency as I'm sure yours is as well,Aiken fell into a trap that several others have also fallen into.
It's the Trent Lott/George Allen macaaca comment crap all over again.
Our side is so worried about what the DBM will say about us,what lie they will spin next, that we over apologize when we do make mistakes.Big mistake
And,,,since there is a well known double standard of dems getting away with anything from "better put some ice on that" to "if I don't solve this problem in three years its going to be a one term proposition". Meanwhile we pay for every mistake/misspeak in near death strikes from both the left and our own.It's imperative that when we do miscue we recover immediately or suffer the consequences.
If Akin had made a simple apology and then got back to the issues of the day such as McCaskill's vote for obamcare, no budget for three years, etc., etc. things might have turned out different. But, instead he's apologized over and over and beginning to look as weak as Allen or Lott.
Once you look weak, once there is blood in the water,its all over politically.The rats use the DBM as their print/tv slaves while we have to win the old fashioned way by telling the truth.
Yes its great for us to stand by our man and do the right thing pretending we can overcome media bias whether we can or not but its far better to win elections.Would I rather be pure and stand by someone who made a simple mistake--of course.With the stakes this high is it the right thing to do this time.Probably not.
We win by being strong making few mistakes and when we do screw up never ever letting the left get the upper hand. IMHO, its too late for Akin.I could be wrong.
Your judgment is always as good as it gets,but at least you know where I stand.
I don’t subscribe to your premise.
I don’t give money to any candidates. That is the decision of my husband and I am fine with it. What I have is truth, and that is what I do my best to effectively fight with.
I speak the truth and I vote.
I’m not saying that I support Akin. I’m saying that the lying scum on the other side are twisting his words for political gain, and we are stupid if we let them get away with it.
They want to talk about a war on women? I say bring it! Let’s talk about the welfare culture and what it has done to women and children. Let’s talk about infanticide and how “empowering” that is to women. Let’s talk about how many women are incarcerated because their coping mechanism for a past abortion was a life of crime. Let’s talk about the abortion-breast cancer link and the suppression of the truth in various studies for a political agenda. Let’s talk about the trashing of Sarah Palin because she had the audacity to let an innocent little Downs Syndrom baby live. Let’s talk about Obama’s routine, staged speech THREE SEPARATE TIMES including him flipping the bird at Palin and Hillary, but not any men.
To these vermin out there who say that conservatives are at war with women, I say, “DO YOUR WORST!” It’ll only make me fight back harder. This woman is a mama grizzly, and if you tangle with me or my family you’re gonna end up wishing you hadn’t.
Bring it.
The only real 'help' you got was YOURSELF. Thank you for responding to my comments and providing a good debate for others to read and 'help' themselves.
You have the concept and it is to win,as you say McQuackskill has to go.
What he said was stupid. I can agree with that.
But what he said is not what the media has made it out to be. There is a whole swarm of maggots picking it over and giving the public the putrid, dead, stinking carcass after their scavenging.
And they will do that EVERY SINGLE TIME if they can get away with it.
Sarah Palin never said she could see Russia from her house. Because the GOP-e was willing to sacrifice her to the perception of stupidity - and even feed that public perception - people voted based on a lie. The same thing is happening right now. By the same people.
They are vermin. Maggots crawling on the heap, digesting Akin and his words into a piece of rotting roadkill that has no resemblance to what he originally said.
If we can’t figure out how these cockroaches function after all we’ve already seen in the last 4 years we deserve everything we get. But my hope is that we will learn and will make it clear that they cannot do this to us again.
The question was: “Okay, so if an abortion can be considered in the case of, say, tubal pregnancy or something like that, what about in the case of rape? Should it be legal or not?”
Nobody asked him if it was rare, and that isn't relevant. At least not if you have principles.
Dumb? Because he used the words "LEGITIMATE RAPE" ? Or is it the public who thinks he said "LEGITIMATELY RAPED" ?
No. Dumb because a) He was incorrect; b) He was offering irrelevant information; and c) He hurt the pro-life cause and his own candidacy.
I can't understand why you keep defending his answer. Even he doesn't do that. I hate to break this to you, but the ability to effectively communicate is an important quality in a political candidate. Todd Akin failed at that in this interview.
“In one Interview he lost Democrats, Independents, Moderate Republicans and anyone who doesn’t think their Uterus has magical powers. It will be interesting to see how he will win those people back.”
Spot on! He can’t blame anyone but himself.
Having just read every one of your replies on this thread up to this reply I would like to point out you're the one pushing the very things that have been "inferred".
Or do you not realize that?
How so?
Because he's the one who brought it up. Why change the subject away from the important issues? Why bring up a topic nobody asked you about? This is pretty basic stuff. Like it or not, the ability to effectively communicate matters in a political campaign.
Really? He was too dumb to handle it? I don't see it that way. I think he answered it perfectly. He made it clear that rape, in his mind and the minds of tens of millions of other Americans, is NO LONGER going to be accepted as an excuse to murder children.
He did no such thing. He blabbered some barely coherent sentence about how pregnancy from rape is rare, which is utterly irrelevant to the point you think he made. You can describe his answer in many ways. "Clear" is not one of them.
Even he doesn't defend his statement. Why do you?
There are even instructions on how to make something go viral.
twitter went viral
M _ A _ N _ I _ P _ U _L _ T _ I_ O _ N
You've been manipulated.
How does that make you feel?
I guess you still haven't figured it out.
-
THE PRE-SELLING OF OBAMA:
Before the 2008 election of Obama:
I (we) saw (many) Allstate Insurance (TV) commercial(s) that said something like:
”It may not be a recession but it sure feels like it.”
- very political ads too - by a ‘Barack actor’ (spokeperson) who once played:
- the American President on the popular TV series “24”
—
- (in 2007 or 2008 - before the November 2008 election - Sears Insurance TV ads
- very stealth-political ads too - by a ‘Barack actor’ (spokeperson) who once played the American President on the TV series “24”)
However - the Allstate Insurance ads after the 2008 election of Obama (when unemployment was about 6%)
- and even now Allstate Insurance TV ads do not mention “recession” in any way that could or would point out Obama’s 8.3% unemployment rate failed economy
-
The RNC and other GOP-E types should take their wimpy cowardly “opinions” and their all-prepossessing desire to make the world safe for their stock portfolios and for Muffy’s trust fund and stick them where the sun shineth not. If they refuse to back and fund Akin (chosen by Missouri GOP primary voters), then that is one more reason to never give RNC or RScCC one more nickel. Contribute to candidates WE choose not to candidates THEY choose.
The DWS pic is funny - thanks for the laugh. You still don’t get it, though. Nobody asked him about the frequency of pregnancy resulting from rape. His candidacy is in trouble because he couldn’t answer a pretty easy question without going off the rails.
You seem to have a principled view on abortion. I’d think it would bother you that his principles seem to be based upon the frequency of those pregnancies, rather than moral value of the lives in question. Why should it matter how common it is?
So.... does a woman get pregnant every time she has sex? If not, why not ?
Why am I so pissed off?
I had a feeling you were getting that way, and I did not mean to provoke that rage.
Because I have a dear friend who was brutally raped at age 14, bore a child she gave up for adoption, and she’s spent a lifetime overcoming corrosive and ignorant BLAME aimed at her from JERKS like Akin and the quack Wilke.
SO... you are saying that a close friend was raped (what... 20 30 years ago?) and Akin's remark made the whole thing resurface? Because of a mistranslation of LEGITIMATE RAPE ? Because Akin stated that a human female's body can and often rejects insemination and prevents fertilization, especially in the case of rape? Because , SOMEHOW, the fact that your friend's body DIDN't reject the insemination means IMPLIES that she WANTED to get pregnant? Now THAT is RIDICULOUS. No one thinks that way, and I would suggest you quit thinking that way, or at least don't say it to your friend.
I understand and sympathize with your feelings for your friend and her awful experience. May I ask how upset is SHE over Akin's remarks?
If your goal is to ensure that the innocent child created through rape isn’t destroyed, GUESS WHAT, you DON’T deny the reality of the victim by claiming that she “really wanted it” because she got pregnant.
I get it. You seem to be misconstruing his comments (just like most of the public) and reading into his comments something that was only 'there' because of your friends long-ago experience.
How many people that know you and your friend make nasty remarks about her rape/abortion ?
Since your friend did not have an ABORTION, did not LIE about being RAPED, how does her situation even compare to Akin's comment ?
You leftists will never understand. You can never be too conservative!
i never use Twitter ~ on the other hand I know how to manipulate Google.com. While you guys are arguing I’m writing history!
By now I am so confused that I think It would be better to start over.
What question did the HOST ask that Akin provided this response to?
Bonus points if you don't have to GOOGLE it.
The “morning-after pill” has 2 mechanisms to prevent pregnancy: suppress ovulation or alter the uterine lining so it will not allow the conceived child to implant. The former is contraception; the latter is abortion. The contraceptive part only applies if the woman hasn’t ovulated by the time she is raped. That’s about half of the times when a pregnancy could occur from rape.
If fight-or-flight chemicals in the body were able to suppress ovulation for a day or two, that would be the same contraceptive effect as the morning-after-pill, which is so touted as necessary by the pro-aborts.
Some studies have shown that extreme stress affects implantation.
If adrenaline has a natural effect on implantation, then the stress of violent rape could well be just as effective as the “morning-after pill” - which actually has a very poor effectiveness rate, when you consider that only a few days out of the month are fertile. If 1/10th of the month is fertile (3 days out of 30) and 10% of the people who use the morning-after pill get pregnant, that would mean it had roughly a 100% failure rate (if nobody kept track of whether the days were fertile or not but just went with general numbers - and as far as I could tell from the morning-after pill numbers when I looked at them a long time ago, they didn’t distinguish whether the days were fertile or not). Only half of those times would involve the CONTRACEPTIVE effect rather than the abortive effect, so if you had 5% pregnancy rate that could reflect 100% failure of the contraceptive effect.
Do the fight-or-flight chemicals have these effects? I don’t know. Chemicals can be very powerful.
I wonder what the pregnancy rate is for forcible rape, compared with the pregnancy rate following the use of the morning-after pill.
Could put a whole different perspective on this whole thing.
Well... you were so non-specific that you left it way open. By not answering my question, you are still leaving it open. Which is it, potency or frequency?
That characteristic seems to have something to do with sperm!
AH..... another untouchable subject. It is highly possible that rapists have a higher sperm count, and more determined sperm, than men who go to work all day and sit around eating donuts.
Wonder what kind of hell a politician would go through if he or she made that kind of statement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.