Posted on 08/26/2012 4:55:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Yep, he could be no more helpful to the Dim causes if they were paying him. FUTA Be objective enough to realize that you macacaed yourself and GTFO!
That is a stunning and disturbing comment coming from you. WTH do you expect? You post an article and then get "OPINIONS" on a political forum Gee, who could have seen that coming? So I have two questions for you: A: why do you take a criticism of an article you POSTED but did not write personally? B: Do I lose my right to COMMENT on who the folks of MO voted for? Or do I have to live in Missouri to do that? C: Will the Missouri Senator impact us outside of MO? D: Is it not relevant that MO DEMOCRATS voted in the GOP primary? Ok, so got on a roll and had four questions for you. Answer is you can.
Really? You need help on this one?
I said what I said. I don’t particularly see the relevance of the term “footsie” here and it is not a choice of words I would have used. I would only say that she deployed psychological operations with the GOP base and I am totally stunned to see how well it worked - including here.
You as an Iowan have no right to tell him what he has to do. That is up to the voters in MO and if they don’t want him they will not vote for him
She is an attorney, but I can not find anything about the State Bar of AZ’s decision to suspend her license for unethical conduct or anything else
As a matter of fact many voted for the other candidates because of her commercials. It was not a secret that was not discussed by political pundits in Missouri and not known to voters.
Heck look at Obama and Romney. Obama got the opponent he wanted, didn't he???
In his first debate with McCaskill, I’d tell Akin to say this for his closing statement:
“A vote for McCaskill is a vote for Obamacare. If you vote for McCaskill you’re even stupider than I am.”
I never said I was a campaign manager.
Thank you Chipster, may I have another? And thank you for not making our difference of opinion 'personal'.
For the record, as my Homepage points out (when I joined, the only thing I thought I would ever post about was Terri Schiavo. Silly me. Politics brings out the little devil in me I guess), my 'pretentious' screenname was selected (with very personal reasons) without thinking of years down the road and how the name could be perceived.
That said, if the mods could change my screename to 'iseekandfailconstantlytobeaservantofthecross' I would be most appreciative.
We meet again.
Thank you very much :)
Not necessarily - depends on which faction of the Obama camp you are talking about. They did get the one they thought they would get, but that’s not the same thing.
It is the logical inference. He takes the position that a woman forcibly raped won’t conceive because of the extreme stress. Therefore, if a woman conceives after an alleged rape it must not have been all that stressful for her - ie. she must have enjoyed it.
That is beyond a an awkward sentence. That is a monstrous insult to every woman ever put through this nightmare.
But the huge hole in your rather shallow argument is that as a Senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill can damned sure tell the poster from Iowa what to do - which at least reason number three that your line of argument here is rather pathetic.
Amazing how unpopular the facts have become. We got about thirty medical einsteins here who say the facts don't even merit attention. Who cares about science, when you can beat up on some inarticulate conservative and feel all righteous about yourself?
We learned in new MO polling data posted yesterday...
-- Republicans want him to withdraw, 47 percent to 37 percent.
-- Independents want him to withdraw, 57 percent to 25 percent.
-- Undecided voters, by a 67 percent to 16 percent margin, want him to withdraw.
And ONLY Democrats favor him staying in the race.
So you don't understand the difference between something that's "rare" and something that "won't" happen? Because it's a huge, monumental difference. Since he said it's "rare," there is absolutely no room to assume based on what he said that a woman who got pregnant from rape is lying. It's your own fault if you erroneously assume that when someone tells you about a rare event, you don't believe it actually happened just because it's rare. Rare events occur. That's why they're called "rare" as opposed to non-existent. Even some women's health-type centers point to pregnancy as occurring in 5% of rapes (not sure if they included consensual statutory rape in that or not). You can debate whether 5% is "rare" or not, but it is universally agreed that the vast majority of rapes don't result in pregnancy. So let's stop this shallow, wrong analysis based on a misunderstanding of the definition of words.
“It is the logical inference. He takes the position that a woman forcibly raped won’t conceive because of the extreme stress. Therefore, if a woman conceives after an alleged rape it must not have been all that stressful for her - ie. she must have enjoyed it.”
This IS the point!!! There is no other way to take any other inference from the two statements: Legitimate rape and the reproductive system will shutdown.
What he said is what he truly believed.
When taken together, it is an ignorant chauvinistic belief.
Please explain to me why the relative rate of pregnancy after a rape is relevant to the topic of Federal abortion policy?
“So let’s stop this shallow, wrong analysis based on a misunderstanding of the definition of words.”
Ok, how do you tie the words “illegitimate” and “forcible” as having the same meaning without also inferring that there are a lot of women out there who are claiming rape falsely to justify an abortion.
Not don’t take me to the woodshed on that precept, because as a n absolute statement, I admit women hold an awful lot of leverage when they invoke the word rape.
My point is this is a political campaign that will result in over half the electorate being women.
Want to get into a extremely heated discussion just make that statement about illegitimate rape to a group of women, and see how popular you are received.
His statements showed him to be an insensitive and totally uninformed person, who felt he had the right to express his views on rape , in an official manner (candidate for US Senate), as a male, lecturing women on a subject,(rape) which they hold as a subject that men don’t truly understand or sympathize with.
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.