I make no apology. Dreadnaught is wrong for The World Forgotten, wrong for America, and most seriously of all, Wrong on the Internet.
I make no apology. Dreadnaught is wrong for The World Forgotten, wrong for America, and most seriously of all, Wrong on the Internet.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
It's hypocrisy for the GOP/RNC or any Republican in office to try and distance themselves from Akin, and his beliefs. He can't really be a toolbag when others agreed with his beliefs and supported him. He wasn't exactly hiding his ideology.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They supported the Blunt Amendment, redefining Rape, defunding Planned Parenthood, want to overturn Roe v Wade (or Griswold for that matter), ban abortifacient meds, deny female reproductive care that includes birth control, and push a Personhood Amendment. As part of the party, they designed and voted on the Republican Platform --- with language to ban all abortions, no exceptions. That's well beyond opposing public funds for pregnancy terminations (already law via Hyde Amendment). Too late to take that all back now, huh.
Not only that, but for a group of (mostly men) presenting themselves as Small Government and anti-government champions of Freedom and Liberty, saying healthcare should be between a patient/physician, they sure do bend into pretzels to make sure their type of government is all up in womens' vaginas and uteruses, and telling doctors what's "acceptable" medicine.
Wow, statutory rape doesn't get a girl pregnant? I think if that were true, we'd have a few less shitty tvshows about young parents
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
For those who're thinking its just Americans or just the extreme American right that can be this insane, its not true. Turns out there's a mirror-image controversy brewing in the UK as the far-left tries to get their god-idol Assange off the hook for sexually assaulting women. While Todd Akin may have some extreme notions of what the effects of rape are, over here it turns out sex without consent is "bad sexual etiquette" but not rape.
George Galloway attacked over Assange 'rape' comments
George Galloway has been criticised by anti-rape campaigners after suggesting Julian Assange was accused of nothing more than "bad sexual etiquette".
Mr Assange is wanted in Sweden to face allegations - which he denies - of sexual assault made by two women.
The Respect MP said the women's claims were "totally unproven" and the Wikileaks founder had been "set up".
Rape charity Crisis said Mr Galloway's comments were "offensive" and "deeply concerning".
The UK has said Mr Assange must be extradited to Sweden despite being given political asylum by Ecuador.
Mr Assange remains in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has taken refuge, but the UK has said he will not be given safe passage to the Latin American country.
'Bad manners' Mr Assange insists that he had consensual sex with each of the women who have made allegations against him.
His legal team has said he wants assurances from the Swedish government that he will not be extradited to the US - where Wikileaks caused a storm last year by publishing thousands of leaked diplomatic cables and correspondence.
Mr Galloway, a frequent critic of the US and UK governments, said Mr Assange's "only crime was to expose, through Wikileaks, malfeasance by states including our own and the US on a truly gargantuan scale".
In a thirty minute podcast, the controversial anti-war MP said it was "an extraordinary coincidence that public enemy number one, Julian Assange, somehow gets inveigled with two women with incredibly complex political backgrounds who just, at the right time, come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against him".
"Let me tell you, I think that Julian Assange's personal sexual behaviour is sordid, disgusting, and I condemn it," he said.
"But even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape.
"At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this."
'Factually incorrect' The Bradford West MP suggested one of the women had claimed she invited Mr Assange back to her flat, had consensual sex with him and then "woke up to him having sex with her again - something which can happen, you know".
On the issue of whether this would constitute rape or not, Mr Galloway suggested that "not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion".
"Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them.
"It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?'
"It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
Rape Crisis said the MP's understanding of what constituted rape appeared to be "factually incorrect" and that if the woman concerned was asleep when the sexual encounter began, consent could not "reasonably" have been given.
"Having had consensual sex with a woman once does not give a man licence to then have sex with her again at any time and in any way he pleases and assume consent is given," a spokeswoman said.
"By the same token, having had consensual sex with someone once does not mean a woman has forever forfeited her right to withdraw or refuse her consent to further sex with that person.
"Sex without consent is rape. Mr Galloway's description of such sexual violence as 'really bad manners' is offensive and deeply concerning." Mr Galloway was not available for comment.
Legal differences There are differences in the law regarding rape in the UK and Sweden.
In the UK, a rape has been committed if there is intentional penetration without consent and if the accused "does not reasonably believe" that consent has been given.
The maximum sentence is life imprisonment although Rape Crisis says the average sentence is four years.
In Sweden, there are gradations in the legal definition of rape - each carrying different sentences.
The most serious kind, involving major violence, carries a sentence of ten years.
The concept of "regular rape", still involving violence but not of the most extreme kind, and "unlawful coercion", where for instance emotional pressure may have been applied, carry sentences of six and four years respectively.
To be fair, he said sex without explicit consent in the same night you already had consensual. That said, no means no, of course.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You know what's crazy, RB? My sister (you know, the crazy Occupy Chicago/NATO protest one) has her entire Facebook wall and Twitter full of posts about how Akin is so wrong and the terrible truth about 'rape culture' in the US... when literally last week she had a post saying that her feelings on the Assange situation are 'complicated'. Oh, I'm sure it's some nonsense about separating what they perceive as the lynching of Assange because of Wikileaks and the rape allegations against him, but let's be honest: if he wasn't a cause celebre in the crazy-left (sadly, including my sister), they would be loudly campaigning for his extradition on these charges, and absolutely aghast at how long it was taking the UK.
And then go back another week on her posts and you see her ripping that comedian a new one for his (admittedly tasteless) rape jokes.
Apparently rape is only unacceptable if you disagree with someone's politics.
http://mobile.rawstory.com/therawsto...67894727f672/1
Starting to notice a trend...
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Except that question inevitably affects the "will I get the treatment" one.
Hope is the denial of reality
You only notice that now? Did you not see the parts of the left that regularly blast the Republicans for being sexist overtly or covertly attack Hillary Clinton for her gender in 2008?
Hope is the denial of reality
No, it has nothing to do with compensation. You just don't understand Obamacare, so you're lashing out at me.
One of the main objections to Obamacare is that it will involve bureaucrats and politicians limiting the kinds of treatments people have access to in many situations, depending on the kind of health plan they have. In other words, government making health decisions.
Thus, Lewk's elbowing at Obama's hypocritical remark makes perfect sense.
Specifically not putting my mod hat on, can you please tone it down a little? Your hostility to me is so overwhelming you actually just argued that a US healthcare law doesn't involve politicians making decisions about healthcare. And then told me to "get [my] shit together" for no reason. Take a step back and look at how you're posting, and consider if you might be a bit unhinged here.
Yes, you are.
Last edited by Dreadnaught; 08-22-2012 at 03:46 AM. Reason: Spelling
For the record, this is not a uniquely lefty thing. We can clearly see that the loony right is just as bad here - I'm sure they'd like to lynch Assange for Wikileaks and will happily hide behind rape allegations, but there's plenty of people on the crazy end of the right who are defending Akin's comments (e.g. OG's link above).
They'd lynch Assange for the wikileaks, not for the rape allegations. At least they're honest.
Hope is the denial of reality
They'd probably lynch him for both, given their views on how criminals should be punishedAnd yes, conservatives are very honest when it comes to sexuality, sanctity of marriage, prostitution, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Obamacare forces you to purchase basic health insurance, right? You're still free to purchase extra insurance, or pay yourself, for stuff that isn't covered. You know, just like when you have health insurance now. That's at least how the mandated health insurance works over here. Though I am not sure how your plans like Medicaid/Medicare work, but those are already in place so that's not Obama's fault, right?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
We're not talking about people acting differently from what they preach. We're talking about them holding two diametrically opposing beliefs just because it's politically convenient to do so.
Hope is the denial of reality
Man I'd be happy if the politicians and bureaucrats and medical expert panels were guided by science and basic principles of medical ethics. I'd settle for that.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Wooosh. The point Steely and I were making went right over your head.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Rape victims didn't determine the compensation of doctors before Obama any more than they do afterwards, so what's the relevance of this? As I said to Dreadnaught, someone has to make those decisions.
So why did you mention compensation before?
You already have people limiting the kinds of treatment they have access to in many situations depending on the kind of health plan they have. They're called "insurance companies".One of the main objections to Obamacare is that it will involve bureaucrats and politicians limiting the kinds of treatments people have access to in many situations, depending on the kind of health plan they have.
Ugh. You obviously need this spelled out for you.In other words, government making health decisions.
Do you accept that, if a person has the flu and they make a decision whether or not to go and see a doctor, that could be described as "healthcare decision" but that it is a different kind of health care decision to the administrator of a hospital deciding what drugs to buy and it what quantities?
No, I didn't. Maybe if you want to me to tone it down a little, you should stop lying about what I've been trying to say?Specifically not putting my mod hat on, can you please tone it down a little? Your hostility to me is so overwhelming you actually just argued that a US healthcare law doesn't involve politicians making decisions about healthcare.
I didn't tell you to get your shit together for 'no reason'. I told you to get your shit together for a very good reason: your shit is not currently together. You need to take stock of your shit, and you need to get it together. Once your shit is together, we might just get somewhere .And then told me to "get [my] shit together" for no reason.
It's always gratifying when you have a low opinion of somewhere based on nothing more than instinct and disliking their politics, to have that low opinion confirmed on something unrelated to politics. Turns out, sticking your dick in someone *while they're asleep* is A-OK according to George Galloway.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
The circumstances changed; the terms of the contract had to be renegotiated to allow for surprise sleep sex without condom vs. awake sex with condom.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
@Steely's mess of a post-
You clearly don't have a full understanding of some of the controversy behind Obamacare, the IPAB or the impact of regulations on insurance companies. I wouldn't expect you to follow all the details. But it's silly for you to make the argument that the law doesn't involve government being involved in healthcare decisions, including in ways that will make some treatment options effectively out of reach via bureaucratic machinations .
No one said private insurance companies don't make access/coverage choices. The point is that it's hypocritical for Obama to say that politicians shouldn't be making healthcare choices when he's specifically expanded the kinds of choices political actors may make in these decisions for many people (which occur alongside decisions being made by other actors such as private insurance, doctors, etc).
Kindly pull your head out of your butt and get your shit together. I realize this may take a while. That you're so furiously attacking me and not Rand or Lewk (the guy who actually said the thing) sort of says it all.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
If I recall past threads correctly, you don't really understand the IPAB very well eitherAnd, for some reason, you seem set in your view that being given a mission by a political institution makes a person a politician or something. That being said, even I can appreciate some of the apparent irony in Obama's statement at the same time that I recognise the difference between "I want to make abortion illegal because I believe strange things" and "I want Medicare to have the ability to rein in its costs by challenging healthcare providers to practice good medicine"
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If somebodies asleep how are they supposed to say no?
I think there's a remarkable difference between one-off consensual sex on a night, then getting assaulted while you're asleep afterwards.
Are you on drugs? Its an honest question, cause the level of paranoia here is overwhelming. You obviously lack the very important skill of understanding the differences between jokes, a personal attack, and a discussion/debate. You're the only one digging this hole. I don't see how Rand's single response of touche warrants much of a reply, and lewk pulled his usual post and run.
Its been you, and you alone, the whole time.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 08-22-2012 at 04:34 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Dread, "this" thread isn't about Obamacare just because you brought it up. The issue here surrounds the GOP's Identity Crisis, and blowback when one (6 term congressman running for senate) dares to publicly state his ideology, which matches the Republican Platform....and VP candidate Paul Ryan's.
Republicans started this move, from the center toward the far right, decades ago. Conservatism finally had no room for moderates. Now that the party has arrived at the right-of-center, not just 'tolerating' severe conservatism from the fringes but embracing it as their direction and base, all hell has broken lose. They can't figure out how to distance themselves from Akin without being hypocrites. But it's obvious that extremism has succeeded in dominating their narrative.
What was once thought to be a 'principled' pro-life position detached from formal policy, has morphed into an extreme Right-to-Life position attached to specific policy. Same for their 'principled' pro-hetero marriage and hetero-only military stance that's become anti-gay and homophobic. This ideology arrived at the same place, whether it came from ignorant anti-science knuckledraggers, or well educated Christian evangelicals. They want to legislate this misogyny and homophobia.
Parsing rape, forcible rape, or legitimate rape is a (disturbing) side circus. And there's nothing politically difficult in criticizing the kooks and loons who talk about women's wombs, tubes and eggs having magical powers that can tell invited sperm from uninvited interloping sperm, stop the juices from flowing or shut that whole thing down. The point is....they share the radical Right-to-Life view, and want to legislate Human Life/Personhood, giving zygotes full rights.
And whether they believe folks can Pray Away The Gay, use 'reparative therapy' to become hetero, or choose to live a celibate homosexual identity....they arrive at the same ideological place: that homosexuality is wrong and harmful to society. They want to legislate that by denying LGBT marital rights, a slew of spousal and family legal benefits, and military service.
We have tons of problems with our economy, employment, budgets, etc. But it would be a tragic shame if we focused ONLY on those things, and elected a bunch of homophobes and misogynists to office....who aim to legislate their hate and discrimination....but run of promises of fiscal restraint and balancing budgets.
Do you accept that, if a person has the flu and they make a decision whether or not to go and see a doctor, that could be described as "healthcare decision" but that it is a different kind of health care decision to the administrator of a hospital deciding what drugs to buy and it what quantities?@Steely's mess of a post-
You clearly don't have a full understanding of some of the controversy behind Obamacare, the IPAB or the impact of regulations on insurance companies. I wouldn't expect you to follow all the details. But it's silly for you to make the argument that the law doesn't involve government being involved in healthcare decisions, including in ways that will make some treatment options effectively out of reach via bureaucratic machinations .
No one said private insurance companies don't make access/coverage choices. The point is that it's hypocritical for Obama to say that politicians shouldn't be making healthcare choices when he's specifically expanded the kinds of choices political actors may make in these decisions for many people (which occur alongside decisions being made by other actors such as private insurance, doctors, etc).
Kindly pull your head out of your butt and get your shit together. I realize this may take a while. That you're so furiously attacking me and not Rand or Lewk (the guy who actually said the thing) sort of says it all.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Which is all me, Lewk and Rand were pointing out. No one has to get nasty about it, but Steely has decided to get nasty about it.
Steely did say he appreciated it's quality as a one-liner.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
n this whole debate there is only one thing that can be considerd murder: and that is the women that die because they have no other choice but to have 'back-alley-abortions'. Now that's a crime
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
