This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 23, 2012 1:41 PM. The previous post in this blog was It's an "income tax," but it's not measured by income. The next post in this blog is For health care, trust your doctor, or the Pope?. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, August 23, 2012

From Matt Wuerker

Copyright 2012 by Matt Wuerker. Used by permission.

Comments (19)

This guy might just get Obama elected.

Or re-elected, that is.

I think this falls under the old saw, "give fools enough rope and they'll eventually hang themselves." And I'm referring not only to these bible-thumping, Family Research Council, Klan-loving, women-hating idiots, but to the entire Republican machine that has nurtured and catered to these imbeciles for years.

The fact that Romney has now stupidly chosen as his running mate one of these troglodytes just makes the whole debacle that much more delicious.

No civilization has ever advanced by following the irrational and insane blathering of the village idiots. They have advanced by using a reasoned and rational thought process based on scientific facts.

At last the rethugs are finally reaping the efforts of their pandering to these idiots for the last 30 years.

"Village idiots", "Rethugs" - Examples of the "civil political discourse" the Dem's were all whining about for after Gabby Giffords got shot? Pot, meet kettle...

Any one who talks about the female body as Aiken does, is an idiot!
The fatal flaw with the "fetus is a person" argument is that once the fetus is a real live baby the Republican's own political platform refuses the baby any aid and comfort what so ever. I find this not only cruel in the extreme, but short sighted and stupid, as poverty and ignorance beget more poverty and ignorance.
All politics and politicians should stay out of the bedroom, the doctor's office, and the various houses of worship.

Actually, he was entirely correct. He just got the species wrong, which is kind of an important thing.

Note if you will, the springtime flight of the mallard hen, quacking frantically as she's pursued by two or three drakes. Note that when she tires, she's set upon and raped.

Yet the rapist drakes produce no offspring; only the sperm of her mate generally succeeds.

If he'd just said he thought we was talkin' about ducks, it'd be a non-issue.

Meanwhile, Obama gets a pass on his view that a child who survives late-term abortion should be left in a room alone until it dies.

People can rationalize just about anything.

If freak boy wants to run for King Drake, or some other imaginary office, I have no objection. I think it's the fact that he's running for a position representing human beings that makes the whole species thing relevant. By your logic it would be fine to say unwanted babies can be chucked into the ocean- because whales and dolphins, man.

Betcha he wins.

HMLA - You confuse 2 different issues. You assume those calling this guy an idiot are democrats. You assumes those calling names care about civil discourse. You also miss the point about calling for civility after a politician gets shot. Rhetoric calling for the end of the world if reds/blues take over is the issue. The rest is business as usual and just fine. Also, your piss poor use of the Giffords tragedy makes you sound silly.

Other than that, I happen to agree with your point. This person is not an idiot. Nor does he represent the Republican party. That's just rhetoric. He gets elected to congress, so he's not dumb. Far from it. Calling him names underestimates the danger of people like this getting into congress. It makes people sound spiteful and politically motivated when in fact there is a real problem with guys like this.

The correct response, one that would further the goal of having a reasonable government, is to say something like this.

"People with this level of ignorance should not be allowed to represent Missouri. I urge you to vote for someone else. Anyone else. Thank you for your time."

This is a nonpartisan issue.

I'm betting he wins. He pulled 68% in 2010 in a heavily red district. Being a devoted believer in religious dogma has not troubled him in the past.

He's more likely to just get beaten by a Republican the next cycle.

Cary, you may want to re-read (for comprehension, this time). Note, this time around: He just got the species wrong, which is kind of an important thing.

Quite frankly, aside from your opening line, your comment makes no sense.

But it is Fact!

This guy does in fact represent the Republican Party.
In Florida yesterday or day before, the Party finalized their planks
including adding the plank regarding abortion. This guy simply revealed their intent for all to see.

Yeah. I just read about it. No abortion. No exceptions. I guess they figure looking tough will get them elected.

So there it is people. Vote accordingly.

Personally I don't want the government to have power over the body. I'm not too hot on abortion, I figure the mistake has already been made at that point. But it's not my call. I accept that. You want to talk about my testicles, or who I can get busy with, maybe then my opinion matters. Maybe then I'll speak up with more foce.

As it is, ladies, crucify these assholes. Please.

I wish I could cut a deal. Don't mess with my guns, and I won't mess with your privates. I thing most people could live with that deal. We could finally silence 2 major political talking points.

While we're at it, why don't we just do some more horse trading. Build that pipeline, and shut up about health care. Maybe you think that's too big of a compromise, but the healthcare has already been passed, and that pipe is coming sooner or later anyway.


And while we're at it. Let the tax cuts expire, including the estate tax, and then balance the budget. I know many have signed on not to raise taxes, but that was stupid to do. Take the hit for the stupidity and do what's right.

A provision requiring all legislation to be paid for is a no brainer. Both sides can agree on that. We may, at some point, need an emergency exemption, but in an emergency we could easily pass an exemption.

You can remove the estate tax if you want, but in exchange how about we remove the social security tax exemption. That'll silence all of the fools who act like social security is killing the economy. Plenty of funding then.

I could go on and on. I could fix us up in no time, and no one would accuse me of being a partisan hack.

I'd probably move to break up the banks, so no matter what shitty moves they pull they can't tank the world economy. You won't need stringent regulations then. You won't need a ton of government if you just keep the banks small enough that they can't dictate then screw the financial system. So maybe that would paint me as a lefty, except that there are no major leftist figures really calling for that. So what's that make me? A radical lefty? My plan calls for less government, so I guess I remain undefined.


I'm pretty sure that realitybasedliberal does not see the reality that I do.

"In Florida yesterday or day before, the Party finalized their planks
including adding the plank regarding abortion. This guy simply revealed their intent for all to see."

Really? The Republican platform is that women can't conceive as a result of rape because their body has defenses against it?

What Atkin was attempting to do was (with made-up medical nonsense) try and justify why, even in the case of rape, abortion should not be allowed. If one believes that life begins at conception, then following that logic, it wouldn’t matter how that life came about, consensual or nonconsensual, that life would still deserve protection.

On the other hand, if one believes that a woman does have control over her own body, I still don’t see why women can’t abort late into the 3rd trimester if they so choose. The most basic arguments I hear are #1) the baby is viable and #2) it’s more dangerous for the woman. In response to #1, I have wondered why people let medical technology dictate when a person should be considered a person. Suppose in 50 years medical technology progresses to the point that a baby could be grown outside the womb completely, would that mean at all pregnancy stages abortion should be illegal because the baby is “viable” at all points of pregnancy? In regard to #2, it goes back to the argument that it’s the woman’s body and she can do what she pleases with it, so if she wants to take on the risk to her health associated with a late-term abortion, she should be allowed to, her body her choice, right?

But often you don’t find most people on either side of the debate supporting those “extreme” positions. In reality, it seems to me most people don’t want to face and address these hard questions, because they are. There’s nothing easy about agreeing with the position that a woman who is brutally raped should have to carry a child as a result of that rape to term, or that women should be allowed to slice up her unborn baby at 38 weeks if she decides she no longer wants it. But following the logic of pro-life and pro-choice arguments leads to these extremes, and it’s time people started dealing with that.

From Where I Sit: I'm glad I don't sit anywhere near you. Your attitude is spiteful and (dare I say it!) bigoted toward conservatives.

As LC pointed out, the Republican plank is NOT in line with Mr. Akin at all. He is being lambasted for saying that women have a natural, biological defense against getting pregnant in a rape. Republicans are saying that is idiotic just as much as Democrats are.

The truth is, this is an Issue. There are multiple sides to it, and just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view "from where you sit" that doesn't make them less intelligent, less moral, or less-anything-else than you are.

LC - Historically it was alright to set your kid out to die of exposure during the first year of life. Harsh, frowned upon, but allowed in many Western cultures. Government had no say.

Just food for thought. I make no statement here.

Clicky Web Analytics