Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Aug 29, 2012.
Misogynists all and perhaps worse.
Hmmm...I fail to see how three Democrats having consensual - albeit immoral - s*x with consenting women has any bearing on the very serious issue of the attitude towards rape voiced by one or two Republicans; the latter, because it is about non-consensual s*x, is far more of a serious matter.
This is a great statement. One doesn't have to look far on either side to see people who have screwed up in this area, but this really has nothing to do with the horrific comments made recently.
The "very serious issue of the attitude of rape" business is again a manufactured issue.
There ARE legally different types of "rape".
One being an assault against the vicitms will.
The other being an issue of age of consent.
I know of a young man that legally married a girl two years his junior and was jailed when it was later learned by her parents that they had consentual premarital sex weeks before the marriage.
Her parents pressed charges and he spent the first two years of the marriage in jail for "rape".
What you fail to see is your comparison is not a current issue being discussed n our Politics. No one has made that comparison and I have no idea where you came up with it. the Democrats have tried to create the false impression that Republicans at at war with women. It is a political ploy to demonize anyone who does not support government provided birth control. So next time time you "fail to see" something it would benefit you to ask for clarification instead of running down your own off topic road.
So what was the supposed point of your OP, if not that? Or did you not have a point?
If you cannot understand my last post then there is nothing more I can do to explain it to you.
None of which is of relevance to the point supposedly made by the OP - the individuals depicted therein and their partners were all consenting adults. When we are talking about rape, we are talking about non-consensual sex. Do you see the difference? If not, perhaps you need to address the RNC, LOL!!
No, it is you who does not understand. But thanks for the good old fashion liberal derail.
I was responding to your post which postulated a "very serious issue of the attitude towards rape voiced by one or two Republicans".
The supposed "attitude towards rape" was manufactured by the media and by Dems with their fictious "Republican war on women".
So Tod Akin never opened his mouth then? We dreamed it all.
So what's your point, then, Rev?
Boy, liberals seem to lay at wake all nothg trying to figure out how they can spin things into the worst possible light..
You don't really deserve the effort to have someone explain reality to you but I will give it a try in spite of that.
What akin said, while somewhat weird, does not add up to a war on women by the entire Republican party. I am quite sure your dimentia brought on by your liberalism will not let you see reality but maybe you could step back a bit and see the absolute absurdity in your:
1. Attempt to derail the thread
2. Willingness to buy into liberal media coverage that is only intended to distort the truth to create a false perception.
(a) I'm not a liberal, just not blindly partisan
(b) You've stated your OP has no point, hence there is no derailment
(c) In English, the word is 'dementia'.
Uh huh. your posts thus far show otherwise. Namely your post about Akin. Anyone with any level of common sense can see the distortion of his statement is nothing but partisan rhetoric designed to paint it in a light other than truthful.
You will not find any post that say anything of the sort.
Yes I saw that and meant to fix it and got sidetracked.
There are two possible 'spins' on what Akin said:
1. That he was attempting to distinguish between statutory rape and (forcible) rape of an adult woman.
2. That he was insinuating that some rapes were 'legitimate' ie: that the woman 'had it coming' for whatever spurious reason your average misogynist might seek to advance.
Given the qualifying word he used was 'legitimate', and in the absence of adequate clarification from him to the contrary, the reasonable person is drawn towards #2 as the logical conclusion.
No 'liberal spin' here just, as you say, 'common sense' .
The thing is - and this will shock you so you'd better sit down - as a theologically conservative Christian who doesn't have the vote in the US but who is nevertheless quite concerned as to who runs the joint there (biggest power in the world etc, cultural trendsetter etc), I'd rather have the Republicans running the show than the Democrats on balance (the whole abortion thing for starters, plus Teh Gayz [deliberate misspelling to try to avoid ads spamming the boards]). I just wish they didn't put forward such numbnuts as Akin or this fellow, as it discredits their cause and their party.
In this case it would be not the reasonable person but the uninformed person.
He was referencing a bill that sought to limit abortion that made the distiction between "legitmate rape" and statutory rape - ie consentual but underage.
Of course the media glossed over that in the rush to continue the "Repulican war on women" meme.
It doesn't matter what Akin said. No one is defending it. But liberals are wanting to paint the entire Republican party with it to win over the women vote and suggest there is a war on women by the Republican party. Akin is irrelevant to this thread. There is no war on women.