About Todd Akin

And that's why it's legally classified as statutory rape, fully in compliance with the reasonable limitation on age regarding what minors can legally accomplish. Most 12 year olds aren't legally allowed to make decisions regarding a number of things because it's recognized that most 12 year olds aren't mature enough mentally or emotionally to make those decisions. Many 16 year olds, especially in our society today, aren't mature enough to make those decisions. Any 45 year old man is expected to have enough life experience, maturity, and wisdom to know this.

And if you've ever placed limitations on your own children when they were teen-agers--for example, not allowing them to date or be alone with teens their own age but of the opposite sex--then you've implicitly shown your support of this "reasoning."

 

People will die because of the decisions of the 15 member board of bureaucrats and other assorted bureaucrats in the Federal Government. Thus it is appropriate to call it the "death panel". I realize democrats don't like that term but if it fits then it fits!

I called it Statutory Language or rather Senator Baucus did!

Calling that 2500 page semantic nightmare "precision" is comical!:laugh::laugh:

You claim I mocked you but you are questioning my intelligence! I understand the law is the result of the socialist cabal that calls itself a democrat party lead by one schooled in socialism and communism. That you cannot in honesty deny. It was shoved down the throats of the people by a sorry bunch of politicians not one who read it. Pelosi was insanely correct when she said "we have to pass it to find out what is in it." It is an unconstitutional law and will be declared as such when the tax provisions go into effect and it is again challenged. Chief Justice Roberts was vilified when he called the penalty a tax but the law originated in the Senate. Tax bills must originate in the House; so the "death panel" will be gone!:thumbsup::laugh:

Think what you please. Obamacare is an abomination and that is the truth. You are distressed because you are defending the indefensible, in the same boat as Crabtownboy!

I notice you did not respond to the following comment. When is a CUT a CUT? I like it so well I will present again!

 

Wow, so many inaccuracies in one post. Must be a new record.

 

So many you feared exceeding the posting limit by enumerating the errors!:thumbsup::laugh::laugh::sleep:

 

1. Not one politician read the Health Care bill.

2. The bill is unconstitutional.

3. The bill will be challenged in front of the Supreme Court again.

4. The bill will be declared unconstitutional when the tax laws go into effect.

5. The bill will be declared unconstitutional because it originated in the Senate, not the House.

 

So, there are classes of rape, those acts that are violent and traumatic and in line with the etymology and modern denotative and connotative meanings of the word, and those acts that are non-violent, non-traumatic, to which the recipient willingly submits and enjoys in direct contradiction to the etymology and modern denotative and connotative meanings of the word.

What words would you have advised Akin to use to clarify that by "rape" he meant the former class?

 

I would have advised him to keep his big mouth shut, and stop helping Obama.

 

"Forced." "Violent." Etc. I would have advised against combining "legitimate" and "rape" because legally all rape is legitimate rape.

So let's ask the question: would you allow your 16 year old daughter to date a 45 year old man? Or, if you're more into the concept of courtship (which, btw, I am), would you allow a 45 year old man to start courting your 16 year old (or younger) daughter?

Because if you don't come out with a clear-cut "yes", then you're saying it's okay for others, but not for you...which is the same argument used by the pro-sodomites and pro-abortionists.

Of course, if you do say yes, then someone's going to accuse you of supporting pedophilia...but they're already doing that, so you might as well just be honest about it, so we can engage in a clear discussion about what pedophilia is, whether it's a valid disorder, etc., etc.

 

Can you name one that did other than "PJ"!

Your ignorance is showing! The bill is unconstitutional because all tax legislation must originate in the House!

 

So in a casual conversation, and you used the word legitimate rape, you would mean an act in line with the meaning of the word rape, not legal words of art.

And so when the pro-abortion group speaks of pregnancy in the cases of rape, we should be talking about victims of violent and traumatic acts, those who were really raped, not those who suffered no violence or trauma.

Truth be told, they want the violent and traumatic connotations applied to all things called rape so they can exaggerate the woman's "plight" and inflate the number of pregnancies due to "rape." Feminism thrives on victimization, and where there are too few, rhetoric supplies them, and heaven help the individual who shines a light on the propaganda.

 

Sooo, I've been reading this thread. I've come to a couple of conclusions, maybe three.

First: it's okay for 45 year old man to talk a 16 yo girl into sex if she willingly submits and he provides her with physical pleasure equal to his own. (I'm suuuuuuure that happens! ::sarcasm:: )

Second: Rape is only rape if physical trauma occurs, otherwise the one raped might have enjoyed it.

Third: It's okay for people to die because they can't afford health care (after all if they worked hard enough they could afford it right?) but it isn't okay for the government to say here is the criterea that we believe makes continued treatment of a patient useless because they are going to die anyhow.

Have I got that right?

 

MY ignorance is showing? Look in the mirror.

The bill DID originate in the House. Harry Reid took a House bill and introduced it in the Senate. Then he stripped practically everything out of it, inserted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into it and now we have Obamacare. This same technique was used with TARP.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/...-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/

 

Two out of three is a good start!

 

Not really! A bill originated in the House but!

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003712

The House Bill that the Senate co-opted had nothing to do with health care. The health care bill that passed originated in the chambers of Harry Reid! It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this slimey behavior of Harry Reid.

 

I'm not talking about pedophilia. I'm talking about the situation which you said earlier was whoredom. You've already stated one must set aside rationality to accept the legal definitions of certain sexual encounters, so I'm not certain what you mean by a clear discussion. Do you mean one in which we set aside rational thought?

But since you are hung up on the 45 year old. Let's say it's a 16 year old and a 19 or 21 year old. Same kind of encounter. Still rape?

 

Interestingly, the law in England and Wales does make something of a distinction.

 

No, and I'll thank you to not twist my words. I said exactly what I meant. I would never use the phrase "legitimate rape", nor would I advise anyone to use that wording. All rape is legally legitimate, whether you choose to agree with it or not.

And yet, we do have predators who chat up young girls and convince them that having sex is not a bad thing, just "misunderstood by those that don't realize our love is real." We see it all too often in our churches, by men who are allegedly in positions of authority.

 

Rather, you tell us what you think rationally constitutes pedophilia, since the situation presented not only violates the law and is therefore rape, but also is classified as pedophilia.

I'm hung up on the 45 year old because that's the scenario that was originally presented; and one, I might add, that you keep avoiding answering--other than to intimate that you believe it's not rape. I might also point out that you've also avoided commenting about whether you would allow your own daughter to date or be courted by a man 20 or 30 years her senior. Your avoidance of these topics is interesting.

And yes, by the laws of the land, your changing of the scenario is still rape.

 

[sarcasm]Don't confuse us with the law. Obviously the law is not rational.[/sarcasm]

 

You said it was whoredom. Are whoredom and rape synonymous?

We're not talking about my family. Don't bring it up again.

The 16 year old with parental consent can enter into a marriage contract with the adult and have state-sanctioned sex with the adult every night.

Still rape? Pedophilia?