Wednesday Morning Open Thread

I'll be on Daily Kos radio with Jesse LaGreca this morning at 11 Eastern.

Daily Kos Radio Logo

Listen here.

The Blue Skies Netroots Radio Player

One of the topics - what did Akin mean by forcible rape? And what does Romney endorser John Willke have to do with it?

Also too, Oklahoma bans wearing University of Michigan gear. While I agree with the sentiment, I can not support this law. See also Oklahoma principal denies valedictorian diploma for saying the word "hell".

Open thread.

< Romney Statement:: Akin Should Step Aside | Guantanamo Hearings Canceled for 911 Defendants >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So Obama brews his own beer (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:37:14 AM EST
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    Obama, and we, would be much better off if he indeed was smoking something good from time to time.

    100 gallons per adult (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    and up to 200 gallons max per household per year if I'm not mistaken is perfectly legal. Can't be for sale but can be given away. States can alter this slightly of course as to whether you can share and where.

    I believe if they stretched it out over pre and post midnight on December 31st, the Obama's could technically have 3200 of their closest friends over to the house for a pint of ObamaBrew to celebrate the New Year.


    I don't know the exact amount, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    But that sounds about right.  Daughter Zorba has taken to making her own beer at home, and although she doesn't make anywhere near that amount, she says that you can legally make quite a bit.  As long as, as you point out, you don't sell it.

    Love when they double down (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    How did I miss this yesterday.

    Missouri GOP official Sharon Barnes speaking of rape victims who become pregant...

    "If God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don't kill it."

    I have to ask... by extension would this mean god also blessed you with the rape?

    New slogan from feminist FB page: (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:46:10 PM EST
    "Okay, if I keep the baby, can I kill the rapist?"

    I feel depressed as hell (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    How are these people leaders of anything in Missouri?  How can any party be this insane and broken and still have strong support?

    There's (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:39:05 AM EST
    are two things I think about that.

    One is that Missourians are totally nuts.

    The other is that the democratic opposition is so weak, that the right-wingers trod all over them.


    Must be the water in that area, MT... (none / 0) (#10)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:24:25 AM EST
    Check out this link I posted several days ago, regarding the neighbor to the West of MO.

    Off crazy politics (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    and back to just crazy people, I saw a report yesterday on the potential plans to replace Toomer's Oaks. I was hoping they would be able to save them but the horticultural consensus seems to be they are on terminal life support at this time.

    Official University press release "the long term outlook for the trees is not good."

    University official off the record, "Aesthetically dead if not actually dead,"


    That's a bummer (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    I know they worked hard to save them, Josh will be bummed.  His first two days of school he went completely outfitted in Auburn gear.  He has a very cool assistant principal looking out for him, literally making sure he has everything he needs right now, that played football for Alabama....Jeff Torrence

    One of my facebook friends makes me feel (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    better though.  She is newly divorced, and divorce always brings out the worst in our relationship dynamics so she is really feeling the Republican attack on women.  Some guys have shown up at her postings too though, backlashing her.  So ugly.  She skipped the nice words like Vajayjay and uterus, she stepped right up and told them to get out of her P-word.  I love her.

    I have now been inspired (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    by the P-word :D

    Okay MT (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    I was going to post this yesterday but figured I might be walking the line between funny and NSFW but now that you've gone there too, this is for you to pass along

    best Call Me Maybe redo?

    Definitely should enable captions at the bottom for the lyrics as they aren't totally clear.


    Yes!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    This RULES and MAKES my day today!

    Generation Glee speaks (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    thanks for linking to that - it's perfect. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    And whoever's singing it can actually sing!

    I do so love youtube...


    That is such a snappy and adaptable little tune. (none / 0) (#64)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    I wonder if Carly Rae Jepsen had any idea how her song would be co-opted, and by such a diverse group. First the U.S. Swimming team and now cooch watch.

    Actually (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    The US Swim Team was pretty far down the line. The first I saw was the Harvard Baseball Team Seat Dancing  last May, but I doubt they were the first group effort.

    "Aesthetically dead... (none / 0) (#124)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    ... if not actually dead,"

    I don't know whether to quote from "The Princess Bride" or "The Wizard of Oz".


    Well (none / 0) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    We are men of action, lies do not become us. They've been mostly dead all day.  

    At this point, for the Toomer's Oaks to survive is inconceivable. Harvey Updyke better hope that Inigo Montoya isn't an Auburn grad.


    So on one of the morning shows (none / 0) (#17)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    this was being discussed. I didn't catch the guest's name but he was making the point that Akin didn't rise up through the  party ranks, and that he really doesn't have any particular party loyalty.  Rather, he is a true believer, and that being condemned by the Republican party only cements his self-image as a kind of Don Quixote (my term) figure.  He's doing battle with the heathens, those radical liberal Democrats, the liberal media and now the Republican party.  I hope I recapped that clearly.

    But anyway, my thought was that if he successfully disassociates from the Republican party -- regardless of whether he stays in the race and wins or loses -- he might thereby make somehow make R Party candidates look sane by comparison.


    I see this too (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    TomP has a good diary up about it.  But now Missouri doubles down on Akin?  The last poll I looked at, he got a slight bump out of this.  Vomit worthy

    Family member in Missouri also (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49:54 PM EST
    protests that Akin has been elected by only 5% of eligible voters in Missouri.

    Yeh, but so many times?

    And reading here of the words of another GOP official there . . . many more than 5% of Missourians are stoopid and/or nutz.


    He's been an elected Republican (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    for the last 23 years. That sure sounds like rising through the ranks to me and he's not disassociating himself from the Republican party at all.

    What I do like is Sarah Palin finally chimed in and wants another Tea Party Republican to run as an Independent write-in candidate. If only we could be so lucky.


    So Sarah wants two batsh!t crazy (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    people running against Claire? Odd that she would want to split the batsh!t crazy vote . . .

    Jesus, there will be a bat$hit (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:09:43 PM EST
    shortage! People need mascara too!  The bat$hit trickle down trying to get some mascara is going to kill me.

    23 years? (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    Then I agree with you.  It sounds like it may have been his personal spinmeister at the table  this morning then.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    is an example of what I consider a weak Democratic response to Akin:

    It is from incumbent U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill:

    "It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape," said McCaskill. "The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."

    That is true, of course.

    But, for me, the issue is whether or not the victim of the assault, the person suffering the emotional and physical trauma,  should  have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

    If the issue becomes Akin's comprehension of the emotional trauma etc, he is free to say that he has daughters etc. - he would punish rapists etc.

    The issue is freedom of choice.
    Why couldn't she say that?

    If Anything... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    ...this story has proved one thing with clarity, democrats are simply too afraid to take this story head on.

    It was the perfect segue into women's rights and why they are so damn important or how misinformed men are demanding they decide what women do with their bodies.  

    It's why the right is stomping all over woman's rights, they aren't afraid of the subject.  So long as this paradigm keeps playing out, they will keep at it.


    Once again (1.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    When women are forced to pay and care for the unilateral decision they make about whether to bring a baby into the world,then I will take seriously this utter and absolute right they have to their bodies.

    Far as it goes, I support Roe Versus Wade because I believe in a right to privacy. The only restrictions I've ever supported in terms of abortion are late term abortions for anything but the woman's physical health.
    That being said, whining about "men controlling women's bodies" is the shortest way to lose respect for your argument.. A rapist controls a woman's body. At any  point other than a rape  she can keep her legs closed, just as much as he can keep his pants up.


    That's both unrealistic and absurd. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:27 PM EST
    People have been having consensual sex long before you came into this world, and no doubt they'll continue to do so long after you've exited stage right.

    They already do (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    When women are forced to pay and care for the unilateral decision they make about whether to bring a baby into the world,then I will take seriously this utter and absolute right they have to their bodies.

    Or, are you suggesting that the father should not be required to help raise his child if the mother decides chooses to give birth?


    I am indeed suggesting that (1.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    Otherwise he should have some say over whether she aborts or not.

    Marriage would give her more rights in the matter of support. But you wanna Murphy Brown it, do it on your own dime.


    "Some say"? (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    What does that even mean?  There are only two parents.  If the father wants to do one thing and the mother wants to do the other, who's decision should override the other?  All the father has to do to avoid supporting his child is say he wanted her to get an abortion?


    BTW - You're conflating spousal support ("alimony") with child support.  Marriage may (under some circumstances) give her (or him) greater right to spousal support, but we're talking about child support, a duty that's owed to the child.  You can't punish a child by denying it financial support merely because a father wanted the mother to have an abortion and she chose not to.


    Yman (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:15:37 PM EST
    You totally confused my argument.
    My argument is that outside of marriage a woman should have no right to expect any support whatsoever for her children, esp. if she is not willing to consult the man's wishes in regards to her decision.
    It's also known as "paper abortion". Yes, that means some women will choose to abort for financial reasons (well,some do now, but even more) unless we have a welfare state as in Europe. You can tell I'm not a "pro-lifer" , eh?

    Now that you have my real argument, and not the argument in your head, feel free to flame away. Oh, and I'm not so dumb that I don't know the difference between alimony and child support. One of the links in my browser is to "MassAlimoneyReform" and its been there for several years now.


    Next time, use a condom. (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:22:42 PM EST
    And think about counseling; you seem seriously f'ed up.

    And that's not snark.


    Anne (1.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    Your arguments are childish and silly and mostly consist of calling me a Meesogynist. Heck, even most of the people that disagree with me, give me one star and call me all sorts of names at least make some sort of argument -sometimes even good ones. But not you.

    And hence that's why I ignore you.


    What about the child? (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:40:27 PM EST
    My argument is that outside of marriage a woman should have no right to expect any support whatsoever for her children, esp. if she is not willing to consult the man's wishes in regards to her decision.

    "Consult" are "accede to"?  If all she has to do is "consult", then she merely has to ask for his opinion and (whether he agrees or not) the father is obligated to pay child support.  If, OTOH, you're suggesting he only becomes liable for child support if he agrees to the birth, that would be something entirely different - and even more extreme.

    BTW - Child support is a legal right of the child - not the mother.  You can't deny that basic legal right to a child based on the marital status of the mother, or whether the mother consults or accedes to the father's wishes.  Thankfully, our courts have long resolved this issue - looks like you were born in the wrong century.

    BBTW -

    One of the links in my browser is to "MassAlimoneyReform" and its been there for several years now.

    That fact along with your attitude towards lawyers shines a great deal of light on the reasons behind your comments on this thread.


    Yman (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    Please please please do NOT attempt to educate me about "child support", the "best interests of the child" standard and all that bullshit. The system doesn't work in any of those ways.
    It's clear you have very limited knowledge of the system. I used to WORK in it.

    You don't like my arguments , fine. But argue what I state, not what is in your head.


    I pity the system you worked in (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:18:33 PM EST
     ... if, in fact, that's true.  Given the ridiculous statements you've made on this thread, I have my doubts.  My statements weren't intended to educate you, but to point out the basic flaws in what you propose.  You suggest denying a child the right to support based on the marital status of the mother or whether the father wants her to have an abortion.

    BTW - I don't know what your capacity was in that system, but anytime someone makes general claims about "working in" a field, a red flag should go up (i.e. "I work in medicine" as opposed to "I'm an M.D. with X years in ____", etc.).  To be clear - since you're so concerned about my "limited experience" - I'm an attorney with over 20 years practicing law, over 15 focused on family law at the trial and appellate level.

    See how that works?


    Yman, your whole argument is ridiculous (1.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:16:01 PM EST
    You'll note that no one would force the woman to bring the baby into the world. Or force her not to. I didn't even come out against societal support for unwed motherhood.

    You assume the baby born first. I say let the person with total unilateral power over the decision to have the baby be the one -outside wedlock or some other contractual arrangment -to have the responsibility to support it. There is nothing unfair or inconsistent about my position. Yours on the other hand confers ultimate power without responsibility on the woman.

    Anyway, learning that you work as a "family law" practitioner goes a far way to explaining your seeming shock that George Zimmerman has Constitutional rights. Being someone who probably has mostly worked in "courts of equity" , e.g., "kangaroo courts" your inability to deal with evidence and total lack of good legal arguments for guilt is not unexpected. My respect for you as a person is now just above that of a serial rapist or murderer. You are the lowest type of lawyer in my opinion. "Ambulance chasers" are better, and defense lawyers like Jeralyn comparatively speaking occupy the highest rungs of heavens ladder.


    SITE VIOLATOR (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:53:35 PM EST
    That rant was unf*ckingbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by shoephone on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 12:15:25 AM EST
    Sounds like whatever personal comeuppance you suffered in family court (nasty divorce? bad child custody outcome?) has warped you beyond all measure.

    Seriously offensive (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 01:17:59 AM EST
    even if you aren't the target of his nastiness.

    Pathetic and funny at the same time (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    I say let the person with total unilateral power over the decision to have the baby be the one -outside wedlock or some other contractual arrangment -to have the responsibility to support it. There is nothing unfair or inconsistent about my position. Yours on the other hand confers ultimate power without responsibility on the woman.

    You think there's nothing unfair about denying a child their right to support by both parents simply because the parents are unwed or the father wanted the mother to have an abortion to which she did not agree?  Surely, as someone who's "worked in the system" you realize that child support is a right that's owed to the child - not to the


    Fortunately for the children of unwed parents, our laws and our courts have evolved beyond the Cro-Magnon level of rationale.  Also fortunate that you no longer work in the system that you so despise.

    BTW - The rest of your post is just funny ...

    ... seriously funny.

    The reason I pointed out my experience was only because of your claim that I had "very limited knowledge of the system".  After being proven wrong for the umpteenth time, you try to divert attention by going on some rant about your opinion of attorneys who practice family law in general and me in particular.  Do you really believe that your opinion of me matters in the least?  Do you honestly believe that I give your opinion any more thought (or weight) than a buzzing gnat that I just squashed?  Because that would require a feat of self-delusion so great as to make your other claims seem reasonable in comparison.

    .... and that's no small feat.


    Grow Up (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    Forcing someone to carrying a baby against their will is controlling their body.

    It is? (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    Did anyone force them to have sex?
    Is forcing an adult to care for a baby controlling their body?
    You need to rethink your first philosophical principles and can the insults.

    I See... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    ...so if they had consensual sex, then forcing them to carrying the baby against their will is not controlling their body ?  

    That is absurd.


    Yes, rape is forcing sex (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    as well you know from your previous comment, so you're just trolling, and that puts you on The List.

    I like how in your world men get (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    Choices and women don't.  Kind of a pig

    Now, now dear {pats MT on head} :) (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    KIND OF (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    a pig?  (Sorry for the internet shouting, because I know that we're on the same page, Tracy).  He's a total pig.

    Well said. (none / 0) (#37)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:27:07 PM EST
    And Claire (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    Has been supportive of him staying in the race - there is no way in h3ll she wants him to drop out, so she has to finger wag, but not be too vicious.

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    But her "finger-wagging" which lets him slip and slither away is emblematic of the weak-willed democrats who enable these decrepit republican fossils to gain power.

    And we wonder how we wind up with the cr@p we have in Washington.


    More than supportive, McCaskill (none / 0) (#49)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    and her Dems have actively paid out much money to end up with Akin as her opponent, according to family members (active Dems) there -- because she definitely could be beat by the others that ran.

    I'm also getting a better sense, from those on the ground, of reasons that McCaskill is in so much trouble, having to do with tax improprieties.


    Oy...she's always been a less than (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    ideal candidate for us and that particular area of the country.  It is always something new with her that is undermining whatever incumbent loyalty she should have garnered.....tiresome

    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Allegedly, she failed to pay $290,000 in taxes on her private plane.  Republicans (as of April of this year) wanted to see her tax records and she refused to release them (does any of this sound familiar?)

    Because that statement is targeted towards (none / 0) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    those who may not be pro choice but are offended by the implication that there are illegitimate rapes. That demo is likely to be swingable.  The people offended on the choice issue are already going to be motivated just by what Akin said.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    ...the party is pathetic, too worried to fight for anything, and it's this kind of leadership that contributes to the erosion of women's rights.  And democratic principles in general, or rather past democratic principles.

    The party (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    is trying to win right now.  I support them doing that.  We know the Senator is pro-choice, and if not saying that loudly during the election helps her to beat Akin I am all for that.

    We need to play to win and then figure out what to do with the power.  The alternative is too dire.


    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    She needs to consult her teenage daughter first to approve her statements.

    The ask the daughter line (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    is getting pretty damn weak. Hell, I ask my daughter for her opinion on things all the time. She has a hell of a lot more insight than most everyone I know. Far more than me and I'm not too proud to admit it.

    You ask your teenager (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    (as a United States Senator, mind you) on whom to blindly support?  You ask your daughter about how to do your job?



    Thankfully (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:18:45 PM EST
    I'm not pompous and self righteous and a major goal has always been to raise my child to be far smarter than I am.

    I am confident that a daughter (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:40:03 PM EST
    of Coral Gables is smarter than at least 25% of Missourians.  (See other comment re polling of Missourians who believe what Akin believes. . . .)

    Still, I don't think it's at all "pompous" or self-righteous of them or any of us to expect that when we vote for a name on the ballot, that is the person who will make the decisions that come with the job on the ballot -- and that they can't get their name on a ballot without meeting the age requirement.

    Or, if they're ceding their decisions to teen-agers, they at least don't say so in making their major announcements.  That was a tipoff about McCaskill, an insight that doesn't get old at all.


    You aren't a politician (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:23:48 PM EST
    Ohhhhhhhhh... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:30:30 PM EST
    ...didn't realize the other side was trying to lose.

    That argument is fricken.... ughhh I don't want to insult you.

    The other side is running around offending just about everyone and they are doing fine, better then fine.  Maybe not winning in your sense, but when you look at the past 12 years and the insanity they have gotten through at the state level because of the lack of opposition, which is suppose to be the democrats.

    Playing it safe is not winning for women.  And I am sore tired of the 'winning' argument that totally neglects the fact that opposition is also trying to win.


    That's not an argument, Angry Black Guy (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    That's a PRAYER.
    Please, Mr. O, , Senate Democrats: even though you have never done 1/10th of what you promised and even though we are not going to punish you for lying to us, please please win the election and do the things you promised us. Please!

    American politics needs revamped from the ground up. Partisans on either side aren't going to get that done.


    Win what? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    Really, "trust us" is the answer?

    Based on what past foundation for trust that the guyz will "figure out" their stance on women's rights?  

    Yes, the alternative is worse.  That does not at all equate with winning for the sake of winning . . . what?


    Geez Towanda (1.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    One might almost forget that  a significant number of female Senators and female voters are against abortion rights.

    But just focus on hating on all men like we are all against abortion rights, and see where that gets you.


    That's what you get from this? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:33:00 PM EST

    Well, Towanda, what I get from the (4.20 / 5) (#75)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    commenter's remarks, to you and elsewhere on this thread, is that the proverbial turd has found its way into the TL punchbowl...

    I note when people constantly use (1.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:46:17 PM EST
    "Gendered" language.

    If you meant something else, you always could have been more clear, Towanda.


    Oh, come on, Slayer, we know what's (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:12:37 PM EST
    going on here: you're bored and looking to bait people into a pie fight; pretty much everything you have written today lights up the troll-meter in high-wattage neon.  Can't you go stir up some trouble on the Zimmerman forums, or is that boring you now?

    For the record: is Akin male?  Yes.  Is Ryan male?  Yes.  How about Romney and Dr. Willke?  Yep.  Hence, the "gendered" language.

    How many anti-choice organizations were founded or are headed by men?  Too many to count.  Men are the face of anti-choice, they are the face of pseudoscience on the biology of pregnancy.

    Not a single woman who gets pregnant knows that the fetus she is carrying does not have significant genetic and other anomalies, or that the course of her pregnancy will be textbook normal with no health problems or risk to her life.  "Keeping her legs closed" would indeed prevent her from getting pregnant, but you seem to be under the impression that women only have abortions out of laziness, thoughtlessness and convenience, and I think you will find the statistics do not bear out your theory.  

    But you have done a bang-up job - again - of bearing out my and others' theories about you.

    So thanks for that.


    Claify... (none / 0) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:36:15 PM EST
    ...what do you mean by significant.

    There are 17 female Senators, 5 are republicans, which ones are you referring with your declaration of significant ?  

    What exactly are abortion rights ?  I know you don't mean anti-abortion, which is what you are alluding to, because that would be a lie.


    Take it up with this guy (1.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:50:56 PM EST

    Seriously, I could give a craps less about this overblown abortion issue. It's just worth pointing out that there are many million American women -including quite a few outside of Appalachia- who have to be defeated before this issue will go away.


    WTF does this-- (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:08:41 PM EST
    It's just worth pointing out that there are many million American women -including quite a few outside of Appalachia- who have to be defeated before this issue will go away.

    --even mean?


    It means dear (1.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:15:40 PM EST
    to stop using misleading phrases like "War on Women" or at the very least stop using them only in conjunction with the words "men", or "male".

    Most of the actual deaths in this country due to violence: men
    By far the vast majority of deaths in our overseas misadventures: men
    Deaths via suicide: men
    Deaths via workplace injury: men
    Who has a shorter average lifespan: men

    And that's not even counting the disgusting practice of using the term "War" to refer to legislation that -even in the 1/10000 chance it passed- wouldn't lead to anyone's death.


    Dear???? (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    Know the number one killer of pregnant women in this country?

    Homicide - by their partner.


    Oh, jb, don't bring up domestic violence (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    or the next thing we know, SlayerZero will be blaming DV victims for their beatings and deaths.

    Oh not this crap again (1.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    Here's the causes of maternal death:

    Death by partner is not one of them.
    I remember calculating the odds of you being hit by lightning versus being one of the roughly one thousand women and 500 men killed by your domestic partner each year.


    Did you read the definition (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:27:24 PM EST
    From your wiki link?

    "A maternal death is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management but not from accidental or incidental causes."

    Which has nothing to do with overall death rate of pregnant women.


    jbindc (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    You don't know what you are talking about.
    Most who die during pregnancy do not die due to intimate partner violence. You don't like that? Tough.

    I was reading debunkings of this sort of hysteria 10 years ago. Nothing ever changes, I see.


    "Oh not this crap again" (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:59:00 PM EST
    And yet, here you are...who says there are no coincidences in life?

    Well, darling (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:19:22 PM EST
    it sounds like you are having a real meltdown today. And the only person here expressing hate for the other gender is you -- in practically every single one of your invective-filled comments.

    No dear (1.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    When you can spout crap like:

    "The leading cause of death for pregnant women is men killing them" to paraphrase one of your compatriots - something that isn't even remotely true - then you and yours have expressed hatred of men.
    When you can blame all the political opposition to the only right you ever seem to care about (abortion! abortion! abortion! You have it on the brain, I think) on the other sex by using single gender language when according to polls possibly a majority of your own sex has some reservations you wouldn't approve of about the procedure- once again, the only one expressing hatred is you and yours.

    I have no respect for your arguments. You don't like that? Tough.


    Well, considering that I didn't "spout" (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:41:51 PM EST
    any of what you just attributed to me, and then you veered into making fabrications like

    then you and yours have expressed hatred of men

    Really? Where did I or anyone express hatred of men? Please point us to the comment where either I or anyone else said any such thing. Oh, but you can't.

    And then, realizing your mistake, you backtracked by attributing a statement to one of my "compatriots" ... well, I guess you must have had a very bad night last night and not gotten your proper sleep. Or something.

    "You and yours"? Hmm, the only me and mine I'm aware of are my family members, so I'll have to ask them how they feel about women and choice (though, in truth, I already know. Turns out my dad, my stepdad, and my three brothers are all very supportive of women and are all pro-choice. I'll let them know you think they are anomolies). As for the whole "hatred of men" thing, that is just an irrational and unsubstantiated fear on your part, brought on by the mere fact of women expressing the need to continue fighting for the right to control their own bodies and reproductive decisions, because Roe v. Wade is being chipped away at, regardless of any protests to the contrary.

    Where did I ever say that abortion is the only right I care about? Please point me to that comment. Oh, but you can't.

    And then there's your closing missive, once again imagining that any self-respecting woman must therefore be a man hater. What really comes through in all of your posts is how much hostility and aggression you feel perfectly comfortable hurling at women. To that I say, when you go all shrill about hate, look in the mirror, "dear."


    Lots of rhetoric being thrown around (none / 0) (#187)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    on this topic. Some accuse a broad swath of others of a "hatred" of men and others accuse a similarly broad swath of some of a "war on women" and desiring "control" and "dominion" over women...

    All I did was note how "men" was used (none / 0) (#192)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:25:36 PM EST
    Had Towanda merely backed down and conceded my point that opposition to abortion is not solely the domain of men or the mythical patriarchy this would have ended there. Instead, all I got was insults and worse. I don't know what kind of "Good people" most of you consider yourselves to be, but I do note that many commenters here are totally fine assuming things and attacking people based on those assumptions. Meanwhile , I've provided links debunking at least one of your most common myths, and this information goes nowhere. For all your snark about how stupid conservatives are and how enlightened many of you are this independent voter notes that you are just as irrational as the very worst preacher in the most isolated church in the Appalachians.

    P.S. : I don't have a small penis.
    P.P.S. I'm not a 41 year old virgin.
    P.P.P.S: the women I've been with would not to this day call me misogynistic or creepy. Indeed, I'm still friends with most of them.
    Just thought I'd dispose of the remaining insults you and your little coterie have yet to throw my way.


    Liar. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:18:06 PM EST
    I did not use the word "men."

    And I used a qualifier.

    p.s.  I pity the poor women in your p.p.p.s.  

    But it's great to know that you fell for that "let's be friends" line.  


    I don't see a qualifier (none / 0) (#196)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:37:46 PM EST
    "Based on what past foundation for trust that the guyz will "figure out" their stance on women's rights?  "

    But do feel free to point it out to me.


    Slayerzero, Aren't (none / 0) (#173)
    by Amiss on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:43:07 PM EST
    You becomming a CHATTERER? I do believe all of this nonsesse you have been spewing today violates the TOS of Jeralyn's site here.

    And I'm pretty sure we already guessed (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    that you don't give a crap about the abortion issue.

    Careful, your misogyny is showing.


    cute shoephone (1.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    You just keep frothing at the mouth and acting like Roe V Wade is going to be overturned tomorrow.

    As for the "abortion" issue, as a man, I'm supposed to pay up if she wants to keep it, but otherwise just shut up and nod and say "Yes Ma'am" to whatever "progressive" women say about the issue. The fact that I agree with you at probably the 95 percent plus level on this particular issue doesn't prevent me from telling you: hell, no. I'll make up my own mind about it.


    The only one frothing is you (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    and I don't recall saying or even implying that I think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned tomorrow. But hey, youre on a roll of misogynistic invective today, so just keep going. And you're certainly not fooling anyone with your claims of being 95% in agreement with me or any liberal woman on the issue of abortion -- an issue which, as you have already noted for us, you don;t "give a crap about."

    OMG (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:18:02 PM EST
    A 2 year old op-ed ??

    And it does not even come close to stating what you claim it does, from your link:

    It has found that 48 percent of American women consider themselves pro-life, while 45 percent consider themselves pro-choice.

    On what planet does that equate to your assertion that "..a significant number of female Senators and female voters are against abortion rights. "

    Why re you being so deceitful if you could "give a craps less about this overblown abortion issue".

    You completely lied.


    Why is he being deceitful? Because (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:25:44 PM EST
    misogyny thrives on it, and this guy has a full-blown case - he's already bringing out the condescending "dear," and I'm sure he's getting ready to "there, there" and pat some of us women on the head.

    In short, he's the guy you wouldn't want any woman you care about to be within 100 yards of.


    Scott (1.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:39:39 PM EST
     I can't help it if you can't read. 48 percent is a significant number of voters.

    Pretty slow, aren't we?


    Seriously. (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    What cr@p abg.

    This IS the democratic party in it's present incarnation.
    When it comes to matters of principle, they choose not to say anything too loudly. While the opposition bellows, the dems whimper and whisper.

    I'm sick to death of "he or she is saying this bs just to get elected... but once elected, then....

    There is no "then".
    You seriously want to vote for someone who you think has to figure out what do with power if they get it? The republicans don't need to figure anything out. They know what to do with power. Haven't you learned that? Jeez Louise!

    What they present to us is a true representation of the fact of how little they stand for and how little they will fight for us.

    Yes the alternative is dire.
    So why won't these pathetic dems take the gloves off and stand for something.


    I know I'm already supposed to (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:56:37 PM EST
    take for granted that the GOP is full-on crazy, but then I read more, and I realize that they haven't really even fully unleashed it.

    From the NYT:

    Dr. John C. Willke, a general practitioner with obstetric training and a former president of the National Right to Life Committee, was an early proponent of this view, articulating it in a book originally published in 1985 and again in a 1999 article. He reiterated it in an interview Monday.

    "This is a traumatic thing -- she's, shall we say, she's uptight," Dr. Willke said of a woman being raped, adding, "She is frightened, tight, and so on. And sperm, if deposited in her vagina, are less likely to be able to fertilize. The tubes are spastic."

    Leading experts on reproductive health, however, dismissed this logic.

    "There are no words for this -- it is just nuts," said Dr. Michael Greene, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School.

    Dr. David Grimes, a clinical professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina, said, that "to suggest that there's some biological reason why women couldn't get pregnant during a rape is absurd."


    Dr. Willke, 87, asserted yesterday that "way under 1 percent" of rape victims become pregnant, not just because of female biology but because about half of rapists "do not deposit sperm in the vagina." That, Dr. Willke said, is because many rapists have "a preference for rectal intercourse over vaginal"; experience "premature ejaculation, which is a major factor"; or "some of these guys just plain aren't fertile."

    But several experts said there is no solid data supporting such contentions. A 1996 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, generally considered one of the few peer-reviewed research efforts on this subject, estimated that 5 percent of rapes result in pregnancy.

    Just un-freakin'-believable.

    Well, in Dr, Willke's defense, ... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    ... Dr. Samuel Farr wrote in Elements of Medical Jurisprudence noted that "[for] without an excitation of lust, or the enjoyment of pleasure in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place. So that if an absolute rape were to be perpetrated, it is not likely she would become pregnant."

    Of course, Dr. Farr first wrote that back in 1785, although he did update his book in 1814.

    More recently, a 1996 study cited in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that each instance of rape has a 5 percent chance of resulting in pregnancy, a figure that "includes rapes in which condoms were used." In real terms, more than 32,000 pregnancies result from rape each year in the U.S. alone. Other studies from foreign countries have reported much higher percentages.



    Yes, it is (none / 0) (#96)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    "full-on crazy."  And the craziest thing is that there are so many ignoramuses that actually believe this.   :-(

    So much crazy in there (none / 0) (#130)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    I think I'm struck speechless.

    Know your rights..... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    You have the right to refuse entry to a police officer if he/she has no warrant.

    Well, ya used to in Iowa City until the new ordinance passes making it an offense to refuse entry to a police officer without a warrant.

    Hope an unconstitutional smackdown is coming, but I won't hold my breath, apparently I've seriously misinterpreted that whole Bill of Rights thingy, it doesn't say what I thought it said at all, not even close.

    Know your rights, these are your rights!

    Where does it say (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:20:44 PM EST
    in that article that you don't have the right to refuse entry to a police officer?  What it says is that if the police come when you are being loud (like having a huge party) and knock on the door, and you refuse to answer, the police can deem your house a "disorderly house" and then can issue a civil infraction (which is less than a misdemeanor) to all the tenants in the house.  They don't have to wait around for a warrant - they can just file paperwork and fine all the tenants in the house.

    This is actually lowering it from a criminal complaint (in which they have needed a warrant to enter the house) to a civil infraction, and is a much more efficient use of police time.


    They're being fined... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:41:00 PM EST
    for refusing entry, it's an end around to the warrant requirement imo.

    I understand the authorities just want to make it easier to do their jobs raking up fines from college kids doing college stuff, but their jobs aren't supposed to be easy...by design.  

    "Disorderly House"...is there another kind at college?  If you're college flophouse rental isn't a little disorderly, you're doing the whole college experience wrong;)

    Efficient use of police time would be to let the kids party and look for actual, ya know, crime.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    No one even has to answer the door (as they aren't in most cases).  With this ordinance, it lowers it from being a criminal matter.  Basically, if you are being loud, the police come to ask you to quiet it down (usually on complaints from neighbors, by the way - do they not have rights?), and you refuse to answer the door, as is your right, then all they will do is send you a ticket.

    You're missing my point... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    before the new ordinance, the police had to get a warrant to gain entry in order to issue a ticket or make an arrest.  The new ordinance gives them a new power to just issue a ticket to all tenants, who may not even be in the house.  That's not justice, that's cheating.

    Of course the neighbors have rights...to crank their own stereo and have their own party! ;)  Not big on dropping dimes for noise, as you may have guessed;)...you pay your rent or your mortgage, you should be able to have a party and get a little loud.  And usually all ya gotta do is talk to your neighbor and ask them nicely to turn it down, instead of just dropping a dime, if the noise bothers you.  Or better yet, join the party!



    Well yes (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    Talking to your neighbors is always a good idea first, because as they say, your rights only extend as far as they infringe upon my rights. And under the criminal citation - everyone at the party gets cited.  This civil infraction puts the responsibility on the people who live there to act as good neighbors.

    But avoiding the police because you think you're not gonna get a ticket for doing something wrong, is just idiotic. And don't forget - when you sign a lease, you have already agreed to the rules about not being "disorderly". And the tenants do get to present their case in court, if they so choose.


    I have to agree with jbindc, kdog. (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:09:56 PM EST
    I live in a townhouse complex, and I've had my share of loud and obnoxious neighbors. And sometimes, going over to speak to them does absolutely no good.

    First Prize in my Bad Neighbor competition has to go to the recently divorced middle-aged military officer who decided that his mission in life was to compete earnestly for "Stud of the Month" honors, and have loud and rambunctious sex with as many different women as often as possible. Whenever I tried to talk to him about the noise, he'd just smile and then recount to me his latest conquest.

    The first time I called the cops on him, his tryst included the headboard banging loudly against the common wall between one of his studrooms and my then-10-year-old daughter's bedroom at 11:00 p.m., with his partner screaming, "Oh, my Gawd! Give it to me, Daddy!" like she was reading from a bad porn movie script. The second time I called the cops on him, it was to break up a fight between him and his teenaged son, after he apparently kept hitting on his son's girlfriend. Classy guy, he was.

    And First Runner-up goes to the elderly white woman who kept playing the musical soundtrack to the movie Titanic over and over again throughout the day, cranked up at full volume because she was hard of hearing.

    When I went over to her place to complain, she looked at me, scowled, said "F*ck you, a**hole!" and slammed the door in my face. From that point forward, I called the cops on her, and let them deal with her. Eventually she died and I can't say that any of us really lamented her passing. Her husband's still there, and he a vicious old racist. Why they didn't retire in Mississippi, I'll never know.

    (And to this day, whenever I hear Celine Dion singing "My Heart Will Go On," it takes an extraordinary amount of willpower and self-control on my part to not go out and punch an old lady in the face.)

    In neither case would I have ever considered "[joining] the party."

    Now, I'm no prude, and I'm actually quite tolerant of loud noise within our complex, especially from families who have young kids and teens. But still, one has to have a sense of community if one is to live in an urban area, because it can't always be about the first person singular.

    And if you can't respect your neighbors, then you need to go buy five acres in a rural area and build your house there, so you won't bother anyone.



    kdog (none / 0) (#109)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    You are not fine on "dropping a dime" on anybody for any reason, at least short of attempted rape or murder.

    You are very consistent and I admire and like you for that, but the fact is your ideas of justice will never be popular. Some people have to sleep or are sick, and if a neighbor is being a jerk about noise then - after you've attempted to talk to them about it - far as I'm concerned go ahead and send them that ticket.


    I can live with that... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    as long as the residents are given the courtesy of a knock on the door first, if they're unreasonable then you've done all you could to be a good neighbor.  I might cut the power line before involving the authorities though;)

    Tolerance gets as little love as liberty...maybe one day these ideas will be popular, and hopefully before it's too late.


    I wish I had the sense that courtesy (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    wasn't as much of a one-way street with you as it so often appears to be; you keep talking about your right to do what you want and live the way you want - you-you-you - but missing from much of your libertarian symphony is acknowledgment that others also have rights - the right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and apartments, for example.

    You're right that people generally are more amenable to party noise when given a head's up, but when someone calls you on the phone or knocks on your door because they can't sleep and they have to get up for work at 0-dark thirty, you need to summon up at least a modicum of accommodation, don't you think?  And if you're the guy who's partying every weekend, and you don't seem to be getting the message that you're interfering with others' ability to enjoy their homes, you don't have much right to complain about getting a ticket.

    Live and let live is fine, as long as you remember that your life isn't the only one that matters.


    I walk the walk Anne... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    I'd think you know this by now, we've been conversinf for sometime.  

    My current neighbors have been holding ragers every Sunday this summer...with a DJ crankin' latin beats past midnight.  I live and let live, hoping they are enjoying themselves, even if I gotta work the next day.  Though I do say that with the luxury of being a deep sleeper;)  

    I think you'd be hardpressed to find a more tolerant motherf8cker than I.  If you think me selfish, so be it...when it comes to my liberty, I am.  I want it all and I want it now.  

    And tell you what, we keep letting the law carve out loopholes to dodge the protections in place to our liberty for temporary convenience, I don't think we're gonna find the place any more pleasant.  


    You should (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:42:01 PM EST
    If Bronx cops... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    sucked at arresting people too, I'd have to consider it.

    I wonder if case load has something to do with it...when so many things are illegal, the sh*t that really should be illegal tends to fall through the cracks...only so many hours in the day.


    That's sure not the Iowa City... (none / 0) (#198)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:15:15 PM EST
    I knew.  Times sure do change and not always for the better.  I probably would have served hard time in Ft. Madison if it was like this when I was there.  Good that I got out when I did!  They've already managed to alienate an awful lot of people with their draconian anti-tailgating regulations among other things and hey, why keep pushing the envelope.  

    I think the latest is all about:

    1.  Dollar bills.  Another way to pad the city's coffers.  

    2. A new jail is on the November ballot and the PTB are pushing the "OMG, the students are out of control, so we need more room to house the miscreants" angle.  

    3. The city's crack down on binge/underage drinking has been a dismal failure, so they are doubling down on the "war".  Ring any bells?  This is a prime example of how out-of-control it is getting. Not out in public, not legally drunk, but arrested for public intox.  

    4. Embarrassment.  Ranking as the #2 party school in addition to #3 above has been a big blow to some very powerful people.  

    BTW--I'm not sure why this has become shite on kdog week, but just remember what you once said--we're all just idiots posting on a blog.  Keep on keeping on brother.

    Paul Ryan Doesn't Want to Talk About It (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:10:11 PM EST
    During an interview with KDKA-TV, in Pennsylvania this week, Rep. Paul Ryan dodged questions about his "forcible rape' bill, instead, he repeated what President Obama has said: "rape is rape."

    The KDKA-TV reporter asked Rep. Ryan: "You sponsored legislation that has the language `forcible rape.' What is forcible rape?"

    Rep. Ryan answered: "Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story."


    How dare anyone ask him about legislation he sponsored, but it's reassuring to know he thinks it's the end of the story.

    Not the end of the story for the woman (none / 0) (#87)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    raped, but he and his ilk just do not get that -- that Ryan, with his 100% rating from anti-abortion groups and his statement that does not allow abortion in cases of rape or incest, is dooming the victims to carry to term and raise the constant reminder of the rapist, even resembling him.  This is dooming more (certainly not all) children to being unloved and, statistically, to growing up in povery, as it is dooming the victims to less education, lower income -- and, if Ryan gets his way, less help in overcoming poverty.  

    Here's the thing:  Akin is ignorant.  Ryan is not.  He is an intelligent, educated man, who does not think that lady parts magically detect sperm of a rapist and zap it to bits.  Therefore, Ryan is holding to his stand not from stupidity but from simply being evil.

    Oh, and about trotting out his Medicare mother, I hope that someone asks her -- who raised this evil spawn -- about her beliefs on this.  If she is not the one who instilled this Ayn Randism, let's get to the teachers who did so -- and let him get away with even exceeding her evil, as she would denounce his stand on this.  

    I really want to know the source of Ryan's evil.  I know his origins, I know a lot of people from the same town, and I never have heard any of them with his belief system.


    Wouldn't that be awesome? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:33:27 PM EST
    ...that lady parts magically detect sperm of a rapist and zap it to bits.

    If that really could happen - not just from a rapist, but from any man?  The abortion issue would go away, we wouldn't need (and therefore not fight about) contraception, all children would be wanted, population would be under control, etc.  

    Every time I read "magic lady parts" I always think of this.


    Towanda, I wonder if we can't (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:29:32 PM EST
    trace some, at least, of Paul Ryan's evil to his icon, Ayn Rand.  He may have been shaped permanently by Fountainhead--occasionally, at best, a fleeting teenage boy literary testosterone fantasy.   That controversial "romanticized" rape between heroine Dominique Francon and protagonist Howard Roark was attempted to be explained away by Rand as "rape by engraved invitation",  but Rand's notion of sex as s & m and feminist insubordination and passivity played into the misogynistic types of rape, such as "welcome rape."   But, Rand was primarily a literary figure, whereas, Ryan is a boy of arrested growth that brings evil to his manhood.

    I do wonder if Mitt Romney, (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    while not happy that Akin brought this whole rape/conception/no abortion in the case of rape issue up, he must, at least, be pleased that nobody is talking right now about him releasing more tax returns.
    Every cloud, I guess, has a silver lining.  ;-)

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:38:27 PM EST
    you are quite right. Akin is Romney's golden ticket this week. All anyone is talking about is Akin and Ryan and ignoring the person that heads the ticket. And for Romney, anytime he's out of the news is good news for him.

    You know who's happier? (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:41:11 PM EST
    Joe Biden.

    I'm not sure that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    Joe is necessarily "happier," but, yes, I imagine that he may well feel a certain amount of satisfaction.
    And the Obama campaign is probably doing celebratory back-flips and cartwheels over this, even if it does push one of their "signature" issues (Romney's tax returns) into the background.

    But the tax return issue ... (none / 0) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:21:31 PM EST
    ... is one that's certain to re-emerge, particularly since one of the two returns Romey's promised to release is from 2011, and he and his wife filed for an extension with the IRS on that one. And I'd note that it's due no later than Oct. 15 -- three weeks before the election.

    I would certainly hope so, Donald (none / 0) (#159)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    But you never know.  The mainstream media seem to have the attention spans of a tadpole (no disrespect to tadpoles intended).  And maybe not even that much.  And too many voters don't have attention spans any longer than that, most unfortunately.

    For the people (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:25:01 PM EST
    who don't udnerstand the Akin supporters I will try to help you understand as I deal with these people a lot here in GA. They mostly go to the Baptist church where they are told X is evil and Y is evil. The catch is though that when they are listening to this stuff it never dawns on them that it could be themselves. It's always about that 'other person". The minister goes on about divorce and they're sure he's not talking about their divorce and is talking about "those other people". So those "other people" shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion because they're raped because those "other people" were the ones raped. It's okay for them to get an abortion because they're not like those "other people". When they see people like Akin talking they hear "those other people" are the ones who are going to be punished never thinking it could happen to them. These idiots seem to think that they are going to be "exempt" from any of this stuff because they think they're special. Just like they used to run the stop sign every Sunday because God loves them better. They won't get in a wreck because that only happens to those "other people".

    I agree with every word of this (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:02:31 PM EST
    Salon interview of Thomas Frank  about his essay about Obamas conciliatory nature and its effect on his first term.

    He looks at it from more than our usual angles. Main point being that while the GOP was actually acting like the economy was the biggest problem, however misguided their solutions, Obama and the MSM act like partisanship and 'tone in Washington' are the biggest problem.

    Hurricane Isaac heads toward Florida! (none / 0) (#1)
    by heidelja on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:52:39 AM EST
    As if Tampa won't be suffering enough (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:30:04 AM EST
    They'll be ok (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:14:49 AM EST
    The RNC might bring in $173 million - and that's a heckuva lot better than cleanup costs of a hurricane!

    Oh my goodness (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    the political news is so funny today.  Rising Hegemon brings me this:

    The Tuesday night session at the Republican National Convention will be themed "We Built This!" in a dual effort to celebrate American entrepreneurship and attack President Obama's infamous comments to business owners.

    However, the Daily Dolt reports the stadium "was financed primarily by the government."

    As well as the exciting news from NBC News/WSJ that Mitt Romney has managed to earn the support of 0 percent of black voters.  Zero.  Zip.


    That zero percent of the black voters thing (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:48:43 AM EST
    is fantastic.

    Yes. It is amazing. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    As Attaturk says, "You cannot say the GOP hasn't earned it."

    I'm beginning to wonder if their convention isn't just going to hurt them more.  Probably unlikely but ugh, you would hope so.


    That is great and makes me feel better (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Towanda on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    about reading that 24% of African Americans in Missouri agree with Akin on rape, pregnancy, etc.  Do they realize that they disagree with Obama?  We can gather that they are not fully cognizant of or caring about the issues. . . .

    Then again, as a group, they're marginally less nutz than the 25% of whites in Missouri who agree with Akin!


    I'm Getting the Impression... (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    ...god doesn't like republicans.

    And yet republicans like (none / 0) (#38)
    by easilydistracted on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    Todd Akins and Kevin The Shrivel Yoder truly believe they are on a mission from God. Sort of like Jake and Elwood, I guess.

    We built this (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:47:39 PM EST
    New watch issued as Isaac moves closer to Florida (none / 0) (#2)
    by heidelja on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 08:58:15 AM EST
    See the latest here!

    The GOP's goons are on a roll! (none / 0) (#5)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:54:24 AM EST
    Yeesh... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    I notice that Williamson doesn't have much to say about who the men are going to vote for...he may be having all kinds of cheesy, sexist fun with this, but I expect he'd button up considerably if someone tried to get him to talk about how the mate selection theory translates to electoral selection where the men are concerned.

    What an a$$.


    If That's How We Settle This... (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    ...I'll put 5 units on Obama in bare knuckle brawl.

    Which of course is how evolution would actually settle mating rights, if you wanna get all technical about it.  

    I do love his assertion that American woman only judge a man by the size of his wallet, not offensive at all.


    Actually the human brain is the greatest weapon (none / 0) (#46)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    If it was any kind of contest of wits, Romney would win.
    Though they are both corrupt in their own way and neither is worth voting for, I have no doubt based on educational history as well as hearing them speak that Romney is more intelligent than Obama.

    Give Me a Break (3.00 / 2) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    Do you know what wits are ? While it takes some intelligence, it's more of a sign of how quickly one can think on their feat, and in that category, Romney is sub-par.  He's not a quick thinker, at least not on the campaign, it's probably his biggest flaw.

    And the assumption that educational history is a sign of intelligence is just plain silly.  That would mean everyone person with the same degree from the same school would be equally intelligent.  Pleaze.

    For the record, MBAs take some of the same classes as undergrads, the difference is they also take leadership type classes and it's only a two year degree that most people get while working full time.


    Their educational history? (none / 0) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Romney graduated from BYU. Obama graduated from Columbia. Romney graduated from Harvard Law. Obama graduated from Harvard Law.

    The only real difference in educational history is that Romney also has a Harvard MBA. And, well, George W. Bush has a Harvard MBA. So, I don't think that puts Romney over the top in the educational history sweepstakes.


    Silly argument (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    As if only graduating from an Ivy League school vs. another private school, or god forbid, a state school, actually makes one "smarter".

    I've met plenty of Ivy League grads that are some of the dumbest people I've ever met, and some from small private schools or state school grads who are some of the most brilliant (and show the most common sense).

    Why do we have this discussion every four years?


    Math skills are correlated with intelligence (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    Personally, I could care less about their "Ivy League" schools, esp. since to me an engineer or scientist from a middling state school has been exposed to far more academic rigor.

    It's not just about "math skills" (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    Unless you are asking the president to personally design and build bridges.  There is something to be said for other "smarts" - verbal smarts, for instance, when one is trying to deal with world leaders and engage in diplomacy.  You could be the smartest person in the world, but if you can't communicate your thoughts, then those smarts are worth exactly zero.

    I think both Obama and Romney are very intelligent men.  Just because I don't agree with certain positions of each does not mean I cannot recognize that they are not intelligent.

    As I said - this is a dumb argument that we go through every four years.  And think about this - the fact that how many of our past presidents went to Ivy League / East Coast schools, how many members of Congress, and how many Supreme Court justices did as well?  No wonder there isn't much diversity in thought around here.


    I disagree slightly (none / 0) (#105)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    but I chose not to argue about which degree and what with you.
    The failure of lawyers to adequately run this country is shown by where it's ended up and the fact that vast majority of our corrupt, power seeking leaders have a freaking law degree.

    Regardless, you are certainly right that the Ivy Leagues are overrated. When 100 years plus of politicians are all getting the same kind of degrees from largely the same schools we have a problem.

    As far as it goes a curriculum to produce someone fit to run a country would consist of a political science major with a minor in economics or military history and speaking and leadership requirements.


    Actually that MBA (none / 0) (#61)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    Speaks to far superior math skills.
    Compare an MBA students math course load with that of a lawyers.

    And,like I said: listen to them talk.

    Of course maybe this all means we should vote for Obama: Romney, being smarter, would be even more effective in his corruption.


    Hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    So, let's see. GW Bush, with an MBA, is smarter than Bill Clinton, merely a lawyer with a JD.



    Yes, it may surprise you (none / 0) (#101)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:55:00 PM EST
    But lawyers aren't particularly smart.
    They tend to be good with words.
    But they suck at running a country.
    Witness the entire past thirty years of the US Congress and Presidency.

    Bush is of average intelligence, at best (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:06:49 PM EST
    Clinton is exceptionally smart.

    But it's funny that, when faced with a specific challenge to your silly, unsubstantiated by facts argument, you backtrack into generality land.


    Witness the Founding Fathers (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:53:39 PM EST
    35 of 52 attendees of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers or had legal training.

    That WOULD surprise me (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    Witness the entire past thirty years of the US Congress and Presidency.

    Particularly given the fact that most of the Presidents over the past 30 years weren't lawyers (Reagan, GH Bush and GW Bush, versus Clinton and Obama).  Moreover, considering that one of the two lawyers (Clinton) left office with the highest approval rating of any POTUS ever, while your MBA left with the lowest approval rating of any POTUS, it's not an argument I'd take seriously.


    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:17:25 PM EST
    as a business major I can tell you that business courses are nothing more than adding and subtracting and you can even use calculators! Even accounting does not require more than basic math skills. Are you actually saying that lawyers don't have basic math skills? LOL.

    Slayer's actually been saying ... (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:23:13 PM EST
    ... lots of things today that's had me ROTFLMAO.

    as though they were fact, more than is the usual TL fare.

    However, there was a claim made that the #1 cause of death for pregnant women is homicide at the hands of their partner.

    I would have just accepted it as fact and moved on, except that Slayer claimed it was bogus, so I let google do its magic.

    It appears that that claim is indeed completely false.

    Homicide by partner is #3 on the list, behind (#1) medical complications due to the pregnancy, and (#2) accidents.

    Homicide by partner is #3 at ~2/100,000.

    For you JD's, that means that the chance of homicide by partner is ~0.002%, or 2 1,000ths of a percent.


    Propoganda, the Big Lie. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    These numbers were fisked quite thoroughly in 2004, but just as the myth about tons of imported sexual slaves at big sports events and more violence during Superbowl Sunday they keep getting thrown out there.


    Then, there was Wendy McElroy:


    And all that being said, it's still a matter of roughly one thousand women and five hundred men being murdered by intimate partners each year in the US. Take away the fact that only women's deaths ever COUNT when it comes to the rhetoric on this stuff, just how many people are in a marriage or a relationship in any given year in the US? Somewhere around 100 to 150 million? Deaths by intimate partner - even the most abusive kind of intimate partner violence - are pretty darn rare.

    And the rhetoric surrounding it is a slap in the face of good men everywhere.


    You've been asked to use the link button, (none / 0) (#176)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:58:29 PM EST
    instead of the way you've been posting, which screws up the page layouts here.

    Here's how:

    Just type any word (like "link" or "read here" or "poor in math") in the comment box.

    Then highlight that word.

    Then click on the link icon (the chain link). A box will appear were you can then paste the URL. Test. Post

    Hope this helps


    You'd be surprised (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:21:42 PM EST
    How many lawyers are bad at math!

    I'm not very good at math. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:31:27 PM EST
    jbindc: "You'd be surprised [how] many lawyers are bad at math!"

    I'm merely adequate. That's why I have a CPA to handle my books for work.

    And for the record, I also have an MBA (Hawaii Pacific Univ.), as well as an MA in history (Univ. of Hawaii) and a BS in biology (Univ. of Washington). In college, I took and passed math classes to the level of calculus. That still doesn't mean that I'm any good at it.


    Oy (none / 0) (#82)
    by sj on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    Did you really just put that in writing and then attach your name to it?

    How So ? (none / 0) (#97)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:48:14 PM EST
    Do you think MBAs are taking algebra and calculus ?  Some accounting, economics, and maybe statistics.

    There is no high level math.  I am convinced you are just making it up as you go today.  Not one thing you have written is accurate.

    And as mentioned above, Romney's biggest pitfall is his speaking (talking) ability on the campaign trial.  So if talking indicate intelligence, he's not very smart according to your definition.


    Actually (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    MBA's need higher math.  Actually, as an undergrad business school major, I had to have calculus and statistics to even apply to the b-school.

    And the joke with lawyers is that they went to law school because they couldn't do math.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#103)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    Scott is very smug.
    He's also very ignorant.
    He really SHOULD investigate the requirements for the different majors.

    Another False Claim... (none / 0) (#129)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:30:12 PM EST
    ...with no proof, your forte.  

    Come on Slayer, list MBA class requirements, Google if you have to, or I could scan my transcripts for you once I get home if that would help.

    I am smug because you clearly don't know what you are talking about, ever.  And for the fact that I am a high level math guy and you spent several post declaring that it's prrof of one's intelligence, while I tried to convince you otherwise.

    Prove me wrong, I am begging for you to prove me wrong.


    Dear Scott (1.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:51:04 PM EST
    If you were half as smart as you claim - and I don't believe your personal history by the way - you'd note that I said "correlated" not "proven".

    Now you should note the difference. And you shouldn't be arguing something that is obvious.


    You are Such a Nitwit (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    I never said I was smart.

    You are the one who keeps insisting that an MBA proves one is smart, I simply noted I had one, and by your definition, not mine, that would make me smarter than you.

    I was trying to show you how ridiculous that line of thought is.  You seem to have figured it out, congrats, here's a giant stuffed panda, the best prize I have.

    Not really concerned whether you believe me or not, but am concerned with your continued assertions that are either made it up or lies.  Of course you aren't going to believe me, it's clear from today in your posts, facts aren't something you are are fond of.  

    I am out for the day, enjoy the panda.


    I'll enjoy your conscession (1.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:11:41 PM EST
    The only one who has used the terms "dishonest" and "lying" here today is yourself. I note you've proved neither of them.

    JB (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:38:49 PM EST
    That's what i said, the higher level math is not part of an MBA.  An MBA has no greater math abilities than a Bachelor in Business.

    Sure (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:45:45 PM EST
    But you need the higher math to get into the MBA program.

    You don't need higher math to get into law school.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:19:00 PM EST
    you don't need higher math to get into an MBA program. The only math business majors take is basic math similar to what you had in high school and a basic statistics course which I found to be fairly easy.

    BEEP! wrong (1.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    Learn to use the link button (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:09:56 PM EST
    yer skewing the site.

    And the links (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:36:30 PM EST
    I found said that your basic business math is enough.

    To get a business degree you do NOT need calculus. You have to take the same math courses that everybody else has to take plus statistics like i said above. The most important thing is your GMAT score.


    An MBA is a specific type of business degree (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:01:49 PM EST
    Did you just "move the goalposts"?

    MBA's tend to both need and use more math than lawyers do. There tends to be a not 100 percent correlation between intelligence and math skill. That is ALL I have ever claimed but some here can't even concede that much.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:02:52 PM EST
    you were saying how important math is for business courses. It is not. The math business majors take is probably the same math that most pre-law students take. Math that is used in business is just basic algebra etc that are usually required courses for every college graduate no matter what the major. The only thing that business majors have to add is business statistics which is really easy anyway.

    Can't say much for your smarts, Slayer, ... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    ... since you don't know how to use the link button or write your own link in HTML formet. Just sayin'.

    But he's a whiz at calculus (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 07:38:41 PM EST
    see comment 176 for help (none / 0) (#177)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:00:53 PM EST
    Don't confuse Scott with facts (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    Like the fact that MBA programs, assume, that , day to day you are going to be working with math.

    He's not very good with facts. He just likes to nit pick and call it an argument. I'd challenge him to put 1000 MBA's in a room and 1000 lawyers, and give them a simple integration problem. We know that the MBA's would come out better than the lawyers. Somehow Scott wants to deny this truth because it would make his argument look bad.


    Considering your logic (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:59:20 PM EST
    above with pregnancy and rape, I would tread carefully here about going after Scott and insulting him.  He consistently writes thoughtful and intelligent posts, backed up by facts.

    And name calling enver elevates the name-caller.


    What about it? (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 04:10:33 PM EST
    I provide links to what I say.
    I chose not to engage Scott about the programs because you did so for me.
    And please don't talk to me about "name calling". You'll note that if I say something controversial I get immediately name-called. I hardly ever start that crap myself.

    Really? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:25:47 PM EST
    I've also heard them speak, and I have no doubt that you're wrong.

    That was easy.

    BTW - Re: your theory that Romney's educational background proving his is more intelligent, since he has an MBA.  Romney managed to graduate in the top 5% of his MBA class, but somehow only the top third of his law school class.  Romney and Obama attended the same law school.  Romney graduated cum laude.  Obama graduated magna cum laude.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    if anything it might make a gold-digger more likely to marry Mittens, not vote for him.  Kidding, kidding;)

    All Mittens wealth proves is how unnatural and rigged this society we've built is, it ain't natural f8ckin' selection, it's legislated selection.  I agree, Obama would mop the floor with the guy in a natural selection contest.  

    "You've got city boy hands, Hooper. You been countin' money all your life"


    What? (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    "The false claims that created Roe versus Wade".

    to which Dana replies, "Right. Right."

    I assume there was more to this pathetic interview.

    What "false claims"?
    How did these "false claims" "create" Roe v. Wade?

    And, in any case, whatever this sanctimonious pinhead's views on rape or rapists, the simple fact is that he wants to prohibit the victim from having the right to terminate her pregnancy.

    That should be the issue.

    Should the Okie schoolboy be permitted (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    to wear a chomping Gator t shirt?

    YES! (none / 0) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    and I think we could sneak One Like This by the kindergarten cops

    Fred Reed on the creeping surveliance state (none / 0) (#54)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    Dude looks like a character... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    thanks for the link Slayer, I'll be checking his site out, an enemy of the police state is a friend of mine.

    And I've been meaning to tell ya I checked out that anti-human trafficking legislation making it's way into law in Cali you commented on awhile back.  That was some frightening sh*t.


    Careful Kdog (none / 0) (#193)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 09:35:14 PM EST
    Talking to me might get you branded a misogynist. Don't you know that according to people here I like my women barefoot, stupid, and pregnant and I probably give em a good smack every morning to keep them "in their place"?

    Then there's how you described my previous link. My previous link was a critique of a "human trafficking" law in California that basically considered the kitchen, the pots and the pans, and the sink all to be trafficking. But if you are against that law because of its expansive language, draconian penalties, and unclear definitions of terms you are obviously FOR "human trafficking" and probably want to get your Gorean slave girls packaged for delivery. Brilliant, hmm? So be careful what you say here lest you be accused of being an evil pig like me.

    Anyway, I don't agree with everything Fred says and if most of the people here went to his blog there hair would probably fall out as he's WAYYY too conservative for them. Even when I do agree with a particular column I often disagree with about 25 percent of it. BUT in this particular case I thought Fred was right 100 percent so I linked it here. I'm glad you enjoyed it.


    Oh Dear (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:53:32 PM EST
    So the owner of the health food store had this pickled okra next to the register.  Get home tonight quick honey.

    Pickled okra? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 02:51:07 PM EST
    Sweetie, if you want some pickled okra, invite me down- I'll make you some; I make it all the time, when I have enough okra.  I have a number of jars already put away for the winter.   ;-)

    My god that's good stuff (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    Yes, it is (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 06:14:51 PM EST
    We have had a bumper crop of okra this year, which is why I had plenty to pickle.  Mr. Zorba's mom used to make pickled okra, and he turned me into a convert, lo, those many years ago- I had never tasted it until I married him.  Cooked okra, yes- my folks always grew it in our garden.  But not pickled.  Not everyone grows, or appreciates, okra. I love it!

    This guy (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 01:54:16 PM EST
    is in the Todd Akin class of numskulls when it comes to rape.  He's a lefty MP from the Respect Party and part-time columnist who was fired after his recent comments about Julian Assange and rape, wherein he described that a man who had sex with a sleeping woman could not be guilty of rape, if he had already had sex with her.

    Is this the same Galloway (none / 0) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:43:37 AM EST
    Who told the Bush administration off in fine style over cooking the books for Iraq and accusing him of violating UN sanctions against Iraq?

    all righty then, (none / 0) (#197)
    by ZtoA on Wed Aug 22, 2012 at 10:50:21 PM EST
    we are still in the dog days of summer, not yet into the real election cycle but evidently the collective in the US is gearing up for it. I hope Gandydancer and Slayerzero (am a bit dislexic) stay around. You know, keep the misogynists around -- it really helps for reality checks.

    Enjoyed listening to BTD's radio production for a little time today. Armando sounded like he was in an echo chamber so that was annoying. Nevertheless, the idea that Akin and his ilk are defensive about rape (aka unwanted sex .... vs legitimate/violent rape) points to their personal unwanted sexual aggressions (maybe they could not actually get an actual real life woman {or man} to reciprocate?) as a sort of projection is, well, interesting and thought provoking.