About Todd Akin

[Don]

Your qualifier seems an admission that rationally, it could not be called rape.

My point is rape, something violent and traumatic. One has to shut down rational thought to truly consider the hypothetical case we've been discussion either violent or traumatic for either party.

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."

 

[OldRegular]

So instead if answering direct questions you choose to mock me and the bill which explains the positions and reality of the IPAB which you decry as a "death panel."

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!

Come on man, it's legislative language.

I called it Statutory Language or rather Senator Baucus did!

There is a precision necessary for proper implementation.

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

If you don't have the personal bandwidth to understand or contemplate what reality is then you'd best reassess your ability to decry a law you apparently don't understand.

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:

Your entire presentation in this thread has been nothing but nonsensical rambling and red herring accusations. I'm distressed you think this is actual engagement.

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!

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Now for years the liberal leftists have told us that a reduction in the rate of growth is A CUT. So we must take this leftist democrat bill at their word and say that the purpose of the board is TO CUT Medicare. Now how is this Board going to cit Medicare? Well "PJ" wants to tell us and since reading the above nonsensical semantics is tiresome he can speak

Now those of you who read the few paragraphs I presented above can understand that it is unintelligible to the rational mind. Therefore, the Federal bureaucracy can do as they choose. Just think of 2500 pages of that gibberish! It is hell on earth! If rationing is what Federal bureaucrats want then rationing it will be.

 

[InTheLight]

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!

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

 

[OldRegular]

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:

 

[InTheLight]

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.

 

[Aaron]

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.

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?

 

[saturneptune]

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.

 

[Don]

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?

"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.

 

[OldRegular]

1. Not one politician read the Health Care bill.

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

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.

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

 

[Aaron]

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

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.

 

[menageriekeeper]

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?

 

[InTheLight]

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

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/

 

[OldRegular]

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?

Two out of three is a good start!

 

[OldRegular]

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/

Not really! A bill originated in the House but!

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

On Nov. 7, 2009 the House Democrats garnered a vote of 220-215 to approve the Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962). Only one Republican, Anh Cao (R-LA), voted for the bill, and 39 Democrats voted against it. The bill was estimated to cost $1.1 trillion, provide coverage for 36 million uninsured Americans, and create a government health insurance program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $118 billion over 2010-2019.

On Dec. 24, 2009 the Senate approved similar health care reform legislation called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590), in a 60-39 party-line vote. HR 3590 began as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, a bill passed by the House on Oct. 8 that modified the homebuyers credit for members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees. In a procedural move, the Senate co-opted HR 3590, removed all existing language, and replaced it with the language of their health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. No Republican Senator voted for the bill. Some Republicans argued that the bill was unconstitutional, socialistic, too costly, and would increase health insurance costs for those who are already insured. This bill was estimated to cost $871 billion over 10 years, would require most Americans to have health insurance, and would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans. The CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over 2010-2019.

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.

 

[Aaron]

. . . 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.

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?

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Don]

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.

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 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.

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.

 

[Don]

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?

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.

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?

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.

 

[Don]

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

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

 

[Aaron]

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?