...
- Thread starter Soodmeg
- Start date
Wow. That guy seems like a genuine douche.
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow. That guy seems like a genuine douche.
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if your characterization doesn't accurately describe the article...
Nice of you to pull up an article where Republicans tried to sabotage other Democratic primaries with supporting unknown candidates too!
There's a long history of this kind of shit and if you're going to hang your hat on the argument that only "idiotic jerks" would donate money, you can't absolve the "idiotic jerks" that actually support his platform enough to put him in office, which is different from trolling the electorate. Saying that it's the same shit is superficial and juvenile reasoning.
Nuance, mother
er. Get some.
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if your characterization doesn't accurately describe the article...
Nice of you to pull up an article where Republicans tried to sabotage other Democratic primaries with supporting unknown candidates too!
There's a long history of this kind of shit and if you're going to hang your hat on the argument that only "idiotic jerks" would donate money, you can't absolve the "idiotic jerks" that actually support his platform enough to put him in office, which is different from trolling the electorate. Saying that it's the same shit is superficial and juvenile reasoning.
Nuance, mother
er. Get some.Wondered how long it would take for one of the usual suspects to come out in defense of this.
[quote name='dohdough']Nice of you to pull up an article where Republicans tried to sabotage other Democratic primaries with supporting unknown candidates too!
There's a long history of this kind of shit and if you're going to hang your hat on the argument that only "idiotic jerks" would donate money, you can't absolve the "idiotic jerks" that actually support his platform enough to put him in office, which is different from trolling the electorate. Saying that it's the same shit is superficial and juvenile reasoning.
Nuance, motherer. Get some.[/QUOTE]
Besides, Akins' comments put him far, far beyond "Idiotic jerk" category.
[quote name='dohdough']Nice of you to pull up an article where Republicans tried to sabotage other Democratic primaries with supporting unknown candidates too!
There's a long history of this kind of shit and if you're going to hang your hat on the argument that only "idiotic jerks" would donate money, you can't absolve the "idiotic jerks" that actually support his platform enough to put him in office, which is different from trolling the electorate. Saying that it's the same shit is superficial and juvenile reasoning.
Nuance, mother
er. Get some.[/QUOTE]Besides, Akins' comments put him far, far beyond "Idiotic jerk" category.
So the question was asked "what is illegitimate rape"
I asked my lady since she's in EMS and sees a lot of interesting things in her line of work. There's a girl that trolls "over forty under twenty" type sites and gets guys to come over to her place. If they don't pay her, she calls the cops and makes a rape claim. That would be illegitimate rape. That's from a woman too.
I asked my lady since she's in EMS and sees a lot of interesting things in her line of work. There's a girl that trolls "over forty under twenty" type sites and gets guys to come over to her place. If they don't pay her, she calls the cops and makes a rape claim. That would be illegitimate rape. That's from a woman too.
[quote name='UncleBob']Wondered how long it would take for one of the usual suspects to come out in defense of this.[/quote]
Now where did I defend it? Did I say that it was excusable or in anyway ok?
Did my argument go over your head or are you just trolling?
Now where did I defend it? Did I say that it was excusable or in anyway ok?
Did my argument go over your head or are you just trolling?
What does this have to do with anything when your initial argument was that we should be blaming the Democrats for this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx_UJxuQGXo
Bob is the woman choosing the box.
Bob is the woman choosing the box.
[quote name='nasum']So the question was asked "what is illegitimate rape"
I asked my lady since she's in EMS and sees a lot of interesting things in her line of work. There's a girl that trolls "over forty under twenty" type sites and gets guys to come over to her place. If they don't pay her, she calls the cops and makes a rape claim. That would be illegitimate rape. That's from a woman too.[/QUOTE]
That's a false accusation. Illegitimate rape is kind of a silly term to use for such a situation since there was no rape.
I asked my lady since she's in EMS and sees a lot of interesting things in her line of work. There's a girl that trolls "over forty under twenty" type sites and gets guys to come over to her place. If they don't pay her, she calls the cops and makes a rape claim. That would be illegitimate rape. That's from a woman too.[/QUOTE]
That's a false accusation. Illegitimate rape is kind of a silly term to use for such a situation since there was no rape.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow. That guy seems like a genuine douche.
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....[/QUOTE]
That's actually really interesting.
I'm actually glad to see the Dems playing a little hardball and using the ignorant hicks in the Republican primary to their own advantage, hoisting them on their own petard as it were. Well played Dems, well played indeed.
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....[/QUOTE]
That's actually really interesting.
I'm actually glad to see the Dems playing a little hardball and using the ignorant hicks in the Republican primary to their own advantage, hoisting them on their own petard as it were. Well played Dems, well played indeed.
[quote name='UncleBob']"lolz"
I didn't say we should be "blaming the Democrats for this."
We should be blaming the Democrats for donating money to such a man - just like we would if they were, say, Chick-fil-a.[/QUOTE]
So trolling it is?
I guess you assume that Obama meant "business" instead of infrastructure as well?
How would it make any kind of sense that "this" would mean the comments that came out of the candidates mouth as if the Democrats are equally to blame? How is this any different from my argument that you're strictly blaming Democrats for this when you just literally said that we should be should be blaming Democrats? And didn't I just enumerate what the differences were? It's in my very first post in this thread.
Seriously, what the is wrong with you?
I didn't say we should be "blaming the Democrats for this."
We should be blaming the Democrats for donating money to such a man - just like we would if they were, say, Chick-fil-a.[/QUOTE]
So trolling it is?
I guess you assume that Obama meant "business" instead of infrastructure as well?
How would it make any kind of sense that "this" would mean the comments that came out of the candidates mouth as if the Democrats are equally to blame? How is this any different from my argument that you're strictly blaming Democrats for this when you just literally said that we should be should be blaming Democrats? And didn't I just enumerate what the differences were? It's in my very first post in this thread.
Seriously, what the
is wrong with you?[quote name='camoor']That's actually really interesting.
I'm actually glad to see the Dems playing a little hardball and using the ignorant hicks in the Republican primary to their own advantage, hoisting them on their own petard as it were. Well played Dems, well played indeed.[/QUOTE]
It's shitty when that happens, but it goes both ways. Stories of Republicans doing the same, encouraging their base to vote in the Democratic primary in open primary states when they have an incumbent and want the weakest candidate to get the Democratic nomination etc.
Just one of the many underhanded things that go on in politics today.
I'm actually glad to see the Dems playing a little hardball and using the ignorant hicks in the Republican primary to their own advantage, hoisting them on their own petard as it were. Well played Dems, well played indeed.[/QUOTE]
It's shitty when that happens, but it goes both ways. Stories of Republicans doing the same, encouraging their base to vote in the Democratic primary in open primary states when they have an incumbent and want the weakest candidate to get the Democratic nomination etc.
Just one of the many underhanded things that go on in politics today.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']"as if the Democrats are equally to blame?"
Oh, hey, there DD goes putting words in my mouth again.[/QUOTE]
And your point wasn't to merely vilify Democrats for trying to manipulate an election in their favor and therefore more than tangentially responsible for the comments?
Go yourself.
Oh, hey, there DD goes putting words in my mouth again.[/QUOTE]
And your point wasn't to merely vilify Democrats for trying to manipulate an election in their favor and therefore more than tangentially responsible for the comments?
Go
yourself.As I clearly stated before - they're not responsible for the comments, but they are fully responsible for where they give money to. Period.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings or something. It's like you're taking it personal that Democratic leaders would give money towards the election of a man who would say something so stupid as the comments made by Akins.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings or something. It's like you're taking it personal that Democratic leaders would give money towards the election of a man who would say something so stupid as the comments made by Akins.
[quote name='UncleBob']As I clearly stated before - they're not responsible for the comments, but they are fully responsible for where they give money to. Period.[/quote]
You didn't "clearly state" jack shit. And you think that THIS argument is somehow better than the one that I gave you an out on when I said "tangentially?" You ARE aing moron.
You didn't "clearly state" jack shit. And you think that THIS argument is somehow better than the one that I gave you an out on when I said "tangentially?" You ARE a
ing moron. The only thing I take personally is seeing how dumb you are even when I give you an out with you not taking it.
The whole point was to donate money to someone who would say stupid things and make it easier for the Dems to win.
Now they just gotten even more bang for their buck as it's not only impacting the Missouri senate race, but has gotten national attention, put more fire on the "Republican's hate women" argument and making it easier for Dems to keep focus off the economy/jobs.
Not saying I like the practice, but it's worked out grand for the Dems.
Now they just gotten even more bang for their buck as it's not only impacting the Missouri senate race, but has gotten national attention, put more fire on the "Republican's hate women" argument and making it easier for Dems to keep focus off the economy/jobs.
Not saying I like the practice, but it's worked out grand for the Dems.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's shitty when that happens, but it goes both ways. Stories of Republicans doing the same, encouraging their base to vote in the Democratic primary in open primary states when they have an incumbent and want the weakest candidate to get the Democratic nomination etc.
Just one of the many underhanded things that go on in politics today.[/QUOTE]
I think it all stems from too much money in politics.
Take out the money and you won't be able to play these type of games as effectively. Advertising will need to get leaner, more focused and more targeted, politicians will have to go back to talking about the issues instead relying on slick multimillion dollar smear campaigns.
Republicans are interesting as a party, in that the closer you get to their base the stupider and more ignorant the members become. Dems are realizing this and killing the weed at the root.
Just one of the many underhanded things that go on in politics today.[/QUOTE]
I think it all stems from too much money in politics.
Take out the money and you won't be able to play these type of games as effectively. Advertising will need to get leaner, more focused and more targeted, politicians will have to go back to talking about the issues instead relying on slick multimillion dollar smear campaigns.
Republicans are interesting as a party, in that the closer you get to their base the stupider and more ignorant the members become. Dems are realizing this and killing the weed at the root.
[quote name='camoor']I think it all stems from too much money in politics.
Take out the money and you won't be able to play these type of games as effectively. Advertising will need to get leaner, more focused and more targeted, politicians will have to go back to talking about the issues instead relying on slick multimillion dollar smear campaigns.
Republicans are interesting as a party, in that the closer you get to their base the stupider and more ignorant the members become. Dems are realizing this and killing the weed at the root.[/QUOTE]
Agree 100%. We need much stronger regulation of money that goes into campaigns, and lower caps.
There's no need for so much advertising. Have more debates, town halls etc. Force voters to watch, read the news etc. to be informed and not just vote on a bunch of ads full of inaccuracies etc.
Take out the money and you won't be able to play these type of games as effectively. Advertising will need to get leaner, more focused and more targeted, politicians will have to go back to talking about the issues instead relying on slick multimillion dollar smear campaigns.
Republicans are interesting as a party, in that the closer you get to their base the stupider and more ignorant the members become. Dems are realizing this and killing the weed at the root.[/QUOTE]
Agree 100%. We need much stronger regulation of money that goes into campaigns, and lower caps.
There's no need for so much advertising. Have more debates, town halls etc. Force voters to watch, read the news etc. to be informed and not just vote on a bunch of ads full of inaccuracies etc.
[quote name='UncleBob']"lolz"[/QUOTE]
And this contradicts my posts how?
Is electioneering a loss for a shitty candidate the same as corporate donations to hate groups?
[quote name='UncleBob']Agreed - worked out wonderfully for the Democrats.
It's yet another example of running against the other guy instead of running on the issues. Which, if you'll excuse the phrase, "both sides do it".[/QUOTE]
Which is still different from your initial argument! What did I say about nuance again?
And this contradicts my posts how?
Is electioneering a loss for a shitty candidate the same as corporate donations to hate groups?
[quote name='UncleBob']Agreed - worked out wonderfully for the Democrats.
It's yet another example of running against the other guy instead of running on the issues. Which, if you'll excuse the phrase, "both sides do it".[/QUOTE]
Which is still different from your initial argument! What did I say about nuance again?
[quote name='dohdough']And this contradicts my posts how?[/quote]
Umm.. that whole part where you said I didn't clearly state exactly what I clearly stated.
The same? No.
But the reaction should be the same - if you give money to a cause that uses that money to spread hate, you don't get to magically shrug off the repercussions of where you spent your money.
Umm.. that whole part where you said I didn't clearly state exactly what I clearly stated.
The same? No.
But the reaction should be the same - if you give money to a cause that uses that money to spread hate, you don't get to magically shrug off the repercussions of where you spent your money.
You're right, DD - every coin can only have one side ever.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow. That guy seems like a genuine douche.
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....[/QUOTE]
not sure it matters to your "gotcha" points but he already WAS elected to the house w/o democratic help.
I wonder what kind of idiotic jerks would donate money towards getting him elected....[/QUOTE]
not sure it matters to your "gotcha" points but he already WAS elected to the house w/o democratic help.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agree 100%. We need much stronger regulation of money that goes into campaigns, and lower caps.
There's no need for so much advertising. Have more debates, town halls etc. Force voters to watch, read the news etc. to be informed and not just vote on a bunch of ads full of inaccuracies etc.[/QUOTE]
It'd be like voter suppression for stupid people!:lol:
There's no need for so much advertising. Have more debates, town halls etc. Force voters to watch, read the news etc. to be informed and not just vote on a bunch of ads full of inaccuracies etc.[/QUOTE]
It'd be like voter suppression for stupid people!:lol:
[quote name='UncleBob']Umm.. that whole part where you said I didn't clearly state exactly what I clearly stated.[/QUOTE]
You mean the part where you said that you don't blame them, but you "blame" them? How is that not operationally the same and your typical double-speak? You don't get credit for using dick fingers (" ").
And no. It's not clearly stating something when we all know that you're implying something different from what you're saying.
it, I'm done wither way. Thanks for the distraction.
You mean the part where you said that you don't blame them, but you "blame" them? How is that not operationally the same and your typical double-speak? You don't get credit for using dick fingers (" ").
And no. It's not clearly stating something when we all know that you're implying something different from what you're saying.
Yes, let's treat one action with different intents and outcomes in the exact same manner.
You like projecting, don't you!
it, I'm done wither way. Thanks for the distraction.[quote name='dohdough']You mean the part where you said that you don't blame them, but you "blame" them? How is that not operationally the same and your typical double-speak?[/QUOTE]
Wow, really?
Are you unable to separate, in your mind, the actions of the Democratic party in giving Akins the money and the actions of Akins when it comes to the words he chose to use?
Because those are two totally different things.
Wow, really?
Are you unable to separate, in your mind, the actions of the Democratic party in giving Akins the money and the actions of Akins when it comes to the words he chose to use?
Because those are two totally different things.
[quote name='nasum']then my original comment holds true. Using an uncomfortable dildo on yourself is illegitimate rape.[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense.
The term just doesn't work in any context as it implies that there was a rape, but it wasn't legitimate.
For instance, a person's "illegitimate child" is still their biological child, they just weren't legally married.
Rape=having sexual acts forced on one against their will. That can never be illegitimate. There can be false allegations, but in that case there was no rape to be legitimate or illegitimate. The rape never occurred, unlike an illegitimate child in which case there is a child and two parents.
That makes no sense.
The term just doesn't work in any context as it implies that there was a rape, but it wasn't legitimate.
For instance, a person's "illegitimate child" is still their biological child, they just weren't legally married.
Rape=having sexual acts forced on one against their will. That can never be illegitimate. There can be false allegations, but in that case there was no rape to be legitimate or illegitimate. The rape never occurred, unlike an illegitimate child in which case there is a child and two parents.
speedracer
Banned
"Legitimate rape" is a dog whistle. The hardcore pro lifers know banning rape victim abortion is a loser. But their politicians also know that hard core pro lifers don't give a shit about whether it was rape or not and believe that people will just use it as an excuse to get abortions. So they try to redefine what the word rape means and you get shit like this. The only "mistake" the dude made was in the sort of crass way he put it but that's exactly what he meant and that's exactly what his supporters want to hear.
"and not only that Bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That'sing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*"
And he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the ER on the cusp ofing death, bitch wanted it.
It's cool though. He's talking about the deficit so I'm voting for him anyway.
/thanks libertarians! siding with them is brilliant!
"and not only that Bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That's
ing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*"And he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the ER on the cusp of
ing death, bitch wanted it. It's cool though. He's talking about the deficit so I'm voting for him anyway.
/thanks libertarians! siding with them is brilliant!
[quote name='speedracer']But their politicians also know that hard core pro lifers don't give a shit about whether it was rape or not and believe that people will just use it as an excuse to get abortions. [/QUOTE]
Yep, and sadly it's not just that they're worried of people making false accusations to get around pro life laws they want passed.
I've flat heard some people say that every conception is "god's will" or "god's doing" and that even if it was rape it's not the child's fault and that the victim shouldn't "murder" they baby, but rather carry it to term and give it up for adoption if they don't want to keep it.
Yep, and sadly it's not just that they're worried of people making false accusations to get around pro life laws they want passed.
I've flat heard some people say that every conception is "god's will" or "god's doing" and that even if it was rape it's not the child's fault and that the victim shouldn't "murder" they baby, but rather carry it to term and give it up for adoption if they don't want to keep it.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Agree 100%. We need much stronger regulation of money that goes into campaigns, and lower caps.
There's no need for so much advertising. Have more debates, town halls etc. Force voters to watch, read the news etc. to be informed and not just vote on a bunch of ads full of inaccuracies etc.[/QUOTE]
Citizen's United was a colossally bad decision. It amazes me that with so many smart people in leadership positions, we could still end up with such a bad outcome. We should be smarter then that.
There's no need for so much advertising. Have more debates, town halls etc. Force voters to watch, read the news etc. to be informed and not just vote on a bunch of ads full of inaccuracies etc.[/QUOTE]
Citizen's United was a colossally bad decision. It amazes me that with so many smart people in leadership positions, we could still end up with such a bad outcome. We should be smarter then that.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']"Legitimate rape" is a dog whistle. The hardcore pro lifers know banning rape victim abortion is a loser. But their politicians also know that hard core pro lifers don't give a shit about whether it was rape or not and believe that people will just use it as an excuse to get abortions. So they try to redefine what the word rape means and you get shit like this. The only "mistake" the dude made was in the sort of crass way he put it but that's exactly what he meant and that's exactly what his supporters want to hear.
"and not only that Bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That'sing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*"
And he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the ER on the cusp ofing death, bitch wanted it.
It's cool though. He's talking about the deficit so I'm voting for him anyway.
/thanks libertarians! siding with them is brilliant![/QUOTE]
That's how I saw it too. This guy was just trying to sound the dog whistle but he blew a little too hard. If you read any of the Republican retractions they just repeat tautalogies like "I disagree with this douche because there is no legitimate rape" - yeah no shit. How about addressing the misogyny and speaking it plain you midwest and southern Republican assholes.
"and not only that Bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That's
ing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*"And he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the ER on the cusp of
ing death, bitch wanted it. It's cool though. He's talking about the deficit so I'm voting for him anyway.
/thanks libertarians! siding with them is brilliant![/QUOTE]
That's how I saw it too. This guy was just trying to sound the dog whistle but he blew a little too hard. If you read any of the Republican retractions they just repeat tautalogies like "I disagree with this douche because there is no legitimate rape" - yeah no shit. How about addressing the misogyny and speaking it plain you midwest and southern Republican assholes.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='IRHari']Guys, both sides do it. Nothing to see here. Move along.[/QUOTE]
That attitude suggests that it is not fixable, or is so normal/obvious that we should just ignore it. I reject that attitude.
That attitude suggests that it is not fixable, or is so normal/obvious that we should just ignore it. I reject that attitude.
Man, I've been trying to figure it out since I've been on Vs. Is he trolling? Isn't he trolling? Is he CEREALZ? Nah, I've figured it out... UB is a full on troll. That or he's one of those pathetic point shavers that are keeping the score in their mind. ( OOH SEE, THE DEMS DO IT TOO SO NOW LET'S FORGET THE RIDICULOUSNESS AND THE DISGUST SUCH A TOPIC SHOULD CAUSE AND BEGIN A 30 POST GAME OF HE-SAID SHE-SAID! HOORAY! YOUR TURN DD)
Seriously kiddies, DO NOT feed the trolls.
Seriously kiddies, DO NOT feed the trolls.
[quote name='speedracer']"legitimate rape" is a dog whistle. The hardcore pro lifers know banning rape victim abortion is a loser. But their politicians also know that hard core pro lifers don't give a shit about whether it was rape or not and believe that people will just use it as an excuse to get abortions. So they try to redefine what the word rape means and you get shit like this. The only "mistake" the dude made was in the sort of crass way he put it but that's exactly what he meant and that's exactly what his supporters want to hear.
"and not only that bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That'sing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*"
and he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the er on the cusp ofing death, bitch wanted it.
It's cool though. He's talking about the deficit so i'm voting for him anyway.
/thanks libertarians! Siding with them is brilliant![/quote]
qft.
"and not only that bob, but her body will fight it off if she's not the dirty whore we all auto-assume about her. A doctor told me that. That's
ing science right there. See? It's not just the bible. *wink wink*"and he still has no idea why everyone's all pissy. Of course he wouldn't quit. He didn't say anything wrong. It's reality to them. If she isn't wheeled into the er on the cusp of
ing death, bitch wanted it. It's cool though. He's talking about the deficit so i'm voting for him anyway.
/thanks libertarians! Siding with them is brilliant![/quote]
qft.
[quote name='RealDeals']Man, I've been trying to figure it out since I've been on Vs. Is he trolling? Isn't he trolling? Is he CEREALZ? Nah, I've figured it out... UB is a full on troll. That or he's one of those pathetic point shavers that are keeping the score in their mind. ( OOH SEE, THE DEMS DO IT TOO SO NOW LET'S FORGET THE RIDICULOUSNESS AND THE DISGUST SUCH A TOPIC SHOULD CAUSE AND BEGIN A 30 POST GAME OF HE-SAID SHE-SAID! HOORAY! YOUR TURN DD)
Seriously kiddies, DO NOT feed the trolls.[/QUOTE]
Hey man, at least I'm not dragging this out for pages like I used too.:lol:
Seriously kiddies, DO NOT feed the trolls.
[/QUOTE]Hey man, at least I'm not dragging this out for pages like I used too.:lol:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='speedracer']"Legitimate rape" is a dog whistle.[/QUOTE]
For...? Is this his way of communicating that he's not some ninny liberal communist who says they're pro-life, but then hedges on incest and abortion (or worst of all, personal right to privacy) in order to avoid doing anything about it?
i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever?
I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.
For...? Is this his way of communicating that he's not some ninny liberal communist who says they're pro-life, but then hedges on incest and abortion (or worst of all, personal right to privacy) in order to avoid doing anything about it?
i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever?
I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.
[quote name='mykevermin']For...? Is this his way of communicating that he's not some ninny liberal communist who says they're pro-life, but then hedges on incest and abortion (or worst of all, personal right to privacy) in order to avoid doing anything about it?
i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever?
I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.[/QUOTE]
I'd also like to add that in addition to subtle, it's an easily understood statement describing something specific. I know you know that, but you know how literal some people can get.
i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever?
I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.[/QUOTE]
I'd also like to add that in addition to subtle, it's an easily understood statement describing something specific. I know you know that, but you know how literal some people can get.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']For...? Is this his way of communicating that he's not some ninny liberal communist who says they're pro-life, but then hedges on incest and abortion (or worst of all, personal right to privacy) in order to avoid doing anything about it?
i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever?
I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.[/QUOTE]
I think his intention was to dog whistle but he slipped up.
i.e, the dog whistle is that by being a hardline numbskull, he's telling the anti-choice persons that he'll totally outlaw all abortion ever?
I just want to be clear - "dog whistle" is usually a subtle statement. this has the subtlety of a brick to the skull.[/QUOTE]
I think his intention was to dog whistle but he slipped up.
[quote name='RealDeals'][more of the usual][/QUOTE]
It's always fun when I post directly on topic and then some of the same folks come in and throw insults my way for doing it.
Look, this guy (Akins) is a douche. That's pretty obvious and I think we all pretty much agree on it.
So, where does the topic go from here? We can have such riveting discussions like talking about inserting dildos sideways or try to crack jokes about other ways to try to define a phrase as ignorant as "legitimate rape". I suppose that's a great use of our time.
It's always fun when I post directly on topic and then some of the same folks come in and throw insults my way for doing it.
Look, this guy (Akins) is a douche. That's pretty obvious and I think we all pretty much agree on it.
So, where does the topic go from here? We can have such riveting discussions like talking about inserting dildos sideways or try to crack jokes about other ways to try to define a phrase as ignorant as "legitimate rape". I suppose that's a great use of our time.
There's a great line in Roger Ebert's review of Natural Born Killers that is applicable here.
This isn't a national debate or an overview of the issues, it's a scandal over some stupid thing some guy said and it's being played out far too much. If only an overview of the two candidates stances on civil liberties was the top story on CNN for three days. Wait a second, they both agree on those things.
These social scandals cloud the minds of the electorate, but people like it because it gives us something to get all worked up about and it's easy to understand.
This isn't a national debate or an overview of the issues, it's a scandal over some stupid thing some guy said and it's being played out far too much. If only an overview of the two candidates stances on civil liberties was the top story on CNN for three days. Wait a second, they both agree on those things.
These social scandals cloud the minds of the electorate, but people like it because it gives us something to get all worked up about and it's easy to understand.
bread's done