Eastoff
But it was a beginning.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 16,100
- Likes
- 4,105
- Points
- 113
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In March, Kansas Rep. Pete DeGraf said, “Women should plan ahead for rape the way he keeps a spare tire.” A few weeks after that Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner said, “Some women might fake being raped in order to get free abortions.”
I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that's part of the counseling that goes on.
I have no idea what these morons are thinking, but I can think of a reasonable definition of "legitimate" rape. The first link to the EXTREMELY biased Eugene Robinson's piece hints at it, but ignores it for political gain.
An 18 year old boy and 17 year old girl have consensual sex and it is considered "rape" (statutory), but it's not forcible, not against the girl's wishes, etc. I have a hard time classifying it as "rape" at all, especially if the two had been boyfriend/girlfriend for years.
That said, I'm pro-choice and find the republican stance on the issue to be absurd and out of character with keeping govt. out of peoples' lives.
At least Hannity and Limbaugh seem to have a clue.
Limbaugh had insight into why abortion opponents continue to make the claim. "This is the kind of thing that people who do nothing but talk amongst themselves will conjure up ... they'll grab onto anything they can to support what their empirical belief is because their ultimate aim is to save life," he said.
Call me old fashioned, but it just seems wrong to use the term "War on..." against any inconvenience or distraction or social controversy our country faces.
My first thought when somebody says, "There's a war on Christmas/women/drugs/violence/poverty/whatever" is that that person thinks far too much in abstraction. War isn't abstract. It's about two groups of people, and at least one of them wants to kill the fuck out of the other one.
I often wonder about where demagogues go from here. Once upon a time there were merely "controversies" and "disputes," and maybe some "struggles" when shit got real. Now everything is a "war." In 20 years will we be discussing the "Social Security Holocaust" and the "Capital Gains Tax Apocalypse"? The "Anal Raping of the Laotian Immigrant Community?" The "Skull Fucking and Fecal Swapping of the Hand Gun Owning America"?
That is such garbage. So Limbaugh justifies ignorance by saying yes wht they are saying is wrong but that is becasue they are so good inside that they are blind to reality.
His spins have no limit.
That's not spin. I'm sure he would apply the exact same logic to animal rights activists or climate change activists (on either side).
I don't see how he's justifying anything by explaining how it came to be.
Ed O.
I don't beleive that is how it came to be and Limbaugh is trying to sell it as that it how it came to be . . . that a person in that position is willing to ignore facts because their "ultimate aim is to save life".
Limbaugh is apparently trying to use some positive trait of this person to show why he thinks this way. I see no positive trait about this line of thought. I could easily twwist this to say he is an ignorant person so full of hate he will beleive anything to try justify his position. And that line of reasoning makes more sense when you look at what his idiotic statements were.
Those were not statements of someone whose ultimate aim is to save life . . . but Limbaugh sure makes it sound like this person is good to a fault. Really it sick in way.
The "Anal Raping of the Laotian Immigrant Community?" The "Skull Fucking and Fecal Swapping of the Hand Gun Owning America"?

That said, I'm pro-choice and find the republican stance on the issue to be absurd and out of character with keeping govt. out of peoples' lives.
I read Limbaugh's statement to be Reasoned. Let the facts lead you to your position, don't invent facts (global warming hoax!) to invent a position.
At least Hannity and Limbaugh seem to have a clue.

FWIW:
Although Paul Ryan has taken the position that all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, should be outlawed, the Wisconsin congressman supports Mitt Romney's softer position now that he shares the GOP presidential ticket because it's a "good step in the right direction," he said today.
You know those environmentalist . . . believe sciene that supports their position because their ultimate aim is to cripple the US economy and put us back in the stone age.
A clear admission his personal view has been/is the wrong direction.
two thoughts on this:
1) Romney's position is softer than his, but much "harder" than what's currently on the books. I think he was saying that Romney advocating for tougher laws than what we have now is the "good step in the right direction", not becoming softer.
2) Regardless of the issue, wouldn't you say that it's probably better for people who are wrong to eventually, through education/pulling their head out, change their mind?
