Founding Fathers Were "Maniacal"

[Ben]

Hey fistful - your senator is nearly as bad as my CA senators are. McCaskill claims founding fathers were "maniacal" for creating a separation of powers.

http://twitchy.com/twitchys-3839/2016/07/19/did-this-democrat-senator-really-call-the-founding-fathers-maniacal/

[Perd Hapley]

She's the one that should have lost to Todd Akin a few years ago. Unfortunately, people decided that legal baby-killing is a more reasonable doctrine than the popular (and not-unreasonable) mythology about the reproductive system, that Akin had been led to believe.

Claire has had her conservative American moments, but when she goes left, she really goes out there.

[TommyGunn]

Hey fistful - your senator is nearly as bad as my CA senators are. McCaskill claims founding fathers were "maniacal" for creating a separation of powers.

http://twitchy.com/twitchys-3839/2016/07/19/did-this-democrat-senator-really-call-the-founding-fathers-maniacal/

I wonder how they felt about the Emporer Tiberius?

[RevDisk]

She's the one that should have lost to Todd Akin a few years ago. Unfortunately, people decided that legal baby-killing is a more reasonable doctrine than the popular (and not-unreasonable) mythology about the reproductive system, that Akin had been led to believe.

Claire has had her conservative American moments, but when she goes left, she really goes out there.

Mr Akin didn't shoot himself in the foot, he emptied a mag into his foot, thought for a moment, reloaded, continued firing and then went for the bayonet charge.

It sounds like Ms McCaskill is either a moron or is developmentally challenged individual. She's not wrong that the Founders were very adamant about separation of powers. When even MSNBC thinks someone is a complete anti-Constitutional lunatic, that does say a lot. That's like Saddam Hussein decrying someone for violating human rights.

[MechAg94]

Mr Akin didn't shoot himself in the foot, he emptied a mag into his foot, thought for a moment, reloaded, continued firing and then went for the bayonet charge.

It sounds like Ms McCaskill is either a moron or is developmentally challenged individual. She's not wrong that the Founders were very adamant about separation of powers. When even MSNBC thinks someone is a complete anti-Constitutional lunatic, that does say a lot. That's like Saddam Hussein decrying someone for violating human rights.

IMO, it was the Republican Party that shot itself in the foot.  They all jumped in with the media and piled on so any chance of recovery was gone.   Democrats have said worse stuff plenty of times and the Democrat Party doesn't run away from them or demand they drop out.  You think they would have learned a bit after seeing what happen to 7of9's ex-husband. 

[wmenorr67]

She has always been a lot off her rocker.

[RevDisk]

IMO, it was the Republican Party that shot itself in the foot.  They all jumped in with the media and piled on so any chance of recovery was gone.   Democrats have said worse stuff plenty of times and the Democrat Party doesn't run away from them or demand they drop out.  You think they would have learned a bit after seeing what happen to 7of9's ex-husband. 

Regardless of anyone's politics, I would think publicly advocating that 'legitimate rape victims can't get pregnant' would either require room temperature IQ or a horrible human being. I'm willing to hear any third explanations that are legitimate.     

Which is the defense that is applicable?  Stupid, evil or other? And why defend him for that?

[KD5NRH]

Regardless of anyone's politics, I would think publicly advocating that 'legitimate rape victims can't get pregnant' would either require room temperature IQ or a horrible human being.

These aren't mutually exclusive.

Reminds me of a formerly local CoC preacher, known for protesting pretty much anything even remotely fun, who also got himself in hot water for proclaiming that he wouldn't support helping suffering people because if they'd stop sinning so much, God wouldn't let them suffer. 
To the extent of claiming that Christ suffered in Gethsemane because He sinned by asking "let this cup pass from Me."  Yeah, even the local rabbi pointed out that that would have made Him ineligible as the "sacrificial lamb without blemish of sin" for the Atonement to work.  Never mind the whole "Father, if it be Thy will," in the same sentence.
The other local CoC had a nice plaque made up proclaiming him their most effective missionary after they had to expand their building to take in all the members leaving his congregation.  He quietly left town after one of his one-man protests got on the regional news, and things balanced back out.  Keep meaning to track down his son that I used to work with and find out what happened after he left.
I almost miss him; his picket signs were like a beacon pointing out cool stuff to do around town.

[Perd Hapley]

Regardless of anyone's politics, I would think publicly advocating that 'legitimate rape victims can't get pregnant' would either require room temperature IQ or a horrible human being. I'm willing to hear any third explanations that are legitimate.     

Which is the defense that is applicable?  Stupid, evil or other? And why defend him for that?

Firstly, the Republican Party is less likely to defend their people, since the media friendly to them doesn't have anything like the influence of the Democrat Party media (i.e., the mainstream media). So I'm not sure Akin could have been saved. Claire can go on about her career, and may never hear of this again. Were she Republican, the establishment press would hang this around her neck, and make her talk her way around it every time she appeared on the screen.

The first of Akin's sins was that he used the word "legitimate" to mean "actual," or "authentic." No reasonable person would assume this meant that he approved of some rapes, of course, but that didn't matter. Again; their media is bigger than our media.

His second sin was in failing to be current on the scientific literature surrounding rape and pregnancy. I don't know if it was the media's work, or if it was just our need to feel intelligent, but no one wanted to be the one to point out (I don't think I did, at the time) that Akin wasn't being unreasonable, or particularly stupid on that point. At least, not if he had been led to believe it by doctors, as he claimed to have been. Given that we hear every other day about some new study that tells us stress has some horrible new effect on the body, it's not unreasonable for a lay-man to buy into the notion that the stress of violent rape would make women unlikely to conceive. Obviously, if that was a legislator's only reason to oppose abortion, it would be more objectionable. But Akin didn't need that, as a reason. Also, the 2012 election was a referendum on Obamacare. Let it be remembered that Akin is one of those politicians who wasn't saying he should play gynecologist to his constituents.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Firstly, the Republican Party is less likely to defend their people, since the media friendly to them doesn't have anything like the influence of the Democrat Party media (i.e., the mainstream media). So I'm not sure Akin could have been saved. Claire can go on about her career, and may never hear of this again. Were she Republican, the establishment press would hang this around her neck, and make her talk her way around it every time she appeared on the screen.

The first of Akin's sins was that he used the word "legitimate" to mean "actual," or "authentic." No reasonable person would assume this meant that he approved of some rapes, of course, but that didn't matter. Again; their media is bigger than our media.

His second sin was in failing to be current on the scientific literature surrounding rape and pregnancy. I don't know if it was the media's work, or if it was just our need to feel intelligent, but no one wanted to be the one to point out (I don't think I did, at the time) that Akin wasn't being unreasonable, or particularly stupid on that point. At least, not if he had been led to believe it by doctors, as he claimed to have been. Given that we hear every other day about some new study that tells us stress has some horrible new effect on the body, it's not unreasonable for a lay-man to buy into the notion that the stress of violent rape would make women unlikely to conceive. Obviously, if that was a legislator's only reason to oppose abortion, it would be more objectionable. But Akin didn't need that, as a reason. Also, the 2012 election was a referendum on Obamacare. Let it be remembered that Akin is one of those politicians who wasn't saying he should play gynecologist to his constituents.

I don't know about you... But I think it's pretty unreasonable, considering the number of pregnancies that resulted from violent rape over the course of human history.

I mean, there's also a million and one studies about how lead kills, yet somehow the human race has survived despite the fact that we used to use lead to package and protect preserved food. I'm not discounting the dangers of lead poisoning, but if it was what the modern doctors some times hype up, the human species would have ceased to exist long ago...

My point being, the proof is in the pudding, and in this case of pregnancy from violent rape, there has been a lot of puddings. Even a lay man can figure that one out.

[Perd Hapley]

Just for clarity, I don't know that Akin (or anyone) has ever claimed that rape cannot result in pregnancy. I believe the argument is that rape makes the body much less likely to conceive. Not that I'm saying I agree with it, but I think that's what Akin was getting at.

Secondly, remember that I specified laymen. That is, not people who study these things in-depth. Your average man or woman, or Congressman, on the street will have no idea how common or how rare such pregnancies would be. So the proof may be in the pudding, but most of us aren't eating it. And by eating it, and I mean looking at the stats.