• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
What is legitimate rape? He was implying that women lie after rape and make consensual sex, rape. If you put a qualifier in front of a word you're trying to distinguish between rapes.

Why distinguish between rapes and his comments that followed about the body 'shutting it down' clearly imply he thinks there are multiple kinds of rapes.

The distinction he was trying to draw was between rape and consensual sex. His comment is that, in the case of rape--as opposed to consensual sex--the female body has ways of "shutting the whole thing down." Again, his comment is based on bad science, and the implications of his comment--even properly understood--are abhorrent.

Think about what his comment would have been if he meant legal or morally permissible rape: "If it's a [legal or morally permissible] rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child." But it makes no sense to punish a person whose act--under the incorrect interpretation of Akin's comment--was legal or morally permissible.

EDIT:

I was always under the impression those two points were why people were outraged in the first place, not necessarily that it's legal or defensible

That was definitely part of it, and to that extent, they were justified in being outraged. But some of the outrage was over misinterpretations of the phrase "legitimate rape," completely divorced from context.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Yeah, I think APK is right and Akin has it backwards. No one understood him to mean "justifiable rape" by "legitimate rape". They understood "legitimate rape" to mean "rape rape", "forcible rape", etc.

Obama is objecting to Akin's picking out of only some rapes to denounce as "legitimate rapes". That's the qualifying and slicing.
 
The distinction he was trying to draw was between rape and consensual sex. His comment is that, in the case of rape--as opposed to consensual sex--the female body has ways of "shutting the whole thing down." Again, his comment is based on bad science, and the implications of his comment--even properly understood--are abhorrent.

Think about what his comment would have been if he meant legal or morally permissible rape: "If it's a [legal or morally permissible] rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child." But it makes no sense to punish a person whose act--under the incorrect interpretation of Akin's comment--was legal or morally permissible.
Akin was talking about rapists when he was discussing 'legitimate rape' his definition of consensual sex includes rapists.

Its why he said 'legitimate rape' not 'rape' the qualifier is a common thing on the right because they believe women falsely claim rape and men get in trouble for things they shouldn't.

See george will's column and responses to sexual assault on campus.

Akin's characterizing the criticism of his comment because he's viewing the situation through the idea that everybody only sees rape the way he does. Not the fact that things he doesn't consider rape is rape.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Yeah, I think APK is right and Akin has it backwards. No one understood him to mean "justifiable rape" by "legitimate rape". They understood "legitimate rape" to mean "rape rape", "forcible rape", etc.

Obama is objecting to Akin's picking out of only some rapes to denounce as "legitimate rapes". That's the qualifying and slicing.

After a few minutes on Google, you may be right, and I may have misunderstood the complaints. I'll see if I can find unambiguous examples of the misinterpretation I'm referring to later.
 
After a few minutes on Google, you may be right, and I may have misunderstood the complaints. I'll see if I can find unambiguous examples of the misinterpretation I'm referring to later.

Nobody thought that, in akin's mind, he was defending rape. It was more the fact that it sounded like Akin's definition of rape was limited. He wasn't advocating rape but just ignoring a giant portion of it.

That and the stupid stuff that came after.
 
The libertarian idea for that is to make all campaign finance 100% transparent. Then when voting for the guy that wants to end the big ISP friendly, monopoly making regulations, you can see if comcast donated to him.

And like a lot of libertarian ideas it'd work perfectly if everyone knew all the available information perfectly. But in practice the easily available and emotionally manipulative information in the ads paid for by that donation money is going to beat out the unpromoted cold hard data on some website somewhere, every single time.

The corporations would just donate to candidates to eliminate transparency and the Libertarians would accept those donations because it would be in their personal self-interest and that's always good, right?
 
Did anyone actually interpret his statement to mean anything but "legitimate case of rape"? He seems to think the outrage is that people deliberately misinterpreted his statement as "justifiable rape," rather than that he was insinuating that women who want abortions in the case of rape are lying about being raped.

For fucking real?
This.

What is legitimate rape? He was implying that women lie after rape and make consensual sex, rape. If you put a qualifier in front of a word you're trying to distinguish between rapes.

Why distinguish between rapes and his comments that followed about the body 'shutting it down' clearly imply he thinks there are multiple kinds of rapes.

He's comment implies that some things most people call rape, isn't rape (a women going home and bringing a man to bed but then saying no at the last minute but the man continuing, getting a girl drunk and having sex)
And this.

He is misunderstanding why people were offended.
 

Zona

Member
The libertarian idea for that is to make all campaign finance 100% transparent. Then when voting for the guy that wants to end the big ISP friendly, monopoly making regulations, you can see if comcast donated to him.

And like a lot of libertarian ideas it'd work perfectly if everyone knew all the available information perfectly. But in practice the easily available and emotionally manipulative information in the ads paid for by that donation money is going to beat out the unpromoted cold hard data on some website somewhere, every single time.

If only humans where perfectly rational automatons possessing omniscience my ideas would work perfectly!
 
Yep, one of the benefits of libertarianism is that it doesn't require this.
You assert this but fail to explain why. We have already seen politicians tout transparency instead of campaign limits as the solution and then when the limits went away, they failed to increase transparency.
 

benjipwns

Banned
You assert this but fail to explain why.
Because it's pretty inherent in a system based around widely distributed and democratized power/wealth/knowledge?

It's the centralizing systems that require perfect knowledge (and a New Soviet Man to vote correctly in democracy) to operate properly. Since perfect knowledge is impossible, they suppress information until they have a collective metric to work with in disastrous fashion.
 

Wilsongt

Member
HUMANE, hahaha.

This Bill Is Dubbed The HUMANE Act, But It Actually Hurts The Migrant Kids It Claims To Protect

The Obama administration returned its first group of migrant children back to Honduras this week, but some lawmakers are spearheading legislation that would make deportation efforts occur more frequently.

In response to President Obama’s $3.7 billion emergency funding request, two Texas lawmakers Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) are pushing the Helping Unaccompanied Minors and Alleviating National Emergency (HUMANE) Act to make the federal government deport Central American children just as quickly as they already do with Mexican children.

In practice, children from contiguous countries (i.e. Mexico and Canada) are currently returned to their home countries almost immediately. Children from nations other than Mexico and Canada are handed over to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to be screened and housed while waiting for their court hearing.

Cornyn and Cuellar claim that criminal cartels are exploiting the trafficking law known as the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008 so their proposal seeks to expedite the deportation process for both sets of children. On Tuesday, Cornyn said in a joint MSNBC interview with Cuellar, “They’ve figured out this gap in this 2008 law which allows children to basically be released to family members in the United States and be served with a notice to appear. It won’t surprise you that most of them don’t show back up.”

Despite their claim, their proposal misses the point and fails to address the current system, which is failing Mexican children. Border Patrol agents — not immigration judges — make the initial determination about whether Mexican children can stay in the United States based on whether the child will be afraid of returning to his home country; whether the child is a human trafficking victim or may become a victim in their home country; and whether the child understands the implications of returning to Mexico. If they conclude that the child is not eligible for legal protection, the border patrol agents offer them the chance to voluntarily return home. In practice, border patrol agents are not qualified to adequately screen these kids for these various forms of relief and their “offer” to voluntarily return home often amounts to coercion.

Children don’t always understand the process and are frequently unable to articulate their fear within the 48 hours Border Patrol agents have to do this screening. As Vox highlighted, one teenage girl told a border agent that she was afraid of being forced into prostitution only after her paperwork had been filed. According to a June 2014 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees report obtained by Vox, the Custom and Border Protection (CBP) agency’s “style of interviewing Mexican unaccompanied alien children seemed to focus on producing quick answers rather than substantive ones.”

Under the Cornyn-Cuellar proposal, immigration judges would have to adjudicate cases within seven days after border agents turn children over the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), adding to the current immigration court backlog of about 375,000 deportation cases. This rocket docket would make access to counsel virtually impossible and prioritize speed over accuracy in assessing the viability of these kids’ claims for protection. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called the Cornyn-Cuellar proposal “too broad” and that “the answer from me is: No, I won’t support it.”

America’s Voice, an immigration advocacy group, said that the Cornyn-Cuellar proposal was actually “inhumane” because it would offer “an accelerated deportation process for children and a wholesale expansion of border enforcement that treats a humanitarian crisis as an opportunity to escalate activity on the already militarized border.” In his time as senator, Cornyn has consistently stood against “humane” efforts to deal with the country’s undocumented population. As far back as 2006, he proposed so-called poison pill amendments to an immigration reform bill and voted against it. He voted against another immigration bill in 2007. In 2010, he voted against the federal DREAM Act, which would have provided an eventual pathway to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez said in a press release, “Senator Cornyn has led the opposition to every single immigration reform proposal he has ever seen and he is exploiting children, wrapping himself in a thin blanket of feigned compassion, and he has gotten a Democrat to stand with him. This is not the middle ground, this is the deportation-only agenda dressed up in sheep’s clothing. More of the same is not a solution.”

But Gutierrez also criticized Cuellar saying last week that he is “a friend and a colleague of ours,” but that “we disagree with him” on the best way to handle the unaccompanied children crisis.
 
Because it's pretty inherent in a system based around widely distributed and democratized power/wealth/knowledge?

It's the centralizing systems that require perfect knowledge (and a New Soviet Man to vote correctly in democracy) to operate properly. Since perfect knowledge is impossible, they suppress information until they have a collective metric to work with in disastrous fashion.
You completely ignored the rest of my post. And went on some weird strawman rant on Soviets and collectives as if I implied any of that.
We have already seen politicians tout transparency instead of campaign limits as the solution and then when the limits went away, they failed to increase transparency.
This is a big problem. All the big money donors are now hiding all their donations with shell corporations, 501(c)(3)s, and other games. Want to know where the billionaires are spending their lobbying & campaign money? Good luck. We now have neither much in terms of limits OR transparency.

But I guess I won't get a response due to banning (which I don't think was from this thread).
 
If the news that MH17's black box was captured by the pro-Russion rebels is true, then it's already in Moscow and we've got another international crisis on our hands.
 
Do you know what post did him in? I know he was posting in the plane thread but I'm not sure what got him.

had to have been in the plane thread, he was intentionally being a dick. I doubt its permanent.

You can go to 'other sources' to see what happened. I'm sure he's posted there.
 
If the news that MH17's black box was captured by the pro-Russion rebels is true, then it's already in Moscow and we've got another international crisis on our hands.

It won't be an international crisis. There is far to much info from them to hide. There are eyewitnesses, sat. photos, radar, signit, etc.

We'll see some good drama in the SC though with the US or Ukraine presenting evidence.
 
Bsxas4tCIAAoWda.png
 

Retro

Member

Gotta love the names they come up with for these. Stay tuned for....
"Fellow Republicans, Immediately Enact Non-stop Deportation of Latino Youths" (FRIENDLY),
"Pledge to Obstruct Liberal Ideology Till Eternity" (POLITE)
and my personal favorite,
Bill to Encourage the Abuse, Repression and Harassment of Uppity Gays (BEARHUG)
A bit of a stretch, but Elected a Minority? Purge Amendment THirteen, Y'all! (EMPATHY) is a good one too.

What's he doing there, visiting a screen door factory?

I-495 has been shut down for emergency repairs since June, some of the support columns are cracked or leaning. He's using it to drum up support for infrastructure.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
That Todd Akin interview was pretty amusing. He seems to miss the point completely about why his stupid comments created a firestorm to begin with. Then he points out some of his campaign staffers were children of rape, which undermines his original idiotic assertion. Then he claims that he never said he believed that women wouldn't get pregnant through rape, only to follow that up minutes later with saying that there are studies which prove that he was right after all. Finally, he (almost grudgingly) concedes that the threat of death to the mother is the only instance where he would be okay with abortion.

If the Dems were smart, they'd wrap Akin around every Republican running in the midterms. Ask every single one of them if they agree with him on rape/abortion or not.

Well, most libertarians and hard right Tea Partiers are capitalists of course, but they think it's the government that creates things like economic bubbles and monopolies in areas like telecommunications. Basically that capitalism is awesome and the only reason it sucks is because of big gubmint.

Libertarians tend to oppose corporate welfare. That's the only thing that comes to mind in terms of populist views of theirs.

Like this? See also right-wing complaints about crony capitalism, such as this.



Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell offers a different kind of populism.

The Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard also casts intellectuals as among the elites working against the common good.

These are just examples off the top of my head.

I was never too impressed with the libertarian idea of being against corporate welfare. Sure, in a way it might seem less shitty than the corporatocracy that Republicans currently support, but not by much. The problem that you have is that it really doesn't do much to help the non-wealthy.
 
Watching msnbc at the gym....


Plane getting shot down by Russia is called an accident, not a terrorist attack.

Israel is "moving" into Gaza, not invading.

Liberal media they say?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Also, too. What is up with all the pundits talking about the Republican "civil war" when it comes to foreign policy? One one side you have nearly every Republican agreeing with the neocon mindset. On the other side you have...Rand Paul.

Come on, now.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Also, too. What is up with all the pundits talking about the Republican "civil war" when it comes to foreign policy? One one side you have nearly every Republican agreeing with the neocon mindset. On the other side you have...Rand Paul.

Come on, now.

So, Rand Paul is the "freedom fighter" in this war?
 
It won't be an international crisis. There is far to much info from them to hide. There are eyewitnesses, sat. photos, radar, signit, etc.

We'll see some good drama in the SC though with the US or Ukraine presenting evidence.

Ultimately what can be done though? It's not like we're going to escalate military strikes. Which is why I couldn't help but shake my head at the various "they will pay for this" tough talk going on right now. Who will pay, when, how?
 
Ultimately what can be done though? It's not like we're going to escalate military strikes. Which is why I couldn't help but shake my head at the various "they will pay for this" tough talk going on right now. Who will pay, when, how?

I completely agree. There was a lot of russia needs to pay, lets intervene now in the original thread.

Its ludicrous. Of course Russia can act with relative impunity, Their a world power and they can do this without major pentalty. Right or wrong.

I think this does put political pressure on Russia but it will be Russia that decides to deescalate. The west doesn't have the will to punish russia, in any real way. Of course the rhetoric is for domestic consumption. The PR is what will hurt Russia, not military action or any real sanctions.
 

Diablos

Member
Krystal Ball clearly was not even paying attention to the prank caller, figured what a legit caller would have said and was just reading the script.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom