Obviously he's trying to do damage control to what's left of his reputation by claiming he 'mispoke.' He's another holy roller conservative who's all in for the rights of the unborn, but then...once born, you're on your own, no social perograms, no education department, etc. Lucky for us, all these broing old white guys will be dying out soon.

The Department of Education is a colossal failure, yet you think you need it. When someone wants to get rid of the DOE, it means they are FOR improving education & putting control of our schools back into our communities, where it was when we were tops in the world.
Save the whales, polar bears & dolphin eggs, but to heck with protecting human lives, that's a right. This isn't about women, or their rights.

PS - Pointing out that he's white doesn't make him a racist, it makes YOU one. Racism goes both ways. Calling someone a bigot, makes you one by definition. Just remember that.
Speaking of which, do you think that the Reverend Martin Luther King would have been FOR abortion? It doesn't really seem like it would be too consistant with his religious beliefs either, so, I don't think race has anything to do with it, but thank you for bringing it up.

Define "legitimate rape"!!!!!!!!! Are you kidding me????

To hear you talk Doug, you make it sound like it's the child's fault. How does killing the child make the rape go away?

Devon it's not a child until it's born.

Symantics. Give me one example where abortion was not performed and a child wasn't the result. It's still human. It's like saying a corn-stalk isn't corn until there are ears. It's a bogus justification for taking a human life. That's it.

You are so right...how can anyone with half a brain believe that a woman's body possesses magical physical powers to ward off a pregnancy after being raped? What he likely means is it's the woman's fault...she's probably a slut and deep down part of her wanted to be raped. This is definitely NOT a religious man as he claims to be...a religious man would promote people programs and champion the rights of the poor and disabled, not be a yes man for big business, like Akin so clearly is. He was a bush yes man for 8 years...look how badly bush ruined our country and this knucklehead promotes the same failed policies bush dragged us down with before.

the god of big business...he's toast

It's clear you're not all that intelligent. One doctor saying something that millions of doctors disagree with doesn't make it a fact--it makes it a personal agenda.

She quoted a doctor, you made an asinine claim. Feel free to produce those millions of doctors statements that say that stress & emotion don't effect a woman's menstrual cycle.
Also, feel free to find a doctor that states that if there isn't an abortion, that tissue will turn into something besides a human.

That's interesting. I hope you can provide a link to that original source. I'd love to see it. What I think is interesting in Akin's statement is that he is unclear about where he "misspoke." Was it the assertion that there is such a thing as "legitimate rape"? Or the assertion that certain "kinds" of rape mitigate the likelihood of pregnancy? Or both?

your comment is, like Akin, misleading if not downright false. "With proper treatment" means if the victim gets IMMEDIATE medical care by a Sexual Abuse Response Team, there is a chance a pregnancy may be avoided...the female body does not have that ability...you watch too many cartoon movies I guess. This leads to another problem for your misguided hero Akin...this numbuts is on TV proudly asserting his wish to defund planned parenthood, where 97% of their business is helping young people plan for, and keep, their babies when they discover they're pregnant. He is a bush and big business whore...if you aren't rich, you're voting against your interests by voting for this obviously dumb and unrelgious man. If Christ were walking the earth now, would he defund PP? cut medicaid? call education assistance stage 3 cancer? how do you people constantly miss the boat with those phonies??

You are really parsing there Rich. The rarity comment (though callous in Akin's use) is not what's causing the uproar. The Planned Parenthood's reference as you posted is not relevant.

Kurt, it looks like Rich Pope lifted the statement from http://www.inplainsite.org/html/abortion_and_rape.html without attribution. The website he stole it from clearly has a religious based agenda, I don't think it would normally be considered a reliable source of true medical information.

Probably Dr. Phil.

Can we also then judge the competency of the entire Democratic party on the statements of Rep. Hank Johnson who brought his concern to the floor that the number of military personnel on the island of Guam might cause the island to capsize? Or how about this little gem from President Clinton.."African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do"??

Yes, Elizabeth -politicians have said a lot of really dumb things.

How about the one that said "The heart of Liberalism really is a hatred of God?" ....wonder who that was?

I don't think it's too hard to find liberals hating "godly views" even on this stream. Abortion is a liberally defended idea. The accounts we have of "God" indicate that he would be against it. I can recall other streams like the bill protecting prayer that would indicate the same thing, and likely with a few seconds of research, I could find some more examples just on this website. Seems like whoever said it was onto something.

And yet, ironically, Devon, if the accounts of what Jesus Christ said and did in the Bible are to be believed, it is apparent that if he were around today he would be considered an extreme radical left-wing liberal! He would be crucified again, this time by the conservatives who would find his "give all your money to the poor" stance to be much too "anti-business".

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. You think Jesus would be FOR abortion? You think he would be for forcing churches to pay for something that goes against everything they believe? Like MLK, I guess, he would be for creating dependents on the system, that was the equality he was looking for and described? Not even close.

Come on Earl, you know I respect you, but trying to act like liberals are the ones who are persecuted in this day & age is just a victim-play. I haven't seen anyone on here ripping the asinine things that Obama, Biden, Pelosi, or even Claire say. They NEVER become a 3+ day dragging story like this one.
Claiming you are the 'Messiah' these days may get you put into an institution, but would not likely cause you to be pubicly executed.
Jesus was not about "give all your money to the poor", when did he ever tell people to give all their money to the poor? He didn't. He was about helping others, and was for giving 10% to the church, and faith in Him, not faith in a government that takes WAY more than 10%.
For instance, Zacheus was reprimanded, visited by Jesus, and LOVED, after habitually over-taxing people. He eventually saw the error in his ways, and how it was the WRONG thing to do. So, he stopped screwing over the taxpayers because it was a dishonest way to make a living. On that, he may visit liberals' homes, but would have quite a significant disagreement with those folks doing the same thing with our tax dollars today.

You ask "when did he ever tell people to give all their money to the poor?".

How about Matthew 19:21: Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.", or Luke 18:22: When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."?

Now it seems you are unfamiliar with what he actually said and that surprises me Devon, I thought you were smarter than that. Seriously, I'm not even a Christian (not that that matters) and it took me like 20 seconds to look this up!

LOL! When asked how his followers would be recognized, Jesus said "by our love". Not something that many Christians can be recognized by since then...

I am not a Christian. I do support the right for women to end their pregnancy. And I do not support the use of the death penalty by the state. Confusing enough?

So, he said to follow Him, not the government right?
With Him the material things would mean nothing. Does it say in there that they should give their money to the government for "redistribution"? No. Does he say that the government should take their wealth from them, or did he mean that they should voluntarily give away their wealth? It sounds like they got to choose where that money would go. If I recall correctly, those He was speaking to, were asking how they could gain more wealth, and Jesus (not wanting them to 'use' Him in that way) said that to them to make them understand that coveting someone else's money for themselves would not bring them happiness or "real" treasure. That the 'real' treasure was in heaven, not in the acquisition of wealth.
It was about following Christ & the ways of God, not about legislating that everyone give their wealth to the government entity of the day so they could make them go against His teachings whether they agreed with it or not.
I'll give it to you, many Christians need to step back from the "judgement" they often pass when they should know, that's not what Christ was about either, in fact, I think we can show that He was very clearly against it.

I'm wondering if Tamara has that same love for the unborn as she does for those who were not denied birth.

I think Jesus was telling people not to covet, but to follow Him. I believe He was teaching that you can't do both. And that if you went the way of His teachings, you would no longer need to covet to find treasure.

RDBet, I agree. Wow - I am ashamed for him and I have never, ever supported him. To in anyway try and spin his statements as anything other than what they are is as ignorant as he is.

Elizabeth, there is a time to distinquish between a gaffe, and an extremist ideology that Akin is unable to contain. Thus his statements.

Elizabeth, this was no gaffe. And if you don't agree with him, stand up and say it. This kind of ignorance in this day and age is an embarrassment to any adult. Republicans I have talked with are horrified by his beliefs. And be clear, these are his beliefs.

Yes Elizabeth.
Haven't you ever read these threads? ONLY Reps make dumb statements. They are also the only ones pointed out on here. That's why it's always you having to provide facts to the factless as you defend your independent thought & reason against their programmed rhetorical attacks. They missed Obama's statement a week or two ago, as you can tell from RD's response. They likely missed Biden's apparently also.
I don't know what history he's looking at while he represents the party that brought you the Klan, but when I look back through history, I can easily find more governments that put people in chains than I can businesses. Is there a different history I'm missing? Maybe those guys in the 30's, you know, the only people who were allowed to have guns, the guys with the red, white, & black arm-bands, maybe he's right, they may have just been businessmen. Entreprenuers, maybe?. No, it was businessmen, the wealthy, that they were vilifying & hauling away, and telling their goose-steppers it was because those people owed their wealth to their country. Like Biden. Geez.

"Those who don't learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
- Edmund Burke

"Anyone under 30 that is a Conservative, has no heart. Anyone who is a Liberal over 30, has no brain."
- Winston Churchill

Devin, Churchill said that when there were still people leading the GOP who had brains. The 21st Century GOP bears no resemblance to the GOP of Churchill's days. Yet, even then, I would take FDR over Churchill any day.

No, he was talking about Liberals who think the government can & should take care of everybody.
Just to clarify some of the basic differences in philosophy:
Conservatives believe in the system that has worked better than any in history & think we should return to it.
Liberals believe that making government bigger & controlling everything to provide for everyone is not only necessary (when it isn't) but possible (which it also isn't). They believe in that idea, even though it's proven ONLY to fail throughout the entire history of the world.
Liberals believe everyone is accountable to a government that isn't & that everything that belongs to you is theirs to distribute. Anything you have, you only got because they allowed you to get it. And if they get their way, it'll be true.
Liberals want you to believe that your money is theirs, Conservatives want to remind you it's the other way around.
Conservatives believe that what you make is yours & know that an economy only comes around when the people spend & business thrives.
Liberals believe that everything gets better, the more of your money they take/spend & that we are too stupid to decide how to spend our own money ourselves.
Liberals praise themselves for providing a fish, then tell you that anyone that wants to build ponds instead is just trying to take away that fish.
FDR provided fish at the expense of everyone. It's the Liberals that refuse to realize that the government has to take before it can give.

Devon:

1. Name a single Republican President that has ever reduced government spending.

2. Rational Conservatives, or even as the economist Robert Frank would say, "Rational Libertarians" know there is a cost to everything. Everything. There is a cost to not doing something and there is a cost to doing something.

If done correctly, by having a system that provides fish to those who need the most eventually increases productivity and lowers the need to provide fish. Even if some people spend their whole life living on government provided fish, it costs less than many of the alternatives.

In FDR and Churchills Time, the highest marginal tax rate was in the 90% range in America. The middle-class thrived and the wealthy still had their vacation homes, private jets, yachts, and world-wide vacations. Conservatives like talk a lot about going back to the 50s, in this case, I agree.

3. I think he's full of it, but the Quaker Parker Palmer talks about Jesus and how he fed the masses fish. He says he likely didn't literally, magically create enough fish and bread for everyone. He says that through his leadership he had shown how if everyone would just stop and share what they had, everyone would have enough. And through this he was able to feed the masses with supposedly "limited resources."

I'm not a libertarian anymore than I am a liberal, but the government is already so big it can't sustain itself. Giving it more taxes & dependents is how you got here, not how you fix it.
Reagan. He reduced "government" immensely. He lowered taxes as well. Whether he ran a "deficit", I don't know, but I'm sure it wasn't $41,120/sec.
If you build a pond or lake, no one has to provide the fish, plenty are now readily available for everyone, even those who would no longer "need it most".
If their aren't enough people providing, there isn't going to be enough to share unless Jesus is there. In that scenario, he may have simply led them to a lake also. If there isn't enough for a few, sharing wouldn't create enough for thousands. So I'm with you, I don't buy that theory either.
Some believe in miracles, some try to justify them, we just don't know. Knowing the Bible as I do, I think to get some good out of it, I would say the story's "moral" lesson is often a more viable thing to look at than how "literal" it may be.
Either way, more to the people, means fewer have to be provided for. Perpetuating poverty only to be it's savior makes zero sense. To tax away jobs to pay for dependents, only leads to more dependents & the APPEARANCE of the need to hit-up those that hire (or provide that lake/pond) again. Fewer providers for more dependents only leads to smaller & smaller portions for everyone. It can only end badly. Let's try ways to get folks OFF the suckle. Not put them ON.

Devon, not only did Churchill never say that, it is quite unlikely to be something he would even agree with since he was a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35. Don't take my word for it, but I'll assume the word of the Winston Churchill Center shall be be good enough:
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/myths/myths/quotes-falsely-attributed-to-him
The fact that you then proceed to argue several large paragraphs about "Churchill"'s point, when it is so easily fact-checked to be not even from him, makes me wonder how carefully you think before you click that "Submit" button.

First, I doubt very seriously that Churchill started that website. There is some debate as to who said it first. There is also some debate as to whether Churchill said it, but it is highly attributed to him. He was also a Conservative again by his mid-late 40's. By many accounts, he changed to Liberal because that's the way people were voting, when he didn't get elected, he went back to his original party.

Again, you can question me all you want, but you know you can't, with a straight face, accuse me of not doing my homework. That's how I know things that you have claimed in the past to be "laughable" when they were accurate. Like when Liberals try to act like MLK would be for ANY (let alone all) of their agendas, when the people liberals rag-on regularly are the "religious fanatic" Baptist ministers. Abortion is just one of the perfect examples of where he would STRONGLY disagree.
The fact that I have to explain all this stuff to you, calls into question your research & interpretation skills, as well as your motives for presenting only bits & pieces of a point. Have you ever thought about working in the media? They'd love you.

Devon: "First, I doubt very seriously that Churchill started that website."

Devon, I'm going to start calling you Sherlock Holmes because you're so brilliant. I think we found something we actually agree on! You see, I'm inclined to agree with your brilliant leap of logic since CHURCHILL DIED IN 1965 and the web as we know it didn't exist until more than 25 years later.

That's the smartest thing I've ever seen you write Devon, congratulations!

Thanks, I never know what to do with myself until you validate me. I always feel smarter when you explain my sentences back to me with reciprocal sarcasm.
You know the feeling, it’s like how you always seem to feel smarter after you try & distract us all with another transparent, failed attempt to discredit the person in lieu of addressing the point.
I hear MSNBC is hiring.

Did you actually think that was a genuine Churchill quote? It doesn't even sound like his phrasing or anything. You still seem to think it is.

Who is it attributed to more than Churchill?
Again, I noted that there is debate, but what you can't debate, is that it has often been applied to him throughout the years, (more than anyone else I can find) whether accurately or not.
Likely, even if he said it, he got it from somewhere else and didn't make it up, especially since there are several variations of the same quote.

Man, I love discussing this stuff with you! (Most of the time, at least, and that's 100% sincere, 0% sacrasm)
I really do, I enjoy the stuffing out of it.

Sorry I didn't get the accent right. hehe
(now you can consider THAT sarcastic if you like)

Bill, you don't have a government by & for the people now. Thinking you do is going to be your goose-stepping down-fall.
Godly ways are evil? Liberal ways are better, and NEVER impose themselves on people? I love it, everytime people try to impose their views on you, they always try to do it in the name of attempting to keep someone else from imposing their views.
Yes, yes, again with the corporate masters BS.
George Soros, Warren Buffet, David Geffen, AIG, Goldmann Sachs, GM, Chrysler, the Unions, All of Hollywood, All of the News Media, the Green Scam, the Music Industry.... and then some, that's who took your money and owns your current administration. They all seem like pretty big corporate entities to me.
It's the biggest misconception there is, but it works on the small-minded. Whenever you repeat it, you embarass yourself.

Mr. Seddon. Your comment is right on although I can not believe that Elmore has the ability to understand your insight.

@Bill Elmore: I take issue with that ridiculous generality, as it is in the vein as liberal Democrats always accuse us of making.

I am a republican and I most certainly do not want "by and for the people" to go away. What I want is for the liberals in this country to stop giving people so many ways to be lazy and dependent, instead of making them pull their sorry arses up by their bootstraps and WORK for what they want, which would give them INdependence, pride and make our country better and stronger, like it used to be. Many of the social programs we have today are out of control because people have become lazy, too "good" to flip burgers or whatever to make the bills. It's easier to sit on their bums and let the bleeding-heart liberals send them a check every month for doing nothing.

As for the other part of your ridiculous assertion, there are many of us who don't push our "Godly" views on anyone else, and we expect others to not push their "unGodly" views on us.

I have no clue what you are talking about there Elizabeth, (but I have a feeling I am about to find out.)

Please, keep your junk science to yourself, and if you are a woman, you really should ask yourself why you are defending a misogynist like Akin. He's a sexist disgrace, and defending him is equally sexist and disgraceful.

Gina- are you a doctor?

It is logicial that there would be factors that would make rape pregnancies rarer than consensual sex, however your example may be a bit premature.

You can peruse the various documentations of rape/forced impregnation used as a form of genocide/ethnic cleansing during wars. (Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc.). Are those rapes legitmate? Are those women consenting?

I realize that is an extreme example, but sadly that is the only sort of example extremists can remotely understand.

@Gina—Perhaps a diagram will help make your point: http://i46.tinypic.com/2vds586.jpg

Are you for real? Do you really think this is true???? Please, please, educated yourself on rape and on conception, please! A woman being raped doesn't move her body??? This has to be a troll.

Gina, it sounds like you have a problem with the GOP candidate for president as well, who says Akin's comments were"inexcusable, insulting, offensive and frankly wrong".

This ridiculous comment by Akin, along with his "Liberalism really is a hatred for God" statement are more than regrettable - they indicate an extreme ideology that is an embarrassment to Missouri -and counterproductive to government.

I know that the Senate seat is important -especially with the partisan politics of the day. I also honestly believe there's a chance Akin may not be as extreme as his comments reflect. However, this country is being torn apart by politicians that cater to the few, the wealthy, and the fringe. At some point you have to decide to distance yourself from these politicians, even if they are your tribal party of choice.

I don't know much about Brunner, but it is encouraging (albeit slight) to see a few conservative voices lament Akin as potential Missouri senator. Though, I suspect the political machinery (big outstate campaign donations) will not slow down for Akin.

I have a problem with our system, which makes such idiotic back-pedaling necessary. No one can stand up for what they said, or meant, anymore. Anything you say can and will be used against you in our current political system.

Personally, I don't believe that Akin meant to convey the message that his ill-chosen wording sent. I think we, as a people, have lost our ability to give anyone the benefit of doubt. We are too busy knee-jerking our way through life.

Our world today moves so fast, and the majority of the country comes from generations where we didn't always have instant everything. Some of us actually like to take the time to think and respond, as opposed to reacting on emotion, but this brave new world (to borrow) we live in and it's new generation of instant-and-always-on people, will not slow down for us to do that... and THAT is what scares the hell out of me for my country's future.

No Gina, what is scary for this country's future is the extremist ideology of Akin as evidenced by his comments, and the number of people in outright agreement with him, and/or willing to still support him out of party allegiance.

@RDBet... Akin's extremist ideology scares you more than Obama's? Seriously? And, of course, voting your party allegiance is much worse than voting for whoever Oprah tells you she's voting for. I suppose, then, that you also have a problem with every little old lady who's voted a straight democrat ticket for the last 50 years, too, then?

You are wrong. That is not a biological fact. And I did read what you wrote. It is beyond ridiculous. Please go now and educated yourself - this is being widely reported on all news sources and the science is being clearly explained. Read all you can for your own health and for the health of all the women you love.

I hope he complies. Akin has been in place far too long. New blood is needed and Brunner is not a bad choice.

Right on!

Intresting how you label those who dont agree with you as "morons" Is that the republican way of thinking or have you "misspoken"
?

@James W. I believe that many conservatives are getting fed up with the one-way street we're being forced to live on. Where the liberals are closed-mouthed and short-memoried about their own side's flat-out failings, while vehemently and in some cases violently reacting to any mis-step, real or perceived, on our side.

I belong to a few different communities where politics is debated, as do most people here, I'm sure. A major difference that I see between the liberals and conservatives is that the real conservatives (NOT the ultra-religious right, who behave more like liberals than conservatives, online anyway) are willing to debate just about anything, but the liberals they're trying to debate with just degenerate into name-calling and personal attacks without ever really "debating."

I can't disagree with William that eventually the liberals are going to make a move so large and so outrageous that there will be an uprising of conservatives, which will, in my opinion, probably led by the hotter, ultra-conservatives. We're heading toward a situation where the cooler heads won't even be heard, let alone prevail.

Gina, Akin did not misspeak. He co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape in 2011. It's exactly what he believes.

@Karl Frank - I'm finding 11 bills co-sponsored by Akin that have the word "rape" and/or "abortion" in them, but a text search of all 11 finds nothing returned for "rape" and "define," "definition." Can you give me the bill number, so I can read it?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion

You really shouldn't be talking about "low I.Q." people, given your comments. Do you even know what a "Socialist Country" is? And you're claiming that the president, born in HAWAII, is a "Kenya Native"? Seriously, look in the mirror and stop projecting your inadequacies on others. You need help, Sir, and swiftly!

HEY FOLKS, READ E. WITZEN'S COMMENT BELOW AND YOU WILL FIND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A LOW I.Q., DEMOCRAT. AFTER THE REPUBLICAN LANDSLIDE VICTORY IN NOVEMBER MR. WETZEN, AND OTHERS LIKE HIM WILL DIG A NEW HOME AND WE WILL NOT HEAR FROM HIM,THEM UNTIL 2016.

William, since you seem to be so hung up on this whole "extremely low IQ" rant, I have to ask: is there a reason you haven't mastered the SHIFT key on the computer?

Are you saying because he has 2 daughters, he should be FOR taking the life of the innocent? That's just you thinking with your emotions, and assuming that others do the same.
People always talk about the rights of the woman, but what if that aborted child is female? Where are those do-gooders who are always trying to fight for the rights of those who can't defend themselves or provide for themselves? How do they constantly miss on this one? Maybe by pretending that it's not a human growing in there? I think, if I'm not mistaken, that if allowed to continue it's natural progression, it will turn into a human almost every time. Sometimes though, it turns into a liberal that would've likely killed it, thinking that because if it's small enough, it's not REALLY a human. That's enlightenment for you.

Devon Seddon -
Did I write that, "because he has 2 daughters, he should be FOR taking the life"?
No, I did not - but you knew that...
I wrote that I wondered what he would tell his two daughters in the event they were in that terrible situation: "your body will take care of it." - but you knew that...
I did not recommend or espose abortion - but you knew that.
Climb down from your high horse and reread my comment.

First, that was a question. So re-read my comment before you attribute something that isn't there.
From your comment, it clearly appeared that you were trying to inject emotion into the issue. You acted like his view of who should be punished for the heinous act would change if it were his daughters, but you knew that.

This is not a redefinition of rape, but if it were, how would it be any different than trying to redefine marriage?

Simple Devon. Marriage is a consensual act between two people.

I didn't ask the difference in meaning or definition.
The issue you stated was trying to redefine a word.
It's not different at all, you're ok with redefining one word to fit liberal "religious dogma", but not another.

I don't care about redefining a word. I care about the morality of it. Ryan and Akin's attempt to redefine rape to eliminate various kinds of rape was offensively immoral. I explain this clearly in the article.

Thanks for the link, Karl. I still have to agree with Devon. I also see this as yet another liberal attempt to create more chaos to cloud the issues in an attempt to keep the dems from losing all control in our government this November.

Why doesn't anyone want to talk about the pregnancy rate, which between 2000-2009, rose to between 40-50 per 1,000. Without that rate, we wouldn't be talking about abortion at all, and it's not due to rape, it's due to the serious lack of parenting going on in our society today.

I'm not sure he "eliminated various types of rape". I think he's saying the punishment should belong to the criminal, and quoted a doctor that referenced that 'pregnancy resulting from rape' percentages are low, and cited the extremely elevated stress-levels as having an effect on a woman's cycle, and potentially being a reason for that. (I'm pretty sure he's trying to keep me from paying for it too, though, or the subject likely wouldn't have come up.)
I don't like how he put it, "legitimate-rape", because that makes it sound like some rape is not legitimate, and that if you got pregnant, then obviously you weren't raped. I highly doubt that's what he meant but it makes for good fodder, and I know that's not what small percentage means.
Personally, I'm for eliminating ALL rape, but there are too many out there who would balk at an "actual" deterrent (one could argue - defending those same rapists in the process) but that's a different topic.
There are those out there who believe abortion (even though legal) is in itself immoral, that's where the debate is.

Karl Frank, is now inserting the worst possible argument, LIES, Paul Ryan has NEVER EVER attempted to " redefine rape ". Like all democrats Frank intertwines a deliberate Lie to a statement made by Akins to cast a shadow on another Republican knowing that this is the way that all democrats are operating.

William, if you read the story, I cite my sources. Paul Ryan indeed to redefine rape in ways that would have eliminated rapes such as statutory rape, like a 13 year old getting impregnated by a 28 year old, or Rapes that occur via drugs or intoxication, or Rapes that occur over a period of 24 years like that of the victim Elizabeth Fritzel, where fighting it eventually becomes a lost cause and is no longer "forced" but rather a lot in an unfortunate life.

Karl Frank Jr. Dear Junior, let us see your " proof ". Was it a quote from obama or biden ? You listen to trash then try to make it sound truthful in your writings.
Mr. Ryan is Catholic and I am a Lutheran and neither of our Doctrines sanctify RAPE in any form.

William, again, I cite the source in the story. I don't know what your particular brand of superstition has to do with anything, but I presume then that you are also.against the death penalty?

Gina, I switched to using my screen name, RegalT62. All my posts should now be under that name.

Ah, thanks Tamara! :)

I find it sad that in just about every election we have now, we're choosing the "least bad" of two or three something-or-others? I'm sure many of you on here remember a time when you were excited to vote for your candidate.

Gina:
You are correct, but--I also remember a time when the Federal Government provided only the Roads, and bridges and Defense comfort to this country.

over 75% of Americans (That's 210Mil people) already have Health Insurance.
The Government (And McCaskill) have shown me that they are on track to make this country (ALL THE SAME in what we earn and eat and living styles).
That is what McCaskill has voted for. That is not what I want in the future.
She has literally inferred all Missourians are "ignorant" and do not understand her votes. Well I do, and that is why I want someone who does not advocate controlling our lives.

PETE AND GINA, GREAT COMMENTS. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT obama PROMISED TO THE DEMOCRAT MEMBERS IN CONGRESS BUT THEY SEEN TO BOW TO EACH OF HIS COMMANDS. I HAVE SEEN FAR TOO MANY PICTURES OF McCASKILL STARING AT obama WITH THAT COME HITHER LOOK. ALL POLITICIANS COME OUT OF OFFICE VERY WEALTHY SO THEY WOULD NORMALLY HAVE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF MONEY TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM IN ORDER TO REDISTRIBUTE TO LAY AROUND, DO NOTHING INNERCITY obamas. ACCORDING TO obama THESE PEOPLE EARNED THE RIGHT TO BE ON AN EQUAL PLANE WITH THOSE THAT GET UP EACH MORNING AND GO TO WORK. THEY SHOULD ENJOY NEW CARS, LARGE HOMES AND POCKETS FULL OF MONEY. OF COURSE THE CARS AND HOMES ARE FOR DESTRUCTION THE MONEY TO GIVE THEM A FEELING OF EQUALITY.

I so agree, Norm. That is why I'm so confused that anyone would be against contraception and the "morning-after" bill which PREVENTS a pregnancy. For some people, like fundamental Catholics, they would not want to prevent pregnancy and that is certainly their choice. I would never want someone forced to prevent pregnancy and ordered to use contraceptives. But the dogmatic, "my way is the only way" approach won't and should be applied in our diverse world.

karl,
I could give you an outline of what he thought of taking human life, but I know that to some folks on here, the living tissue that will become a human, isn't human, yet they can't seem to tell me how it's only the aborted ones that would apparently turn into something else.

Although I am not a Christian and I cannot pretend to speak for them or their church(es), I can easily see how your statements could be offensive to them and to their faith, Robert E. In a way, almost as offensive as Terrible Todd's original "legitimate rape" statement. I'm not sure if that was your intent.

If I understand the story correctly, Mary's pregnancy was some sort of "miracle". Perhaps a religious person more familiar with the teachings than I would care to set you straight, as it were?

HERE WE ARE AGAIN EARL, THAT LOW I.Q., THINGY AGAIN. HAVE ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS OR MATES READ ROBERT E INPUT " IF YOU THINK A WOMAN CAN'T.... " SORRY ROBERT BUT MARY WAS NOT RAPED, GOD SENT AN ANGEL TO EXPLAIN THE WHOLE STORY TO HER AND SHE AGREED
OH YES EARL I REALLY DO NOT CARE IF MY LACK OF USING THE SHIFT KEY BOTHERS YOU OR NOT. YOU WRITE YOU COMMENTS JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE AND I'LL USE THE SHIFT WHEN EVER. YOU SEE, YOU FEEL VERY SAFE FOLLOWING EVERYONE ELSE, LESS YOU BE TEASED AND IF TEASED YOUR TEARS WILL FLOW.

William, I definitely don't mean to belittle or pick on you in any way if you have a learning disability or if English is not your first language. But to be perfectly honest, I'm having a lot of trouble making any sense out of that whole thing you just typed in. Were you trying to be understood? If so, I'm afraid I don't follow.

Let's go over this again real quick because you've severely misinterpreted. Don't worry, it's not your fault. Obama acted like he didn't understand too.
The "stage three cancer" comment was about the government. It was a comment on the government take-over of student loans (a very similar, but more extreme type of thing than they did with home loans that effectively crashed the entire housing market) & that it was government infestation that was a the levels of "stage three cancer". He didn't call student loans that, he was talking about pulling those loans out of the private sector, into government control (& manipulation), taking them out of the economy in the process (a step further than they went with home loans).
As far as the school lunch program & the scare tactics that are always used (like Medicare & Social Security) make you think that Conservatives want to take those things away. They don't & it's rediculous to think they do. They want to make them fiscally responsible & sustainable, so they will be around in 20 years. They would like to allow companies to compete for employees & market-share again to make those government handouts less necessary instead of more. Simple: When more people are employed, fewer need those programs, lowering the need for government involvement, that is WELL-beyond "stage three cancer". That's why they made you think it was about student loans. So you didn't see what it was really about. You can even say that's crazy, but it worked.

Mr. Holt, the vast majority of those who took out student loans have never paid back the entire loan amount. What would you call it when our Tax money is handed out and no real expectations of ever getting it back so to loan to the next person in need. If one can stall for 20 years the loan is forgiven and our Tax Dollars are gone and must be replaced. The government needs to go after these dead beats and demand payback immediately or throw them in jail with Bubba for stealing our Tax money. This just might get other thieves to begin re-paying their debt.

William, you need to quit making up things! It would've taken you like 20 seconds to find out the truth, but instead you write lies like "the vast majority of those who took out student loans have never paid back the entire loan amount". I don't know if you are truly ignorant or just hoping your word is taken as gospel.

The REAL truth is that student loan default rates have never exceeded 23%, and if we are talking about the most recent decade, they hover more in the 4% to 9% range. Okay William? The overwhelming majority of student loans are paid back in full. Source: http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/defaultrates.html
The world is not out to get you William, so please just calm down, and stick to real facts in this thread.

I think such misinformation gets spread around when people only rely on one source for news. It is important to correct the misinformation - and bring people back to reality. Those who rely on Fox News, or only on MSNBC for that matter are only getting a skewed, very unbalanced view. Seek multiple sources of info - listen to all views and then use your own critical thinking skills to figure out the true issue.

That's right, however, giving them a fish is not help. Providing the means for them to regularly get their own fish is how you FIX it, instead of perpetuate the problem. Collecting from everyone, or taking from the people who provide lakes & ponds to try & "assist" those needy, is only creating MORE needy. Putting MORE people out of work & on to that needy list, resulting in MORE burden on the state to provide MORE fish, which they have to do for these folks everyday. The goal is to minimize the number who need that assistance, not continuing down the same the road of creating more needy.
You did a great job recognizing that there are needy out there, but you failed to look at what put them there.

Well Gary,
Here's the scariest difference to me: When student loans were in the public-sector, I don't recall SWAT-teams ever being used in attempt to collect those debts from folks "who have (3) young kids who need help", but there are examples of it happening with "government" student loans.
There are reports that try to justify this activity by saying claiming "fraud". Ok, but since when did SWAT-teams take over the job of the judicial court-system? Plus, how much do 15 officers cost for 6+ hours? They likely wasted as much money as they were trying to collect. In addition, just like the Fair Housing Regulatory Act, this program hands out these loans to nearly anyone who applies, whether they will ever be able to pay it back or not. This causes more & more of these "fraud" cases to rise to the surface. Ex: a South Carolina woman was sentenced for filing 23 fraudulent applications & spending more than $120,000 in student aid. She was able to accomplish this miraculous feat while doing time in a correctional facility. This costs tax-payers who also may have young kids, and now need that very help they gave the SC woman.
Once again, they created the very problem themselves, so then they decide, they will try & collect them just as you would in a police-state. It also begs the question: Where were they going to take that person, Debtors' Prison?

For someone named PaulRevere, you sure don't know much about how the founding fathers envisioned democracy in our fledgling nation! You say "It is time to Stop sending our money to support public schools. It is wrong to Force society to Pay for public Education and yet suggest we are free to choose private school. "

Actually, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, and others of that era, would not have given you the freedom to go to private school. They wanted public school to be not just widely available but mandatory, for a variety of somewhat complicated reasons beyond the scope of this page, but which you will be delighted to learn are easily found online. To whit http://minnieapolis.newsvine.com/_news/2011/09/11/7717017-founding-fathers-on-the-importance-of-public-education and http://notschool.blogspot.com/2005/04/founding-fathers-on-public-schooling.html . Seriously, the Internet is a wonderful tool, educate yourself!

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” -- Thomas Jefferson

PaulRevere is serious. An obvious goal of the tea party is to undermine public education. Dismantle a public asset (education system) and privatize it. Apparantly they view public education as liberalism and you know what his idol Akin has said about Liberalism.

If any good comes out of this Akin thing, it has shed a light on how extreme the Right-Wing has gone.

Higgins: We are a "Republic" not a democracy.
Jefferson,Rush,and "some" others---DO NOT REPRESENT THE 75% of those people who thought otherwise, as they chose to locally morally educate their children and PAY for it however they were free to choose.

You say "They wanted P.S. to be widely available and Mandatory."
That is exactly what this country has today.
Forcing ALL people to mandatorily PAY for public school is NOT a choice.

So, Jefferson,Rush etc (a.k.a. Our Government) GOT WHAT THEY WANTED.
A society then , and now FORCED TO PAY FOR An EDUCATION that is corrupting "moral" mindset. At prohibitive costs!
They DID take away our education choice freedom.
So, if you suggest that "Jeff-Rush" HAD the "Regime power " to take away the freedom of education choice, I agree with you. They DID!
They were good hearted enough to allow exceptions to private schools? you are 100% wrong. A tax takes freedom away.
They (by constitution) had no powers to directly tax for Education. Our schools now tax everything that we own. (A wealth tax)
Public education started reasonably affordable.
Then slowly, came the removal of prayer and GOD. The new union teacher student hostage mentality. and a new moral downgrade to teaching "sex".

Christians continue (by mandates) to support their own education demise
This is not about our founding Fathers, This is about NOW!
Public schools today have no resemblance to how the system started.
If you want a $9000student cost-Upay it.

You attribute many things to me I never said! In fact I said the opposite in several cases.This discussion would go a lot smoother if you would actually read what I wrote and linked to. It's complicated (nobody said this was easy).

For example, you say "They were good hearted enough to allow exceptions to private schools? you are 100% wrong.". I never said anything of the sort. Do you know what "mandatory" means PR? Or do you need me to look up for you as well?

Go ahead and try again. And while you're at it, cut out all the phony religious posturing and faux outrage over having to support public education. That's not going to change, so get over it.

RDBet:
It's Not the public school that I undermine---IT's THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TAXING (funding) SYSTEM.
I am yelling! "A school cost CRISIS is Coming, it's HERE!"
If you want to continue an education system that has no "COST" limits, Then, You pay for your own education, if you can afford it.
Do you support the $9,000 per student cost to run Mehlville? That is exactly what you would be charged in "tuition" if you did not "steal" other people's and business money to support such a cost.
"YOU" are paying that cost "hidden" as higher prices in the food and pizza and clothing and anything you buy.
I stand ready to pay for those in need of reasonable education $'s. 100% of their education.
Do We differ on that? Public Education support should be based on INCOME , Not property value. A $100Th income earner owning a $50,000 home should pay MORE than a $50th income earner owning a $75,000 home.
(Taxing autos,Homes,Business buildings,casinos, cigarette tax etc.)

If you want to pay extreme and exhorbitant Union wages & benefits to educate your children, than I should be "free" to respectfully decline that.
You can define that in any way you want.
B/T/W a Solar panel does not come "Free". Millions of Federal "TAX" dollars from non-resident taxpayers support that. (Called GRANTS)
That should be a warning to all Residents that Local schools can no longer be supported with "your own money".
Shame on our Public school FUNDING system.

There you have it folks - The man in the tricornered hat has declared agreement - that the tea party politicians seek to undermine and possibly end public education.

What does any of this have to do with Akin -other than the apparant failings of his private school education on women's bodies?

Higgins:
If a conversation goes smoother by "agreeing" with you, then note that my comments are "facitious" in "written-tone".
1)You wrote "jeff-Rush would not have given you (me) the freedom to go to private school"
My response--"So they were Good hearted enough to allow me to keep a freedom -add -I already had. (c'mon you get my "Regime" point on this.
Let me spell it out--Govt CANNOT TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM TO EDUCATE MY CHILDREN "DIRECTLY"--- They take away Freedom By TAXING and MANDATING ones ability to continue their freedom of choice.

2)You wrote "They wanted public school to be widely available BUT MANDATORY"

My new response__"Available and Mandatory" are complete opposite words with same results----"MUST USE". Charging for an available anything MAKES IT MANDATORY to use.

PR, as the learned elder statesman Barney Frank once said, "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

I'm outta here.

To RdBet:
You are at a loss of answers?
Too many questions?
There is a major difference in "School Funding" and "Public school Education"
I'll say it Loud!
"I AM FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION"

"I AM AGAINST THE OLD WEALTH TAX PUBLIC FUNDING OF EDUCATION"

" I AM FOR REMOVING ALL REAL ESTATE TAXES FROM THOSE EARNING UNDER $50,000"

So let me declare!

A REAL "public education system" of the future is coming!
It will not be a "Government controlled Education" of today.

It will be controlled "By the People" "For the People".
Call it "THE PEOPLE's AFFORDABLE PUBLIC EDUCATION TAX ACT"

Call me "whatever you want"

Not that I disagree with your application of that statement Earl, but I think Barney Frank must have started that statement with the phrase: "Hey, what does it mean when people keep saying to me: "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table." ?
(BTW - Frank was one of the profiteers of Fair Housing Regulatory as well as the Fanny-Freddie/Ofeo scandal)

I'm with you though, this one is getting old & WAY off topic, talk to you next time.

PaulRevere, I didn't really see any questions regarding the topic at hand. Though I do tend to tune out ALLCAPS. This is not a suitable format or topic under which to debate the public education system with a person who's tricornered hat is screwed on too tight. Actually, I can think of no suitable format.

I will say, my kids have excellent (albeit imperfect) public schools, and I play a role in seeing that they stay excellent. From a monetary standpoint - even when my kids are no longer in the public school system, I will gladly and proudly pay taxes in support of public education. For one thing, our solid school system keeps the property value in our neighborhood high. Have you seen the tuition at Akin's school - John Burroughs? I don't see how a voucher to Burroughs will make school cost less.

....Whoops - I was lured in. Must be a sucker for angry dudes in tricornered hats.

I actually got your sarcasm that time Devon! As you probably know, he said it to a LaRouchean who had just asked him, "Why are you supporting this Nazi policy?" regarding Obamacare (Frank was raised Jewish).

I'm sure you could tell, I'm not a fan of Frank, but the guy DID take some abuse. I can't say I would've answered a question phrased in that manner either. The healthcare bill isn't "Nazi-like", it's more toward a social state than I like, but that was an innaccurate unfair question.
Attacking the wealth of business owners, and convincing the people that those people owe that wealth to their nation, seems like it leans a little "Nazi" to me, as that's exactly what the Nazi's did. A jewish person should be a little more mindful of that, I think.
But as for the question and the way it was asked, I would've reacted in the same manner, even though I like to think I would've been able to come-up with something more creative or funny than "dining-room table".
Either way, Frank handled that better than I would have, I would've been lucky to get out of there without punching the guy.

Real quick RD,
I don't have a problem with paying taxes for schools, I love that there are people out there like you that intend to hold schools to that excellence.
In my mind though, YOU, and people like you, are the exact reason that those tax dollars don't need to go to the Fed. They need to go to the states, and even more should stay in the municipalities, where people like you exist & can make a real difference with a hands-on approach. I don't believe that paying more to the Fed to get less back for schools is the better way to go.
In one scenario, municipalities for instance, taxes paid come right back to the schools. In a Fed scenario, the same tax-dollars pass through that many more hands, pay salaries for an inept Department of Education (who is out of touch with what is going on in each municipality compared to those like you), and then whatever is left finally comes back into the schools with strings (extortion) attached. Ergo, getting the Fed involved actually reduces the amount of benefit that finally makes it to the schools, and when it does come back, it does so with limitations & parameters on how it is to be used, regardless of whether or not it applies to that particular school-district's needs (which btw are well-known by the community & those folks like you).

Devon, thanks for your reply and sharing your intellect with a SOCIALIST MARXIST like me (sarcasm intended.).

I do agree, schools are local. But we have statehouse politicians trying to impose their will upon classrooms (proliferation standardized testings, the needless amendment, curriculums, to even requirements to post on the walls)-as if statehouse politicians know how to educate.

I cannot help but think the this is scheming to undermine public ed , and go to voucher programs and using taxpayer dollars to reimburse private school tuition. The blueprint has been laid for this in other states with GOP controlled statehouses.

I agree with your notion about the federal education and wasteful spending with layers of bureaucracy. Yet, the federal sets the tone for down the line. I would rather have a president that values education, as opposed to a candidate that says class sizes don't matter and believes in the pollyanish voucher solutions.

Education is a small part of total federal spending and it does not come without return on that investment. http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/education-federal-budget

There has to be some federal oversight -not all state rule - as we are still the United States -one constitution. That mention of all men being created equal....for federal government to absolve itself of the education role in that would be foolish.

Devon, you were pretty effective in moving the topic away from Akin.

This topic has moved away from Akin. That's for sure. I can't say I did it, but thank you (also sarcastic), but I'm a big-picture guy. A lot of these issues are tied together.
The IDEA of Federal stability is a nice one, but it's activities since the 70's in education hasn't made things better, if anything, worse & more costly. Their activities not only include telling schools what can be put on the walls, but what can be said & what goes into, or is taken out of textbooks. They are responsible for REMOVING very important science from those books. (Ex: Nikola Tesla - Thousands of inventions that we still use today, as well as FREE, CLEAN & ABUNDANT energy provided by the Earth, and you can barely find him in textbooks. How could that happen? Why would they do that? Green - in all it's meanings - that's why.) See, anything the Fed gets involved in is eventually up for-sale on the lobby floor. We have to take more OUT of their hands, NOT put more in.
This is also the land of freedom, in my mind that would include, if I can clearly see that IL, NY, & CA are all screwed-up & broke, and I don't want to live there anymore, then I should have the option to move to a state where things are done more to my liking. Instead, people push today to make all of our states like those (or at least the same). I believe that takes away options & freedoms, and ceases to provide them.
Sorry about the caps, I know how you love them.

Lizzy, I guess that Devon and I are on the same track and disapprove of you telling us what we believe and not believe. With all of the Free Handouts to the " Poor ? " I do not believe that we will find very many dying in the streets. Enslaving the Middle Class. Are talking about obama and the democrats enslaving the Middle Class with the avalanche of HIDDEN TAXES AND FEEs that the Middle Class will begin paying in 2013. ( you are forgiven, I realize that it will take you some time to figure this one out ) Oh yes, Gun Clinging and Bible Thumper, you are correct on both counts. I have notified obama and holder, via e-mail, to come to my home, any time that they wish, to take my weapons away from me. I suppose that I could offer you and any like thinkers to join obama and holder.

Mr. Braudis, you misinterpret my post, please reread it; particularly the part where I wrote "In RD's world". I wholeheartedly support the 1st amendment and your right to speak your mind and have whatever opinion you like, but please remember as a comic book once read "with great power, comes great responsibility". You don't do yourself or your ideology any favors when you rush to respond without considering context. I mean that in only the most helpful way. Comprehension and context, very valuable tools. And my name is Elizabeth, not "Lizzy" if you don't mind.

Whoa. Willy seems like an overplayed caricature, someone posing as beyond ultra-conservative to make all conservatives look bad. Though it's hard to distinquish.

With friends like those....

Matthew 25:34-45
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.