Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

White House criticizes Republican's rape comment?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


This is just the WH pounding the "war against women" drums.

There is an election coming up you know, and the Dems really need those seats in the house if Obama wants to do anything during his 2nd term.

Don't get me wrong, the comments made by the GOP lately are above and beyond idiotic. Apparently the DNC doesn't like rape, but the military gets a free pass



~Tenth


To be fair to all points, and since yours makes it best, I'll reply to the one you made on this.

You're 100% right and Carney isn't someone I have much, if any, respect for. Deflection is a sport to him, it would seem. He thinks he's a grand master at it and no one has the heart to tell him his a kid and in over his head. At least, he sure comes off that way on a daily basis, doesn't he?

Then again, the last press secretary told the world what his orders had been regarding the 'deny, deflect or ignore' on some topics by specific point...so I guess it's a joint blame thing for what we see?

Anyway.... Carney being the one to highlight it is almost unfortunate but the main issue to my thinking was the fact that yet another politician seems to have flunked basic biology. The suggestion by his statement is that rape is somehow less concerning for incidence of pregnancy than consensual sex. It struck me as so close to the words of Akin that it struck a chord.

I'm a boy bunny of course, so I have no personal dog in this hunt aside from personally being related to rape victims and sad to say it's more than one.




posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


This is just the WH pounding the "war against women" drums.



Hmmm...and where did they get that drum to pound upon?

It is the paradigm of dismissing these things as "politics" when convenient...rather than addressing them, that costs the conservative party.

YES...the Whitehouse/Democrats Et al. will make political hay when the sun shines...

Is the Democratic party alone in this strategy?

The question is why does the GOP keep bathing them in sunlight on the issue and then blame them for making hay?

Put another way...Why isn't Boehner et al. outfront on this explaining that Rep. Trent Franks statement doesn't represent them? They could eat the Whitehouse's lunch.

They don't do that, because the bigger picture is that the Evangelical Right owns a piece of the GOP and frankly is destroying them from the inside out.
edit on 13-6-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26

Well if you are infact a woman, then I can see where the logic is.
have issues much... just with pinches cobrones like you whining about some BS that doesn't really matter.
edit on 13-6-2013 by resoe26 because: (no reason given)


Logic is not gender specific hombre retrasado..



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well the war on women is just a manufactured conflict. There is no real war against women, the GOP is just bad a talking and the DNC is REALLY good at coming up with flashy talking points and putting angry women on the air to agree with them.

The reason the GOP keep getting in trouble is that some of them actually believe this stuff. Not only that, but they aren't afraid to say they believe it. Even when presented with things like, science, it's still better to claim otherwise unless your voter demographic says otherwise.

You what annoys me the most? Silence from elected female GOP members. They hurt the GOP more than these idiots and their comments do by not coming out and laughing at them and telling them how idiotic they are.

Women don't respect other women who just shut their mouth when there's something to say, especially in areas such as rape.

~Tenth



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





Well the war on women is just a manufactured conflict.


So true


Manufactured conflicts to create wedge issues that create 'hate' to solidify voters for their political power.

Politics really has nothing to do with people, but how well one side defines the other, the best at the job wins 'elections'.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well the war on women is just a manufactured conflict.


I think the above contradicts the truth below...


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
The reason the GOP keep getting in trouble is that some of them actually believe this stuff. Not only that, but they aren't afraid to say they believe it. Even when presented with things like, science, it's still better to claim otherwise unless your voter demographic says otherwise.


Banning abortion without exception is written in the GOPs official platform. They have attempted repeatedly to "legislate" it...make it the law of the land...and there is nothing "manufactured" about that.


Originally posted by tothetenthpower
You [know] what annoys me the most? Silence from elected female GOP members. They hurt the GOP more than these idiots and their comments do by not coming out and laughing at them and telling them how idiotic they are.


You know what annoys me? I imagine a GOP absent the Christian Right...a GOP that doesn't pander to the remaining pockets of bigotry in the rural south...A GOP not pandering to religion or moneyed interests...I imagine that GOP and think...THAT is the political party that the country has been waiting for. But the GOP of the now? I just perpetually want to put a foot up thier butt.

I think the GOP thinks that if they oust the Christian Right...slap down the bigots amongst them...that they will lose support...and I think that is false...they will lose some of thier base, but gain the entirety of independants and likely a reasonable bite of moderate Democrats as well.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Banning abortion without exception is written in the GOPs official platform. They have attempted repeatedly to "legislate" it...make it the law of the land...and there is nothing "manufactured" about that.


And the point is?

Really?

Sitting there acting like their opposites don't like to go around banning things?

So Tenth's comment does stand above the petty politics.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Banning abortion without exception is written in the GOPs official platform. They have attempted repeatedly to "legislate" it...make it the law of the land...and there is nothing "manufactured" about that.


And the point is?

Really?

Sitting there acting like their opposites don't like to go around banning things?

So Tenth's comment does stand above the petty politics.


Tenth's comments were not about "petty politics" or about "opposites" "banning things"...

His comments were specific to the "war on women" being manufactured

Seeing as the GOP has repeatedly attempted to LEGISLATE in regards to banning abortion, birth control, gynecological exams, fought equal pay etc.

Whatever you party...it would seem innaccurate to claim the issue has been manufactured.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I don't know why Republicans feel the need to constantly remind us of the fact that they're completely disconnected from reality, but it never gets old, so one more bone-headed comment from some random shmuck won't hurt, I guess...



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


It is manufactured what part of that is someone missing what is the point?

GOP wants to ban abortion
Democrats for 70 years try to ban guns.

MANUFACTURED.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So Neo...On the OP? Do you aagree with rep. Trent Frank? Carney?

As a matter of courtessy it would seem polite to comment on the OP at least once before derailment?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I'll say the same thing to you which I just did to the other.... Don't troll my thread.

You must be joking...Your response is, "Don't troll my thread." Pitiful...

It sure feels that way for the attack attack attack with twisting what people say around against them....and not offering much, if anything of your own to contribute in support of your own position.

Hey, you are the OP...I have not attacked you...I ASKED you to define significant...As far as anyone offering substantive content, I was the very first one here to provide any links to any thing remotely scientific...So, you can stick this statement in any convenient pipe and smoke it...

Now, having said that. Let me then make this very clear. Crystal. I am not interpreting or trying to define what the NIH study I quoted came to for conclusions. I'm not a Medical doctor as the authors of that study are. It was produced by the "Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425-2233, USA.", to quote the credit line of the study itself. I do, in fact, find that a reliable and solid study. If you'd like to attack the source, have at it. However, making this personal is uncalled for and out of line. There is no need. Tell me why you find an NIH sourced study to be faulty or unreliable for quoting in a thread like this? (outside your own personal opinion, if you don't mind too much)


Once again, I am asking you to merely define the word, "significant."

As far as making it personal, you were the one who first made it personal...you took personal umbrage at some comments made by some legislator from Arizona...I am simply seeking to clarify the basis of your umbrage...

I was the very first person in this thread to provide any study concerning occurrences of pregnancy related to rape.

I do not doubt the conclusions of the study. 5 percent is 5 percent. As I stated, why is 5 percent not considered rare?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Well the war on women is just a manufactured conflict.


Yeah. It's all in out pretty little heads...






In 2011, there were nearly 1,000 bills in state legislatures to restrict a woman’s right to legal abortion services. The sad news is that the Republicans in the House waged an all-out war on women that was wide-ranging as well as drastic on a federal level. The assailants in Congress and state houses were not limited to anti-abortion measures, but were as far-reaching as restricting birth control, family counseling, and critical cancer screenings for low-income women. The anti-woman proponents found novel ways to persecute women and their right to choose, and although all of the legislation attacking women is hideous, there are some that defy belief in America in 2011.


Source



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Already commented on the op instead of the diatribe about how Republicans hate women as if they don't have mothers,wives,girlfriends, and daughters-ALL women.

Here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 13-6-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Well, I'll just stick to the points as long as there are points here to reply on.


Once again, I am asking you to merely define the word, "significant."


I'd personally define that as measurable against the statistical margin for error and comprising enough people against the sample group's total to represent a number worthy of consideration and planning to whatever the study is relating to.

Give that 5% isn't on a per capita, annual or other large scale measure but on a per incident one? I'd call it measurable enough to consider it worthy of consideration and merit to the specific topic being discussed. Those among the 5% to find themselves carrying the child of a sexual predator and criminal absolutely would.

5% is also the %...and actually 1% over it, by the last one I saw, of Homosexuals as taken within the overall population of the United States. I don't mention this to side track into a gay debate, but to give perspective to what meaning and true human factor can lay with that number. It's rare if you're not among them. It's sure not rare if you're a law writer and policy maker to cover an entire overall population of people.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So you admit the number has been politicized to further an agenda...Thank you.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sankari
 


I really had meant that about not going all partisan on this. Stupidity isn't a Republican trait and not EVERY single thread on ATS has to devolve into Dems vs. Repubs or Libs vs Conservatives. In the United States, as you may know from visiting here once in awhile, the leaders love to turn us against each other. United we stand. Divided they rule. To illustrate my point tho...as I noted I sure would... I'd like to share a couple examples. After all, I'm the one who is a stickler about backing one's own position. To thy ownself be true.



Around the 0:50 mark is the zinger. Millions.. Yeah.. According to one recent report indicating 2011 firearm related homicides were just over 11,000 people? (All ages) It would take over 90 years to reach 1 million. It sure sounds great to get that out there though doesn't it? However ignorant it may be.



I'll give her the benefit of the doubt in saying she was simply ignorant of her own heritage. The alternative....is far worse.



and of course, the ultimate blue ribbon, grand prize winner for absolutely ignorant if not outright stupid in his case, it's Mr. Guam himself......The good Congressman from Georgia!

Now he claims later he was just kidding....(yeah.. right..what else does this level of stupid say in it's defense??) but if you listen to that, there isn't a smirk or smile. No jest indicated and the Admiral, with the patience of Job, gives him every chance to rephrase and save himself. He doubles and then triples down on what I like to call stupid.

Now...What I tend to think about all the partisan nonsense and bickering when our nation is on fire? Well... A good and wise General summed it up well and does it here in the first 15 seconds.



Yes indeed... Don't get stuck. Deny Ignorance. Deny these idiot politicians of both sides another term when they can barely seem to muster the intelligence to tie their own shoelaces without outside assistance and a staff to explain the process. :shk:

edit on 13-6-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join