Comments by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin suggesting that "legitimate rape" would not cause a woman to get pregant have raced like wildfire around the Internet and put the U.S. Senate candidate on his heels.
Akin, the Wildwood Republican, is running for the Senate against incumbent Claire McCaskill. In an interview with Patch news partner FOX2 that aired on Sunday with Charles Jaco, Akin was explaining his position against abortion even in cases of rape.
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy) is really rare” in rape cases, Akin told Jaco. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
Reaction was lightning fast. The Twitter hashtag "#legitimaterape" was the top trending topic on the social network, along with "Akin," at 6:30 on Sunday night. Facebook news feeds were filling up with reaction.
Akin issued a statement later in the afternoon saying it was clear he "misspoke" on the topic, but providing no support for the assertion that any sort of rape provides a medical barrier to pregnancy.
His comment about legitimate rape "does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year," Akin said in the statement on his website. "Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.
"I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue," he continued "But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election."
Late Sunday night, Talking Points Memo reported that Mitt Romney's Presidential campaign did not support Akin's comments and that "A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape."
Conservative commentators such as St. Louis native Dana Loesch noted today that this is a gaffe over a social issue that will distract voters from more urgent economic issues, in their belief.
Akin acknowledges the assertion of "legitimate rape" was a gaffe in his statement. Is that enough to put the issue aside? Are we too fixated on the mistakes candidates make when they're out on the campaign trail? Or, as one Twitter user said, does "misspoke" really mean, "I accidentally said what I really believe"?
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
You did a great job recognizing that there are needy out there, but you failed to look at what put them there.
If any good comes out of this Akin thing, it has shed a light on how extreme the Right-Wing has gone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What does any of this have to do with Akin -other than the apparant failings of his private school education on women's bodies?
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.
I'm outta here.
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?
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.
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"
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)
(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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
With friends like those....
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.
http://www.yourjerseyhome.com/NBA-Jerseys-c77.html Revolution 30 nba jerseys http://www.yourjerseyhome.com/NFL-T-Shirt-c126.html wholesale NFL T-Shirt, http://www.jerseycaptain.com http://www.jersey2shop.com