Regarding strident calls from the Republican Party for Akin to withdraw from the race, I find myself on Akin's side. I feel he should stay in the race. And not only because I think he is a poor candidate and that McCaskill can and should prevail in the general election against him. But also because he is the choice of the voters. Akin said as much himself, and more power to him. I think he's wrong on the facts, and those who believe him are wrong too. But it is true that he was chosen by the voters to stand in the general election.

The alternative is to accede to the wishes of the party. The party wants to reject the clear intent of the voters. I find this objectionable. I find it hypocritical for any party leadership to make such demands. The party backed him in the first place, put him forward as the party's representative, and in other circumstances proclaims "the will of the voter this" and "the will of the voter that". This is as patronizing as a parent of a young child, when faced with a child who is aggravatingly copying their parent's bad behavior, says "do as I say, not as I do". Only ten times more patronizing and insulting as we voters are not children.

Stay in the race Akin. I hope you lose, but you deserve to run.

tw! :eek:


:lol:

Us black people love big butts.

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.

Also curious - and I don't understand what this means. McCaskill had manipulated her primary campaign ads to feed or encourage support to Akin. I do believe Cellar dwellers exist in MO. What was that report saying?

Let's get the cheapshot out of the way first, shall we?

Do you even know where babies come from dumbass? You don't indicate any such knowledge with your recent posts.

There? Feel better? Until now, I haven't made any cheapshots, the ridiculousness of your claim makes mockery impossible (see Poe's Law).

It's still "Nope." despite your subsequent posts. Now to your further failure to support your claim with any evidence whatsoever.

I asked you to provide some support for this claim of yours:

Let's review what you say.

I said your claim is false. You say

Ok, you're off to a good start. You've unabiguously reiterated your belief in your original statement. I asked you for a cite, or some other evidence to bolster your claim that

and you follow up with:

A nonsensical sentence fragment. Hm.

What are you saying here? You've made extremely unpopular statements in the past, but were correct, so I should challenge you on "with caution"? I have learned many facts, I am cautious when caution is called for. Your claim is certainly "overwhelmingly unpopular" but it still hasn't been "proven correct". Not yet anyway, but you talk some more, so let's go see.

A quibble--facts can be revealed from research, they don't actually come from research

See? This is a claim, it is not evidence. It is an assertion, a false attribution or an appeal to tradition, both fallacious.

Whether or not it has ever been disputed before (and I'm skeptical of that one too), I'm disputing it now. Still no evidence.

What the heck are you talking about? I read ahead and this little detour into a different fantasy and it doesn't connect with your original claim about that You're fond of using "undisputed" and "never disputed" and "long known" when you try to round out an argument for one of your claims. The REAL outstanding question is "where are the facts to support your claims?". Answer that one and the others will be much easier to explain and understand.

Cite, please.

Let me try to paraphrase you to check my understanding: "I'm right because I'm right because you haven't disproved my claim." Ridiculous.

I'm just tired of trying to understand your logic. There's so much noise and so little signal..."forced extramarital liasons" um... is that code for illegitimate rape? Come on man. Talk english, it aren't that hard.

At last, a true statement. This should be your signature, or at least your disclaimer
Since I'm not a child, I learn from other ways--not just from the pedantic repetition of dogma (or dog crap). I'd be happy to deny your claims responsibly if you would just share some actual facts. Let's see some facts from you. Until you do, your claims remain unsubstantiated. Show us some of the facts and proof you esteem so highly.

So... let me try to understand. Election not a slam dunk in your opinion, maybe indicating an evenly divided electorate.

Most people already decided, maybe indicating little change in the current state of mind of the electorate.

then...

Polls put McCaskill far behind, maybe indicating a wide margin of victory for Akin since McCaskill's behind.

See? How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.

Furthermore, McCaskill is not "far behind" in the polls according to my research. She's ahead.

*applauds*

Nicely done V.

The men preferring bigger women when stressed is from a recent study that was splashed all over the news a little while ago. Men were put into stresful situations (such as public speaking) and their BMI preferences charted. It was in order to test out at a small scale what tends to be seen at a bigger scale between food secure communities and food poor communities.

What that has to do with the female body apparently being more likely to conceive during high emotion, I have no fucking clue. Except in the very broadest sense: evolutionary developments favour healthy procreation and that affects desire and behaviour, as well as physiological responses. But that can't be trotted out as a general argument for a specific phenomenon wihout that phenomenon being proven in its own right.

This smacks of the 'well it stands to reason, doesn't it..?' line of arguing. The sort of thing that seems to make sense because of other very looselyrelated stuff. There's a whole library's worth of pseudo-scientific bullshit floating around in our culture about evolutionary aspects of gender. It seems to have a greater grip on our imaginations than the stuff that can actually be proved.

Someone needs to tell Maury he's out of a job.

What does Maury say?

He makes his money on a TV show which seems to exist solely to provide DNA tests.
Or at least those are the only ones we get over here.

The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.

Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.

Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.

We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.

Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.

Akins only made it interesting.

So what in those DNA tests are relevant here?

BTW, I believe UK was considering laws that banned using someone's DNA to perform a paternity test without their knowledge. Did that become law?

Why so many denials only from your emotions. And not one fact based in any research. Facts were posted. And again your denials. Well UG is famous for knowing something is wrong because he also feels. Where is your knowledge from science? Nothing but a long post of cheapshot denials - without even one fact.

Summarized were studies that demonstrated, in people and animals, when a female becomes more likely to conceive. Research that contradicts Akins. Even posted were phrases directly from those studies (ie "copulatory ambushes"). So you post cheapshot denials because phrases used in science are foreign? You were suppose to know this stuff BEFORE making conclusions.

If your knowledge is from science, then you knew "forced extramarital liaisons" is an expression found in science. Denying science without even learning the phrases is your emotions saying, well ...

I guess we need a new UG. Since your every denial comes without and facts. You even get angry at phrases used by researchers.

Facts from many studies throughout the world contradict Akins. Females are more likely to conceive during an event of high emotion such as rape or infidelity. So instead, you get angry at the English used by researchers. Resistance is futile. You must do better to dethrone UG.

Fact: women are somewhat more likely to conceive during these events. A fact that has so many Darwinist researchers asking why that is relevant. Fact: animal studies demonstrate higher male fertility rates during "copulatory ambushes" (I believe that conclusion was published by multiple studies about 2001.) Fact: women tend to be more pernicious when they are more likely to conceive. (I believe that study was in a Western US university involving maybe 50 women - 30 who had steady boyfriends - somewhere around 2007.)

After how many posts, where do you cite even one science fact? You have yet to support your emotions with one study. Like UG, you posted plenty of cheapshot denials. And a few personal insults. But then I also expect that from UG. Should we conclude you agree with Akins? Based upon your posted facts, that is a real possibility. Are you really a closet Akins supporter? I would have never guessed.

I bet his campaign posters are now collector's items. Can't wait to see you on PBS's Antique Roadshow.

Tdub, just post some evidence or stfu. You can't just say it's a fact because you borrowed some phrasing from scientific papers and expect people to just take your word for its veracity.

How bout some of this?

http://www.parentingscience.com/Stre...pregnancy.html

And a little of this:

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ncies-not-less


It may be the case that women are more likely to conceive if they are experiencing high emotion. Or it may not. You have yet to show a single piece of evidence for it.

I will not spend a half day researching what was published so many times so long ago. I summarized the studies I learned from. Cited enough details from those studies that you can go find them, if you must.

But the point reamins. I learned this stuff before posting. Big_V clearly has zero research. He only has his feelings. He only posts denials - not even one fact. Repeated denials when he clearly never learned this stuff is only a cheapshot. Politicians called it swiftboating.

Should I also cite the paper that proves a Higgs Bosum exists? Or will you take my word for it without quoting phrases used by those researchers.

The point is obvious. Big_V has conclusions accented by only by insults and denials. Without knowledge of even one study. If he had learned this stuff, then expressions such as "forced extramarital liaisons" and "copulatory ambushes" would not inspire displeasure. Why that emotion? Because Big_V is posting denials without learning any of this. He never read any of those phrases. In the tradition of UG and Akins.

Now, if you have a problem with these summarized studies, then quote a contrarian study. Don't deny because you don't like the conclusion. These things were written even at a layman level.

Well, I'm not a gynecologist. But I'll take a look.

You're not originally from this planet, are you?

I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion. It is clear to me that we have dramatically different standards of proof, of cheapshots, of English, of the concept of linear, sequential time... that kind of stuff.

You've failed to convince me, or instruct me, or persuade me. There's been a bit of aggravation and a bit of amusement, but I've got better things to do than to teach you to sing. I withdraw from the field of debate. See ya!

I never expected to convince you of anything when 1) you deny published and summarized research, 2) makes denials without every having learned any of this stuff, and 3) attack phrases because you cannot dispute the concept, and 4) reply only with insults such as calling me 'dumb'. I had to confirm this was not UG.

Meanwhile, interesting that McCaskill has increased her polls by 15%. A major shift in any election. Implies MO does have a higher percentage of moderates. Also curious why such a major change did not get reported in any of my information sources.

In some polls, this race is still close. Just wondering is this one could become a barometer for national results now that exposed extremist rhetoric might have created a backlash against soundbytes reasoning.

Thank you Big V.

You are welcome, friend.

Classic! Where ya been?

Women don't need to go on Maury if they've cheated. They know it's the lover's baby.
No idea. Not relevant as Maury is an American show and anyway the DNA tests on it are consensual.

workin and life and stuff.

Yes, but the go on Maury to find out which lover. Or if it that 3-D porn film she watched.:rolleyes:

I believe I read some of the Republicans were supporting a younger candidate, wanting to dump Akin, but McCaskill felt she had a better shot against Akin.

Years ago, letting Akin run with his foot in his mouth would have been the RNC saying he's been a loyal old war horse, he'll probably lose but let him run and retire. But not now, they will fight tooth and nail for every seat, especially in the senate. If they didn't think he could win, they'd probably assassinate him. Besides, Ryan and company agree with him.

This 11 year old's body must have really wanted it...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...-several-times

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...?quick_picks=1

Though I suspect Akin would focus on the Mom and say something about lack of family values...

More Akin.

Richard Mourdock the GOP candidate for the Senate says pregnancy from rape is "something God intended". Romney had supported him yesterday but today not so much.

God has no control over whether or not anyone gets raped, but he's in complete control whether or not that act of violence results in pregnancy.

Some god! :rolleyes:

Nah, if you ask those guys, she probably did something to deserve it. Like be born with two X chromosomes and live at least til the onset of puberty.

The best article I've read about abortion and rape in, well, ever.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t2

That's too reasonable, it won't play.

Good article.

I agree.

from the article:
Regarding Mourdock's statements, I don't agree with his position about abortion and rape. And his "apology" was the standard "I am sorry if you (the media) misunderstood me" non-apology, but I do respect the rest of his remarks where he said that he could not apologize for speaking from his heart, as that would make him contrary to his faith. I can respect that. It wasn't proselytizing, it wasn't bullshit, it was honest. That I respect. I don't agree with the policy challenge it leads to, but to see someone speaking honestly and candidly is very refreshing.

This guy seems stupid enough to not belie the thread title.

That guy gave up.

But this guy's been in office more than 20 years. I'm not sure whether "Executive director" is an elected office, though.

That article shows his history seems to have little regard for minorities, but the they say...
Wait? What? Anti-segregationists? :confused:

A typo, I assume.

I think they meant to write 'auntie-segregationists', AKA the PTA circa 1966.;)

https://arkansaspta.org/History_of_PTA.html

Finally the Republicans get to accuse a Democrat of trivializing rape!

Rep John Carter [R-TX] chairs Homeland Security Appropriations and sits on Defense subcommittees, but he only found out that encryption exists. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately denial does not exist until one is first told what to believe. A majority knew smoking cigarettes increase health. Then got 'Rush Limbaugh' angry a the Surgeon General for reporting that cigarettes kill. A majority knew Saddam had WMDs because a dumb president said so. Then got angy when, for example, the Cellar was full of posts that said why that did not exist.

A majority foolishly plug their computer into a surge protector. When that protector does not claim to protect a computer from destructive surges, when it can make surge damage easier, and when it can even create a fire. A majority deny only because the first thing they were told was bogus. And because they forget that adults need relevant reasons and numbers for why it should be believed.

A friend so loved calling the most religious. They would automatically believe the first thing he told them. And so he made good money promoting telephone scams. His best customers were the most religious.

So she has been castrated?

Trump.

as leaders go, I'd consider him as incompetent as the best of them.

Speaking of incompetence... Has everyone been to CarlyFiorina.org

That's impressive. The only incompetence I see there is the failure of her digital media communications director's failure to lock up that domain name.

I'll let tw speak to over-all incompetence. I just found it really amusing that she or her people missed a pretty basic step.

The GOP cracks me up sometimes. Here's a page full of laffs for you:

The Stranger Obtains a Secret Transcript of the Koch Brothers’ Auditioning of Republican Candidates

Here's a taste:

The whole short article is quite funny. :nuts:

That would be pretty funny if it weren't true.

Just wait for the match up of Carley Fiorena and Hillary...
There will be only one over-arching debate issue:

This Is How Much Hillary Clinton’s Pantsuit Costs
Time - David Kaiser - 5/28/15

Maybe if she answered question by the press, they would have something else to write about.

Patience, Grasshopper. Good things come for those who wait.

Nothing good will come from her. She's a deceitful, power-hungry egomaniac. This is all about winning and power - nothing to do with really wanting to lead.

Right now she is running like an incumbent.

And this makes her different from every other candidate how?

Nothing good will come from her. She's a deceitful, power-hungry egomaniac. This is all about winning and power - nothing to do with really wanting to lead.

And this makes her different from every other candidate how?

She's really good at it.

Hahahaha.