Just when the feds broadened sexual assault definition ...

1. 74

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   GOP Congressional candidate Todd Akins wants to make a brand new category: "legitimate" rape.
   
   
   Anyway, for those still considering which candidate they will vote for in November,
   it's pretty clear where Obama/Biden stand on the issue.
   Say what you want about Joe and his gaffes... he's a strong propenent of women's rights.
   
   
   Published: January 6, 2012
   WASHINGTON � The federal government is changing its longstanding definition of �forcible rape� in compiling national crime statistics � expanding both the definition of victims, to include males, and the types of sexual assault that will be counted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation�s Uniform Crime Report.
   
   The new definition, which has been in the works for several months and was formally announced by the Obama administration on Friday, will replace a narrower definition of �forcible rape� with one that includes, among other things, forcible oral or anal penetration. The narrower definition, which is limited to vaginal penetration, has been used since the 1920s in tracking how often such crimes are reported around the country.
   
   Victim advocacy groups have long criticized the old definition as outdated, saying it left out many crimes that were prosecuted as rape under state laws but that were not reflected in national statistics. Last year, an F.B.I. advisory committee of law enforcement agencies agreed to a Justice Department request to update the definition.
   
   Victim advocacy groups have called for years for the old definition to be revised, and in more recent years several prominent leaders of law enforcement agencies had joined that chorus.
   The movement gained force last summer when elements of the Obama administration � including the office of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who as a senator had been a chief sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act � proposed making a formal request to broaden the definition.
   The change was approved by Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      phionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Are the democrats really so desperate? This nitwit nominee has no place in the discussion.  Is the definition of rape up for debate in the first place? Or is there some new mandate Obama is getting ready to pass without congress that I don’t know about?
      
      Most American’s have never even heard of this candidate until a few days ago. The dividers out there see this as more fuel to add to the fire of American separation. Does anyone really think that republicans hate women and their rights?

      replyreport
      1. 84

         peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         They don't hate women.  They hate anything that even smells of entitlement.  They don't want to have anything to do with the federal government funding abortions or planned parenthood. Rape is just one of the factors and they will do their dammdest to weasle word anything they can.  But they usually get caught with their pants down. What's the difference between forcible, legitimate, and just plain rape?

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I know. Those rape definitions get a little fuzzy. It helps to  look at the statistics:
            
            1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
            That's a 20% chance of being raped.
            Wow.
            That seems like a pretty common problem.
            1 in 5.
            Odds are pretty good that we all know at least one woman who has been raped.
            
            
            How many of these rapes qualify as "forcible" or "legitimate" ?
            
            According to FBI statistics (and remember, only about 50 percent of all rapes are even reported)
            25 percent of rapes are by strangers.
            48 percent are by friends or acquaintances
            17 percent are by intimate partners.
            
            So obviously if you're being raped by a date, a friend, your father, your cousin, or even your boyfriend/SO, by Mr. Akin's definition that's probably not a "real" or "legitimate" rape.
            
            Also, previously, rapes of minors were not included in the definition of "forcible" rape.
            Which really left out quite a few:
            
            During a one-year period, of youth ages 14 to 17 had 16.3 percent had been
            sexually victimized.
            Over the course of their lifetime, 27.8 percent of 14- to 17-
            year olds in the United States had been sexually victimized.
            
            Another wow. 1 in 4 teens have been sexually victimized.
            
            I don't know about you, but when I look at these statistics I see BIG problem.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So do I.  Not meaning to run down the importance of understanding and condemning rape, but I know more than 5 women, or 50 or 100.  None have been raped, which either puts my personal experience WAY off the statistical charts or the figures are skewed somehow or somewhere.
               
               These figures would indicate not that the odds are good that most people know a rape victim, but near 100% that everyone does.
               
               Likewise the "victimized" teens.  Or is the case of two teens eagerly having sex producing one or two "victims"?  Whereupon a better number might be that 80% of teens are victimized.
               
               Numbers lie.  It pays to actually consider what they are saying.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  No offense here but what makes you think the women you know would tell you they have been raped? Outside of hubpages where I write to help others I don't go around announcing to my friends that I have been raped. I have been part of many rape groups where the women there come from all walks of life and outside of group therapy never talk about it.
                  On another note you make a good point about the teen issue. All teen who have sex underage are part of a definition of rape.
                  Back to the OP There is also a difference between types of rapes. Some shouldn't even qualify but do and in the process get people in trouble. A 19 year old having sex with a 16 year old who is happy to do it but her parents aren't so happy should not count as rape. A woman who gets drunk and some guy has sex with her leaving her feeling regret later is NOT rape. Personally I think these types of "rape" cause many of the issues with people not wanting to come out and say they were raped.
                  I agree the statement that was made was stupid. Like it or not there are differences among rapes. Violent rape victims that do get pregnant quite often miscarry, my sister had this happen and was told by her doctor it was the body's normal reaction. Personally I don't think we have a right to be telling anyone what they can do with their own bodies. So the point is moot.

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     +1 right down the line.  You understand, I think, my point - that those "statistics" are skewed and not representative of the actual truth.
                     
                     They only thing I would question is that people DO have the right to kill human beings growing parasitically inside their bodies, and I for one am not smart enough to make that call.  I accept current laws as a reasonable compromise as a result.  Were I to change my mind and decide that a zygote or a 3 week old fetus was an actual human being I would have to say that such abortion was murder, independent of whether that zygote or fetus was the result of a loving union of two people, rape, incest or anything else.  But that's a subject for another thread.

                     replyreport
                     1. 92

                        peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Agreed!

                        replyreport
      2. 74

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This nitwit nominee has been in Conress co-sponsoring anti-abortion bills with none other than Paul Ryan.
         Do people think the Republicans hate women and their rights?
         No. They just have a neanderthal, misogynistic, archaic and economically irresponsible way of showing their love.
         
         
         http://current.com/shows/upstream/93878 … mption.htm

         replyreport
         1. 83

            gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            To make an analogy-the Republicans love women the way the Ku Klux Klan love Black people and the National Socialists love Jewish people.   In other words, if one is such a friend, one definitely does not need enemies!     Totally concur with Mighty Mom's premise. 
            
            I would like to add what is Mr. Akin's challenged and obtuse definition of so-called legitimate rape.   No act of rape is legitimate.   Rape by its purest definition is a criminal offense which involves a forcible violent act upon another perceived to be weaker.       Rape is criminal violence to the fullest extent of the law.   Clearly, Mr. Akin was asleep during classes when this subject was discussed obviously!

            replyreport
      3. 0

         DMartelonlineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Phion did you even bother to read the date on that article? No, you didn't or you'd know this "memo" was 8 months old and has nothing to do with the MO neanderthal.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Jillian Barclayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This story may seem unrelated, but it isn't.
      One day when my daughter was 10, she came home from school, crying that kind of sob that was quiet, but so intense, that every few minutes she would struggle to catch her breath. I asked what was wrong and she told me that a boy (the same age) had grabbed her breasts while see was walking to class. I got his name and figured that I would call his parents and they would explain to their son that this was inappropriate behavior---granted, I actually wanted to do something a little more base in nature, but decided it was best to keep my cool. The boy's father answered the phone and I calmly told him what had happened. Then, the you what hit the fan!
      
      The father said, "Well, my son has good taste. I have seen your  daughter and she is really cute! He obviously has good taste."
      I was mortified! He had no clue and he had the nerve to say, while he was laughing, "Boys will be boys and I am not going to punish him for being normal.."
      
      This neanderthal was proud of his son for sexually assaulting a young girl. Needless to say, my demeanor changed. I informed him that if his little deviant ever came within 10 feet of my daughter again, I would press charges against the kid.
      
      This story illustrates the lack of any understanding by many that sexual assault is serious, and brings with it significant emotional and physical consequences. For a candidate for U.S. Senate to be so ignorant that he would even suggest that there are 'degrees' of rape and some are 'legitimate', while others are not, is ludicrous at best. This candidate for Senate is an insensitive whack job!
      
      Legitimate rape? How about legitimate stupidity? Where do they find these people?

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Cody Hodgeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Wow...
         
         What kind of a grown man says a 10 year-old is cute and that his son has good taste for choosing her. Sounds like that may be just as big of a problem.

         replyreport
   3. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The only mistake he made in the eyes of many insiders was the word he used. Otherwise he would have continued as usual with the media ignoring his neanderthal lunacy.

      replyreport
2. 71

   SotD and Zeraposted 12 years ago

   tw: rape, rape culture, penetration
   I love that they're changing the definition, but why does everything have to revolve around penetration? Rape is rape, and downgrading it to sexual assault just because no one decided to stick something in a few places hurts the victims and lets the rapists off too easy.
   At least nowadays they recognize female on female rape- but only if it involves penetration! Sigh.
   -SotD

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure where you're getting "downgraded the definition to sexual assault" from. They actually broadened the definition to include more types of sexual assault on more types of victims under more circumstances.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         SotD and Zeraposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         tw: rape, penetration
         If there is no penetration, rape gets downgraded to sexual assault. Essentially, it "doesn't count" as rape.
         They're broadening the definition, but not by nearly enough.
         -SotD

         replyreport
         1. 92

            peeplesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Rape still does not include Sodomy in many places.

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Under this new federal definition it is included.
               Assuming it's unwanted penetration. Not consentual, of course.

               replyreport
   2. 84

      peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As I understand it, rape has nothing to do with sex and love.  It is an act of hate and extreme agression...I'm just saying!

      replyreport
3. 67

   innersmiffposted 12 years ago

   It was pretty clear to me that the gentleman used 'legitimate' to mean 'genuine', perhaps referring to the older definition of rape that only included 'sex without consent using violence' as opposed to non-violent sex without consent. I highly highly doubt that he was in any way suggesting that rape in itself is 'legitimate', meaning 'correct'.
   
   Can we talk more about the coming police state please?

   replyreport
   1. 67

      innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There isn't a word in the English dictionary that hasn't been misunderstood, misattributed and changed far beyond its original definition. Like 'extremist' - I'm EXTREMELY fond of liberty, love and peace. Is it bad to be EXTREMELY anything?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, because the "coming police state" and legislators who introduce laws to take away a rape victim's right to choose are so not related. 

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         By comparison to laws against the rights of all individuals, the focus on the woman's right to kill a foetus is over the top. I also find it funny that those in favour of abortion freedom are also in support of Obamacare, which is all about taking away healthcare freedom. That's because it's not about freedom at all, it's about making a politically fashionable point.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It's all a matter of one's perspective, isn't it?

            replyreport
         2. 77

            Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Universal health care does not take away your choices or healthcare freedom... How free are you to make choices about your health when your first thought is if you can afford it or not?
            
            However, not allowing a woman the choice of what she wants to do with her body is definitely taking away freedom. Forcing a woman to undergo an unnecessary test is taking away freedom. Deciding that an unborn fetus is more important than a woman's life is taking away freedom. Need I go on?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               UW, don't you know that innersmiff would rather have some esoteric discussion about the violence committed upon him by the state for insisting that he pay taxes?  Or, where is that pesky social contract that he never signed? 

               replyreport
            2. 67

               innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               How free are you if you are compelled to buy health insurance? How free are you if healthcare costs rise beyond your control (an inevitability when consumer choice is reduced)? How free are you if your health is governed by bureaucrats instead of doctors?
               
               There is no moral argument for socialised healthcare ('universal' healthcare through government is a myth) or a non-voluntary government, but there are compelling, demonstrable downsides to both things that are well documented. I'm happy to debate that, but the moral debate should come first and that is what I do on HP mostly.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  How free are you if you cannot afford to buy health insurance and whatever tax credits you may have once claimed to assist you are withdrawn?

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     In a truly free market where there is adequate competition, and no taxes, healthcare is considerably more affordable - plus, the incentive to look after your body is increased. Choice is freedom, and Obamacare restricts choice.
                     
                     And this conversation demonstrates why I mostly use the term 'liberty' rather than freedom. In order to have the 'freedom' of free healthcare, the freedom of others has to be sacrificed. The 'right' to free healthcare violates the liberty of the medicine maker and the tax payer, so therefore can not be a right.
                     
                     'Liberty' is a condition where all actions are done voluntarily. 'The medicine man voluntarily gives up his medicine in exchange for money from the consumer' is a much more balanced scenario, and violates no one's liberty.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        We hear about adequate competition, limited or no taxes and affordability all the time. Yet, in reality, the free market never seems to deliver this.
                        
                        I understand why you use the terms freedom and liberty, however, don't you think that the liberty of the medicine maker restricts the liberty of others when his fees become un affordable? I hear the term free healthcare banded about a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the most part don't poorer people pay taxes, too? Are they asking for free healthcare or affordable healthcare? I don't see your scenario as balanced, but one that encourages greed and restricts the liberty of others.

                        replyreport
                        1. 88

                           wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           No.  I want to travel the world one day.  I want my own private plane, and I would love to go to space before I die.
                           
                           None of these are going to happen, but not because my liberty is being restricted by someone else.  Nature and the world restrict our liberties far more than any human being can even though it is done via the human invention called "money".  It's called life.
                           
                           You do not have an innate "right" to anything.  Man has guaranteed the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with the US constitution, but it is not something built in by nature.  The US government has also declared that everyone have a "right" to food, housing, cell phones, education and a whole host of other things whether you can collect them yourself or not, but it is not built into the universe somehow.  The idea of the right to healthcare is just the latest in a very long list of freebies our government has declared everyone should have without effort, but it has nothing to do with liberty.  Rather it has to do with redistributing wealth (steal from the rich and give a little to the poor while keeping the remainder) and buying votes.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              No.  I want to travel the world one day.  I want my own private plane, and I would love to go to space before I die.
                              
                              None of these are going to happen, but not because my liberty is being restricted by someone else.
                              
                              How has traveling the world or buying your own private plane suddenly become a "need"? You're right, not owning a plane and not traveling the world will in no way restrict your liberty. But being denied affordable healthcare or abortion in the event of rape, is akin to existing in a psychological prison.  Would you feel your liberty had been invaded if you were forced into having sex, or committing  sexual acts? How about if you were forced to go through with a pregnancy which was the result of the worst violation that you could possibly imagine? Would you feel liberated?
                              
                              If you feel that votes are being bought by offering affordable healthcare, then surely you have to question, why, in this wonderful free market, are so many people so poor that they need assistance to obtain healthcare?

                              replyreport
                              1. 88

                                 wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Needing something does not in any way give you an innate right to have it, and it most definitely does not give you the right to demand that anyone else supply it.
                                 
                                 This concept is an invention by man, not nature, and yes it is used to keep those in power in their positions.
                                 
                                 As far as "affordable" health care - I am of the opinion that this country cannot afford to give health care, of the kind demanded, to all its citizens.  The very term "affordable" is a misnomer and an outright lie - there is no such thing when one considers the entire country.  Some individuals can afford it, some cannot.  That's life, and to promote a lie as reality will only hasten the bankruptcy this country is already facing, whereupon no one will have health care (outside of the very rich).
                                 
                                 Why to people need assistance the obtain healthcare?  Some reasons might be:
                                 1.  They won't work for it.
                                 2.  They can't work for it.
                                 3.  Their work is not of sufficient value to buy it.
                                 4.  They spend what they have on other things - children, nice homes, cars, TV and TV programming, cell phones, etc.
                                 5.  They don't want it. 
                                 6.  The insurance they need is beyond what they can afford even by working more.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Needing something does not in any way give you an innate right to have it, and it most definitely does not give you the right to demand that anyone else supply it.
                                    
                                    And who has the *innate right* to say that what others *need* should be denied. I see a contradiction there.
                                    
                                    You know, I've heard the US Govt receive much criticism for discussing the need to educate the population about healthy eating and trying to promote better lifestyles among citizens. Healthier lifestyles equates to lower health care costs, simple arithmetic, but the argument from the right is always that govt should not be poking their noses in other peoples business, when they are clearly attempting to address a problem in a pragmatic and sensible way.  I can see no logic in the argument that some people can just afford healthcare and some can't, nor any logic in the argument that people should not be better educated about lifestyle. These attitudes come across as fatalistic to say the least.
                                    
                                    I note that your reasons for some individuals not being able to afford healthcare begin with laziness, exclusion, of little worth, poor budgeting and/or skewed priorities and then concludes with none of the above, just unaffordable and out of reach. Doesn't this tell you something about innate right to judge and deny?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 88

                                       wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Judge? If a person doesn't earn enough the cover it the whole country "judges" them with the standard of monetary value.  Isn't that what is being discussed here - the monetary cost of medical care?  You can pay for your own and take care of yourself, or you can't. 
                                       
                                       I repeat once more - no one has an innate "right" to much of anything.  Any "rights" are given by man, and usually paid for (monetarily, socially, through loss of liberty or whatever) by someone else.  The only time such "rights" are discussed at all is when someone wants a supposed "right" that they can't achieve without someone else paying for it.  Even the famous "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" falls into this category - nature does not give you a right to live for more than a few minutes or hours, it does not give you the right to liberty (at least in the sense being discussed here) and if the pursuit of happiness requires anything more than what you can do on your own nature does not grant that, either.

                                       report
                                 2. 74

                                    Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    7. It doesn't matter how much they are actually willing to pay for the insurance, the insurance company refuses to cover them because they are perceived as "high risk."
                                    This may be due to any number of conditions from serious to seemingly benign.
                                    Did you know that "acne" can disqualify you from being covered?
                                    Meanwhile, the chain smoking donut stuffing man down the street gets health coverage for himself and his diabetic wife and obese (BMI 40 plus) kids who live on fast food and never exercise.
                                    How does this man get health coverage?
                                    He belongs to some group -- his company, his union, works for a government department where the "risk" is perceived to be spread.
                                    Alternatively, the man down the street may be low-income. And thus he is getting his healthcare through his state's version of Medicaid.
                                    
                                    Either way, a family that is not potentially but actually at much higher risk of serious health conditions gets insurance and you don't.
                                    
                                    Surely you can see the blatant inequity here.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 88

                                       wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       There is some inequity, yes, but not as much as you perceive.
                                       
                                       A person with multiple surgeries and a recent heart transplant isn't wanting to spread risk (it's not risk, but a virtual certainty they will have high medical bills), just the costs associated with their medical care.  That isn't what insurance is supposed to do.
                                       
                                       And I don't believe simple acne, without extensive medical treatments, will be considered a pre-existing condition, barring one from insurance.  If there were major bills associated with it, then yes it could be.
                                       
                                       And any insurance company WILL cover them if the premium is more than the expected costs.  Offer a premium of a million a year with a million lifetime cap and see what insurance company won't jump at it.

                                       report
                           2. 80

                              Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              And that is the continuing challenge for humanity: to escape not only the biological imperatives that drive our behaviour, but also the limitations of nature itself from which those imperatives originate. That is the grand endeavour, merely the perception of which, exalts us.

                              replyreport
                        2. 67

                           innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           We have not experienced a fully free market so it is not possible to make a blanket judgment upon it. However, it is possible to predict certain outcomes based on principles and past experience. History shows that the least free markets are also the least efficient, and can be predicted through principles.
                           
                           If the medicine maker makes it unaffordable he is taking away the freedom of the consumer but not their liberty. All things being equal, he is in all probability taking away his own freedom too, by pricing himself out of the market. Neither of these parties are aggressing against another so neither of them are violating liberty. It is then in the medicine maker's interest to make his product affordable.
                           
                           HOWEVER, he can maintain his high prices if he somehow convinces the government to force people to pay for insurance. That way he doesn't even need to lower his prices. This is Obamacare - exactly the opposite of what people think it is.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              We have not experienced a fully free market so it is not possible to make a blanket judgment upon it. However, it is possible to predict certain outcomes based on principles and past experience.
                              
                              If we have not experienced a fully free market how on earth can we predict certain outcomes based on past experience? We keep making assertions based on principles, and likewise, keep assuming that 2+2 =5.
                              
                              History shows that the least free markets are also the least efficient, and can be predicted through principles.
                              
                              History also shows that de-regulated markets create boom, bust, recession and depression. We only seem to achieve [some] level of stability when we regulate.
                              
                              If the medicine maker makes it unaffordable he is taking away the freedom of the consumer but not their liberty
                              
                              Well, I suppose that depends on how we define liberty. An untreated life threatening illness can be really distracting when one is planning his own future.
                              
                              All things being equal, he is in all probability taking away his own freedom too, by pricing himself out of the market.
                              
                              No he isn't, he has a whole team of lobbyists that buy politicians and pass legislation for price fixing. Do you see US citizens crossing the border into Canada to purchase affordable drugs?
                              
                              HOWEVER, he can maintain his high prices if he somehow convinces the government to force people to pay for insurance. That way he doesn't even need to lower his prices...This is Conservatism- exactly the opposite of what people think.

                              replyreport
                              1. 67

                                 innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 So the fact that the United States became the most prosperous country in the world when it had the least regulated market in the world means nothing to you? And the fact that despite increased regulation and economic intervention, booms, busts, depressions and recessions keep on coming means nothing too?
                                 
                                 Liberty is clearly defined: thou shalt not aggress upon another. The medicine maker has not stolen medicine from the consumer, he has simply refused to give up his property, and it is perfectly within his rights to do that. One can not claim a right to another's property simply because they need it for a life-threatening illness. However, in a free-market the fact that the consumer needs it gives the medicine maker an incentive to sell it to them, with the option of a deferred payment if necessary.
                                 
                                 But you see, we're talking about a free market, where there are no such things as lobbyists as the government does not have the power to regulate it. Are you beginning to see why limited government encourages businesses to put the consumer first? And thanks for describing how Obamacare is price fixing, that was quite an elegant explanation.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 69

                                    Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    You are living in a dream world.

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 76

                                    Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    I want to have your babies.

                                    replyreport
                                 3. 59

                                    Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    So the fact that the United States became the most prosperous country in the world when it had the least regulated market in the world means nothing to you? And the fact that despite increased regulation and economic intervention, booms, busts, depressions and recessions keep on coming means nothing too?
                                    
                                    At one time America may have been the most prosperous country in the world, but that did not necessarily translate to properous communities. See the difference?
                                    
                                    Liberty is clearly defined: thou shalt not aggress upon another.
                                    
                                    Unless of course you want to cross the border into Canada and buy drugs which are equally as effective as the ones you are being sold in the US, but significantly cheaper. Does the fact the medicine maker wants to aggress  upon the rights of another not bother you at all? Thought that you were all about liberty?
                                    
                                    But you see, we're talking about a free market, where there are no such things as lobbyists as the government does not have the power to regulate it. Are you beginning to see why limited government encourages businesses to put the consumer first?
                                    
                                    No I'm not beginning to see it, because it's a nonsense and will never happen in my lifetime or yours.
                                    
                                    As for the elegant statement, I think recent history may disagree with you regarding Obama and price fixing. The legislation was passed during Bush's time in office.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 67

                                       innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       By prosperous country I do mean communities. It offerred the highest quality of life for the largest population in the fastest time in recorded history. It was far from perfect, but is the clear example of where progress was uninhibited by economic intervention. No state has ever been able to match that because the state is the antithesis of progress.
                                       
                                       You're misunderstanding the word 'aggress'. If you want my phone, and you don't offer me a reasonable price for it, I'm not going to give it to you. You're saying I'm committing violence against you for not giving it to you, which is simply incorrect by dictionary definition.
                                       
                                       If you're allowed to talk about your ideal Socialist utopia (a nonsense, never going to happen in either of our lifetimes), I'm allowed to talk about free markets.
                                       
                                       Obamacare is in effect price fixing, but Bush is guilty of it too. You won't find me defending many Republicans around here.

                                       report
                                       1. 69

                                          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          "Obamacare is in effect price fixing, but Bush is guilty of it too. You won't find me defending many Republicans around here."
                                          
                                          Call it price fixing or whatever you want. Every other advanced industrial country has national health care which costs much less and produces demonstrably better results than the United States.

                                          report
                                          1. 83

                                             gmwilliamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             Ralph, what you have stated is true.   It is about time that the United States have a national health care system.   The United States is far behind regarding this- many Americans needlessly suffer and die because they either have no monies nor insurance and doctors thus doctors and hospitals refuse to accept and treat them!    Either one must have health insurance or money in order to receive medical care and treatment and many people sadly have neither!

                                             report
                                 4. 80

                                    Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Ludwig von Mises tries to tell us how it's supposed to work:
                                    
                                    "On the market of a capitalistic society the common man is the sovereign consumer whose buying or abstention from buying ultimately determines what should be produced and in what quantity and quality." (Ludwig von Mises- The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality)
                                    
                                    Sounds great. Just one problem. The driving force of capitalism is maximal profit. A free market where consumers have power is not conducive to maximum profit. The result is that Corporations will try to restrict the market in ways that are beneficial to them. Monopolies, cartels, oligopolies, barriers to entry, price fixing, predatory pricing etc. are examples of how they already do this. Why do they do it? Because corporations as legal entities are pathological. They have no morals, empathy or conscience. If lying results in maximum profit, lies will be told. If killing results in maximum profit, people will be killed. If price fixing and cartels maximise profits, then price fixing and cartels will exist. In short, a free market can't exist, because Corporations wouldn't allow it to. If you take away regulations, the Corporations will  control and manipulate the market themselves, to their own advantage. The idea of a 'free' market is therefore a self-defeating.

                                    replyreport
                     2. 84

                        peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Here is the Ryan plan;  You get to file for a tax refund every year.  If you are single it's $2,300.  If you file jointly it's $5,700.  You can file at the first of every year or at the end of the year.  You are free to use that for health care by shopping in state exchanges.  Once you use that up, the rest of the money is out of pocket. This is supposed to increase competition and lower prices and create higher quality healh care, according to Ryan.  See there is the word FREE, but it's also equated to MONEY...your own MONEY.   Republicans always equate liberty and freedom to money.  That's what privatizing is all about.  That's what this abortion ruling is aboout.  They just wrap it up in morality, because that creates emotion, which creates political theater and makes it easier to brainwash the people.

                        replyreport
                        1. 70

                           rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The American value system is based on money. If you do something wrong, pay the Man. If you want to do the right thing pay the Man. If you want permission to do something pay the Man. If you don't want to do something pay the Man. If you want to say something pay the Man. I am still waiting for the free things that freedom espouses.

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              peoplepower73posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Amen!

                              replyreport
               2. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "How free are you if you are compelled to buy health insurance? "
                  
                  About as free as being required to have car insurance or pay Social Security taxes, or being required to get your children vaccinated and send them to school or home school them. The nature of society requires certain things in the overall public interest. The health care program simply won't work if people like you are allowed to go uninsured until they get really sick and then expect to get insurance or their health care paid for by someone else. This idea was first promoted by the conservative Heritage Foundation and picked up by Mitt Romney when he established universal health care insurance in Massachusetts.  The concept is called "adverse selection."

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     "About as free as being required to have car insurance or pay Social Security taxes, or being required to get your children vaccinated and send them to school or home school them."
                     In other words: not very.
                     
                     "The nature of society requires certain things in the overall public interest."
                     On the contrary, this is a phenomenon exclusive to government, not society. Societies can and have functioned without any obligations to the 'public interest'. Obamacare is clearly against the individual's interest, and it's clear supporters don't have any problem with that, but rising costs and reduction of healthcare freedom must be against the public interest too. I don't buy it at all. Even socialists should be aghast at Obamacare - it is more akin to fascism than anything else. If it doesn't work if people aren't forced to participate then it shouldn't work.

                     replyreport
                     1. 69

                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        " Societies can and have functioned without any obligations to the 'public interest'."
                        
                        Perhaps, but I can't recall any, except the one in Golding's book, "Lord of the Flies." As I recall, that one didn't work out very well. Do citizens in the UK have a choice on whether to have their taxes used for National Health Care?
                        
                        Here's the fairest and most balanced comment on current healthcare issues in the US.
                        
                        "...Both campaigns claim they are out to protect future health care. Yet the sniping hides the real issue. Protecting federal health programs over the long term, as the population ages and medical costs keep rising faster than economic growth, will require curbing the programs’ spending. And we haven’t quite figured out how to do that...." Read the entire article here:
                        
                        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/busin … ref=health

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           What your forgetting is that Lord of the Flies is a work of fiction about children, not adults possessing responsibility. There is rightful authority, but if it is to be legitimate, it needs to be voluntary. The French city market system, and the United States in its heyday (limited government intervention as was intended in the constitution) are examples of free-er societies that in many ways were more efficient and served the people better than what we have now. However, we in all actuality have never experienced a truly free society.
                           
                           The only thing I can say about the things covered in the article is that rationing is all the more likely when you're relying on taxes to fund health, because eventually you're going to run out of other people's money.

                           replyreport
                     2. 69

                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        What, specifically, makes you "aghast at Obamacare?"

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Its inherently violent nature, and the resulting increase in costs.

                           replyreport
4. 59

   Xenonlitposted 12 years ago

   Someone said that Republicans are digging so deep that, soon they will be in China! I would love to see them fall out of that hole on the other side of the world and join their despotic cousins!

   replyreport
5. 76

   Shadesbreathposted 12 years ago

   The reason abortion is a hot button issue is because nobody is wrong, but everyone wants to win.
   
   1. It is not wrong to believe a woman should be able to make the decisions about her body.
   2. It is not wrong to believe every human life should be protected.
   
   The inherent conflict between those two absolute truths is obvious in the case of abortion. What is not obvious is why purportedly intelligent people continue to try to find a way to make their favored position the one that binds everyone.
   
   What IS obvious is that, whenever an election comes along, both sides leap on any opportunity to distract the public into running off into long diatribes about this same old crap that has already found some degree of compromise in established law. No one is ever going to be 100% happy with a compromise. That's why they call it "compromise" instead of "outright victory."
   
   But, here we are, yet another big old abortion debate going. Meanwhile, the same corrupt douchebag-types are being presented to us as candidates. The banks are raping us. Insurance companies are raping us. Corrupt government is raping us. But hey, at least we can have these tired ass arguments over and over and over again every time the media is paid to push a hot button by some candidate's campaign machine.
   
   When you guys are done with this one, you wanna argue about gun control or the death penalty? Maybe some gay marriage action? Euthanasia is fun, we haven't done that one in a while.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, it's August.
      Isn't it about time for a doping in major league  baseball debate?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Those are nice, aren't they? But those are the Vienna sausages of polemic meat, okay to poke with a toothpick sometimes, but not enough to really sink your teeth into.

         replyreport
         1. 74

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            IDK, I seem to recall it working pretty well one year for Bush. But that was then, and this is now.
            
            Well, where are we again on the old 2012 distracto'meter, then?
            We've done gun control (courtesy of Aurora shooting).
            We've done birth control (courtesy of Sandra Fluke/Limbaugh)
            We've done socialized medicine (still going like the Energizer Bunny)
            We've done taxing the rich/middle class more (reverse Robinhood and the 1%)
            We've done American the exceptional (or average) nation
            We've done war exit strategies (Iraq, Afghanistan) and the relative merits of drones
            And now we've done the 1-2 rape/abortion punch
            
            So where, exactly does that leave us?
            Oh right.
            How about those JOBS?
            Anyone?
            

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
6. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago

   Society by its very definition means having obligations to public interest. Without it you have anarchy.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      A simple concept some cannot seem to grasp.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Anarchy is infinitely preferable to what we have now: where our 'obligations' are taken by the point of a gun and used at the whim of banker funded politicians.

      replyreport
7. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   "The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis of 2000 and 2001 was a situation in which California had a shortage of electricity caused by market manipulations and illegal shutdowns of pipelines by Texas energy consortiums. The state suffered from multiple large-scale blackouts, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing." All due to deregulation.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      With some help from Enron.

      replyreport
8. 33

   gnlaser2006posted 12 years ago

   today is another day

   replyreport
9. 80

   Mitch Alanposted 12 years ago

   Not defending the entirety of his statement, but the term "legitimate" rape was in contrast to statutory rape which is generally not physically forced. "Legitimate" rape is generally forced and violent. While pregnancy from rape is fairly rare, the comment was not well defined, nor was it was it taken in full context of meaning....

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is politics. Nobody cares what you mean.

      replyreport