coynedj wrote:Those may be bad, but they're not policy bad. I don't see them showing that he would support legislation that has no right to be passed, whereas the Missouri dude's comments certainly did.

This is true. Most of the Bushisms I remember were the same way, funny but not a big deal. Too bad we couldn't have had a Bush-Biden team, that would've been a laugh a minute.

MarkDaSpark wrote:There's so many!


Although this is close: "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

This is my favorite: "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008

There are some great ones in there. Brightened up my afternoon!

coynedj wrote:Those may be bad, but they're not policy bad. I don't see them showing that he would support legislation that has no right to be passed, whereas the Missouri dude's comments certainly did.

Really? Then what is this considered, if not policy bad?

“Look at what they [Republicans] value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains." --Joe Biden, speaking to a largely African-American audience in Danville, Va., Aug. 14, 2012

MarkDaSpark wrote:Really? Then what is this considered, if not policy bad?

“Look at what they [Republicans] value, and look at their budget. And look what they're proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains." --Joe Biden, speaking to a largely African-American audience in Danville, Va., Aug. 14, 2012

And what particular legislation does that directly tie in to? And is that legislation clearly bad and contrary to scientific facts, or just something that you disagree with?

That's the distinction I was aiming for - a clear statement of legislative intent that it is difficult for anyone with a sound mind to support.

chemvictim wrote:Link doesn't work but I recognized the story from the web address. I honestly don't get it, either. We already established here that people will sacrifice personal freedoms in exchange for lower taxes, especially when it's other people's personal freedoms and not their own. But this guy...combining social conservatism with unabashed stupidity. I don't know why anybody would vote for that combination. Here's another link. I wonder if he also believes in the wandering uterus theory.

Or maybe he's just familiar with the very well-documented example of waterfowl.

Given sexual selection, and the very clear incentives of females of all species to actually pick their genes, it would be much MORE puzzling if terrible act and consensual sex were equally effective at conception (after all, if terrible act were as effective, then what's the marginal incentive for males to spend all that time on pair-bonding and gaining consent?).

PetiteSirah wrote:Or maybe he's just familiar with the very well-documented example of waterfowl.

Given sexual selection, and the very clear incentives of females of all species to actually pick their genes, it would be much MORE puzzling if terrible act and consensual sex were equally effective at conception (after all, if terrible act were as effective, then you would have no pair-bonding whatsoever).

If a woman gets pregnant as a result of terrible act, it's her own damn fault for not having a proper corkscrew vagina, like a duck.

PetiteSirah wrote:Or maybe he's just familiar with the very well-documented example of waterfowl.

Given sexual selection, and the very clear incentives of females of all species to actually pick their genes, it would be much MORE puzzling if terrible act and consensual sex were equally effective at conception (after all, if terrible act were as effective, then what's the marginal incentive for males to spend all that time on pair-bonding and gaining consent?).

Oooo science!!

Something you are missing in this is that the adolescent human takes a significantly larger amount of time and energy to bring to adulthood than does the waterfowl. A paired couple ( who almost certainly have consentual relations) are more likely to be able to bring that child to age.

I would not find it alarming at all if forced (and completed) copulation and consentual copulation have similar rates of conception.

chemvictim wrote:If a woman gets pregnant as a result of terrible act, it's her own damn fault for not having a proper corkscrew vagina, like a duck.

I thought this sentence was full of filters. Nope. Just one.

cmaldoon wrote:Oooo science!!

Something you are missing in this is that the adolescent human takes a significantly larger amount of time and energy to bring to adulthood than does the waterfowl. A paired couple ( who almost certainly have consentual relations) are more likely to be able to bring that child to age.

I would not find it alarming at all if forced (and completed) copulation and consentual copulation have similar rates of conception.

I think it's also worth noting that humans are different from ducks in lots of interesting ways, but I'm no biologist. That aside, I've read that there are lots of terrible act pregnancies in Sudan, for example, where the average woman isn't on the pill for half her life.

None of that really matters. Even if pregnancy after terrible act was "really rare," according to Dr. Akin, the victims' abortions or lack thereof are none of his damn business. Also, the implication that maybe the terrible act wasn't rapey enough for Akin...not cool.

chemvictim wrote:If a woman gets pregnant as a result of terrible act, it's her own damn fault for not having a proper corkscrew vagina, like a duck.

Not even close to the point. The point is that it's entirely plausible -- and indeed, logical -- to suggest that r4p3 would be less successful than consensual sex.

Even with Ducks, it's common enough, despite their countermeasure, that 3% of all ducks are fathered by r4p3. Given that we're not nearly no r4p3y, we would have correspondingly weaker countermeasures.

But that the effect is smaller doesn't mean we can assume it doesn't exist. We're not nearly as sexually dimorphic as walruses or elephants (or even gorillas or orangs), but doesn't mean that men aren't larger than women.

cmaldoon wrote:Oooo science!!

Something you are missing in this is that the adolescent human takes a significantly larger amount of time and energy to bring to adulthood than does the waterfowl. A paired couple ( who almost certainly have consentual relations) are more likely to be able to bring that child to age.

I would not find it alarming at all if forced (and completed) copulation and consentual copulation have similar rates of conception.

Two-parent families != consensual sex, even for late-maturing species. Elephant fathers, for example, are not involved in child-rearing.

chemvictim wrote:I think it's also worth noting that humans are different from ducks in lots of interesting ways, but I'm no biologist. That aside, I've read that there are lots of terrible act pregnancies in Sudan, for example, where the average woman isn't on the pill for half her life.

I'm sure there are as well. But the issue is about rates, not absolute numbers.

chemvictim wrote:None of that really matters. Even if pregnancy after terrible act was "really rare," according to Dr. Akin, the victims' abortions or lack thereof are none of his damn business. Also, the implication that maybe the terrible act wasn't rapey enough for Akin...not cool.

Couldn't agree more. He's as much of an asshat as McCaskill is corrupt.

PetiteSirah wrote:Two-parent families != consensual sex, even for late-maturing species. Elephant fathers, for example, are not involved in child-rearing.

Perhaps "Almost certainly" was too strong, but I would posit "Highly likely"

Another thing about consensual versus forced relations is that consensual relations are more likely to happen more often which makes the likelihood of offspring higher.


Also on the elephants: I have seen at least one report stating that the females are generally faster than the males and can therefore generally decide the terms of an encounter.

PetiteSirah wrote:Couldn't agree more. He's as much of an asshat as McCaskill is corrupt.

I do agree as well that he's off base no matter how much we take this debate into animalistic questions. terrible act is terrible act and in my opinion the mother should have the option of not living with it for 9 months.

MarkDaSpark wrote:There's so many!


Although this is close: "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

This is my favorite: "Stand up, Chuck, let 'em see ya." –-Joe Biden, to Missouri state Sen. Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair, Columbia, Missouri, Sept. 12, 2008

second one is just funny.

PetiteSirah wrote:Not even close to the point. The point is that it's entirely plausible -- and indeed, logical -- to suggest that r4p3 would be less successful than consensual sex.

Even with Ducks, it's common enough, despite their countermeasure, that 3% of all ducks are fathered by r4p3. Given that we're not nearly no r4p3y, we would have correspondingly weaker countermeasures.

But that the effect is smaller doesn't mean we can assume it doesn't exist. We're not nearly as sexually dimorphic as walruses or elephants (or even gorillas or orangs), but doesn't mean that men aren't larger than women.

Sorry. I'm not sure what your point is. If you're trying to convince me that Akin's comments weren't stupid, you're wasting your time. I'm a lost cause.

canonizer wrote:second one is just funny.

I dated a girl who was in a wheel chair (she had MS)in college many years ago. I used to tell her to get out of the chair, she wasn't fooling anybody. She said she appreciated my sense of humor, that she was tired of people treating her as helpless and walking on eggshells just because she was in a chair. Perhaps VP Biden had a similar joking relationship with senator Graham.

edlada wrote:I dated a girl who was in a wheel chair (she had MS)in college many years ago. I used to tell her to get out of the chair, she wasn't fooling anybody. She said she appreciated my sense of humor, that she was tired of people treating her as helpless and walking on eggshells just because she was in a chair. Perhaps VP Biden had a similar joking relationship with senator Graham.

No, he didn't.

MarkDaSpark wrote:No, he didn't.

Sorry, didn't know he was a personal friend of yours.

edlada wrote:Sorry, didn't know he was a personal friend of yours.

.... Why are you going out of your way to create a (relatively elaborate) story about how a gaffe could have not been a gaffe? MANY sources (including the NY Times, Time, the Huffington Post, etc) covered the flub, and none talk about 'Biden's close relationship with Graham,' or anything like that.

If it wasn't a mistake and was just a joke, I would assume we would have heard about it; I think it is much, much more likely that a VP candidate on one of the major party's tickets simply didn't know much about a relatively minor state politician that he was recognizing for being at a rally.

jawlz wrote:.... Why are you going out of your way to create a (relatively elaborate) story about how a gaffe could have not been a gaffe? MANY sources (including the NY Times, Time, the Huffington Post, etc) covered the flub, and none talk about 'Biden's close relationship with Graham,' or anything like that.

If it wasn't a mistake and was just a joke, I would assume we would have heard about it; I think it is much, much more likely that a VP candidate on one of the major party's tickets simply didn't know much about a relatively minor state politician that he was recognizing for being at a rally.

I didn't create a (relatively elaborate) story, I related a factual anecdote to support why Biden may have made such a comment. Perhaps your view of events is the correct one and Biden made a simple gaffe. Either way, I found his comment rather humorous, but that's just me.
Tough crowd here tonight.

edlada wrote:I didn't create a (relatively elaborate) story, I related a factual anecdote to support why Biden may have made such a comment. Perhaps your view of events is the correct one and Biden made a simple gaffe. Either way, I found his comment rather humorous, but that's just me.
Tough crowd here tonight.

His comment wasn't an attempt to be humorous, but an error on his part. Instead of trying to make up excuses (the Lamestream Media does that), accept it. Yes, it was a simple gaffe, but it goes along with all the others.

And he's just one heartbeat away from being President? Just think of Biden as the Democratic Dan Quayle.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Factual??? Insert Fictional instead. His comment wasn't an attempt to be humorous, but an error on his part. Instead of trying to make up excuses (the Lamestream Media does that), accept it. Yes, it was a simple gaffe, but it goes along with all the others.

And he's just one heartbeat away from being President? Just think of Biden as the Democratic Dan Quayle.

Sigh. My personal anecdote was factual. I was there.

I think Dan Quayle makes Joe Biden look like a bleeding genius. Even Spiro Agnew looked intelligent compared to Quayle.

Edit:

edlada wrote:Sigh. My personal anecdote was factual. I was there.

I think Dan Quayle makes Joe Biden look like a bleeding genius. Even Spiro Agnew looked intelligent compared to Quayle.

I corrected that part already, you must have hit reply before I finished editing.

Yes, you post a factual anecdote to try to fictionalize why Biden said what he said. You weren't there, nor are you friends with either. Neither was (or am) I. However, it has been covered extensively, so there are no doubts it was a gaffe.


And as to Biden being a genius next to Quayle? That gets 4 Pinocchio's. As in Quayle looks like a genius next to Biden. Biden's been stepping all over himself, much more than Quayle ever did.

MarkDaSpark wrote:His comment wasn't an attempt to be humorous, but an error on his part. Instead of trying to make up excuses (the Lamestream Media does that), accept it. Yes, it was a simple gaffe, but it goes along with all the others.

And he's just one heartbeat away from being President? Just think of Biden as the Democratic Dan Quayle.

About Biden's gaffes, of which there are many, how do they concern you with respect to his possible presidency? Is it that he's just plain stupid and that's generally scary, or is there something specifically related to the nature of the gaffes that concerns you?

I tried to embed this video clip but it didn't appear to work.

MarkDaSpark wrote: Instead of trying to make up excuses (the Lamestream Media does that)

I don't understand these continuous jabs at the liberal side of things when they are completely unfounded.

In this case, your "lamestream media" (including the HuffPo) covered the story and made no excuses for his mistake.

And isn't Fox as mainstream as all the rest? Or even more so?

MarkDaSpark wrote: Instead of trying to make up excuses (the Lamestream Media does that), accept it.

I lol'd a little at that because we just had a discussion here about the mating habits of waterfowl in attempt to justify Akin's comments.

kylemittskus wrote:I don't understand these continuous jabs at the liberal side of things when they are completely unfounded.

In this case, your "lamestream media" (including the HuffPo) covered the story and made no excuses for his mistake.

And isn't Fox as mainstream as all the rest? Or even more so?

Perhaps you are unaware of how left they go? And I doubt that HuffPo counts as mainstream. Unless you mean mainstream liberal.

And while Fox could be considered mainstream, they overcompensate too far right to make up for ABC/NBC/CBS.

And perhaps you should read the NY Times editorial page more. Tons of evidence there.


Edit: P.S. Why do you think public confidence in the mainstream media is at an all time low?

chemvictim wrote:I lol'd a little at that because we just had a discussion here about the mating habits of waterfowl in attempt to justify Akin's comments.

I don't think PS was trying to justify his comments, as much as illustrate some of the false science being used.

chemvictim wrote:I lol'd a little at that because we just had a discussion here about the mating habits of waterfowl in attempt to justify Akin's comments.

Not even close to justifying them -- they're unjust and unjustifiable. Just to suggest that the underlying concept -- that terrible act is a less successful reproductive strategy than consensual sex -- is not as crazy as it sounds, by identifying the best example of anti-terrible act evolutionary adaptations.

MarkDaSpark wrote:I don't think PS was trying to justify his comments, as much as illustrate some of the false science being used.

I think Akin is the proverbial blind squirrel who finds a nut, the stopped clock who's right twice a day, the Obama who decides to raid Bin Laden's compound notwithstanding all the hemming and hawing and almost calling it off.

Hell, he probably doesn't even believe in evolution.

PetiteSirah wrote:I think Akin is the proverbial blind squirrel who finds a nut, the stopped clock who's right twice a day, the Obama who decides to raid Bin Laden's compound notwithstanding all the hemming and hawing and almost calling it off.Hell, he probably doesn't even believe in evolution.

There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of president Obama but the comment you made is a cheap shot. Any military action involving a high degree of difficulty in a foreign country and under great secrecy involving countless moving parts is not easy. Canceling an operation is always a viable option based on tactics, strategy, weather and a host of other reasons. If people think these kinds of operations are simply the good guys vs the bad guys and the good guys always effortlessly win then go back to watching TV or movies where they make these things look very simple. Planning even a relatively simple operation is difficult and most people have no idea of the complexity involved. I have have served several years in the military and also several years as a Dept.of the Army civilian and have observed and participated in military operations from the lowest level up to the Major Army HQ level (before and during the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) so I know what I am talking about.

chemvictim wrote:Sorry. I'm not sure what your point is. If you're trying to convince me that Akin's comments weren't stupid, you're wasting your time. I'm a lost cause.

I think it's all a long winded way of leading us down a path where eventually he gets to say "flunk a duck" and we all realize we've been had.

Well played, well played.

Something Akin says I agree with:

"The people of Missouri chose me to be their candidate. And I don't believe it's right for party bosses to decide to override those voters," Akin said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Now given another chance I'm guessing those same voters wouldn't choose him again, but he's got a point.

bhodilee wrote:Something Akin says I agree with:



Now given another chance I'm guessing those same voters wouldn't choose him again, but he's got a point.

He's making the party look bad. His comments were insensitive and stupid, but they were right in line with the Republican platform on abortion, and (I think) he has some connection with Paul Ryan on the extreme anti-abortion angle. Personally, I've always considered extreme anti-abortion legislation to be insensitive, stupid, and outright hostile, and Akin illustrated it nicely. If memory serves, various Republicans have said some pretty crazy things about terrible act and abortion over the years, but I don't remember anyone getting as much press as this guy. Is it because he has that connection to Ryan? I'm not sure.

chemvictim wrote:He's making the party look bad. His comments were insensitive and stupid, but they were right in line with the Republican platform on abortion, and (I think) he has some connection with Paul Ryan on the extreme anti-abortion angle. Personally, I've always considered extreme anti-abortion legislation to be insensitive, stupid, and outright hostile, and Akin illustrated it nicely. If memory serves, various Republicans have said some pretty crazy things about terrible act and abortion over the years, but I don't remember anyone getting as much press as this guy. Is it because he has that connection to Ryan? I'm not sure.

the only connection I'm aware of is that Ryan called him and told him to drop out, that it would "be better for him". Sounds like a veiled threat

bhodilee wrote:the only connection I'm aware of is that Ryan called him and told him to drop out, that it would "be better for him". Sounds like a veiled threat

You're probably right. I thought I read they'd co-sponsored a bill or something, but I can't remember where I read it. Maybe just a delusion.

Okay, this is not a serious website or a serious article, but it made me laugh. Mitt Romney Has the Overwhelming Support of Exactly Zero Percent of Black People

"At last, Mitt Romney's quest to find a single black friend can now officially be declared a failure." The article also says that things aren't looking good for Romney, "Unless Joe Biden literally throws up all over himself during the Vice Presidential debate. Which could happen."

Again, not serious, no need for serious analysis. Just giggles for the giggle-inclined.

chemvictim wrote:Okay, this is not a serious website or a serious article, but it made me laugh. Mitt Romney Has the Overwhelming Support of Exactly Zero Percent of Black People

"At last, Mitt Romney's quest to find a single black friend can now officially be declared a failure." The article also says that things aren't looking good for Romney, "Unless Joe Biden literally throws up all over himself during the Vice Presidential debate. Which could happen."

Again, not serious, no need for serious analysis. Just giggles for the giggle-inclined.

It would be funny, except that Jezebel is only unintentionally a humor site. (Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!!) It's just part of the massive media campaign to avoid the issues (like our economy) and focus on calling names, muddying the waters (hahaha, look how white and old-fashioned they are), and battlefield preparation (look how racist we are for holding Obama to his own words!).

In actual news, this is far more telling. It also has the benefit of being true.