+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: 2012 ELECTION (/thread-5690.html)
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Jimbone - 08-21-2012
(08-21-2012, 01:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: My understanding is that Israel's opposition party and some within his own regime (along with the US and Russia) are in disagreement with Netanyahu's desire to strike fast. Israel's prominent religious leaders haven't publicly weighed-in (last I read).
Imo, your rationale is probably quite similar to those opposing military action at this time; good points.
It's quite a conundrum really... take the risky strategy of waiting it out and hope that the assembly phase can be detected accurately? Or strike the facilities making the material before it can all be assembled?
Scary shit, because they already have the ballistic missile technology that can deliver the distance - the next question is do they have the capability to detonate properly?
As a student of history, I take crazy people at their word. When someone says they are going to wipe someone off of the map - and they are developing a weapon that would do just that - I take their word for it.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Midwest Spy - 08-21-2012
(08-21-2012, 01:47 PM)Jimbone Wrote:(08-21-2012, 01:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: My understanding is that Israel's opposition party and some within his own regime (along with the US and Russia) are in disagreement with Netanyahu's desire to strike fast. Israel's prominent religious leaders haven't publicly weighed-in (last I read).
Imo, your rationale is probably quite similar to those opposing military action at this time; good points.
It's quite a conundrum really... take the risky strategy of waiting it out and hope that the assembly phase can be detected accurately? Or strike the facilities making the material before it can all be assembled?
Scary shit, because they already have the ballistic missile technology that can deliver the distance - the next question is do they have the capability to detonate properly?
As a student of history, I take crazy people at their word. When someone says they are going to wipe someone off of the map - and they are developing a weapon that would do just that - I take their word for it.
I asked my buddy, 'Aren't they worried about regional consequences and who they might be pissing off, or who they might be drawing into the conflict?'
He says they're thinking, 'If we get nuked, none of that will really matter.' I wholeheartedly believe that Iran would love to follow through with annhilating (sp?) Israel. I don't believe an operation to take out their nuclear capabilites can be done solely through the air at this point. They're going to have to send in ground troops (or special ops teams that can go in 30 or so at a time, and get airlifted out immediately).
I thought everything had kind of calmed down, but I'm sure Iran is pushing onward with their plans. Soon, Israel will be at the point of no return.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - username - 08-21-2012
I don't know why (because there are certainly valid arguments against Israel proceeding before the election) but for some reason, my gut tells me they're going to do something before.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - username - 08-21-2012
Or maybe not. Jim's point about hoping for a Republican win and that support is very compelling. Hmmm.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 08-21-2012
(08-21-2012, 12:52 PM)username Wrote: Women have a natural ability not to get pregnant during a rape???
Yep.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - username - 08-21-2012
(08-21-2012, 03:28 PM)Riotgear Wrote:(08-21-2012, 12:52 PM)username Wrote: Women have a natural ability not to get pregnant during a rape???
Yep.
Are you being sarcastic???
The only natural ability is if it doesn't occur any time around ovulation.
I heard yesterday more than 30,000 pregnancies per year are the result of a rape.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 08-21-2012
Romney's stance on Israel is the same as Obama's at this time; military action should be the last resort. However, most (Israel, US, UK..) appear to be in agreement that peaceful talks with Iran are not likely to deter them and that force is pretty much an inevitability.
"There are disagreements among different intelligence agencies, between Israeli, the United States, the French, the U.K. They all have different estimates, they all have different clocks, but very few of them are saying it is far into the future when Iran will have this capability."
Not surprising and understandable (imo) that Netanyahu, as the leader responsible for the target country, would interpret the threat as more serious in the very short term.
An interesting note: Romney worked with Netanyahu back in the 70s with Boston Consulting Group. Here's what Netanyahu said at the end of July when Romney visited Israel:
“Gov. Romney, Mitt, I wanted to welcome you to Jerusalem. We’ve known each other for many decades, since you were a young man, but for some reason, you still look young.” Netanyahu said, as Romney laughed. “You’ve been a personal friend of mine and a strong friend of the state of Israel, and that’s why it’s a pleasure to welcome you here.”
I'm in agreement that Netanyahu probably wishes to see Romney in the White House. The opposition party in Israel has criticized him for tense relations with Obama and claim that he is indeed supporting Romney.
Reference:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/29/news/la-romney-respects-israels-right-to-attack-iran-aide-says-20120729erence:
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Duchess - 08-21-2012
(08-21-2012, 12:52 PM)username Wrote: Legitimate rape? Women have a natural ability not to get pregnant during a rape???
He's a moron.
![[Image: todd-akin.jpeg]](http://live.drjays.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/todd-akin.jpeg)
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Jimbone - 08-21-2012
(08-21-2012, 12:52 PM)username Wrote: Legitimate rape? Women have a natural ability not to get pregnant during a rape???
You've never heard this before?
I learned this in fifth grade. It was in the same class where they taught us how women wearing skirts are just asking for it and that when they say, "NO", they really mean "give it to me harder".
*edit to add
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 08-21-2012
You people need to take a stroll though evolutionary physiology.
Jimbone, you should never hand over your man card for a few moments of feminine sunshine. They despise you for it. Deeply. Permanently.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Lady Cop - 08-22-2012
![[Image: 082112_atheists_20120822_111338.jpg]](http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/082112_atheists_20120822_111338.jpg)
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 08-22-2012
(08-21-2012, 09:17 PM)Jimbone Wrote:(08-21-2012, 12:52 PM)username Wrote: Legitimate rape? Women have a natural ability not to get pregnant during a rape???
You've never heard this before?
I learned this in fifth grade. It was in the same class where they taught us how women wearing skirts are just asking for it and that when they say, "NO", they really mean "give it to me harder".
*edit to add
It's a ridiculous and mock-worthy concept; I agree. Akins and those like him are the only ones that should turn in their man cards, imo.
I really like Paul Ryan's economic and budget mindset. But, in reading about Akin's ignorant "legitimate rape" statement, I'm reminded of Ryan's voting record on abortion and violence against women.
-In 2011, Akin was one of 226 sponsors of the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which, among other things, sought to rewrite the definition of rape (to change the language to "forcible rape") in an effort to make it harder for women to get a post-rape abortion.
Akin is a dumbass who has put Romney's and Ryan's (and most of the GOP's) voting history when it comes to abortion and violence against women in the spotlight; much to the Obama camp's delight, imo - expecting the Dems to bring it up as much as possible during the debates.
When questioned about his support of the Act just days ago, Ryan answered that "Rape is rape. Rape is rape, period. End of story" and added that it's Romney's views on the subject that matter. I hope Ryan means what he is saying NOW. At least Romney is on record as supporting women's rights to have an abortion in the case of rape, incest, and the risk of death to the mother during birth (Ryan has typically only publicly supported the the risk of death exception).
My vote won't be cast based on any ticket's candidate's stance on abortion because the economy (including unemployment, taxes and Fed budget deficit) is my key issue, but it's a jagged pill to swallow if I decide to vote Republican.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 08-22-2012
Hotd - So are you saying a womans body can't reject an unwanted pregnancy?
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 08-22-2012
(08-22-2012, 07:34 PM)Riotgear Wrote: Hotd - So are you saying a womans body can't reject an unwanted pregnancy?
Yes, sir, I am. Brilliant conclusion, right?
What bothers me most is legislation floating around with the term "forcible rape" included. Jesus Christ, talk about redundant. Yet, leaders in our country attempt to pass off this redefinition and categorization of rape bullshit to essentially make it impossible or as hard as possible for women to get legal abortions.
If they're so strongly against abortion in all cases because they believe right to life of the fetus supersedes quality and right to life of the woman in all cases, these politicians should have the balls to say it, regardless of the political ramifications. Instead, they use idiotic and underhanded tactics, imo.
But, voting records and legislation-support documentation can't be undone. When they attempt to climb the political latter, that's when the tap dancing and moonwalking begins - like we're seeing now.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - username - 08-22-2012
(08-22-2012, 07:34 PM)Riotgear Wrote: Hotd - So are you saying a womans body can't reject an unwanted pregnancy?
Huh. That made me think. You would hope if a woman reported a rape quickly enough, she'd be counseled about the morning after pill. Wouldn't even have to get to the abortion decision.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 08-22-2012
(08-22-2012, 08:25 PM)username Wrote:(08-22-2012, 07:34 PM)Riotgear Wrote: Hotd - So are you saying a womans body can't reject an unwanted pregnancy?
Huh. That made me think. You would hope if a woman reported a rape quickly enough, she'd be counseled about the morning after pill. Wouldn't even have to get to the abortion decision.
In cases where the woman is not held for longer than 5 days, the emergency contraception pill can be taken and prevent pregnancy, which is great. Very glad we've got it here in the US now.
For statuatory rape and incest (which is also rape, imo) you've got girls/young women who often aren't able or willing to report repeated/ongoing rape (and, sadly, sometimes too young/indoctrinated to know it's rape) and don't know that they've been impregnated for some time. These are cases that would not be considered "forcible rape" and if the legislation had passed, would have barred the pregnancies from being terminated.
Tough issue. I'm "right to choose" and share the opinion that you've posted previously; I don't respect women who use abortion as birth control or choose to wait and have late term abortions. But, they have the legal right whether I respect them or not and I can't imagine most of them making responsible parents.
I understand "right to life" advocates and their views. If they want to fight against abortion, fine. If they claim to want to fight against abortion with the exception of rape and incest so as not to alienate some in their own party/contingency, but then turn around and attempt to categorize rapes in order to minimize those who qualify for their exemptions, it's bullshit to me.
Ah well, politics, religion, morals, bullshit - all intertwined. Nothing new. Just wish it weren't so par-for-the-course. Not intending to derail the Election thread by getting too far into the abortion issue, but glad you brought it up in here as the fact that the two parties are very far apart on the matter (and Akin's idiotic statement) may indeed affect how some people vote.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 08-22-2012
(08-22-2012, 07:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(08-22-2012, 07:34 PM)Riotgear Wrote: Hotd - So are you saying a womans body can't reject an unwanted pregnancy?
Yes, sir, I am. Brilliant conclusion, right?
No. Totally ignorant of not just evolutionary biology, but also ancient history, human sexuality (evolution of) and your own body. Providing you are, in fact, a woman.
It's shameful that I, being a man, know more about your plumbing then you do. Maybe pick up a book and try for an educated conclusion rather than a "brilliant" one.
OR
You're right and there's nothing your body can do physiologically to stop a man from impregnating you. Sure about that?
Better get googling.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 08-22-2012
(08-22-2012, 10:51 PM)Riotgear Wrote:(08-22-2012, 07:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:(08-22-2012, 07:34 PM)Riotgear Wrote: Hotd - So are you saying a womans body can't reject an unwanted pregnancy?
Yes, sir, I am. Brilliant conclusion, right?
No. Totally ignorant of not just evolutionary biology, but also ancient history, human sexuality (evolution of) and your own body. Providing you are, in fact, a woman.
It's shameful that I, being a man, know more about your plumbing then you do. Maybe pick up a book and try for an educated conclusion rather than a "brilliant" one.
OR
You're right and there's nothing your body can do physiologically to stop a man from impregnating you. Sure about that?
Better get googling.
If you've got some knowledge to share about how I or any female being raped (who is not on pro-active birth control) has the physiological ability to guarantee that she won't be impregnated, I'm all ears.
Why don't you just offer up what you know so that I consider it? I don't understand the insults and asking me to google search, but, meh.
You're the one with knowledge or a counter-point to share, so do or don't, no big deal.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - Riotgear - 08-22-2012
I trust you have access to google same as I do. If not let me know and I'll send you the link.
You're ignorant. Seemingly willfully so.
Go learn. Or don't. No big deal.
RE: 2012 ELECTION - HairOfTheDog - 08-22-2012
(08-22-2012, 11:15 PM)Riotgear Wrote: I trust you have access to google same as I do. If not let me know and I'll send you the link.
You're ignorant. Seemingly willfully so.
Go learn. Or don't. No big deal.
I'm already educated on the subject, including how many documented births occur each year as a result of rape. I've read plenty about it, including discounted claims by some jackasses about trauma preventing egg fertlization.
Telling someone to google to find out whatever it is you're referring to isn't a discussion or a debate, it's just baiting. Not interested in chasing it and don't know why you're interested in casting it.
So, believe what you will and I'll go with what I know having educated myself, based on the research and statistics from medical professionals; male and female.