Bryan Fischer Says Todd Akin's Comments About 'Legitimate Rape' Were 'Absolutely Right'

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

.. .awesome lets apply that logic all around.. He is white so all whites must be that way, he is male so all males feel that way, he is from the northeast so they must all think that way. Feel free to add whatever attributes you want or remove any that might include you or your "side" as needed to make you feel superior

In all honesty if someone does not approve of abortion because they maintain the unborn child is a life then how can it be OK to abort in the case of rape? Always OK or Never OK I understand but this conditional "it is ok if..." makes zero sense. Show some spine.

I don't know how made that jump there. Adding the insult of condemning a woman to bear the fruit of the injury she experienced when being raped is the GOP platform. There's no logic applied here. There's a fact stated. If you are comfortable with this brutal form of big government intrusion on women who fell victim to a brutal crime then that's your issue. I am not comfortable with it and neither are three out of four of my fellow Americans. This is not about spine, it's about decency.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I don't know how made that jump there. Adding the insult of condemning a woman to bear the fruit of the injury she experienced when being raped is the GOP platform. There's no logic applied here. There's a fact stated. If you are comfortable with this brutal form of big government intrusion on women who fell victim to a brutal crime then that's your issue. I am not comfortable with it and neither are three out of four of my fellow Americans. This is not about spine, it's about decency.

So i will give you this. I am pro-choice, I am pro-gay rights, in fact I am Pro-equal rights for all.

So who do you vote for.. Democrats who know only I way and that is Tax TAX TAX Spend Spend Spend. Democrats who target the job creation engines of this country and hand out entitlements of appeasement to target groups that are bankrupting this country and destroying it's soul.

Do you vote for Republicans who want to abridge our personal liberties in areas such as abortion and rights for gays.

Vote libertarian and do the right thing. Make everyone equal but also make everyone equally responsible. Offer assistance to only the very poor and needy. Here is a good test. If you have a cell phone, color TV, and can afford expensive nails you are not poor.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So i will give you this. I am pro-choice, I am pro-gay rights, in fact I am Pro-equal rights for all.

So who do you vote for.. Democrats who know only I way and that is Tax TAX TAX Spend Spend Spend. Democrats who target the job creation engines of this country and hand out entitlements of appeasement to target groups that are bankrupting this country and destroying it's soul.

Do you vote for Republicans who want to abridge our personal liberties in areas such as abortion and rights for gays.

Vote libertarian and do the right thing. Make everyone equal but also make everyone equally responsible. Offer assistance to only the very poor and needy. Here is a good test. If you have a cell phone, color TV, and can afford expensive nails you are not poor.

I'm all for personal responsibility. That's why I applaud the health insurance mandate - gets rid of all those fcuking freeloaders I currently pay for. The one big problem with the libertarians I have is this: They pretend that everyone lives on his own little island. Or in some vacuum. That's not reality, however. Once libertarians bridge that gap to arrive in the real world we live in, I promise to give them a second look.

Democrats do a lot of stupid stuff. But they get the essence of a functioning economy: You can't build from the top down. Just like a house, you must build it from the bottom up for it to stand.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I'm all for personal responsibility. That's why I applaud the health insurance mandate - gets rid of all those fcuking freeloaders I currently pay for. The one big problem with the libertarians I have is this: They pretend that everyone lives on his own little island. Or in some vacuum. That's not reality, however. Once libertarians bridge that gap to arrive in the real world we live in, I promise to give them a second look.

Democrats do a lot of stupid stuff. But they get the essence of a functioning economy: You can't build from the top down. Just like a house, you must build it from the bottom up for it to stand.

Dems understand Economy ??? HUH ?? Surely you jest.

[james&olya 1,121]

In all honesty if someone does not approve of abortion because they maintain the unborn child is a life then how can it be OK to abort in the case of rape? Always OK or Never OK I understand but this conditional "it is ok if..." makes zero sense. Show some spine.

You are correct in this. The problem for the GOP is that abortion is not as simple an issue for most people as they would like to make it. An absolutist position like their position that the fetus is already a person and abortion = murder leads to the conclusion that rape victims must be forced to carry their rapists baby to delivery at least. If abortion is permissible for rape victims then you acknowledge implicitly that abortion is not exactly the same as murder and the fetus is not yet exactly a person! But now that the party has reaffirmed its position on abortion without an exception for rape they must deal with the fallout. They want Akin out as a candidate because his candidacy casts their own double standards and hypocrisy into stark relief. Simple people like simple answers. But life has nuance and it is not always possible to make those easy bumper sticker answers work for the real-life situations that occur!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dems understand Economy ???

Yes. They understand that trickle down economics doesn't work. It never has worked, it never will work, it simply can't work.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yes. They understand that trickle down economics doesn't work. It never has worked, it never will work, it simply can't work.

I know right. The Economy really went South under Reagen.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I know right. The Economy really went South under Reagen.

I think there's a difference in what Reagan stood for and what Norquist - read: today's GOP - stands for. Reagan wouldn't stand a chance at being nominated by today's GOP. He'd be cast aside as a RINO.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I know right. The Economy really went South under Reagen.

I think there's a difference in what Reagan stood for and what Norquist - read: today's GOP - stands for. Reagan wouldn't stand a chance at being nominated by today's GOP. He'd be cast aside as a RINO.

As for the trickle down economics, we've done that for over a decade now. How's the economy doing? And where are the jobs that lower taxes and higher after tax profits generate? After tax profits are at record high - and have been for a couple of years now. If all that money at the top is what creates jobs, then where are they? Fact is, the concept doesn't work. Companies are sitting on that money because they see no benefit in investing it and pumping out more product. Why? Because there's no demand since Joe Schmoe happens to have seen his income decrease while corporate profits soared. No demand = no increased production = no jobs. Why did Henry Ford decide to pay his workers above average? Because he knew that the only way for him to grow his business was for his workers to be able to afford his product. It's not rocket science.

[웃 910]

I know right. The Economy really went South under Reagen.

"The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight."

http://mises.org/fre...spx?control=488

Reagan inherited a government that spent $90 billion more than it received in taxes. Within a few years he boosted government spending in excess of $300 billion more than taxes collected. Is this an example of fiscal conservatism? Or is "top rate 91%" Eisenhower (1956, 1957 surpluses), the only "Republican" capable of balancing a budget in the last five and a half decades fiscally conservative? What exactly is a fiscal conservative? You have to go back all the way to the 50s to get a balanced budget under the Republican Party. Why do people think Republicans are budget balancers? And why do people concerned with paying off our debt vote Republican?

Edited August 22, 2012 by ☠