December 19, 2013
— Ace Well that's just swell!
Caution: Commenters point out, rightly, that I am making some assumptions based upon a short clip which is, conveniently enough, absent context. He could have been speaking of the evidentiary difficulty in such cases -- I don't know. I'm looking into it to find out. So far, I continue seeing only the left talking about this, and only citing the video. No one even will say what H.B. 488 was about.
Update: Laurie David's Cervix seems to have found a reference in the Washington Post which clarifies:
From a Wapo Letter to the Editor from Feb 24 2002:Regarding the issue of whether a woman can be raped legally by her husband, which the Virginia House of Delegates voted recently to change ["Virginia House Backs Bill to Outlaw Wife Rape," Metro, Feb. 8]....
Black and Del. Kenneth R. Melvin (D-Portsmouth) express concern about wives who cry rape falsely. Black says that changing the rape law could put a husband in "enormous fear of the damage to his reputation" in the event that a wife filed a false rape claim.
So yes, in 2002, it appears that Virginia did not yet have a law criminalizing rape by spouse, and the House voted in favor of it. But Dick Black objected to on evidentiary grounds. Commenters are now telling me he ultimately voted in favor of it, despite the concerns he announced.
That ain't gonna fly, people.
The post as previously written follows:
I am getting a little sick of seeing the words "Republican Virginian State Senator" together like this.
Hey Republican Virginian State Senators -- maybe sit this one out a while, huh? You've done enough.
This is going to start a fight, but I think it's a fight that must be had, whether it is upsetting or not.
There are various factions who are pushing fairly unpopular political ideas. They defend doing so by noting these are their "principles" and such.
First, let me say something about these being principles: Fine. We cannot have a fight over principles and expect to persuade each other. People stand their ground on principles, and I can't tell anyone who supports an unpopular position that it is "wrong."
These things are subjective. Yes, they're subjective, not "objective." People always claim their principles are objective, but that fact that Man A and Man B take precisely opposite positions on what each alleges to be an "objective" matter of principle demonstrates they are in fact subjective.
So I can't tell this guy, Dick Black, that he's "wrong" that a husband cannot be convicted of raping a spouse in any way that is likely to persuade him.
One's principles are one's own, and they're hard to challenge and almost impossible to change.
But here is what is objective: Hard cold data -- polls and the like -- that demonstrate that some positions are so far outside the mainstream to be political poison.
We used to be a smarter party about this. But the political fashion within the GOP has become "YOLO" of late. People who are otherwise rational individuals have begun deciding that it doesn't matter if the plank against birth control has 10% support and 88% opposition*, YOLO, whatever, we're going to go down in flames because our principles demand it.
One can take whatever positioned principle one likes. A man who is right does not need a poll to tell him so, or to justify his beliefs. The truth, it is said, makes a majority of one.
But many people seem to be taking that idea to mean that it's now responsible, even virtuous, to remain studiously ignorant of where actual political opinion lay. That is, that only a Coward would bother checking the numbers to see if a particular position had any chance of carrying the day, or, conversely, sinking the entire statewide ticket in a major election.
It is one thing to say "I don't need a poll to justify my principles." That is a correct position to take.
But it is entirely another thing to say "I don't need to be informed about polls at all in making tactical political decisions about who is best poised to actually deliver the bulk of my political agenda." To say that is solipsistic, indulgent, and lazy, in that it makes up a silly false reason for not doing one's homework.
Polls can't tell you what the right position is-- that can only be told by a man's conscience.
But polls can tell you what the winning position will probably look like.
I don't believe this guy will will a primary, so I don't think he'll wind up losing a House seat (or, worse yet-- winning a House seat, and becoming an albatross around every conservative's neck).
But I'm not very certain in that belief. Not as certain as I'd like to be. I'd like to think that grassroots voters are still capable of making sound tactical political decisions. Well, actually, they are so capable. It's just that the will to make sound tactical decisions might not be there anymore.
Sound tactical decisions have become very unfashionable of late.
There are elements of the grassroots which are acting very irresponsibly, almost gleefully reckless like a teenager with the parents away and the keys to the car, calling out "YOLO!" with abandon.
YOLO is not a wise strategy in life and it's no better in politics.
So yeah, I imagine this Don Black character will lose, or be dissuaded from seeking national high office.
But I'm a lot more worried about this than I would be during a non-YOLO! political cycle.
* My error; corrected. I forgot which position polled at this catastrophically bad level. I originally wrote the no-abortion-in-cases-of-rape position polled 10/88; actually, it's the anti-birth control one.
Thanks to Anon Y. Mouse for pointing out the numbers didn't sound right.
Second Correction/Caution: Commenters are cautioning that we don't really know what this guy was talking about -- maybe he was just making a point about how difficult it would be to prove such a rape, not that they shouldn't be contrary to law.
At first I dismissed this, but I realize now there is greater ambiguity than I first thought.
So, I am currently looking for a longer explanation of this particular quote, what he was talking about, what the bill under question (H.B. 48
actually was, etc.
Posted by: Ace at
12:59 PM
| Comments (398)
Post contains 1085 words, total size 7 kb.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2013 01:01 PM (t3UFN)
This reminds me of Akin. And Huckabee encouraged Akin to stay in the race even after the latter's epically bad foot in mouth moment.
Can we start calling these guys "Huckabee Republicans"?
Please?
Pretty please?
Posted by: junior at December 19, 2013 01:01 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: Dr Spank at December 19, 2013 01:02 PM (xlX1p)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at December 19, 2013 01:02 PM (oFCZn)
Posted by: GuyfromNH at December 19, 2013 01:02 PM (kbOju)
Posted by: Dick's wife at December 19, 2013 01:03 PM (oFCZn)
Posted by: Ray Van Dune at December 19, 2013 01:05 PM (H9eC4)
Posted by: Caliban at December 19, 2013 05:04 PM (DrC22)
Pajama boy could fuck a cheerio without breaking it.
Posted by: Berserker- Dragonheads Division at December 19, 2013 01:05 PM (FMbng)
Given that the sources The Weekly Standard chooses to use for this slam are:
1. A Feminist site
2. Daily Kos
3. Blue Virgina, a "progressive and democratic site"
How about we dial down our outrage-o-meters a tad until we check doublecheck the facts?
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 01:06 PM (kdS6q)
We are in a deflationary depression, employment is at a historical low, we are becoming a police state, and the federal government is trying to control every aspect of our lives , and the burning issue is spousal rape?
I have a feeling this is a cherry-picked clip - by whom, I don't know.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:06 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 01:07 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:07 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:07 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Caliban at December 19, 2013 01:07 PM (DrC22)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:08 PM (lZBBB)
LOVE his name.
Ace I happen to be in that core Pro-Spousal Rape demographic. In fact, the freedom to rape my wife, and the protection of that precious freedom, is pretty much my single issue.
He's got my vote.
Posted by: Sam In VA at December 19, 2013 01:09 PM (Q52VH)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:09 PM (olDqf)
What's the name for the thing where you hear something and you choose to just believe it because it confirms your biases, even though you know the source might be questionable?
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 19, 2013 01:09 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 01:09 PM (/FnUH)
" but that fact that Man A and Man B take precisely opposite positions on what each alleges to be an "objective" matter of principle demonstrates they are in fact subjective."
Well, no, it just means that one (or both) of them is wrong.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at December 19, 2013 01:10 PM (YYJjz)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:10 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: report at December 19, 2013 01:10 PM (Nx76m)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 19, 2013 01:10 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Dr Spank at December 19, 2013 01:10 PM (xlX1p)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 01:10 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:10 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2013 01:11 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Wife at December 19, 2013 01:11 PM (Q52VH)
The Media will just frame someone else as being fringe and go from there.
Sure they don't make things any easier but it's not as if there's a level playing field and honest refs out there.
What's really needed is that those Reps who DO get on TV spend more time making the case for conservatism than their own current ploy to gain face time and please the rubes back home.
Until more Media Outlets report the news and events with more evenness truth, we have to rely on the message being spread by those the media will flock to.
Unfortunately that's usually someone on the fringe or someone who's more liberal than conservative. Which is what the Media aims for.
And suppressing the stupid fringe just reinforces the Media's message of how dumb the GOP is.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and All That (Unexpurgated Edition) at December 19, 2013 01:11 PM (LSDdO)
He might as well go for the whole ball of whacks.
Posted by: GnuBreed at December 19, 2013 01:11 PM (cHZB7)
Please let ONE good candidate run against this whackadoodle in the primary and stomp him but good, or the party finds a way to sideline him before it even gets to a primary.
Posted by: palerider at December 19, 2013 01:11 PM (dkExz)
Why the fuck should one's position on spousal rape laws even remotely be on anyone's radar?
Was this an interview question? Hopefully this wasn't offered as part of his platform. Damn, how does this even really come up?
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2013 01:11 PM (t06LC)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:12 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: M. Murcek at December 19, 2013 01:12 PM (GJUgF)
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at December 19, 2013 01:13 PM (IN7k+)
"I don't know how you could get a conviction for....." is quite a bit different than "I don't accept the premise of spousal rape".
The first quote is what he actually said.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:13 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:13 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 01:13 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: SARDiver at December 19, 2013 01:13 PM (LgxPj)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:14 PM (olDqf)
I mean the people having the vapors over this "rape culture" thing also are no selling the knockout game as a problem...
I am sincerely wondering what the differential incidence rates are.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:14 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:14 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 19, 2013 01:14 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:14 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:15 PM (GEeaH)
It is usually from their ranks that such outliers pop up. Akins, Mourdock, Angle, Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell, Maese - all sound conservatives on most principles, darlings of Tea Party groups - and the like, though, will say the darnedest things, seldom being essential parts of ideology, and nearly always being unnecessary to say at the time, which point out not the common ground with voters in their states or districts, but how they are very much outside the mainstream on some issue or nuance of an issue.
In one respect, the country desperately needs more citizen-legislators and fewer careerists, but that doesn't mean citizens who spout their mouths off without thinking are ever going to get elected. We need people with common sense, and also people who recognize that not everyone need agree with every nuance of every issue to have common cause.
Posted by: Adjoran at December 19, 2013 01:15 PM (473jB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:15 PM (olDqf)
@47 I love how nut job ideas from a single Republican are tie to the party writ large, but Dems who post bills outlawing guns (the Bobby Rushes of the world), or calling for a third term for Obama are fringe kooks the media can safely ignore.
---------------
Or talk about garden-variety wife beating (Joe Biden)?
Posted by: junior at December 19, 2013 01:15 PM (UWFpX)
Ace there are out and proud commies up there in DC because YOLO baby!
anyway carry on Vaginia your metamorphosis into NY South is near complete.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:15 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:16 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2013 01:16 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: crystal magnum at December 19, 2013 01:16 PM (YQUIz)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:16 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at December 19, 2013 01:16 PM (/Crba)
seems to be saying the same thing.
-
No, one speaks to his values, that he might think spousal rape is a-ok, while the other speaks to process, as in "I can't support passage of a bill that is so ambiguous"
I don't know where he stands, but I am suspicious as to whether his words are being twisted.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:17 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: shredded chi at December 19, 2013 01:17 PM (m+AZt)
I guess watching videotape and listening to clearly spoken words is now out of vogue too. Better to just say "LEFTIST LIES!!!"
Posted by: ace
Because accepting an out of context 15 second clip from an opo hit-ad at face value is a thing now.
Also confirmation bias.
Also binders full of women.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 01:17 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:17 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:18 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2013 01:18 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:18 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:18 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2013 05:01 PM (t3UFN)
Well spousal rape and the menace of flag burning.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 19, 2013 01:18 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:19 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:20 PM (MMC8r)
No I am pretty sure the word "no" still exists....
if I tried to place little sven into Ms10077 without permission I'd get shot....
that is "no means no"....
"spousal rape" means "I am trying to mindufkc you while engaging in abject psychological warfare and nailing you with force of fucking law"....
here's a clue for women....
if it is that bad fucking leave or get him thrown the fuck out by court order.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:20 PM (9jfyN)
On the video he is saying he doesn't know how you can get a valid conviction for rape when the two parties live together and sleep in the same bed. We don't know the context for that statement. It's not exactly like he's all, "government better not meddle with my right to rape my wife."
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 01:20 PM (+lsX1)
Or are we just reacting to what the headline writers want to pretend was said? Maybe I'm missing something.... I don't see it.
Posted by: f2000 at December 19, 2013 01:20 PM (FcMtg)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:21 PM (lZBBB)
I've come to accept with reluctance falg burning the whole national economy burning through EPA overreach thing bothers me more now.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:21 PM (9jfyN)
I have a feeling this is a cherry-picked clip - by whom, I don't know.
By anyone who doesn't want to talk about the fiscal clusterfuck that is going on.
This includes "our side" that doesn't want us remembering what a complete fiscal disaster total Republican "rule" was.
I wonder if the FiCons have figured out that they are no longer considered the "adults" in the room anymore?
This political party is fucked beyond all belief
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 01:22 PM (e4i/A)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 01:22 PM (/FnUH)
This country needs political leaders with courage--the courage to take unpopular stands--the courage to be a leader, not a follower. I urge DICK BLACK to stay in the race and I urge all of my followers to contribute to his efforts to stand tall.
Posted by: Mike Huckabee at December 19, 2013 01:22 PM (yFb77)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at December 19, 2013 01:23 PM (qdkk8)
Posted by: Maxine Waters[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:23 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 19, 2013 01:23 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2013 01:23 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: Dang at December 19, 2013 01:23 PM (MNq6o)
http://www.ufunk.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/White-Intimity-sexy-photos-03-610x404.jpg
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2013 01:23 PM (Zm0GY)
Or are we just reacting to what the headline writers want to pretend was said?
-
I think you hit it. It seems to me he was debating the ambiguity of the law or proposed bill, and it is being twisted so as to present him as a proponent of spousal rape. I wonder if the democrats or the GOP are trying to kill him, or maybe both.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:24 PM (AX3vC)
Excellent points.
I am firmly anti-abortion, but understand how dexterously the topic needs to be handled for a similar-thinking candidate to be successful.
But being anti-birth control and anti-rape laws is fucking nuts.
Conservative principles can be explained to the voting public by good politicians. They can be convinced of the correctness of the conservative platform.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can be convinced that birth control needs to be regulated or that spousal rape should be decriminalized. If they don't believe it now, they will never believe it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 19, 2013 01:24 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Rep. Hank Johnson at December 19, 2013 01:24 PM (yFb77)
What is the context that makes this better?
Posted by: Yoshi
Don't know. The liberal makers of the ad say the clip is from Feb 7, 2002. Were one to investigate the issue, looking at contemporaneous press accounts or transcripts before joining the hate parade might seem in order.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 01:24 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:24 PM (gXRIG)
It doesn't matter. Some topics are poison, and should be avoided at all costs.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 19, 2013 01:25 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 01:25 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2013 01:25 PM (BM7dA)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:25 PM (x1aCh)
What the hell principle does decriminalizing spousal rape advance ? I'd be considered a Tea Party extremist by many here but my copy of our radical anarchist states rights' SMOD platform is missing the page about "the right to rape one's spouse without government interference." Smoke these clowns out now and put them down.
Posted by: Peppermint Patty at December 19, 2013 01:25 PM (il1Hy)
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:25 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 01:25 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (E+uky)
Posted by: shredded chi at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (m+AZt)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (GEeaH)
Rape your spouse.
Then go ahead and go to sleep.
Good luck!
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: california red at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (7jrCM)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 01:26 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (yz6yg)
This is another case where societal norms preclude a man saying, "as God is my witness your honor I told the bitch to not suck my amigo but she was incorrigible!" when you realize the next morning....no you really were serious that you'd rather eat through your arm to escape than spend another month with the darling....
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (9jfyN)
Come to think of it, there's a lot of nights I wish my wife would rape me.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (t06LC)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo
-
It's kind of hard to avoid a topic if it is a bill in debate. If that is the case, I don't know.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (olDqf)
you were right, I was wrong, on the point of the clarity of the clip.
Posted by: ace
Spoken like a gentleman. Shows class.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (kdS6q)
Mourdock wasn't an "outlier"; he was elected and re-elected to a statewide office and had the support of statewide officeholders except Obama's Favorite Republican Senator, Dick Soreloser Lugar.
But he committed the unpardonable sin of answering a direct question during a candidate debate, and the "fuck the so-con!" contingent took the progg lies about his answer as Gospel truth.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (ZKzrr)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:27 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:28 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2013 01:28 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:28 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Dr. Jesse Pinkman at December 19, 2013 01:28 PM (h4eud)
Posted by: Franch Dressing at December 19, 2013 01:29 PM (ZPrif)
Wait.
Posted by: Julia at December 19, 2013 05:28 PM (8ZskC)
I need brain bleach. Stat!
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:29 PM (x3YFz)
There's a solution-Operation Orthodontist
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:29 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:29 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Simon Gray at December 19, 2013 01:29 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:29 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: Taggart at December 19, 2013 01:30 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:30 PM (olDqf)
At the risk of sounding like Dan Rather, it doesn't matter that the clip is ambiguous.
The topic should be so far off limits that there would be no chance that any Republican candidate at any level would touch it.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 19, 2013 01:30 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: Insomniac at December 19, 2013 01:30 PM (UAMVq)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: Furious George at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (yFb77)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2013 05:28 PM (EWsrI)
Go with that.
My wife and I had probably the worst fight of our 15 years together last week. I'd never even dream of laying hands on her or violating her space. Even if you're married: no means no.
period.
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (E+uky)
Posted by: A knowing smirk at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (R6JT1)
Posted by: Dr. Jesse Pinkman at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (h4eud)
The topic should be so far off limits that there would be no chance that any Republican candidate at any level would touch it.
-
So, if this clip was from debate on a bill, you suggest that republicans don't speak in the session?
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: Guido - 'now with 75+% more hate' at December 19, 2013 01:31 PM (yICtd)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:32 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:32 PM (x1aCh)
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY can be convinced that birth control needs to be regulated or that spousal rape should be decriminalized. If they don't believe it now, they will never believe it.
I know of NOONE, escpecially here, who has EVER said such a damn thing!
Jesus, people, opposition to killing babies in the womb is NOT the same as advocating rape or stealing birth control pills.
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 01:32 PM (e4i/A)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at December 19, 2013 01:33 PM (qdkk8)
ah as dear old dad taught me, "son you cannot rape the willing"....
ie the GOP is a very willing wife to Barry
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:33 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Guido - 'now with 75+% more hate' at December 19, 2013 01:33 PM (yICtd)
Posted by: report at December 19, 2013 01:33 PM (OroYa)
Posted by: angry feminist at December 19, 2013 01:34 PM (YQUIz)
Posted by: Dr. Jesse Pinkman at December 19, 2013 01:34 PM (h4eud)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:34 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: maddogg at December 19, 2013 01:34 PM (xWW96)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:34 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:35 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:35 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 01:35 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: UWP at December 19, 2013 01:35 PM (2hQRj)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:36 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2013 01:37 PM (EWsrI)
52% of America evidently has no problem with stuttering clusterfucks who act like Mussolini and shit out of their mouths while legislating out of their ass and won't be shamed from the position.....
I am sorry but the entire topic is too insane for me to comprehend....
"spousal rape" is uh called rape....
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:37 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: smeary at December 19, 2013 01:37 PM (R6JT1)
Big caveat given that this was reported in National Journal, but if true, his position on Israel would worry me more:
‘I have always had sharp differences with the [Bush] administration on foreign policy.’ In particular, he explains, the Israeli-occupied West Bank must be ‘entirely cleaned out’ of Israeli settlements and returned to Palestinians.”
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 19, 2013 01:37 PM (il1Hy)
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:37 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2013 01:38 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:38 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:38 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:38 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 01:38 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2013 01:38 PM (t3UFN)
Precisely.
No does in fact mean no.
Spousal rape is another "fuck you Y chromosome bearer" law there that like a ninja shifts burden of proof.
I hate this society.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:39 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Buzzsaw at December 19, 2013 01:39 PM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Hurricane LaFawnduh at December 19, 2013 01:39 PM (pginn)
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:39 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Milky Loads at December 19, 2013 01:39 PM (OZmbA)
Posted by: IRS at December 19, 2013 01:39 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 19, 2013 01:39 PM (aDwsi)
‘I have always had sharp differences with the [Bush] administration on foreign policy.’ In particular, he explains, the Israeli-occupied West Bank must be ‘entirely cleaned out’ of Israeli settlements and returned to Palestinians.”
-
So, maybe Karl Rove is behind this ad.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:40 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: Dr. Jesse Pinkman at December 19, 2013 01:40 PM (h4eud)
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:40 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 05:31 PM (AX3vC)
I would suggest that they be very careful and unambiguous when discussing matters that can be construed to be on the fringe.
And anywhere else they need to shut up.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 19, 2013 01:40 PM (QFxY5)
Posted by: eman at December 19, 2013 01:41 PM (EWsrI)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:41 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 19, 2013 01:41 PM (8ZskC)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:42 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:42 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at December 19, 2013 01:42 PM (qdkk8)
Look Cicero I was framed the Toaster was pissed off I was fucking her sister the Blender....
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:42 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:42 PM (x1aCh)
Unless I want to get stabbed in my sleep. No, actually she'd wake me first so I would know exactly who's doing it.
Posted by: Guido - 'now with 75+% more hate' at December 19, 2013 05:33 PM (yICtd)
Right? I've got a shotgun, 3 knives. various handguns just laying around (we don't have kids). No way I don't wake up in the afterlife if I even touch her.
Mama didn't raise stupid boys.
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:43 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:43 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: Sean Bannion[/i][/s][/u][/b] at December 19, 2013 01:43 PM (yz6yg)
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 01:43 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:43 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 19, 2013 01:43 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:43 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at December 19, 2013 05:40 PM (yz6yg)
---------------------------------------------
Kind of. More of the wishful thinking variety.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2013 01:44 PM (BM7dA)
‘I have always had sharp differences with the [Bush] administration on foreign policy.’ In particular, he explains, the Israeli-occupied West Bank must be ‘entirely cleaned out’ of Israeli settlements and returned to Palestinians.”
-----------------
The West Bank must be cleansed of Israelis? Is that what he is saying? Seriously? And this guy is a Republican?
Posted by: grammie winger at December 19, 2013 01:44 PM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: Beagle at December 19, 2013 01:44 PM (sOtz/)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:44 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 19, 2013 01:44 PM (aDwsi)
When certain Republican politicians can figure out that they shouldn't regularly mention the term "birth control" if they actually don't want to regulate birth control, we'll all be better off.
Maybe.....but OUR SIDE is not helping when they glom on to shit like this as "See these freaky, creepy Soconn Bible bangers with morals? We MUST excommunicate them in order to WIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!
Especially since the "party" that we all nominally belong to hasn't been exactly getting religeon on fiscal matters for the last, oh, forever.
I mean, I might sit down and shut up a little more if the GOP actually practiced what they preached on stopping our rocket ride into financial oblivion.
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 01:45 PM (e4i/A)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:45 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Nip Sip at December 19, 2013 01:45 PM (0FSuD)
Wait, hold on a second. If a law against spousal rape is just a redundant law against rape, what's the problem with passing it?
-
Well, it is rape or it isn't. Just like murder is murder, and adding a hate crime law on top doesn't make things better. If one law exists, why add another? I was under the impression that conservatives wanted fewer laws, not more.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:45 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 19, 2013 01:45 PM (GaqMa)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:45 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:46 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 01:46 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 19, 2013 01:46 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:46 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:46 PM (olDqf)
Hope you started your clock...
Posted by: IRS at December 19, 2013 05:39 PM (FcR7P)
I never miss an opportunity to type the word "sitzpinkler."
Ahhhh!!!!!!!
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 05:43 PM (olDqf)
What do the French call that thing that sprays water up yer exit-only thingy after you're done dropping a duece? Bet he has one.
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: grammie winger at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (P6QsQ)
Umm... there already laws on the books that do that allow for that thing. You know, laws against spousal rape and laws that allow the police to arrest people accused of it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (t3UFN)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (GEeaH)
@209 Wait, hold on a second. If a law against spousal rape is just a redundant law against rape, what's the problem with passing it?
-----------------
Depends. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the past, some of the states had laws on the books to the effect that legally speaking, nothing that a man did to his wife could be considered rape.
Posted by: junior at December 19, 2013 01:47 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (olDqf)
2002, WTF? This is not about Dick Black, and his quote was about getting a conviction anyway. This was about continuing the "war on women" meme that of course is absolute bs. They will use any excuse to make a misleading commercial about.
There are only going to be about a 100 dems and repubs vying for that seat early on.
But as we have found out, the campaigning never stops from the left.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (MaP11)
Posted by: --- at December 19, 2013 05:46 PM (MMC8r)
The toaster can take care of itself.
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: toby928© Of Crazy Toby's Health-arama at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (QupBk)
There's definitely a ridiculousness right now in the conservative movement, they almost want to lose as many races as possible because they think it upsets the "Establishment" wing of the Party. If this clown were to win the primary over a more vanilla Republican opponent, ZING, POW. Take that, McCain. Ooh it burns. Meanwhile, Democrats are laughing all the way to the bank while they actually win the election that matters.
The way to deal with this people is the National Party apparatus needs to make sure Republican primary voters are informed. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
If someone has the view that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or wants to ban current forms of birth control, make sure every Republican gets a mail piece etailing that view. If Republican voters support that platform, the candidate should be thanking them for the free advertising.
Of course people will scream bloody murder about "meddling" but I'd rather here a few dingbats complain than have an asshat with an "R" next to his name that thinks it's impossible for a married woman to be raped. I really could care less about his views on taxes and spending.
Posted by: McAdams at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (5Gry2)
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (BM7dA)
------------
I meant the spouse-rape guy. I think that Palestinian position was attributed to him
Or else maybe I've had too much glogg.
Posted by: grammie winger at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (P6QsQ)
The best case scenario I can imagine is "spousal rape is really hard to prosecute..."
Posted by: Yoshi
That might have been what he was going for. Have Proquest up in the other window. From a Wapo Letter to the Editor from Feb 24 2002:
Regarding the issue of whether a woman can be raped legally by her husband, which the Virginia House of Delegates voted recently to change ["Virginia House Backs Bill to Outlaw Wife Rape," Metro, Feb. 8]....
Black and Del. Kenneth R. Melvin (D-Portsmouth) express concern about wives who cry rape falsely. Black says that changing the rape law could put a husband in "enormous fear of the damage to his reputation" in the event that a wife filed a false rape claim.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 01:48 PM (kdS6q)
No genius it is not simply a "this is even worse than rape rape law" that is a redundancy it is a way to weaponize the spousal bedroom into a legal WMD....
My wife worked for a law firm that was 2/3ds family law....
I started pondering worshipping Cthulu based on how crapsack batshit crazy the world is based on that firm.
Let me ask you something, "why are you cohabitating with a spouse that is "raping you?"
"How were you in a position that this person was able to stick his penis into you without permission so lightly?"
If there is marital breakdown to that degree go to a fucking woman's shelter, don't be in a position to have a violent attack on your person.
This is a stupid chickenshit ratfuck passive aggressive body of "legal theory" dreamed up by the same dumbfucks who bray on about "there is no such thing as consensual sex"....
FUCK YOU GODDAMNED NOW GANGERS AND GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE BEDROOM.
A rapist married to the victim or not should be scourged this does not require special magical different body of proof laws.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:49 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Yodel at December 19, 2013 01:49 PM (FlRtG)
Posted by: Beagle at December 19, 2013 01:49 PM (sOtz/)
For the effin love of effin fuck, listen to what he actually says. His own very brief statement specifically is not about cases where there seem to be injuries or what-not. And no where in the clip, which is all the information we have to go on, does he suggest barring prosecution. Maybe he wants to. Nobody knows. But OOOOUTRAAAAAAGE! Some liberal fucktard put in the headline and Ace said some shit, so why would you want to hear the man's own words?
Posted by: f2000 at December 19, 2013 01:50 PM (FcMtg)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 01:50 PM (olDqf)
Posted by: Whoopsie Goldberg at December 19, 2013 01:50 PM (jucos)
but if true, his position on Israel would worry me more:
Hell, he may in fact BE a douchebag. But can we PLEASE stop letting the firing squad begin without getting the facts (or worse yet, getting facts from the left?)
Herman Cain (no, I was not a supporter, I was on the Perry train) got summarily executed on this site because of rumor and innuendo and accusation that was NEVER proven.
People we KNOW Bill Clinton did worse and skated.
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 01:50 PM (e4i/A)
Dude... shotgun much?
You lost me at supporting McLame.
1 controversial topic at a time, speedy, slow down.
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:51 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2013 05:50 PM (olDqf)
----------------------
oh. Good. I can resume drinking then.
Posted by: grammie winger at December 19, 2013 01:51 PM (P6QsQ)
This guy is completely right to oppose this bill.
You know what? You're right.
Now that you mention it, let's repeal laws against spousal abuse completely. After all, that same woman could falsely claim that her husband hit her, so let's just make it legal for husbands to beat their wives to avoid that scenario.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2013 01:51 PM (SY2Kh)
Precisely VN the entire notion cheapens the body of law and makes a mockery of the process.
I am three times more guilty of a crime if I randomly shoot an African American bystander than a white one b/c "justice."
For fuck's sakes let the law be the law.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:51 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: infovore at December 19, 2013 01:51 PM (0llFJ)
Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 19, 2013 01:51 PM (9rNUl)
There goes 1/2 of BBC programming.
or,
Sneering @gingers is never safe.
Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at December 19, 2013 01:52 PM (DL2i+)
Posted by: SH at December 19, 2013 01:52 PM (u+9Sb)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:52 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: BSR (aka Rifle aka Tufek) at December 19, 2013 01:52 PM (3wrJ+)
Posted by: soothsayer at December 19, 2013 01:53 PM (yzlKi)
You know what that is precisely what we are saying....
the point made earlier today was dead on....
Women you gotta love it Politico tells me they are totes dominating the economy(thanks affirmative action) but still need protecting.
Spousal abusers should do time in PMITA prison, but guess what you can get convictions on it without needing to flip the burden of proof.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:53 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Romeo13 at December 19, 2013 01:53 PM (lZBBB)
Posted by: MSM at December 19, 2013 01:53 PM (jucos)
actually was, etc.
**********
Why is Dick Black coming up?
When you google him these are the only "news" articles --and look at the dates on them.
Dick Black, Virginia GOP Lawmaker, Compares Abortion to Holocaust
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/.../dick-black-virginia_n_2535167.ht...
Jan 23, 2013 - A Republican state lawmaker in Virginia stirred controversy on Tuesday when he used the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to ...
Va. Democrats portray Dick Black as extreme for new GOP-leaning ...
articles.washingtonpost.com › Collections › Campaign Manager
Nov 1, 2011 - RICHMOND — Dick Black once questioned whether a husband commits rape if he forces his wife to have sex. The former member of the ...
Blue Virginia:: What Is It With Loudoun Republicans?!? Dick Black ...
bluevirginia.us/.../what-is-it-with-loudoun-republicans-dick-blac...
by Miles Grant - in 442 Google+ circles
Nov 1, 2011 - As this video illustrates, Dick Black is truly appalling, even by the low, low standards of Loudoun County Republicans (last seen sending out a ...Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 01:53 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: USA at December 19, 2013 01:54 PM (VIaw0)
@250 Herman Cain (no, I was not a supporter, I was on the Perry train)got summarily executed on this site because of rumor and innuendo and accusation that was NEVER proven.
----------------
?
His company paid out. That's a fact. Whether Cain knew about the payments or not (and he claims he didn't) is not as important because the mere fact that the payments were made makes people think that he's guilty. "Why were they paying if he didn't do it?" (and *I* am well aware of why the company might do that, so don't bother trying to explain it). The fact that the payments existed would have been a huge millstone during the General Election.
Posted by: junior at December 19, 2013 01:54 PM (UWFpX)
Posted by: toby928© Of Crazy Toby's Health-arama at December 19, 2013 01:54 PM (QupBk)
Why are we talking about something someone said in 2002? Shouldn't we be making fun of the video producer for archive dumpster diving?
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 19, 2013 01:54 PM (MaP11)
"Republicans running for office have to be smarter than Democrats running for office. Not too high of a bar, is it?"
-
Under the current rules, republicans have to be without sin altogether for their entire life, including childhood, and have never been caught on tape saying anything that can be edited to sound bad.
Contrast that to rapists, thieves, murderers, etc that run as democrats that have the media running interference to prevent facts or tape from getting to the public.
To hell with that.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 01:54 PM (AX3vC)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:54 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at December 19, 2013 01:54 PM (DLu2s)
Once again, big caveat given the source (National Journal) but they quote him as saying this to a Northern Virginia Muslim gathering:
"I ask one thing," Black continues. "Remember the one person who stood with you" after 9/11, when the American Muslim community attracted much suspicion from Washington and other quarters. He suggests that many Muslims share his views against abortion, homosexuality, and pornography, and he compliments Muslim women on the modesty of their dress, which he contrasts with the risque fashion statements made by some other American women. Wrapping up, Black declares, "Muslim Americans are citizens just like everyone else.... I welcome you. I am pleased you are my neighbors." The group applauds.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 19, 2013 01:55 PM (il1Hy)
Posted by: Dr. Jesse Pinkman at December 19, 2013 01:55 PM (h4eud)
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at December 19, 2013 05:54 PM (DLu2s)
__________________
No. Bermuda I think......
Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 19, 2013 01:55 PM (jucos)
Posted by: soothsayer at December 19, 2013 01:56 PM (yzlKi)
It's not too late for Christmas. Looking for a stocking stuffer, or an unexpected gift? This is a damn fine pocket radio. It is something of a technical miracle. This particular radio has been the topic of a good deal of discussion among my engineer pals. In this age of digital everything, this little analog radio is a real performer. Uses a single AA cell, which seems to last forever. Fits in shirt pocket, has belt clip. Performance is just outstanding. Price is cheap, cheap, cheap, and includes decent headphones. $13.93. Go to Ace's store and search in electronics for 'Sony SRF59SILVER AM/FM Walkman Stereo Radio'
There.
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 19, 2013 01:56 PM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Ken Cuccinelli at December 19, 2013 01:56 PM (gXRIG)
Posted by: BSR (aka Rifle aka Tufek) at December 19, 2013 01:56 PM (3wrJ+)
Can't we nominate politicians that know which issues to keep their mouth shut about?
We all know there's been cases where kids have falsely accused family members of molesting them. Do we really need Republican candidates campaigning on law enforcement being more skeptical when a kid claims they've been molested?
Not everyone should be in politics.
Posted by: McAdams at December 19, 2013 01:57 PM (5Gry2)
Any politician that talks socon outside of abortion and possibly gay marriage needs to get the boot
Then you WILL lose
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 01:58 PM (e4i/A)
better a blowhard than a retard...
I have pulled men off my mother in my youth champ.
I have no room for casual abuse, no life is not that simple a lot of the time but you know what you do not need to destroy the burdens of proof and allow weaponized law to fight evil.
You fight fucking evil.
"Genius"
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 01:58 PM (9jfyN)
But the lack of injury would be a defense. How do you defend against an accusation that I said Not tonight and you went ahead anyway?
Posted by: toby928© Of Crazy Toby's Health-arama at December 19, 2013 05:54 PM (QupBk)
I've seen some crazy shit.
Had a roomie when I was a drill instructor. He was a giant. And a gentle one. He stood like 6'3" and was working on his truck one day.
His ex rolled up. all four foot eight 90lbs of her, and just started whaling in his ass. He couldn't touch her. She was slapping him, punching him, just going apeshit.
But he knew that if he even raised an arm he was fucked. Bitch was crazy. Broke every window out of my house one night and he damn near shot her.
Crazy bitches: don't find one. Trust me on this.
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 01:59 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 02:00 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 02:00 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 02:00 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: tangonine
----------------------------
Says a lot about getting to know someone before you get get involved..., I mean it speaks volumes.
Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 19, 2013 02:01 PM (aDwsi)
In 2002 the Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill outlawing spousal rape, which had previously been unprosecutable as a crime in the state of Virginia -- the state originally had a presumption that whatever transpired between a man and woman outside of visible physical abuse was not subject to the purview of protective orders. Black spoke out against it mostly because, as BSR said, he really is a hard-right nutjob (believe me, he makes Ken Cuccinelli look like Barbara Comstock -- NoVA people will get the reference). But the logic he used was that spousal rape wasn't something the law should specifically prohibit (or make grounds for getting a protective order) because it was so hard to prove. Which it may well be, but for fuck's sake that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against it.
Look, this is really all moot: Black's a crackpot, he'll never get the nomination for that seat. It'll go to Comstock, most likely, who has a strong chance of holding the seat.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2013 02:02 PM (hDIEK)
Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) No Really! at December 19, 2013 02:02 PM (GaqMa)
I've seen my dad knockout two men in a three on one brawl in a bar fight before he let a 98 pound woman bust a blood vessel in his eye because he KNEW plain as day from prior divorces if he defended himself he was fucked six ways from sunday....
The Krazy it is real and it is out there....
Marry well love as healthily as you can and if it is over or dying and can't be saved then make the best break you can and stay the fuck away.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:02 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: BSR (aka Rifle aka Tufek) at December 19, 2013 02:02 PM (3wrJ+)
Great conclusion based on evidence from a vague snippet of speech from an opponents tv ad. You sound like a really smart and informed voter, not at all like those dumbshit LIVs that voted for Obama!!
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 02:03 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 02:03 PM (RJMhd)
So, yeah, that's what he did.
Posted by: ace
-
Upthread, it was posted that he voted in favor of the bill after arguing that it was going to be difficult to enforce.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 19, 2013 02:03 PM (AX3vC)
The quote is accurate, it's not ripped out of context, and it's pretty fucking looney-tunes.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2013 02:03 PM (hDIEK)
Yup....
wife was my best female friend before she was my wife.
It helps to know who you are sharing bodily functions with.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:03 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 02:03 PM (/FnUH)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at December 19, 2013 02:05 PM (x1aCh)
Posted by: Jim B at December 19, 2013 02:06 PM (O11vW)
Posted by: soothsayer at December 19, 2013 02:06 PM (yzlKi)
"Seems to indicate" and "basically accurate" are words you can take to the bank. I pretty much guarantee it.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 02:08 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 02:08 PM (RJMhd)
He voted for the bill because, at the time, he represented a state legislative district that while GOP-leaning was still socially rather moderate. He ended up getting his ass kicked in the 2005 election, in large part because his opponent was able to make hay out of this quote (and other nutty statements and positions of his). In 2011, he was able to capitalize on the GOP state redistricting made possible by the McDonnell ticket's massive sweep in '09 by running for a newly-created GOP gerrymander in the State Senate, the 13th District.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2013 02:08 PM (hDIEK)
Posted by: BSR (aka Rifle aka Tufek) at December 19, 2013 02:08 PM (3wrJ+)
FFS I cannot find any fault with her. When we argue, I've got nothin'
I just say "You're too freakin' perfect!"
All I've got.
Makes our arguments go quick but dammit... she never does anything wrong! And she's cute! And makes a lot of money!
Fuck!
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 02:09 PM (x3YFz)
His stand against Israeli aggression is principled and just, so perhaps his opinions on spousal rape are reasonable.
I wonder what he thinks of the Chinese juggernaut?
Posted by: Thomas Friedman at December 19, 2013 02:10 PM (QFxY5)
No Mario I am not wasting words.
Spousal Rape is an arrow in the quiver for XX nation against XY nation. If a rape occurs there is a body of law that can be used against the rapist that has a system of burdens of proof built in that one can mount a defense against.
The marital contract historically has had some rights and involves regular and recurring levels of intimacy that render permissions and rules of congress a little more complicated than a non contractual one.
As I said this shifts burdens of proof in an unhealthy manner.
If there is no physical trauma and a prosecutor brings this specious charge how precisely does a man prove "she never said no?"
Why should the man have to prove it?
How bizzare and fucked up you seem to think that Ms 10077 and I should either be audio/video taping our carnal follies or taking a written contract to a Notary....
what if the 10077 coupling uses forceful imagery in their bedtime bingo(we do not but bear with me) and "no means no" becomes "no not there?"
Sorry this is as I said a body of law written by the same dickheads who say "there is no such thing as consensual sex" because "Men Power Rape Culture"....
if an alleged rape meets rape evidentary standards there is no need for magical NEW AND EXTRA STRENGTH LAW....
the murkier and more convoluted law becomes the more it devolves into a recurring game of graft and fuck you
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:10 PM (9jfyN)
Wait, was this irony on purpose? I'm inclined to laugh, but don't want to be rude if it wasn't actually a joke.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 19, 2013 02:10 PM (+lsX1)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 06:00 PM (GEeaH)
Well a lot of rape laws are pretty old and so I wouldn't be surprised if the language was ambiguous when it came to spouses (unlawful sexual knowledge bla bla bla). So a law explicitly against spousal rape could be useful in clarifying the law.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 19, 2013 02:11 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at December 19, 2013 02:11 PM (qdkk8)
A bit more:
Virginia Legislation
Domestic Violence: The House voted 93 to 3 in favor of HB 488, to expand the state's role in domestic violence cases. The Senate passed a parallel bill, SB 290, by a vote of 40 to 0. They contain provisions that would allow Virginia to prosecute a person for raping a spouse. Virginia is one of 32 states, including Maryland, that exempt spouses accused of rape from prosecution under certain circumstances.
The Washington Post 09 Feb 2002
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 02:11 PM (kdS6q)
The fact that the payments existed would have been a huge millstone during the General Election.
I'm not saying they wouldn't have been.
Obamacare might also have been a millstone if our candidate had been in a position to use it.
I'm just saying---let's not rush to judgement just because the "left" says we should.
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 02:12 PM (e4i/A)
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 06:09 PM (x3YFz)
No BJ in the shower this morning?
Then she did something wrong.
Posted by: Typical piggish Moron at December 19, 2013 02:12 PM (QFxY5)
No it didn't. If I recall correctly, there were a couple of votes against it in the House of Delegates, 3 or 4. It passed unanimously in the State SENATE, however. Black wasn't a State Senator at the time, though he is now. He was a Delegate from Loudon County.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2013 02:13 PM (hDIEK)
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2013 02:13 PM (hDIEK)
She's pretty good in the sack, too.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2013 02:16 PM (SY2Kh)
Jenny it absolutely does, I support prosecuting bastards who force themselves on anyone.
That is not the issue, and if Virginia which in all honesty could be an archaic state WRT law given its age allowed spouses to force their charms on spouses then yes by all means you can change that law....
YOU KNOW HOW JENNY?
By amending the goddamned code under "rape" not passing some glitzy law creating a new class of crime.
If a rape code had "cannot have sexual knowledge of a person unless they are married" you can strike "unless they are married"....
you do not need a golfer's bag to carry your three ball bats.
I am in favor of simple stern fair law not micromanaged column a, column b, unless column c law.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:16 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at December 19, 2013 02:16 PM (qdkk8)
His stand against Israeli aggression is principled and just, so perhaps his opinions on spousal rape are reasonable.
I wonder what he thinks of the Chinese juggernaut?
Posted by: Thomas Friedman at December 19, 2013 06:10 PM (QFxY5)
ok. quick check. sock? because you lost me at "Israeli aggression."
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 02:17 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 19, 2013 02:17 PM (il1Hy)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 02:18 PM (GEeaH)
pdf
AMENDMENTS
House amendments rejected
Senate amendments
Senate amendments engrossed
HISTORY
01/09/02 House: Presented & ordered printed, prefiled 01/08/02 025263253
01/09/02 House: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/04/02 House: Reported from C. J. with substitute (20-Y 1-N)
02/05/02 House: Committee substitute printed 024542946-H1
02/06/02 House: Read first time
02/07/02 House: Read second time
02/07/02 House: Committee substitute agreed to 024542946-H1
02/07/02 House: Pending question ordered
02/07/02 House: Amendment by Del. Melvin rejected
02/07/02 House: Engrossed by House - committee substitute 024542946-H1
02/08/02 House: Read third time and passed House (93-Y 3-N)
02/08/02 House: VOTE: PASSAGE (93-Y 3-N)
02/08/02 House: Communicated to Senate
02/11/02 Senate: Constitutional reading dispensed
02/11/02 Senate: Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/20/02 Senate: Reported from Courts of Justice w/amds (15-Y 0-N)
02/22/02 Senate: Const. reading disp., passed by for the day (40-Y 0-N)
02/22/02 Senate: VOTE: CONST. RDG. DISPENSED R (40-Y 0-N)
02/25/02 Senate: Read third time
02/25/02 Senate: Reading of amendments waived
02/25/02 Senate: Committee amendments agreed to
02/25/02 Senate: Engrossed by Senate as amended
02/25/02 Senate: Passed Senate with amendments (38-Y 0-N)
02/25/02 Senate: VOTE: PASSAGE R (38-Y 0-N)
02/26/02 House: Placed on Calendar
02/27/02 House: Passed by for the day
02/28/02 House: Senate amendments agreed to by House (93-Y 0-N)
02/28/02 House: VOTE: ADOPTION (93-Y 0-N)
03/09/02 House: Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB488ER)
03/18/02 House: Enrolled
03/18/02 House: Signed by Speaker
03/18/02 Senate: Signed by President
04/08/02 Governor: Approved by Governor-Chapter 818 (effective 7/1/02)
04/09/02 Governor: Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP081
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?021+sum+HB488Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 02:18 PM (RJMhd)
I live right over the river, in Potomac. And there obviously ain't no Republican game goin' on over here, so I ended up paying a lot more attention to Virginia politics. Keith Fimian is another groaner, the guy who cost us a winnable race against Gerry Connolly in 2010 (the porcine Democrat hung on by a razor-thin margin and then was given a much safer seat in the 2011 redistricting, a fair enough trade to shore up Wolf's district ahead of his inevitable retirement).
I like Artur Davis A HELL OF A LOT, but he'll have a tough road as a carpetbagging Congressman (even in a region that is far more open to carpetbaggers than most). Comstock is the best best as a powerhouse fundraiser who has deep roots in the region and its moderate GOP base. If she's our nominee it's a lean-GOP race in 2014 given the off-year electorate and her perfect fit for the district. Davis would make it a coin-flip. Anyone else and it's lean-Dem.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2013 02:18 PM (hDIEK)
That's very true Maet, Virginia along with the Carolinas would be the states I would think would have the dustiest legal definitions hanging around.
The older the states the closer to the 1600s legal definitions one would need to prune to get to a more just body of law.
Activist law pisses me off.
I am dying to know what the incidence of people who successfully raped their spouses and got to play the Lethal Weapon 2 SPOUSAL IMMUNITY card in Virginia was.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:19 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 02:19 PM (GEeaH)
She's pretty good in the sack, too.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 19, 2013 06:16 PM (SY2Kh)
Awww, see? that's the kind of shit talking that only internet assholes partake in. It really doesn't mean anything except to highlight what a fucking douchebage you are.
Posted by: tangonine at December 19, 2013 02:19 PM (x3YFz)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 02:20 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Beagle at December 19, 2013 02:20 PM (sOtz/)
If some dumbass would rather have Mark Warner represent him, well, that's his right.
Posted by: J. Moses Browning at December 19, 2013 02:21 PM (61Cnj)
Look up^
You're wrong.
Follow the link.
Eh, the tricks memory will play on you. Oh well. Doesn't really alter the main thrust of this post: Dick Black is a crazy coot.
Posted by: Jeff B. at December 19, 2013 02:21 PM (hDIEK)
Stop making up bullshit reasons why I'm not permitted to object to nonsense.
Ace, I'm really not saying that.
I'm saying get the FACTS before you(the plural you, as in "we") do.
We KNOW that Ryan/Murray was a fiscal fucking. We KNOW that the Bush years weren't exactly fiscal R paradise.
I don't KNOW that John McCain is the spawn of Satan, but I do KNOW that he has fucked the GOP platform at every opportunity
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 02:23 PM (e4i/A)
Yoshi have a cup of Hot Cacao.
It altered the law precisely as I stated.
It removed the domicile rules and turned the force of law into domestic referee.
If things have devolved or deteriorated to the point a person feels the need to:
a) say no to sexual congress forcefully
b) fear physical domination and attack by a perp to gain sexual congress use the law to either force them the fuck out or leave.
This is as needed a change to the law as mandatory Brass Bands for every deer hunter.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:23 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Jim B at December 19, 2013 06:19 PM (O11vW)
But there was a previous House vote with 93 Y and 3 N while the final vote was only 93 Y and 0 N. Doesn't that imply that there were at least 3 abstaining or non-voting members?
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 19, 2013 02:24 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 02:25 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 02:28 PM (GEeaH)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 02:28 PM (RJMhd)
Under current law, a man can be charged with raping his wife only if the two are living apart or if the woman can prove she was physically injured. Del. Terrie Suit, R-Virginia Beach, said her bill would give wives the same protection afforded single women.
Del. Kenneth Melvin, D-Portsmouth, said he could support everything but the marital rape provision. Melvin is a lawyer and divorce commissioner -- an official who hears evidence in divorce cases and forwards his findings to the judge. He said relaxing the rape standard for married couples could lead to more false accusations when a divorce is in the works. "I have seen all kinds of marriages," Melvin said. "By the time they get to my office, people who are otherwise the salt of the earth sometimes are completely nuts. There is no lie too outrageous."
Del. Robert Marshall, R-Prince William, said he too was worried about women using a false charge to try to gain leverage for alimony, child support or custody.
Supporters of the bill argued that prosecutors are good at getting to the truth and would not bring a felony charge unless they had more evidence than one person's word against another's.*
The Associated Press. Daily Press [Newport News, Va] 08 Feb 2002: C4.
So a Democrat was opposed to the rape provision? Oh dear, that shall spoil our narrative. Down the memory hole it goes.
* Hi! How ya doing? Posted by: The Duke Lacrosse Team
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 02:30 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 06:28 PM (RJMhd)
Yeah I'm assuming not as well - otherwise it would have been front and center in the attack ad.
Posted by: Mætenloch at December 19, 2013 02:32 PM (pAlYe)
There were 3 no votes on the first House vote, and 4 "not voting". But Black was a Yes on that vote as well.
Posted by: Jim B at December 19, 2013 02:32 PM (O11vW)
Right it is not there plain as day in Jeff B's link Yoshi...
have a cup of Hot Cacao and tell me about campus rape culture Mario...
The bill removes the provision that marital rape cannot occur unless the spouses were living apart or there was bodily injury caused by force or violence. The bill raises the penalty for knowingly obstructing justice without just cause from a Class 2 to a Class 1 misdemeanor. The bill raises from a Class 3 to a Class 2 misdemeanor the unlawful use of and injury to telephone and telegraph lines and copying or obstructing telephone messages.
Like I said I am dying to know the level of incidence of lethal weapon 2 MARITAL IMMUNITY forcible rape exonerations that were occurring....
b/c this looks a lot to me like a "I can't believe I did that" law....
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:33 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: ace at December 19, 2013 02:33 PM (/FnUH)
331 JMB - my apologies if I'm missing the sarc, but if you're serious about this guy being a patriot, he looks pretty cozy with Islamists - in addition to what I cited above, this, from a blog source, so take it for what you will, but I wouldn't wave this guy's flag until I get some answers on these questions.
Hopefully Jeff B's correct about Black not clearing the primaries and making this an academic discussion.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 19, 2013 02:34 PM (il1Hy)
Posted by: Andy Sullivan with Bells On! at December 19, 2013 02:38 PM (RJMhd)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 02:41 PM (GEeaH)
And for follow-up, Michael Warren at cruise travel site The Weekly Standard needs to get whooped upside his head for copy pasting a Democratic handout and calling it a blog post, for starting all this ruckus.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 19, 2013 02:46 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Jim B at December 19, 2013 02:46 PM (O11vW)
Yes because ripping a phoneline out of a wall never happens in a normal domestic....
I say again they changed the rules on domicile, they altered the rules on physical distress....
that is my point they made it an easier charge than a garden variety sexual misconduct charge to initiate in some ways because hey oddly enough I know this is a shock for you Mario....
married people tend to cohabitate and uh fuck.
Sorta hard to say "uh Officer who the fuck is she?" when you have a marriage license.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:46 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 19, 2013 02:47 PM (zfY+H)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 02:47 PM (GEeaH)
Again Mario hold the Hot Cacao a sec longer...
married couples they fight....
sometimes they break shit...
ripping a phone out of the wall does not mean you raped someone....neither does yelling at a person who falsely accuses you of rape over a phoneline.
evidently they needed to micromanage every possible aspect of a domestic breakdown b/c of a mad rash of Spousal Rapes that were unprosecutable under existing law if you removed the "shield"....
I am dying for some hard numbers...
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:50 PM (9jfyN)
In one respect, the country desperately needs more citizen-legislators and fewer careerists, but that doesn't mean citizens who spout their mouths off without thinking are ever going to get elected. We need people with common sense, and also people who recognize that not everyone need agree with every nuance of every issue to have common cause. Posted by: Adjoran at December 19, 2013 05:15 PM (473jB)
This. Thank you Adjoran.
And yes, the Dems can say and do all sorts of wacky things and get away with it and the GOP can't. That's the way it is and every conservative with an IQ in triple digits should know it. Whining "it's not fair" won't help. Not saying wacky things if you're a conservative running for public office, especially things having to do with lady parts - why is that so difficult to grasp?
Posted by: Donna V. at December 19, 2013 02:53 PM (R3gO3)
Donna are we permitted to engage in the domestic terrorism, slow march infiltration, and economic warfare the left used to get domination of the academy and media or are we destined to "just bite the damn pillow"?
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 02:55 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at December 19, 2013 02:55 PM (nvFBm)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 19, 2013 02:56 PM (zfY+H)
right Jenny..... goddamn me for actually quoting the goddamned bill and asking earnestly what the hard numbers on the rash of Spousal Rapes that were unable to be litigated merited this alteration.
Here's hoping your phone does not hate you back.
Posted by: sven10077 at December 19, 2013 03:00 PM (9jfyN)
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 03:03 PM (GEeaH)
Let me guess, the Xtianists of the Virginia Republicans think Jesus told them they get to rape their own wives whenever they like?
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at December 19, 2013 03:05 PM (G6U3l)
"There are elements of the grassroots which are acting very irresponsibly, almost gleefully reckless like a teenager with the parents away and the keys to the car, calling out 'YOLO!' with abandon."
Many of whom have parked themselves at this website. With your encouragement. Because you have made it a habit this last year to slam a whole mess of people for being insufficiently conservative and not doing the "conservative" thing (i.e., whatever you want them to do).
And I'm not talking Graham and McCain here, either. If the line has moved to the point where Paul Ryan is insufficiently conservative and deserving of mass slams from both bloggers and commenters because he wants to fix our budget situation over 40 years instead of 4, and because he'll give up a little sequester money to buy two years of breathing space in the constant political battle over funding the government (at the end of which time the Republicans are likely to be in a much better situation than they currently are), we're boned. Whoever "we" is -- conservatives, Republicans, non-liberals -- that sentence holds true.
What was that I saw a few days ago? You're the #8 best conservative website or somesuch? Yeah. That means you have influence over these people you're slamming as YOLO-ers, and they like what they're hearing here, because THEY COME HERE AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Now I'll just sit back and wait for the hatred to start.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 19, 2013 03:07 PM (c5AtG)
Posted by: Daybrother at December 19, 2013 03:08 PM (SiWaC)
Bottom line ace you wanna bust Dick Black's chops for freebasing teh stupid. Go right ahead. I don't care enough about any of those A-holes any more to care. But, the Republican party better be ready to jump on board with my agenda or I will throw gasoline and matches. [Figuratively, NSA/CIA/FBI, Figuratively] and enjoy the blaze. The Republicans gave me teh crazy thanks to their antics, now they have to live with it. I've got a serious hankerin to test out that last book of the Bible in real life and see how the movie compares to the book. So either Republicans get serious about saving this bitch or I'm going to get serious about giving them the pink slip.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at December 19, 2013 03:08 PM (GMaWX)
actually was, etc."
This just explodes your whole point.
Whatever explanation moved you from kneejerk "AAAAAAAAAKIINNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!11" to "huh.", it is humanly possible, it could even be probable, that the politician could offer that explanation himself.
If you'd shut up and wait for it.Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 19, 2013 03:11 PM (5xmd7)
I'm one of the RAWR Tea Party types Adjoran's always ad-homming (for example, Ryan is a lousy conservative) but Adjoran's right on this one, as is Donna.
Guys like Black are electoral poison and trying to parse his words/votes and otherwise defend him just lets him drag you down with him.
Proof problems don't justify decriminalizing spousal rape, and he wasn't taken "out of context."
Our country is going bankrupt. We can't waste time, money and political capital defending cranks who can't police their own mouths.
If Black had the interests of anyone but Black in mind, he'd realize he's more of a liability than an asset and not seek the office. But like every other pol, he thinks he deserves a shot no matter how much damage defending him would do to the rest of us politically.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 19, 2013 03:12 PM (il1Hy)
sven - the left dominates the media, this is fact, is it not? And the LIV's get their information from the media, is that not also true? And the Dems and the media have very, very successfully been able to sell their bs "War on Women" meme because of that - also true. What makes you think that will change any time soon? The Left knows they have a winning tactic here, one that has been working beautifully for them. Their goal is to make conservatives seem so marginal and goofy on social issues, particularly "women's issues" that nobody will listen to any good ideas they might have about cutting spending or anything else.
We know this. And yet we keep falling into this trap. Do you think all those LIV's are going to look for nuance? Are they going to come here to AOSHQ so someone will explain what Black really intended to say? No, they're going to see the clip and think "He doesn't think a man raping his wife is any big deal! Another women- hating Republican!"
You can call that unfair, you can point out time and again that Teddy Kennedy killed a woman and Billy Jeff was a horndog and all sorts of other examples - and who is going to hear that? The people who read this blog.
Posted by: Donna V. at December 19, 2013 03:13 PM (R3gO3)
I've got a serious hankerin to test out that last book of the Bible in real life and see how the movie compares to the book
WORD
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 03:17 PM (e4i/A)
I'm not saying give the media veto power over who we run but don't make their job so easy they don't even have to lie.
I think we need to stand up to the media when the facts and the candidate justify it but this issue and this candidate aren't causes I'd want to take fire for.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at December 19, 2013 03:23 PM (il1Hy)
Posted by: Daybrother at December 19, 2013 03:31 PM (u4v5i)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 19, 2013 03:32 PM (5xmd7)
"The line hasn't moved at all. Ryan just hopped to the other side."
See, right there. That's what I'm talking about. If Paul Ryan, the budget wonk that Democrats love to hate, is now your standard for "no longer sufficiently conservative" because he cut ONE DEAL that you did not like, then...
Well, then I'll just pray that you and yours are a small tribe crying in the wilderness. Because if that becomes the majority opinion among conservatives, and we start eating our own to that degree, then we really are well and truly fucked.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 19, 2013 03:51 PM (c5AtG)
Well, then I'll just pray that you and yours are a small tribe crying in the wilderness
Pray hard....we are NOT a small tribe
Posted by: FITP at December 19, 2013 03:53 PM (e4i/A)
Posted by: Matt at December 19, 2013 04:06 PM (l+6ME)
No it's because of that and that he looked me in the eye and lied to me about how good it was. I can stomach a bad deal and assume the best about the intents of my politicians. I can't continue to do so when they lie to me about the deal.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at December 19, 2013 04:11 PM (GMaWX)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 19, 2013 04:40 PM (5xmd7)
"No it's because of that and that he looked me in the eye and lied to me about how good it was."
With all due respect, and while noting that I don't like the deal much either, I will trust Paul Ryan's assessment over yours. He's been at this a while. And then there's your assessment of Ryan himself. Is he a proven squish, like Lindsey Graham? No. Does he have a history of only taking strong stands in election years, like John McCain? No. Yet you're not even willing to chalk up Ryan's words to a difference of opinion or a sincere mistake. (Honest and intelligent men have been known to disagree, and mess up, from time to time.) No, the first explanation you reach for is that he was just lying to you.
@ 375
"Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid does not become sexy because Our Guy did it. He becomes stupid."
And again with the total lack of charity given to someone who is supposedly ON OUR SIDE. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Ryan's deal with Patty Murray was a huge boner. Fine. Maybe it was. But one boner, no matter how huge, does not make someone a bonehead. By your standard, everyone on this board (including you, I'd wager) is a total moron, and not in the Ace of Spades sense of the word, either. Again, Ryan cuts a deal, you don't like the deal, and so poof -- that's it! He's done. I'm glad Jesus doesn't take your perspective.
Seriously, this is the tendency that the YOLO conservatives have to get past. One whiff of heterodoxy, whether actual or merely perceived, and they break out the comfy chairs.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 19, 2013 05:35 PM (c5AtG)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 19, 2013 05:54 PM (5xmd7)
Posted by: midwestconservative at December 19, 2013 06:32 PM (eFTkY)
Nor is there a plank calling for a ban on Birth Control.
Posted by: midwestconservative at December 19, 2013 06:33 PM (eFTkY)
It's great to know that Fellow Republicans will use Dem talking points and ads to attack us socons, that way we know what's coming.
Full disclosure: I really don't want Dick Black to run and throw his Senate seat in jeopardy in this crucial time.
Two candidates in particular are better 1) Keith Fimian, who almost beat Connolly in VA 11 is considering a run, and he'd be a strong candidate.
Also Delegate Barbara Comstock would be a strong candidate.
But Dick Black ( while having vulnerabilities) can win. But he won't win if every Right-Wing Blog out there is so shell shocked as to try to destroy his candidacy with Left Wing Talking Points
If despite all of this, Dick Black still wins the primary ( or convention) you've just given the Dem candidate some free PR.
Posted by: midwestconservative at December 19, 2013 06:37 PM (eFTkY)
Posted by: Ace's Ass at December 19, 2013 06:41 PM (ECR4N)
And can the douchebag who keeps on posting as Cuccinelli cut it out now. It was funny the first couple of times, now it isn't.
The man went to bat for conservatives for nearly every issue under the sun (some moderates might say that's his problem)
And the way some in the right-wing blogosphere have treated him after his loss is beyond the pale. Some gratitude. Why would anyone become a Republican and then vote and behave like a Conservative, standing in the breach when few others would. And then get thrown under the Bus and maligned with Left-Wing talking points by those who once demanded those same conservative votes. Why?
The GOP can honestly go left for all I care, conservatives have shown this year they aren't mature enough to support their own when the chips are down.
Posted by: midwestconservative at December 19, 2013 06:43 PM (eFTkY)
Posted by: Cuhhhsin at December 19, 2013 07:01 PM (Etn7F)
Posted by: enjoythedecline at December 19, 2013 07:53 PM (47k+9)
If you actually read what I wrote at 376, and then distilled it into what you wrote at 377, then there is no point in my talking to you any further. Either willfully or through ignorance, you totally managed to miss the entire point of what I said to you -- namely, that (again assuming Ryan made a mistake) writing someone off for one single mistake, even a big one, is not the way to do things.
Instead, you want to babble nonsense about how I believe we should just blindly follow our elected leaders, and turn my comment about "a whiff of heterodoxy, whether actual or merely perceived" into the preposterous claim that we should have no principles, which you are now trying to stuff in my mouth. I'd say read it again, but would there even be a point?
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 19, 2013 07:58 PM (c5AtG)
Thanks for sharing. If you have any actual thoughts to put forward, I'll be happy to listen.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 19, 2013 08:02 PM (c5AtG)
Posted by: An Actual Republican Virginia State Senator at December 19, 2013 08:44 PM (bqBH4)
I looked at what you wrote to someone else:
"With all due respect, and while noting that I don't like the deal much
either, I will trust Paul Ryan's assessment over yours. He's been at this a while"
You are pretending we cannot KNOW that Paul Ryan did anything bad, it's just a postulate--and Paul Ryan ought to get the benefit of the doubt, given who he is--yet you protest you have impersonal, objective standards called "principles"?
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 19, 2013 08:47 PM (otmJ4)
Posted by: Dave M at December 19, 2013 08:58 PM (B/nX3)
Posted by: Dave M at December 19, 2013 09:01 PM (B/nX3)
Posted by: Ned at December 19, 2013 11:49 PM (sJH4q)
Posted by: Liberals That Win at December 20, 2013 12:12 AM (LpwZ9)
Posted by: DFCtomm at December 20, 2013 12:51 AM (pSFRJ)
As I said in my response to MiketheMoose which you quote, Paul Ryan has a demonstrated history of not being a squish and trying to live up to his promises and pledges. To say he "hopped to the other side" of the line based on one event is, therefore, preposterous. To use that supposed line-hopping as evidence that he lied is even more outrageous.
"You tell me that you think Chris_Balsz has generally been an honest guy. But this one thing he said, well, it just isn't true. So he's just a liar." That's an argument of the same form MiketheMoose made. Would it seem fair to you, to have yourself so judged? Wouldn't you want the possibility considered that you had just made a mistake, rather than become a liar?
Again, let's say that Ryan cut a bad deal for the sake of argument. So -- when dealing with a man who has proven himself to be honest, does one wrong thing he says make him worthy of being judged a liar? When dealing with a man who has proven himself to be smart, does one dumb thing he does make him worthy of being judged a moron? Is there no room in your worldview for the occasional honest error that does not necessarily reflect poorly on one's character? Have you even thought about these questions? (And why do I suspect that I should be answering those last two questions in the same way as I would answer the first two -- with a "No"?)
"Don't automatically leap to the worst possible explanation for someone's behavior, absent solid evidence." That IS a principle, and one I try to hold. You might be well-served to adopt the same principle, though I don't think you will.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 20, 2013 03:57 AM (c5AtG)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 20, 2013 04:27 AM (/L+BZ)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 20, 2013 04:41 AM (/L+BZ)
I said no such thing. I said I trusted Paul Ryan's judgment more than Mike's.
"And you continue to come at us claiming that we can't outright agree that letting the Senate raise taxes with 51 votes, funding abortion with tax dollars, cutting veterans benefits, extending benefits to illegals, funding Obamacare implementation, and boasting of $22 billion dollars in deficit reduction over ten years, are bad policy."
No, I did not. I said that even granting Ryan's deal was a big mistake, that doesn't mean he's either stupid or a liar.
You can pretend that I said those things, but anyone with reading comprehension can see that I didn't. And considering your consistent misinterpreting of me, I am forced to conclude that either you lack reading comprehension or you're just a dishonest interlocutor. Unlike your judgment that Paul Ryan is "stupid," I promise you, that's a judgment you have earned.
And now I'm going to move on with my life. You may stay here and froth if you wish.
Posted by: Demosthenes at December 20, 2013 04:51 AM (c5AtG)
Posted by: Chris_Balsz at December 20, 2013 04:59 AM (/L+BZ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3583 seconds, 526 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at December 19, 2013 01:00 PM (GEeaH)