Akin’s position isn’t pro-life. Akin’s position is that if the woman gets pregnant than it’s her own fault. That doesn’t make you pro-life. It makes you a d-bag.

Murdoch got wrapped up in Akin’s crap sandwich and took the fall.

And before anyone says I don’t understand rape, I’ve had friends of mine who’ve suffered from being raped; including one friend who was raped at knifepoint by an intruder on her own kitchen floor.

Hagel is an awful choice for many reasons, and conservatives need to go on offense on this one. If you’re looking to fight the cultural war issues here, then point out the fallacy of the left’s position: it never mattered to a leftist where one stood on an issue as much as with whom they stand.

Hagel, day two: Turns out opposing abortion in cases of rape isn’t so extreme after all

Rebecca Kiessling agrees.

for the nominee himself: Borat, with that old folk hit from his homeland “Throw The Jew Down The Well’;

for NOW and all the other “war against women” propagandists from the late, lamented campaign as they swallow. . .their whistles regarding the nominee’s inconvenient past utterances: Simon and Garfunkel, “The Sound of Silence.”

All this talking point nonsense is just liberal troll bs.

If any of you think that you will convince any honest conservative to vote for the man with these silly arguments, you are fools. That includes the bandwagon troll that snuck in here late.

I realize that the progs want to get at least one person to say they support this jackass. It’s like getting one GOP House Representative to vote for a bad bill and then forever calling it a bipartisan victory. Not true, but accurate I believe is the term.

What you have all left out of your sales pitch is that good press and bad press each only flow one way.

Which helped Mitt Romney in the media?
1. That he hired a lot of women while in office
or
2. “binders full of women”?

Which hurt Eric Holder?

1. The forcing of gun dealers to sell weapons to known drug running desperados by threatening to revoke their licenses and so threatening their livelihoods, allowing the guns to cross the border untracked, thereby being used in a killing spree that continues to this day, and then trying to blame the gun owners and gun makers and then raiding the very shop owners they had coerced in the first place?

or

Illegally dropping a federal voter-intimidation case that had already gone to trial and had been decided against a club-wielding thug who stood out in the street taunting voters because they were of a different race? The video of some of the voter intimidation can be found on youtube, but as progs, you don’t want to know, so you won’t bother, I know.

If you answered the above questions, you should see a pattern. A pattern that puts a lie to your whole bullsh!t argument.

Any conservative still here will now see how ridiculous your talking points are and see you for the very lightweight trolls you are. Especially if they go back over the thread.

The script was weak and the acting was terrible. I like the names, though. Every bit as blendy as “Ford Prefect”.

Thanks for the opportunity to kill your time and get my points out.

Toodles!

A smart person would hold out for someone who has not voiced antipathy for an important ally that sits surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood neo-nazis.

So long as Obama is in office, the chances of us getting someone of that description are as slim as a Hollywood swimsuit model just before a big competition. Or in other words – NOT HAPPENING.

I offer you nothing. Unless I am making the nominations for the administration this year. Did I miss the memo?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 8:33 PM

In other words, you don’t have a better idea.

You, though you do not realize it, also offer nothing but future talking points. And when Hagel guts the system and has a Benghazi or Fast and Furiuos moment of his own concerning Israel, I’ll get to do what with my talking points? Hmmmm? Can I just forget about xxx number of Israelis hurt, wounded, whatever, and tout his pro-life cred? If anything, having a pro-life boob like Hagel screw-up (as I suspect he will) will hurt your precious cause.

Hardly. Causes are considered in isolation of one another. His conduct as secretary of state will affect the Democrats on foreign policy. It won’t have any bearing on social issues. His past voting record on abortion, and the fact that Obama didn’t consider that a disqualifier from the position, however, will.

A smart person would hold out for someone who has not voiced antipathy for an important ally that sits surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood neo-nazis. A true patriot would understand that. You should take your partner, the other troll, 2lbtest, and peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

“How is it on stains?”

So in other words, a smart person is going to hold out for a nominee that will never come. Obama is anti-Israel. We get that. We can expect his nominee to be anti-Israel. That goes with the territory.

The GOP would be complete morons to fight this nomination. Question him during the confirmation process, remind everyone on record what he stands for, then abstain from voting and let Democrats vote to confirm him or embarrass their messiah.

fist clenched, teeth bared, eyes fixed skyward…

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM

…you’re using soft soap again aren’t you?
I think you better start using lotion…you’re going to make too many bubbles!

And your reasoning behind insisting that this is so is… what, exactly? And if you torpedo Hagel’s nomination, who is so much better that you think is waiting in the wings, hmmm?

I’m urging you to salvage what you can. You’re not offering an alternative.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 8:09 PM

I offer you nothing. Unless I am making the nominations for the administration this year. Did I miss the memo?

You, though you do not realize it, also offer nothing but future talking points. And when Hagel guts the system and has a Benghazi or Fast and Furiuos moment of his own concerning Israel, I’ll get to do what with my talking points? Hmmmm? Can I just forget about xxx number of Israelis hurt, wounded, whatever, and tout his pro-life cred? If anything, having a pro-life boob like Hagel screw-up (as I suspect he will) will hurt your precious cause.

A smart person would hold out for someone who has not voiced antipathy for an important ally that sits surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood neo-nazis. A true patriot would understand that. You should take your partner, the other troll, 2lbtest, and peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

“How is it on stains?”

It’s self indulgent twaddle and part of what is wrong with politics.

It doesn’t hamstring liberals at all and it is not relevant to his suitability for the job. There are a lot of reasons related to the job that suggest Bagel is a terrible choice, his position on abortion is not one of them and it’s self-indulgent to make a big deal out of it. The war on women was and remains total BS – this is worth a quick crack and that’s about all.

CorporatePiggy on January 8, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Still not my point. He sucks. But he’s going to get confirmed. Deal with it.

At least make it a point that pro-life positions are not verboten. And legitimize those views. You can’t win a war without winning it’s battles. It’s not this confirmation I care about, it’s how we build stronger foundations for the conservative base.

You don’t sound like much of a patriot to me. Instead, you sound like a progressive toady fresh out of liberal arts school planted here online to dribble stinky brown nuggets of what in Unicorn-land probably sounded impressive. Here in America where people live and die for freedom and honor, we call it horse sh!t.

Hey, the bell’s tinkling. Don’t miss your trolley back to trollsville.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 8:05 PM

And your reasoning behind insisting that this is so is… what, exactly? And if you torpedo Hagel’s nomination, who is so much better that you think is waiting in the wings, hmmm?

I’m urging you to salvage what you can. You’re not offering an alternative.

Again,you are not going to get someone you think is a great guy for the job. You’re just not. End of story. So the concerns about the administrative responsibilities and competency play second-fiddle here.

Next, in so far as Hagel projects weakness abroad, you also get the chance to make the case that the GOP is more trustworthy on foreign policy. Additionally, in so far as you can point to his past, you can also further advance the cause on social issues.

This is basic tactics.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 7:40 PM

What you have going on there is your basic STUPIDITY.

I won’t get someone I think is a great guy for the job. The probability of that is 100% if I roll over and accept him. Accepting him for your reasons would just make me a moron.

Let’s see, I get to say the GOP is more trustworthy and advance the cause on social issues?

You don’t sound like much of a patriot to me. Instead, you sound like a progressive toady fresh out of liberal arts school planted here online to dribble stinky brown nuggets of what in Unicorn-land probably sounded impressive. Here in America where people live and die for freedom and honor, we call it horse sh!t.

Hey, the bell’s tinkling. Don’t miss your trolley back to trollsville.

He’s famous for adapting to the evolving conventional wisdom on foreign policy. Why wouldn’t he adapt to the conventional wisdom of the administration he’s joining too?

There’s not a Democrat in a recent Congress with a moral fiber in their body. Any votes he’s made were “convenient” voted that Reid didn’t need.

IMHO this is a pack of lies on positions irrelevant to the SecDef position meant to convince the Right that he’s a good guy after all. It’s a propaganda technique called TRANSFER!

Transfer carries the authority, sanction, and prestige of something respected and revered over to something else in order to make the latter acceptable….

What is the meaning of the thing from which the propagandist is seeking to Transfer authority, sanction, and prestige?

Is there any legitimate connection between the proposal of the propagandist and the respected and revered thing, person, or institution?

In other words, leaving the propagandistic trick out of the picture, what are the merits of the propagandist’s proposal viewed alone?

“A lie,” wrote Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf (My Struggle), “is believed because of the unconditional and insolent inflexibility with which it is propagated and because it takes advantage of the sentimental and extreme sympathies of the masses. … Therefore, something always is retained even from the most impudent of lies.” And lies, we must remember, take a vast number of forms, the chief seven of which are the unfair applications of our seven Propaganda Devices.

You think if Obama wanted him to replace Sibelius at HHS that he might suddenly “discover” that he was wrong?

Yeah, that’s what I think.

How exactly is that a bad thing? Looking at this one confirmation, at this particular time it may be extraneous but in the long view it does nothing but hamstring liberals.

2lbsTest on January 8, 2013 at 7:39 PM

It’s self indulgent twaddle and part of what is wrong with politics.

It doesn’t hamstring liberals at all and it is not relevant to his suitability for the job. There are a lot of reasons related to the job that suggest Bagel is a terrible choice, his position on abortion is not one of them and it’s self-indulgent to make a big deal out of it. The war on women was and remains total BS – this is worth a quick crack and that’s about all.

You think the GOP can somehow use this guy as a playing card against… uh… …what?

They are doing that to YOU right now, kiddie. They want to put someone into power who will be left of Obama and do every single thing Obama wants him to do. And they plan to get him in by getting people like you to go for the nomination because of some 1 dollar chip you think you might be able to somehow cash in later in some inconsequential blog discussion.

And I can tell you where that conversation will go, too. They get a two-fer because they get to say that Obama is such an open-minded guy that he doesn’t let personal beliefs about above-his-paygrade decisions be a limitation when choosing the right man for the job.

Does your mommy know you are on her computer or is she not home from yoga yet?

sheesh

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM

Again, you are not going to get someone you think is a great guy for the job. You’re just not. End of story. So the concerns about the administrative responsibilities and competency play second-fiddle here.

Next, in so far as Hagel projects weakness abroad, you also get the chance to make the case that the GOP is more trustworthy on foreign policy. Additionally, in so far as you can point to his past, you can also further advance the cause on social issues.

This is basic tactics.

Indeed. And it is utterly ridiculous.

CorporatePiggy on January 8, 2013 at 7:30 PM

How exactly? He will get confirmed. That’s a done deal. But his confirmation bolsters a position the Left is intolerant of and takes a pro life argument into the mainstream of political discourse. It can no longer be thought of as extreme.

How exactly is that a bad thing? Looking at this one confirmation, at this particular time it may be extraneous but in the long view it does nothing but hamstring liberals.

If you honestly think Mitt Romney was the problem, then you live in indoctrinated la-la fantasy land and quite honestly, their probably is nothing that will ever bring you out of it.

SWalker on January 8, 2013 at 6:56 PM

This has to be the most ignorant statement I have seen from you.

First of all the Press is always going to be 100% in the tank for the Democrats from now on. There is no chance they will ever change back to where they were only 80% in the tank.

But to then say Mitt was not the problem when we have 100% proof he was not electable even against a most unpopular President. In fact the least popular to win a second term. Insanity.

Especially when you consider that 2010 Tea Party was born to tank Obama Care yet Mitt Romney did a test run of it in Mass. You may argue they were different but the fact is Americans wanted nothing to do with Romney or Obama Care.

Based on what I’ve seen of Hagel, I’d say that the GOP should let him be confirmed. We’re not going to get someone that we really want on foreign policy, and the people that he most infuriates are the gay lobby and abortionists. I see nothing wrong with using him as a playing card against accusations by the Democrats of “extremism” on our side either. It will also confirm that social conservatism is in fact within the mainstream of the country, and that gives us bargaining power when it comes to the talking points and TV shows that help formulate American opinion.

Stoic Patriot on January 8, 2013 at 6:10 PM

You think the GOP can somehow use this guy as a playing card against… uh… …what?

They are doing that to YOU right now, kiddie. They want to put someone into power who will be left of Obama and do every single thing Obama wants him to do. And they plan to get him in by getting people like you to go for the nomination because of some 1 dollar chip you think you might be able to somehow cash in later in some inconsequential blog discussion.

And I can tell you where that conversation will go, too. They get a two-fer because they get to say that Obama is such an open-minded guy that he doesn’t let personal beliefs about above-his-paygrade decisions be a limitation when choosing the right man for the job.

Does your mommy know you are on her computer or is she not home from yoga yet?

sheesh

The point isnt about Hagel. Its about future strong pro-life candidates.

2lbsTest on January 8, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Indeed. And it is utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, no big deal. When it could cost Romney the presidency (thank you Todd Akin!) then it IS a big deal. But when it could adversely impact an Obama pick . . . [crickets]

JustTruth101 on January 8, 2013 at 6:09 PM

You do understand the Press is just an arm of the DNC right?

I mean expecting them to do anything other than spin the news in the most favorably way possible to the Democrats is naive to the max.

Your type of thinking is what lost Mitt the election. Mitt seemed to think he could gain the approval of the Press if he became enough of a Democrat in his plans. If he would rail against Republicans. Well he did rail against Republicans (conservative ones) and of course he lost. He then blamed those he told to go to Hades for not voting for him. Talk about stupid.

You rail against those in your own party you tell those of like thinking to not even think about voting for you. Never alienate your base as you will lose most of the time if you do and 100% of the time if running for President. Both McCain and Romney did this and both lost.

i continue to support his nomination, notwithstanding the shocking revelation that several times, he successfully ran for the senate seat from a state so deep red it has only ever elected conservative republicans (though nobody knows for how long, since history forgot to record when nebraska became a state). part of the reason for my support, in fact, is that nebraska, where license plates say “are you lost?,” will can finally claim with some plausibility to be known for something.

sesquipedalian on January 8, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Pssst… Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska was a DEMOCRAT. You wouldn’t have Obamacare without him.

Wanna take another shot at being right for once this year — although you still have 357 days left to SCORE, genius?