TIL from R-Todd Akin that if truely raped women can't get pregnant

[TWD]

Originally Posted by Jacks:SmirkingRevenge

I'm admitting that I wouldn't need to.

of course the stock market isn't zero-sum in theory.
any professor and/or economist will tell you that.

but in practice?
you know that's nonsense. the zero-sum aspect doesn't account for all stock activity; it's obviously in the minority. especially when you consider the dollar amounts. the bulk of trading is above ground clearly.

but it's not black and white.
you said that insider trading is a victimless crime. and that's just not true. and I'm pretty sure you know it.

I have learned (the hard way) that the only way to be a victim is to let yourself. Nobody can control the market. It doesn't matter if it goes down because of a news flash, or because it just felt like it. You always have the power to act for yourself. The only victims on the stock market are those that have fallen victim to their own stupidity. The claim here is that an insider can trigger a stock movement. So what? What would make it different from any other movement? You can sell whenever you want. Sooner or later that information will be made public. So why does it matter if it happens today or tomorrow? Is it an unfair advantage? Perhaps. But that's exactly why we have a stock market. If everyone had the same knowledge, the same experience, and the same investment goals, then there wouldn't be any reason for a market, would there?

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Originally Posted by TWD

Is it an unfair advantage? Perhaps.

there's no "perhaps" about it.
trading on information that is not available to all (at the same time) is an unfair advantage.

are you really going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that no one has ever been unjustly victimized by the stock market?
because it happens regularly.

there are individuals and groups that profit significantly at the [functional] expense of other individuals and groups who were not privy to knowledge about how a particular market was going to behave the following day, just because they were "members" of the good old boys club. so-to-speak.

Wall Street isn't just a clever movie starring Charlie Sheen.
it's a culture of corruption and back-scratching that occurs every day between those in the club. because not everyone has access to the knowledge that will shape the market the next time the bell rings. but some people do, and they use that knowledge to essentially program the computers that actually perform the trades. we're talking computers here, capable of making MILLIONS of trades-per-second (sometimes for cents on the dollar) in order to churn out incredible aggregate gains.

unless everyone has this ability it is the definition of unfair.

these micro trades occur on the backs of those who did not see the movement coming because they were simply not fast enough or important enough to be told about it the night before. let's not play naive: abiding by the rules will never yield the kind of fortunes that are had by breaking them.

if this isn't zero-sum then I don't know what is.

[Sir_Brizz]

Originally Posted by Lizard Of Oz

Now, hows 'bout this Akin cat, real douche bag, no? The really sad part is that his ultimate position is a fundamental (pun intended) plank of the Republican platform.

I really hope my sarcasmometer is broken here, because otherwise.... yeah, wuut??

I'm no Republican but no, it isn't.

[Zur]

Not sure if high frequency trading is current anymore. For reasons unknown (backdoor in software?) Knight Capital made a massive loss and will probably go bankrupt. These people came up with some of the software robots that make super-fast transactions.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Originally Posted by Sir_Brizz

I really hope my sarcasmometer is broken here, because otherwise.... yeah, wuut??

I'm no Republican but no, it isn't.

No abortions, NO EXCEPTIONS.



.

[TWD]

Originally Posted by Lizard Of Oz

No abortions, NO EXCEPTIONS.



.

I disagree with your characterization. The Republican platform doesn't mention the issue of rape or incest at all. It never says anywhere "no exceptions". Now someone proposed that the exclusions be mentioned, and that was shot down. Mainly because they want to be as broad as possible. In other words, the Republican platform is agnostic about whether there should be exceptions.

And it should be pointed out that Romney has stated multiple times that he agrees with including exceptions.

[Lizard Of Oz]

The Republican platform oppose all abortions. There are no exemption for rape, incest or the life of the mother. In fact, when McCain tried to insert these exemptions in 2008, he was shot down.

I could not care less what politically convenient thing Romney says. Romney is now the leader of the party, and until he changes the actual platform, he's just another Akin.

P.S. What you call "agnostic", I call cowardly.

.

[cryptophreak]

.

[Zxanphorian]

There is no such thing as a victimless crime other than such things as personal illegal drug use. To think that insider trading is victimless is absolutely absurd. It isn't like doing drugs in the privacy and anonymity of your own house, it is affecting a system that affects everyone. Anyhow, enough of this derailment.

"affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed" to me sounds like there are no exceptions. As per that wording, if you include exceptions within this proposed amendment, then the 'right to life' would indeed be infringed. Thus, the amendment would not have applicable exceptions when it comes to rape, incest, when the mother's life and health would be in great peril, if subjected by law (i.e. forced) to give birth.

This is what bugs the hell out of me about the Republicans and conservatives. They always talk the talk about how the government should not, under any circumstance, infringe on individual liberties. Yet they pull **** like this, such as restricting whatever women do with their womb. The more accurate description is "we are against governmental intervention with personal liberties... unless the liberties fail to pass our litmus test of ideology."

And about the Constitutional amendments. It is extremely dangerous in proposing amendments to the Constitution that fundamentally restricts freedoms of the populace. Amendments are supposed to remove restrictions on individual liberty, not impose them. Such as the 13th in ending slavery, 15th in allowing said slaves to vote, 19th with women's suffrage.

Amendments that restrict personal freedoms have been met with disastrous results. The classic example is the 18th amendment: prohibition. It was billed by the temperance movement as medicine to solve all of societies ills at that time. And it was so wrong. People drank anyway, and when they did, they drank in unsafe and unregulated speakeasys, they drank unsafe and unregulated alcohol, that was cut with the other toxic alcohols such as methanol and isopropyl. Not to mention the emergence and proliferation of the modern-day mob and organized crime. Thankfully lawmakers came to their senses and repealed it a few amendments later.

Although if such an abortion ban amendment is put in place, I don't think the problem will be as large in magnitude as prohibition, but the problem will still be significant. The doctors and personnel of abortion clinics will be out of jobs, adding to unemployment. Black market / back alley abortion clinics will rise, which will include unsafe unregulated drugs and crude methods not far from using a coat hanger. And there isn't any guarantee the resulting babies that the mother was forced to carry to term will live in a perfect "middle-class Christian family." Although there are exceptions, most will live in relative squalor, and the financial burden on the mother will be exacerbated, thus average quality of life will decrease.

[TWD]

Originally Posted by Lizard Of Oz

P.S. What you call "agnostic", I call cowardly.

.

Unlike Democrats we do not use the party platform as a method to bludgeon members into compliance. It is a statement of shared values. Nothing more. You are trying to use it as a cheap weapon to label the party with a position it doesn't hold. The GOP welcomes all people of pro life persuasions regardless of their position on exceptions in cases of rape and incest. It is therefore inappropriate to put it in the platform.

[cryptophreak]

Originally Posted by Zxanphorian

There is no such thing as a victimless crime other than such things as personal illegal drug use.

Even that is not a victimless crime. It would be, except that anti-drug legislation encourages violence.

[Luv_Studd]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/us/tex...html?hpt=hp_t1

It just keeps getting better and better.

[SkaarjMaster]

Guy just doesn't have his head screwed on straight.

[Renegade Retard]

Wow, this truck of a thread sure is weaving all over the road! It's like the buffet of threads...one thread, unlimited topic choices.

Originally Posted by Zxanphorian

This is what bugs the hell out of me about the Republicans and conservatives. They always talk the talk about how the government should not, under any circumstance, infringe on individual liberties. Yet they pull **** like this, such as restricting whatever women do with their womb. The more accurate description is "we are against governmental intervention with personal liberties... unless the liberties fail to pass our litmus test of ideology."

To play Devil's Advocate, I don't think the perspective of republicans and conservatives is to limit what a woman does to her own body. Their perspective is that the fetus is its own person with its own individual liberties. Therefore, the conservative stance is to not allow a mother or doctor infringe upon the rights of the individual that is the unborn child.

This, IMO, is the root of the abortion vs anti-abortion debate - when is a fetus considered a individual entitled to its own civil rights and liberties? At the moment of conception? When completely outside of the womb? Some point in between? At whatever that point is, any actions after that point to end that individual's life is an infringement on its rights. Conservatives and liberals disagree on when the fetus should inherit those rights.

[Al]

Originally Posted by Luv_Studd

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/us/tex...html?hpt=hp_t1

It just keeps getting better and better.

lol Texas

[Zxanphorian]

Originally Posted by cryptophreak

Even that is not a victimless crime. It would be, except that anti-drug legislation encourages violence.

Well yeah, violence caused by drug use, drug running, and any other illegal act that comes from drugs are not victimless crimes, but the personal usage like smoking a bowl of weed in the safety of your living room is. This is why I think that general drug use should be decriminalized and legalized, but to offset this, any crime that occurs while doing the drug or obtaining the drug should be punished more severely than today. I would make an exception for things like meth, but if you want to totally destroy your body, I'm not stopping you.

Originally Posted by Renegade Retard

To play Devil's Advocate, I don't think the perspective of republicans and conservatives is to limit what a woman does to her own body. Their perspective is that the fetus is its own person with its own individual liberties. Therefore, the conservative stance is to not allow a mother or doctor infringe upon the rights of the individual that is the unborn child.

This, IMO, is the root of the abortion vs anti-abortion debate - when is a fetus considered a individual entitled to its own civil rights and liberties? At the moment of conception? When completely outside of the womb? Some point in between? At whatever that point is, any actions after that point to end that individual's life is an infringement on its rights. Conservatives and liberals disagree on when the fetus should inherit those rights.

I understand the whole premise, but to me it looks like a blatant way of imposing a certain set of beliefs of a certain group on the populace of a whole. The conservatives cry foul when another certain group with a different certain set of beliefs says that life only begins at birth, not conception. To me, a new life with rights begins when it is biologically capable of not being dependent on the mother. That is partly why I don't support third trimester / partial-birth abortions. A baby can be born prematurely in this modern age and survive without being tethered to the mother. And the mother should have had more than ample time, more than 6 months, to decide to keep the baby or not, and it would be selfish for her to do so. I consider myself true pro-choice. I personally don't like abortions in certain cases, mainly the case above, or if I have a future girlfriend who I have an unplanned pregnancy with, I wouldn't suggest abortion. But I will not support any laws, and most definitely not a constitutional amendment, that removes the right to choose from others.

For sake of argument, lets say an individual life with associated liberties is the exact moment of a sperm penetrating the egg. Lets also say that the mother has a history of reckless habits, and she miscarries. Now, by the logic of a new independent life, a new independent person, the woman knowingly put the baby's life in danger, would you throw her in jail for murder? Would you throw mothers in jail that have children with fetal alcohol syndrome or mothers who smoke or do drugs while pregnant? Of course, they should suffer financially for higher medical costs and community humiliation, but I wouldn't go as far as sending the mother to jail.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Originally Posted by TWD

Unlike Democrats we do not use the party platform as a method to bludgeon members into compliance.

cheap shot much?
you can't be serious. I guess you're serious. but now you're just firing off ****ty talking points.

did you forget Grover Norquist?
did you forget the 2010 congressional elections?

Republicans use the party platform (primarily concerning taxes) to bludgeon each other almost constantly. they practically tore themselves asunder trying to get the Tea Party in line, meanwhile the Tea Party freshman basically took the GOP hostage on the far right. they fought against "moderate" Republicans as though they were Democrats in the primaries.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Originally Posted by TWD

Unlike Democrats we do not use the party platform as a method to bludgeon members into compliance. It is a statement of shared values. Nothing more. You are trying to use it as a cheap weapon to label the party with a position it doesn't hold. The GOP welcomes all people of pro life persuasions regardless of their position on exceptions in cases of rape and incest. It is therefore inappropriate to put it in the platform.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

[TWD]

Originally Posted by Lizard Of Oz

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Quote from the article:

McDonnell said yesterday that “any indication other than we should strongly support the laws that protect women from violence are just absolutely wrong.” He defended the wording of the platform language on abortion, saying that “while we affirm our support for human life,” the “specific policies” of how the ban would apply “ought to be left to the states.”

[Lizard Of Oz]

Originally Posted by TWD

Quote from the article:

Text of the "Plank":

"Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children."

Now if you look at the various purposed "human life amendment to the Constitution" you will find a couple that give the states some leeway, and in another you will find provisions for protecting the life of the mother. No where will you find a rape or incest exemptions. As I said earlier, McCain pushed hard from 2000 to 2008 to have "rape or incest exemptions" added, but failed due to the increasingly radial nature of the current Republican party.