Roger Rivard campaign
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and state Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Wis.)
More so than at any time in recent memory, political discussion of rape seems to have become quite common this year. We've discussed Todd Akin and "legitimate rape"; we've learned about Paul Ryan's drive to redefine "rape" as it relates to Medicaid; and there have been related incidents involving Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.).
But even after these incidents, quotes like these are hard to stomach.
A state representative is drawing heat for saying that his father had told him when he was young that "some girls rape easy" as a way to warn him that a woman could agree to sex but then later claim that it wasn't consensual.
Freshman [Wisconsin state] Rep. Roger Rivard (R-Rice Lake) in December discussed a case with the Chetek Alert newspaper in which a 17-year-old high school senior was charged with sexual assault for having sex with an underage girl in the school's band room.
The newspaper quoted him as saying his father warned him, "Some girls rape easy" -- meaning that after the fact they can change what they say about whether sex was consensual.
This week, Rivard told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the article, originally published in December, did not provide the full context, as if it's possible to make "some girls rape easy" less offensive.
"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,'" Rivard said, referring to his father. "Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'"
And who's Roger Rivard? He's the one who benefited from an endorsement and fundraiser from none other than Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee, who threw his support to Rivard eight months after the "some girls rape easy" comments were published.
Update: After this story garnered national attention, Ryan pulled his support for Rivard this morning.
Leave a Comment:
I can't believe that the numbers on women have turned so dramatically.
I am baffled , just baffled.
They are all in for a very nasty surprise if they buy into "Moderate Mitt"
I think some women are telling their husbands and friends they support Romney but when they actually get in the booth they'll vote for Obama. This race has gotten so ugly people keep their preferences to themselves. I've heard of neighbors whose Obama signs were torn down and their yards vandalized. Just get to the polls and vote people. You reproductive health depends on it.
@Jane, let me ask you a simple question - do these married women believe that they can't get "raped" because they are married?
See, I'd like to buy into that theory that once behind the voting curtain these people will vote for Obama; but right now, the obvious obliviousness from the right - especially the women on women's reproductive rights are frightening!
This week, Rivard told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the article, originally published in December, did not provide the full context...
"Some girls rape easy...And those were just the ones who said no!"
I, too, was given some fatherly advice:
Dad said, "Son, you are known by the company you keep."
IF you can't win on your record go back to the liberal fall back plan:
"gut social security" "grandma off a cliff" "war on women" "reproductive rights"
Congress passes the law, not the President. He can veto them, but congress can overide. So why do you make it sound like 5 minutes after election the P/VP can unliaterally make all these changes?
Problem is GOP does want to gut Social Security and roll back the ability of women to control their reproductive rights and amend the deifnition of rape. As for grandma, they want to change the landscape for future grandmas, the ones currently under 55. Plain fact is, the are hunting down all the stuff from the New Deal on that they didn't like at inseption, and still don't like.
This is not a liberal fall back plan, just a fair reading of the GOP positons from platform to campaign.
That is the liberal fall back plan Robert DuBois.
The GOP wants to make sure SS, Medicare and Mediaid are solvent and available for future generations. No expert has denied those programs going concern over the years and their projected shortfalls over time. Reform is necessary (be it move to means tested, slowly raising the start ages to better match significantly longer life expectancy, to keeping a consistent peg to inflation).
No one is "hunting down stuff from the New Deal". The GOP is trying to keep the massive Obama government surge.
@owsfails, what massive government surge would that be? Smaller government workforce than Bush II? Debt lowered (check yesterday's numbers)?
You're being fed a line of crap and you're repeating it.
It's funny how Orwellian this is. They want to end the program in order to make it stronger!
Please inform me- what plans have the GOP presented that would strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?
What massive Obama government surge?
@OWSfails - you do realize that the reason for the huge deficit is:
1) 2 wars - put on the federal credit card.
2) Tax breaks steered towards the highest income bracket - all of which was "off the books"!
PBO, put them onto the books, but really he has not "grown government", actually he's spent less! Please stop parroting FAUX NOISE talking points! Romney/Ryan would turn those plans into vouchers that do not keep up with inflation, and would leave seniors/children/the disabled - left "to die quickly"! Every study has shown that! And while we can have differences in how we come up with solutions to our looming issues - we cannot and must not avoid the FACTS and just "make them up as we go along"!
And while you may live comfortably off of your "trust fund" - everyone is not you. So just "fake it til you make it" compassion, empathy, understanding that everyone isn't as fortunate, but we're all human and we're all on this journey together!
I just wonder if the Republican party is going to change their name officially to "The he-man woman haters club"?
(with apologies to the little rascals)
Nah; it's the party of god. Sound familiar?
I have nearly reached the point of thinking that any woman who votes Republican deserves what happens to her, up to and including being told by the authorities that she was "asking for it." Crap like this is why I no longer consider Republicans to be fundamentally human. It's a political organization of, by and for vicious psychopaths.
Wow, this is showing how desperate MessNBC is getting. Implicate Ryan over what a guy's DAD said to him?
Did you miss the part where the guy, endorsed by Ryan, published a piece recently on papa's advice which would indicate that he believes papa to be right? This isn't ancient history, this is a guy who STILL has the "girls ask for it" mentality.
Show me where you jumped to Obama's defence when the GOP went after a preacher he'd spent time with. But a guy who says "some girls rape easy" is totally cool, nothing to see here, move along. Effing hypocrite.
Eric it's not an implication when Paul Ryan, endorsed the guy After these statements were made public. Which can only come to one of two conclusions. Either A) Paul Agreed with what was said, or determined that it wasn't an issue. Or B) Ryan had no clue it was said, and by default has a failure of a Vetting System, of who to endorse. In either case, it reflects badly on him, because he is the Rep VP pick, and his judgement is now everybody's business.
Thank goodness for reporters keeping an eye on this stuff. Otherwise guys like Paul Ryan wouldn't know what scumbags their friends are. It's surprising how remarkably uninformed some elected officials can be.
It doesn't make the words - or the thinking behind them - any more acceptable, but let's keep in mind that he is quoting his father. Headline here suggests the opposite.
You're kidding right? I don't quote anyone if I don't believe them or don't distance myself from them at the time of the quote. What this moron said was obviously what he believes, otherwise he would have stated My Dad said this but I don't believe it - OR, he wouldn't have said it at all because a REAL MAN wouldn't even give credence to such a barbaric ideal. Now please ms. stearns, retreat into your cave and tend to the fresh kill your master just drug in. The fire is dying out.
Unless the context of the quote is "Can you believe what this utter jerk said?" then yes, the fact that he's quoting his dad matters.
He may be just "quoting his father". But that quotation, and others like it, have no place in a civilized discussion. The quote, and the idea behind it, should never be spoken again.
The problem is -he IS quoting his father. If he didn't feel the same way he would have wiped that crap response out of his memory or at least not repeat it ever again!
Exactly. People use quotes they agree with. Saying "Papa taught me" this or that is a way to say that it is not only my opinion, but is "the wisdom of the ages."
Of course sometimes you quote someone in order to dispute their claim. For example, if I were to quote Ayn Rand. Rivard wasn't doing that.
Hey, that's a new one! I'd say you can kiss your political career goodbye but that was 10 years ago, now anything goes! Rmoney could use a guy like you on crime prevention at the national level!
Unfortunately, when you look at his face you realize that no girls rape easy..
This is the class act that the Teapublicans have given as the VP Candidate. GO ahead and elect him women - you will lose all the ground we've gained in the last 60 years - all for your Guns, GOD and Gays platform. Hope you'll enjoy making $.50 to every $1 a man makes. Hope you'll enjoy no health insurance. Hope you love that kitchen, cause you won't have the same ability to get into good colleges or further a career. Women for Romney are just plain voting against themselves and their daughters. Hope you get used to being treated as a sex toy and worthless piece of meat to be used for breeding purposes only - because that's exactly what the Teapublican party is all about. I WILL VOTE DEMOCRAT to ensure that young girls grow up with the respect, dignity and rights they deserve!
When and why did women's rights become so threatening to the GOP?
When it started looking to them like women might actually use them.
Liberals had no problem with a womanizing rapist in the Oval office in the 90s. Have you all "evolved" or just flipflopped.
It's the GOP that has habitually run on family values, no the Dems. It is the hypocrisy of the "party of god" that is offensive.
Who was raped in the oval office? By whom?
Hey--I will admit Clinton was a womanizer but he was a wonderful president. The two really had nothing to do with each other. Now--these people out there that actually have the ability to affect me and my body--based on idiotic beliefs -- well--that is no longer apples and oranges!
Monica Lewinski by Bill Clinton I'm sorry When you use your position and status as POTUS to gain entry into the vagina of an intern in your office, in my book that is rape. Juanita Broaddrick was brutally raped by the same womanizer. All I'm saying is that dem's/libs had no problem with that back then. Oh yeah Bill Clinton was a wonderful president, He only gave China the ability to hit us with a nuclear warhead. I'm just glad that they decided to "buy" us instead of blowing us up. And the two do have something to do with each other. If you will lie and cheat on your wife, you will do the same to the american people. That is what the A-hole did. Heck He is still doing it. I saw the convention speech.
Monica Lewinski wasn't raped by Clinton. Where did you even get that from?
In your book it is rape when you have consensual sex? No wonder Republicans can't figure out why the term "legitimate rape" is so offensive.
Being a "womanizer" simply means he's a guy who dates lots of women and is appealing to women. The only way this would be upsetting to you is if you have a problem with men dating women. Honestly how this is a line of attack that makes sense is beyond me.
Juanita Broaderick was never raped. None of this ever happened. You are confusing a hypothetical with reality. You have done this before and it's been pointed out to you. Your FANTASIES about what someone MIGHT have done aren't the same as the ACTUALITY of what DID occur. Understand?
What did Clinton lie about during his convention speech? And you do realize that China has had nuclear capabilities since Nixon, yes? That's about the funniest statement I've heard in a long time. I suppose what you meant to say is that he signed NAFTA- which I agree with you was a terrible ordeal. Wait a minute is it the POTUS who signs trade agreements or was it the Republican held congress? Will have to go back and check on that one....
And no, sorry, but someone who cheats on his wife doesn't automatically go out and cheat other people. The two aren't comparable. That's another logical fallacy in your long stream of logical fallacies. Personal behavior doesn't always reflect on what a person will do in their political life. You say this because in YOUR particular case it's true of YOU. Again the inability of Republicans to get over themselves is just amazing.
But, lastly, what does ANY of this have to do with the conversation at hand? So what Ryan does that is immoral is OK and should never be pointed out because a Democrat did it at one point in time? You do realize that this argument defends the immoral actions of Ryan, yes?
OMG--really inspector!
I have nothing more to say to you! Just continue with you hating of everything democratic and live in the dark hole you have buit yourself because I and so many liberals out there are out in the sun and revelling in the knowledge that you or anyone with an (R) in their title will EVER, NEVER, EVER be in charge of me or my body!
Okay Your government education is shining brightly.
So Let's go point by point.
Bill forced himself on an intern. You say it's not rape.
Bill screws around constantly on his wife. You say that is cool. (You are probably divorced)
You say that a woman is not raped(Juanita Broaddrick) because nobody witnessed it.
Bill Clinton signed a waiver to send confidential sensitive electrical equipment to china in return for money to get reelected ( John Huang ) You don't know about it so it never happened?
I'm going by percentages. More than 50% of dirt bags (apparently you fall into this category) that lie and cheat on their wife will screw anyone they can out of whatever they can. They call them USERS.
And lastly Judging by your foolish response, You do not read anything fully. The post is about some idiot that Ryan threw his support to, Not Ryan. What evidense do you have that Ryan is immoral By the standards you have put forth today, Ryan is a saint compared to you.
Bethany You have got me all wrong. A little background. First I am not a Republican. I am an independant. Not a tea party supporter, Pro abortion and I don't care if gay people want to get married. Hell I don't care if you marry your dog. Just don't push your agenda on me or my kid. Mitt Romney in my book is an A-hole. Barack Obama is a bigger A-hole. I have a problem with trillion dollar deficits. Every new program that the government comes up with is costing us money that my kid is going to have to pay back to China and whoever else we owe. I beleive it is not the governments business to take care of people that sit on their ass all day watching Dr.OZ while I'm working 2 jobs to pay my mortgage. I could go on but you don't want to hear it anyway.
speculum,
Could you provide ANY PROOF of your claims?
No?
Then keep it movin, republican troll.
Inspector--
You are calling me a dirt bag because I disagree that Clinton FORCED himself on Monica.
You are the despicable human being and with you I AM DONE!~ STFU!
No I say Juanita was never raped because the allegation was investigated and it was found out she was given money by Republicans and later admitted she lied. Until you have PROOF that the allegation happened you can't state it as a DEFINITIVE. Now you can say he was ACCUSED of raping her, but that is where you have to stop. In America we do not presume people guilty until it has been proven that they committed a crime. Otherwise any woman on this blog could go out and accuse you of assaulting them and you would be executed or put into jail for 30+ years on that whim. That's not how it works here. Allegations aren't proof; allegations are...allegations. You do not have proof that Clinton raped anyone you just have a lie that you're clinging to for no reason.
Clinton didn't force himself on Monica. Again consensual sex does not equal rape. Look up the definitions in a dictionary.
Again this is an allegation that was investigated and found to be a lie. You cannot take hypotheticals as facts. But furthermore you stated initially that Clinton gave China the information to build the bomb. I guess now you're admitting you lied the first time. And I love the statement that I must be uneducated because I don't immediately agree with you. Yes because you've never been wrong about anything in your life and you're the most smartest person alive. Why that's why you're Jesus! There's that Republican egoism again
Ugh huh. So dirtbag now is a scientific definition and a quantifiable one, 'eh? Suppose you have a study to support this, 'eh?
What standards did I put forth? Do you even know what you're talking about at this point? You're the one making the accusations against me- again accusations aren't proof. This blog posting was about Ryan's association with a guy who apparently thinks women lie all the time about being raped. Now if you wanted to complain about the guilt by association fallacy I'd actually join you since it is illogical and immature. But this wasn't what you did. What you did, instead, was played to the red herring- you're scapegoating the conversation to something else (in this case your hatred of Bill Clinton) because you think in doing so it's a more defensible position. The problem is that doing so means that you're admitting the accusations of guilt-by-association are correct and that you agree with them. You're just saying it's OK for Ryan to have done X because a Democrat did it. This is even more confusing when you're attempting to then insult Democrats as being inferior. So apparently Ryan is as bad as Clinton. Gotcha.
Is it not delightful to gain such insight into how republican ideas are handed down generation to generation. Ain't it great to see them use such ideas as if it is "sage advice" rather than depravity?
Ok, maybe I'm going to be seen as complete jerk for this -- but there is an element of uncomfortable truth here. Guys who are dating girls, particularly those younger than themselves, can find themselves in very hot water even when the sex is initially consensual.
Kids who turn 18 while their partner is still under the age of consent in whatever state they happen to be in (between 16 and 18 usually) can find themselves going to prison for rape.
And there are recorded cases of girls who got caught claiming rape and then later recanting their testimony after their boyfriend has spent some time in jail.
Sexuality stirs some potent biological forces and really messes with emotions, and not every young kid (male or female) is ready to deal with those emotions. "Getting caught" can and does make people do stupid things when they aren't in a position of stability where they can say "yes I have sex" and not feel ashamed, guilty or judged.
The advice may have been crudely stated. But I will admit that I gave the same sort of advice to my kids. I'd hope I state it better. But aside from the crudity of the comment, the concept underlying the statement is valid: there is legal risk here even if you have every reason to believe a relationship is consensual.
If the guy saying this were a democrat and he were saying it with more finesse, would people still be up in arms? I kind of doubt it.
Fair point but there does appear to be a buddy chain "of let's redefine rape to accommodate our agenda" that is just too obvious to ignore. It's right up there with transvaginal probes and 24 hour waits and antipathy to equal pay. Just whom are they tring to kid?
I doubt that anyone would deny that at times the charge of rape is used as a weapon or for blackmail. The thing is that most of us still see rape as evil and unacceptable. This nutjob seems to be laying the blame on the victim without a fair trial.
Of course he is just extending the republican line on how women can't get impregnated by rape and that rape is no excuse for having an abortion.
Yup, Joe Biden would have said it with alot of finesse.
Paul, I'm not even talking about using the charge as a weapon or for blackmail. I'm simply talking about the reality of young people getting themselves into situations they do not have the maturity to handle and having legal issues ensue once parents get involved and stories start getting told.
I agree the GOP stance on women's issues is despicable and their attitudes are frequently more than a tad antiquated. However, I honestly don't see anything to get upset about in these comments beyond their lack of comity.
I frankly would consider a parent who did not warn a young person (of either gender) of the potentially serious legal issues involved in casual sexual relationships to be horribly irresponsible as a parent. I would also find anyone who did so using the language expressed here to be crass and uncouth. But someone being uncouth isn't worth getting our knickers in a twist over. There's frankly people out there pushing real policies and voicing truly harmful opinions that deserve real attention.
I just don't see the big deal over this at all. It seems like he's being excoriated for being overly rude and rustic rather than over something substantive.
daw55-I read your first line and before long realized you were going to use this as excuse.
If you are over 18 and she isnt -- KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS.
NUF SAID!
daw55, the fact that you don't see why comments like this are a big effing deal IS the reason we have to keep making a big deal about it.
Women are made the enemy by far too many men who believe in the "boys will be boys" theory of sexual rules.
Someone said not too long ago, why do we, as a society, teach women how not to be raped instead of teaching men not to rape? The question could also be asked, why do we teach girls that having sex is bad, so tragically bad and dirty and shameful and disgusting and sinful and a thousand other puritan epithets that GIRLS feel like claiming rape is a better choice than just admitting they made a mistake? Boys don't seem to feel this way. Boys aren't made to feel ashamed for having a sexual encounter that was inappropriate. Why is that?
We must continue to fight back against an all-encompassing moral judgment that "girls are tricky little bytches and you must guard against them". Why not just teach girls and boys that sometimes sex happens when it shouldn't and there's no need to freak out? Talk to your parents, teachers, guidance counsellors, whoever ... no judgments, no court cases, just acknowledge the mistake, learn from it and move on.
Just to clarify, as I'm not sure it was clear, I'm not talking about circumstances that are actual rape. I'm talking about teaching girls/women not to be ashamed of themselves for making the same mistake that men make often without fear of judgment.
Why would you need to clarify whether it's statuatory rape or a person claiming rape who hasn't been raped? The very fact that you feel this defense is needed is in and of itself justifying rape. Are people honestly this dissonant from their own statements?
When someone asks you "what happens if a person is raped" there is NO reason for you to immediately clarify "well we have to know if she was raped first." It was postulated to you in the question. The reason why you make this clarification is because you reject the notion that rape can actually happen or you reject the notion that rape is a common occurrence. That in and of itself is sexism and an attempt to excuse those who would rape. No matter how you slice it this was a bigoted post and you need to consider that the next time you deal with rape related issues. You are already hinting at your own personal prejudisms against women.
For the record recounting your story doesn't mean that your story never happened. It means you are taking the testimony back- that is all. You know who is the most likely person to recall their testimony? Abused house wives. The very fact that you gave this statement is, again, justification for the rapist.
80sGril and Cartoonthenews:
To be clear, I am not suggesting that there is ever an excuse for rape. I am saying flat out that when dealing with young people who do not have the emotional maturity to handle being sexually active, and who may not be aware of other pertinent laws, but who are anyway, there are legal pitfalls that can destroy one's life.
And those pitfalls rarely boomerang back on girls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia
Rape is a real and serious issue. But so is the persecution of boys for having consensual sex with girls in their age bracket/school because of how the law falls. And so is the issue of false accusations of rape. I'm not talking about battered wives, I"m talking about the kids who get caught and then try to find a way out.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030811_spilbor.html
Again you are defending rape by making this statement. You have no reason to presume that this context is or was needed to understand the article above. You are giving him an excuse for his sexist beliefs and by tangent are being equally as sexist.
The rape myth culture perpetuates the belief that women routinely sleep with men that they want to sleep with, but then they realize later, because of peer pressure or some other womanly emotion (cause there emotions are just soooo different than that of us men), that they weren't satisfied and so they lie and say the guy raped her. Maybe he wasn't that good in bed or maybe he didn't buy her an expensive enough watch. Why I hear if you don't buy a woman at least a 90$ meal on the first date she'll report you to the police before you've even had a chance to get dessert!!!
The whole thing is just preposterous. He is attempting to justify rape under this context. Oh those hysterical women and how they constantly go spouting off about rape. I mean it's not like us guys INTENTIONALLY pick up girls at the bar by getting them drunk (thereby removing their ability to consent to sex) and then taking them home. This is also totally not why us guys leave as soon as we can in the morning. I mean I've totally never heard this talked about in the locker room at the gym.
You have no reason to presume the context of statutory rape or any other context that might make the charge of rape too harsh or otherwise inappropriate. Just as the man making this quote had no reason to make that accusation. By immediately assuming the "legitimate" rape line you are justifying it. I have worked with victims of these horrific crimes and I take this as a black and white issue. Now yeah if it's a 15 year old with a 13 year old there does come ambiguity with the sentencing laws if both consented. But since that wasn't the context of this situation and there was no reason to presume it, I'm not giving you any leeway.
Some voters rape easy.
They vote for some plan and someone they hope will be good steward, funding is raised, a contract is let, and construction begins, the road is complete. With everyone trust worthy, a good job, is done, the roads lasts, and the community prospers for the effort.
This is idealistic, but just for a hopeful moment consider a Google Earth internet application, that facilitates the process, where each step therein gather information, and forwards it to the next step, with the same or better result. The dollars, the plan, the schedule, the equipment, the services all could be planned and even made contingent on good weather.
Both of these silly ideas are idealization, fantasies, and in that somewhat represent human expectations for life little pleasures.
Then there's the matter of anything goes, that sex is highly representative of and everything is wonderful except for the impingement of reality, which would take many pages to describe, and fantastically more complex system to prefect, using rules checks, tests, and verifications.
Corruptible forms a long list: Vote could be skewed, a campaign done badly, funding, advertising, reporting illicit, hyped and filled with deliberately confusing and neediness details, and the vote count suppressed, even if by false predictions of deadly weather. Then the good steward, finding rewards from power, prestige from position, unearned respect from the community culminating in myriad scandal. Then since money is involved, every possible, sight of grand known to venture capitalist, becomes viable, and all the more with less and lesser transparency. Then the good steward is friend or relative of the contractor, too close, but aware that some of the spending is destined to be miscellaneous, and what if another friend would benefit. In a nation of great wealth, having little extra grease to smooth the machinery, works better than any detailed automated planning.
With prosperity unwanted children are less of problem and do come too easy, but then the solutions are greater.
When the voter, has been long voting with the growing expectation of prospering, rape then becomes too easy. But when prosperity is less, stagnant or worse, declining; how can the voter remain so tolerant?
That road it not going to be built, rooting out the comfortable corruption and rot is very difficult, and the prosperity is not forth coming, all because the raping of the voter is so easy.
The voter being the only actor in making this process is guilty and is charged with the responsibility of fixing a problem that the voter is not ware of.
This being the case, there is no solution at all.
So, since Paul Ryan is associated with a certain state rep in Wisconsin who repeated a bit of advice (which was said in the father to son vulgate) his father once gave him and regarding that advice it was rather vulgar or rough around the edges....there fore Paul Ryan and all republicans are filthy pigs deserving of condemnation?
I am certain that Dave Letterman ( Palin's daughter was knocked up by A Rod during the 7th inning stretch)) ( or Bill Maher One Million dollar contributor to Obama and pig mouth from A to Z extrordinare) would each have found gentler ways of expressing this. Then there's Bill Clinton, the dems ace in the hole womanizer not to mention Ted Kennedy womanizer and murderous individual he was. I am certain all would approve of any advice these folks would give. Or Barney Frank the "intern lover boy lover". He's always gracious in his use of terms. Why say it with words? Do as Weiner did, send pictures!!!
Just pointing out what a stretch this blog topic is. But I guess with the polls being as they are, TRMS show has to find some goofy story to keep people from jumping off the cliff for desperation.
How about discussing Benghazi and the Obama Administration's "seemingly obvious" cover up attempts? There's a developing story. Or is that one still just a "bump in the road"?
Or you could just go back to defending and coddling pedophiles. That seems to be your favourite hobby.
GEEZ 80s Tramp You are so mean. And to think Irish Pat was just getting ready to ask you out. Oh and BTW in this country we spell it F A V O R I T E.
Inspector, sadly, you clearly didn't take my advice to check your bum for your head is STILL stuck up there. It's got to be getting uncomfortable by now. Also, you don't know Paddy so you're not in a position to defend the creep.
BTW, I don't give a rat's ass how you spell anything in your country. In mine, we spell it correctly.
Oh - inspector-you really are going to pick on the European spelling from a viner?
Wow--way to stick to topic! And BTW - the USA is the only country the uses the lazy way to spell.
Yeah, I quote my Dad. I honor and love and respect him, but he told me there was no sense in sending a girl to college as all she was going to do was get married. So I went into the U.S. Air Force. And today I have an M.Ed, my daughters have advanced degrees, as do my granddaughters. I strongly believe in education for women.
But then, I'm kinda uppity . . .
And I know about rape from personal experience. 'Taint fun and 'taint funny. And this denigration of women upsets me and saddens me. Why the hatred?
So glad to see this discussion here. I've been physically ill since I saw the Ryan interview where he stated "rape is a method of conception," thus justifying the most horrible act perpetrated against women. What I don't get is that we always here the myth of the "liberal press," yet not a word about Ryan and his henchmen's attitudes towards what is the worst thing that can happen to a woman. And what I can't fathom is why any woman would support these individuals who would send us back to the dark ages.
Uninvited means uninvited, Roger knew exactly what his father meant. They have no idea how to treat women, they are disgusting and that is why they have to rape. It's the only way they know how to get close to a woman. They find it easier to attack them and try to control them, they are beasts.