There is no debate to debate, this was simply theater. Mogan is a talking head and Jones is a seriously crazy person who in the end is arguing for more dead children. And I have a bit of problem supporting noble ideals that intail the acceptance of having children shot in the face by gun weilding lunatics. Which I suspect is why there are so few comments here on FDL.

For some reason the phrase “limited modifed hangout” come to mind when I read this. I wasn’t sure before but now I’m sure there is something in those returns that Rmoney really doesn’t want anybody to see.

i’m going to vote for Obmama – not a happy vote but the situation is given a choice, there is a bare microscophic chance that Obama will realize what is being done on the economy isn’t working and will NEVER WORK and will try somehing else. There isn’t a chance the world Romney will do that. That said – there isn’t much to chose between them other wise on the economy.

I would say most people on the left’s anger at Obama comes from the repeated attempts to work with the GOP long long long after they have shown themselves to be intransigent lunatics. I mean bening mangamous in victory is all well and good but the other side has to surrender first – which hasn’t happened here.

Shorter Bloomberg: “you knew I was snake when we started crossing the river.”

Utter amazing bit of Hurbis this. Smith was talking about Goldman ripping off their clients. Again their CLIENTS. People that gave them money in exchange for their services, the use of their expertise and and what not. It is the basic relationship in capitalism – and Bloomberg’s defense seems to be “well they are rich. who else would we steal from?” Good god why would any sane rich person or for that manner any person give Goldman Sachs a dime of their money.

I love the tug at hear strings line- this means I can only assume the term “fiduciary duty” is a long distant memory.

well this just proves, as if we didn’t already know, wall street is corrupt down to its rancid heart and short of Hercules showing up with a river or two I have now idea how it will get cleaned up.

if requiring a woman to undergo an intentionally shaming Ultra sound procedure because Texas decides a woman doesn’t know what she’s doing when she has an abortion or a perfectly normal 30 year old woman is called a slut a whore and worse in the national media FOR DAYS ON END simply because she talked about the problems other people had getting birth control pills – and add to that constant attacks on Planned Parenthood and the recent deranged gibberish being spouted about the girl scouts. I think you can say the “war on women’ is well and truly underway.
it’s not about abortion – it’s not about birth control, its about the control of women’s bodies by well Men in power.
As an election tactic well on this issue, the GOP just walked up to the Democratic party and said ‘hit me with this stick’. The war on women is a winner on several levels – i’d think moderates and such would hesitate to vote for a party that has a lot of their major figures going about yelling slutty slut slut slut! And the other thing is exposes for all to see the hateful inhumanity that lurks at the heart of the conservative moment. How can a party that so loathes women be really concerned about jobs, families, health care or anything other than blowing stuff up and slut shaming. if the Democratic party does not beat the gop with this big dirty stick until they beg for mercy they are fools.

It is nonsense. the category doesn’t exist. Because the reason- her having to name the father being the motive that led to the woman’s murder by the biological father doesn’t exist (yet).

1) most people are murdered by someone they know. So that’s not a shock. Victorian England wasn’t Victorian England – read about the Whitechappel slums in the 1880′s some time.
2) And i’d be a bit hesitant about drawing my conclusions about anything based on a reality series on A&E. As well done as it is.

they don’t have to name the father to get welfare. Hence the number would the be same as the number of pregnant women who are killed by unicorns.

well since they don’t have to do that now – I suspect not of lot of them are.
which of course is the point of their not having to name the father.
I think re crime it’s a little better to oh I don’t know cut down on the number of murders rather than solving the ones that do occur. and if the the woman wants to carry the baby to term I think that means it’s wanted at least by one person.

why not name the father? Well here’s one reason – in Folk there are a whole series of songs called “murder ballads” that detail again and again women being killed by the men they were in love with – and why? The American versions of the songs never say but the English versions do – The Woman in Pregnant and that is the reason she’s being killed. Driser’s American Tragedy (1925) works with the same ideas. (it was based on a real case).
Humanity hasn’t changed that much – so making a woman name the father as a condition for getting welfare could very easily put her and the child in physical danger. Not that any of these good caring folk care. They hear the words “unwed-mother” and their brains start shreiking “sluttly slut slut slut!” Louder and louder until it’s all they can hear and they go mad with the desire to punish.

isn’t there something in their manual to the effect of oh yes: “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

or something like that. Another guy who eats pickles in the morning to get himself in the proper mood.

what he said – Long Live Mott the Hoople! And Ian Hunter!