• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Republicans say the darndest things.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Is it against the law to force a minor to have an abortion?

Besides there are many ways to "force" another to your will.
 
a777pilot said:
He he say forced? No, he did not.
Click to expand...

lolz. he said it loud and clear.

this thread is derailed before it even got on the tracks. anytime anything about abortion is mentioned its like that word itself just personifies the entire landscape. its like you say the word and the whole place actually does turn into an abortion.
 
a777pilot said:
Is it against the law to force a minor to have an abortion?

Besides there are many ways to "force" another to your will.
Click to expand...

does it have to be illegal? how do you force a minor to get an abortion without tearing their junk open with your junk first?
 
*sigh*
Would someone point to where this is against FEDERAL LAW? If not, then at best, the Congressman is simply stretching the truth.
 
a777pilot said:
You are correct. Mr. King does say some outlandish things from time to time. Thank the Lord that Democrats never say anything stupid or outlandishly wrong. Really, they don't.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed this: "Back to the OP: Unfortunately the Republican party doesn't have a lock on ignorant people who get elected to federal/state/local government. Ignorance cuts across all divisions of people. While what Rep. King is suggesting is idiotic, it pales in comparison to what's being said or implied in ads and direct statements from both sides of the presidential campaign."

That's from my post #14.
 
alzan said:
I guess you missed this: "Back to the OP: Unfortunately the Republican party doesn't have a lock on ignorant people who get elected to federal/state/local government. Ignorance cuts across all divisions of people. While what Rep. King is suggesting is idiotic, it pales in comparison to what's being said or implied in ads and direct statements from both sides of the presidential campaign."

That's from my post #14.
Click to expand...


i miss a lot of things. It's never stopped me before and it won't now.

Why do you people take anything I say seriously? It's a puzzle.
 
DominionSeraph said:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1201

Also, crossing state lines to have sex with a 13 year old would be a federal offense if you are more than 17 years old. (illegal for any age below 12, and greater than a 4 year spread up to 16)

There are probably civil rights violations as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, and per your link, apart from the sex, it's also illegal under federal law to kidnap someone then cross state lines with your abductee. The OP is correct. King's hypothetical violates many different laws, both on a federal and state level.
 
Separate and apart from King's idiocy regarding the hypothetical, I'd like to address his point about laws banning dog fighting being inconsistent with not banning fighting between humans, i.e. boxing. His moral point is that animals should not have higher legal status than humans.

It's a ridiculous argument. Dogs are not given a choice. They can't even make a conscious choice. Humans can. Banning boxing would impair freedom of choice for those able to consciously make the choice. Banning dog fighting protects those who are unable to make a conscious choice.

Intellectually, King is about 0 for 20 here.

Isn't this the same idiot who compared Obamacare to Pearl Harbor?
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
It's a ridiculous argument. Dogs are not given a choice. They can't even make a conscious choice. Humans can. Banning boxing would impair freedom of choice for those able to consciously make the choice. Banning dog fighting protects those who are unable to make a conscious choice.
Click to expand...

To make it analogous to dog fighting, boxing would have to involve the participants being caged from birth, starved, beaten, and trained from infancy to do nothing but kill other humans on sight. Then put in death matches solely for the amusement of the onlookers.

Somehow I think that this is, indeed, illegal.
 
DrPizza said:
*sigh*
Would someone point to where this is against FEDERAL LAW? If not, then at best, the Congressman is simply stretching the truth.
Click to expand...

Even if there were no federal laws (which there are), this nut case would still be doing far more than just "stretching the truth."

Never mind common sense, common decency, and a whole host of state laws that pertain, here are at least two federal laws that do:

Lindberg Law (Federal Kidapping Act.)

Mann Act. Used to convict Chuck Berry with an underage girl and to prosecute, among others, Charlie Chaplin with a 24 year old, because he gave her train fare home.
 
Hes from iowa yet he has the NH state motto above his head......

Im a republican in the sense that im not a democrat, but really this whole idea of parties is stupid, whats even more stupider is this guy.
 
Smoblikat said:
Hes from iowa yet he has the NH state motto above his head......

Im a republican in the sense that im not a democrat, but really this whole idea of parties is stupid, whats even more stupider is this guy.
Click to expand...

Well the Iowa 5th District voters seem to love him. The 4th District will return him to the Congress.

I find him eminently easier to stomach than Congress"man" Barney Frank. But if that is who the voters of that district wanted, so what?
 
a777pilot said:
i miss a lot of things. It's never stopped me before and it won't now.

Why do you people take anything I say seriously? It's a puzzle.
Click to expand...

So you're purposefully ignorant and unwilling to change apparently. Thanks for the update.
 
DrPizza said:
From the video you probably should have linked to:
It is a federal crime to watch animals fight or to induce someone else to watch animals fight, but it's not a federal crime to watch people fighting. There's something wrong with the priorities of people thinking like that.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

False equivalency, which ignores the key legal difference:

Of course, there is a very good reason we ban dogfighting and other similar forms of cruelty: animals don’t have a choice in the matter. Manny Pacquiao chooses to step into the ring. Michael Vick’s dogs did not. Similarly, when a human boxer loses a fight, he is not ritually executed after the fight. The same is not always true in dogfighting.
Click to expand...

DrPizza said:
Assholes in journalism would twist this around to saying "King just said that dog fighting should be legal!"
Click to expand...

Strawman. Nobody is saying he said dog fighting should be legal. Not anyone here, and no major news outlet or even minor news outlet. Someone may be able to find one link from some nutter's blog, but one hasn't appeared here as yet.

DrPizza said:
Perhaps King is saying, "human fighting, MMA, etc., are barbaric sports that are past their time."
Click to expand...

No, he's not. He's not "perhaps" saying that at all. He has never, ever come out against boxing, let alone proposed any restrictive legislation on it.

He is, however, the most hysterical and committed opponent of animal welfare legislation of any kind out there:

Rep. Steve King, in his fifth term representing western Iowa, is arguably the leading anti-animal welfare person in the Congress.

King has led the fight in Congress to block legislation to crack down on the barbaric practices of dogfighting and cockfighting. During consideration of the 2012 Farm bill, King led an unsuccessful effort to defeat a McGovern amendment to make it a crime for an adult to attend or to bring a child to a
dogfight or cockfight.

King also stood alone in Iowa’s delegation in opposing a previous upgrade of the federal law against animal fighting. In 2007, he was one of a just a small group of lawmakers to oppose H.R. 137, a bill to make it a federal felony to transport animals or cockfighting implements across state lines. Again, this legislation was designed to crack down on the national network of illegal animal fighters who routinely operate across state lines. The measure passed the Senate unanimously, and was approved by the House with a commanding vote of 368 to 39 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll188.xml).

President George W. Bush signed that bill into law just days after Michael Vick’s horrible dogfighting crimes came to light.

There’s no federal lawmaker who has worked harder to thwart the enactment of anti-dogfighting legislation than Steve King. King was part of a rogue group of lawmakers, in a vote of 349 to 24, to oppose efforts to include pets in disaster planning – this vote, coming in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in the Gulf Coast, after so many people stayed behind and put themselves and first responders at risk because there were no plans
to care for pets (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll178.xml).

Again, he was the only Iowa lawmaker in the House or Senate to oppose that legislation. President Bush signed it into law in 2006.
Click to expand...

Finally, despite being a fierce advocate of states rights, he completely abandoned his own sacred principles and invoked the dreaded Commerce Clause in order to use the jackbooted powers of the Federal government to try to overturn the laws in a state his doesn't even border on:

Californians have recently voted to enact laws banning the sale and production of both eggs from cruelly housed hens and foie gras, a delicacy created by force-feeding ducks. While this may seem within the legal bounds of a state’s ability to regulate local commerce, one Congressman is up in arms about it: Steve King (R, IA). King, despite being one of the most outspoken proponents of states’ rights in Congress, is so convinced that California’s laws violate the Commerce Clause that he pushed through legislation overturning the animal rights acts and similar statutes in other states.

King believes the entire Affordable Care Act – not simply the mandate, but the whole law – is an unconstitutional use of federal power under the Commerce Clause. This means that, according to King, any federal regulation of the insurance industry is unconstitutional. King also thinks states can ban contraception. These radical beliefs aren’t a surprise: King adheres to an extreme interpretation of the Tenth Amendment which aims to gut federal power.

So King appears to to think federal regulation of farming is constitutional, but regulation of the health care industry is not. A state ban on birth control is fine, but banning foie gras isn’t.
Click to expand...
 
a777pilot said:
LOL!

Basic reading comprehension skills....
Click to expand...

Look back at your own posts; you quite clearly posted in the past that you were not only a pilot but that you trained pilots. You've now admitted that everything you post is a lie.
 
alzan said:
Look back at your own posts; you quite clearly posted in the past that you were not only a pilot but that you trained pilots. You've now admitted that everything you post is a lie.
Click to expand...

Oh, good grief.

I posted: "Everything I post is a lie."

so...................................

That's a lie.

You really do take yourself and everything else way too seriously, don't you?
 
...double post (rain on the leaves on the neighbor's tree.)
 
Last edited:
Perknose said:
False equivalency, which ignores the key legal difference:
Click to expand...
That came word for word from the video I linked to.

Strawman. Nobody is saying he said dog fighting should be legal. Not anyone here, and no major news outlet or even minor news outlet. Someone may be able to find one link from some nutter's blog, but one hasn't appeared here as yet.
Click to expand...
Uhh, yes they did. The "news reporter" in the video said something like "he is questioning why dog fighting is illegal." They continue on with more, such as "opposed legislation to make it illegal to attend dog fights," "gone out of his way to vote against any bill that has anything to do with protecting animals," "I think he watches those ASPCA ads with the dogs in the crates like other people watch porn."
[/quote]No, he's not. He's not "perhaps" saying that at all. He has never, ever come out against boxing, let alone proposed any restrictive legislation on it. [/quote]
Again, this is from the video. This was something suggested by the "news" before they went back to trying to make his comments look as bad as possible.

I know you and I are on the same side, as far as dog fighting goes. My point is that this kind of "journalism" is unacceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top