Proclivities wrote:
Liars exist, man or woman. I understand his remarks as a brutally honest observation. Some people do and will act completely selfish and irresponsible if they know they can get bailed out. It's not the norm, but that behavior does in fact exist, as despicable as it is. That is how I understand his point. If someone is a victim, they are to be treated as such - but if you give anyone and everyone a bailout, it's possible that behavior is going to be encouraged.

I resent the fact that Maddow and others are distorting that into something it isnt. It's an emotional topic and she makes a living off of taking advantage and manipulating context. It sure isn't the first time.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 

 Manbird wrote: 

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
Mine was funnier. 

 steeler wrote: 

 aflanigan wrote: 

Gee, Wally.   

 aflanigan wrote: 
Dammit! 

 steeler wrote: 

And teething by beavers would account for a lot of coarse dentations.

 aflanigan wrote:  

Tithing by Mormons would account for a lot of charitable donations.  

 mzpro5 wrote: 

I think the data that is being proffered in support of this idea is based on donations as a percentage of income, not absolute amounts.  However, as the op ed by Kristof cited below notes, Republicans/conservatives tend to be more likely to be religious than Democrats/liberals, and are thus more likely to be donating to churches (so, much of their giving may end up in church infrastructure rather than direct amelioration of poverty).  When you sort out people based on whether they are religious or secular, liberals who are religious are just as generous as conservatives who are religious.  The stingiest group of all is secular conservatives.

 kurtster wrote: 
Well they do have most of the money. 

 kurtster wrote:  Not really as simple as that.

See HERE

Plus, much of this data seems to be based on presumed giving (charitable donations claimed as tax deductions) rather than actual giving.  It may simply be that Repubs are more likely to exaggerate their charitable giving on their tax returns.

 kurtster wrote: 
So that's what Republicans are calling their political bribes now.

 hippiechick wrote: 
And Republicans are traditionally the biggest and most consistent donors when it comes to charity.

 Proclivities wrote: 
I was watching some guy on Charlie Rose and he was showing the results of studies of the difference between Dems, Rep, and Libertarians, and the studies show that Libertarians are very low on the empathy scale.

 Romulus wrote: 
What Ms. Maddow was getting at is that Mr. Paul suggests that there is somehow a "dishonest" rape - in other words, suggesting that a victim is lying. He is not calling "every woman a liar" by saying so, he is inferring that possible rape victims may be lying.  Have you ever known a rape victim?   I know more than a few - good luck bringing their cases to court.  His remarks were insensitive at best, though he was questioned in a very challenging and extreme method for that interview.

 Romulus wrote: 
Same difference. When all women have other options besides abortion (and many of them don't), then I will be 99% pro-life. Until then, I support my sisters' right to choose what is best for them, and that includes abortion.

 HoneyBearKelly wrote: 
Lets keep things in proper context. He signed it only with an attached signing statement.

Try and read it to understand the big picture.

By the way, it's ironic that woman you linked accuses an OBGYN of having "antipathy toward women". Yeah, that doesn't make too much sense.

I can't put it more plainly than this: I am not free, if the word is to have any meaning at all, as long as Ron Paul is up in my uterus.
Ron Paul signed the egregious personhood pledge.
You can't get more "big government" than that.

Maddow says:

Paul, a staunch of opponent of abortion rights, is pushing a line that's tragically common on the right: women's claims are not to be taken at face value, and it's up to government to draw the lines.

Maddow isn't dumb.. she is misrepresenting and making hay for a living.

Paul does not endorse any federal law banning abortions. He does endorse the idea of state govts making their own laws, based on the will of the people. Representivite govt, not Federal tyranny.

Paul is not calling every woman a lair like Maddow is suggesting. Talk about disingenuous.