Mo. Sen. McCaskill raising money in California

Thursday, October 11, 2012

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill is raising money in California for her re-election bid against congressman Todd Akin.

The Democratic senator was in California on Wednesday and Thursday for what her campaign described as a fundraising swing through the state.

An invitation posted online by the Sunlight Foundation indicated that McCaskill was holding a luncheon Thursday in San Francisco. But her campaign declined to discuss the details of the fundraising events.

McCaskill has said she raised $5.8 million from July through September. Akin has not yet released his quarterly fundraising totals. Campaign finance reports are due to be filed with the federal government by next Monday.

More like this story

Crump 8 months, 1 week ago

She has a better chance out there with those liberals than she has here with those of us who know her.

bluesfan13 8 months, 1 week ago

And you'd rather have some crazy guy who believes that women's bodies have the ability to control contraception internally?

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

And you have a graduate degree in biology from where?

bluesfan13 8 months, 1 week ago

Wow. Just. Wow. I suppose you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old too?

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

Several doctors with much more knowledge in the field than myself hold to the same theory that many less knowledgeable people like yourself try and pin on Congressman Akin.

But we don't expect you lefties to even entertain anything that might shed some light on the abortion at will agreement the feminist demand from their alliance with the democrat party. After all without them where would you guys be?

bluesfan13 8 months, 1 week ago

I'm not pinning that on Akin; I have no doubts he was taught that by a "respected physician".
You have no idea how knowledgeable I am on the matter compared to you.
My graduate degree isn't in biology.
Do you think the earth is less than 10,000?

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

Yet you know better?
I never said I did.
Neither is mine.
How long is a day to the Lord?

bluesfan13 8 months, 1 week ago

Yes.
Yes you did. You addressed me by "less knowledgeable people like yourself"
Touche
So all of the evidence to the contrary was created by God to test our faith in the one true creation story? Or are you saying that "7 days" to God was really billions of years to us?

JCLifer 8 months, 1 week ago

God has a sense of humor. That is why he created the fossils and monkey-man skeletons.

asb 8 months, 1 week ago

um, she Lifer, she

JCLifer 8 months, 1 week ago

Woman came from a man's rib. Man was created in the image of God. God is most definately a man.

asb 8 months, 1 week ago

Your superstition says so, but reality is different. Woman is the source of all.

JCLifer 8 months, 1 week ago

... source of all pain, destruction, and mahem in the world.

A woman ate the apple and brought Satan into the world.

Women have been making life hell for men ever since.

Sequoia 8 months, 1 week ago

Whew! Bitter, party of one... your table is ready!

God is both male and female. How could God be one thing and not the other? God is all things, and their opposite.

Maybe if you weren't such a grumpy bear, you'd attract higher quality women.

From my experience, women like to laugh and have fun. You should try it sometime.

spelchek 8 months, 1 week ago

Hell hath no fury...

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

The respected physician would disagree
My less knowledgeable was in the sphere of what Akin said, not the field it was in.
Is apparently a dead issue now.
Who is to say? There is room for faith that fits with the scientific and archeological discoveries.

asb 8 months, 1 week ago

there are no respected physicians spouting Akin's blather.
No, you attacked BF's intelligence relative to yours, we can all read.
Our respective degrees don't change Akin's disqualification for office or his seat on a (chuckle) science committee.
Not any faith that doesn't match science, without a different and less flattering label.

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

There are. Your wrong. As Usual.
Whatever
I disagree
Show me science in this matter that is anything more than theory. There are several explanations that fit the facts and many contradictions.

jpfelix 8 months, 1 week ago

"Show me science in this matter that is anything more than theory."

What is your definition of theory?

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

I certainly hope you don't want to get into splitting hairs over scientific, philosophical, political etc theory names and definitions. Honestly I don't care my point is there is plenty of room in there for faith. If you disagree, well it's not my problem.

bluesfan13 8 months, 1 week ago

"Faith" itself isn't an issue. Blind faith in things that are proven (by scientific theory) to be incorrect is the issue. Akin belives the earth to be less than 10,000 years old. Period. Not by "god's time" or any other interpretation than current years. You don't care what "theory" really is, because it defeats your argument. Gravity is a theory. Nuclear physics is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Women's bodies being able to "shut that whole thing down" is nonsensical blabber.

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

Well since we are down to simple accusations, you don't care about the theory or how many medical scientist claim it is valid. You simply see it as a way to further the leftist cause by enraging women. You hope that by scaring them into thinking their right to call what ever it is they want to rape they will vote for Claire. Because we know that is the most important thing there is to vote for.

Political correctness has become your idol and no theory that goes contrary to your "victim's alliance" will be tolerated.

bluesfan13 8 months, 1 week ago

No, I could care less about abortion or women's rights in this context. I care about some guy who believes in something that I see as equivalent to "the world is flat" being elected to represent my beliefs in the senate.

jpfelix 8 months ago

The definition of theory being used has huge implications.

To some a theory is merely a guess. To others it is an explanation that has been tested and verified repeatedly, often over the course of decades/centuries.

There is a huge difference between these two definitions!

asb 8 months, 1 week ago

Theory in the sense of maybe, possibly, could be? Sure Mr. Clay. Theory in the science definition of a large body of completely reproducible and predictive observations with over a thousand years of western science? Nearly all of it. For examples; physics, chemistry, geology, anthropology, biology (particularly genetics), paleontology, musicology, phrenology, glaciology, hairology . . . all science for most purposes. If you cannot admit that the Earth is over four billion years old (by present measures of a year), then you have no credibility here. You can go to the back of the class and throw paperwads with the git who says evolution is from hell and with Mr. Akin who's reproductive biology comes straight out of a 1920's locker room. That's your challenge Mr. Clay, deny the established and completely proven age of the Earth. Faith? Good. Until it conflicts with reality, then it's superstition. Then, cute.

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

LOL I deny nothing. I say Faith has room within those boundaries and I have no idea of how the Lord conceives time.

As for how you put it once again "Mr. Akin's theory" it isn't his theory. The Physician's for life were the ones who express the theory which I believe was from a 1977 study among others.

If you wish to claim to be a research level scientist of human biology then I guess you can claim it is established fact but others state differently.

tonto_goldberg 8 months, 1 week ago

Background and back to factual reality: One doctor, early in the so-called prolife movement, wrote a book including the statement that a rape victim who received prompt and adequate medical treatment including cleansing of the affected areas and preventative hormone treatment, stood a very very small chance of getting pregnant. That statement was research and experience based, but it has somehow been morphed into this magical mystery pregnancy prevention capability that all women possess without any medical intervention whatsoever. That's the bogus part.

A rape victim who is not taken seriously, perhaps by a faith-based practitioner, who does not receive adequate treatment has a much higher chance of becoming pregnant. It's never 100% but it's not zero either.

connor 8 months, 1 week ago

Statistically pregnancies that resulted from rape were also very low, which was part of another bit of research that has been cited.

The problem with this, although no one who is pro abortion will ever admit it, is that your statistics include data that other researchers do not consider as rape. Which is really what this whole argument is about. So instead you attempt to argue like it was some kind of cut and dry fact without a qualified counter argument. Well there is qualified dissent. Then in typical lefty style you attempt to trap any who disagree into a classic communist circular anti-God argument (not all lefties do this).

In the end it isn't science but mundane scare tactics as the final retort. But the science side argument allows a vote against Akin without any guilt or a need to confront ones real feelings towards abortion.

It's a good strategy and Akin fell into the trap. I just call em as I see em.

Or login with:

OpenID