Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, October 24, 2016

Todd Akin, the embattled Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, is in trouble again after telling the audience at a town hall that he opposes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act because employers should have the freedom to discriminate.

In response to an audience member’s question at a town hall on Thursday, he explained his rationale in voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill passed by President Obama on January 29, 2009, ensuring equal pay for men and women doing the same work. Akin’s response? Freedom:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to be paid less for doing the same work as a man?

AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom [emphasis mine]. If someone wants to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.

Basically, Akin’s whole argument is that employers should be able to freely discriminate against their employees in whatever way they see fit.

Akin has had a tough time disguising his misogynistic and misinformed views on women. He burst into the national spotlight when he argued that women have a yet-to-be-discovered biological mechanism that shuts down a pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.”

On Thursday, Akin said his opponent, Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill, had been more “ladylike” in her 2006 campaign against Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO).

Having put off droves of female voters with his “legitimate rape” comments, Akin struggled to remake his “pro-women” image. On his website, under the “women” subsection of his campaign, Akin posted a photograph of himself with three women with a banner that reads “I’m A Women [sic] and  I Support Todd!”

Ironically, one of the three women in the photograph is in reality a “tracker” for the Missouri Democratic Party. Her job is to attend the Republican candidate’s public events and then report back to her party. Todd Akin, it appears, could not even gather three female supporters for a photo-op to prove that he is for women’s rights.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The National Memo
  • It is all about FREEDOM. Not yours, just the rich.

    • No, it is all about the right of women to be hired and paid the same as their male counterparts for equal work. I can not believe people are still debating an issue like this in the 21st century. It is amazing that he was elected in the first place, that he is a member of the science committee, and that he remains competitive after all the bizarre statements he has made. It definitely does not say much for the people of Missouri. I would not vote for an imbecile like him if he was running for dog catcher.

  • What a hillbilly

    • Max

      Akin might as well tell Missouri voters to vote against him.

    • kanawah

      Jeremy, do not insult us hillbillies.

      Akin is closer to the Neanderthals than the hillbillies.

      • TheBigMook

        Please do not insult the Neanderthals with the Akin comparison. I would rather compare his hatred of women’s rights with the taliban’s hatred of women’s rights.

  • sheilab2

    Well,he just kissed his election chances goodbye. This guy is so out of the mainstream that he deserves to be beaten and beaten badly. Ccan still be in congress if he loses this bid?Is he runing for both offices at the same the way that crudbucket, Lyin’ Ryan is?

    • He is a Republican! What do your expect, but like Rommey to stupid to keep his mouth shut.

  • What he says is correct in principle. If I hire someone for a job and we agree on a wage, that’s between me and my employee. It could be a fair wage or an unfair wage, but we agreed on that wage. In a ideal free market economy, if my employee is not happy with that wage, he or she is free to go looking for a better job. So I need to pay competitive wages to keep good employees and still be profitable. But, I don’t believe that any system is actually ever a free market. For example, there may not be an available job to move into or the employee may not have the luxury of waiting for one to open up. Workers need to eat, pay for housing, send their kids to school, pay their health bills, etc. So, gov’t is needed to prevent abusive working conditions and unfair labor practices that do erupt when the free market is not a free market.

    • Max

      You cannot possibly subscribe to Akin’s view on equal pay for the genders. If you do why do you not move to Afghanistan? You would fit right in.

      • normdplume

        I think it’s unfair for ANYONE to make more money than ME.

        So, I DEMAND that the GOVERNMENT step in!

        Can I get an AMEN?!

        • WhutHeSaid

          No. What you CAN get is the ‘troll of the day’ award. No ‘amen’ included, because if Jesus was here he would kick your ass for being such a nitwit.

          • normdplume

            See? Right there. That retort had some zing to it! You win!

      • TheBigMook

        Akin = American Taliban

    • Max

      Eric, we do not live in an ideal free market economy. Some government regulation is necessary to correct market and human failures. Pay discrimination against a gender is a human failure.

      • TheBigMook

        Max, you did not read Eric Bittners entire post. Or you did not understand it. He endorsed government interference with employers that abuse workers. I agree with Eric. Government must sometimes act to protect the weak against the strong, when the strong are in the wrong.

    • Justin Napolitano

      I am glad you clarified that Eric, because, as a matter of practice, a business should never offer a women less than than they would for a man to do the same job. Women are not just an object that can be used or abused just because some folks think that is OK. Remember, that your mother was a woman and how would you feel if she was taken advantage of?

    • Would be nice, except that once in the state, the nice, fair minded, morally obligated employers would get together, like they do now, and decide what they would ge an employee -NOTHING – more profit for the silver spoon caln!

  • roseviolet

    If any of us are being denied freedom, none of us are really free. That’s what idiots like Akin who wish to drag us back into the dark ages miss in their defense of misogyny, racism and other forms of hatred miss. Then again, I’d bet none of them have ever known what it was like to be on the receiving end of such forms of hatred or they wouldn’t be defending things like this as “business owners’ freedom” or trying to play down rape as if it’s a non-issue or should really be about protecting any resulting pregnancy while talking about how that “doesn’t really happen in a real or ‘legitimate’ (whatever might mean by that) rape because our bodies can shut down the process so we don’t get pregnant”.

    • normdplume

      Ya know… the business owner can simply decide not to hire women, because they’re too much trouble. Or because he doesn’t want to be falsely accused of sexual harassment. Or because … whatever. It’s free association. Learn it, live it, love it. It’s YOUR right, too. Get it?

      • Spoken like a true jackbooted fascist….

        • normdplume

          Ha! Your surmisal is about 180 degrees out of true.


          • I’m actually a democratic socialist, as well as a decorated and disabled veteran. You’re welcome.



        • Well said and so very true. Most fascist who are working stiffes are just to ignorant to understand the reality. IF one American is denied their rights to hold a job and to be paid for that job, as any other American is, we all loose. Trying to scare people into accepting less and giving up those rights is a very long standing method used by Fascist regardless of Nation of orgin. The NEXT biggest scare tactic is calling anyone who doesn’t agree with the “Party” is to call them a Communist. This was used extensively by A. Hitler in 30’s Germany and then used against fellow citizens by the Republican Party in the 50’s.

          • It seems they have plagiarized “Mein Kampf” and replaced the word “Jew” with “Liberal” and “Homosexual.”

          • normdplume

            Oh, how very droll. Welcome to the debate, Mr. Godwin.

          • normdplume

            Nobody would be denying the woman the right to work a job for which she has been hired, and for which she is paid a formerly agreed-upon wage. Simply expecting the woman to negotiate for her own wage (whether singly or collectively, as with a union) and then work for the wage upon which she agreed to work, is not slavery.

            Nobody has a RIGHT to a job. You have the right to SEEK a job, but no employer is REQUIRED to HIRE you. If you possess a skill an employer needs, and if you are willing to work for that employer for a given wage, then the two of you can voluntarily enter a contract, in which the employer agrees to pay you a wage, for a certain amount of work done, or a certain number of hours worked, or for some other unit of value upon which you had agreed.

            Note how neither party is coerced? Does this truly sound like a fascist philosophy? Are you insane?

            I detest and deplore authoritarianism of any shade. If the jack-boot is on your neck, does it really matter whether it is a “right” or “left” boot?

        • personnot

          The Nazi’s hired women. How does wantiong to be free to hire the best worker make you a Nazi? It doesn’t. It is just more Liberal (AKA Communist) lies and deceit. The same tactic that has been used since Russia murdered 20 million freedom loving countrymen and Mao murdered 60 million, etc…Way to go useful idiot.

      • dggrundhoffer

        I do. You do not get it

      • Ed

        Well, in general that is true. And I can agree with the premise, no matter how obnoxious I may find it. However, different states have different readings on this.

      • roseviolet

        Crawl back in your hole. You just endorsed decades of sexism on the grounds of it’s easier not to hire women than it is to hire qualified women who wish to work and make male employees behave like responsible HUMAN adults.

        Men CAN learn to treat women with respect – and they SHOULD do so. Men CAN learn that doing so – treating us with respect and not harassing us – is NOT “too much trouble”. It IS our right to work if we want to do so. It IS our right to not be harassed, to not be raped, etc. It is NOT the “right” of ANY “man” to rape, harass or otherwise deny the rights of a woman – or any other human. Got it?

        • normdplume


          Women also need to learn how to handle men. My mom used to have a sign in her work area which read, “Sexual harassment in this area will not be reported. However, it will be graded.” She never had a problem, because this kind of attitude knocked guys back on their heels.

          Women need to figure this out. It’s easy to deal with guys. We’re simple. Make a joke out of it, laugh at our peepees, and we’ll go away. If it gets too rough, shoot some sonofab*tch. Make us respect you, by being competent and strong. Whining and complaining about a dirty joke or somesuch, does not get you the respect you think you deserve. It gets you the derision you deserve.

          I’ve worked for several women in my life. I’ve seen several different styles of management. The most effective, was one who simply stated that she wanted us to do “X”, then smiled and went on her way to do something else. We did “X” gladly, and correctly, because we knew she was competent, and because she wasn’t afraid to have a beer with the guys once in a while. The least effective, was a woman who bought into this victim mentality you display. She was a real c-word, to boot. Nobody liked her, and she didn’t last long, because she didn’t know how to manage and work with men. She might have known how to do the job, but she was incompetent, because she did not know how to work with men.

          Men can, and do, treat women with respect. When they’re worthy of respect. Just like we treat men with respect. When they’re worthy of respect. Not worthy of respect? No respect, man or woman. I suspect it’s the same with women.

          It is NOT your RIGHT to work, if you want to do so. It is your RIGHT to TRY to find a job, and to work it to the best of your ability, sink or swim. An employer, man or woman, IS NOT OBLIGATED TO HIRE YOU.

          Speaking of rape, harassment, and so on… how’d ya like that story about Janet Napolitano and her underlings sexually harassing men? “I want that c..k in the back of my throat, NOW!”, and so on. Were you beside yourself with outrage at that? Because I wasn’t. The correct response would have been, “Eh. Your mouth is too big. It’d never reach that far.” The problem would have been at its end, right there. These namby-pamby men let their bosses get to them.

          Oh, well.

          • roseviolet

            A woman harassing a man is bad also – and so is sexually harassing in response to sexual harassment.

            However, that’s NOT the topic here, is it? No. it’s NOT. We’re talking about Akin wanting to remove laws on the grounds they deny “freedom” to men who want to deny rights of women. Men who are so insecure or whatever they can’t bring themselves to work with women or if they do they can’t behave well enough to work alongside us without breaking other laws like not harassing us or raping us – problems we already face just walking down many streets. We do NOT “need to learn to figure that out”. MEN need to learn to treat us with respect – ALWAYS – not just when any given individual “man” thinks we “deserve” what they deem to be “respect”. We deserve the same rights as men.

            Similarly, no real “man” or even adult would be working so hard to deny the rights of others or to infringe upon the rights and bodies of others – or claiming that their “right” to “freedom” depends on maintaining the right to continue the right denying acts they’re doing, whether it’s not hiring someone on the basis of gender or harassing them (or worse) due to their gender.

          • normdplume

            God. Every man is a rapist, I guess? Better if men and women don’t even TALK, because an innocent “Hey, your hair looks nice today” all of a sudden becomes, “*sob* … and then he tried to RAAAPE me!!!” I’ve seen real sexual harassment. They had to restrain me from smashing the guy’s teeth in.

            Grow up.

            You *HAVE* the same rights as men. Men do not automatically receive equal pay for working the same jobs. Neither should women. In both cases, it is the worker’s job to excel, and THEN ask for a pay raise. Excel not, and receive a raise not.

            Working to oppress someone else, is just too much work. You ascribe to men, in general, this mindset whereby we collude together to deny women their just deserts. It just isn’t true. We’re all WAY too lazy for that.

          • normdplume

            Get armed, and don’t fear rapists. Take control of your own life, or someone else surely will.

          • Harassment happens and in most cases no matter what the person does to try and stop it, it doesn’t work. Some people think that because they are in a boss position or because they are bigger and stronger than the person they are harassing they have the right to do it. Any attempt by the victim to stop it on their own just makes it worse, even when the victim is a male. The harassers in these case are just like Atkins they are stilling living in the 1860’s and think they have the right to do what ever they want t to their victim or victims because they have the power to do so. These are the people to file complaints against or do like a woman I worked with did, she had her five brothers and her husband to have a little talk with the three guys that were harassing her and after that little talk these 3 didn’t harass any of the females they worked with ever again.

          • normdplume

            Precisely why one should cultivate and practice the use of firearms. Three guys aren’t going to harass a woman who talks about a 1-inch grouping at 100 yards. There are louts, this is true. But are they any less loutish if they are part of the government? Sure, they may get to turn their hostility outward toward the people they supposedly “serve”, but I don’t think that’s any better.

        • The only thing normdplume hates more than women is his own tiny penis.

          • normdplume

            Oh, touche’, sir! I yield to your obviously mighty intelligence.

      • WhutHeSaid

        It’s far more likely that ANY woman would get hired before a buffoon such as you. Is this your real issue?

        • normdplume

          Were that the case, I would not be employed now. This is not the case. But, thank you for playing!

          Let me make it plain to you:

          I value competence. I value confidence. I do not value laziness, idiocy or squeamishness.

          None of these things are inherently male, or female, traits. They exist, to some degree, in all of us. It is up to each of us, to work as best we can, where we can. Find an agreeable situation, and work it like it’s going away tomorrow.

          Women can do this, too. I promise.

          My stance is egalitarian, in case you wondered. Yours, favoring women because of some … inadequacy? … on their part, is quite the opposite, and is in fact the oppressive one.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Egalitarian? Bullshit. You give yourself far too much credit. I simply know an asshole when I hear one. Congratulations.

          • normdplume

            Well, I guess it takes one to know one.

      • To Norm:

        How would you like to be denied gainful empoyment because the business owner believes men are too stupid.

        • normdplume

          It might smart a little, but I’m sure I could get over it. What’s your point?

      • El_Gateaux

        He possibly could but I believe he would then quite possibly be in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the very least he might find himself in court defending his decision. If it should make the news that the businessman is in court defending himself because he discriminated against someone due to their gender would not make for great advertising for the business.

        • normdplume

          So, you’re saying there might be market forces at play, which would inform this businessman that it is not wise to follow a course of discrimination against women?

          You’re saying that a wise business owner would not discriminate against women in his hiring practices, because the knowledge of his actions might cause him to lose business? That there might be societal ramifications to his actions, for which he would feel consequences if he should make the wrong choice?

          Follow me here.

          Would knowledge of the man’s actions cause this dropoff in business, even if the man were not in court for breaking some inane law which, itself, violates the man’s own rights to voluntary association?

          So, really, all we need to do is protect the man’s rights, and the rights of other individuals, and society, through voluntary association (he will lose business, as others exercise their rights to freely associate, or not associate, with our businessman,) will push him to do the “right” thing?

          Sounds like a reasonable model. Why was the court needed? Why was the law needed? Why was government needed, in this instance?

          That is the question that really needs to be asked of fans of big government — Why is government involvement NEEDED in any given case?

          • El_Gateaux

            I think my main point was that by engaging in the behavior you suggested, that of not hiring women because they were too much trouble, he would open himself to legal liability. If he did stop hiring women because of some misguided belief that they were “too much trouble, I think it would be fairly obvious that morality wasn’t a motivating factor with him. While there are certainly market forces at play, the public opinon sometimes takes a while to catch up with what is right. As a result they do not always protect the rights of those who are being victimized. I think desegregation is an excellent case in point. Without government involvement there might still be such undesirable situations as racial discrimination determining where one could work, live, goto school (and how far in school, why pay for college for someone who isn’t going to be allowed to be other than common laborer) or how much one would be paid or who one could marry . In areas other than race we might still have child labor, I am quite sure there are many more examples but I think these make it pretty clear. The sad fact is many businesses, particularly big businesses’ prime interest is the bottom line and if left to their own devices there would be little in the way of safety equipment, wages would be the absolute minimum that could be gotten away with, and there would be no such thing as retirement except for those owners. Since with regulations in place we still have businesses selling contaminated food and oil companies not following safety regulations which led to a major disaster in the Gulf imagine what we would have if there were no regulations or laws? While public opinion might eventually force the businesses to do what is right it is also a fact that businesses attempt (and often succeed) to shape public opinion all the time, they call them advertisements. To sum up, history teaches us that what you suggest would happen, doesn’t or, it if does it takes much, much longer than it should. We have laws for a reason. True, some laws have outlived their usefulness but that isn’t any reason to eliminate all laws.

      • We should figure a way to discriminate against people who think like you do.

        • normdplume

          That sounds like a typical liberal.

      • If what he says is the real reason,why not pay MEN less??

    • Ed

      He is the only repub willing to tell us what the aim of his party is.

      • El_Gateaux

        Or the only one stupid enough to.

      • ococoob

        He’s an a**hole!

      • ococoob

        A real stuuuuuupid loser!

    • Akin Says What His Whole Damn Party Thinks!! Just Part Of The War On Women!!! Ahh The Price Of War On November 6, There’s Going To Be A Out Poor Of Women NOT VOTING FOR NO GOP/TEA PARTY AMERICAN TALIBAN MEMBERS!!!

    • personnot

      so being “free” means that we must allow the gob’ment to force us to pay someone that is lazy or stupid, that same as someone is not? You are a useful idiot.

  • It appears to be about freedom to burn every single solitary bridge that you can find. Geeeee, what a duma–.

  • there is only one word…schmuck!

  • JuneBug2

    I AGREE with Aiken – the government sticking it nose into all sorts of things has caused (Republicans ) a lot of trouble – especially sticking things in our lady parts and between us and our doctors. Time for you to go Todd – perhaps some elementary science courses at your community college would be enlightening. JuneBug

  • This has to be one of the dumbest men ever, but then he seems to be frozen (almost in the prehistoric ice age) in a time when men of his ilk were able to dominate women. Those poor females in his family. Are they happy with this nincompoop’s ideas of a powerful uterus that can stop pregnancy? Would his own daughter and granddaughters be content with making less?

  • there is only one word for poor Todd, SCHMUCK!!!

  • TomJx

    Even better, we should all have jobs like Todd Akin. We and our co-workers just vote ourselves the salary, healthcare, pensions, expense allowances and other benefits we decide we deserve. Okay, Todd?

  • “So the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.”

    Ugh, so true Todd! You know, like that whole forcing-women-to-give-birth-even-if-they-don’t-want-to-or-can’t-afford-it-or-have-been-raped-or-are-underage-and-just-not-ready! You sure do love sticking your nose into that one…and look at all the trouble it’s gotten you into.

    Oh, did I say you? I meant…the government.

    • normdplume

      So… what you’re saying is, it’s okay for the government to poke its nose into a woman’s womb, but not into the workplace.

      No… it’s NOT okay for the government to stick its nose in a woman’s crotch, but it IS okay for the government to stick its nose into her workplace.

      How about this: Keep the damned government out of her crotch and out of her workplace, and let her make decisions for herself!

    • Dont the people of the state employ him, how about appling he theory to him!!!

  • What is hard for me to understand is why men will accept this drivel of “freedom”. It is only a matter of time until they, too, will be discriminated against by a “free” business owner.

    • normdplume

      We’ve all been there and done that.

      Once you grow up, you learn that you have a choice whether or not to work for that employer.

      But that requires growing up.

      If you’re making the case that women are too emotionally and/or intellectually stunted, to be able to accept this responsibility, then I suggest that you look at your own ideology, as there seems to be a tinge of misogyny there.

      And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

  • Todd and his Midieval mentality


    To paraphrase Ann Richards, the former Democratic governor of the once great state of Texas, Poor (insert name of Repukelican candidate of your choice), he can’t help it, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

  • roskodog

    wow, how twisted the national memo is. what you clowns say he said and what he said. are so different, why not stop adding things to what people say. like didn,t your mommy,s teach you about being truthfull.. get a real job

    • Justin Napolitano

      Bullshit rosk, he was saying that discrimination is fine and that the government has no right to stop it. That the government should not tell businesses what they should pay or not pay its employees. That is fine as long as they don’t automatically pay women, minorities and others less just because they can get away with it. This practice says that women and minorities are worth less than white working men That is wrong on many levels and must be stopped. If a job is worth doing then anyone that does it should not be discriminated upon just because a business can get away with it. The same is true for paying taxes and following the laws. Just because you can get away with something does not make it right.

      • normdplume


        He said FREEDOM is okay. As a free man, I can negotiate with my employer, the amount of money I require, in order for me to take on work from him or her.

        A woman is no less free to do the same thing. If she under-values the quality or quantity of her own work, then that is her problem. If she can convince her employer to pay her 20% OVER what a man is making in the same position, is she not also free to take THAT? Doesn’t the man, in this case, have the right to know what a woman is making, doing the same job he is doing, and whine and complain because life is unfair?

        What is it with you guys, anyway? Don’t you believe women are as capable as men? Don’t you believe women can negotiate for their own wages, like men? I thought you were supposed to be about equality!

        • WhutHeSaid

          There is ample evidence to be found here, in this forum, that women are every bit as capable as men — especially when we compare their posts to yours.

          It’s never OK to discriminate based upon gender, and that goes for men as well as women. What appears at first blush to completely elude you is the fact that gender discrimination against women in the workplace has been a real problem for centuries. Men, not so much.

          Upon further examination of your posts, however, it becomes very clear that you DO understand this yet you still defend the practice. In my mind that makes you doubly culpable. It’s EXACTLY the people like you that society is working on stamping out forever. People who are boorish on the subject can at least gain some credit by explaining that they were ignorant — there are such people who don’t realize when they are acting out bias.

          YOU, however, have no excuse. You know full well the nature of the problem, and I can see by your writing style that you are educated even if the ideas you espouse are not very intelligent. I call people like you the UNSMART: those who are educated enough to know better but choose to be vile examples of humanity nonetheless. Those who use their knowledge to fashion lies in furtherance of evil pursuits. And before you go spouting off biblical quotations, I mean evil in the most basic and secular way — as in ‘ASSHOLE’.

          There are two kinds of people who don’t support equal rights for women in the workplace: The ignorant and the ASSHOLES. A person can also be both at the same time.

          I hope you are proud of yourself, because I doubt that your mama could ever be.

          • normdplume

            Your characterization of me as an ignorant asshole, is double-plus ungood. I unbelly-think this. I think I want to cry.


            Political correctness be damned. Women and men are equally capable. I wouldn’t expect a male hairdresser to take offense at dirty jokes told by women, in that female-dominated field (and if you think women don’t tell dirty jokes, brother, you got another think comin’ — women can get downright FILTHY and HORRIBLY OFFENSIVE.) Nor would I expect a female construction worker to take offense at dirty jokes told by men, in that male-dominated field. You learn to roll with the punches, or you get beat up. It’s this little thing I like to call, “life”.

            In my own profession, I neither harass women, nor am I harassed by women, even though I work with them daily. Why? Because, for one thing, we’re too busy working for it to be an issue.

            Whether or not my Mama is proud of me (she is,) is immaterial. I am my own man. The only opinion I truly care about, is that of my wife.

            There are also people who, because they are wrapped up in some kind of squishy, touchy-feely, nanny-government-enforced mental state of ultimate fairness, take horrible offense at the very slightest provocation. They sue, or slander, or both, for no reason. And the Soviet government in America aids and abets this, because it keeps people tied in knots.

            “It’s not the preponderance of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge.”

            This is the world that you advocate. Face it.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Bullshit. There is a wide chasm of ‘reality’ that lies between anarchy and the ‘nanny-state’. Is your aim so poor that you can’t find something in between the two?

            Secondly, I didn’t call you an ‘ignorant asshole’. If your read my post with more comprehension you would see that I only suggested you were an ‘asshole’. In your case ignorance would be a net positive. I thought I made this clear.

            Can you hear me now?

          • normdplume

            My target is constitutional minarchism.

            The problem with doing it your way, is that it always spirals out of control.

            Keeping on doing it my way, we would be a lot better off. All of us.

          • WhutHeSaid

            How interesting. This from the same person who suggested that prostitution be afforded ‘legal protection’. I’m only guessing here, but I’ll warrant that you have an elaborate justification for the glaring contradiction between your ‘minarchism’ and the creation of new laws to protect prostitution. I assume that given your proclivity for pretentious egalitarian alibis you would naturally have a clause in mind that would protect homosexual prostitution as well — am I correct? Please explain how this new legislation fits within your concept of minimalism, or (as you put it) ‘Constitutional Minarchism’.

          • normdplume

            People have rights. The government exists to protect these rights. Prostitutes are people. Prostitutes have rights. The government is there to protect these rights. The government should have no laws against prostitution. She now has legal protection. This by dint of the fact that she is a human being, engaged in a legal occupation. No extra laws needed.

          • WhutHeSaid

            How very interesting. You forgot to mention the rights of the male prostitutes. That was an oversight on your part, yes?

            There are a number of flaws in your argument, of course. An absence of laws is NOT the same thing as legal protection. I assume that you will agree that the prostitute has the RIGHT to expect legal protection from from other people stealing his/her services without fair payment — am I correct? That would be one ‘legal protection’, but I’m sure that you could dream up others given your predisposition for fanciful justifications.

            Say, while we’re on the subject, why wouldn’t the ‘procurement’ of equipment from another person deserve ‘legal protection’ as a ‘lawful occupation’? Certainly the new owner of what was formerly ‘your equipment’ would agree to this right to legal protection.

            I expect nothing less than olympic-quality philosophical gymnastics from you to justify your personal wishes here — please don’t disappoint me.

          • normdplume

            Yes. My failure to elaborate he/she, him/her, his/hers, and so forth, is again my downfall, you hypersemantic prig.

            Yes. I expect that the prostitute will have the right to protection against others stealing his (or her … nyah nyah) services without proper payment. This is the government’s role — they mediate in cases of fraud, as part of their role as the enforcer of legal, voluntary contracts.

            Procurement of said equipment could have been arranged amicably, had the person who procured it from me simply knocked on my door and offered to buy it. He (or she!!!) did not do so. Your premise is not flawed … it’s just stupid.

            And you, sir, are just an idiot.

            I refuse to debate you further, because it does not behoove me to do so. It is against my policy to debate one whose mental faculties are not up to the task. He might agitate me so as to drag me to his own level, and then beat me with experience.

            Good day, sir.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Yes, you were being inexorably drawn into a debate that you could clearly see was not winnable. After all, personal bias is not equivalent to philosophy. A simple error on your part, really.

            I accept your concession.

        • anyone can negotiate wages, ABOVE minium wage

  • Max

    Count a Missouri Senate seat in the Democratic column.

    • If the isnt a Democrate in that seat now, then I would guess they are some really dumb satbbingeems like the Republicans are giving elections away, whats the sneaky, underhanded, backstabbing plan

  • normdplume

    Nothing wrong with what Akin said. Everyone can negotiate for their own wage. THAT is freedom.

    • Justin Napolitano

      Really, Norm? So if your wife does the same job as a man then it is OK if she is paid less?
      What are you anyway, a misogynist? Most or many jobs are not subject to pay negotiations; you are usually paid a certain amount, depending on the job, and are never to question what someone doing the exact same thing is paid. In fact most companies keep payroll information secret. It is a fact that women receive about 20% less then men for doing the same work. That is discrimination plain and simple. I wonder how you would feel, if you were paid less for doing the same job, as a woman?

      • normdplume

        If she didn’t negotiate a high enough salary, then yes. I might try to persuade her to ask for more money, but ultimately, the choice is hers. That’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. A woman who is personally responsible for her actions and who has taken charge of her OWN life and times, is a true feminist icon.

        And my wife is one of those. And I am lucky.

        If I were paid less than a woman for doing the same job, and didn’t know it, then if I were unhappy with what I am being paid, I would ask for a raise. If I were doing more and better work than she, for less money, I would ask for a raise. If one were not forthcoming, I would find other employment. I would expect the same from a woman.

        If you say, “Well, women aren’t equipped to do that”, or something similar, then who, exactly, is the mysoginist?

      • normdplume

        Yes. See my reply below, to this same question.

    • Spoken like a real man!

  • What an idiot!!!!!! This moron needs to be voted out of office!!!!!!

  • Seems to me Republicans think they are the only ones that deserve freedom!

  • kanawah

    Todd Akin, just another demented RepubliSKUNK that wants to take us back to the dark ages.
    This creep must not be put in the senate.

  • rbfanman

    Yeah…The GOP is for freedom…the freedom to own slaves, make secretaries provide nooky as well as coffee and paperwork, pay men more than women for the same work, not pay taxes (if rich), and more…but NOT the freedom to be Moslem, or Kenyan, or even Hawaiian. Hahahaha!

    • Shhhhhhhh!! Not suppose to giveaway the Republican platform BEFORE elections, they’ll tell you AFTER the election!

      • normdplume

        Yeah! You gotta vote for it, in order to see what’s in it!

  • Reminds me of Romney’s business ads using people who claim they built their business by themselves and all of them received huge low interest government loans. Don’t they realize photos, ads, etc. are all being checked by the fact checkers and their lies are being pointed out to us?

  • ryueire

    As I am a Sam L Jackson fan, FUCK Akin! That motherfucker should wake the fuck up…. If only he had more than two brain cells to rub together.

    • normdplume

      You make a strong case, arguing from the position of authority of being a Samuel Jackson fan.

      Hard to beat THAT one with logic, man…

  • Any Missourian who votes for this slug deserves the hell he or she will be going to.

  • Some GOP member just came out in support of this jerk today. Unfortunately Akin’s sentiments are exactly that of the Republican Party. They are racist, bigoted, chauvenist, good ole boys and if Myth Romney gets elected women will be forced back into the days of being seen and not heard, barefoot and pregnant! Any woman with partial intelligence that would vote for the republican party in the state that it is in today is crazy.

  • I think one should read what he actually said:
    AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom [emphasis mine]. If someone wants to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.
    Where does he say to pay a female less than a male for the same duties? He said offer a salary for a job. Do not like it than go some place else for a job.
    Where did this writer attend college? Where is the objective reporting of the facts?
    I recommend you read the early history of medicine on what physicins not only believed, but practiced as medicine. At one time no male physician would deliver a baby because that was womans work until they could earn money to do the job. At one time all the issues of a female’s medical concerns was only done by a male physician.
    How well educated are you??

    • why are you defending him? Shows how stupid you are. Yep stupid wanna fight? Noone cares what the early history of medicine was cause most of it was wrong so how can that be used as a defense? Everyone once thought the world was flat I’d like to see you use that as a defense. Did I mention that you are stupid? Well your stupid.

  • sachfoxo

    Why are the Republicans so staunch against Woman’s Rights . The same with Romney and Ryan , They want to do away with Contraception, Abortions ,unequal pay , do the republicans want to go back to Illegal abortions done by Inexperienced people or Coat hangers , Akin’s whole lying argument is that employers should be able to freely discriminate against their employees in whatever way they see fit. A big reason woman should not vote Republican has to with Akin’s comment “He burst into the national spotlight when he argued that woman have a ( yet-to-be-discovered biological mechanism that shuts down a pregnancy in the event of a “legitimate rape.”) He must be a Medical Genius since NO DOCTOR would agree with that. Moral: All the accomplishments woman have made over the past 40 years he wants to throw in the toilet. Who will you vote for ?

  • Justin Napolitano

    I wonder how Akin would feel if a woman walked up to him and punched him right in the mouth and then told him not to worry, it won’t swell up because it was a legitimate punch.

  • What amazes me is not the statement Todd Akin makes, but the fact that he remains competitive in Missouri. How can anyone vote for a person like him?

  • Mr. Akin, the government is not telling any company what salary to pay anyone. The law just states that the salary set for any position has to be the same for a man or a woman. Would you
    like it if a woman doing the same job as you was paid a higher salary than you? I don’t think so.

    • normdplume

      What if there is no “set salary” for a given position?

      You know, lots of people don’t work for a “set salary”. Some of us are paid what we’re worth. Some of us are worth more, by dint of the fact that we produce more. Some of us are paid less, because we produce less.

      If you are a hard worker, who produces lots of product, service, whatever, for your employer, then he or she should be willing to give you a raise. You might be making the most he can pay you now, because you are not making him enough money to be able to increase your pay, and still keep the lights on.

      I’ve owned a business before. I’m setting up to own one again. I don’t see a problem with asking for more money. I don’t take it as an insult when an employer says, “Sorry… can’t do it.” If I truly think I deserve more money, I begin my job search. That is the free market. I’ve moved myself and my family across the country three times in the last six or seven years, to get myself employed.

      It’s a choice. Make it. But don’t complain. Life sucks. Get a f**kin’ helmet.

      • WhutHeSaid

        I personally believe that if you moved yourself across the country 3 times in the last 6 or 7 years it’s because people got to know you. One can only imagine the sordid opinions you have with respect to the history of racial inequality in the workplace.

        I can fully understand your ‘life sucks’ attitude. For somebody as cynical as you, life must indeed suck.

        Grow up and get a life while there is still time.

        • normdplume

          Nah. I voluntarily left a couple of positions, to try to effect a different sort of change in our living situation. One position I took went away (with a dozen others, at the same time.) The same company tracked me down and asked me to come back, when they found a need to have done what I was doing. Not too bad, really.

          I work daily with people of all kinds of different nationalities, races, creeds, and even hair styles. No problem. I was recently told by someone they thought I was a Jew (I thanked him, because that means I’ve been able to keep some of the more sordid aspects of my upbringing at bay, because I just don’t believe in any kind of racial or genetic predisposition to … well … anything.)

          You’ve no idea what life has been like. But I’m not going to government to try to make things fair and equal. I’ll keep doing the best I can, and hoping that things work out well. I’ll probably even do some more praying, while I’m at it, because whether or not YOU think it helps, it makes ME feel somewhat better, whether or not it actually helps at all. I recently had $30k of equipment stolen from me, and that sucks, but it’s gone now and there’s nothing I can do about it (though I’d like to find the guy who stole the stuff, and just tell him what kind of effect that action had on me and my family, then wish him well and let his conscience work on him for the rest of his life.)

          I’m grown up. I’m a realist. Fairness is an illusion. We are living in times wherein illusions will be stripped away, I fear. People who are not equipped to look reality in the face, will certainly kowtow to whomever promises them “fairness”. But fairness, it will not be.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Grown up, eh? Realist?

            I’m fairly certain that whomever stole your equipment has a bit to say about ‘government’ interfering in our lives, yes? I’m guessing that you oppose laws against larceny, since in ‘reality’ people can and will steal the property of others. Life’s not fair, so we need to just repeal such laws and face ‘reality’ — am I right?

            Let’s consider a ‘grown up’ premise: That ‘government’ in America is not some malevolent and monolithic entity, rather, it is an extension of the individual. In theory at least, we fashion laws based upon our individual values tempered by common sense and considering the rest of society as a whole. Laws do not necessarily cure our problems, so why do we make them? Are you an anarchist? If not, please explain why ‘government’ is our enemy.

          • normdplume

            I like laws against larceny just fine, but they’re merely there to reinforce the natural rights of man — i.e., we have a right to keep our property. That is government’s role — to protect our liberty. If the cops had caught the guy in the act, I’d have appreciated their assistance by catching him. If I had caught the thief, I’d have appreciated the cops’ assistance in cleaning up the mess.

            What the thief risked, was death. He took that risk, and got away clean. Now, I am left to pick up the pieces, because the government sure as Hell ain’t gonna do it for me.

            Government is our enemy in many, many ways.

            Do you plan to blow up an airliner? No? Don’t mind having your jewels polished while you’re at the airport?

            Let’s say you have a beef with the government. A serious one. Think you might be entitled to a trial, before you are executed? Well, according to the NDAA, that is no longer an expectation you can reasonably have. Well… to be fair, it’s not that bad yet.


            Give it time. Give it a Republican President. Give it civil unrest, and martial law. Maybe a Democrat President. The framework is there. All that is needed, is a spark.

          • WhutHeSaid

            The only ‘spark’ that is missing here is a sudden attack of real thoughtfulness on your part. So far all your posts have exhibited is an exaggerated attempt to rationalize your beliefs with analysis strictly an afterthought.

            Your talk about the ‘risk’ that your ‘equipment thief’ took is a case in point. You ‘feel’ as though you are ‘manly’ and therefore would have inflicted deadly violence on said thief had you caught him/her. Say, that’s a twist that should prove interesting: What would you do if you caught your ‘equipment thief’ in the act, and it turned out to be a woman (something you apparently never considered)?

          • normdplume

            Then she would have been risking death.

            My only crime here, is not saying him/her, he/she, etc.

            I see no conflict here.

          • WhutHeSaid

            On the other hand, perhaps your absence during the event was a case of good fortune. It’s entirely possible that you would be the recipient of violence rather than the benefactor. This would naturally endanger your estimation of your own ‘manliness’, particularly if it was indeed a female perpetrator. (For the moment, however, we’ll set aside the topic of your personality flaws for the sake of the more important topics)

            Tell me, O wise purveyor of egalitarian philosophy — why do we have laws that specifically address larceny rather than simply empower each individual to take action as they deem appropriate?

          • normdplume

            I also would have risked death. This is true. But I see no reason for this to have stayed my hand, or in this case, my trigger finger.

            We have these laws at the state and local level, to punish wrongdoing, if legal justice is warranted. Many states also have the “Castle Doctrine”. Sane people reserve this right, even if the wiser heads in their state houses do not.

            People will take action as they deem appropriate, whether or not there is a law. This is the nature of humans. Don’t believe it? Walk in downtown Detroit in the middle of the night.

          • WhutHeSaid

            Stay your hand? Certainly not — that would threaten your ‘manly’ self-image. Other considerations would apply here as well, however, I realize that your need to project your machismo is overbearing. This, of course, helps explain the basis of your misogyny.

            Laws do not exist only to ‘punish’ wrongdoing, they also exist to prevent it. There are also a great many laws that exist simply to achieve a desired outcome, such as zoning laws. Still others have a different purpose: one example would be tax laws.

            Yes, people will do what they deem appropriate, and sane people will generally take into consideration the legality of possible actions when determining what is appropriate. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

          • normdplume

            Blah, blah, blah. I suppose I must be a racist, sexist homophobic religious nut.

            Honestly, your rhetoric is SO tired. Passe’. Boring.

            Can’t you find something INTERESTING to discuss?

          • WhutHeSaid

            I don’t know if you’re a racist, sexist, homophobic, religious nut. Save me some time and let me know which one(s) apply.

            What I do know is that oppose equal rights for women and you feel the need to convince the world that you are dangerous. Are the two related? Did your sisters beat you up when you were just a little misogynist?

            I’ll tell ya what: Since you apparently feel that only YOUR arguments are exciting (you know — life’s unfair, deal with it, get a gun and start shooting whatever annoys you, etc., blabitty-blab) feel free to suggest one of your most thrilling topics.

      • DurdyDawg

        If you owned a b’ness then you have a brain fog. It’s true that a person who produces more receives more pay and vice versa but there has to be a beginning. You can’t tell if someone can produce until you hire them and if you hire them for top pay then you’re the fool. There has to be an entrance pay and THAT’S what the debate is about, not that the woman gets a raise every time a producer gets a raise but as a producer just like the man.. It’s never been done and never will.. What the point is, is that ‘starting’ salary.. A woman should receive the starting pay like everybody else THEN she proves herself and gets the same as a man who produces just as much as he or remains at her present pay scale if she fails to produce just like a man. You people are taking each side out of perspective.. Women want the same STARTING pay as a man in the industry that has a starting pay and raises for productivity.. Akin wants the opposite, like prejudging the womans abilities before she can prove herself so, why not start THEM at federal minimum while paying men what ever the policy starting pay is even though they haven’t proven themselves either, then as each are proven equal, give the broad 20% less thus save that much more corporate profit. and don’t say, “Ah, a man could do the job”.. Quite possibly yet so many choose not to once their hired, and by the way.. So can a woman on those extremes aswell. Get a brain people.

  • pnllsprkf

    they would scream like hell if we had some all female workplaces and they had to compete with us- they would sooooo lose their shirts

    • normdplume

      So, start a business that hires only women. That is your right.

      I doubt you’ll see many men screaming about it.

      Just … grow up.

  • ANN

    There is help and medication for Akin. Or he could just get some vouchers and call Mitt in the morning.

    • Perhaps the only mediation is female hormones. We know he has no balls………maybe growing some breasts will give him a better perception. Missouri better get busy preparing the Emancipation Proclamation for Women if Akin gets elected again. He needs to go back and study Greek Mythology and read what the women did to keep he men home after they returned from their ten years away fighting the Trojan War. They took over the Parthenon, the Greek Treasury, and refused sexual favors until the men agreed that they would stay home and work instead of sailing the seas looking for conquests.

  • SaneJane

    I know this is trivial but can’t help myself. Have you ever seen so many shiny pink scalps in one picture?

    • TheBigMook

      Neither whiteness, nor maleness, nor baldness, nor geezerness cause bigotry.
      These people are wrong because of their beliefs. Not their color, not their sex, not their age, not even being follically impaired.

  • glen0906

    what else could you possibly expect from a tried and true idiotic bigot such as Akin?

  • That was a mistake. That’s not what I really meant at all. . . Argh, fuggin’ cameras!

  • The only freedom being denied i9n the workplace is the freedom of wokers to assemble and unionize for collective bargaining. That’s a right too!!

    • normdplume

      Indeed it is. But it is also the right of the factory owners, to shutter the factory and fire all those workers and hire replacements. Free association — it’s YOUR right, too.

  • msrita

    It would a shame if he gets elected. Sad day for America.

  • markleiner

    Why do the repubs really hate Women? Is this part of their agenda, platform, and mind set. Since they allow this “point man” do their attacks on Women, what will they reap in the Nov. elections?

  • billshar

    Since Mr. Todd Akin believe that fair wage is negotiated between the employer and employee then his pay for his senate seat should be $7.25 per hour with no benefits. Since these jobs donot include any benefits. Let us see what his reaction would be if his check for the month was 160.00Hours X $7.25 = $ 1,160.00. That is a fair wage for his bumbling job? YES!!!

    • Replying to billshar –
      Actually, I think that would be overpaying Akin. He should be receiving farm hand wages, because he is obviously a pig. (Sorry if I insulted any pigs.)

    • I think if he got $1,160.00 a month it would over patment, seems he doesnt even have a high school science course, a requirement to graduate

  • If he feels that employers have the right to pay their employees whatever they choose to pay and that the government has no right to interfere in setting fair wages, etc., then I guess he doesn’t think the government should set a minimum wage either. That employees could just pay slave wages……..because it is their right. We can be just another third world country with a third world economy. Why stop there? Let’s put ten year old children to work in dark, disolate factories. Let’s remove safetey standards from industry altogether and pour pollutants into the water supply. It’s the right of the employer to do whatever he wishes and pay whatever he wants. That should put the economy back to work! And keep those women folk home, barefoot and pregnant…….so long as it isn’t forcible rape, but regular rape is okay……..but we must keep those jobs open only for our men folk. I pray that Akin is never left in the hands of female nurses or a female doctor if he has a heart attack. I’ll just be back here down on my knees, scrubbing my floors and be ever so grateful to the masser’ for the crusts of bread he throws my way.

    • normdplume

      Would you work for $3/hour scrubbing floors? If not, don’t worry about it. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Nor is anyone paying $3/hr. likely to attract very many people to work, at that wage.

      But, if you were starving, and the only job available was one where the owner could only AFFORD to pay $3/hour, would you want to be told you simply cannot work that job, because the government would not allow it?

      The issue here is pay, not pollution, so let’s stick to that, shall we?

      It is the right of the prospective employer to pay what he wishes. It is the right of the prospective employee to refuse to work for that wage. Eventually, if the employer needs a task done, and he is unable to do it himself, he will have to increase the amount of money he is willing to pay. Perhaps someone will take him up on a job offer, at this new wage. Perhaps not, and he’ll have to go higher. Why is this a problem, again?

      If you think a female doctor would ignore her ethics and decency, just because this Akin clown says something stupid, then you obviously don’t think much of female doctors, or maybe females in general. Who, again, seems to have a problem with women?

  • I agree with Akin, we should be free to discriminate on pay aginst anyone we want, african americans have no right to equal pay, whits have no rigts either if they work for asians etc. What the moron does not understand is not that we object to him living in a mythical golden age, but that he is forcing everybody around him into that box. I guess he is why Unions still are relevant and slavery could still be justified.

    • normdplume

      Nobody has a right to a job. Nobody has a right to equal pay. You are entitled to all the market will bear. What the market will bear is, in large part, determined by YOU. If you can’t make enough money sweeping floors, find a different occupation.

  • So no minimal wage and no rights for women. Wow if this guy wins it only shows that people are stupid! I said if you vote for him you are stupid! Who wants to fight about it? MO is the most backwards state in terms of everything.

  • I have two college degrees, to answer your last question. The question to Akin was “Why did you vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Bill, that guarantees equal pay for women doing the same job as a man.” His side stepping the issue, by talking about an agreed salary, gives permission to employers to pay anyone differently for the same exact work. Perhaps that means you can pay white males more than blacks or Chinese or stupid congressmen from Missouri. To pick and choose pay scales due to the color of your hair or eyes. To pay a woman more if she will also sleep with the boss. Why stop with just underpaying women doing the same job as a man. Does that also mean a woman employer can pay women more and men less for doing the same exact work? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander………………..

    • normdplume

      That is precisely what it means. You are free to continue working for the agreed-upon wage and arrangement, or not. Don’t want to diddle the boss? Don’t. Find another job, because the one you’re in sucks. Own your own business and want a little bit of fun in the office? Hire a guy who’s young, dumb and full of … and offer him several positions. He can take it or leave it. He is also free to do so.


      • TheBigMook

        At the risk of putting words in Norm’s mouth, I’ll suggest that he has just endorsed the idea of legalized prostitution.

        As long as the “john” owns a company.

        How about us working stiffs (pun intended) who just want to hire a girl for an hour or two (or five minutes behind a dumpster)

        • normdplume

          I absolutely endorse legalized prostitution.

          Bring that occupation out of the shadows, give it legal protection, and allow people who might have very limited skills in other areas, to pursue an occupation at which they might excel. These people are deserving of basic human respect and dignity, too, after all. They’re people.

          But, it would more likely be the prostitute who owns a company, or runs a business, wouldn’t it? I hear there’s good money in that line of work.

          • TheBigMook

            Both parties are anti-libertarian. Republicans more so, because they oppose any human activity that is not strictly in keeping with a conservative Christian code of morality.
            It is your right wingers who have criminalized recreational use of marijuana, sex between consulting adults. The far right would like to establish Christianity as the approved religion of the United States in violation of the 1st amendment.

          • normdplume


  • Ed

    It’s notjust about discrimination against women. He is saying he doesn’t believe in the minimum wage laws, safety requirements, or equal pay or treatment.

    • FLeFlore

      Akin would say it was reverse discrimination if employers had the freedom to discriminate against him and his kind. Enough of the hypocrisy from a man who doesn’t want the government involved in legitimate public interest employment issues yet he wants to be involved in decisions about whether women should be able to get an abortion even in rape or incest cases.

  • Not all Republicans are this stupid — but nearly everyone this stupid is a Republican. What happened to the “party of Lincoln”?

    • normdplume

      Same thing that happened to the party of Jefferson. They turned Communist.

    • Do they still make Linccoln’s – maybe they went out od business because they didnt keep up with the times.

  • Well, look at it like this, with Todd Akin we have likely found the missing link. Even his questioner (who was clearly of the Southern persuasion) was smart enough to ask the question in the first place. I wonder what Mr. Akin thinks about the laws which prevent folks from just pouring cement down his throat. To some, that would seem fair. And by his definition fairness is the only rule of the game. I wonder how he feels about collective bargining? Seriously, he is an embarassment to his party and the nation

  • roskodog

    OK dads then why do you sell your kids to the lowest bidder? why not be a man and get a job or start a buisness and make some cash, so your wife can stay home and care for the family. Oh Stupid me, what was I thinking your waiting for the government to just put in in your lap, I am all for no workee no eatee. This is the land of the free, not home of the handouts. If we can,t get along talking about what Mr. atkin said, we are a sorry bunch. I guess I include my self, cause I am appauld that some folks really think Mr. Obama . and his policies can fix are country. . God Help us…

  • Special interests, lobby groups, including religious and Atheist groups and activist groups lead us around by the nose. It is all sold to us in the way cigarets and porn were sold to us in the past ignoring the risks, using propaganda and networking tools and skills to entrap us. It amazing how may people get trapped. Karl Marx said that the oligarchy used religious beliefs to “Opiate” the people. In a free enterprise republic there are trillions of different “shades of opiates” . Reminds me of a shopping mall in it was an “adult toy store”, “an addiction center” , “a gynecologist”, “an abortion center”, “an ABC store” “NAMBULA”, “a psychiatrist” a “political activist group” and a “church for lost souls” all in one mall. So we wonder why Akin and others are so confused- really?

  • JOE

    this guy is in line for idiot of the year

  • daniel bostdorf

    George Saufley…PeterBrown..and some other here….What the frig?

    What the hell are you talking about that has ANYTHING to do with “Akin Endorses Gender Discrimination As ‘Freedom’.” If you agree with Akin you are simply incapable of any RATIONAL thought….

    Get your right wing fascist sentiment to Foxnews and Rove and Limbaugh and that tired old dialogue….

    Your lies make me ill..

    Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels (like Linmbaugh, beck and Rove believe) said it best:
    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    or as Adolph Hitler stated:
    “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

    Quoting the article:

    “In response to an audience member’s question at a town hall on Thursday, he explained his rationale in voting against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a bill passed by President Obama on January 29, 2009, ensuring equal pay for men and women doing the same work. Akin’s response? Freedom:
    AUDIENCE MEMBER: You voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Why do you think it is okay for a woman to be paid less for doing the same work as a man?
    AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom [emphasis mine]. If someone wants to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.
    Basically, Akin’s whole argument is that employers should be able to freely discriminate against their employees in whatever way they see fit.”

    Well…I have rarely called for a Machivellian solution to Akin or any right wing wing nut like him….but….if he should be re-elected….

    He needs to do a “Jimmy Hoffa.”

  • Is Akin a married man? I’m just curious because his comments are akin to a man who lives in the past and truly believes he is an authority on women and their needs. He seems to be oblivious to the women’s movement of the 80’s and 90’s. Equal pay for equal work has been on the burner for a long time. Where does he live—in a cloud?

  • To Norm: How would you like to be denied gainful employment because the business owner believes that men are too stupid?

  • If he is married, he is probable a bullie to his wife, he is Dominate who like to keep women at home. Who want a candidate like that for senate, I know I don’t

  • VictorCraig

    Mr. Akin and people who think the way he does have forgotten or ignored one of the basic principles of our country. He must be too old to remember standing in his classroom as a child and stating the words, “with liberty and justice for all”.

    “All”. That means no exception based on some mis-guided notion that anyone has the right to deny liberty and equality to another person regardless of the circumstances.

    People have died defending that principle and it is a disgrace that Akin is just too stupid to recognize his own folly.

  • Boy does leave room for comment(S). This guy should be Rommeys VP, two of a kind. Employers should be able to do what they want? Incertian respects dont they now? Bownsize(get rid of employees), go to part time help(at minium wage and no benefits), do away with unions so employees have no way to address maltreatment with out fear of reprisals. The is the Republican goals, well stated by this TEEEEEEEbagger (with captial T).

  • “AKIN: Well, first of all, the premise of your question is that I’m making that particular distinction. I believe in free enterprise. I don’t think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don’t pay. I think it’s about freedom [emphasis mine]. If someone wants to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine, however it wants to work. So the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble.”

    “Basically, Akin’s whole argument is that employers should be able to freely discriminate against their employees in whatever way they see fit.”

    Using this well informed, educated, dedicated Republican own words, we the people should be to decide on these polticians saalary, benefits, and other matters of their “employment”. Sure we elect them, but they decide their own salaries, retirement, medical, vacations and many other benefit much superior to any of us.. Why is it if they work for us (Ha HA) that they decide their own terms.
    To put the shoe on the other foot, can any of us get hired then dicatate our wn terms. I dont think he would his own statement if “we the people”-his employer, dictate his, and all other politictions wages, benefits. It sure would be nice – we could decrease the nation debt quickly1

  • DurdyDawg

    You know, not too long ago the g’ment issued a statement that a new virus was headed toward the US.. At the time it sounded scary as fathers prepared for the worst and mothers protected their babies.. Little did we know at the time that this virus was a sort of stupid infliction that only affected certain republicans and could be spread amongst the pub hive through words and then came the elections where those pub candidates (not all) fell under the ‘sickness’ .. Since then we (not of pub) have witnessed the growth of this stupid virus and have literally marveled at it’s stupidity.. Are these pubs really to blame? Hell Yes!! And what is the antidote? Well, there is none for them but there is for us and that antidote is.. DO NO ELECT THESE STUPID IDIOTS INTO ANY OFFICE!!

  • iowasteve

    My problem with his statement is simple. Akin claims that he believes the way he does because government has no right dictating how people should act, what they do, and how am employer controls his employees. They what the hell business is it what the women do with their bodies? It appears that it is ok for an employer to tell a woman what kind of medical treatment she is allowed to get, but she is not to be paid an equal amount as a man for doing the same job. Someone commented that if a woman wants to move up the ladder, she needs to work hard to get there. This is not the issue here – of course I would agree with that. But once she gets up the ladder she should be paid the same as any other person in that same position. THAT, my friend, is the issue here – doesn’t have anything to do with getting to the position it has to do with how you are treated once you get there. If she can do the same work in the same quality – she should be paid the same amount as anyone else in that same position. I cannot believe that a group of people how want to represent us and in Romney’s case, preside over us believes anything different.

    The only problem with Akin in the eyes of the GOP is that he is actually for once, telling the truth about the party he represents. I’ll give him credit for that anyway. Keep this and the “legitimate rape” issue in your mind when you go to vote – the “R” still means reverse and it was once again proven by an R.

  • thomas conway

    just another repubilcan’t

  • Oh, well..I said he has that “narcissistic personality”…just like “Mitt” with the two “t’s in the first name..and now we have the two d’s in Todd…by the way the d’s represent discrimination doesn’t it…it fits him to a tea…out of his mouth he is revealing the truth about him and what he is thinking…he seems to have a problem with liking women..we really should look into his personal background..dont’ you think…or go to his shrink to see if he has mental problems stemming from his childhood and his realtionship with his mother..poor thing…give enough to this leopard…who has many spots on him as “Mitt” does and he is going to hang hisself…he don’t need any help in doing so..does he?…no woman is going to vote for him..beware of what is going on in his head…he gets dumber everyday..just as Mitt is doing…same image…con-artists and liars…he is discriminating against women…wrong..wrong…wrong!

  • Donahue Johnson

    and people of the show me state are still voting for this guy…. “show me”

  • i think mr akin needs to have his head examined he needs a new job as he is not fighting for our freedom or anybodys at all i really dont know where in the heck he gets all off the wall ideas he sure isnt thinking with a full deck i think he is trying to make a name for himself but not a good name he couldnt have had a mother to teach him right or wrong cause he sure doesnt know how wrong he is i feel sorry if he has a wife or even a sister that must b tough for them


  • Akin posted a photograph of himself with three women with a banner that reads “I’m A Women [sic] and I Support Todd!”//// or where thy realy 3 of his boyfreinds dressed in drag ? hmmmm had to be for he dosent seem to like women . he has to be a kebler elf the king fudge packer

  • “You have the right to remain silent——–that’s it sweerheart!”

  • bcarreiro

    We fight for them to have more…….they fight us so we have less!!!!

  • If that is the real reason, why not pay MEN less?

  • Big MO needs to take close look at this cretin. I trust the good folks of my mom’s home state will do the right thing and dump the clown into the dust bin of history. This apparent fear and distrust of the uterus in his party is very disturbing and childish. For someone who claims to believe in freedom he certainly has a strange way of supporting the freedom of the majority of the gender gap. The man makes my skin crawl.

  • nic78

    Orwellian Doublethink.

  • seagazer101

    Well, sorry, Toddy, but there’s already a law: The Equal Pay Act, on the books from the Civil Rights era. And the reason you can’t just “hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that’s fine” is because men will CHOOSE to pay women LESS as they have since women ceased being chattel. You want their f’ing votes, don’t you? But other than that, they’re just for your convenience. Well, guess what. They’re not voting for you, either! If Republican women are more “ladylike”, it’s because they don’t have to take care of themselves. The rest of us have had to be tough, what with paying all the bills to raise our own kids and all. Some men even admire that quality. You are totally Dick Head.

  • seagazer101

    Sorry, Charlie, that’s illegal, too. Stupid!

  • seagazer101

    Sorry, Charlie, that’s illegal, too. Stupid! It has been since 1964.

  • seagazer101

    OK. The comments below were posted in response to “nomdeplume’s moronic post about “just not hiring women to keep from having sexual harassment charges filed. Disqus is too stupid to post them where you write them.

  • Todd Akin is the lump that lets you know that the current GOP is cancerous. The fact that they were unable to “cut him out” means that it is malignent.

    The GOP will have to undergo radical treatment in order to survive.

  • dtgraham

    “Free at last… at last.” “Thank God almighty I’m free to discriminate against uteri at last.”

  • stsintl

    This Murdochite Republican doesn’t understand that:

    In democracies, governments serve the needs of all constituencies within their jurisdiction for legal and physical infrastructure, their general welfare, and for protection of the weakest against the excesses by the strongest and/or criminal elements in the society. They must administer and govern with consensus and bear social responsibility. By design, they are not as efficient as dictatorships or fiefdoms, but they are an essential pillar of democracy. On the other hand, business enterprises operate with the mission to maximize wealth for the capitalists and their managers. Top executives are not required to operate with consensus or bear any social responsibility, even for their own lower level employees. While capitalists look for individuals with feudal lord and/or dictatorship qualities to run their enterprises, governments must look for individuals with compassion and commitment to social responsibility.

    This Murdochite doesn’t know the difference between Freedom (with social responsibility) and Anarchy (without it).

  • bck2yu

    Let’s give Todd Akin credit for being honest.
    He doesn’t believe women should be paid the same as men when doing the same job…and he says so!
    Akin believes that women who are raped have a built-in biological defense against becoming pregnant…if the rape is legitimate…and he says so!
    Akin believes his opponent, Claire McCaskill, has not run a “ladylike” campaign…and he says so!
    It is incredible that the Republican Party would have a man like Todd Akin running for any political office…but that’s what’s happening in Missouri!

  • The GOP on its headlong dive to the economic, moral, and cultural sewer. I’ve worked in 48 States of this great nation and there is no doubt we will recover from the GOP catastrophe as soon as the “representatives of the people” step into Congress once again.

    The GOP is not the solution; it is the problem.