I have to say, Mrs Hochul has earned my vote for another 2 years. Nothing against Mr. Collins, I believe he did a decent job managing Erie County. But 1st, Representative is not a management job like County Executive or Governor and 2nd I would need a reason to replace Mrs. Hochul and there isn't any for me. As much as I hate voting for Demicans or Republocrats, this will be an exception, she has proven to act independently of her party when she feels it the right thing to do. We know she's doing a good job, why change for an unknown?
Today's Poll: Who are you voting for in the NY-27 race?
Submitted by Howard B. Owens on November 5, 2012 - 7:30am
Well said, Dave - Kathy Hochul has got my vote, too.
DAVE!? I have watch your post for sometime now and I am very surprised by your position. She has only voted party line. She even voted party line against her own convictions, to satisfy her political parties support $$$$, and not her constituents. She is the poster child for what is wrong with DC right now. My vote goes to Collins and I hope I'm right, but I honestly feel he will work to get rid of this Political gridlock in DC. I dont mind bipartisanship. I just dont think Hocal brings it.
Mike thats a pretty unfair generalization. Yes there have been some votes she wet with the party line on. But there were also some that she didnt. But 90% of the time she explained why her votes were what she thought was best. She does take the time to talk to her constituents and more importantly listen to them.
I don't have time to go through each of these Mike and see which ones are supported by which party, but a quick look doesn't show me "only voted party line"
I voted for Hochul her first time, she was clearly the better choice.
But after her lie about Collins laying off people when he bought a company is so over the line, I will vote for Collins. The Buffalo News and Channel 2 TV (Buffalo) both fact checked and made clear her story is not true. And when confronted by Channel 2, she keeps repeating the lie.
For anyone who did not know, the company had over 300 employees and went of business. It was 100% closed. Collins bought the company and reopened it. He hired back over 200 of the employees. He did not lay anyone off, he hired back unemployed workers. Hochul just plain lied to win reelection.
Sorry I disagree here. While sho could have backed down after the fact checking, I prefer dealing in realities, she established her stance on this Collins issue with what facts were available which alot of people, including those who were and are employed there thought was true. After the accusation Collins and his people released more facts which werent so obvious to make Hochul look foolish. I would characterize Hochuls original comment as an inaccuracy, rather than a lie. Her reapeating the inaccuracy after being faced with facts shows that she either believed the previous facts over the new ones, or just stuck to it because she already committed herself to that set of facts. It's just one error on an otherwise exceptional record thusfar. I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find errors as bad as or even worse on Collins record as well.
To characterize this as an over the line event is a bit unfair. Not that I dont understand that opinion I just think its a bit one sided and unfair.
I am what they call undecided. I supported Hochul the last time, mainly because I did not know who the republican canidate was. Never heard of her, or never heard her period. Now I am between this guy Collins who just reminds me of some of the jerks I used to work for that never listened, and had all the best ideas. And Hochul who voted for Obama Care that I truly disagree with. The poblem we all face is High Cost of Health Care. I submit that if we had no health insurance at all, the cost of health care would plummet. And I especially do NOT want Washington having their hands in it. So as far as the 27th District goes, I'lll make up my mind when I have the ballot in my hands.
Fred, Kathy Hochul was not in office when OBAMA CARE was passed and she did infact vote to repeal certain parts of it but not the entire law.
"I would characterize Hochuls original comment as an inaccuracy, rather than a lie. Her reapeating the inaccuracy after being faced with facts shows that she either believed the previous facts over the new ones, or just stuck to it because she already committed herself to that set of facts. "
Kyle, using that logic you have two possible scenarios
1) "Her reapeating the inaccuracy after being faced with facts shows that she either believed the previous facts over the new ones, "
THat to me demonstrates a lack of understanding. John is absolutely correct about what happened there, The FACTS of that situation are indisbutable.
2) "or just stuck to it because she already committed herself to that set of facts. "
That would indicate a charactor flaw in my book.
I was undecided until recently, two things pushed me over to Collins
1) Hochul's continuing misinformation about MEDICARE and the Republican approach to fixing it.
2) Her major attack line on Collins has been that he is a very successfulk businessman as though somehow that is a crime. (Although I suspect that those are DNC inspired)
Just curious. I know a number of the commenters on here are veterans. It really bothers me to vote for a Congressperson, US Senator and President that couldn't be bothered with the military when they were younger. These are the folks who vote on the decision to send our people off to war or conflict or police actions, whatever. The veteran count is somewhere around 20% now. That means 5 Senators and less than 100 Congresspeople; and nobody in the White House. I'll most likely be voting for Gary Johnson, Kristen Gillibrand and Kathy Hochul, all of whom had "other priorities" when they had the chance, but now want the right to send Americans off to war. Johnson is unlikely to get us into anything at least. But if Obomney or Obomney get elected and decide to go start something up or increase the troop count in Afghanistan, they'll most likely go along, just like the stupid cowardly Congress did for W in 2003.
I will most definitely be holding my nose tomorrow.
Anyone agree or am I just some fringe nut?
You are not a fringe nut Dave, I was a carreer Marine, given a choice between a Veteran and a non veteran, I will usually side with the veteran for the reasons that you describe.
That said, one of the things that make this nation as great as it is, is that the Military is controlled by civilians, in essence this greatly reduces if not eliminates the military from excercising undo control over our population.
That is precisely why our republic is constructed the way it is in terms of standing armies.
A military requirement to government, could very easily open the door to a military mandate upon the citizenry. Most military people not only understand that, but welcome that.
I diifer with you here a bit Howard, the constitutional idea is not so much about intervention as it is about military dictates to the citizenry. Remeber, at the time the constitution was wriitten, we were still reeling over King George's Generals forcing citizens to board and quarter troops.
Intervention is actually more politicians than ist is generals, most military people are not that eager to go to war as you may think or as movies portray
I completely understand and agree with civilian control of the armed forces. That's not what I'm getting at. I see an elitist attitude by our elected officials towards the military. Contrary to all the lip service paid. The military are viewed as pawns serving a global view political agenda or some sort of commercial interest. It makes me angry. Especially when I talk with some of our young veterans who've been to hell and back numerous times. It's not right and too many of our elected and appointed officials flat don't get it. To me, this is THE big issue, stopping foreign involvements and wars and imperialism. We need more in Congress who will stand up there.
Just a note. This is one of the very few times since the end of WW II that both major party candidates for president have not served in the military. And only two presidents since 1944 have not been either active duty or in the reserves.
Because of the end of the draft in the mid 70's. Although plenty, including Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney and Chris Collins found ways to weasel out. I take the very un libertarian position of mandatory government service for young people. I think it would be good for most everybody. I'd change it to not being only the military. THere's plenty of things to be done in the schools, hospitals, police etc etc. Brings up some problems and more expense, but in the end, I believe it'll pay off.
The Constitutional problem with most of the 'modern era wars,' they were unilateral exercises by the Executive Branch that bypass Congressional authority to declare war. The express division of authority in prosecuting war holds that Congress shall declare war (and fund war) while the President as Commander in chief shall direct the war. The logic of so rationing war authority reflects the framer's desire to suppress the ease at entering into conflict by way of a ponderous legislative hearing, streamline the ability to conduct a war once declared and provide the vehicle to wind down a war (turn off funding).
Since (at least) the Korean Conflict, Congressional authority has been usurped by clever detail-men who've quibbled away clarity of law.
Nowadays the President need only secure television time to launch an invasion.
Dave, don't forget Hochul decided not to serve either.
I think Kathy Hochul has done a great job in this district, particularly in Genesee County. I will however not be voting for her. I have a line that I do not cross, and that is life. One of the main reasons I threw my name in the last time as a write in is that there was not a pro-life candidate left on the ballot. Jane Corwin was a first trimester pro choice candidate.
I am not a one issue voter, but that issue is on top of the list when prioritized. Life first, all else after. I am not looking for a debate on life issues, just stating how and why I am voting.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Adams
but she was on board with the HMS mandate.
What is a 'fringe nut?' ...Someone who puts doilies on all the furniture? Labels such as that are the bread and butter of mainstream partisans who wish to elevate the level of anxiety in any voter tempted to veer from Row A or B. Third Parties haven't gone away; just hard to locate with all the Coke and Pepsi displays.
John: i was referring to those who were subject to the draft.
CM; I don't know, I guess sometimes I feel like I'm all alone. Thanks, I'll try to keep the faith a little better.
Or it's the brazil nut that keeps getting pushed aside for the cashews.
The corelation between a veteran and on non veteran really has nothing to do with interventioism Dave. The military is not a unversal pool of single thought, rather a microcosm of society. There are veterans of almost every political flavor.
While MOST Veterans are keenly aware of the ramifications of military action, intervention does not start with the deployment of troops. It begins with the concept of imposing our values on others, which often leads to war or military specific intervention.
Abraham Lincoln, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and several other Presidents were not military veterans. One of the reasons why we have had so many veterans in office since WWII is because those men showed leadership in times of crisis, not necessarily because they were veterans alone.
The idea that just because someone is a veteran they would be soley reluctant to favor an interventionist policy presupposes that all veterans are mind numbed robots with a single political or world view, that is just as ludicrious as the supposed war on women, the belief that all republicans want to poison our air and wateror that all democrats are socialist.
IMHO, the true measure of a good presidential candidate should be experience of governance, I don't believe that senators or members of congress are uniquely qualified to be president, I would much prefer someone who first served as a State Governor because the presidency is about governing not legislating.
Like I said, I do understand your position, but intervention begins long before military action.
True Mike, but I am voting for Collins, my point was simple that she did not vote to enact the law
So any way my vote goes to Collins.... Thank you every one for playing today..... Some really good points made.
Well, first off Mark, spare me the education about the make-up and/or mindset of our services. I did 8 years active duty.
"While MOST Veterans are keenly aware of the ramifications of military action,"
That's it right there, the rest is outside of my point.
Just a quaestion Dave, do you think most Mothers are conscince of the ramifications?
So to your point, does that mean that a women who hasn't served has a plus over a man that hasn't?
Howard Owns' link to the chart in his post (thank you!) shows very clearly that you can't easily find a more moderate Democrat in the Congress than Kathy Hochul. You could find lots of reasons to not vote for her, I suppose, but one reason you can't claim is that she is too partisan or too tied to the House Minority Leadership or the President. The facts just don't back that up. From what I have read of Chris Collins, and from what I have heard him say, I see 0% chance that he will vote anywhere near the middle on this spectrum. If bi-partisanship is what you hope for, with the two choices available you can't do any better than Congresswoman Hochul.
One correction: Congresswoman Hochul was not in the Congress when the Affordable Health Care Act was approved. It is not fair to accuse her of voting for it, and, in fact, she has sought to change portions of it. Mr. Collins wold vote to repeal the whole thing. It is not clear that anything could ever get enacted to replace it if it was repealed. Removing a congresswoman who actually has a record of bi-partisanship would make efforts to perfect health care all the less likely if more people like Mr. Collins are elected.
Mark, we should have learned from Vietnam that you cannot run a war out of Washington, but we have been doing just that ever since.
If congress decides that war is indeed necessary, give the commanders their objectives and then get the hell out of the way. I believe that politically correct rules of engagement mandated by civilians has costs thousands of American lives since the '60s.
This conservative republican will be hesitantly voting for Hochul. She has worked hard for our dairy farmers, and Collins doesn't even know where the GLOW counties are.
Bob, civilian control of the military does not necessarily equate to running a war out of Washington.
Unleashing the military should be done by the civilian, once unleashed, the Generals should dictate the battle.
There is a difference.
I wasn't advocating what you suggest, the question was never what we do once we were at war, rather having someone in office more reluctant to go to war or more specifically, order a military intervention.
Kathy is the perfect fit for this district, even with the republican makeup. Much to the dismay of many of my liberal friends, the votes she takes are a very moderate mixture that fits the makeup of this district. And please know that Kathy's record of moderation is not a move to the right that she took out of political opportunity. As Erie County Town Clerk she gathered tens of thousands of signatures to fight then Governor Spitzer on licensing illegals. She also fought the new license plates.
She is the perfect bridge for a more bipartisan government. i like to call her "the common sense congresswoman".
And I will just add (from the heart) no one and I mean no one works harder than she does for the people she represents. And that includes farmers, small businesses, constituents fighting bureaucratic red tape, etc. I hope the voters understand that tomorrow when they make their final decision.
Unfortunately Lorie common sense is really recognized for it's worth anymore. As the dialogue shows here, any little infraction (see discussion on her stand on Collins and his taking over a business) To making outright lies despite the facts of her voting record give people reason to sink her campaign for re-election. No one can really see the big picture and when that picture gets fuzzy they come up with some pretty convincing arguments to just go back to the same status quo of voting that is tearing this country apart. Its the same attitude that keeps the people that could fix this country from the elected positions in the system. No matter how hard you work or struggle to do the right thing either the political system knocks you down, or your base suddenly collapses underneath you over nonsense that get blown up into career ending scandal.
This is why apathy over how much our vote really counts is undermining the values and pricipals this country established itself on. And empowering the corruption in the system to further dirve this country down the tubes. What the people want really is moot and secondary to the voices of lobbyists and campaign contributors. But what can you do when people feed the political beast just what it wants.
BTW I will be voting for Hochul, because overall she has worked hard and I feel has fairly represented everyone's interests in this region, despite pressure from her party to tote the party line. Her presence locally and her record show the big picture, hopefully she doesnt drown in the ocean of politics and become what we see so many others become. Cause lets be honest most other Reps and Sen never are seen til they are campaigning for our votes and want to convince us of their value. Then when election is over the void takes over where all our input and letters and voices go until they get close to needing us again.
Both Hochul and Collins have points that I like and dislike. However, I am leaning towards Hochul since, she is fighting for farmers and she is fighting to keep Niagara Falls Joint Air Reserve Station open. Collins is a businessman, but to me does not communicate very well with people. He is stiff in his approach to people. Hard to trust a person like that.
The main concern for me is not District 27TH. It is the Presidency. Did all you liberals and pro-obamas hear his speech today? He stated that his way has created more jobs and lower the deficit in the past four years. WHAT WORLD IS HE LIVING IN? What world are you living in to believe such hog wash? Is Obama insane? With a comment like that, I would say YES! I know a lot of people are voting Gary Johnson and like many of you I like what he brings to the table. However, I cannot consciously allow the worst President of all time "Obama" to be re-elected! For the women out there who believe Romney will take away your rights. I have one thing to say, Obama has snooker you into a false belief and has mind raped you completely. Romney/Ryan cannot take rights away. If Obama main concern about women is their right for birth control and abortions then you agree, I have to wonder what kind of woman you are?
Mark.... honestly thats a bunch of hogwash. There is no politician, even in todays politics that is anything but reluctant to go to war or militarily intervene unless it's waaaay beyond necessary. Even GW didnt just jump in to Iraq and Afghanistan, Theres one thing every politician will tell you, is initiating such actions is political suicide, you might get one more term if things are still unresolved at election time but every war or conflict has ended that politician's career, either directly as a consequence of their actions or indirectly from the stress and it medical toll it takes on you personally.... but it's politics that does screw up the mission once we are there.
Generals havent been able to dictate battles since Vietnam. The only exception was Desert Storm where Gen Schwarzkopf was barely controlled by the political machine and acted as a Gen truly should have, we were in and out on his timetable and tactics, he wasnt very popular with the political heads of state but he got the job done and when his time was done look how things stuttered along. Since Vietnam til now any war run by the political machine has been an excercise in bs.
Any military person can tell you you cant fight any war when you have to ask permission in situ to respond with effective fire when being fired upon. War and conflict is ugly, when you try to sanitize it and let your actions be dictated by whats politically correct, you end up with overextended conflicts that slowly whittle away Amercian lives without acomplishing goals. If the WWII battle of Normandy was fought today, we would have been yrs taking that beach and yrs more conquering nazi germany if we conquered her at all.
The reality is, to acomplish worthwhile goals you have to grit your teeth and do some pretty ugly and painful things to get to that goal. But trying to acomplish any goal while trying to please everyone and making yourself look good the whole time while doing it, is doomed to failure. Simple reality it is shown to us in almost every aspect of life. From dealing with stray pets to bath salts to responding to major disasters. Still we dont learn the lessons, we struggle like a drowning person, panicking as we sink deeper. Rather than trying to grab that vine or floatation device while it's still in reach.
Her statements were not "infractions". She flat out lied. And continued to lie even when confronted by Channel 2. She lied about his outsourcing jobs. She is so desperate to keep her job that she has resorted to lies. You still want to vote for her for other reasons, fine, but lets call a lie what it is.
We all know that in some races candidates will spin or exaggerate things. But Hochul has gone over the top with her lies in the face of the Buffalo News and other local media showing her the truth. And her lies were not based on misinformation. That company Collins bought was CLOSED. There was no way to mistake that. To lie and say his hiring over 200 people was laying people off showed a lack of true character. To continue the lie in face of the truth by the media also showed a lack of true character.
Again John thats your spin, and not entirely the truth either. Here we have an example of you villifying a candidate by using the same tact you are criticizing her for. Let's go to the Buffalo News and see.
(I dont like posting another media source in Howards forums but it is impossible to make my point otherwise...)
Just some highlights that apply to my statement above,
While some of the ad's claims are accurate, it leaves the viewer with the impression that Collins is shipping jobs to China and is getting rich from it. On the whole, the ad is somewhat misleading. (Notice nothing said of lies and it begins by stating some of the add's claims are accurate.)
Claim: "Chris Collins recently started a new company. The work is done in China."
Fact: This statement is partially true. Collins started Ingenious Products in 2008, registered to his home in Clarence, according to business records on file with the Department of State. Collins told The Buffalo News in August that he created the company to invest in and distribute clever products, not to manufacture them. The company's website indicates that its products are manufactured in Oregon, South Korea and Yantai Shandong Province, which is in China.
The Collins campaign said that the company employs two part-time workers in Western New York and that the products are sold in the United States.
Claim: "Chris Collins said it would not be feasible to make and package that product for $7 in the U.S."
Fact: This statement is true. Collins told The Buffalo News in August that it would be too expensive to manufacture Ingenious Products' Balance Buddy, which helps parents teach their children to ride bikes, in the United States.
Claim: "How does China do it? Chris Collins says China cheats by manipulating their currency, which gives them a cost advantage."
Fact: This statement is true. In an interview about his platform, Collins in June told the Batavian, a news website, that China cheats by manipulating its currency.
Claim: "China cheats, we lose jobs, and Chris Collins makes more money."
Fact: This claim is misleading. Collins has said that China cheats. He told The Buffalo News in August that Ingenious Products was not one of his successful investments, but that he was looking for other "Ingenious-type products" to invest in. He also said Ingenious Products has two employees, both of whom have other jobs, and that if production were moved to the United States, it wouldn't create many jobs.
Campaign adviser Chris Grant said that Collins has not made money on the business, though he didn't have specifics on the company's balance sheet.
Claim: Collinscostsjobs.com says Ingenious Products "sent jobs to China."
Fact: This claim is false. The jobs were already there. The Balance Buddy was made in China before Collins invested in it.
(This fact is the only one that called false, yet the facts are still there that the product is made in china then brought here to be sold at a profit, isnt this the very same practice that people throw in the face of Wal mart and other stores claiming it costs jobs here in the US? Even the partial truths that Hochul's ad stated show Collins doing the same thing we voters here in Genesee county villify GCEDC for.)
So its not entirely the bold faced lie you make it out to be John. Hochul has her beliefs as to this and isnt afraid to speak them, even if some call her a liar when the facts can mislead or misrepresent the actual truth. Not actually the outright lie that you characterize it to be and indicate to others to try to sway their votes.
Hochul's spin (lie) of Collin's import company, is clearly misleading and to me would be reason to not trust or vote for her.
But my problem is the flat out lie about his laying off 150+ people. Never happened, period. Pure lie. And she personally continued the lie in the face of the facts. Collins bought a closed company that had put over 300 people out of work. Collins hired 200+ people back, he did not lay any one off. To continue a lie like that to get reelected showed a lack character trait that has me not trust her.
In response to John Woodworth:
First and foremost, as a woman and a friend of rape survivors, I do not appreciate your "mind rape" comment. We all have the ability to think and act for ourselves. It is extremely offensive to have that term thrown around as if it carries no weight or meaning.
Secondly, even setting aside the contentious abortion debate, there are important issues at stake in this election, including equal pay for equal work, access to contraceptives, and funding for screenings to reduce breast cancer and cervical cancer. You may wonder "what kind of woman" I am, John, but know this; I am the kind of woman who is concerned about my rights and, more importantly, is concerned about the rights and fair treatment of all women.
Whatever John your a bit disingenous in your stance regardless just in the way you rationalize and excuse your own actions while making Hocul's offense now a lack of character. Guess what she's human as we all are I'm sure if we were to just scrutinize your statements here John we could find similar if not worse offenses that while indicative of so called "lack of character" dont disqualify your opinions or your abilty to do your job or profession with honor and competence.
I am not trying to convince you to vote for Hochul but I am trying to allow you to see the irony of accusing her while you do the very same thing. Collins did hire people back that is true but he also got.
I mean gee lets look at the dishonesty that Chris Collins is committing as well he tells voters that China is dishonest and unfair, yet when this issue shows up they are his business partner and he deals with them differently than his statements to voters to get elected portray.... Lets look at his own words shall we?
On trade, Collions wants the U.S. to stand up to China.
"The key words there are China cheats," Collins said. "They cheat by manipulating their currency, which gives them, I believe, a 30-percent cost advantage over the American manufacturer. They steal our intellectual property. And they don’t open their own markets to our manufacturers."
The response, Collins said, is tarriffs until China capitulates and trades as an equal partner with the U.S.
"I believe China needs us more than we need them," Collins said. "They need our consumers. Quite frankly, we don’t need them."
When it comes to trading with other countries, however, Collins is open to any trade that is fair and free.
"We do live in a world economy and we can’t erect barriers and say the United States is not going trade with the rest of the world," Collins said. "That’s just nonsense. We can not only compete, we can win."
Theres real character there, saying one thing to us yet I'm sure thats not what his business partners in China heard. Lies are lies if he can lie to them to make a buck what makes you think he wont lie to us as well?
I can appreciate your steadfast defense of the lie as an 'inconsistency', but a person who is so desperate to win that she continued the lie even when confronted with the truth tells me a lot about her.
I did not expect Hochul to admit she lied, misspoke, was misquoted or was misled, but I did expect her to stop. That failure to stop the lie and to keep repeating it, more than anything else led me to vote for Collins.
It was Bob Harkins that made the comment about Generals Dictating war. I agree with you there.
My ONLY contention was that military service does not necessisarily mean that they would be any more or less apt to rush to war.
And it was Howard's position that the reason why our founders established civilian control of the military was to prevent interventionism, my contention was it was because at the time, our citizenry was reeling from the days prior when King George's Generals forced colonist to board and harbor troops.
I am not sure where you see that as BS, in that your position seems most similar to mine.
Concentrate on Hochul's lies which you admit you expected John, but continue to be blind to Collin's lies. Funny how your candidate can be forgiven but his rival cannot. Rmember what Chris said, "No one dies from cancer anymore"
Sorry Mark had to switch gears from my discussion with Mr. Roach. My perception of your argument was that you believed politicians with a military background are less apt to jump into conflicts than non-military ones. I felt the opposite was the more accurate, thats all. My apologies if I misunderstood. This election's research for my vote has the memory glass overfull and might have spilled some knowledge, either that or sometimers (the lesser cousin of Altzhiemers) has temporarily set in.
I'll switch subjects with you. Since the end of WW II, we had only two presidents without any military background. They are Clinton and Obama. And both of them used military force without congressional authority, just as the ones with military background. Of those presidents, Ford and Carter were probably the most restrained
Well Danielle, that is your right to be offended, but the truth of the manner is, it is what it is. It does carry meaning since, there are many women who believe Obama's comments. After all if they believe his comments then he is violating them in a sense. BTW, if you view my comment as the same as sexual rape, then that is on you and not me. Not all women are with you on the above matters and that was proven during the second Presidental debate. Fortunately, there was a woman who spoke up and set the record straight!
I am glad you can think for yourself, but my comment is towards those who do not! END OF STORY!
Danielle, I have one last question for you. Do you believe that Romney or Ryan can take away your women's rights? If, you do then you are sadly mistaken. They can't! BTW, I am not against women's rights. What I am against and I see it daily on MSNBC, CNN, FOX, is women who do not seek the truth or facts and judge their decisions on media BS!
Sorry so many of your friends have been raped, even that has a three sided story!
Oh btw danielle, does raping the land have anything to do with sexual rape as you like to twist meanings of the word?
You completely missed the point of what I was saying. The term "rape" carries a great weight and a lot of emotion, especially for those who have gone through it, and when the word is used lightly (for example: "mind rape", "raping the land", "man, those prices are really raping us") it is offensive. No words are being twisted here and, believe me, I am not "viewing your comment as sexual rape" as you suggested before. Take a minute before you speak and think about how a person's choice of words can affect others.
Danielle the point your missing though is that there are other usages of the word rape besides its definition of sexual rape. Using the word (lightly or otherwise) isn't offensive except those who choose to take offense to it. I am offended that on regular broadcast tv and radio you can use the term bitch to refer to anything other than a female dog. You need to learn to be more accepting of other legitimate contexts of the words usage. It really not reasonable to expect the public to alter it usage in deference to your percieved offense. If it really bothers you that much (this is not meant sarcastically or to demean you in any way) you need to seek some help in dealing with the emotional state is creates in reading or hearing the word.
Its sad that we have to consider to this degree useage of this word. I mean there are those who could say the same of using the word murder, or drunk, or suicide or even death. But it's not reasonable to expect people to not use the word for fear of unintended hurt it might cause.
Danielle, While I truly appreciate your position. The word Rape has dual meanings
According to the dictionary
[reyp] Show IPA noun, verb, raped, rap·ing. noun
1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
verb (used with object)
6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
8. to seize, take, or carry off by force. verb (used without object)
9. to commit rape.
While words do have meanings, context is also very much part of that meaning. What is really unfortunate in this day and age is that political correctness in the sense of words we use commonly creates more controversy than it supposedly is meant to protect.
50 years ago Gay meant to be happy, try to tell someomne now that they seem Gay and I assure you they won't take it that way.
The same could be said about the word Kill or Murder, These are words that we use in sports, to charactorize a big win, do we not say that because someone might know someone that was killed or murdered.
Part of the problem that we face today is hypersensitivity, many a good politician's carreers have been destroyed because a simple word applied in proper context was mischaractorized as an alternative meaning.
I too know someone who was raped, I also know a family who had a member murdered, I truly know the pain and anguish associated with that, but if everytime we alter our lanquage because of sensitivity, what we we do is withdraw from life.
John used the word in the proper context, the word Rape did not cause the pain, the rapist who tried to steal your friends dignity did.
I am sorry for your friend, I am sorry that you too feel her pain, I am sorry for anyone who has felt that pain, I am also sorry that we are getting to the point in society where even saying God Bless You offends someone in society somewhere.
Sorry Kyle and Mark, you guys are way off. Words carry weight and the context in which it was used (something about mind-raping women) was poor, contemptible and entirely boorish. I really didn't want to dignify J W 's comments with any sort of response and for the record, I am responding to Kyle and Mark. Danielle is right. I'll agree about the over reach of political correctness in general, but not in this case.
Upon re-reading Dave I do agree that in this instance and context JW's word mind raping was used for it's shock value and inappropriate. However if Danielle limited her response to that word I would have agreed, especially in its context. But her inclusion of the other phrases led me to believe that she makes no distinction and expects everyone to refrain from all useage of the word. And thats what I object to.
Well I read it again, my opninion hasn't changed one Iota, it was clear what the intent of his initial statement was. I am sorry but I just found Danielle to be over reacting. That does not mean that I do not understand her position I do. Dave if you find it boorish, I understand that as well.
The fact still remains, his intent was clear initially, I do believe that John's mistake was in how he explained himself to Danielle, a simple I am sorry and that was not my intent would have surficed.
With out regard to that, again, I am sorry that your friend suffered that indignity Danielle, I am sorry also that we live in a world where we have to worry about what we say so much because of despicable actions of some but although at times all of us say things in ways that some might find boorish or offensive, John did nothing wrong his intent was clear and I would not even go so far as to say for shock value, in fact it was a phrase that all of us have heard before.