|
|
 |
|
#1
10-24-2012, 11:14 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Indiana senate candidate Richard Murdock
Any woman who votes Republican needs to find an abuse counselor, and get help - fast.
Romney The Brave: "I disagree with what he says, but I still support him".
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts 
|
|
#2
10-24-2012, 05:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Williard, Murdick, and Akin a disgusting trio!
__________________
"Relax, alright? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring; besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls. It's more democratic."-- Crash Davis
|
|
#3
10-24-2012, 05:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"Our democratic politicians come across as conservatives to the rest of the world ... and our republican politicians come across as wildly deranged and unstable psychopaths to the rest of the world."
- Calzone Lord
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#4
10-24-2012, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE NEW TODD AKIN? GOP Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock set off the latest political firestorm of the season Tuesday night after saying that pregnancies resulting from rape are "something that God intended to happen." Democrats wasted little time seizing on the remarks, suggesting the Indiana Republican had implied that God wants rape to happen. Mourdock's allies, meanwhile, called such a reading an absurd attempt to score political points.
THE FULL QUOTE: Delivered during last night's debate: “You know, this is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces. And I have to certainly stand for life. I know that there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view. But I believe that life begins at conception. The only exception I have to have on abortion is in that case—of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” THE REACTION: Those remarks set off a cascade of statements and responses both in the Indiana race and nationally last night, followed today by an online ad from Democrats drawing attention to Romney's support of the Indiana Republican and a Mourdock news conference during which the candidate apologized if he offended anyone but stood by his position that abortion should be illegal in all cases except those where the mother's life is in danger. "I think that God can see beauty in every life," he said. "Certainly, I did not intend to suggest that God wants rape, that God pushes people to rape, that God wants to support or condone evil in any way." A FEW QUESTIONS: From Slate's Amanda Marcotte: "What's interesting about this clarification is it doesn't clarify squat. God preordains the conception but doesn't preordain the rape, or what Paul Ryan gently calls the 'method of conception'? At what point does God start ordaining stuff, exactly? Does he wait until you're actually in midrape to jump in ... or did God ordain the conception before the rape started? Does God give the go-ahead for rape only if it leads to pregnancy or he's cool with all rape? And one question from the pro-choice peanut gallery: If God can ordain the rape and the pregnancy that follows, why can't he also ordain abortion? These questions may seem unserious, but if candidates really do imagine themselves as conduits for God's decisions, we need a little bit more insight into God's decision-making process." THE DIFFERENCE: It's unclear whether Mourdock's comments will do the type of damage that Missouri GOP Senate hopeful Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" remarks did—but perhaps they shouldn't, as Slate's Dave Weigel explained last night: "Akin's comment posited that the female body had hormonal powers that 'shut down' the conception process during stressful sex. That's junk science. Mourdock's comment is a perfectly coherent pro-life statement. If you think life starts at conception, well, then, it starts at conception." BUT SHOULD AND COULD ARE DIFFERENT THINGS: The Washington Post's Aaron Blake: "At this point, the debate is over whether Mourdock believes that God intends for rape to occur. But more broadly, it’s about whether the comments turn off independents and moderates who have already been slow to warm to Mourdock after his primary upset of longtime Sen. Richard Lugar. And a lot of it depends on how his fellow Republicans treat the matter. So far, it’s a mixed bag. Mitt Romney disavowed Mourdock’s comments Tuesday night, and on Wednesday morning, Rep. Mike Pence (R), the favorite to become Indiana’s next governor, called on Mourdock to apologize. But the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which disowned Akin after his comments, is standing by its man in this case." WORTH MENTIONING: Mourdock's main opponent is Joe Donnelly, a Democratic congressman who is strongly anti-abortion himself, was a co-sponsor of the 2011 bill that, in initial drafts, created a distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape." AWKWARD TIMING: The controversy comes the same week that Romney cut an ad for the Indiana Republican. "We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him," the campaign said in a statement Wednesday. CRAZY LIKE A FOX: Salon: "A Google News search returns about 13,900 results for 'Richard Mourdock' in the past 24 hours alone, including stories from every big major news outlet imaginable. Every one, that is, except for Fox News, which has mentioned the story zero times as of 3 p.m., according to a TVEyes search. Fox News did not mention Mourdock’s name on air once today or last night, when the news broke, nor did it refer to 'rape' except in the context of Rep. Todd Akin’s earlier comments .... By contrast, CNN has mentioned the story seven or eight times and aired his press conference this morning live. MSNBC has mentioned the comments about a dozen times, according to a search of the media monitoring service." http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...d_edition.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...od_s_plan.html Last edited by Danzig : 10-24-2012 at 06:55 PM.
|
|
#5
10-26-2012, 02:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
__________________
"I don't feel like that I am any better than anybody else" - Paul Newman
|
|
#6
10-26-2012, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not saying that I agree with the Senate candidate but let me ask those of you that believe in God a question. Does anything ever happen that God does not intend to happen?
For the record, if I had a daughter and she was raped (by a stranger, not a date rape), I would definitely advice her to have an abortion. Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 10-26-2012 at 04:24 PM.
|
|
#7
10-26-2012, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
10-26-2012, 02:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Men shouldnt even be allowed the question of what a woman should do if she gets pregnant from a rape......a man cannot get pregnant from rape and God has nothing to do with either.
__________________
Horses are like strawberries....they can go bad overnight. Charlie Whittingham
|
|
#9
10-26-2012, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is a 100% non-issue. Why in the world would anyone care what Mourdock's views are on abortion? He has no power to implement his views. Romney's views are at least somewhat of an issue. If Romney is adamantly pro-life and he will only appoint Justices who are pro-life, then that would be an issue worth talking about. If Roe v Wade was overturned, abortion would be probably be outlawed in some of the conservative states.
So Romney's views are a legitimate issue to discuss because his views could have an effect on policy. Mourdock's views have no effect on policy. His views are a non-issue. Whether I am strongly pro-life or strongly pro-choice, I would never in the least bit care what my congressman's opinion was on the issue. It's meaningless.
|
|
#10
10-26-2012, 02:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Horses are like strawberries....they can go bad overnight. Charlie Whittingham
|
|
#11
10-26-2012, 03:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#12
10-26-2012, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
10-26-2012, 03:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Go count how many anti-abortion bills your current House has already passed. The assault on women's rights is no joke. Those bills have fortunately not been passed by the Senate. If they had been - or ever are - they would/will go to the president for signing. President Romney would sign them. President Obama would not, and send them back, where the Senate and House could override his veto. Depending upon the November 6 election results, if Mourdock and his ilk are elected, women could lose the right to abortion in case of rape via federal law within months. This is no joke. These religious loons are dead serious on taking women's rights to abortion away. All that needs to happen is enough of them are elected to pass such laws. The current Tea Party House has actively tried for two years nonstop passing multiple, multiple anti-abortion bills. Mourdock is running for elective office, where he has 100% chance of implementing his religious zealot views into law.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 10-26-2012 at 04:06 PM.
|
|
#14
10-26-2012, 04:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#15
10-26-2012, 04:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#16
10-26-2012, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If that happens, then as I have discussed before, abortion may be banned in a few of the really conservative states. It will be up to those state legislatures. It could happen. Some of the really conservative states could ban abortion. That is the worse-case scenario. I have never heard anyone come up with the scenario you have mentioned. There is no way in hell that the US Senate is going to make a federal law outlawing abortion. There is no way that is going to happen. There is not a 1% chance of that happening and you know it. Even if the Republicans got control of the Senate, it would never happen. First of all, not all Republican senators are pro-life. Wouldn't they need 60 votes to do it? It's not going to happen. They don't have the will of the people. People would be up in arms in states like California, New York and probably at least 65% of the country. It is not going to happen. In addition, the Congress cannot do anything to make abortion illegal until the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade.
|
|
#17
10-26-2012, 04:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Rupert, you have to vote your conscience,and unfortunately women's rights are being relitigated right now, in 2012, by some in the conservative specter trying to remove them. All it takes is enough Congressmen and Senators to vote the law in, and a President Romney to sign it. Please don't think "that will likely never happen". When states vote in outrageously restrictive building codes for medical clinics that provide abortions, thus closing down those clinics, abortion ceases to be available, no matter if Roe v Wade stands or not. That has already happened and is currently being fought. These people are dead serious about taking the right for women to determine their own healthcare. Virgina has passed a law mandating invasive vaginal ultrasounds (at the patients expense) if she wants an abortion. These people are actively dangerous to women's rights. There are plenty of anti-abortion people trying to get exactly that to happen. Now. The time for people to be "up in arms" about men trying to take women's rights away is right now - during the electoral process. That's why Mourdock was asked at the rally about his thoughts on women's rights and abortion - so people can choose to never, ever for for him, an American Taliban that wants to introduce his religious law into our government. Democracy takes work. These people are very dangerous. Again - any woman who votes for a candidate that looks you in the face and says he wants to take away your current freedoms and rights - he's not joking. He's dead serious, no matter how extreme and silly you think he sounds. Run for your life. Vote and defend your freedom.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#18
10-26-2012, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
it used to be that free will was considered blasphemy. that everything had been pre-ordained. well, if that was the case, then why did the criminal have to serve time, since god pre-ordained he commit the crime? how could the thief be held to blame? god had decided.. it was questions like those that helped lead to free will gradually becoming the accepted teaching. but then, i've been told by exercising my free will 'in the wrong way' i was going to hell. i told the woman who said that to me, that god was definitely a sneaky fellow. if it's free will, but there are rules about how you use it, it's not so free, is it? at any rate, the contortions by pro-lifers to somehow still tie things into god's big plan can become rather comical at times. but then, not quite so comical when you know they are completely serious about changing everyone's rules to how they feel things should be. and i'm sure they can show you passages in the bible to support the view that women should do as they're told. cause that's how god wants it. why else would the bible say it? (probably because men in positions of power decided what was included in the 'holy book'????). on another note...i really wish that people would stop quoting others. perhaps you could say 'to so and so'. that way i don't have to read such drivel as 'not a date rape' from a poster i have on ignore. wtf is that supposed to mean? rape is rape is rape. i don't care if you effing know the guys name-if you say 'no', and he forces you-hello, that's a crime. it's an assault. after all, if sandusky molested his nephew instead of a camp kid, does that lessen the crime?
|
|
#19
10-26-2012, 07:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If I am an evil person and I kill someone, I would argue that God could have stopped me if he wanted to. If he is omnipotent, he could do anything. That is the definition of omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then what is so great about God? But assuming that he is omnipotent and he didn't stop me from killing someone, that still would not affect my culpability for the crime. There is a big difference in saying "he didn't stop me" vs saying "he forced me to do it". Just because God allows something to happen, that doesn't mean he forced it to happen. There is a big difference. With regard to my quote about date rape vs being raped by a stranger, you misunderstood what I was saying. My point was that most people would be sickened by the thought of carrying the baby of some homeless guy (or some psycho off the street that raped them). I think most people would find it repulsive. They may or may not have the same level of disgust if they were raped by a friend or by someone that they were romantically interested in. If a girl was pretty religious and she was against abortion, she might be able to make a case to herself to carry the baby to term if she was raped by a friend or by a one-time romantic interest. I would have to think it would be impossible to make a case for carrying the baby of some psychopath off the street. By the way, I think it is hilarious that you have me on "ignore". I had no idea you had me on "ignore". I get along with every person on this board, regardless of their politics.
|
|
#20
10-26-2012, 08:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is no chance Roe vs Wade gets overturned regardless of who is elected. It is simply a Democratic scare tactic.
|
Linear Mode
