So What About Mourdock?

[mundame]

Richard Mourdock of Indiana, Republican of course, was pleased to share with us all his interesting opinion that pregnancy from rape is part of God’s will.

Perhaps his name ought to be "Mourcock."

I can imagine his fantasies -- dragging women into alleys, threatening them with knives, stalking them through supermarket aisles and into the parking lot, leaping on top of them, getting woman after woman pregant because RAPE IS GOD'S WILL!!!


Oh, nice guy.

Possibly NOT the kind of thinking calibre we want in the Senate, though there may be people even stupider than he is already there.


And Romney is still supporting him and his campaign is using Romney's endorsement. The woman gap had closed up since Romney looked like "safe hands" in the first debate and the Atkins promotion of rape as legitimate has died down. But it wouldn't surprise me if this new idiocy and meanness toward women loses Romney the election.

What is WRONG with the GOP? it's been just a drumbeat of "We Hate Women, We Hate Women" since Herman Cain and his groping every white woman's genitals he could manage to sit next to. They are preoccupied with rape, clearly! and want to forbid by law birth control. They want every raped and injured and traumatized woman to have to carry the rapist's child to term and presumably care for it all its childhood! That is so incredibly wrong and bad.

All these male characters want to be elected so they can make laws against women!! That's really the bottom line. If they were private citizens, we could just not pay any attention to this sort of raving. But they want to get elected so they can punish women for getting raped!

Darn.

And Romney and Ryan are right up there with the rest of these bad men, wanting to control, control, control women, all to our great life-destroying disadvantage.

It will not surprise me at all if the tide turns against Romney now because of this Mourdock character reminding a lot of women that Romney and Ryan are exactly as bad as Mourdock is on this issue. They too think God Ordains Rape! Anyone else think Romney could lose because of this Mourdock thing?

[tailfins]

Mourdock said ALL conception is done by God: Shocking!

[mundame]

Darn, and here I thought my husband had something to do with it. Guess not.

[darin]

Darn, and here I thought my husband had something to do with it. Guess not.


Me thinks you're looking for a reason to get mad. (shrug)

Billions believe God inspires creation of all types. Get over it.

[Nukeman]

Richard Mourdock of Indiana, Republican of course, was pleased to share with us all his interesting opinion that pregnancy from rape is part of God’s will.

Perhaps his name ought to be "Mourcock."

I can imagine his fantasies -- dragging women into alleys, threatening them with knives, stalking them through supermarket aisles and into the parking lot, leaping on top of them, getting woman after woman pregant because RAPE IS GOD'S WILL!!!


Oh, nice guy.

Possibly NOT the kind of thinking calibre we want in the Senate, though there may be people even stupider than he is already there.


And Romney is still supporting him and his campaign is using Romney's endorsement. The woman gap had closed up since Romney looked like "safe hands" in the first debate and the Atkins promotion of rape as legitimate has died down. But it wouldn't surprise me if this new idiocy and meanness toward women loses Romney the election.

What is WRONG with the GOP? it's been just a drumbeat of "We Hate Women, We Hate Women" since Herman Cain and his groping every white woman's genitals he could manage to sit next to. They are preoccupied with rape, clearly! and want to forbid by law birth control. They want every raped and injured and traumatized woman to have to carry the rapist's child to term and presumably care for it all its childhood! That is so incredibly wrong and bad.

All these male characters want to be elected so they can make laws against women!! That's really the bottom line. If they were private citizens, we could just not pay any attention to this sort of raving. But they want to get elected so they can punish women for getting raped!

Darn.

And Romney and Ryan are right up there with the rest of these bad men, wanting to control, control, control women, all to our great life-destroying disadvantage.

It will not surprise me at all if the tide turns against Romney now because of this Mourdock character reminding a lot of women that Romney and Ryan are exactly as bad as Mourdock is on this issue. They too think God Ordains Rape! Anyone else think Romney could lose because of this Mourdock thing?
So do you feel the same way about Obama and his continued support of Ayres and Van Jones.. Just 2 of "questionable character let alone the hundreds of visits by radical Islamist to OUR whit house to see Obama.

Mourdock made a statement that has been misinterpreted and taken to extremes..

[Trigg]

It will not surprise me at all if the tide turns against Romney now because of this Mourdock character reminding a lot of women that Romney and Ryan are exactly as bad as Mourdock is on this issue. They too think God Ordains Rape! Anyone else think Romney could lose because of this Mourdock thing?

I would LOVE for you to post his comments that show he said ANYTHING close to what you've posted.

Now, I'm not saying it was a bright comment, it clearly wasn't. What he is trying to get ac crossed is that he is pro-life and he doesn't think the child of a rape should be aborted.

Mourdock has nothing to do with Romney, so no, I don't think it will impact the race.

[aboutime]

Richard Mourdock of Indiana, Republican of course, was pleased to share with us all his interesting opinion that pregnancy from rape is part of God’s will.

Perhaps his name ought to be "Mourcock."

I can imagine his fantasies -- dragging women into alleys, threatening them with knives, stalking them through supermarket aisles and into the parking lot, leaping on top of them, getting woman after woman pregant because RAPE IS GOD'S WILL!!!


Oh, nice guy.

Possibly NOT the kind of thinking calibre we want in the Senate, though there may be people even stupider than he is already there.


And Romney is still supporting him and his campaign is using Romney's endorsement. The woman gap had closed up since Romney looked like "safe hands" in the first debate and the Atkins promotion of rape as legitimate has died down. But it wouldn't surprise me if this new idiocy and meanness toward women loses Romney the election.

What is WRONG with the GOP? it's been just a drumbeat of "We Hate Women, We Hate Women" since Herman Cain and his groping every white woman's genitals he could manage to sit next to. They are preoccupied with rape, clearly! and want to forbid by law birth control. They want every raped and injured and traumatized woman to have to carry the rapist's child to term and presumably care for it all its childhood! That is so incredibly wrong and bad.

All these male characters want to be elected so they can make laws against women!! That's really the bottom line. If they were private citizens, we could just not pay any attention to this sort of raving. But they want to get elected so they can punish women for getting raped!

Darn.

And Romney and Ryan are right up there with the rest of these bad men, wanting to control, control, control women, all to our great life-destroying disadvantage.

It will not surprise me at all if the tide turns against Romney now because of this Mourdock character reminding a lot of women that Romney and Ryan are exactly as bad as Mourdock is on this issue. They too think God Ordains Rape! Anyone else think Romney could lose because of this Mourdock thing?



MUNDAME. As I have asked several other members here recently. Those who have no fear of showing, or demonstrating their absolute hatred, and stupidity through their words..."Were you born with this hatred, and this stupid? Or, Did you learn to be this hateful, and stupid in the first days of your elementary, long lasting educational background?"

[mundame]

I would LOVE for you to post his comments that show he said ANYTHING close to what you've posted.

Now, I'm not saying it was a bright comment, it clearly wasn't. What he is trying to get ac crossed is that he is pro-life and he doesn't think the child of a rape should be aborted.

Mourdock has nothing to do with Romney, so no, I don't think it will impact the race.


Certainly Mourdock has a lot to do with Romney: he is the ONLY senatorial candidate Romney endorsed and made an ad for, and he's still using that ad and isn't distancing himself from Mourdock.

Mourdock very successfully got across his idea -- that he intends to work in the Senate to deny women the right to abortion for any reason, just as Ryan and Atkins worked on such a cruel bill. That's the whole point of saying that pregnancy from rape is God's will.

I think male legislators need to mind their own business: abortion has nothing to do with them. Male legislators should butt right out of their constant attempts to control, control, control women.

[tailfins]

Certainly Mourdock has a lot to do with Romney: he is the ONLY senatorial candidate Romney endorsed and made an ad for, and he's still using that ad and isn't distancing himself from Mourdock.

Mourdock very successfully got across his idea -- that he intends to work in the Senate to deny women the right to abortion for any reason, just as Ryan and Atkins worked on such a cruel bill. That's the whole point of saying that pregnancy from rape is God's will.

I think male legislators need to mind their own business: abortion has nothing to do with them. Male legislators should butt right out of their constant attempts to control, control, control women.


That's pretty much the abortion on demand, up until the day before delivery presentation in a nutshell.

[mundame]

Billions believe God inspires creation of all types. Get over it.


I would get over it if it were just a private citizen making such a comment. People can believe whatever cruel idiocy they want to, I feel, as long as they don't afflict other people with their beliefs.

The whole point of this Mourdock character saying such a terrible thing during a Senate race as part of his campaign is to signal that, like Ryan and Atkins AND ROMNEY, he's in favor of no abortion allowed for any reason, however horrible the crime done to the woman.

So that takes it out of the realm of just the usual despicable comment from men in dire need of controlling women and makes Mourdock dangerous.

I think this may well lose Romney the race.

I bet he ends up desperately distancing himself from Mourdock and pulling the ad he made for him.

[tailfins]

I would get over it if it were just a private citizen making such a comment. People can believe whatever cruel idiocy they want to, I feel, as long as they don't afflict other people with their beliefs.

The whole point of this Mourdock character saying such a terrible thing during a Senate race as part of his campaign is to signal that, like Ryan and Atkins AND ROMNEY, he's in favor of no abortion allowed for any reason, however horrible the crime done to the woman.

So that takes it out of the realm of just the usual despicable comment from men in dire need of controlling women and makes Mourdock dangerous.

I think this may well lose Romney the race.

I bet he ends up desperately distancing himself from Mourdock and pulling the ad he made for him.

We call that myopia. It MAY cost Mourdock that Senate seat. Any honest observer of Romney can see he is not an abortion crusader on either side of the issue.

[007]

What percentage of abortions are as a result of rape?
lets see some realistic numbers please!

[mundame]

We call that myopia. It MAY cost Mourdock that Senate seat. Any honest observer of Romney can see he is not an abortion crusader on either side of the issue.


True, tailfins, he was pro-choice when he was in Massachusetts. He seems to have no center at all, but at least that isn't as bad as being an anti-abortionist from the beginning. However, his current platform and his vice-presidential candidate are just frankly dangerous to women's freedom.

Indiana was one of the states -- like Missouri -- expected to pick up a GOP seat. Now the poll there has gone dead even. Mourdock's crazy remark may well cost him and the GOP that Senate seat; Missouri is as of now in the Dem Senate column, though McCaskill was very unpopular and Akin was a shoo-in before he started talking about "legitimate rape" and all that.

I really wonder about this preoccupation of Republican candidates with rape! Can't they keep their sex thoughts to themselves? Darn.

I thought the GOP might well take back the Senate this election. But they're dropping like flies! Romney would have to win with long coattails to sweep these fools into office.

[mundame]

What percentage of abortions are as a result of rape?
lets see some realistic numbers please!


What are you saying, that it's too few to matter?

I sure bet it matters to the women who are raped at knifepoint and are pregnant from it!

[007]

What are you saying, that it's too few to matter?

I sure bet it matters to the women who are raped at knifepoint and are pregnant from it!
I'm saying nothing, just asking.
what are you saying?
if a woman cries rape then that's enough?
her pregnancy is not my responsibility, I shouldn't have to pay to prevent or end it.
Perhaps if her liberal masters had allowed a little reality into their insane dogma, she could have armed herself and shot the rapist...............
but liberals don't like that, killing rapists is wrong, killing babies is fun!!

[Trigg]

True, tailfins, he was pro-choice when he was in Massachusetts. He seems to have no center at all, but at least that isn't as bad as being an anti-abortionist from the beginning. However, his current platform and his vice-presidential candidate are just frankly dangerous to women's freedom.

Indiana was one of the states -- like Missouri -- expected to pick up a GOP seat. Now the poll there has gone dead even. Mourdock's crazy remark may well cost him and the GOP that Senate seat; Missouri is as of now in the Dem Senate column, though McCaskill was very unpopular and Akin was a shoo-in before he started talking about "legitimate rape" and all that.

I really wonder about this preoccupation of Republican candidates with rape! Can't they keep their sex thoughts to themselves? Darn.

I thought the GOP might well take back the Senate this election. But they're dropping like flies! Romney would have to win with long coattails to sweep these fools into office.

Indiana is a very conservative state and although Mourdock's comments are getting a lot of national play, there has been hardly a peep here.

I'm not sure what your problem with being pro-life is, and I'm surprised that you would apparently base your entire vote on this one issue.

[007]

That's called fanaticism!

[mundame]

Indiana is a very conservative state and although Mourdock's comments are getting a lot of national play, there has been hardly a peep here.

I'm not sure what your problem with being pro-life is, and I'm surprised that you would apparently base your entire vote on this one issue.


I have long since given up on this race entirely, Trigg. I don't like either candidate for a lot of reasons.

I am willing to vote for mainstream candidates if they are reasonably normal and decent but neither candidate makes that qualification for me. So I haven't based my vote on this one issue, but this isn't a good thing going on. The entire list of rightwing candidates seemed to be hung up on women's reproduction, from Cain feeling women up to Santorum wanting to forbid birth control to Newt divorcing every wife as soon as she gets sick to Romney and Ryan wanting to force every woman to carry to term fetuses got on them by violent rapists or incestuous fathers.

I have no problem at all with your being pro-life as long as you don't try to force that on any other woman. That would be wrong. The basic, fundamental point is: If you're against abortion, don't have one.

Which leaves men completely out of the issue, which is most definitely where they belong.



On edit: I did read that the Indiana polls as of this morning have run away from Mourdock and are now even, where before they were in his favor. Same direction as with Akin. Now, maybe that isn't true, and you will be a better source of info if you live in Indiana.

[007]

I'm not against abortion per se, just don't wish to foot the bill for others to enjoy them time after time.

[mundame]

I'm saying nothing, just asking.
what are you saying?
if a woman cries rape then that's enough?
her pregnancy is not my responsibility, I shouldn't have to pay to prevent or end it.
Perhaps if her liberal masters had allowed a little reality into their insane dogma, she could have armed herself and shot the rapist...............
but liberals don't like that, killing rapists is wrong, killing babies is fun!!



Incoherent....okay, I see you don't really want to discuss the issue. That's fine. :cool:

[tailfins]

I have long since given up on this race entirely, Trigg. I don't like either candidate for a lot of reasons.

I am willing to vote for mainstream candidates if they are reasonably normal and decent but neither candidate makes that qualification for me. So I haven't based my vote on this one issue, but this isn't a good thing going on. The entire list of rightwing candidates seemed to be hung up on women's reproduction, from Cain feeling women up to Santorum wanting to forbid birth control to Newt divorcing every wife as soon as she gets sick to Romney and Ryan wanting to force every woman to carry to term fetuses got on them by violent rapists or incestuous fathers.

I have no problem at all with your being pro-life as long as you don't try to force that on any other woman. That would be wrong. The basic, fundamental point is: If you're against abortion, don't have one.

Which leaves men completely out of the issue, which is most definitely where they belong.

Your posts are just regurgitating the catch-phrases from the most extreme wing of the pro-abortionists. Why don't you just admit you don't vote for Republicans no matter what? I can tolerate liberals if they are thinking liberals.

[mundame]

I'm not against abortion per se, just don't wish to foot the bill for others to enjoy them time after time.

Okay, that wasn't incoherent.

Well, I don't see why you should want to. Who can blame you?

It's the same as paying for birth control pills; perhaps a compromise should be reached on the issue of who pays. I'm inclined to agree that the person responsible should pay, why not? Also for Viagra.........that shouldn't be paid for by insurance either, if birth control pills aren't.

[mundame]

Your posts are just regurgitating the catch-phrases from the most extreme wing of the pro-abortionists. Why don't you just admit you don't vote for Republicans no matter what? I can tolerate liberals if they are thinking liberals.

Don't be silly, tailfins.

[007]

Okay, that wasn't incoherent.

Well, I don't see why you should want to. Who can blame you?

It's the same as paying for birth control pills; perhaps a compromise should be reached on the issue of who pays. I'm inclined to agree that the person responsible should pay, why not? Also for Viagra.........that shouldn't be paid for by insurance either, if birth control pills aren't.
Pregnancy is a choice, not a medical condition.
Allow women to arm themselves, armed women will not be raped.

[tailfins]

Don't be silly, tailfins.

Nothing silly here. All it takes is memorizing the communication style of those who even dig in their heels to keep partial birth abortions legal, defend those who cover up statutory rape with no questions asked abortions for minors and fight parental consent laws.

[007]

Incoherent....okay, I see you don't really want to discuss the issue. That's fine. :cool:
Perfectly coherent, you only comprehend that which agrees with you.
women are Equal to men, no more special rights, pay your way.

[007]

Nothing silly here. All it takes is memorizing the communication style of those who even dig in their heels to keep partial birth abortions legal, defend those who cover up statutory rape with no questions asked abortions for minors and fight parental consent laws.
Not forgetting those post birth abortions, up to 3 days after the infant and placenta are fully separated from the mother.
Just Saying.............

[Trigg]

I have long since given up on this race entirely, Trigg. I don't like either candidate for a lot of reasons.

I am willing to vote for mainstream candidates if they are reasonably normal and decent but neither candidate makes that qualification for me. So I haven't based my vote on this one issue, but this isn't a good thing going on. The entire list of rightwing candidates seemed to be hung up on women's reproduction, from Cain feeling women up to Santorum wanting to forbid birth control to Newt divorcing every wife as soon as she gets sick to Romney and Ryan wanting to force every woman to carry to term fetuses got on them by violent rapists or incestuous fathers.

I have no problem at all with your being pro-life as long as you don't try to force that on any other woman. That would be wrong. The basic, fundamental point is: If you're against abortion, don't have one.

Which leaves men completely out of the issue, which is most definitely where they belong.



On edit: I did read that the Indiana polls as of this morning have run away from Mourdock and are now even, where before they were in his favor. Same direction as with Akin. Now, maybe that isn't true, and you will be a better source of info if you live in Indiana.

I'm not sure where you get your info regarding Romney, he definitely is NOT in favor of forcing a birth on women.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/22/ryan-proud-of-pro-life-record/


Vice presidential hopeful Rep. Paul Ryan said Wednesday he is "comfortable" supporting Mitt Romney's less conservative stance on abortion after a Republican congressman revived the policy debate and defied conservatives like Ryan. "I'm proud of my record," Ryan said. "Mitt Romney is going to be president, and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction."

I am pro-choice to a point, although I don't think it should be used as a birth control method, I do think it should be legal. So YOU have labeled incorrectly. Much like you seem to be doing to Romney.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gv102612dAPR20121026074514.jpg

[mundame]

I'm not sure where you get your info regarding Romney, he definitely is NOT in favor of forcing a birth on women.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/22/ryan-proud-of-pro-life-record/

Sure he is: Romney is running on a GOP platform that says no abortions no matter what. He is responsible for the platform he runs on. He definitely said he would repeal Roe v. Wade, and with delight: you must have seen the film. His VP is an Akin-class oppressive conservative on abortion, who was bent on making laws against any abortion whatsoever for any reason. Now he is not distancing himself from Mourdock, who approves of rape because rape pregnancies are God's Will, he says. Romney is dangerous to women and IMO will lose the race because of women recognizing this. The entire GOP has turned dangerous to women; I honestly don't know what has gotten into them -- I've never seen anything like it before in my life. Maybe they are jealous of the Muslim men who can force women to do anything they want; that's my best explanation of the moment.



I am pro-choice to a point, although I don't think it should be used as a birth control method, I do think it should be legal. So YOU have labeled incorrectly. Much like you seem to be doing to Romney.

Well, you did say "I'm not sure what your problem with being pro-life is..." and why did you say that if you weren't taking an anti-abortion stance? You seem to be trying on a "gotcha" here, saying I mislabeled you, but you did give evidence that you are antiabortion, so I think my assumption that you were against all abortions was reasonable, though I am very glad to see that this is not the case.

It would be interesting to discuss things with you, but I should warn you that I don't do discussions with people who have to do put-downs, gotchas, and insults first and make their arguments second. Why talk with clear enemies, you know? There is a lot of that here and it's contagious. If we can be friendly and pleasant, great. Otherwise I question the point. Enemies are people to stay away from, not spend hours talking with on the Internet.

[Trigg]

Sure he is: Romney is running on a GOP platform that says no abortions no matter what. He is responsible for the platform he runs on. He definitely said he would repeal Roe v. Wade, and with delight: you must have seen the film. His VP is an Akin-class oppressive conservative on abortion, who was bent on making laws against any abortion whatsoever for any reason. Now he is not distancing himself from Mourdock, who approves of rape because rape pregnancies are God's Will, he says. Romney is dangerous to women and IMO will lose the race because of women recognizing this. The entire GOP has turned dangerous to women; I honestly don't know what has gotten into them -- I've never seen anything like it before in my life. Maybe they are jealous of the Muslim men who can force women to do anything they want; that's my best explanation of the moment.




Well, you did say "I'm not sure what your problem with being pro-life is..." and why did you say that if you weren't taking an anti-abortion stance? You seem to be trying on a "gotcha" here, saying I mislabeled you, but you did give evidence that you are antiabortion, so I think my assumption that you were against all abortions was reasonable, though I am very glad to see that this is not the case.

It would be interesting to discuss things with you, but I should warn you that I don't do discussions with people who have to do put-downs, gotchas, and insults first and make their arguments second. Why talk with clear enemies, you know? There is a lot of that here and it's contagious. If we can be friendly and pleasant, great. Otherwise I question the point. Enemies are people to stay away from, not spend hours talking with on the Internet.

I posted a link regarding Romney's position on abortion. Regarding Roe he has stated that he wants the states to rule on abortion rather than the supreme court. The link I posted says he is in in favor of abortion due to rape, incest and health of the mother.

NO ONE has said they approve of rape. Mourdock is basically saying he is against abortion due to rape because it is not the childs fault it was conceived that way.

You assumed I was pro-life when in fact I am pro-choice, to a point. I do not believe in abortion for birth control. No gotcha's there since this is been my stated stance on this forum many times.

[jimnyc]

Sure he is: Romney is running on a GOP platform that says no abortions no matter what.

Can you point this out specifically? Where are you getting this from?

[Nukeman]

Can you point this out specifically? Where are you getting this from?

i believe she is ASSUMING that is what Romney said on his web page, although he purports to be PRO-LIFE he states that the decisions SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE STATES.... She missed that real important part right there!! Like most libs they have a tendancy to only see what they want even though they talk about always looking at the big picture...

[jimnyc]

i believe she is ASSUMING that is what Romney said on his web page, although he purports to be PRO-LIFE he sates that the decisions SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE STATES.... She missed that real important part right there!! Like most libs they have a tendancy to only see what they want even though they talk about always looking at the big picture...

I knew that, I try to always know an answer before I ask, but I still like to see where people get these made up statements from. Basically, what she is claiming, is that the entire GOP is against abortion for Mom's whose lives are in danger and in cases of rape, which is ridiculous, save a few candidates. But it's certainly not the platform of the GOP.

[mundame]

But it's certainly not the platform of the GOP.

Yeah, there was a huge amount of publicity about that at the time of the GOP convention, remember? The abortion plank says no abortion ever, for any reason, no exceptions. And of course Ryan believes the same, yet was selected as VP, so there was a lot of media coverage and woman's groups upset about both the platform plank and the VP at the time. I remember that very well.

Romney was pro-choice in Massachusetts, pro-life running for prez, then lots of exceptions when the heat comes on, then chooses an anti-abortionist VP, then throws rocks at Akin, then doesn't say a word against Mourdock -------------


The only conclusion I can come to about Romney is that he will say ANYthing, anything whatsoever to get elected, and I don't trust him at all. He'll say anything to fool people, as long as it will get him elected. There's no center there.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, there was a huge amount of publicity about that at the time of the GOP convention, remember? The abortion plank says no abortion ever, for any reason, no exceptions. And of course Ryan believes the same, yet was selected as VP, so there was a lot of media coverage and woman's groups upset about both the platform plank and the VP at the time. I remember that very well.

Romney was pro-choice in Massachusetts, pro-life running for prez, then lots of exceptions when the heat comes on, then chooses an anti-abortionist VP, then throws rocks at Akin, then doesn't say a word against Mourdock -------------


The only conclusion I can come to about Romney is that he will say ANYthing, anything whatsoever to get elected, and I don't trust him at all. He'll say anything to fool people, as long as it will get him elected. There's no center there.

Again, YOU said it was part of the GOP platform and said Romney is running on that. Both statements are outright false. I'll quote your words again:


Sure he is: Romney is running on a GOP platform that says no abortions no matter what.


Again, can you show this being part of their platform? That Romney believes abortions no matter what? Their platform, and Romney's stances, are both publicly available.

[tailfins]

Yeah, there was a huge amount of publicity about that at the time of the GOP convention, remember? The abortion plank says no abortion ever, for any reason, no exceptions. And of course Ryan believes the same, yet was selected as VP, so there was a lot of media coverage and woman's groups upset about both the platform plank and the VP at the time. I remember that very well.

Romney was pro-choice in Massachusetts, pro-life running for prez, then lots of exceptions when the heat comes on, then chooses an anti-abortionist VP, then throws rocks at Akin, then doesn't say a word against Mourdock -------------


The only conclusion I can come to about Romney is that he will say ANYthing, anything whatsoever to get elected, and I don't trust him at all. He'll say anything to fool people, as long as it will get him elected. There's no center there.

So you want to keep eating the Obama crap sandwich? That is unless you get your livelihood from a government check and couldn't care less whether your neighbors are in poverty or not. Obama has worsened a worldwide downturn by hogging the credit pool. That leaves credit unavailable for the whole world including Americans. It has also worsened the Euro crisis. Guess what: There will be no money for the 47% if the 53% are taxed and regulated into poverty.

[mundame]

Again, YOU said it was part of the GOP platform and said Romney is running on that. Both statements are outright false. I'll quote your words again:

Again, can you show this being part of their platform? That Romney believes abortions no matter what? Their platform, and Romney's stances, are both publicly available.

It can't be false; there was way too much publicity about the platform plank at the time.

Can you show me how the platform does not take the no-exceptions no-abortion position everyone said it did?

[mundame]

So you want to keep eating the Obama crap sandwich? That is unless you get your livelihood from a government check and couldn't care less whether your neighbors are in poverty or not. Obama has worsened a worldwide downturn by hogging the credit pool. That leaves credit unavailable for the whole world including Americans. It has also worsened the Euro crisis. Guess what: There will be no money for the 47% if the 53% are taxed and regulated into poverty.


We are talking about the Mourdock crisis and whether it will influence the vote for Romney, tailfins.

[jimnyc]

It can't be false; there was way too much publicity about the platform plank at the time.

Can you show me how the platform does not take the no-exceptions no-abortion position everyone said it did?

Wait a minute - you make an outlandish comment and want me to prove it wrong? LOL

How about you read the GOP platform yourself which DOES NOT backup your comments, and show us how you came up with this myth?

http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/
PDF - http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf

[jimnyc]

It can't be false; there was way too much publicity about the platform plank at the time.

Can you show me how the platform does not take the no-exceptions no-abortion position everyone said it did?

IT IS FALSE and NEVER was the case. Only liberal idiots took the words of a couple of people and made it into the entire party platform, it's ridiculous to say, and just as ridiculous to propagate with ZERO proof!

[mundame]

Wait a minute - you make an outlandish comment and want me to prove it wrong? LOL

How about you read the GOP platform yourself which DOES NOT backup your comments, and show us how you came up with this myth?

http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/
PDF - http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2012GOPPlatform.pdf



Migod, it's MUCH worse than even I realized. The relevant part of the "Sanctity and Dignity of Life" plank:

"...we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

So..........."the unborn child has a right to life that cannot be infringed."

"The Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."



No wonder women were so upset about this extremely cruel and radical platform. It criminalizes all of us who have taken birth control pills, for one thing, including me. Plan B, D and C's, doctor-advised abortions for grave reasons, everything out the window.

Have you actually READ this, Jimmy? I'm surprised you wanted me to discuss it considering how really bad it is. Well, no wonder so many GOP candidates are going ape this election.

[jimnyc]

Migod, it's MUCH worse than even I realized. The relevant part of the "Sanctity and Dignity of Life" plank:

"...we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

So..........."the unborn child has a right to life that cannot be infringed."

"The Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."



No wonder women were so upset about this extremely cruel and radical platform. It criminalizes all of us who have taken birth control pills, for one thing, including me. Plan B, D and C's, doctor-advised abortions for grave reasons, everything out the window.

Have you actually READ this, Jimmy? I'm surprised you wanted me to discuss it considering how really bad it is. Well, no wonder so many GOP candidates are going ape this election.

NOWHERE does it discuss rape victims and when a mothers life is in danger - YOU are finding something that simply isn't said there. They are pro-life and what you just quoted has been the stance of pro-lifers since the 70's. NOWHERE does it state the crap you wrote earlier and think it says now. And I don't want to discuss it with you. For whatever reason, as of late, you are simply making things up with no basis in fact and expect people to think these opinions are factual and what people actually stated. But whatever, they obviously don't have your support anyway, and the support of women in general (those that are intellectually honest anyway), has only increased in the past 2-3 months.

[jimnyc]

Interesting, I wonder why Romney goes with the GOP platform, but states this as his personal platform...


Romney previously supported a woman’s right to decide, but he is now adamantly opposed to abortions, unless it involves cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in mortal danger.

It helps when people read and are fully knowledgeable about parties and candidates stances.

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Abortion.php

[jimnyc]

The whole point of this Mourdock character saying such a terrible thing during a Senate race as part of his campaign is to signal that, like Ryan and Atkins AND ROMNEY, he's in favor of no abortion allowed for any reason, however horrible the crime done to the woman.

I would love to know where you came up with this when it's the opposite of Romney's platform from day one.

[mundame]

I would love to know where you came up with this when it's the opposite of Romney's platform from day one.

From the GOP platform. Are you saying Romney's platform is different from the GOP platform?

[jimnyc]

From the GOP platform. Are you saying Romney's platform is different from the GOP platform?

The GOP platform never addresses rape or the mothers life in danger.

[jimnyc]

From the GOP platform. Are you saying Romney's platform is different from the GOP platform?

Besides, how about addressing YOUR OWN WORDS. Nevermind the party for now, you made a pronouncement about Romney, and that's what I'm curious to see you backup. Or do you think every single candidate in a particular party has the same exact stance on every single issue? That would be more than a little naive. With that said, again, they simply don't address the issues you accuse them of anyway.

[mundame]

The GOP platform never addresses rape or the mothers life in danger.


Well, it does, by implication: it says


"the unborn child has a right to life that cannot be infringed."

"The Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."


So there is no circumstance whatsoever, not rape, not gross disability, not the mother in danger of dying, not incest, not anything at all that would, according to the Republican platform that Romney is running on, justify abortion. No abortion under any circumstances according the statement quoted above.

Right?

I don't see how you can get away from the logic of the statements above. They say what they say; it is what it is.

[jimnyc]

Well, it does, by implication: it says


"the unborn child has a right to life that cannot be infringed."

"The Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."


So there is no circumstance whatsoever, not rape, not gross disability, not the mother in danger of dying, not incest, not anything at all that would, according to the Republican platform that Romney is running on, justify abortion. No abortion under any circumstances according the statement quoted above.

Right?

I don't see how you can get away from the logic of the statements above. They say what they say; it is what it is.

Believe what you will, I posted what Mitt's stance is, which proved your initial statements wrong. If you want to stand your ground on words never spoken, by party or candidate, that's your business.

[mundame]

Okay, Jimmy, and thanx for the nice discussion; I enjoyed it.

[jimnyc]

Okay, Jimmy, and thanx for the nice discussion; I enjoyed it.

Fair enough! We agree to disagree then.

[SassyLady]

I would get over it if it were just a private citizen making such a comment. People can believe whatever cruel idiocy they want to, I feel, as long as they don't afflict other people with their beliefs.

The whole point of this Mourdock character saying such a terrible thing during a Senate race as part of his campaign is to signal that, like Ryan and Atkins AND ROMNEY, he's in favor of no abortion allowed for any reason, however horrible the crime done to the woman.

So that takes it out of the realm of just the usual despicable comment from men in dire need of controlling women and makes Mourdock dangerous.

I think this may well lose Romney the race.

I bet he ends up desperately distancing himself from Mourdock and pulling the ad he made for him.

Mundame .... why do you think rape is more cruel than murdering a child?

[SassyLady]

We are talking about the Mourdock crisis and whether it will influence the vote for Romney, tailfins.

It won't.

[SassyLady]

It can't be false; there was way too much publicity about the platform plank at the time.

Can you show me how the platform does not take the no-exceptions no-abortion position everyone said it did?

They must have had a vote after the platform was announced ..... perhaps something like the DNC having to vote on Jerusalem and God? Imagine everyone still running around blathering about the DNC being anti-Jerusalem and Anti-God which everyone knows to be not true. (sarcasm)

[red states rule]

Migod, it's MUCH worse than even I realized. The relevant part of the "Sanctity and Dignity of Life" plank:

"...we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life."

So..........."the unborn child has a right to life that cannot be infringed."

"The Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."



No wonder women were so upset about this extremely cruel and radical platform. It criminalizes all of us who have taken birth control pills, for one thing, including me. Plan B, D and C's, doctor-advised abortions for grave reasons, everything out the window.

Have you actually READ this, Jimmy? I'm surprised you wanted me to discuss it considering how really bad it is. Well, no wonder so many GOP candidates are going ape this election.

What is cruel and radical is an unborn child being murdered. Please explain to me why even in the case of rape, the baby needs be killed

Also, how is protecting the life of the child a "war on women"?

[mundame]

Mundame .... why do you think rape is more cruel than murdering a child?

I don't say that.

We aren't talking about murdering a child.

We are talking about abortion: pre-empting a child. In this case, a child of violent, injurious, threatening rape which would be a gross cruelty to require a woman to carry to term.

Rapists should never have children. For one thing, it breeds more rapists.

[Gaffer]

I don't say that.

We aren't talking about murdering a child.

We are talking about abortion: pre-empting a child. In this case, a child of violent, injurious, threatening rape which would be a gross cruelty to require a woman to carry to term.

Rapists should never have children. For one thing, it breeds more rapists.

That is a silly statement.

[tailfins]

I don't say that.

We aren't talking about murdering a child.

We are talking about abortion: pre-empting a child. In this case, a child of violent, injurious, threatening rape which would be a gross cruelty to require a woman to carry to term.

Rapists should never have children. For one thing, it breeds more rapists.

Since your OP is about how this will affect Mitt Romney; it just underscores why I am an early Romney supporter. One key to an effective organization is to produce reasonable results with unreasonable people. You evaluate people as a whole, play to their strengths and keep them away from tasks that might get them into trouble. You appear eager to toss Romney because he has some problem people on his team. This gives Romney an opportunity to show how he gets things done.

The best answer to abortion for a rape victims is that it is a distraction from the discussion of abortion overall, then one could cite a statistic on what percentage of abortions are done for rape victims.

[mundame]

You appear eager to toss Romney because he has some problem people on his team. This gives Romney an opportunity to show how he gets things done.




He is getting things done surprisingly poorly given that both Akin and Mourdock are still on his "team." He moved heaven and earth to get rid of Akin without result: Akin is still running and will probably lose Missouri to the Democrats. He hasn't said word one against Mourdock, though if anything what Mourdock said was worse, and Mourdock may lose Indiana to the Democrats. I think Romney is doing terrible -- inconsistent, losing the Senate, the candidates just ignore him and do and say what they please.

[tailfins]

He is getting things done surprisingly poorly given that both Akin and Mourdock are still on his "team." He moved heaven and earth to get rid of Akin without result: Akin is still running and will probably lose Missouri to the Democrats. He hasn't said word one against Mourdock, though if anything what Mourdock said was worse, and Mourdock may lose Indiana to the Democrats. I think Romney is doing terrible -- inconsistent, losing the Senate, the candidates just ignore him and do and say what they please.

If you did a scientific poll asking "Is ALL conception the work of God?", most people would respond "yes". I don't think the gotcha against Mourdock will be successful. As far as Akin goes, he was the opponent Crooked Claire McCaskill selected by manipulating the primary. As someone who takes risks to defend colleagues who are being "managed out" where everything they do is wrong, your line of responses resembles having a "target". It's sad to see people tolerate corruption subordinate to ideology.

[jimnyc]

I don't say that.

We aren't talking about murdering a child.

We are talking about abortion: pre-empting a child. In this case, a child of violent, injurious, threatening rape which would be a gross cruelty to require a woman to carry to term.

Rapists should never have children. For one thing, it breeds more rapists.

Do you have ANYTHING at all to back this up? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing rapists put down like dogs, but I don't think fictional statements will change anything.

[red states rule]

What is cruel and radical is an unborn child being murdered. Please explain to me why even in the case of rape, the baby needs be killed

Also, how is protecting the life of the child a "war on women"?

Any comment Mundame or are you restricting yourself to anti Romney rants?

[red states rule]

This may the reason for Mundams wackco posts. She gets her information from NPR





When conservative tax dollars support public radio stations across America, what kind of programming gets aired? One radical show is “Smiley and West,” which is distributed by Public Radio International. This weekend, PBS star Tavis Smiley was too busy, so they replaced him with Julianne Malveaux – the loud-mouthed wacko who infamously announced (http://archive.mrc.org/specialreports/2011/PBS/ThomasDeathWish.aspx) on the PBS show To The Contrary that someone should feed Clarence Thomas a lot of cholestrol so he dies young.

So much for civility. It was a freaky show, with Malveaux not only emitting the usual charge that the polls are only close because of racism against Obama, but that white women have “battered women syndrome” if they’re picking Romney. A guest added Romney-Ryan was a “white supremacist ticket.”
CORNEL WEST, co-host: Give us your take on where we are now, isn’t it frightening that the polls say that the election is so close given the candidates. What’s going on right now?

JULIANNE MALVEAUX: Well the underlying fact is in my opinion is racism, quite frankly. There are a lot of people looking for reasons not to vote for President Obama. If you believe in freedom and justice and you look at those two records. If you were poor who would you vote for? Obama not Romney. However, you have people who are frighteningly in favor of Romney.
Then came the issue of women:

MALVEAUX: One of the statistics that frightened me was that a number of white women after the first debate because they felt that Romney was strong and Obama was weak. So, I mean I’m out of order her, but I’m saying, do these women engage in battered women syndrome? Do you want a bully in your face? This man (Romney) who’s pushing his finger and acting like you know Robo-Man, is that what you prefer?

You know, Brother Obama did not do his best in the first debate, we know that. But how do you switch your allegiance because somebody is a bully? And I’ll tell you I had fallen before the second debate and I hit my head, but I wouldn’t go to the doctor because I had to watch the debate. So when the man said the binders of women I thought he said the bondage of women.

WEST: Oh my God, my God.

MALVEAUX: I had to watch it a second time because I’m like okay I must be tripping.
Speaking of black women tripping, they also invited on radical feminist Bell Hooks (who’s such a self-conscious rebel she likes to avoid capitalizing her name). She one-upped Malveaux. Blacks, too, have a taste for fascism and greed, even Obama:

BELL HOOKS: People are really intoxicated by greed on all levels people of all colors. So, we can’t even say it’s a white thing. We see that Obama himself, he’s totally allied himself you know with the rich. You know I have tremendous respect for Obama but when he signed the Patriot Act again, I thought you know this is part of the Fascism that's destroying the incredible democracy of our nation and how can you be a part of that? How can you take that lightly? Well greed is what makes all of that possible.

Then they discussed how somehow Romney is worse than George “Segregation Forever” Wallace:

WEST: We're in some very sad times when you really look at the level of suffering and misery and the desperation and confusion and so many people just so eager to strike out against the most vulnerable rather than to trump the most powerful.

HOOKS: Well did you think we would ever live to see a white man running on a white supremacist ticket for Presidency?

WEST: Oh ho ho ho ho ho ho ho! Good God almighty! Well we saw George Wallace in 1968.

HOOKS: But this is even more overt this man you know he knows exactly what he's calling forth.

WEST: And look at the polls, its neck and neck, sister Bell.

HOOKS: Well you know Cornel I don’t like to talk about out political situation because I believe the rich are destroying the earth, and I believe that our electoral system is for the rich, and it’s hard, because as much as we might care for brother Obama, he’s part of that destruction.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/10/29/npr-stations-air-poison-pro-gop-women-are-battered-romneys-white-suprema#ixzz2AiYRxzTk

[mundame]

Rapists should never have children. For one thing, it breeds more rapists.


Do you have ANYTHING at all to back this up? Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing rapists put down like dogs, but I don't think fictional statements will change anything.


Naaaah, It's just my opinion that EVERYthing is breedable. All farmer types (and I am a farmer type) think that way, that absolutely anything can be bred in or out of any herd or flock. That's why if a ewe loses her lamb, she gets culled; it's not fair, but it sure does improve the flock. A ram that butts ewes "grows wheels" very quickly, off to the auction.

I think people are the same exactly as animals in that they differ by genetics in color, in lip size, nose shape, size, intelligence, and lately there is lots of research going on about whether there are genes for impulsiveness, violence, psychopathy, and perhaps other issues of disposition.

I think rapists are probably bred as well as made, but that's just me -- I tend to think most things are bred in. Feel free not to pay attention to that idea if you don't like it, it's just an opinion.

[red states rule]

Naaaah, It's just my opinion that EVERYthing is breedable. All farmer types (and I am a farmer type) think that way, that absolutely anything can be bred in or out of any herd or flock. That's why if a ewe loses her lamb, she gets culled; it's not fair, but it sure does improve the herd. A ram that butts ewes "grows wheels" very quickly, off to the auction.

I think people are the same exactly as animals in that they differ in color, in lip size, nose shape, intelligence, and lately there is lots of research going on about whether there are genes for impulsiveness, violence, psychopathy, and perhaps other issues of disposition.

I think rapists are probably bred as well as made, but that's just me -- I tend to think most things are bred in. Feel free not to pay attention to that idea if you don't like it, it's just an opinion.

Is that where you acquired your bigotry for Mormons?

[tailfins]

Rapists should never have children. For one thing, it breeds more rapists.




Naaaah, It's just my opinion that EVERYthing is breedable. All farmer types (and I am a farmer type) think that way, that absolutely anything can be bred in or out of any herd or flock. That's why if a ewe loses her lamb, she gets culled; it's not fair, but it sure does improve the flock. A ram that butts ewes "grows wheels" very quickly, off to the auction.

I think people are the same exactly as animals in that they differ by genetics in color, in lip size, nose shape, size, intelligence, and lately there is lots of research going on about whether there are genes for impulsiveness, violence, psychopathy, and perhaps other issues of disposition.

I think rapists are probably bred as well as made, but that's just me -- I tend to think most things are bred in. Feel free not to pay attention to that idea if you don't like it, it's just an opinion.

Why stop with rapists? What if the same idea is applied to other undesirables? Actually your point of view matches the founders of Planned Parenthood:


At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains."


http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

[tailfins]

Does anyone else here find it odd that someone who posts about "thinning the herd" in human terms complains about extremist remarks on abortion?

[red states rule]

Does anyone else here find it odd that someone who posts about "thinning the herd" in human terms complains about extremist remarks on abortion?

Not with Lamedame. She would be a perfect guest host on MSNBC when Rachal MAddow takes the night off

[SassyLady]

I don't say that.

We aren't talking about murdering a child.

We are talking about abortion: pre-empting a child. In this case, a child of violent, injurious, threatening rape which would be a gross cruelty to require a woman to carry to term.

Rapists should never have children. For one thing, it breeds more rapists.

You talk about "pre-empting" a child as if children were throw-away items....something distasteful. The rape is what is horrendous ... not the child.

As for rapists breeding more rapists ..... do you have stats to support that rapists were born from rape? Or stats that say if every pregnancy that resulted from rape was aborted all rape would cease? Hmmmm...didn't think so. RAPE IS NOT GENETIC and to say so is asinine.

[red states rule]

You talk about "pre-empting" a child as if children were throw-away items....something distasteful. The rape is what is horrendous ... not the child.

As for rapists breeding more rapists ..... do you have stats to support that rapists were born from rape? Or stats that say if every pregnancy that resulted from rape was aborted all rape would cease? Hmmmm...didn't think so. RAPE IS NOT GENETIC and to say so is asinine.

Remember Sen Obama voted several times to DENY medical attention to babies who survived an abortion. They were allowed to die slowly in the name of "choice"

Meanwhile people like Mundame ignore a human life is snuffed out and babbles on about rape, choice, and the war on women