USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
It never ends... a lovely sentiment from Richard Mourdock (running for Senate in IL) saying pregnancies from rape are gods will.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...te-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2
It never ends... a lovely sentiment from Richard Mourdock (running for Senate in IL) saying pregnancies from rape are gods will.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...te-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
At what point does the Republican brain trust tell it's caucus to SHUT THE **** UP about rape and everything else that could possibly turn into another flap over women?
And at what point does the Republican brain trust simply tell their politicians they aren't allowed to talk to the media period?
Seriously. This is why I'm voting Democrat this election cycle. It's time to teach the Republicans a hard, hard lesson.
At what point does the Republican brain trust tell it's caucus to SHUT THE **** UP about rape and everything else that could possibly turn into another flap over women?
And at what point does the Republican brain trust simply tell their politicians they aren't allowed to talk to the media period?
Seriously. This is why I'm voting Democrat this election cycle. It's time to teach the Republicans a hard, hard lesson.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
They won't tell them that because that type of thinking is mainstream for today's Republican party.
They won't tell them that because that type of thinking is mainstream for today's Republican party.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
Tisei is a good man. Can't wait to see how the southern evangelical tea party republicans take to an openly gay, pro choice, voted for Romneycare republican.
Tisei is a good man. Can't wait to see how the southern evangelical tea party republicans take to an openly gay, pro choice, voted for Romneycare republican.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
My theory - in states like Indiana, that line of thought is basically a given among identified "conservative" voters. Therefore, "whatever" is the attitude when it comes to the state elections, as the GOP tries to quickly sweep it under the rug before the national media latches onto it. Unfortunately for them, Akin has the media super-tuned to right-wing derp this year.
My theory - in states like Indiana, that line of thought is basically a given among identified "conservative" voters. Therefore, "whatever" is the attitude when it comes to the state elections, as the GOP tries to quickly sweep it under the rug before the national media latches onto it. Unfortunately for them, Akin has the media super-tuned to right-wing derp this year.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
That's my point. WTF is wrong with them?
That's my point. WTF is wrong with them?
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
The Tea Party has been winning primaries with guys that were quite frankly, out on the edge before 2008. It's not that surprising that these guys are continuing to say the things that they were saying back then now that they're in a general election. Mourdock and Akin were both the most extreme of the options in the primary which at the same time took two seats that should have been safe republican and made them less so.
The Tea Party has been winning primaries with guys that were quite frankly, out on the edge before 2008. It's not that surprising that these guys are continuing to say the things that they were saying back then now that they're in a general election. Mourdock and Akin were both the most extreme of the options in the primary which at the same time took two seats that should have been safe republican and made them less so.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
It possibly cost them the Senate in 2010 and appears to be causing similar issues this time around. I don't know how much control they really have to shut it down, or they would have by now.
It possibly cost them the Senate in 2010 and appears to be causing similar issues this time around. I don't know how much control they really have to shut it down, or they would have by now.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
Why shouldn't they say anything different? Nothing has changed in the last 2 years.
Why shouldn't they say anything different? Nothing has changed in the last 2 years.
ericredaxe
Veteran
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
Thats what I'm saying...(and I'm saying this as somebody who really feels the republican party has left me) guys with this attitude are not the ones out on the edge of today's republican party. If they were, they would not have been the ones winning the primaries. The socially moderate republicans are really the ones who are on the fringe of the party.
That's just it... people with these types of social believe ARE the ones who hold the true power in todays republican party.
Thats what I'm saying...(and I'm saying this as somebody who really feels the republican party has left me) guys with this attitude are not the ones out on the edge of today's republican party. If they were, they would not have been the ones winning the primaries. The socially moderate republicans are really the ones who are on the fringe of the party.
That's just it... people with these types of social believe ARE the ones who hold the true power in todays republican party.
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
Living in Mass I don't run into too many hard core social conservatives, but do righties really believe, as in the voters not the pols, that rape victims should be forced to have their attackers' child? To me that's just barbaric and Talibanesque. Now as to why we keep seeing Republican candidates running on this platform, my theory is that most conservatives don't think this way (at least I hope they don't). Rather, the problem is 30 years ago up until fairly recently you could get by with a blanket "I'm pro life" statment, and few people especially in the news media bothered to find out what exactly that meant. In a 24/7 gotcha news cycle, a lot of light is being shone on these positions now.
A long, long time ago when I was in college I did a paper on the evolving health care debate, and came across a blurb about when Roe v Wade was handed down in 1973. At the time, people thought everyone felt the same way as they did about the subject, so when the ruling came out some people were thinking no big deal and others couldn't figure out why there weren't riots in the streets. I suspect with conservative politicians and the people backing them something similar is going on as in some Murdoch voters will be "whats' the big deal" and other will be horrified now that this has come out.
Living in Mass I don't run into too many hard core social conservatives, but do righties really believe, as in the voters not the pols, that rape victims should be forced to have their attackers' child? To me that's just barbaric and Talibanesque. Now as to why we keep seeing Republican candidates running on this platform, my theory is that most conservatives don't think this way (at least I hope they don't). Rather, the problem is 30 years ago up until fairly recently you could get by with a blanket "I'm pro life" statment, and few people especially in the news media bothered to find out what exactly that meant. In a 24/7 gotcha news cycle, a lot of light is being shone on these positions now.
A long, long time ago when I was in college I did a paper on the evolving health care debate, and came across a blurb about when Roe v Wade was handed down in 1973. At the time, people thought everyone felt the same way as they did about the subject, so when the ruling came out some people were thinking no big deal and others couldn't figure out why there weren't riots in the streets. I suspect with conservative politicians and the people backing them something similar is going on as in some Murdoch voters will be "whats' the big deal" and other will be horrified now that this has come out.
DaveStPaul
New member
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
ericredaxe, I'm also somebody who the Republican Party has left. That being said, I don't know anything else about Richard Mourdock; but looking only at his statement:
1) Someone saying "I have wrestled with this, but I've come to accept that life comes from God" is not saying God wants rape to happen, which his Mourdock's challenger accused him of thinking. It makes a good headline; and everybody's forwarding it all over the place; but that actual position is not indefensible.
There is a legitimate philosophical argument for respecting life, in all forms, from conception to death. It's the Catholic Church's position as well, which I learned when I married a Catholic. It was something I'd never thought about before: the consistency of the position that life is life, and the humility it requires of you to try to live up to that. That's not something I've been able to get to. But talking to people who've given it a lot of thought has given me respect for the reasoning.
(I also think it's very different from Akin talking about "legitimate rape," which is loony, and does tell you a lot about how he thinks.)
Like I said, I don't know anything else about this guy, he might actually be loony. And of course, his position is 100% vote-against-able, if you want.
2) I'd rather have the candidate give a real position, with his/her philosophical underpinings, like this guy did, so you know what you're getting; then if you think it's ridiculous it's easy to vote against them; versus somebody like Romney who I can't tell what he actually thinks, and doesn't have arguments backing up his positions, besides stuff like, "The American people are hurting! They've got to get back to work!" (Why didn't I think of that? Great! Great thinking.)
ericredaxe, I'm also somebody who the Republican Party has left. That being said, I don't know anything else about Richard Mourdock; but looking only at his statement:
1) Someone saying "I have wrestled with this, but I've come to accept that life comes from God" is not saying God wants rape to happen, which his Mourdock's challenger accused him of thinking. It makes a good headline; and everybody's forwarding it all over the place; but that actual position is not indefensible.
There is a legitimate philosophical argument for respecting life, in all forms, from conception to death. It's the Catholic Church's position as well, which I learned when I married a Catholic. It was something I'd never thought about before: the consistency of the position that life is life, and the humility it requires of you to try to live up to that. That's not something I've been able to get to. But talking to people who've given it a lot of thought has given me respect for the reasoning.
(I also think it's very different from Akin talking about "legitimate rape," which is loony, and does tell you a lot about how he thinks.)
Like I said, I don't know anything else about this guy, he might actually be loony. And of course, his position is 100% vote-against-able, if you want.
2) I'd rather have the candidate give a real position, with his/her philosophical underpinings, like this guy did, so you know what you're getting; then if you think it's ridiculous it's easy to vote against them; versus somebody like Romney who I can't tell what he actually thinks, and doesn't have arguments backing up his positions, besides stuff like, "The American people are hurting! They've got to get back to work!" (Why didn't I think of that? Great! Great thinking.)
gojackets
New member
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
You convieniently left off the rest of the quote..."and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said
You convieniently left off the rest of the quote..."and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen," Mourdock said
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
OK, just one item of food for thought, for you blood-lusters. Then I'll go away. If the mother didn't tell anyone she had been raped, but it was discovered when the child was five or ten years old that they were a product of a rape, would he or she (the child) still deserve a death sentence without trial for the crime of being so conceived? How would you recommend the killing be carried out? Knives? Poison? Hanging?
Just asking.
Does anyone think it might be more appropriate to punish the rapist?
OK, just one item of food for thought, for you blood-lusters. Then I'll go away. If the mother didn't tell anyone she had been raped, but it was discovered when the child was five or ten years old that they were a product of a rape, would he or she (the child) still deserve a death sentence without trial for the crime of being so conceived? How would you recommend the killing be carried out? Knives? Poison? Hanging?
Just asking.
Does anyone think it might be more appropriate to punish the rapist?
gojackets
New member
Re: Elections 2012: Congressional and Gubernatorial
The loophole in your statement is that in your scenario the woman chose not to tell anyone that she was raped. She chose to keep the child. She had a choice. If you outlaw abortion, you are taking that choice away from people.
There will never be a law saying "If a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape--then she must abort the baby," which would make your scenario somewhat plausible. (stupid, but plausible)
The loophole in your statement is that in your scenario the woman chose not to tell anyone that she was raped. She chose to keep the child. She had a choice. If you outlaw abortion, you are taking that choice away from people.
There will never be a law saying "If a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape--then she must abort the baby," which would make your scenario somewhat plausible. (stupid, but plausible)
- Status