Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.
Absolutely. And you have the right to vote or not vote for that person, based on YOUR beliefs, and their beliefs...
And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level
but it is your right to vote for him, or Murdock or Akin based on YOUR beliefs, and what you know about theirs, just as if I lived in Indiana, it would be my right to vote for or against Murdock for the same reasons.
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!
Sure, lets go into all the cults, including the progressive cult that treats government as a god, and what that cult has done, under their god's guise of "fairness" and "equality," to individual rights. And that's present day!
It appears that people think their god is better than other folk's god. Don't everyody's god poo stink? That seems to be the nature of poo.
If you don't poo in my back yard, I won't poo in yours.
And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level
.
yes or no question - you believe the government has the right to seize more that 1/2 your property after you die if you have accumulated more that a million dollars of worth (worth, not dollars, estates are valued with all property)?
I believe it is an absolute crime.
Maybe God is sitting up on his cloud and and thinking of ways to get people all pissed of about stuff so he can amuse himself (or herself if you belive that). That's the best explanation I can come up with. Or, maybe there's no God and Allah is really the one messing with everyone. Who knows? I never understood why one person's superior being was better than another's.
Conservatism is not about leaving people behind. Conservatism is about empowering people to catch up, to give them tools at their disposal that make it possible for them to access all the hope, all the promise, all the opportunity that America offers. - Marco Rubio
OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.
Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.
Comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek. But for a few examples:
Army of God bombing abortion clinics?
The KKK?
Catholic/Protestant conflicts in Ireland?
Anders Breivik?
The NAZIS?? (which to be fair about half of the ruling party members rejected christianity, but radical christian ideology was a major part of the propaganda)
My point is simply that when it comes to religion, no one's hands are clean.
Unless you're a Buddhist. I can't think of any Buddhist bombings
This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."
Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.
And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.
And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
I admire Santayana's writings very much. I especially am in tune with his views on nature. Not the syruppy isn't it all beautiful and scenic and lets take a picture view, but on nature being the foundation through which we experience life.
As for the quote of which you are reminded, it has become a truism. We now apply it to the horrors and wars of the past. But Santayana was not referring only to destructive events, he was talking about the destruction of the past itself. There is much in history that he loves. He is very much a traditionalist and a believer that much of the past is good and we would not be "condemned" to repeat but would be blessed to retain.
A fuller quote which includes what immediately is written before the famous passage is: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
This so much applies to what has happened in the history of our country. The Founders searched the past, and retained that which previous experience from classical history to their present day would best secure natural liberty. They weren't about absolute change. They were about improving history and the liberty of the beings that populate it. Then, a movement, progressivism, sprung from cataclysmic 19th century thinkers who wanted to reject the past as a means to improve the lot of the common man. Their "theories" were not based in nature as a foundation, but nature to be tamed and molded to fit what they considered good. That movement spread to "intellectuals" here, ironically, as an administrative method copied from Prussia which was instituted there to keep the masses from overthrowing the monarchy. The Progressives considered the Constitution "outdated," irrelevant, and an obstruction to their goal of an all-powerful system of central government which could more efficiently deliver and administer an "effective" freedom to the people rather than a merely legal freedom garanteed by the Constitution. It is this administrative system based on "modern" thinkers rather than past experience which we have today. Actually that "modern" system has been applied in recent history from WWI to the present in the West and, in a more severe form, in the East. It is no longer modern and the experience of effective liberty has not been as beneficial to freedom as was legal liberty. Actually the trajectory has been to benefit collective groups at the expense of the individual.
To that point, you might consider another Santayana quote: "individualism is in one sense the only possible ideal; for whatever social order may be most valuable can be valuable only for its effect on conscious individuals."
Another quote by him that I find more interesting than the rest: "There is eternal war in nature . . . War is but resisted change; and change must needs be resisted so long as the organism it would destroy retains any vitality." This can not only apply, again, to the Constitution and the war being waged on it and the resistance to that change if there is enough vitality left in the resistance. It also gives the lie to the quest for peace without victory. We are the product of war. Every molecule of our being is at war to survive and flourish against constant invasions of microbes and forces of nature. It is a war which we, as individuals will eventually lose. But we live on with the progeny who survive natural deaths and unnatural abortions and who will continue the battle. Our universal, material, biological inheritance is composed of this battle and every fiber of our being is informed by it. It is our natural mode. We must win to survive. We cannot compromise in this battle, not only with the forces of nature, but against the human forces that wish to enslave or destroy us. Santayana also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Peace will come with victory, either by those who wish to enslave or those who wish to be free. And that peace will last only until the next battle.
If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.
We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.
As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.
Last edited by detbuch; 10-26-2012 at 07:45 PM..
Reason: typos and addition
Wow,way to keep the thread going with no clue what I meant.I certainly was not comparing Christianity with the Taliban. The comparison was between two groups who take their religious beliefs to the extreme. In my opinion detbutch and JimCT(shock) display just that when compared with the majority of their Christian peers. I think the Taliban subscribe to similar passion when compared with the majority of their peers. I would also venture a guess that history would reveal more deaths in the name of Ghristianity than all other religions combined.
We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.
As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.
Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.
While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause. It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible. My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.
And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.
I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.
Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.
The quote is from an essay "tipperary" found in a collection of essays (he calls them soliloquies) entitled "Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies." If you can't get the book at the library, you can probably find the essay (or the entire book) on line. It is elusive and sometimes hard to track down. It was, for me, one of the most influential essays I have ever read. Read it a long time ago in my college days when I was more impressionable. But rereading it impresses me as much or more than it did then. Only that which is in quotes in my post is Santayana's. The rest is my extrapolation from what he says. Though it was written in 1922, I think, it is timeless and relevant today. If you can't find it, let me know.
While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause.
I have to respectfully disagree. If I knowingly twist something you say as an excuse or a cause to commit a murder or other mayhem, especially if what you say directs me to do the opposite, the direct cause would be my personal motives, not your words. If a sympathetic jury was persuaded that you didn't maliciously twist words and was erroneously inspired by them to do harm, they might let you off with a lesser sentence depending on the severity of the crime, but could not condemn the words whose meaning was the opposite of what you interpreted. The direct cause would not be the words but your misinterpretation of them. Otherwise, since good can be so easily corrupted and then be the cause of evil, why do good?
It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible.
It matters because it demonstrates that the bible was not needed. Therefor it was not the cause.
My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.
Sure, it makes sense to believe that extremism exists, not only in both, or all, religions, but the same sense would lead you to believe that extremism exists in all things human. The problem with making anything useful of that sense is that those you consider to be extreme believe that they are not, and, perhaps, that you are. If by extreme you simply mean out of step with the majority of a group, that could "mean" innumerable things. It could be a pejorative difference to those who have collectivist mentalities, or it could be a desirable trait to individualists. Being extreme, in itself, says very little other than a severe difference. Extremities can be simply functional with no connotation of "good" or "bad." On the other hand, they can be descriptive moral or social qualities. You can be extremely good or extremely good at something. Or extremely bad. But, again, the good or bad can be a matter of opinion.
As for Mourdock's supposedly "extreme" view, there are obviously differing opinions whether his belief is good or proper or correct. If the extreme is merely that his views are a minority opinion, there is no quality to that other than numbers.
And so much of history, whether it be religious, political, economical, social, whatever, is, as you say, "stained in blood." That is part of nature's eternal war. Those that think that the blood staining will stop if we could all just get along and all think the same way,and that clashes among differing tribes will melt by a universal peace treaty (without victory) don't have a very clear picture of what drives humanity.
And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.
I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.
Spiritually, we have a lot in common. George Carlin, not so much. He's VERY (extremely?) funny . . . but not so deep. Perhaps, I have learned to be more tolerant of "extremists" when they have no impact on my life--such as mourdock's supposed extremism. Extremism can be a spice of life. It can lead to "good" change as well as "bad." The mediocre in-between seldom moves anything.
Basswipe, what if you were conceived via rape? Would you rather be aborted, or brought into the world?
The 'Gods will' argument doesn't mean that anything immoral is acceptable. It just implies that things happen for a reason, even though that reason often isn't clear in the here and now. That's where 'faith' comes in. The fact that events are God's will doesn't mean that we don't have free will, and it doesn't mean that certain things are wrong.
This post says as much about you as Murdoch's statement says about him.
Yes I would rather be aborted.
As to the rest of your post it is completely meaningless to me as I have no "faith" and I do not believe in god,I'm a realist.
And I don't really care what my statement says about me in your mind.
As to the rest of your post it is completely meaningless to me as I have no "faith" and I do not believe in god,I'm a realist.
And I don't really care what my statement says about me in your mind.
Couldn't agree more with you.
My take on this is the child should have a "chance". And by chance, I mean the mother should always under any circumstance have the option to chose weather she has a child or not. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Does that mean I think rape is no big deal? Hell, no. But I don't see the subsequent miracle of life as morally equivalent to the repugnant violation that preceded it.
Lets address this with a satirical piece a friend just happened to link:
Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.
So I want to take time out of my schedule to thank you for supporting my right to control a woman’s life, not just when I’m raping her, but for all the rest of her life as well.
Ah, I see by your surprised face that you at the very least claim to have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, here’s the thing. Every time you say “I oppose a woman’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape,” what you’re also saying is “I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman’s body and life than that woman does.”
Oh, look. That surprised face again. All right, then. On the chance that you’re not giving me that surprised face just for the sake of public appearances, let me explain it to you, because it’s important for me that you know just how much I appreciate everything you’re doing for me.
So, let’s say I’ve raped a woman, as I do, because it’s my thing. I’ve had my fun, reminding that woman where she stands on the whole “being able to control things about her life” thing. But wait! There’s more. Since I didn’t use a condom (maybe I’m confident I can get other people to believe it was consensual, you see, or maybe I just like it that way), one thing has led to another and I’ve gotten this woman pregnant.
Now, remember how I said the thing I really like about raping a woman is the control it gives me over her? Well, getting a woman pregnant is even better. Because long after I’m gone, she still has to deal with me and what I’ve done to her. She has to deal with what’s happening to her body. She has to deal with doctor visits. She has to deal with the choice whether to have an abortion or not — which means she has to deal with everyone in the country, including you, having an opinion about it and giving her crap about it. And if she does have an abortion, she has to deal with all the hassle of that, too, because folks like you, of course, have gone out of your way to make it a hassle, which I appreciate. Thank you.
Every moment of that process, she has to be thinking of me, and how I’ve forced all of this on her — exercised my ability to bend her life away from what it was to what I’ve made of it. Me exercising my control.
I gotta tell you, it feels awesome.
But! You know what would feel even more awesome? The knowledge that, if you get your way and abortion is outlawed even in cases of rape, that my control of her will continue through all the rest of her life.
First, because she’ll have no legal choice about whether to have the baby I put in her — sorry, dearie, you have no control at all! You have to have it! That’s nine months of having your body warp and twist and change because I decided that you needed a little lesson on who’s actually running the show. That’s sweet.
Once the baby’s born, the woman will have to decide whether to keep it. Here’s an interesting fact: Of the women who have gotten pregnant from rape who give birth to that baby, most keep the baby, by a ratio of about five to one. So my ability to change the life of the woman just keeps growing, doesn’t it? From the rape, to the nine months of the pregnancy, to the rest of her life dealing with the child I raped into her. Of course, she could put the kid up for adoption, but that’s its own bundle of issues, isn’t it? And even then, she’s dealing with the choices I made for her, when I exercised my control over her life.
Best of all, I get to do all that without much consequence! Oh, sure, theoretically I can get charged with rape and go to prison for it. But you know what? For every hundred men who rape, only three go to prison. Those are pretty good odds for me, especially since — again! — folks like you like to muddy up the issue saying things like “forcible rape.” Keep doing that! It’s working out great for me.
As for the kid, well, oddly enough, most women I rape want nothing to do with me afterward, so it’s not like I will have to worry about child support or any other sort of responsibility… unless of course I decide that I haven’t taught that woman a big enough lesson about who’s really in control of her life. Did you know that 31 states in this country don’t keep rapists from seeking custody or visitation rights? How great is that? That’s just one more thing she has to worry about — me crawling out of the woodwork to remind her of what I did, and am continuing to do, to her life.
Look how much control you want to give me over that woman! I really can’t thank you enough for it. It warms my heart to know no matter how much I rape, or how many women I impregnate through my non-consensual sexual battery, you have my back, when it comes to reminding every woman I humiliate who is actually the boss of her. It’s me! It’s always been me! You’ll make sure it’ll always be me. You’ll see to that.
I am totally voting for you this election.
Yours,
Just Another Rapist.
P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!
Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.
Dear lowly esteemed and evil rapist: my allegience is to the Constitution, not your perverted need. One individual's unconsented control over another is as repugnant to me as a government's unconsented control over the individual. I believe government, that which governs least, is necessary, and that the people must consent to it. I believe that the government and the people must be governed by the rule of law to which they have consented. Tyrants like you are as odious to me as is a tyrannical government.
So I want to take time out of my schedule to thank you for supporting my right to control a woman’s life, not just when I’m raping her, but for all the rest of her life as well.
Ah, I see by your surprised face that you at the very least claim to have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, here’s the thing. Every time you say “I oppose a woman’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape,” what you’re also saying is “I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman’s body and life than that woman does.”
I do not support your right to control anybody but yourself, which you apparently are not capable of doing. I support the people's right to choose on the legality of abortion. I do not support the Federal Government dictating that right. It is not granted that power in the Constitution. I am not surprised by the weasely words of a control freak. I have seen the words of progressive politicians and judges that twist the words of the Constitution to allow them to control us in ways that Constitution would not allow. I am very familiar and not surprised by this tactic.
Oh, look. That surprised face again. All right, then. On the chance that you’re not giving me that surprised face just for the sake of public appearances, let me explain it to you, because it’s important for me that you know just how much I appreciate everything you’re doing for me.
So, let’s say I’ve raped a woman, as I do, because it’s my thing. I’ve had my fun, reminding that woman where she stands on the whole “being able to control things about her life” thing. But wait! There’s more. Since I didn’t use a condom (maybe I’m confident I can get other people to believe it was consensual, you see, or maybe I just like it that way), one thing has led to another and I’ve gotten this woman pregnant.
Now, remember how I said the thing I really like about raping a woman is the control it gives me over her? Well, getting a woman pregnant is even better. Because long after I’m gone, she still has to deal with me and what I’ve done to her. She has to deal with what’s happening to her body. She has to deal with doctor visits. She has to deal with the choice whether to have an abortion or not — which means she has to deal with everyone in the country, including you, having an opinion about it and giving her crap about it. And if she does have an abortion, she has to deal with all the hassle of that, too, because folks like you, of course, have gone out of your way to make it a hassle, which I appreciate. Thank you.
Every moment of that process, she has to be thinking of me, and how I’ve forced all of this on her — exercised my ability to bend her life away from what it was to what I’ve made of it. Me exercising my control.
I gotta tell you, it feels awesome.
But! You know what would feel even more awesome? The knowledge that, if you get your way and abortion is outlawed even in cases of rape, that my control of her will continue through all the rest of her life.
You mean if the people get their way. I am not a control freak like you and dictatorial governments. It will take the people to make that decision, not me. I thoroughly support that at the State level where it consitutionally belongs. And, by the way, whether you get her pregnant or not, she will remember the horror of you the rest of her life. Abortions will not eliminate that memory.
First, because she’ll have no legal choice about whether to have the baby I put in her — sorry, dearie, you have no control at all! You have to have it! That’s nine months of having your body warp and twist and change because I decided that you needed a little lesson on who’s actually running the show. That’s sweet.
She will have the legal choice the people give her. That is rule of law. The only show you run is your own.
Once the baby’s born, the woman will have to decide whether to keep it. Here’s an interesting fact: Of the women who have gotten pregnant from rape who give birth to that baby, most keep the baby, by a ratio of about five to one. So my ability to change the life of the woman just keeps growing, doesn’t it? From the rape, to the nine months of the pregnancy, to the rest of her life dealing with the child I raped into her. Of course, she could put the kid up for adoption, but that’s its own bundle of issues, isn’t it? And even then, she’s dealing with the choices I made for her, when I exercised my control over her life.
Best of all, I get to do all that without much consequence! Oh, sure, theoretically I can get charged with rape and go to prison for it. But you know what? For every hundred men who rape, only three go to prison. Those are pretty good odds for me, especially since — again! — folks like you like to muddy up the issue saying things like “forcible rape.” Keep doing that! It’s working out great for me.
Yes, it's her decision. Just as we all have to decide how we deal with the horrors that crap like you impose on us. If she keeps the child and loves it, it may turn out a blessing and its own joy--one which you will not experience. Like all pitiful control freaks, from individuals to governments, the savor of control is sweeter than life.
As for the kid, well, oddly enough, most women I rape want nothing to do with me afterward, so it’s not like I will have to worry about child support or any other sort of responsibility… unless of course I decide that I haven’t taught that woman a big enough lesson about who’s really in control of her life. Did you know that 31 states in this country don’t keep rapists from seeking custody or visitation rights? How great is that? That’s just one more thing she has to worry about — me crawling out of the woodwork to remind her of what I did, and am continuing to do, to her life.
Look how much control you want to give me over that woman! I really can’t thank you enough for it. It warms my heart to know no matter how much I rape, or how many women I impregnate through my non-consensual sexual battery, you have my back, when it comes to reminding every woman I humiliate who is actually the boss of her. It’s me! It’s always been me! You’ll make sure it’ll always be me. You’ll see to that.
I am totally voting for you this election.
Yours,
Just Another Rapist.
Of course you won't have to "worry" about the kid. Scum like you worry only about yourself. You don't have the ability to freely associate with others, to have the joy of consentual social or personal intercourse. Like a dictator, or dictatorial government, you must suppress free association and control all aspects of anything or anyone you touch. As a "conservative" who wishes to "conserve" the constitutional freedoms of our federal republic, I wish you, and the Federal government would let us decide about our "reproductive rights."
P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!
More twisting of words. It suggests nothing of the sort . . . unless you want it to. You can control your own words, but not mine. Everyone is innocent here except you and a government that runs roughshod over the Constitution, and uses verbiage such as yours to justify it.
I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.
Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.
Not only did he not say rape was OK, he said was "horrible". Also, like you said, his statement was that the unborn baby does not have a say in how he is conceived. I think you can make a compelling case that there's no justice in killing a baby for something he didn't have a say in.
Basswipe and Likwid, I'm glad you're here to spout off your opinions, vile though they may be. You are implying that my concern for the baby, is the same thing as being in favor of rape. Not so. Teh act or rape, and the well being of an unborn baby, are two distinct things.
The funny thing is, if anyone makes light of rape, it's not conservatives, who are typically very tough on crime. Do you think a rapist would rather have a jury of 12 cowboys in Texas, or 12 Harvard professors in Massachusetts?
I don't belive the idiot said rape was right or that pregnancy from rape was to be welcomed. I think he pointed out though that someone has to speak for the unborn.
thank you
"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."
if you replaced God with Nature in his comments, would that make them less offensive to some of you God-o-phobes in the context which he meant, which was that the creation of a human life is the result of something more than simple accident....and that he places the same value on each life created as he does his own....
"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from Nature. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that Nature intended to happen."
interesting that our President was very clear on Leno the other night in stating that...
"RAPE is RAPE"....glad to hear he's found such clarity on that issue
sadly...he's apparently found no such clarity on these related issues...
LIFE is LIFE ?......not so much
KILLING is KILLING ?.....not so much
Mourdock's comments are some of the least offensive comments in this thread
interesting how many platitudes reagrding equality, justice, fairness, compassion get thrown out the door at some arbitrary point between conception and...well....you pick the date....
if Religion is forever tainted by the number of lives interrupted by those that have used Religion through history to their disturbing ends or goals, how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?
how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?
how tainted is a Society(s) that sanctions millions upon millions of lives to likewise be interrupted, in most cases, as a matter of convenience and as an abrogation of responsibility?
I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.
What kind of God would allow rape anyway? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"I know a taxidermy man back home. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him!"
I would think that rape would be an "inconvenience" to the victim.
What kind of God would allow rape anyway? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
noone said that it wasn't, including Mourdock, he made a simple and honest statement regarding the value that he places on "life", I'm amazed at the tangents this sets many of you off on.....
God doesn't "allow" rape, humans commit rape, murder and many other acts which violate the tenants of most religions
What kind of God would allow rape anyway? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
A God that gives you the free will to do it or not--with all the appropriate consequences to the rapist and the victim. If the implication of your question is that God predestines and is responsible for all actions, then you have eliminated the human need for a god. Such a god, that gives no choice, need not be pondered over nor obeyed. Any thought or action you have or do are this god's choice not yours. All that exists is not separate from this god but are a part of it. All that is done or thought, are done so by this god.
A God that "allows" rape, allows the free will He has given you to do so or not. This God "allows" all actions but disapproves of and punishes, now or later, actions that trespass HIS will or are destructive to the order of His creation. This God allows you all that is "good" in His creation, and all that is "evil." Any other type of supernatural god is irrelevant. A god you might name Fate or Destiny, and a god you might name Chaos, either leave you no possibility of a separate choice nor a meaning that might result in choice.
The God Mourdock believes in has created us in His image and we are commanded by Him to husband the rest of His creation, the natural world, in accordance to His will and in a way that maintains His order. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, believes in founding principles of free will and the responsiblity of molding that will to the natural order--nature and nature's God. And he will also believe that it is not an all-powerful central government which imposes its will on the people, but that it is the free and God given natural will of the people that allows that central government limited responsibility, and allows the people to build and create the good and goods in free and diverse ways which respond to their individual needs thus expanding the wealth of the nation--a sort of expansion of the biblical command to be fruitful. He would also, therefor, believe that "reproductive rights" would be those allowed by local and state governments as an expression of their people. So he would not be a threat to impose his personal belief on the entire nation as a Federal Senator.
Mourdock's God is the creator of man.
The other type of god that is relevant to humans is the god created by man. Those who believe in this type of god, believe all the other gods are created by man, and therefor fictions. The god they create is not supernatural, though it reigns over man and nature as if it were. Their god does not "allow" free will or unalienable rights to citizens who consent to a limited government, but from an all-powerful seat, grants those citizens limited rights. It also punishes those who trespass the boundary of rights that it allows. The rapes, mayhem, disorder, wars, all evils, also occur under this god even though they are not "allowed." This god is under the duress of constantly finding ways to control populations by instilling new rules and methods of order. Of distributing to and defining needs that constantly expand in response to the distribution. Of constanly narrowing the scope of rights it grants in order to maintain the satisfactions of various groups and majorities that it caters to. Because it limits more and more the rights of the people in order to control and satisfy them as groups rather than individuals, it has to control more and more the means and ownership of wealth and its distribution. The bibical command to be fruitful is limited by this god, and the fruits of labor shrink to those allowed by this god.
This god, of course, is unlimited centralized government--the one size fits all that so many seem to want. Because it is not supernatural, it has only fictive powers (similar to the fictitious god of predestination) over nature and the nature of man. It is not founded on nature nor human nature, it seeks to control them. It is the type of humanly created, unnatural god that has usurped the Constitution and its form of government. Mourdock, if he believes in the Constitution, would rather restore constitutional principles.
He obviously does not approve of rape or believe that rape is God's will. He views it as Man's will, an act which is against God's will, and a violence against God's natural order-- that natural process of conception of life--a process which is his God's will. I would guess Mourdock believes that the victim of rape who gets pregnant would have to make the choice of seeing that natural process to its finish in conception. Presumably, that conception, not rape, perhaps not even the method, would be God's will. I doubt that Mourdock wants to impose his belief on her God-given free will to make her own decision. I would guess that he would wish her to conceive the child, if not for a fruition of God's will, at least as a concern for the child itself.
Funny to watch the psychos get upset and scramble to defend their beliefs. I don't anticipate anybody changing their minds regardless.Even trying to substitute the word nature for God,but a rose is still a rose.
zealots who will be surrounded by virgins upon death should be grouped with you morons for an intelligent discussion.
God bless fox news........?
Yeah, that is psyco speak in any language.
Last edited by Sea Dangles; 10-28-2012 at 06:12 PM..
Another Taliban has spoken.
Go kill a doctor who gives abortions.
That will make it better.
Here's the difference...on those rare occasions when a Christian terrorist kills an abortion doctor, everyone in the mainstream Christian community immediately condemns the attack.
And yes, thank God for Foxnews. Foxnews has its share of zealots like Hannity. But it'sthe only place to get fair-minded reporting from the hard news folks there. For example, they broke the story about the CIA paramilitary heroes asking for help, and being denied. Where was CNN and MSNBC on that scoop?
Do you disagree that objective reporting is vital?
Linear Mode
