How to silence Richard Mourdock

Post Reply New Topic

'Yasha was actually quite hostile to Mittens, right up until he became the official GOP candidate. He's not unlike the anti-war left who turn a blind eye to Obama's foreign adventurism and not-so-secret assassination program, in his reality avoidance in furtherance of partisanship. I really don't understand it myself, but then I don't understand most cultish things.

If the president were a conservative Republican rather than a liberal Democrat, I have little doubt that much of the legacy press would be focused more on what is wrong with America. There would be more negative reporting about the economy, more criticism of policy failures and many more withering comparisons between promise and performance. The contrast between a rising stock market and poor jobs performance that the press now doesn’t think of blaming on President Obama would be reported as demonstrating a systemic bias in favor of the rich and the powerful if George W. Bush were in the White House. The catastrophic decline in African-American net worth during the last four years would, if we had a Republican president, be presented in the press as illustrating the racial indifference or even the racism of the administration. As it is, it is just an unfortunate reality, not worth much publicity and telling us nothing about the intentions or competence of the people in charge.

The current state of the Middle East would be reported as illustrating the complete collapse of American foreign policy—if Bush were in the White House. The criticism of drone strikes and Guantanamo that is now mostly confined to the far left would be mainstream conventional wisdom, and the current unrest in the Middle East would be depicted as a response to American militarism. The in and out surge in Afghanistan would be mercilessly exposed as a strategic flop, reflecting the naive incompetence of an inexperienced president out of his depth. The SEALS rather than the White House would be getting the credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, and there would be more questions about whether killing him and then bragging endlessly and tastelessly about it was a contributing factor to the current unrest. Political cartoons of Cheney spiking the football would be everywhere. It’s also likely we would have heard much more about how killing Osama was strategically unimportant as he had become an increasingly symbolic figure and there would have been a lot of detailed and focused analysis of how the foolish concentration on bin Laden led the clueless Bush administration to neglect the rise of new and potentially much more dangerous Islamist groups in places like Mali. The Libyan war would be widely denounced as an unconstitutional act of neocon militarism, with much more attention paid to the civilian casualties during the war, the chaos that followed, and the destabilizing effects on the neighborhood. The White House fumbling around the Benghazi murders would be treated like a major scandal and dominate the news for at least a couple of weeks.

If Bush were in the White House, the Middle East would be a horrible disaster, and it would all be America’s fault.

I actually can make a list of reasons as to why I'm voting for Romney over Obama.

Oh, I can, too.

Here is my complete list:

1. Because Fox News told you to.

I'll give 3 reasons off the top of my head.

1. Fast & Furious
2. The auto "bailouts" which were really designed to reward Obama's union backers and violating Bankruptcy law by stealing from retired teachers in the state of Indiana and other retirees. My grandfather used to be a teacher, he's dead but my grandmother is still alive and she saw a lot of the savings she and her husband had disappear overnight courtesy of Obama.
3. Obamacare


That's just three reasons, and there are plenty more where that came from.

Oh back to the original topic, looks like people on the left are starting to be called out on this smearfest.

He also signed into law a bill that would permit many to be imprisoned and denied the privilege of habeas corpus.

ruveyn

What bothers me is the separation of church in state. I do not have a problem with politicians passing laws which they feel are morally right but when politicians start divining the will of God then they should decide whether they want to be a politician or a preacher.

That's just three reasons, and there are plenty more where that came from.

Oh back to the original topic, looks like people on the left are starting to be called out on this smearfest.

When it comes to abortion there is also a secular argument for it being illegal is well as a religious one. If the child in the womb is a human being, then by definition it's government's job to protect said life from others trying to kill such life. There is more to this than a simple religious argument, a very good secular argument can be made as well.

Nonsense.

Government authorizes the killing of individuals in all manner of circumstances. Soldiers, peace officers, prison officers, physicians and people acting in self-defence are all examples of people who are--in certain circumstances--legally authorized to cause the death of another human being.

The obligation of government to act to protect law is nowhere enshrined in law. Government has used the principle of protecting the health and safety of individuals as justification for any number of legislative and regulatory initiatives, but it is not a prescriptive standard that dictates the activities of government at all times.

I hope that people can realize that most GOP politicians are not like Akin or Mourdock. And they have to remind themselves they Romney is the presidential candidate, not Akin or Mourdock.

The problem is that there are numerous people in the Republican party who are like these guys. Romney, regardless of what his own views really are, spent the entire primary season pandering to them when he needed their votes, and its anyone's guess how much weight he'll give their opinions if and when he becomes president.

But even more than that, (even) if you believe that these guys represent a minority of the Republican party, then what we have is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Everything that happens in their party, from their convention to the way 90% of their congressmen and senators vote, comes from this "minority". Even the Republican party platform adopted at their convention this year favors a complete ban on abortion, with no exception for rape victims or mothers whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies.

Um, in my country, it actually is. There is a precedent that officers of the law are obliged to prevent crime whenever possible and will lose their jobs if they do not take action to protect innocent lives that are in danger. Legislation exists that require government agents to protect and enforce the law.