Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:
I can't tell if you and Kronk are serious.

About voting? Yep we have early voting here.
About the Green Party. Dude I could talke about the Green Party until I am blue in the face.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
If unable to explain the wisdom behind a deep comment, don't say anything. Jesus himself knew that one and even when He had something to say often did not do so if He lacked the platform to explain the context.

Oh come on Orlanth, it wasn't a "deep" comment, it was a fething stupid comment.

It was both frankly. I can see where he was coming from, and the logic behind it, and its a fairly long journey to get there even with a firm grounding in theological teaching. Its deep theology alright, not standard Sunday school stuff as it involves the penny dropping over apparent contradictions about the nature of God.

 mattyrm wrote:

feth me, when you are a politician and you know that every sentence is beamed around the world, you have to be an idiot to make such a statement.

This much I agree with. He ought to have been much wiser. With no excuses this time. I am pretty much convinced that everyone in a Republican party leadership would have received a memo by now on political comments on rape and pregnancy in electiontime.

 mattyrm wrote:

Its only an acceptable comment to you because you are a full on Christian yourself, so you are biased in his favour. You can't possibly tell me that you are being objective when you say he said something deep there. He said something really silly considering the majority of people that are going to see it AREN'T proper happy clapping Christians that study the bible.

I am being objective. Are you? To be fair you do like to go off on one when religious comments are aired.

Theologically what he said made sense, politically it did not. Do you understand the theology of what was said? I can explain if you like. It would take more than a couple of sentences though as it is quite deep. It involves things like the doctrine of predestination and the nature of God's omniscience. To muddy the waters further it's at its core Calvinist teaching, and as I am an Armenian I only partly agree with it anyway, though I do understand it. Concepts which would derail this thread if they were to be properly aired let along a live debate amongst politicians. He even clarified his comment in a way that supported what he said, which still wont do him any good without the full theological explanation.

 mattyrm wrote:

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and lets say it was a sage and wise thing to say, a mob is only as smart as its stupidest member, and politicians are addressing the mob. You keep gak simple, you don't say things like that, things that anyone who isn't a born again Christian will (perfectly logically) be really fething offended by what you said.

You need not give him the benefit of the doubt here, it was a sage thing to think, but not to say. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment here, it was foolish to come up with this answer outside of a theological seminar, but it wasn't alike to the nonsense of similar comments heard recently.

The only way to bring this up politically would be in an article, where you have the time to put the point forward properly and completely, and even that is very risky.

The only thing positive I can say about the comment is that it took balls to say, the man stood up for what he believed when he knew it could hurt him.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I can't tell if you and Kronk are serious.

About voting? Yep we have early voting here.

Yes, we have early voting here. Not sure if that's what you're asking about. At my local courthouse annex, I can vote all week from 8-5, Saturday from 7-7, and sunday from 1-5. Next week, I can vote 7-7 all week.

We have a few million people in Houston and the surrounding area. Anything to get the votes in, I suppose.

 kronk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I can't tell if you and Kronk are serious.

About voting? Yep we have early voting here.

Yes, we have early voting here. Not sure if that's what you're asking about. At my local courthouse annex, I can vote all week from 8-5, Saturday from 7-7, and sunday from 1-5. Next week, I can vote 7-7 all week.

We have a few million people in Houston and the surrounding area. Anything to get the votes in, I suppose.

Vote early! Vote often!

 Orlanth wrote:

Children of unwanted pregnancies, from any reason, can feel unloved. The idea that God accepts you into his plans even if noone else did is a comfort.
It's a comment on human value, not on a doctrine of allegedly God endorsing rape.

I actually agree with you.

I still think the candidate's response, and clarification, is laughably wrong; but he was very clearly not claiming that God wants people to be raped.

fething Calvinists...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/mother-mary-was-essentially-raped-mourdock-says-wh,30083/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/mother-mary-was-essentially-raped-mourdock-says-wh,30083/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

Oh Onion. I love you sooo much

The last sentence is the bomb.

<3 Onion

The best part is that the article is entirely believable.

Here's a helpful rape chart, just in case you needed some guidance on the different types of rape from prominent republicans.

Wow that image is classic.

What if they arent actually idiots, But are really democrats in a very long term plan to make the republican party look idiotic.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
Here's a helpful rape chart, just in case you needed some guidance on the different types of rape from prominent republicans.

Spoiler:

I hate to think what the non-prominent republican politicians are saying.

Relax and enjoy it?

I really want to google that one to see if it is wrong, but with the current trend of opinions on rape, I fear I will disappoint myself.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Wow that image is classic.

it would be more classic if it didn't try so hard. I especially like the bonus. 45 some odd years after it was the motto of the Lubin Government. It's cool though I'm sure he thought it up himself...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Piston Honda wrote:
Relax and enjoy it?

I really want to google that one to see if it is wrong, but with the current trend of opinions on rape, I fear I will disappoint myself.

You'd find it's been attributed as a Chinese proverb at least as far back as the 50's and in use before then.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Even the Holocaust had a purpose. It paved the way for the refounding of Israel as a political state.

'When life gives you genocidal lemons, make Zionist lemonade!'

Well, and that last one makes sense. I mean, if you stop resisting it and try to like it, then it's consentual, so it's not rape right?

( JESUS TAPDANCING CHRIST ON A CRACKER I'M JOKING GUYS )

STOP RESISTING RAPE

daedalus wrote: stop resisting it and try to like it, then it's consentual, so it's not rape

-dakka poster daedalus 24 OCT 2012


Welcome to the club.

Gosh, my mother would be so proud.

 mattyrm wrote:
Exactly. Why did they let Jesus hijack the party? Most people are socially moderate, most people are fiscally conservative. I'm conservative here, but in America I'd vote democrat because it's those guys or nuts about Jesus conservatives.

You need some nice normal conservatives, maybe you can steal Boris Johnson he was born in America!

Socially conservative evangelicals get out and vote like no other group. Rain or shine, no matter what they're out there casting their votes for whoever loves Jesus the most. And what's more, they get out and vote in primaries too, which means if you're a Republican then to even have a chance in the main election you have to have these folk on side.

And the other big factor is that they get a lot of their information from their church groups. Bulletin boards, small seminars, you can say damn near anything because it doesn't get picked up in greater media, so you're not accountable. You can tell these church groups whatever crazy nonsense that'll get them to like you, and they'll turn out in force in the primary and in the main election to vote for you.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The point abvout Jesus being a radical is not a valid one I'm sorry to say.

Radical either eventually become mainstream or remains radical and dies out.

Christianity became mainstream, and as such is the conservative viewpoint.

Its natural cycle really. Today's radical is tomorrow's conservative.

Empowering the powerless is still radical, and the exact opposite of the platform of the Republican party.

http://newsthump.com/2012/10/25/republicans-to-rebrand-rape-as-a-god-hug/

I may start using the term God Hug although you'd think the Catholic Church would have tried this already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Gosh, my mother would be so proud.

but thats basically how this works. If you made the graphic with all the crazy racist gak Dems say you'd hear a lot of hemming and hawing to excuse it.
Both parties step on thier dicks now and again, the GOP jus allows themselves to be brought into a discussion about rape and abortion over and over again like fething groundhogs day.

 AustonT wrote:
I may start using the term God Hug although you'd think the Catholic Church would have tried this already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Gosh, my mother would be so proud.

but thats basically how this works. If you made the graphic with all the crazy racist gak Dems say you'd hear a lot of hemming and hawing to excuse it.
Both parties step on thier dicks now and again, the GOP jus allows themselves to be brought into a discussion about rape and abortion over and over again like fething groundhogs day.

Perhaps as an experiment you should remake the chart as you suggest and see what the reaction is.

 AustonT wrote:
I may start using the term God Hug although you'd think the Catholic Church would have tried this already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Gosh, my mother would be so proud.

but thats basically how this works. If you made the graphic with all the crazy racist gak Dems say you'd hear a lot of hemming and hawing to excuse it.
Both parties step on thier dicks now and again, the GOP jus allows themselves to be brought into a discussion about rape and abortion over and over again like fething groundhogs day.

Perhaps you should re-post some of this 'crazy racist gak' you are referring to?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
I may start using the term God Hug although you'd think the Catholic Church would have tried this already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Gosh, my mother would be so proud.

but thats basically how this works. If you made the graphic with all the crazy racist gak Dems say you'd hear a lot of hemming and hawing to excuse it.
Both parties step on thier dicks now and again, the GOP jus allows themselves to be brought into a discussion about rape and abortion over and over again like fething groundhogs day.

Perhaps as an experiment you should remake the chart as you suggest and see what the reaction is.

That will require one of those magic thinky boxes with a mouse, but I'll see what I can do.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Obviously you missed what he meant. Not that I blame anyone for missing it. Its rather badly explained.

He means that if someone concieves from rape, God has a plan and purpose of some sort. "all things work together for the good of those that serve him" God will use this horrific thing for good.

Un-hunh. Tell that to a woman who's been abstaining from sex because she can't afford a kid... and now she's got one whether she likes it or not. Now she has to pay for one, even though she couldn't. Now she has to take care of one, even though she can't. Now she has to live with a daily reminder of the most horrific epsiode of her life.

And heaven forbid she ask the government for help taking care of the kid; then to the Republicans she becomes some sort of welfare whore, squirting out kids sho she can get mo' gov'ment money!


And if God wanted her to have the kid, there is precident for giving her one without torturing her first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The point abvout Jesus being a radical is not a valid one I'm sorry to say.

Radical either eventually become mainstream or remains radical and dies out.

Christianity became mainstream, and as such is the conservative viewpoint.

Its natural cycle really. Today's radical is tomorrow's conservative.


Thats why older people tend to become conservative. They may have been radical when they were young, but getting older tempers your viewpoint and/or your radical causes are now codified as the new norm.

Actually, even by modern standards Jesus is exremely liberal. He advocates taking care of the poor and gave away free health care. He demonstrated great disdain for wealth, saying "It is easier to pass a camel* through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kindom of heaven.

* Possible translation error. I have heard the word in this sentence that is translated as camel was originally one letter away from the word for rope - a sloppy manuscript, a transcription error, and now we're trying to get a large animal into a place no one would ever even consider taking it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair to the member, if you believe that every pregnancy is sacred there is no more excuse for abortion after rape than any other case.

Indeed,


The only sticky case is the case where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Which is damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Someone is possably going to die and nothing can really change it.

Fortunatly, with medical advancements this case is really rare in developed countries.

...and growing more common in America, where deaths during pregnancy are the worst in the developed world and growing worse.

So, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life and the only way to save her is an abortion, it's a sticky case? Do we save who we can, or do we let both die over an abstract principle? If you seriously have to think hard about it you're not pro-life. At least if the mother survives we've saved ONE life. Killing a woman because someone else might use it as justification for a non-necessary abortion is still murder too.

The idea that it's better to let the mother die than abort the fetus gives lie to the idea that the most die-hard anti-abortionists are pro-life. Fortunately they are rare; most Pro-Life advocates are sane enough to realize there is a major difference.

I can barely make heads or tails of this, and I can't watch the video due to my "honor" of living in '2nd slowest internet speed country in the world' thing so someone care to summarize it?

To make a very short precis, the member says that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it is the will of God that she is pregnant, and the baby should be carried to term.

Wat.