Posted on 08/20/2012 3:47:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The public doesn't tolerate that among Republicans ~ they voted against them. Then, after the election Ken Mehlman, RNC Chairman announced he was gay.
So few people were surprised!
Willkie was another golldarned registered Democrat dressed up like a Republican to run against a Democrat with a strong voting base. The idea has never worked.
I think those guys actually were Jains. Several Jain kings and emperors in India in the 4th through the 7th century SENT MISSIONARIES to both SE Asia and to Europe!
Aiken seems to be in that boat ~ and he certainly won the primary eh! Should be a lock. Should have fellow-traveler (In that boat) Romney backing him 110%!
I"m gloating. Now i"m laughing. Bwahahahahahahah!!!! Oh, my Aikin back!
Who are the real knuckle draggers.
Oh, that's Priebus' territory and he doesn't share.
I have been imprecise.
In the now-distant past, rape was considered second only to murder and often resulted in harsher punishments. Why? Because in those days, rape destroyed the victim’s life almost as certainly as murder. The victim was mistakenly, wrongly tarnished with the sin of her attacker (a common theme in Victorian lit BECAUSE of the incredible injustice involvled) and nearly always as permanently damaged psychologically as well as physically. But—one of the many unintended consequences of abortion-on-demand or abortion-due-to-some unprovable or immediately unreported cause has been the dumbing down of a rape-claim. This certainly isn’t the fault of the victim; it’s the fault of a society which all too effectively sent the message that rape can be undone: all it takes is an abortion. For that matter, without the stigma of unwed motherhood, pregnancy for an unmarried female is likewise panacea-ed: “this wasn’t your fault. Just get an abortion.” Rape is still an evil that must be prosecuted and punished, but we (or more appropriately, so-called feminists) have given the defense attorneys for rapists brand new weapons against the victim—and at precisely the same time proof of rape (DNA) is practically 100% foolproof! The weapons, oddly enough, also come from the feminists: equality of consensual promiscuity which leads directly to victim-intimidation in sworn testimony. Such intimidation, carefully weighed years ago, is de rigueur today and one of the best reasons for victims’ silence. Innocents, in particular, suffer the most damage. They don’t know from “no means no,” and of course, it’s never effective against a rapist—whether known or unknown to the victim.
Insofar as date-rape’s concerned, indeed it can be violent OR forced. But that’s “rape,” pure and simple. It’s the belittling and cutesifying of the crime (”date-rape,” as if it’s different from any other kind of rape) that bothers me. Knowing the attacker has nothing to do with the crime! And it (full-fledged rape, dare I use the term?) exists whether or not the victim has had the time, sense, or ability to say NO or STOP.
And btw, my stinking thinking ranks, and ranked back even in the 50s, the kind of rape to which you refer as the most heinous of all because besides being criminal, forced, and and even “due,” it’s the most dishonorable.
Just remember; she is an effing freak progressive working for other freaks in tv land, of course she kept her job.
The GOP can go sh#t up a rope for all I care; but I have to agree, after a comment like that this man has proven beyond doubt that he is to stupid to represent any body but the insane.
Best thing we can do in a situation like this is punt.
You don't score points if you keep giving the ball away, especially when it is only the second down and not the fourth.
Did you get the news? He’s withdrawing tomorrow.
Why bother saying anything at all?
I don't know...perhaps to express one's opinion?
Why make a fool of yourself while speaking out?
Why berate somebody when they're only tangentially involved?
Why not just keep your mouth shut if you have some sort of contract that requires you not to make public statements that reflect poorly upon the company?
People do it all of the time. I guess his emotional reaction is to be blamed.
Why, why, why? /Jan Brady sarcasm
"This controversy ought to fix those damned Conservative Christian Republicans for taking over my party on the brink of it's Progressive Reformation!"
No, this is about him being foolish enough to leave an opening for somebody in the media to create an issue. You can talk about how unfair it is that these guys just barged right in, but bottom line is he made it possible by leaving the door wide open.
Hes withdrawing tomorrow.
He's being forced out by a contrived situation IMO.
Is the GOP going to support the new candidate or will this be a repeat just like in Illinois after Ryan "withdrew" where the Republican Party wound up not supporting the person who finally had the courage to step up to the plate? We can all see now where that lack of support got us. Time will tell.
I wish the person stepping up to the plate good luck, for if history is something to be learned from they're going to need all the luck (and support) they can get!
...bottom line is he made it possible by leaving the door wide open.
So he intentionally meant for his statements to be misconstrued.
Got it. Thanks for setting me straight. /sarcasm
Intentional, of course not. Nobody intends their statement to be misconstrued.
An articulate and thoughtful person though, will speak in a clear way that doesn’t leave room for these types of misconstructions to take place. Is that too much to ask of someone who aspires to be one of 100 people out of 300 million in the country to serve in the United States Senate?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.