Skip to comments.Hannity to Akin: You know you could cost us the Senate, right?
Posted on 08/20/2012 3:47:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Todd Akin and I agree on just about everything. I was prepared to support him against the onslaught until I heard him interviewed by Hannity. He had no answers to questions he had to know were going to be asked of him. At that point it was like sorry Todd but you’re gonna have to take one for the team. He is just not adept enough to handle this. Doesn’t mean he’s not a good man, just means that good men sometimes have to do hard things and the hard thing for Akin to do is give up his ambitions.
Good Lord. Where in God's name are you getting these ideas?
Please post whatever I have said that you think has any --ANY-- implication like what you have posted.
This is the most baffling reply I've ever had in my many years on this site.
Don't agree however that we should throw a good man to the wolves. Not for THIS.
When it comes to murderers the otherwise evil former Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean had some interesting thing to say. His experience was that there are certain killers who will, with certainty, kill again ~ and if they get the chance yet again.
If you don't execute this kind of killer he will eventually kill someone else ~ a fellow prisoner, a guard, a visitor, the warden, anyone he encounters that he thinks he can kill.
He said the choice comes down to executing this mad dog killer who you know, or letting him kill some innocent person down the road who you don't know.
Which leads us into the question of murdering the innocent ~ that is the foulest sort of murder.
I've noticed a consistency in the anti-death penalty folks. They don't blanch at murdering the innocent so those mad dog killers can, in their minds, just go ahead and do their thing. Or, abortionists can slaughter human babies without penalty. Or, we shouldn't have an armed force, because enemy people might get killed. Or, nobody should have guns because they might use them for self-defense.
The fact that the forces of death have a consistency that leads to death of the innocent every single time does not mean we need a consistency to our own beliefs, but it's always wise to protect the innocent in all cases, and Christian doctrine is to visit those who are imprisoned ~ and maybe sometimes that means you have to go down there and wheel in the gurney!
We have a lot of that in the Republican party ~ candidates who actually reject millions of people ready, willing and able to go out and get that vote.
They lose every time.
Now, why did this guy accept McCaskill's advertising?
They keep up such coalition busting tricks long enough and the Republican party will be shedding coalition partners and turning into a regional party.
The Dim objective is to achieve a majority in the House or Senate (or legislative body, or city council) so that they can control the legislative agenda. That comes first before the fate of just a single candidate.
Tell me this is just a Koinkydink and there's no actual linkage.
He didn't need an issue to do that. Very untrustworthy character.
Yeah I don’t see what the big flap is here.
Many rapes are false accusations. It makes sense that if a real rape occurs, the victim gets a morning after treatment or never gets pregnant because rape is about criminal power and dominance rather than an act leading to pregnancy.
Still all in all, this Akin guy was a dunce for showing insensitivity to women and should know better. He probably knows better now and if he can beat that sack of sh*t calling herself a Senator, then more power to him.
Screw Coulter. She got brain damage from dating the sack of sh*t Maher.
I don’t like the GOPe at all. And I think Hannity has jumped several sharks and is irrelevant. We need fresh blood to stand up to the true enemies of the Republic starting with the NY-DC media.
Let the verbal flubs roll off the shoulder and throw it back at the media. Remember Rush and the Slut? Rush came out smelling like a rose whereas Fluke came out smelling like a Slut.
Sorry for my crudeness but I can’t stomach what the GOPe has done to our party, now known as the Stupid Party. I just happen to think we would all be more successful if we let our mistakes slide off us and that we band together more tightly rather than let the GOPe aka the democrats lite convene a circular firing squad.
GOPe, screw ‘em and the Coulter they rode in on. My God, they are going to nominate this RINO P.O.S. called Romney, unfriggin-believable.
I disagree. There are some crimes that cry out for the death penalty: Aggrevated murder, mass murder, genocide, especially harmful treason/espionage/sabotage, terror murder, kidnapping that results in death, etc.
Check around and you'll see that nobody has hard numbers. Many people are pretending they do, but they don't. They're just pulling numbers out of their, er, hat.
Hard numbers in this area are hard to come by, understandably. So it comes down to how one interprets the available statistics. What Dr. Wilkie has done is give a logical interpretation.
Dr. Wilkie also has many years of experience as an OB/GYN. Few other commentators here or elsewhere have that. His experience backs up what Akin said.
No matter what the number is, every rape is a horrible crime, and it is certainly difficult for a woman if a pregnancy results. Women who do become pregnant as a result of rape deserve our help and compassion. But this situation is not common, as the Left would have us believe. And ultimately, the number of pregnancies resulting from rapes, in itself, isn't really the point. The real point is that dismembering and destroying an unborn child is wrong.
I agree. An innocent baby has nothing in common with a criminal on death row. Saving an unborn INNOCENT baby has nothing to do with killing a GUILTY murderer on death row.
Funny. Well, almost.
I'm not quite old enough to remember Wendell Wilkie. However I don't think he was a paragon of conservatism.
Akin ate himself.
Didnt Whoopie Goldberg say something about the director Roman Polanski wasnt really guilty of rape, she said it wasnt rape-rape and she is still on the air.
Whoopie Goldberg isn’t running for MO Senate.
This thread is an excellent demonstration of the influence of Republicans who prioritize winning the next election over any supposed “principles”.
Abortion in the case of rape or incest is simply killing a child because their father is despised.
This would clearly be considered murder by every reasonable person if the child was born prior to being murdered.
If the child was born and was a week old before the mother disclosed that her pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, and some lunatic then took it upon themselves to murder the week-old child, society would most certainly view that as a case of murder.
But if still in the womb, even supposed “conservatives” all too often have no opposition to murdering the child, since they feel that... oh... I don’t know, how’s that reasoning ?
Mother feels bad ? Relatives feel bad ? The government feels bad ? A rape happens, and suddenly folks feel a need to top it off with a murder of a child.
The child did not choose it’s father.
It is utterly amazing to me how people who profess to be opposed to the murder of children in their mother’s womb will join with the throngs who vociferously cry out for their right to fornicate, which necessitates their right to murder unwanted children.
Why do young adults want to “go away” to college ? Why do they want to “move out from mom and dad’s” ? Living single. Let’s get real. The murdered babies are simply collateral damage of their lustful pursuits, a.k.a., “fun”, “making their own mistakes”, “getting it out of their system”, etc. And once we’re middle-aged and single, through divorce or whatever, if we are not married and living with a spouse - we refuse to not leave ourselves the option of murdering our unborn children that would “cramp our single lifestyle”.
I guess we’ll never hear someone pose these questions on network TV to a supposed “conservative” pundit. Would it be ok to murder a 1-year old child if the child’s mother revealed that the child was conceived as a result of a rape ? And if that is wrong, what’s different about the child’s DNA if a the mother is 2 months pregnant versus the child is 1 year old ? Answer: there is no difference. The child is their own person from the moment of conception; they have their own unique DNA, and not one cell in their body has the same DNA as their mother - every cell in their body has their own unique DNA.
I’d like to hear the answer given by these “conservative” pundits.
Die-hard Republicans want to “win”, and they feel 100% adherence to their principles, unless sticking to principle would cost them too much of the female vote.
Instead of a simple response that educates those listening, they cave and give in on principle.
A clear, simple response would, one at a time, start people actually thinking and moving towards understanding that abortion is the murder of a child, and that the cure for unwanted pregnancy is simply to refrain from fornication, constrain sexual relations to one’s spouse and, regarding rape, to take every precaution for security and safety. The traditional family and social structure, increasingly abandoned, provides the ideal mechanisms to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and the “modern” lifestyle has yielded tens of millions of unwanted pregnancies that have resulted in abortion.
That's certainly true. Which makes Akin's comment all the more idiotic - he blew an 11 point lead in a Senate race by making a statement that he didn't need to say.
You can stand with Todd Akin or you can stand with the agents of the DNC,
AND Romneys back stabbing cowardly run away from this is a foreboding of what is to come.
So sad that the only Political Party that defends the innocent unborn baby DOESN’T ANYMORE. We’d be better off with Romney quiting.
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.