On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:03:25 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Jim Elbrecht wrote:



While both of them had rape and abortion in their answers- Akin's
comments were the height of ignorance, but Mourdock's were considered,
respectful and honest. If I was pro-life, I would have to agree
with Mourdock. I'm not-- but I can still respect him for the way he
feels. Listen to the whole answer to the question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5n1KzTVXuA
33 seconds-

Actually, M's statement was almost word-for-word the outlook of the
Catholic church on the subject. I wondered why nobody brought that up
when he was being portrayed as out the mainstream.

Yup-- Even Jon Stewart screwed the pooch on that one, IMO. I guess
sometimes he's just a comedian trying to make a living.

I didn't see any Fox clips that focused on his long, well spoken intro
to the 'god's will' part of his statement. [I don't watch Fox-- but I
do look for clips on topics of interest and it was a puzzle to me why
no one was giving Mourdock a fair shake.]


Get your brains working.
You guys just gave him a fair shake.
He was speaking for the Pope, and would represent the Pope.
What's so hard to understand?
Women voters understood that right off the bat, and so did any man
with sense and daughters.
They don't want the Pope voting by proxy in the U.S. Senate.
Personally, I don't want any daughter of mine forced by a Papist
government to bear the spawn of a rapist. And I don't want anybody I
care for exorcised by a Catholic priest either.
Same goes for the fundamentalists, who would bring rattlesnake kissing
to the floor of the Senate.
That's all very distasteful to me. In fact, it's fooking crazy.
I do not understand your confusion about this matter.