Vic Smith wrote:

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.

Here's a funny-- when I went to confirm that Mourdock wasn't
Catholic I found out that Newt Gingrich tried to put Mourdock's
comments in context on a show I watch every week, but [the usually
fair, IMO] George Stephanopolous shut him down. I must have missed
the exchange because when Newt starts talking crazy I FastForward
through his rants-- Must have FF'd too far that time.

He was speaking for the Pope, and would represent the Pope.
What's so hard to understand?

Why a fundamentalist Christian would 'represent the pope'.g

They don't want the Pope voting by proxy in the U.S. Senate.

And yet, almost 1/2 the Senate is Catholic.

-snip-
That's all very distasteful to me. In fact, it's fooking crazy.
I do not understand your confusion about this matter.


I think I *do* understand your lack of confusion.

Jim