Two conspiracy theorists die and go to heaven. St. Peter tells them that Heaven is a place of all knowledge, so they can each ask him one question and he will reveal the answer to them. The first one says "Who killed John F. Kennedy?" St. Peter says "Lee Harvey Oswald." The other says "Who was he working with?" St. Peter says "He acted alone." The two of them look at each other and say "Wow! The coverup is bigger than we thought!" But seriously, what keeps this stuff going? Some would say the evidence. Other would say mental illness. I myself am unsure, and I have a hard time really focusing on this one as I didn't live through it. This article is pretty much a starting point for me and a note to self. Steve, debunk this one.
Richard Mourdock fires up left with controversial rape comment.
It can't be a great political issue if it doesn't have a great name, and few modern issues have a better name than WOW (War On Women). Why, it would almost seem a little too good to be true, wouldn't it? If I didn't know any better, I would think that the whole thing had been made up in a left wing spin room, but I digress. This is no time to get off on rabbit trails about how a name was concocted. There is genuine phony outrage out there, and something needs to be done. First off, we need to know what Mourdock said.
I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen
Now I am certainly no right wing fundamentalist, and in fact I don't believe in God, so clearly I would disagree with what the guy is saying here. But am I outraged? Not exactly. I happen to be smart enough to read a statement that I disagree with, and understand it for what it is. Let me translate that into Atheist speak for those of you who are not religious and might be struggling with this one. Mourdock basically said "I think that no matter the process behind the insemination, it is a life no different than any other." Is he wrong about that? Not as far as I can tell. So why should I be outraged? Well, because clearly if Mourdock is elected abortion will be illegal and rape will not. And that is why we need to elect his opponent Joe Donnelly who will be vigilant in his protection of a women's right to an abortion. Right Joe?
Republicans note that Donnelly also opposes abortion rights and was a co-sponsor in the House of a bill that would have denied abortion funding for victims of rape and incest and created a separate category called “forcible rape.” The bill was soon amended to eliminate the “forcible rape” designation, which Donnelly said he didn’t know was included in the original bill.
Well, what do we have here? Did Todd Aiken move to Indiana, switch party affiliations, and run for Senate under an assumed name? Democrats, of course, defend the guy because like he said, he didn't know what was in the bill he was asking people to vote for. He can't be held accountable for every piece of legislation that he cosponsors. I mean seriously, many of these bills contain multiple pages of words, and I don't mean silly little words either. Long and complicated words, many that have complex meanings that vary based on the structure of the sentence. Isn't it easier to just pass the law and then we can find out what was in it once we see how it is enforced? Just a thought here. In a scenario where this bill became Federal Law, would it matter if it had been pushed by a right wing nut who honestly believes this stuff or a left wing nut who pushes for legislation he has never read? I would think a rape by any other name is just as foul.
Now if the hypocrisy of the left pointing at Aiken when their guy in this race pulled his own Aiken and Mourdock did not was not enough for you, wait till you get a load of this from Obamabot Jen Psaki.
This is a reminder that a Republican Congress working with a Republican president Mitt Romney would (feel) that women should not be able to make choices about their own health care
Wait, wasn't it President Obama who took away a woman's right to make her own choices about her health care? Wasn't it his legislation that not only ordered her to purchase health insurance, but specifically regulated what kind it should be? What if the woman would rather seek holistic and natural treatment that isn't covered under traditional health insurance? Shouldn't she be allowed to chose this route for herself? And at this point the flaming hypocrisy of the left comes full circle. They will tell you how many women die every year because the seek holistic cures instead of traditional ones. The fact of the matter is that they are correct in that answer. But the question becomes "What difference does that make?" If it is a woman's body and she should have the right to chose in the case of abortion, should she not have that same right in the case of cancer?
The fact of the matter here is simple and clear. This isn't a war, let alone a war on women. Does Richard Mourdock want to stop you from making your own health care decisions? Unfortunately, in some cases he does. The difference here is that he is honest about it. President Obama's Health Care Reform bill dictates a basic health care decision to every single woman in America, yet he feigns outrage over this. To borrow a phrase from his 2008 election, "They must think you're stupid." You are never going to find the candidate that agrees with you on every single issue, but as Letterman recently pointed out, shouldn't we at least expect these guys to be honest with us?
DAVID LETTERMAN, HOST: Here's what upset me last night, this playing fast and loose with facts. And the President Obama cites the op-ed piece that Romney wrote about Detroit, "Let them go bankrupt, let them go bankrupt," and last night he brings it up again. "Oh, no, Governor, you said let them go bankrupt, blah blah blah, let them go bankrupt." And Mitt said, "No, no, check the thing, check the thing, check the thing."
Now, I don't care whether you're Republican or Democrat, you want your president to be telling the truth; you want the contender to be lying. And so what we found out today or soon thereafter that, in fact, the President Obama was not telling the truth about what was excerpted from that op-ed piece. I felt discouraged.
It's pretty sad when the voice of reason in a discussion is a left wing clown like Letterman. Then again, I believe it was Rush Limbaugh who pointed out that the left wing media can tolerate anything from their candidates except when their candidates lie to them.