10.27.2012 09:19 PM

In Sunday’s Sun: two sick conservative bastards

It’s amazing, when you think of it.

You know, it being the new century and 2012 and all. Us being civilized and advanced and whatnot.

Up to now, there’s been things like reaching the moon, the Internet, air flight, the works of Shakespeare and Da Vinci, the Pythagorean Theorem, Beethoven’s Seventh, antibiotics, circumnavigation, civil rights, the Bible and the Qur’an, the Magna Carta, and so on. So many achievements, we humans have had, with more presumably to come. Not bad.

And, then, after all that achievement, after all those things that suggest to you that we’re advancing as a civilization, along come Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin.

Mourdock and Akin are alleged to be human, but you’d actually never know it. In the press, the pair is most often described as U.S. senatorial candidates for Indiana and Missouri, respectively. Being candidates for high office, you’d think they’d be impressive, too.

But they’re not. Mourdock and Akin are scum of the Earth. They are lower than bacteria. If you are in any way human — and, more particularly, if you have had a mother, a sister, a wife or a daughter — that’s how you should feel about Mourdock and Akin, too.

30 Comments

  1. patrick says:

    If you believe that every act of conception is sacred then the how of it is completely irrelevant. The perversity of that faith is that it is also accompanied by an overwhelming contempt for living human beings. The sacredness of life does not temper the right’s blood lust for war (but only with a disposable volunteer army), capital punishment and a rejection and contempt for quality of life for the majority of the people they represent.
    It is so peculiar that the right dismisses secularism and atheism as being morally corrupt and vacant while the morality of their religious fervour is conveniently relative and inconsistent.
    I suppose this is what happens when you live in a fantasy world.

  2. Bruce A says:

    The Crazy Right and the loony people of love them. The views of a former evangelical and Christian Right insider , Frank Schaeffer’s father was one of the founders of the Christian Right and has become a staunch critic. Heaven help us all if he’s even partially correct.

    http://ianmasters.com/content/october-24-standing-voter-intimidation-trickery-and-suppression-more-misogyny-another-republ

    http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2012_04_08full_audioport.mp3

    http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2012_08_14full_audioport.mp3

    http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3/bbriefing_2011_07_25full_audioport.mp3

  3. Betty says:

    Conservative Christians are monsters. No Centrist Liberal would say such a thing. Canadians must wake up to the Conservative Christian beliefs that are not Canadian values. Canadian women must be protected from such monstrosities.

  4. Jon Evan says:

    “Mourdock’s insanity would be just that — one man’s insanity — were it not for the fact that, within the Republican Party, it’s a form of insanity that is contagious.”
    Illogical and absurd hyperbole! Painting all conservatives with the Mourdock self-righteous hateful brush is disingenuous. The elephant in the room which progressives refuse to even acknowledge is the debate surrounding the Catholic question: when does life begin. A civilized society that which you purport to want needs to sit down and answer that question.

    • MCBellecourt says:

      I’ll trust science over religion to make that determination, thank you very much.

      Oh, and speaking of “civilized societies”, there can be no such self-aggrandizing claim to same without seriously tackling the problem of child poverty, which none of these right-wing nutbags care enough to address. Indeed, whenever a right-wing government gets into power, they always manage to cause more poverty rather than allieviate it, and who suffers the most? The children that are already here.

      The same right-wing nutbags are all about blowing up countries that don’t cowtow to their corporate masters’ agendas, causing death and destruction everywhere they and their war toys are pointed. Rah rah siss boom bah, let’s blow something up and prove how tough and strong we are.

      Oh, yeah, and did I mention the death penalty?

      Civilized, indeed. The right wing needs to put their money where their gaping maws are and start giving a shit about the children that are already here, and the world that those children will inherit as a direct result of their policies. Until that happens, the right wing has absolutely NO SAY WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF LIFE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SHOWN OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THEY DO NOT RECOGNISE IT.

    • Tim says:

      I respectfully disagree. Ralph Klein suggested that abortion is a decision to be made by a woman, her doctor, and her God. I also like the Clintons’ position that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. My feeling is that very person and every situation is different. I don’t see how anyone can apply a one size fits all policy to this issue. In a legal sense, I don’t see how you answer “When does life begin?” except through arbitrary measures. Doctors already exercise discretion on this matter, why does the law need to be involved?

      It might be possible for you and me to discuss this difficult issue rationally. Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin not so much.

      • Jon Evan says:

        But yours is a unilateral approach to this discussion. You champion the rights of women and doctors as I do but you need to as well ask the question whether the unborn have rights too. Where is that debate by Warren’s civilized society to provide an answer to that Catholic question? Saying it’s too difficult a policy to apply broadly without first having the debate is disingeuous and convenient. I expect more. Sadly, no party in parliament wants to enter that realm…

        • Torgo says:

          One of the reasons progressives like myself don`t enter into this debate is because I see it as unhelpful and unnecessary. To try to impose an absolutist and one-size-fits-all golden standard here will only result in hurting people and taking you well into satirical territory (every sperm is sacred….) That, to me at least, is also what happens to folks like Akin and Mourdock; their beliefs take them farther and farther away from reality and what would actually result from the widespread application of their ideas.

          Personally, as an atheist and humanist, I believe more in optimal and better outcomes than the ideal or godly. Less unwanted pregnancies, more sexual freedom for everyone (especially women), and more children who are wanted, loved and taken care of are goals that are far more important and deserve far more of our attention and time than something more akin to figuring how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

          • que sera sera says:

            @Jon Evan:

            Speaking of disingenuous assumptions, if someone doesn’t have a cold – they don’t have a cold; what they also don’t have is a “cold called an ‘absence of cold'”.

            Good grief.

          • que sera sera says:

            Ooops …………… I tagged my “reply” to the wrong spot……..

        • que sera sera says:

          A civilized society is not compelled to live by Catholic dogma or to answer to or for any “Catholic” question.

          Nor is there any obligation to frame civilization’s legal & charter rights in terms of any religious dogma whatsoever.

          The assumption otherwise legitimizes the fundie nutters in their insane quest (ie: Westboro Baptist Church et.al) to rule civilization on their idiot terms.

          Thank the right wing crazies for the New Age of Endarkenment poisoning not only the politics of North American but also the Middle East.

          • Jon Evan says:

            The difficulty of saying that there is no “obligation to frame civilization’s legal & charter rights in terms of any religious dogma whatsoever” is that you assume that somehow people who call themselves “atheist” or “humanist” are not religious and somehow are neutral. Such an assumption is disingenuous because everyone has a world view which forms the basis for what they believe and defines their system of faith or religion. So everyone is religious.
            The debate is necessary in a civilized society so that everyone’s religion is respected not just yours.

    • Outsider says:

      We can guess where you stand on that. And why is it that the most outrageous stances/positions/philosophies seem to come from the right?

      • Torgo says:

        Just in reply to Jon Evan above:

        Under my version of religious freedom, what I believe does not give me the right to make you believe the same, to force you to have an abortion or use birth control or to take away any of your choices with regards to family planning and reproductive freedom. I don`t think I can say the same for your version.

  5. MoS says:

    Let’s not forget, these fundamentalists are not outliers. Romney has endorsed Mourdock and is sticking with him. He hasn’t moved to ditch Akins or any of the other types either – “some girls rape easy”. You might have seen former Powell aide, retired Col. Wilkinson, denouncing his own party as “full of racists.” White America is going through a troubled time, some reverting back to the pre-50s era. They see the demographic change underway and they know the loss of their privilege is inevitable. A radicalized Republican party of the sort we see today is little beyond an angry backlash. I’ve heard it described as a party of the angry old guy sitting on his porch and yelling at the Future to get off his lawn.

    It’s no coincidence that we now see Blue Staters speaking out, even writing books, about jettisoning the South. A century and a half after a hideous civil war to keep them in, the North seems to think the best option now is to “let’em go.”

  6. Martin says:

    The full quote is: “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen.”

  7. Danny says:

    Conservatives want to talk about Benghazi and Liberals want to talk about abortion.
    Nobody wants to talk about the US debt problems. Jesus.
    Stick a fork in it, this election is done. I think it is time for a contestl , who will win and what will the Electoral College votes be? Free fight the right book to the winner!

    • Brad says:

      Yeah, because spending problems are moral issues that far outweigh any consideration regarding life and death, so dismissing the concerns of women and debates about foreign military intervention are pretty easy as they are just distractions.

  8. Derek Pearce says:

    Best comment I’ve heard (because it’s true) is “Here’s Republican logic: pregnancy from rape? Oh, gift from God. Oh, and I’m gay? Well that’s my “choice”. Consistency? Please?

  9. Iris Mclean says:

    This “God” thing is totally out of control. On the other hand, maybe Mitt’s magic undies will save the planet.

  10. Leah says:

    Have you seen this NYT op-ed? It’s pretty fantastic. I think you’ll appreciate the “you don’t get to use that term” and “we should probably reclaim this one” sentiments expressed. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/friedman-why-i-am-pro-life.html I think he probably could have stopped before holding Bloomberg up as a shining example, but that’s just my opinion.

  11. Brad Young says:

    When you read the comments following the article on the Sun site, it’s not a leap to understand how these people, get elected.

  12. que sera sera says:

    How Christian fundamentalism feeds the toxic partisanship of US politics

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/26/religious-fundamentalism-toxic-partisanship-us-politics

    “From a distance it’s hard to see much difference between countries like the USA, Israel and Iran. Heavily armed and run by intolerant religious fundamentalists.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*