Mourdock under fire for rape remarks

Mourdock under fire for rape remarks

There are 1264 comments on the Politico story from Oct 23, 2012, titled Mourdock under fire for rape remarks. In it, Politico reports that:

Richard Mourdock, the Indiana Republican Senate candidate, came under fire Tuesday night for comments suggesting that pregnancies occurring from rape are the result of God's will.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Politico.

Orangelion

Buckley, UK

#1212 Nov 19, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
With that blog? LOL.
No, much more, do you still want more evidence?
Orangelion

Buckley, UK

#1213 Nov 19, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what "prove" means.
Or you would have shown us that the UK is a democracy instead of a monarchy.
It is a parlamentary democracy, it is only a constitutional monarchy.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1214 Nov 19, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
No, much more, do you still want more evidence?
Just some real proof will do.
Orangelion

Buckley, UK

#1215 Nov 19, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Just some real proof will do.
Firstly, it has proven unreliable research that 1 in 4 women have been raped as it is based on whether women were forced to have sex as being rape, women having sex against their wishes as being rape, or women having sex because they feel obliged as rape. And it also counted women who had sex and regretted it as rape. Also, according to a Forensic Book, nothing meant to even counteract the arguements, mentioned the types of victims women were, and that didn't comply with the 1 in 4 women are raped figures either.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1216 Nov 19, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, it has proven unreliable research that 1 in 4 women have been raped as it is based on whether women were forced to have sex as being rape, women having sex against their wishes as being rape, or women having sex because they feel obliged as rape. And it also counted women who had sex and regretted it as rape. Also, according to a Forensic Book, nothing meant to even counteract the arguements, mentioned the types of victims women were, and that didn't comply with the 1 in 4 women are raped figures either.
So you say it's unreliable. It has not been "proven". If I recall correctly, all your doing is parroting that blog.
Orangelion

Buckley, UK

#1217 Nov 19, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
So you say it's unreliable. It has not been "proven". If I recall correctly, all your doing is parroting that blog.
Its on other websites as well, not just from that blog. Go on, if you know yourself, what was the research based on in that 1 in 4 women were raped research test? And do you want some information from that Forensics Book as well?(A book documenting Forensic science, a very informative encyclopedia).

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1218 Nov 19, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Its on other websites as well, not just from that blog. Go on, if you know yourself, what was the research based on in that 1 in 4 women were raped research test? And do you want some information from that Forensics Book as well?(A book documenting Forensic science, a very informative encyclopedia).
I don't have a thing to prove. It's your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I have yet to see you offer anything other than that one blog. If you have other proof, provide it.

Since: Feb 11

Corvallis, OR

#1219 Nov 19, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, it has proven unreliable research that 1 in 4 women have been raped
We can rely on all of your posts being unreliable.

Since: Feb 11

Corvallis, OR

#1220 Nov 19, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a parlamentary democracy, it is only a constitutional monarchy.
Terms are mutually exclusive.

Look it up.

Start working on your "French" alias.
Orangelion

Wrexham, UK

#1221 Nov 20, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a thing to prove. It's your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I have yet to see you offer anything other than that one blog. If you have other proof, provide it.
So you can't disprove my claims? Nice throw LOL. You missed and yet claimed a score. Most rapists don't just rape random women on the streets, they make selected victims. And the victims tend to be new unweary women to the area, and not just any. And they pick carefully. Rapists try to charm or trick their victims, and rape out of power, not necessarily sex, they are narcissists. Doesn't sound quite like 1 in 4 women have been raped does it?
Orangelion

Wrexham, UK

#1222 Nov 20, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a thing to prove. It's your claim. The burden of proof is yours. I have yet to see you offer anything other than that one blog. If you have other proof, provide it.
Its not just on that blog. And the blog gives sources too anyway. Are you implying the blog is an unreliable resource, you liar? Disprove what the blog says and other sites say, rather than simply saying, "its just a blog".
Orangelion

Wrexham, UK

#1223 Nov 20, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Terms are mutually exclusive.
Look it up.
Start working on your "French" alias.
No they aren't.
Orangelion

Wrexham, UK

#1224 Nov 20, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Terms are mutually exclusive.
Look it up.
Start working on your "French" alias.
And your dumb enough to assume an unregistered member can change a username.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1225 Nov 20, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't disprove my claims? Nice throw LOL. You missed and yet claimed a score. Most rapists don't just rape random women on the streets, they make selected victims. And the victims tend to be new unweary women to the area, and not just any. And they pick carefully. Rapists try to charm or trick their victims, and rape out of power, not necessarily sex, they are narcissists. Doesn't sound quite like 1 in 4 women have been raped does it?
I don't have to disprove your claims. It's up to you to prove them. That's how it works.

Spouting your opinions is not that proof.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1226 Nov 20, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not just on that blog. And the blog gives sources too anyway. Are you implying the blog is an unreliable resource, you liar? Disprove what the blog says and other sites say, rather than simply saying, "its just a blog".
Yes, all blogs are unreliable, as they are nothing BUT someone's personal opinion. COULD it be right? Yes, that's possible. Does it amount to PROOF? No, absolutely not.

WHAT other sites? Bring them forward, by all means. But, not if they are ALSO blogs.
Orangelion

Wrexham, UK

#1227 Nov 20, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all blogs are unreliable, as they are nothing BUT someone's personal opinion. COULD it be right? Yes, that's possible. Does it amount to PROOF? No, absolutely not.
WHAT other sites? Bring them forward, by all means. But, not if they are ALSO blogs.
The blog gives quotes. Look up on other websites yourself. And it may be true, you can't just dismiss a blog as being absolutely false, some blogs may be right, some blogs might be wrong. Come back when you've done some research, and have also disproved what type of women get raped, and how it disproves the idea that women are raped all the time on the streets.
Orangelion

Wrexham, UK

#1228 Nov 20, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have to disprove your claims. It's up to you to prove them. That's how it works.
Spouting your opinions is not that proof.
Your a biased and single minded women, thats all you are.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1229 Nov 20, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
The blog gives quotes. Look up on other websites yourself. And it may be true, you can't just dismiss a blog as being absolutely false, some blogs may be right, some blogs might be wrong. Come back when you've done some research, and have also disproved what type of women get raped, and how it disproves the idea that women are raped all the time on the streets.
No. If you have real proof, bring it forward. It's YOUR claim, it's YOUR job to prove it.

Bring your proof, and we'll discuss it. Fail to do so while still claiming it's true, and I'll continue to call you on it.

And YOU had the nerve to say I was using a cop-out? LOL, you're projecting.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1230 Nov 20, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Your a biased and single minded women, thats all you are.
Biased? No. I'll gladly read any legitimate proof you bring to the forum, and I'll discuss it with you.

Single minded? Sometimes, yes. Especially when someone is stupidly claiming things they can't prove, and insisting I just take their word for it. Nothing wrong with that.

Since: Feb 11

Grants Pass, OR

#1231 Nov 20, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
No they aren't.
They are.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Aura Mytha 201,823
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 6 min who cares 15,064
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Frankendrumpf 233,730
News A tale of two conventions 16 min Synque 26
News Trump bounces into the lead 47 min Trumping On 338
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 1 hr positronium 10,533
News The Republican Party is dead 4 hr Le Jimbo 2,337
More from around the web