23 thoughts on “Maybe Gordon is having a change of heart?”

  1. I’m quite sure that Howie was looking to point out the utter travesty of the self-appointed moral authority in South Dakota endorsing a candidate who vetoed the first abortion ban and voted against a 48 hour notice to parents of minors wanting an abortion. Rounds has never been a champion of Christian values and has worked against issues FHA claims to support. As Dale has already seen and heard, FHA will pay a price for this endorsement from the thousands of supporters who know better. Man of principle, indeed…

  2. I was around when Mike Rounds signed a ban on abortion that went to the state ballot. An all out BAN! But you whackos want to believe Rounds isn’t pro-life. Get a life.

    I can’t wait for November when Gordon Howie loses big and then I can start calling him 4% Gordo instead of 12% Gordo.

    1. “Anon” wrote:
      >”I was around when Mike Rounds signed a ban on abortion that went to the state ballot. An all out BAN! But you whackos want to believe Rounds isn’t pro-life. Get a life.”

      Mike Rounds undermined South Dakota’s 2006 abortion ban and started a chain reaction that will eventually result in the murders of hundreds of thousands of innocent children around the world. Rounds signed the ban while clearly and repeatedly arguing that it was bad strategy and explicitly indicating that he wasn’t a supporter. He said the Supreme Court would reject it 5-4 and issue a ruling that would actually end up weakening the pro-life movement.

      His argument that the law would do more harm than good doomed it in the referendum. Rather than campaigning for it, he created a rationalization for staying as far away from the issue as he possibly could. Ironically, he claimed his signature would give the law’s supporters a chance at the ballot box … while he was ruining that chance.

      As a “pro-life” Republican, Rounds undermined public support for the law in a way no Democrat ever could have. He talked about what a setback it would be for the pro-life cause if the Supreme Court rejected the ban. I wonder whether he ever considered what a setback it would be if a strongly pro-life state like South Dakota voted it down.

      If it was a bad law, he was wrong to sign it. If it was a good law, he was wrong not to defend it. If the Supreme Court had rejected it, the blood of the children would have been on their hands. Now it’s on his.

      Most pro-life voters probably aren’t going to support Rounds when they understand that he took a nap during our Gethsemane.

      1. “when they understand” – – that’s always the battlecry. how many probable voters make that trip to the place of ‘understanding’ that you need them to? hardly any, last time i checked. “when they understand,” why, people will rally to my tantrum. the conversation around here never improves, so i’m leaving now.

        1. anon 1204a here again – what I just posted was not an “alinsky tactic’ although some might think it so – what i did was ‘insert a different perspective’

        2. An anonymous commenter wrote:
          >”‘when they understand,’ why, people will rally to my tantrum.”

          This isn’t a tantrum.

          >”how many probable voters make that trip to the place of ‘understanding’ that you need them to?”

          Time will tell.

          1. ehh ya got me. i couldn’t stay out. 1. tantrums don’t require loud crying, floorkicking or diapers. for a mostly-functional adult the tantrum expresses itself as a relentless stubbornness, aimed at stopping the whole complex parade for the time required to address the tantrum-er’s specific grievance, either by repeated airing of it or reassertion of its value as a valid point of debate. i honestly can’t see where your constant detailed complaint about Rounds vis a vis the two abortion bans holds any water any more. but please knock yourself out going there over and over. i guess we’ll stop the parade every time you want to remind us of your grievance. 2. “time will tell.” time is constantly telling, and the libertarians of old are still waiting for the re-establishment of whatever touched off the grievances they still carry close to their hearts. i regret indulging my need to explore this, and in fact i’m in grave danger of taking this up as my own tantrum so NOW i’m out.

            1. An anonymous commenter wrote:
              >”for a mostly-functional adult the tantrum expresses itself as a relentless stubbornness, aimed at stopping the whole complex parade for the time required to address the tantrum-er’s specific grievance, either by repeated airing of it or reassertion of its value as a valid point of debate.”

              That isn’t true, and this still wouldn’t be a tantrum if it were.

  3. These issues are very important to FHA and if Dale is saying Rounds is golden then it’s because he has done the research and found Rounds to be golden.

    Stop the conspiracies. Mike Rounds is a conservative, pro-life Republican.

    1. Rounds is NO conservative! He himself calls himself a pragmatic politician. That is not a conservative.

      He called conservatives “professional dissenters.”. But what ever you have to tell the voters to fool them.

  4. Kurt you have never talked to a woman who was brutally raped and impregnated by a mad man have you? Regardless if that man was a stranger or her father; the pregnancy occurring is a forced crime upon that woman. Forcing her to keep that assumed pregnancy lowers her to legal property status. That is what the vote was all about. It had nothing to do with being pro-life or pro -choice.

    1. Charlie Hoffman wrote:
      >”Kurt you have never talked to a woman who was brutally raped and impregnated by a mad man have you?”

      Yes, but not about the rape.

      >”Regardless if that man was a stranger or her father; the pregnancy occurring is a forced crime upon that woman.”

      The rape is a crime. The pregnancy isn’t.

      >”Forcing her to keep that assumed pregnancy lowers her to legal property status.”

      That isn’t true, but abortion lowers her child to dead status.

      >”That is what the vote was all about. It had nothing to do with being pro-life or pro -choice.”

      That claim is absurd.

  5. Anon I spout nothing but my thoughts of having daughters who might have been brutally raped by a psychopath and whether or not God forced him to do the act resulting in a pregnancy. Go postal all you want on your own purity but my eyes see a fix for a crime not resulting in a lifetime of grief.
    Three exceptions were all that were needed. Those who demand it all usually get nothing…………….

    1. “whether or not God forced him to do the act resulting in a pregnancy.”

      Not sure what God you believe in, my God doesn’t force men to rape women.

      You should have actually read the article before you responded. You cite a liberal straw man argument that has been shown to be a distraction to pro-life efforts.

    2. mr hoffman brings up the huge point about the abortion ban referrals in South Dakota – the nature of the ‘no’ vote on enacting the bans. most South Dakotans don’t like or embrace abortion, and most if pressed by their own dire situation through threatened life of the mother or rape of an underage daughter, would probably choose not to personally engage in seeking an abortion. BUT the ‘no’ vote? the SD voter does not want to be that person that runs their neighbor’s household, or tells their neighbor how their personal affairs ought to run at that level. that’s who we are.

      1. An anonymous commenter wrote:
        >”the SD voter does not want to be that person that runs their neighbor’s household, or tells their neighbor how their personal affairs ought to run at that level. that’s who we are.”

        By this faulty reasoning South Dakotans would allow children conceived through rape to be murdered after they’re born too.

    3. Mr Hoffman, you must be a “prochoice” Democrat spouting such ignorant rhetoric justifying the murder of an innocent baby?

    4. Charlie Hoffman wrote:
      >”Three exceptions were all that were needed. Those who demand it all usually get nothing…………….”

      Those who undermine the right to life for some children undermine the right to life for all children.

      John Thune and Mike Rounds, I’m talking to you.

  6. Anon how long do you suppose human sperm can live and swim inside a woman searching for a viable egg?

    How long do you suppose bovine sperm can live inside a cow swimming in search of a viable egg?

    Now tell me who is ignorant?

  7. Charlie Hoffman wrote:
    >”Now tell me who is ignorant?”

    You are, Charlie. Ignorant and self-centered and wicked. By your own admission, there are circumstances under which you’d have your grandchild murdered to spare you the “grief” of being reminded of his or her father.

    And a command ends with a period, not a question mark.

  8. Kurt I am Pro Life and very much against any abortion being used as birth control. My issue lies solely on a man being able to rape a child or woman with that horrible crime resulting in a possible forced delivery of a child by a child or woman. By allowing a chemical to be given to that rape victim right away most eggs never are fertilized and there is no pregnancy.

Comments are closed.