The Conservative After My Heart

Published by

Clarissa

August 21, 2012

This is the kind of Conservative that I like:

At a time of serious economic crisis, when millions of Americans are seeking relief from unemployment and falling real incomes, cretins like Representative Akin should be driven out of politics to open up opportunities for those who aspire to help Americans to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And no, Representative Akin, that does not include the happiness either of you or of the rapist. Both of you have placed yourselves outside the Constitutional contract on which the future of this nation rests.

I wish we heard more of such passionate, reasonable, logical and humanistic voices from the Conservative side.

I told you, people, that there are very intelligent, normal Conservatives in this country. Unfortunately, their opinions get drowned out by the shrieks from the anti-intellectual fringes.

Rate this:

32 responses to “The Conservative After My Heart”

Matt

August 21, 2012

Sadly, the Republicans just apparently adopted a “no exception” ban on abortion as a party plank…. wow…. how they can be so deaf sucks.

It really sucks but we can’t focus on our conservative message around fiscal policy, health care, energy, etc…

Even if the social conservatives believe this stuff WHY would you be dumb enough to announce it …

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 21, 2012
  
  OK, finally, a male reader who can discuss the issue without going off on tangents.
  
  I was starting to lose hope here.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Titfortat
    
    August 21, 2012
    
    OK, finally, a male reader who can discuss the issue without going off on tangents.(Clarissa)
    
    Now, now, dont get me started. 😉
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Stringer Bell

August 21, 2012

The same conservative who called all third world cultures trash. Humanistic my fucking ass. Sorry Clarissa, don’t agree with you on this one. Charles Rowley is a racist dunce.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 21, 2012
  
  Wow, it’s really striking that one male reader of the blog after another tries to derail the conversation about the egregious treatment of female rape victims in this society onto a variety of other topics.
  
  This is beginning to bother me.
  
  People, concentrate: RAPE VICTIMS. We are talking about rape victims here. Can we, please, have that conversation without mentioning everything else and his brother but the actual topic?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Stringer Bell
    
    August 21, 2012
    
    ‘The conservative after my heart’ does seem to imply that the focus of this post was Charles Rowley. I could be mistaken, though. Forgive me if that’s the case. I won’t post in this thread again.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      August 21, 2012
      
      The subject of the post is my joy at the realization that there are Conservatives who have an intelligent, reasonable and normal attitude towards both rape and abortion. This is probably THE most divisive issue in this country. Isn’t it great that we have a chance to reach a consensus over it and then move ahead? All that is needed is to push out the religious fanatics who have hijacked the Conservative movement.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. Titfortat
    
    August 21, 2012
    
    People, concentrate: RAPE VICTIMS. We are talking about rape victims here. (Clarissa)
    
    Not to get too technical but you are only talking about female rape victims.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      August 21, 2012
      
      “Not to get too technical but you are only talking about female rape victims.”
      
      – I’m talking about all rape victims who can get pregnant as a result of a rape. Because they are the ones who will be damaged by the legislation we are discussing.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  3. Titfortat
    
    August 21, 2012
    
    Exactly! Thanks for clarifying who you are talking about.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
el

August 21, 2012

Despite being a strong believer in genetics, this paragraph rubbed me in the wrong way:

Very few women desire to give birth to the genetic offspring of a filthy rapist, let alone to suckle and nurture that potential monster to adulthood, where the quiescent genetic disease once again may manifest itself against the female population. For those women sufficiently wise to avoid that trap, abortion is the appropriate outcome and should be fully funded by the rapists responsible for their conditions.

I do think that nature is stronger than nurture, that children resemble biological parents not only in looks, but also in IQ, temperament, tendency to physical & mental illnesses, etc. However, here he both

A) plays into the stereotype of a rapist as somebody with devil’s horns and a tail – “potential monster … quiescent genetic disease” – which actually lets them off the hook in the real world, where most women are raped by somebody they knew before and whom others think of as “a usual, normal guy”.

I don’t think that to rape or commit war crimes or … , one needs to have some special genetic disease, to be this proverbial monster totally unlike most “normal” people. There are too many people with such potential, each with own’s threshold necesarry to commit a crime.

I refuse to call *all* rapists, Nazi criminals and their helpers among USSR peoples, Nazi supporters (there were many!) AND other criminals in all times and places insane (notice the ableism?) or monsters or suffering from this mysterious, supposedly totally rare “genetic disease”. Sure, there are better and worse people, and stronger / weaker people, and exceptionally good ones, but being a bad person is not “a disease”. Some rapists are diseased, but many aren’t.

B) Says that to abort is always the only right choice: “those women sufficiently wise”. So, if for example you’re pressured into sex by a boyfriend, or if he doesn’t immediately stop after being asked (because of being a vile person) and you give birth afterwards, the child will be A Monster. Frankly, I doubt this blogger would say this. So again we return to this mystical “real” rape, despite him outwardly advocating against the concept.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 21, 2012
  
  For me, this is not about the genes as much as it is about the family scenario. What are the chances that such a child would not be deeply traumatized and disturbed since birth? Just imagine the feelings of a mother who has to carry the child and give birth under these circumstances. Add that to the deeply damaged scenario of the father and you get an individual who is in need of very serious psychological rehabilitation since birth.
  
  “So, if for example you’re pressured into sex by a boyfriend, or if he doesn’t immediately stop after being asked (because of being a vile person) and you give birth afterwards, the child will be A Monster.”
  
  – A child of rape is a child of rape. Bringing such a child into the world is a huge responsibility and something that nobody should be forced into.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. el
    
    August 21, 2012
    
    //Bringing such a child into the world is a huge responsibility and something that nobody should be forced into.
    
    Of course, we both agree about not forcing people to bring *any* child into the world.
    
    //What are the chances that such a child would not be deeply traumatized and disturbed since birth?
    
    I am 100% sure not all children, who resulted from marital rape f.e., were / are “disturbed since birth”. I believe, there were quite many, unfortunately.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      August 21, 2012
      
      “I am 100% sure not all children, who resulted from marital rape f.e., were / are “disturbed since birth”. ”
      
      – Marital rape doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Imagine the things such a child witnesses every day. Unless, of course, the woman leaves immediately after the rape and the rapist is jailed. But as far as I know, bringing charges against this kind of rapist is still next to impossible. 😦 😦
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
2. el
  
  August 21, 2012
  
  necessary, not “necesarry”. Sorry.
  
  And I totally missed “funded by the rapists responsible”. Such a great idea, especially if a woman in question is poor & he isn’t caught or doesn’t have money. And, of course, the long process of proving it was rape, which is often longer than 9 months, even when it results in conviction.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    August 21, 2012
    
    “And I totally missed “funded by the rapists responsible”. Such a great idea, especially if a woman in question is poor & he isn’t caught or doesn’t have money.”
    
    – Charles Rowley is an economist. 🙂
    
    “And, of course, the long process of proving it was rape, which is often longer than 9 months, even when it results in conviction.”
    
    – The money can always be claimed retroactively. Place the animal in jail and get him to work there to pay off his debt. I support the idea wholeheartedly.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
musteryou

August 21, 2012

Yes, an unwanted child of rape, which is what a child of rape is likely to be, will have a lot of psychological conditions to make them antisocial, perhaps psychopathic. A lot of men who feel rejected by their mothers become mentally unstable. At least, I think that is the theory and it’s in tune with what I have observed.

LikeLike

Reply
David Gendron

August 23, 2012

I’m not so sure that Charles Rowley is a conservative. Fiscally, yes, but not morally.

LikeLike

Reply
1. David Gendron
  
  August 23, 2012
  
  But sometimes, Rowley vomits some lunatic idiocy:
  
  About Uncle Tom OSama, he said: “When an American demonstrates consistently anti-American rhetoric, one knows that he will not stand firm on American ideals. When a young aspiring politician mixes with former domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohn), with American haters ( The Reverend Jeremiah Wright), and with anti-Semites (Rashid Khalidi), one does not expect him to perform as a George Washington or a Ronald Reagan all-American hero.”
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    August 23, 2012
    
    Forget about that, he once said that I envy housewives. 🙂 But I don’t mind difference of opinion as long as my basic humanity is respected.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
  2. bloggerclarissa
    
    August 23, 2012
    
    More importantly, how do you feel about the elections in Quebec?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 23, 2012
  
  I’ve met a few conservatives of this kind. They have no interest in policing anybody’s morality and want to turn the discussion to the economy, governmental regulation, etc. I can disagree with them, argue with them, but I respect them because they never try to impose their morality on me.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. David Gendron
    
    August 23, 2012
    
    Yeah, in personal morality matters, he’s right. But in militaro-terrorist matters, he’s fucking wrong.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      August 23, 2012
      
      Obviously, I don’t hold the same beliefs in matters oif foreign policy as CR does. My position is anti-interventionist. Let’s stop messing with other people and try to solve our own problems instead.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
David Gendron

August 23, 2012

And I’m not interested by the Akin-gate because I’m pro-abortion. All women should (and at least, should have the right to do so) abort when they’re pregnant, raped or not!

LikeLike

Reply
David Gendron

August 23, 2012

“More importantly, how do you feel about the elections in Quebec?”

No chance at all for the left. No chance for a separatist party. This will be a fight between the Not-really-Liberals of Jean Charest and the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) who both love hiking tuitions fees. (at least, the CAQ proposal is not so rightist on this matter). I think Charest will be beaten by the CAQ if the students movement do nothing very significative until the election. The CAQ masters clearly the main subject of the campaign: corruption.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 23, 2012
  
  Don’t you think the PQ will win? I was pretty sure this would be a PQ’s election.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. David Gendron
    
    August 23, 2012
    
    No, not now. Before today, this was possible (PQ was leading in the polls), but I don’t believe anymore to this scenario.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      August 23, 2012
      
      “Before today, this was possible (PQ was leading in the polls), but I don’t believe anymore to this scenario.”
      
      – Did something new happen today? Is this because the student protests have re-started?
      
      You don’t support CAQ, do you?
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
David Gendron

August 23, 2012

I’m not support the CAQ, they are not separatists. Something new happened this week: Marois (she’s the leader of the PQ) lost many voters in the four debate (1 with 4 party’s leader and 3 duals debates) that occur this week. And the inertia of the student movement doesn’t help Charest to control his law and order agenda.

LikeLike

Reply
1. David Gendron
  
  August 23, 2012
  
  I don’t support…
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
2. bloggerclarissa
  
  August 23, 2012
  
  Yes, I heard Marois wasn’t good during the debates. I also heard that the Liberals sucked beyond belief and couldn’t answer anything. I didn’t watch the debate myself, though.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply