Candidate: God wanted you to get pregnant from rape
If Rep. Todd Akin is elected by the voters of Missouri, he may not be the only senator who has bizarre and repugnant views on the forcible rape. Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party favorite who dethroned Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, in that state’s primary, has his own interesting views about rape and pregnancy. Watch:
Why doesn’t Mourdock be REALLY honest and come out and say that rape is God’s will, too?
And . . . Here’s Mitt Romney’s ad, endorsing the guy (now pulled — go figure):
October 23, 2012 - 10:28 PM
I watched this debate and I can tell you that, as kooky as Richard Mourdock is, I nearly fell out of my chair on this one. Polls have him leading this race by about 5%. It’s my hope that the voters of my home state of Indiana wake up and see Richard Mourdock for what he is. That would be a disgrace.
Electing him would be a disgrace is what I meant. Sorry, I was to pi__ed when I was typing.
These crazy evangelicals believe everything is God’s will. They are the wacko Christian fringe.
What on earth did he say that was incorrect? He said if pregancy result from rape, the pregnancy is what God intended, and as such we have no right to end that innnocent human life. 100% right.
Oh, wait. Democrats want to twist it around to “Mourdock says rape is God’s will”. I get it now.
“I watched this debate and I can tell you that, as kooky as Richard Mourdock is, I nearly fell out of my chair on this one. Polls have him leading this race by about 5%. It’s my hope that the voters of my home state of Indiana wake up and see Richard Mourdock for what he is.”
What we are witnessing is a new syndrome: Tea Party Self Destruction. It’s deadly to candidates.
Romney wisely cut his TV ad, endorsing Mourdock, after this.
Lynda K, thanks for the reminder. I’ve updated the post with that Romney gem.
Re: Comment by Lynda K — October 23, 2012 @ 11:37 pm
Oh wait. Suzie disagree with Willard re: agreeing with / supporting / endorsing Mourdock.
http://tinyurl.com/8fvxxeh
**
Romney Campaign Says He Disagrees With Mourdock’s Rape Comments
Won’t say if he still endorses. posted Oct 23, 2012 10:36pm EDT
MORRISON, Colo. — A spokesperson for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he disagrees with Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on rape and abortion Tuesday night.
In a debate with his opponents, Mourdock, who started broadcasting an ad featuring Mitt Romney’s endorsement just yesterday, said that it is God’s plan for women who are impregnated by rape to have the child, saying he opposes abortion except for instances where the life of the mother is at risk.
“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
“Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” said Romney press secretary Andrea Saul in a statement. Romney is supportive of allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest.
SNIP
**
Will Paul Ryan support Suzie?
http://p.twimg.com/A58JmtZCMAAqykU.jpg
Where is the voice of reason? As a Christian, these types are horribly embarrassing and as a woman, they are incredibly infuriating. If men got pregnant, these issues would not be government policies, but private healthcare dcisions. I am really concerned about our country if voters do not send a clear message that the Tea Party and evangelical extremists will be ostracized.
It’s great to have bob h back.
So Suzie if your husband got shot and killed while on the job at 7-Eleven you would be OK with that because it is “Gods’s” will? This kind of logic is what discredits you kooky religous types.
Teresa,
Sure, rape is nor optimal. But how does it make that innocent child any less of a human being that it should be put put to death? The people who support that life are not the extremists.
Start this video at 2:00 minutes for the right answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=484r9RHjXN8
The irrational support from, Suzie, is insane. Just an assumption here, but I am willing to bet that people like, Suzie, and other evangelical supporters of theological thinking such as this, they have never been raped, nor have they ever had any family member raped before. Saying that rape is a gift from a celestial dictator is not all that uncommon among the religious bullies among our political leaders today. Rick Santorum, being one of the biggest.
I have known a few rape victims, and a few young people who have been molested as children. Having known these strong and resilient human beings, I can tell you that there is no need for a supernatural cause for rape. Rape is caused by a person who is sadistic and twisted, just like the Abrahamic gods, but that is besides the point. If you have experienced the physical and emotional suffering of a person that has endured a rape, it is no gift. Then compounding the issue with a life, a constant reminder of one of the most horrific events a person can go through and consider that a gift from your superstitious belief is quite crazy. I do wish that you would speak to a therapist before spreading illogical beliefs such as “rape is a gift from god”.
One thing that I would like to ask, Suzie, and others that believe this line of thought, considering you trusts in something you have absolutely no proof of, a faith, a mere presupposition from an illiterate sheep herder (Abraham) 4,000 years ago. Mrs. Suzie, if you heard a voice tell you to gut your child, and burn him as a sacrifice to your god to show him how faithful and committed you are to him… would you do it? Or would you declare yourself insane? Reading the bible, and stories that tell folks things like this are moral leads me to believe the god of this superstition is pro-choice and selfish. Look at the flood myth. Your god is pro-choice.
Sure, God sent the pregnancy, just not the rape…May God have mercy!
It’s as thought the RWnuts are in some battle to see which can be the biggest freak.
Teresa, The GOP has embraced the Christian lunatic fringe in order to win elections. I suspect the party has regarded these folks as useful idiots. But now they are joined at the hip. I would prefer to vote Republican, all else being equal…but not for the current bunch, thank you very much.
#4 “Oh, wait. Democrats want to twist it around to “Mourdock says rape is God’s will”.”
Well, toots, if people are twisting it, it’s not just Dems doing it, now is it?
I agree Teresa.
It’s like that SNL skit where Arriana Huffington says that if men got pregnant, “If men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be like a Starbucks. There would be two in every block and four in every airport, and the morning after pill would come in different flavors like sea salt and cool ranch.”
And Teresa, you are correct…if men got pregnant, abortifacients would be in vending machines.
If he was “100% right”, why did Romney pull the ad endorsing him?
A long history of republicans’ views about rape – and by extension, women in general…these guys spoke what many RWers think.
Richard Mourdock said, “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Campaigning Oct 23, 2012
Todd Akin: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down” – during his 2012 Senate Campaign
Chuck Winder : “I would hope that when a woman goes in to a physician with a rape issue, that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.” – Republican Idaho Senate – March 2012
Tom Smith PA Senate candidate : Compared a pregnancy resulting from rape to “having a baby out-of-wedlock” – Aug.2012
Rick Santorum: “I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you… rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.” – January, 2012
Rep. Roger Rivard (R/WI): The republcan told a local newspaper last year that his father had once given him the advice, “some girls rape easy.” Oct 2012
Henry Aldridge Republican state representative: “The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant,” 1995
Clayton Williams: “If it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it” – 1990 republican Gubernatorial candidate / Texas
Stephen Freind (R/PA) state representative: “Rape, obviously, is a traumatic experience. When that traumatic experience is undergone, a woman secretes a certain secretion, which has a tendency to kill sperm.” 1988
Women and their magical lady parts…such a mystery.
Oh, wait. Democrats want to twist it around to “Mourdock says rape is God’s will”. I get it now.
Comment by Suzie — October 23, 2012 @ 11:11 pm
I know that there is an extreme dearth of logic in your sheltered, shallow world, but no one has to twist anything to arrive at that conclusion. If pregnancy from rape is God’s will, then rape itself is God’s will. Everything is God’s will. All evil that is allowed to be perpetrated upon His children is God’s will. If Mourdock is 100% right, then Democrats wanting to “twist it around” are 100% right about him, as well.
Personally, I’m glad these viewpoints and beliefs are being brought to light. The sooner the radical extremist viewpoints are exposed, the sooner we learn that fanatical religious zealotry is detrimental to and has no place in the politics of this nation.
It’s a 21st century world and we need 21st century people leading it.
Teresa,
If men had to endure the horrors of forcible sex and could get pregnant from it, rape would quickly become a capital crime.
Dan, I love the fall foliage pictures. But these pictures might just be the most beautiful one would ever see.
http://tinyurl.com/9rmmjoe
“What on earth did he say that was incorrect? He said if pregancy result from rape, the pregnancy is what God intended, and as such we have no right to end that innnocent human life. 100% right.”
When Todd Akin made his idiotic comment about the female body possessing a ‘mechanism’ to prevent pregnancy in cases of ‘legitimate’ rape, Screwzie was on here agreeing with him. Now she’s saying that pregnancy CAN result from rape. Which is it, Screwzie? Or are the women who get pregnant from a rape really ‘just asking’ to be raped and probably really want to be raped, and that’s why the magical mechanism doesn’t work in those cases?
I propose another religious theory. If you believe in God, you also believe in Satan, right? Satan needs followers, too. What better way for Satan to increase his following than by having evil rapists plant their seed in child-bearing women? Therefore, rather than being an ‘innocent life’, it’s a life infected with the DNA of a rapist, and as such, there’s a greatly increased chance it will grow up to be a rapist if it’s a boy or a sexual deviant of some sort if it’s a girl. Sins of the father being visited on the children and all. Thus, aborting a pregnancy resulting from rape in order to reduce the number of Satan’s minions is the right thing to do.
Contra=Sick
“Sure, rape is nor optimal.” Seriously, Suzie??
Just a quick question…the concept of innocent life is an interesting one from a Christian perspective, since many Christian theologies posit that everyone is a born sinner (some believe this occurs at the moment of conception, so that all human life is inherently tainted), due to the premise of Original Sin. So, is human life truly innocent, or not? FWIW, I believe Christianity is the only religion that holds this form of belief regarding original sin, as Judaism and Islam don’t have any doctrine on the matter.
I’m just interested to hear some perspectives…I was taught, in the church I attended several times in my youth, that all people are born sinners until they repent and accept Christ.
The righth has devolved into a bunch of vaginaphobes.
Why can’t we just let the woman decide? Some women are willing to at least give birth, others aren’t. Rape and the ensuing child has nothing to do with anything supernatural! Society needs to take responsibility for its actions and quit using religion as an excuse for everything. If you do not believe in abortion then don’t have one.
The bible also calls for the rapist to pay the woman’s father 50 shekels and marry her… (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) are we to follow the bible that closely? So, not only should the woman give birth, but she has to marry her rapist as well?
I’m sure rape victims who become pregant would take comfort in being told, sure it’s not the optimal way to get pregnant, but hey you’re pregnant! Congratulations! Sarcasm font off now.
Other John: Why do Babies Bite, 2 year olds like, 3 year olds steal toys from friends.
As far as the last part of your question Read:
2 Corinthians 5:17
John 3:3
Ephesians 4:22-24
Matthew 7:13-20
oops JOHN.. suppose to be 2 year olds LIE.
I wonder how much 50 shekels is in today’s money.
#28 Something tells me you’re not getting Contra’s point, pp.
@ Kristen, not enough to pay for someone’s privacy intruded, and their sanity stolen.
While watching local(Indianapolis) news during lunch today, the broadcaster asked several folks on the street what they thought of Richard Murdock’s remarks during the debate last night. One guy responded, “That’s what happens when you do too much Koch.”
The reporter immediately jerked the mike away, but it was live. I’m hoping that somehow it shows up on You Tube somewhere.
It was rhetorical, Justin. Even back then it wasn’t enough.
Paying-the-woman’s-father is the part that fits the Extreme RW views of women regardless of the value of 50 shekels then or in today’s money, IMHO.
BTW, does the bible assume that married women are never raped? For the literalistic here: if not when a married woman is raped does the father share the 50 shekels with the husband?
Hum? Who gets paid if the rapist has already killed the parents as in Judges 21: 11-12?
**
11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.
12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
**
——–
One of the nice side bonuses of believing in equality is there is no need to worry about such literalistic details and one needs far less attention to words in order to avoid hoof-in-mouth exposures such as Mourdock’s and Suzie’s revelations of their true values.
Why do RWers love in-utero “life” but rail against supporting the wee ones when they are actually here by cutting early childhood programs, cutting the National School Lunch Program, cutting WIC, cutting Pell Grants…
They want to force all women to have children they neither want, in cases of rape and incest, or cannot afford. Yet, their daily caterwauling of:
“Have that baby! then “Stop having children – we don’t want to pay for their support, nutrition, education or safety!” Hypocrites all.
Congratulations Dan. Towing the party line all year. Msnbc lead story all. day. long. You will be rewarded in the afterlife.
Yes Shrillary, they loudly proclaim if you can’t afford kids don’t have them. Then they proclaim, if you get raped and get pregnant you have to have that child whether you can afford it or not.
Lynda K:
“These crazy evangelicals believe everything is God’s will. They are the wacko Christian fringe.”
Yes, they have to say everything is God’s will. Because if they didn’t consistently do so, it would put them in a bind explaining things from time to time. By making absolutely everything the will of God and trotting out “the perfect plan”, it gets them out of having to defend their intellectual laziness.
pistol pete:
“Contra=Sick”
Contra’s story humorously uses logic no sillier than half the crap that religious loons ask us to believe on a daily basis. Don’t even go there, pistol pete.
60 million people in the US believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Add to that more in the rest of the world.
What MAJOR party to you believe in? Oh yea the mighty libertarians.
By the way, the Romney ad endorsing this jerk has NOT been pulled. Romney issued a statement disavowing those views, but he’s still letting them run the endorsemet ad. Once again, he wants it both ways.
A man has to believe in something…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/a-year-of-biblical-womanhood_n_2006184.html?1351024556&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl29%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D224538
PP, I read this story and thought of you.
Pistol Pete…you mean 20% of Americans believe but 100% of us have to have it jammed down our throats on a regular basis?
BTW where did you get that statistic? It seems too low to me.
60 million of 330 million = believe in Jesus Christ as the story is told.
119 million of 330 million = believe aliens have visited Earth.
More people in the US believe aliens have visited Earth than believe in the story of Jesus Christ.
By your logic, pistol pete, alien believers are twice the “MAJOR party” that Christians are. Oh, I’m sorry. Did you have a point?
It is not Contra who is sick or disgusting in this discussion!
Why do RWers love in-utero “life” but rail against supporting the wee ones when they are actually here by cutting early childhood programs, cutting the National School Lunch Program, cutting WIC, cutting Pell Grants…
It’s because government programs are not equivalent to “caring” about children. Cosnervatives believe establishing a moral climate that promotes marriage, job creation, and self-sufficiency is the most effective way to help children, coupled with charitable giving of our own resources.
Liberal policies discourage marriage, encourage sex outside of marriage, the breakup of families, and dependence on government, none of which could be considered “compassionate”.
I still haven’t heard anyone tell us how the child of a rape is any less a human being and deserving of life than a “regular” child.
Why can’t we just let the woman decide? Some women are willing to at least give birth, others aren’t.
It’s because the person most affected by abortion isn’t the woman; it’s the child. Since the child cannot defend itself, adults need to.
most ill-informed posted, “Liberal policies discourage marriage, encourage sex outside of marriage, the breakup of families, and dependence on government, none of which could be considered “compassionate”. Comment by Suzie — October 24, 2012 @ 7:32 pm
I almost gagged when you posted the word “compassionate” – you! who is the least likely to feel this human emotion. Your comment has to be rated as the most stupid comment you have made about liberals – if you can remember [Romnesia?]some months ago you discovered that the “liberals” on this blog have been married for decades, some are church going folks, most are employed or have businesses, raise well adjusted children who will or have gone on to college and have actual FAMILY VALUES – and, I am so sure most everyone on Dan’s blog have done more for their communities than you could dream of doing – oh yes, you supposedly went to Zimbabwe once to pass out bibles and gawk at the children “foraging for roots and eating bark”…but we all have seen your posts and know the only American “children” you care have yet to be born…
With a couple of exceptions, most Republicans are still supporting the idea that God wanted pregnant rape victims to get pregnant!
Dan,
That’s because despite Mourdock’s idiocy (before this statement) Indiana is so Republican that it is likely to elect him to the Senate. The Republican realize that if they should lose this Senate seat the Democrats will be remarkably closer to a super majority in the Senate.
Didn’t Romney, in the 2nd debate, say something to the effect that single mothers are why children grow up to be violent? And now, republicans want women, single or not, to be forced to carry to full term a pregnancy conceived by rape [or incest].
So will the new republican policy be that if you are single, and raped, you will be forced to marry the rapist?
If they are married, and raped, will the husband be forced to support a child conceived by rape?
Will women be forced into arranged marriages with their rapists? If a woman doesn’t marry her rapist will she be charged with a crime?
Putting “God’s Will” as an excuse to force raped women to carry a pregnancy to full term is bad theology – additionally, it gives every vile, remorseless monster an excuse for their rape by making their crime somehow the “will of some deity”.
The American Taliban [republicans] and their distorted “family values”.
With a couple of exceptions, most Republicans are still supporting the idea that God wanted pregnant rape victims to get pregnant!
Dan just proved Mourdock’s contention, that leftwingers would try to say he wanted women to get raped.
I admire Mr. Mourdock for standing up for his principles. Most people who know what he meant have no problem with it even if they disagree with it. People also know by now that Democrats only know how to lie and distort. I think he’ll still win.
By the way, the Romney ad endorsing this jerk has NOT been pulled. Romney issued a statement disavowing those views, but he’s still letting them run the endorsemet ad. Once again, he wants it both ways.
That’s not having it ‘both ways’ dimwit. Romney disagrees with the remark, but still supports his candidacy. What’s so hard about that?
Six million Jews, not to mention their surviving family members wish Hitler had been aborted. Who’s to say a drastically more evil man hasn’t been aborted, thus saving millions of lives?
“Suzie says:
I still haven’t heard anyone tell us how the child of a rape is any less a human being and deserving of life than a “regular” child.
Posted on October 24th, 2012″
You answer my question….
“When Todd Akin made his idiotic comment about the female body possessing a ‘mechanism’ to prevent pregnancy in cases of ‘legitimate’ rape, Screwzie was on here agreeing with him. Now she’s saying that pregnancy CAN result from rape. Which is it, Screwzie? Or are the women who get pregnant from a rape really ‘just asking’ to be raped and probably really want to be raped, and that’s why the magical mechanism doesn’t work in those cases?”
…then I’ll answer yours.
“Contra”
Akin never said rape can’t result in pregnancy. Ask your your puppet master Gdad why he makes up false claims like that.
“I still haven’t heard anyone tell us how the child of a rape is any less a human being and deserving of life than a “regular” child.” -Suzie
Because of the point you make here Ms. Suzie. You make a clear distinction between human life. If we are to consider these lives equal, why are you making a distinction between the two? If you, a woman outside of the effects of rape, if you are making a distinction between children, then think about the families affected, and think about the child that would have been affected. The difference between the two children is that you claim to love and cherish all children. But we all know that only means when you can force someone to do something they would rather not do. How much do you care for human life really?
I ask again, Mrs. Suzie, if you heard a voice that you thought was your god tell you to gut your child, and burn him as a sacrifice to your him to show him how faithful and committed you are to him… would you do it? Or would you declare yourself insane?
Boy I called this one. I predicted Democrats would end accusing Mourdock of endorsing rape. And Idiot Boy did it on Leno last night. “Rape is rape”, he said. I notice Jay Leno didn’t ask him why he watched those people in Benghazi die without summoning help, nor did he ask why he covered it up.
And of course the MSM made Mourdock’s non-event it’s lead story yesterday, while ignoring Benghazi-gate.
I would love to see the liberal media bankrupted through dozens of class-action civil suits for willfully withholding valuable information at election time and harming the public.
Here’s the dirty little secret: It’s not conservatives who are anti-woman. It’s liberals.
1. Liberals have created a climate of sex without marriage which harms women vastly more than men.
2. Liberals treat women like cattle just by constantly harping on the ‘reproductive’ issues. In fact one 0bama ad referred to a woman’s “lady parts”.
3 Liberals embrace a rapist former president. A Democrat underling admitted Clinton raped her. Others have admitted sexual harrassment.
4. 0bama admiinstration officials Anita Dunn and Christina Romer both said the environment there was hostile to women.
5. On this blog, conservative women have been called the b- word, the c-word, a prostitute, and everything in between. Just yesterday, the venerable former RT editorial writer and off-the-charts lib Dan Radmacher released the most hateful anti-woman. invective I’ve ever seen.
Conservatives see us as people. Liberals see us as objects. It’s just that simple.
Contra-
Six million Jews dead…
53 million children dead due to abortion
Suze, Radmacher’s understated screed was entirely gender neutral. Next, you’ll be calling him a racist, because it never mentioned race. About 95 percent of it was factual. The other 5 percent was opinion.
Then why did Akin say this:
“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
And why did you say this:
“…. And yes, the female body does have defenses which can prevent fertlization by an unwanted act. But leftwingers aren’t interested in the truth as long as they can lie and distort.
Posted on August 20th, 2012″
So the question still stands: Do you and Akin believe that women who do get pregnant from a rape weren’t really raped?
Dan feels a real need to kiss Rad’s ass. Or maybe it’s a make-up thing because I trash Rad’s blog.
“pistol pete says:
Contra-
Six million Jews dead…
53 million children dead due to abortion
Posted on October 25th, 2012″
So what’s your point, PP? That the Jews win?
“Rape is rape”, he said. ”
Again, Obama points out the obvious and the right runs screaming like ninnies.
Contra, maybe on occasion The Magikal Sperm Repelling Internal Rape Contraception Function fails in women.
#66 #1 You mean for women like Ann Coulter?
#3 “Admitted”? Funny way to put it.
#5 AS Dan C said, Dan R’s post has nothing in the world to do with gender.
Bye, bye.
most ill-informed posted“…. And yes, the female body does have defenses which can prevent fertlization by an unwanted act. But leftwingers aren’t interested in the truth as long as they can lie and distort. Posted on August 20th, 2012
Yes, those “defenses” are called CONTRACEPTIONS/BIRTH CONTROL PILLS/IUDS …not magical “lady” parts…ugh.
contraceptives…but you knew that.
“Rape is rape”, he said. ”
Again, Obama points out the obvious and the right runs screaming like ninnies.
0bama implied Mourdock was fine with rape under some conditions. That’s a complete lie.
#5 AS Dan C said, Dan R’s post has nothing in the world to do with gender.
When it’s said to a woman, it does.
#64 “Ask your your puppet master Gdad why he makes up false claims like that.”
Provide a link to where I ever said that.
Crickets.
Not that I am not completely able to take care of myself as you people know very well, but…I just can’t imagine any conservative man talking to women in the trashy way the insecure leftwing ‘men’ do in here.
It’s either a lashing out in frustration in their ability to attract strong successful attractive women or it’s just the reflects the overriding disrespect liberals feel towards women.
inability to attract stong successful women
Yes, those “defenses” are called CONTRACEPTIONS/BIRTH CONTROL PILLS/IUDS …not magical “lady” parts…ugh.
That’s incorrect. Science has proven a woman’s emotional state can influence whether or not she conceives.
Suzie, no one here sees you as either a person or an object. You’re a hollow, broken vessel, filled with irrational hatred and a feeble, flailing grasp on logic and rhetoric. Your mind is a fallow field of forgotten manners, class and dignity. You’re little more than a running punchline and we’ve long ago forgotten the joke.
Dan R said nothing about women, least of all was it anti-woman. It was anti-you. You’re little more than a screeching, crap-flinging, bipedal howler monkey. The fact that you may or may not have a vagina only qualifies your gender as male or female; you’re certainly not a woman. Obviously, Rad’s missive burnt your delicate little fanny or you wouldn’t be on another thread lying about it.
You’re good at what you do; I’ll hand you that. You pick hot topics and say exactly what you need in order to get a reaction, and people just can’t resist biting the bait you troll. The problem is that you’re too phony now. No one can be that shallow, shameless and stupid. You do your best work through subtlety, and you’ve all but abandoned that recently. As such, you’re painting yourself into a corner. Now you’re left with swinging on the downward spiral of your own notoriety.
When the people on this blog start refusing to play your game, when they stop responding to any of your always-baited comments, you’ll simply fade away. Just like the best years of your life and your usefulness to the human race, your best days on this blog are relegated to memory. All that remains is a withered, dessicated husk, scratching at the door of your crypt. We’re all just waiting for that cold north wind to come and scatter your remains like autumn leaves.
Of course you won’t leave on your own. Of course you’ll linger just to annoy people. You’re bold and immoral. You, madam, are a hussy, in every definition of the word… but you are no woman.
“pistol pete says:
Six million Jews dead…
53 million children dead due to abortion
Posted on October 25th, 2012″
So what’s your point, PP? That the Jews win?
No… he is trying to win a debate with ad hominem. Not uncommon when debating irrational conservatives.
Another irrational statement from Suzie, “Conservatives see us as people. Liberals see us as objects. It’s just that simple.”
That statement is not simple at all. It is as delusional as it gets. Conservatives see women as equals and liberals are communist. Just another Mitt Romney supporter, rodeo clown distracting you from the fact that they can’t justify their ways of thought with real rational facts.
GDAD: #5 AS Dan C said, Dan R’s post has nothing in the world to do with gender.
SUZIE: When it’s said to a woman, it does.
In Suze’s world, if you call a midget “fat,” it’s a slur against midgets. If you call someone “thoughtless,” and that person happens to be a Jew, you’re anti-Semitic. And if you criticize a preacher for failing to to shine his shoes, you are anti-Christian.
That’s the world Suze lives in, folks. It’s not reality. And that’s why the rest of us should pay little attention to her (his) garbage.
Suze, Radmacher’s understated screed was entirely gender neutral.
Depends on which gender he’s saying it to. How many times have you whined that “boy” when said about a white man isn’t racist, but when said to a black man, is?
But when you inferred I was a prostitute, that was unambiguous misogynistic hate. You are part of the group I was referring to.
“That’s incorrect. Science has proven a woman’s emotional state can influence whether or not she conceives.”
This is complete and utter BS.
On the other hand, Suze claims to have never had children. Hmmm.
On the other hand, Suze claims to have never had children. Hmmm.
Can’t stop yourself with the anti-woman hate-speak, can you Dan?
I must represent to you the kind of girl you hadn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of getting.
@Suzie: “When it’s said to a woman, it does.”
That’s an incredibly sexist comment. I’m supposed to tone down what I say to a woman? What, are you too delicate to handle it?
Considering the insults you dish out daily, it’s quite ironic that you now want to hide behind your own skirts.
This is complete and utter BS.
Sigh. You clowns will never learn to challenge Suzie. But I think I will let these idiots make fools of themselves before I provide the link.
Come on. Anybody else want to challenge and look stupid??
That’s an incredibly sexist comment. I’m supposed to tone down what I say to a woman? What, are you too delicate to handle it?
Weren’t you the one crying “racism” when I referred to 0bama as “your boy”? I said Bill Clinton was Dave H’s “boy”, and nobody called it racist.
Did I catch you in more of your hypocrisy, Rad?
It’s not hypocrisy, it’s history. There is a long, sad history in America of racists demeaning black men by referring to them as boys. So, when you refer to the first African-American president as “boy,” it’s quite clear where you’re going with it.
If I used the b-word or c-word when I wrote what I said about you, you might have legitimate complaint. But last I checked, there was no gender-based history behind “vomitous mass.”
My comment from another thread seems appropriate here also.
Suzie said:
Nice respectful treatment of women, Rad. Just like a liberal “man”.
1. We have yet to see any proof that you are a “womkan”.
2. Dan R is generally respectful to those who speak or write in a respectful manner.
3. If you are a “woman” what gives you the right to be treated with respect when you refer to the President as a bastard, an SOB, an idiot “boy”, a monkey “boy”, a retardf boy” and an asshat. Likewise you refer to liberals as assclowns, asshats, and bastards. Respect is earned whetehr you are a man or woman. You clearly have none and deserve none.
Comment by dave — October 25, 2012 @ 10:50 am
Out of 91 posts, 20 are SuzieQ’s. Seriously hon, get a life.
I bet I can bet what link Suzie posts. But I think I’ll let her make a fool of herself before posting it.
Now, gdad, dave’s posts above COULD be considered stalking in your book, correctamundo?
There is a longer history of racists referring to African-Americans as ‘blacks’ When they were claimed as property especially.
I see Suzie as an object all right. But Dan wouldn’t be able to post what that object is.
Suzie, how dare you, the queen of mean, insult, misogyny, bigotry, racism, and vitriol, dare to complain when you get your vile pablum back. That is so beneath contempt after the things you have said to others here and about others too. What a total waste you are. You have no principles. You have only hate and then you whine like a crybaby when it comes back to you. Get used to it.
Suzie whines “I just can’t imagine any conservative man talking to women in the trashy way the insecure leftwing ‘men’ do in here“. Because that is a bold faced lie, are you now admitting you do not read their posts? Figures.
Oh yeah, here we go with Marked Man’s inane “blacks” is racist meme. Wow, you birds of a feather!
I find calling someone with darker skin than I ‘a boy’ or ‘a black’ equally as repulsive, Sandi Saunders. You know this already.
Just because Suzie uses ‘boy’ (as many rappers describing themselves do), and Dan uses ‘a black’ (as many former slave owners used to do), and many other racists use n****r (also as many rappers describing each other do), doesn’t make it okay in my book.
bold faced lie
LMAO. Throw in a ‘nickle’ for the illiterate leftwinger. “Bold face” is a thick heavy type.
@ Marked Man, what are we supposed to call a person when referring to their skin color?
most ill-informed @82 “That’s incorrect. Science has proven a woman’s emotional state can influence whether or not she conceives.” Comment by Suzie — October 25, 2012 @ 9:58 am
Please provide the link to the science article that you surely believe you read somewhere. Any AMA article will do…I’ll be waiting…
@ Marked Man, what are we supposed to call a person when referring to their skin color?
Comment by Justin True — October 25, 2012 @ 1:38 pm
Start with their name.
“Suzie says:
bold faced lie
LMAO. Throw in a ‘nickle’ for the illiterate leftwinger. “Bold face” is a thick heavy type.
Posted on October 25th, 2012″
A thick, heavy type of what? I believe you meant ‘typeface’ or ‘font’. Speaking of which, you keep forgetting to turn off your italics.
Anyway, you’re wrong. From: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bal2.htm
“When we call a lie baldfaced or boldfaced … either one is just fine, though baldfaced is a bit more common. But we could save ourselves trouble by following the rest of the Anglophone world, which avoids the issue simply by using barefaced for most kinds of openly shocking behavior.
Jan Freeman, writing in the Boston Globe in June 2002.”
The next question is “Who the hell is Jan Freeman?”
Please provide the link to the science article that you surely believe you read somewhere. Any AMA article will do…I’ll be waiting…
Notice how Shrill is so nervous, she has to stipulate exactly what the source can and can’t be.
“Suzie says:
The next question is “Who the hell is Jan Freeman?”
Posted on October 25th, 2012″
Click on the link, you moron. Jeez…do I have to do everything for you?
Jan Freeman is an etymologist. Etymology is your friend.
Also try Googling, “bold-faced lie v. bald faced lie v. barefaced lie. You might learn something, but you’ll never be smarter than I.
Googling?
I dunno, man.
It sounds super-complicated.
Jan Freeman is an etymologist
Well, hell. I’m an etymologist, too, and dictionaries agree with me on what ‘bold-faced’ means. Why are leftwingers such uneducated hicks?
“….dictionaries agree with me on what ‘bold-faced’ means. Why are leftwingers such uneducated hicks?”
Dictionaries list the definition of ‘bold-faced’ as it’s used in the phrase ‘bold-faced lie’ first. Following along in second is the definition as it’s used to describe a font. It is possible for one word to have more than one meaning, you uneducated hick.
———-
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=bold-faced
bold-faced (bldfst)
adj.
1. Impudent; brazen: a bold-faced lie.
2. Printed in thick, heavy type.
———-
http://i.word.com/idictionary/bold-faced
Main Entry: bold–faced
Pronunciation: \ˈbōl(d)-ˈfāst\
Function: adjective
Date: 1591
1 : bold in manner or conduct : impudent
2: usually bold·faced : being or set in boldface
———-
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=bold-faced&o=0&l=dir
bold-faced[ bohld-feyst ]
adjective
1. impudent; brazen: He had the bold-faced effrontery to ask for a raise.
2. (of type) having thick, heavy lines.
———-
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bold-faced
———-
Check this out, too!
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/07/lie-detection.html
@ Marked Man
You didn’t understand the question.
If you are referring to a minority such as “black” people, do you call them African American? Or do you simply refer to them as black? When referring to a group of people, your can’t use someone’s name as you suggest. So, would you be respectful to everyone’s culture and call them black? I work with plenty of great people from Haiti. Haitians do NOT like to be referred to as African Americans. I am also a student of a very intelligent man from Dominican Republic. Also, I wouldn’t refer to his people as African American either. When we as Americans are referring to a minority in this great country of ours, I think it is important to be all inclusive. So if a white person calls a black person, “black”, it may be because he is trying to not offend them because he is being sensitive to all walks.
I think that sometimes people like yourself are too sensitive when it comes to race relations. Possibly for many reasons, but I would say it may have to do with your own guilty conscience more than anything. Just because someone is white, don’t assume racism, Mr. Marked Man. I think your own assumptions are suspect.
In other words, its only a big deal if you make it one.
Soooo why not call them Haitians, JT, instead of ‘some blacks’??
It is a big deal if people referred to ‘a black’ as a measure of property, Justin. I’m sure most Haitians would care less if you called them ‘n***ers’ as well, but that doesn’t make it right.
“Just because someone is white, don’t assume racism, Mr. Marked Man”
What on earth are you babbling about? Who assumed anything about someone being white?? Anyone refering to someone with darker skin as ‘a black’ is still wrong.
Why can’t you refer to the Haitians as a group of men or women or people? Why do you feel the need to segregate groups and cultures??
BTW, Justin, that was Ron that suggested calling someone by their name instead of their skin color.
Although I whole-heartedly agree with it and would hope that most people would too.
Justin, what was the question you say I did not understand?
@ Marked Man, if you are referring to a minority race, as in black people, what would you refer to them as? Are you going to refer to a whole list of people every time you speak on it?
I would never refer to any race as property. Just because some people used to, doesn’t mean that reference exists today. Among the general public, when having to label a group of people, most people including black people, prefer to be referred to as black.
I apologize about the prior post, I misread the thread.
Screwzie won’t be back on this thread now that I’ve proven her wrong, once again.
I don’t feel compelled to refer to them as a minority or a race, Justin. We are all men and women on this earth together. If we were all born blind, would you feel so compelled to refer to groups of people by their race?
Just a thought . . .
Last night, John Sununu suggested Colin Powell is supporting Obama because they’re both the same race. And in the same breath, he noted that Powell’s former boss, GWB, is supporting Romney.
Did anyone else catch the unintended humor in that? I almost fell off my chair. The Romney campaign ought to retire that guy. He’s embarrassed them at least 9 times now. How many lives does a campaign surrogate have?
And what are they gonna do next? Have Richard Mourdock go on TV explaining Romney’s “position” on rape? Insofar as “raping” the truth, that dude could do a good job. . .
” Just because some people used to, doesn’t mean that reference exists today.”
So because someone in the 1910s referred to a man as a boy, then it still holds water as an insult today?? Wonder why Soulja Boy insults himself so terribly??
Good point, Dan. Two things are for sure: If Romney loses this election, it will not be by his own doing but rather by ignorant comments from others in the GOP. If obumbles wins this election, it will not be by his own doing but rather by ignorant comments from others in the GOP.
Dan, I’ve noticed that blacks support Obama because they’re black, but that in the entire history of our country prior to Obama we all supported whites because that was the only choice we had doesn’t figure in.
The accusation is stupid. A lot more people won’t vote for Obama simply because he’s black than will. It’s a loser accusation.
Powell left the Bush administration a greatly diminished figure. I doubt he’ll ever vote GOP again, if he ever did. He won’t be fooled again.
I am not explaining myself well enough here… what I am trying to say is simply this. If we are going to specifically speak about the black population here in America, we need to be all inclusive and just be adults about it and call them black. Why? Because there are many other nationalities included in that race other than those of African decent.
If people use the word “boy” to offend someone as a racial slur, then yes it should be deemed as offensive. I have only heard of one person my whole life call someone a “boy” and used it in a offensive manner towards a black man. I don’t think Soulja Boy, uses “Boy” as a racial slur. It is more along the lines of a slang. Like Lil’ Jon, or Lil’ Wayne. It is most likely something they have grown up with.
All I am saying is I think our society needs to grow up when referring to ourselves. We seem to be trekking to far into the politically correct side of things so far, people are being censored for no other reason than fear of being taken out of context.
“Powell left the Bush administration a greatly diminished figure. I doubt he’ll ever vote GOP again, if he ever did. He won’t be fooled again.”
Right. Why didn’t Sununu just say, “Powell’s surely supporting Obama because during the Bush administration, the nutty neocons turned him into a patsy for an unconscionable and unprovoked war that directly led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, the wounding of tens of thousands of American soldiers, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians — and Romney has surrounded himself with those same foreign-policy numbskulls.”
That would have been the truth. I guess the RW can’t handle that, though. No surprise.
I remember years ago, there was a radio talk show hosted by Ken Hamblin, out of Denver. He called himself the Black Avenger, and routinely took offense to the terminology of African-American being applied to him, since his parents were immigrants from Barbados, and preferred being called an American or a black American.
It’s very hard to look at Obama’s record prior to being President and think that he would have ANY shot at winning in 2008. If he weren’t a minority, it is almost inconceivable that he would made it past the primaries. The idea of a participating in a historic event was POWERFUL to many, many folks.
The idea of “changing” America in that regard superseded policy to many people also.
Obama had NO record, no resume to put up against Edwards, Hillary or even Biden. They all shared the same vision politically.
—-
While I agree with Sarah Palin on many issues. She was selected as VP candidate for the very same reason. There is NO WAY she would have been picked had she been male.
Looks like the “nickle” is on you Suzie, as you were the original one to misspell it, that seems only natural. You are a bold-faced liar quite often and if you were a man, you might also be a bald-faced or bare-faced liar. Jury is still out on your gender.
“If we were all born blind, would you feel so compelled to refer to groups of people by their race?
Comment by Marked Man — October 26, 2012 @ 10:53 am”
it’s their grand tolerance MM
Justin, why do you (or anyone) feel the need to speak about the ‘black’ population here in America? Do their votes count any differently? Are there any rights they have or don’t have that everyone else has or does not have??
So if someone here refers to obumbles as a ‘boy’ they could mean his boyish, amateur looks or his inability to govern or lead like a ‘man’.
Justin, you are explaining yourself just fine. Marked Man had fought this battle of semantics many times. As he says, he believes calling a group of people with darker skin “blacks” is just as racist as calling a grown black man a “boy”. Not that he has, or will, call Suzie or anyone else out for it mind you. When cornered he insists they are “equally offensive”.
He is afflicted with a compulsive need to challenge some things and some people and no one ever knows what will set him off. You cannot refer to a group of people, whose names you do not know, by their name. Groups of people are identified by “color”, age, gender, wealth, poverty, location, clothes, employer, hobby and many other designations to identify the group. It is ludicrous to equate using “black” to describe a group with using “boy” to describe a grown black man. But he does it, right on cue. You will not gain any ground with Marked Man. Even when you win, you lose for even trying. Learn to look away, that is my best advice.
Some bright folks at Harvard did some research:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~sstephen/papers/RacialAnimusAndVotingSethStephensDavidowitz.pdf
“Evidence from other research, as well as some new analysis in this paper, suggest that few white voters swung in Obama’s favor in the general election due to his race.“
Brilliant deduction! Just brilliant. If we were all born blind, some would still find a way to irritate others with inane quibbles and false equivalencies, just like they do now. Do you suppose it is wrong to say “the blind”, the young, the rich, the poor, the gymnasts, the players, the golfers, the bowlers, the bird watchers, white people, the unemployed, native American, writers, drivers? Why don’t you stop digging?
Justin True,
I both agree and disagree with your last post. Your comment “If we are going to specifically speak about the black population here in America, we need to be all inclusive and just be adults about it and call them black” has gotten me in trouble before. I was in a public speaking class my freshman year in college, and the professor divided us into groups. My group included three other people, one white male, and two black females. I don’t remember what the topic was or how the subject of race came up, but I thought I was being politically correct when I used the word “black” to describe the African-American community. That was a bad idea. One of the girls became very angry and accused me of being racist. She said something like “I am not a color, I am a person. I am not black, I am an African-American.” I was completely caught off guard, but I apologized (even though I didn’t feel as if I did anything wrong) and we were able to continue our discussion.
Fast forward. I lived in Jackson, MS for a few years. One of my best friends in Jackson was black. Again, I don’t remember how race came up, but in one of our conversations, I used the term “African-American.” He didn’t get angry, but he told me that he hates it when he hears that phrase. He said that he is not African, he is American and he is black. He said it’s absolutely not racist to refer to black Americans as “black” and in fact, in his opinion, “black” is always preferable to “African-American.” Over the years, I have never been able to get a consistent answer from my black/African-American friends as to which term is correct or proper.
The “boy” thing is just silly. Practically all of my black friends use “boy” (and lots of my white friends, too). When one of my friends wants me to call him later, I might get a text that says “holla at ya boy.” If I’m a big Roy Halladay(Phillies) fan, they might say “ya boy Roy Halladay got shelled last night. Gave up 3 homers. Haha.” My black friends constantly refer to Obama as their “boy” in the White House, and I playfully use it as well. It can be used when referring to white people or black people. I don’t think it’s really an issue unless the person using it is obviously trying to be racist.
Hillary was a minority, certainly in the run for the White House she was. She was also an historic candidate…Please, stop confirming everything we say about you. You are making this all too easy.
Justin, in other words, Sandi is equally as okay with you calling Chinese, Japanese, Japanese-Americans, Chinese-Americans, or anyone that may be descended from Eastern Asia as ‘yellows’ just because of the need to refer to that group of people differently sometimes.
Also, in other words, Sandi is okay with saying ‘blacks’ because she hears it on TV and sees it on the Internet a lot and all her friends do it too so it must be okay.
Sandi, Hillary is/was a person just like the rest of us. What makes her so different because she ran for the White House*?
*Let us not forget when she shamed obumbles and called him a liar during that ‘run’…
matt, and Ms. Saunders,
I agree with you both. You just can’t win with some people no matter how open-minded and how well thought out your philosophy is.
matt, you bring up some very valid points with racial issues in the public. We somewhat struggled with this when I was in the Marines. That was when I heard a white Marine being brought up on charges for calling a subordinate black Marine a “boy”. He didn’t mean it as a racial slur. We were all 90′s kids. We were “generation X”. We all used “boy” growing up whether we were angry or as a friendly term. I think some racial terms should die in the past, and they should be left in the past where they belong.
In my opinion, race is still somewhat a touchy subject. I hope that one day society won’t have to have conversations like this. We can just be humans. Humans with a sense of humor; humans that know our history and learned from our history but we don’t have to throw it up in each other’s faces as if we were the ignorant one’s who caused the divide in the first place.
matt, did you ask your friend if he would rather be called ‘a man’ or ‘a black’ ?
“Do you suppose it is wrong to say “the blind”, the young, the rich, the poor, the gymnasts, the players, the golfers, the bowlers, the bird watchers, white people, the unemployed, native American, writers, drivers?”
Sandi, how many of those terms were used (literally, on paper) to represent a unit of property ‘owned’ by a slaveowner??
Yeah, thought so…
You are truly compulsive, and truly sad.
Marked Man,
What is your issue? Your posts are so delusional and convoluted, I don’t think you even know what you are trying to say. All I know is that people that belong to any race may prefer to be called something different. It may depend mostly on their demographic.
I suppose when you fill out a job application, or take a test, you marked yourself as a “man” when it asked for your race, and you marked “man” when it asked for you sex… rather than male or female. Or when you get your Driver’s License you want a United States Citizen license because you don’t want to pigeon hole yourself into being referred to as a Virginian… Zeus forbid!
You are trying to hard not to be racist. The fact is, I don’t think anyone that has participated in this conversation is racist, or has the potential to be. You are a drama queen trying to pick a fight and point out wrongs where there are none. Chillax, bro!
“Marked Man,
What is your issue? Your posts are so delusional and convoluted, I don’t think you even know what you are trying to say.”
Justin you are relatively new here (welcome, btw). Longtime regulars realized this years ago.
So who’s going to break the news to Justin that he’ll be having this same discussion 3 months from now.
Okay Justin, straight up, why do you feel it is okay to refer to a group as ‘blacks’ and not okay to refer to another group as ‘yellows’?
Mr. Casey,
Thanks! It is official, I am not nuts!
Well, it seems as if I may be in this thing for the long haul. I enjoy your blog, but not so much with your crazy trolls. LOL!
Justin do you feel it would be okay to call Eastern Asian descendants ‘yellows’ so that we are all inclusive and acting like adults?
119.Screwzie won’t be back on this thread now that I’ve proven her wrong, once again.
Comment by Contrasuzie — October 26, 2012 @ 10:48 am
Right you are, Contra, and it was especially true when Steve C. documented that poster doing exactly what they’d criticized someone else doing, making frequent posts during a supposed weekend drive with the poster’s “husband” last weekend.
Yeah, I’m just gonna go ahead and call this one yet another loss for Screwzie.
When will she ever learn?
Marked Man,
I feel that it is OK to call black people, black, because we have no other way of referring to their minority as a whole. We refer to people from Eastern Asia as, Asians. Just like when referring to people of Spanish decent, we refer to them as Latino. When referring to white people and we do not know their origin, we refer to them as Caucasian. When referring to the black population, and you DO NOT know their origin, you refer to them as black because that is in fact a respectful and all inclusive way to refer to their race. I understand that you may find problems with this considering the history of the way Africans were treated in the past and in the Americas in general. But when we as a society need to address issues within a minority, we have to refer to them in the most inclusive and respectful way possible. Calling someone “yellow” is disrespectful because we have a more respectful and all inclusive title for their minority. I hope this answers your question.
Respectfully,
JT
#152 Justin, you probably haven’t been here before when MMM has gotten into his ridiculous word games, including the one about “black,” “African American,” and so on. Folks who have been around awhile know to just let him rant crazily on. Seriously, just step away and ignore him.
@gdad, will do. will do. I just can’t stand people willing to be ignorant. I think there have been enough folks encouraging to let this one go. I appreciate your insight!
JT
It’s amazingly callous how some people feel they are so important that they can define what is and what isn’t offensive to people.
You can’t refer to ‘blacks’ any other way because you do not know their origin?!? How ridiculous you are!
You feel it proper to refer to others as Asian, without really knowing their heritage either but not as yellows??
How ignorant of you. Admit it, the only reason you call someone ‘a black’ is because you hear a lot of your friends and family doing it so you feel it is okay to do it as well.
It is ALWAYS fun to watch people squeak and skulk away when asked how they can explain it okay to call someone ‘a black’ and not call someone else ‘a yellow’.
MMM, you can play the “literal” game with skin color all you want. And you can play that same game with reference to the term “boy.” And if/when you ignore all the contextual history, you have a point.
The problem is, you can’t ignore the contextual history. Because it’s pretty rich with examples of “boy” being used as a demeaning slur against black males since the days of slavery.
Now “black” is different. Spare us your false outrage for just a minute and read this: There was a day and age, especially in the south, when it was considered polite to refer to blacks as “colored.” In the north, I was taught at an early age that the polite term was “Negro.” The impolite term in both places was the n-word. And that was a slur no matter where you were. This all changed in the civil rights era when “black” became the preferred term — by the people to whom it referred. And among some of them now it seems to be “African American” or “people of color” or whatever.
But, “black” is still not considered a slur, except by certain malcontents who fancy themselves clever and hang out on blogs writing time-wasting comments.
And THAT’S because of the contextual history, which none of us can escape, no matter how much effort we put into pretending we can.
That’s more or less a polite way of me saying to you: shut up on this subject, will you? We’re tired of your silly little game.