Y
yankeesouth
Guest
The persecution this Senator is talking about is what the Catholic Church can expect if the Harris/Biden leftist regime takes control.
Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter HomeschoolDad
- Start date
- Status
The persecution this Senator is talking about is what the Catholic Church can expect if the Harris/Biden leftist regime takes control.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
That’s what this is for - campaigning.
It has zilch to do with the fitness of Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the bench. She’s undeniably fit, and if they can’t beat up on her for being Catholic because Joe said no, then they don’t have much of anything else to throw at her.
Besides, I’m sure the irony of being women achievers beating up on another woman achiever isn’t lost on all those female legislators.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I just read on Twitter a very apt description of what’s going on:
This week, the Republicans are pretending that Judge Barrett won’t do exactly what they picked her to do.
This week, the Republicans are pretending that Judge Barrett won’t do exactly what they picked her to do.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
As opposed to the Dems pretending she will actually do what they are predicting she will do?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I’m not sure you can reverse it like that and have it make sense.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
In the end,she will at the very most return abortion to the states.Roe v Wade won’t be overturned as the Dems predict and assume the republicans want.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Jeanne, interesting. I agree about Roe.
Seems the Dems are more concerned about the ACA. Not sure how that would go. I always thought the individual mandate and the tax/penalty were unconstitutional.
But, there are a lot of provisions that are good. And the idea of health care/coverage is a good one.
Seems the Dems are more concerned about the ACA. Not sure how that would go. I always thought the individual mandate and the tax/penalty were unconstitutional.
But, there are a lot of provisions that are good. And the idea of health care/coverage is a good one.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
You seem to recall a totally different set of facts. When Nixon wanted to fire Archibald Cox, the independent prosecutor (shades of Trump and Muller), the attorney general resigned rather than do it. Then the #2 at justice also resigned. Bork was #3, and he “followed orders” by firing Cox. A slight bit of outrage about that. Then there was the business about civil rights and of course he opposition to the federal gov. “imposing” standards of fairness for voting on the states (voter suppression, anyone?). And then of course there’s his “originalism,” which was a new concept in the 80s. And to show the shallowness of the “originalist” position on privacy (Bork was against a right to privacy) a journalist published his video rental history. Not particularly interesting, but since Bork wanted to use the standard of 1789, when there were no video tapes, it made the point. And of course his rejection wasn’t along strict party lines–6 Republicans also voted against him. But never mind, right? Who remembers history…
And of course Reagan’s substitute nominee, Kennedy, who was free from all that ideological baggage, was approved. Unanimously. Hardly the act of a Senate rigidly opposed to anything Reagan did.
I think you’d better ask Anita Hill how “great” Thomas was. As for Biden, he refused to have supporting witnesses called to support Hill. He’s the one who paved the way for Thomas.
S
stpurl
Guest
First, I don’t see that in HSDad’s post. Second, even if you aren’t Catholic, the simplest Google regarding ‘ends versus means’ and “Catholic doctrine” show the two absolutely incompatible. So it looks as though you’re going for a cheap attempt to smear Catholicism. Neither a very social nor a just action.
J
JSRG
Guest
Returning abortion to the states would be overturning Roe v. Wade.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
I have no idea what you are reading. It’s certainly not what I’m reading: “Keeping one’s word, while laudable human virtues, are not absolute…I’d break my promise.” i.e., lie. In other words, he would lie to achieve a desired end. He has said this in multiple posts, not just the one I quoted. Read them.
As for your second point, you obviously don’t recognize sarcasm when you see it. That’s too bad.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Sarcasm, or a slur? It’s a rather familiar tactic to state something negative and then, when called on it, to bleat, “Oh I was only joking/ it’s just sarcasm, how strange you can’t recognize it” etc. That way the poster gets to say the ugly remark and then pretend it wasn’t truly meant.
L
LilyM
Guest
Breaking a promise is not the same thing as lying. A promise cn be made in total good faith but become either impossible or impractical to keep due to changes in information or circumstances.stpurl:
I have no idea what you are reading. It’s certainly not what I’m reading: “Keeping one’s word, while laudable human virtues, are not absolute…I’d break my promise.” i.e., lie. In other words, he would lie to achieve a desired end. He has said this in multiple posts, not just the one I quoted. Read them.
As for your second point, you obviously don’t recognize sarcasm when you see it. That’s too bad.
J
JSRG
Guest
Breaking one’s promise is not a lie unless, at the time you gave the promise, you intended to break it. A lie is, after all, a false statement with intent to deceive at the time you give it.stpurl:
I have no idea what you are reading. It’s certainly not what I’m reading: “Keeping one’s word, while laudable human virtues, are not absolute…I’d break my promise.” i.e., lie. In other words, he would lie to achieve a desired end. He has said this in multiple posts, not just the one I quoted. Read them.
The morality of the action may still be questionable, but it’s not a lie.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
And it’s too bad when you decide to conveniently overlook what’s said between your ellipses (the fact that if a good faith promise was made to a person who then HIMSELF ‘broke faith’ and intended to do something evil that the person who made the good faith promise originally in that scenario would not feel obligated to go ahead and let the other person wreak havoc). . .that is not at all ‘ends justifying the means’ and I’m surprised an intelligent person would misread it so.
You have a beautiful jar that’s been in the family for generations, and you’re approached by a kindly little old lady who wants to buy it. So you accept her offer and invite her to come pick it up. You find out, before she arrives, that she intends to use that jar to poison a family member because jars of that type you have were made with lead, and if filled with something like orange juice, the lead leaches into the juice and is toxic.
So, my dear, do you abide by your promise to sell that jar, knowing that it’s going to be used for that purpose? To poison another human being?
Or do you break your promise (and hopefully have somebody on hand to arrest the woman for planning to commit murder)?
And how is the breaking of that promise “the end justifies the means?”
You have a beautiful jar that’s been in the family for generations, and you’re approached by a kindly little old lady who wants to buy it. So you accept her offer and invite her to come pick it up. You find out, before she arrives, that she intends to use that jar to poison a family member because jars of that type you have were made with lead, and if filled with something like orange juice, the lead leaches into the juice and is toxic.
So, my dear, do you abide by your promise to sell that jar, knowing that it’s going to be used for that purpose? To poison another human being?
Or do you break your promise (and hopefully have somebody on hand to arrest the woman for planning to commit murder)?
And how is the breaking of that promise “the end justifies the means?”
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Unlike Trump, who does exactly what you say (“Why don’t you drink bleach?” “Oh, that was sarcasm!” ha ha), I never do. Sarcasm is sarcasm. Feel free to read my other posts. I use sarcasm all the time.
Ooooowwwwww… “I promise to love, honor, and obey…” just as long as it’s possible (in my opinion) or circumstances don’t change (forget that “in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer” nonsense). OK, I’ve got it now. So when Kayleigh McEnany says “I will never lie to you!” it’s a “promise,” and therefore contingent on circumstances…like political advantage. Or Boris, when he made an agreement with the EU about the Irish border and then said “Psych! I was just kidding! I meant the reverse of what I said!” OK… got it. None of those are “lies.”
And when I promise to pay back a loan on a monthly basis and “circumstance change” I can just walk away, right? I am learning so much here…(that’s sarcasm.)
S
stpurl
Guest
So basically you are just going to let loose with a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the post of HSDad, or my post to you, but you’ll drag in politics which I sure as heck never even mentioned, and make all kinds of remarks in an offensive tone (but hey it’s sarcasm, right?).
OK, I do thank you though because you’ve made it very clear as to the type of posts you enjoy. You’re absolutely free to do as you choose (forum boundaries of course) and I’m equally free to bid you a pleasant evening. No sarcasm. Enjoy yourself.
OK, I do thank you though because you’ve made it very clear as to the type of posts you enjoy. You’re absolutely free to do as you choose (forum boundaries of course) and I’m equally free to bid you a pleasant evening. No sarcasm. Enjoy yourself.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
No offensive tone there. No sireee…
L
LilyM
Guest
The “in sickness and in health” bit of the wedding vows means - and this is clear at the time you are making the vows - “I promise to stick by you whatever future circumstances bring”. That pretty much negates changing your mind in the future.stpurl:
Unlike Trump, who does exactly what you say (“Why don’t you drink bleach?” “Oh, that was sarcasm!” ha ha), I never do. Sarcasm is sarcasm. Feel free to read my other posts. I use sarcasm all the time.
Ooooowwwwww… “I promise to love, honor, and obey…” just as long as it’s possible (in my opinion) or circumstances don’t change (forget that “in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer” nonsense). OK, I’ve got it now. So when Kayleigh McEnany says “I will never lie to you!” it’s a “promise,” and therefore contingent on circumstances…like political advantage. Or Boris, when he made an agreement with the EU about the Irish border and then said “Psych! I was just kidding! I meant the reverse of what I said!” OK… got it. None of those are “lies.”
And when I promise to pay back a loan on a monthly basis and “circumstance change” I can just walk away, right? I am learning so much here…(that’s sarcasm.)
A politician rarely if ever will say “I promise to lower taxes/subsidise low-cost housing/build a wall on the Mexican border whatever the circumstances - never mind if there arises world war, global recession, global pandemic, or anything else which might make this or that particular policy a really Bad Thing ™.” A competent leader is expected to take account of changing circumstances and information, and adapt to them.
L
LilyM
Guest
You can, and many do, refinance the loan or ask for allowances from the lender on the basis of things like financial hardship, and many lenders grant a lot of those sorts of accommodations as well. A generally good customer who is temporarily going through tough times is sometimes a better prospect than reposessing goods or property that no-one may want to buy for a worthwhile price.stpurl:
Unlike Trump, who does exactly what you say (“Why don’t you drink bleach?” “Oh, that was sarcasm!” ha ha), I never do. Sarcasm is sarcasm. Feel free to read my other posts. I use sarcasm all the time.
Ooooowwwwww… “I promise to love, honor, and obey…” just as long as it’s possible (in my opinion) or circumstances don’t change (forget that “in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer” nonsense). OK, I’ve got it now. So when Kayleigh McEnany says “I will never lie to you!” it’s a “promise,” and therefore contingent on circumstances…like political advantage. Or Boris, when he made an agreement with the EU about the Irish border and then said “Psych! I was just kidding! I meant the reverse of what I said!” OK… got it. None of those are “lies.”
And when I promise to pay back a loan on a monthly basis and “circumstance change” I can just walk away, right? I am learning so much here…(that’s sarcasm.)
Last edited:
- Status