3
3omega
Guest
I didn’t realize that stating a biological fact was a personal attack.Per the Moderators,no personal attacks on political candidates or their family members.
Did you miss tjat notice?
- Status
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Fair enough.My post was directed towards the commenrvrecTrump and the number of abortions he may have been involved with
3
3omega
Guest
You are right that there is no way to know the number of abortions that Trump was involved with. We do know that he was bragging about the sort of behavior that results in a great deal of abortions though.
Y
YADA
Guest
Really - how many unwed mothers with newborn babies have you opened your home to and supported for over 4 years?..YES to everything you said!
How many organizations like the Father Taaffe Foundation ccswv.org/home-page/childrenfamilies/father-taaffe-homes-and-pregnancy-support-services/ ] do you support with your personal funds? - not tax dollars - where you personally opened your wallet and supported mothers and their children?..
How many organizations do you individually support that help homeless individuals and families move from living on the streets into permanent housing like JOIN? facebook.com/JOIN-connecting-the-street-to-a-home-11993587534/info/?tab=overview ] Do you support them?
Soup kitchens?, Food Pantires?, adoption? … ???
In addition to paying my taxes - this conservative pro-life voter and voter’s family does all of the above … I am so tired of hearing that we don’t care for people after they are born … That is a lie … its Democratic talking points that has no basis in reality…
Unless you can name a single Republican or Conservative who has no compassion - you should stop with this line of attack.
And being fiscally conservative does not equate with not caring about people.
We as a nation do not have the ability to give unlimited funds to everyone who asks … its a fact that we need to care for those who are in need … but we cannot give unlimited amounts - borrowing our nation into bankruptcy,
And Jesus never once said to relinquish the care of the poor and downtrodden to Caesar and his tax-collectors … he said we are to care for those in need - personally
O
openmind77
Guest
George Bush vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have extended health insurance to 4 million CHILDREN. How many of your programs can cover 4 million children? (They are covered now after Obama took office)
Republican Governors have not accepted Medicaid expansion (funded by the Federal Government) which could cover almost 3 million people who can not afford health insurance. Do you have a program for these 3 million?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Trump brought this on himself. He didn’t say no when asked if he was ever involved with anyone who had an abortion.
“Such an interesting question,” he said. “So what’s your next question?”
I don’t know whether he has or has not. I only know he wouldn’t answer.
And I don’t know about you but if I were a candidate for President wearing the Republican banner or any banner and I was asked that question and if I hadn’t been involved in an abortion, I know my answer would have been an emphatic NO!
nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-won-answer-personal-abortion-question-article-1.2586457
J
john_ennis
Guest
Which does not in any way reduce the right of that unborn boy or girl. It means recognize all persons involved. So far so good.
Yes, “pro-abortion” would only describe politicians who want more than to keep abortion legal, but wouldn’t even tolerate measures that enable women to make a more informed choice, IF those measures might reduce abortions. (For example, offering ultrasounds, or informing mothers about when medical research shows that the baby can feel the pain of the abortion.)
Unfortunately, that “pro-abortion” label thus fits pretty much all the Democrat politicians. Including Hillary.
No. That’s never been the spirit of the Republican party’s pro-life principles. Trump’s dumb comments aren’t what the party has stood for; if you can name two Congressmen who’ve said such things…
And if Ms. Clinton wants abortions to be rare, perhaps she could encourage women to consider adoption as a loving choice. Perhaps she could say a single thing that Planned Parenthoood could find fault with. She never does, and that’s their bread-and-butter.
Abolitionists in 1850 probably seemed very narrowly focused on highlighting the personhood of slaves. Some of them probably had perspectives on other issues that made their political enemies quick to call them hypocrites, inconsistent.
That’s the case here. Reasonable people can doubt the government’s word and competence when it comes to the threats you mention. it’s natural for those who favor the Democrats to assume hypocrisy or stupidity rather than sincere reasonableness on the part of the Republicans.
O
openmind77
Guest
Is that why Paul Ryan wants to cut the foodstamp program and give huge tax cuts to the rich? A ‘sincere’ wish to help the poor?
Z
zz912
Guest
“I REALLY REALLY REALLY don’t support abortion, but if a woman wants to pay to have her child killed for any reason, I won’t object.”
It’s truly stunning the mental gymnastics involved to justify rejecting Church teaching and voting for intrinsic evil.
J
john_ennis
Guest
Your characterization is colored by your politics. Is it possible to be a caring loving person and be against welfare expansion? Is it possible to believe taxing less is helpful to the economy?
You’re showing the exact type of assuming which I described. Ryan must be a hypocrite or stupid. He can’t be sincere and reasonable.
Even if you think he’s wrong, you ought to be able to see things from the point of view that not every vote against government programs for the poor is wrong. Otherwise, you are being as prejudiced as those who think every woman who has an abortion is a cruel hateful person. There is the other point of view to consider.
Y
YADA
Guest
I paid for that single mother’s health insurance and a policy for her child …though she could have been covered under the Oregon Health plan …Tax payers and businesses now are required to cover children upto the age of 26 years ( by the time I was 26 I had three children of my own …living simply and within my means) …and healthcare costs are skyrocketing.
Under Obama’s plan those children fortunate enough not to fall victim of an abortionist will be paying for the handouts you want to offer today to anyone who cries they are a victim of circumstances …no one is responsible for overspending, no one is responsible for their bad choices, men are given free sex without consequences, marriage not your thing no problem. Parenting not in your plan, just abort or walk away …Uncle Sam will step in and support your progeny and your concubines.
If more individuals would step up the government programs would be unnecessary and people would not become I institutionalized and enslaved by one size fits all programs that throw money at the consequences but never addresses the underlying causes.
You want to mortgage your children and grandchildren futures …I do not. I say spend your own money not mine and definitely not my grandchildren’s
J
john_ennis
Guest
You seem to have adopted a dogma that says government programs for the poor will in fact accomplish what they claim to be their goal, and that no unintended bad consequences will occur. You further assume that everyone else ought to see it that way.
Many is us recall the bad effects of certain welfare efforts throughout past decades, before Bill Clinton reformed welfare and made fewer people dependent on it.
Even if you think we’re wrong, be open to those views…
O
openmind77
Guest
I really don’t care who provides for the poor - the government, private philanthropists, Catholic charities, the Church, the Koch brothers, the mafia - anyone is fine as long as the poor are taken care of.
However, if there are people who are hungry or lack healthcare right now, any and every available method should be used. So if the Republican governors can not find any private person/institution to cover 3 million people, then they had better accept the federal funds, or they are personally responsible for the suffering or deaths of any of those 3 million people.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Why do you think the Repub governors, uniquely, need to go out and find private persons or organizations to aid the poor? Remember, the Democrats, for a time, had total control of the government early in Obama’s first term, and they did absolutely nothing for the poorest of the poor.
Maybe if the Repubs had a chance at changing the federal/state relationship, the lives of the poor could be bettered.
Y
YADA
Guest
I think if there are private citizens that are neglecting to help the poor - personally - which their own funds and own resource “then they are personally responsible for the suffering or deaths of any of those 3 million people!”
You OPENMIND77 are equally as guiltyby your standards … You should not delegate any of your resources to any other worthy or personal choice if one person in you neighborhood or city is in need of food, housing or medical care … not one vacation, not one trip through McDonalds and not one toy for your child , you should spend nothing except to fund medical, food and housing - or you are guilty of allowing others to die
M
mary_bobo
Guest
That is a ridiculous question in the first place and one that Hillary would not be asked.
O
openmind77
Guest
If I somebody was offering me 15 billion dollar to help 3 million people who lacked healthcare, I would definitely be guilty if I refused the money and something happened to any of those 3 million because of lack of care.
As for helping them from my own pocket - we all have some level responsibility. I believe that the Christ will be returning to the world soon - this year or next. Let him be the judge of how much guilt/responsibility each of us have. However, in the case above when money is already available - there is no need to wait for the Christ to make a judgment, it is obvious because the money is there - it is like standing in the way of a doctor who wants to treat a patient at no cost to you.
O
openmind77
Guest
It is possible to believe that if someone is hungry, you can help them by cutting some rich person’s taxes and then the rich person will create a job for the hungry person in maybe one or two years and then they will no longer be hungry. But thinking that it is OK for that person to remain hungry for one or two years is not being loving or caring.
Yes, Paul Ryan is either stupid (as you said) or really thinks that people on foodstamps are overfed and can do with less for a couple of years (if the taxcut does not help the economy then a few years longer is OK too).
T
Thorolfr
Guest
The problem is that more individuals are not just going to step up and pay for the housing, the food, the medical care, etc. from their own pocket that many poor and disabled people require. Even if some of those people are where they are because of bad choices in their life, it’s not humane for us as a society to let them die or end up living on the street because of it if no private charity is there to provide for them.
I used to volunteer for a private charity that provided free meals to homeless and poor people and many of them had serious untreated health problem like diabetes, high blood pressure, mental illness, hepatitis, etc, and no health care whatsoever. Before Obamacare, many of these people could not have gotten individual health insurance even if they suddenly had money to pay for it because insurance companies would not have covered them because of pre-existing conditions. Going to the emergency room is not a substitute for regular healthcare and in the end costs all of us a lot more money.
- Status