Compared to the Democrat Party’s preferred abortion-on-demand paid for with taxpayers dollars both at home and abroad? Yes, such a candidate would be a justifiable exception. Incrementalism is a valid strategy for ending abortion in the U.S.
My disagreement was with the term “punishment.” The death penalty can be applied in some circumstances, but it cannot be motivated by a desire to punish, but only by a legitimate need to protect others.
No, it’s the Democratic Party, not the “Democrat” Party, regardless of what Hannity, Rush, Bush and Fox"News" say.
Um…“Muslim” isn’t a race, it’s a religion.
A you suggesting that we shouldhave a religious test for holding office in this country? Are you suggesting I should vote against someone merely because they are Muslim?
To refer to them as the Democratic party is false advertising.
Agreed. We must take care not to distort the teachings of the Church.
Nope. I was correcting your statement. Muslim isn’t a race, it is a religion.
It’s the name of their party. You may not like it, but it’s true.
And to demonize more than half the population of the United States which voted Democratic is inherently un-Christian.
Then I read this on Monday:
Of course, today one of my Senators (Feinstein) voted to allow an AG nomination move forward despite similiar views. Her argument? With this adminstration we cannot expect a nomination that matches “our views on torture or domestic spying”!
What’s more telling is that the wore the same belt-buckles on WWII with a broken and twisted cross added.
Because you asked me would I vote for a Muslim over a moderately pro-choice canidate. the only information you gave me on the former was that he was Muslim. Religion was the only thing you told me about him. Thus the only assumption I could make was that i was to take his religion and only his religion in account when considering whether to vote for him.
Reread the VIII commandment, there, dude. It wasn’t me who asked the question, it was BobP123.
Torture has a legal definition. In order to render a legal opinion a person has to know precisely what that definition is and the cases dealing with it and know precisely what waterboarding entails. In this case the nominee for Attorney General is saying he lacks the detailed knowledge required to render a legal opinion. If the congress wishes to simplify this they can always pass a law outlawing waterboarding; then you would have a right to expect an AG nominee to agree that it was illegal. The Democrats control congress; if they believe waterboarding is torture then why haven’t they passed a bill banning it?
I agree. I don’t understand how an entire party can denounce something but take no action against it. Where are their principles? What hypocrisy. What feigned piety.
Bills were introduced twice in Congress to declare waterboarding illegal torture . In neither case could it obtain even a majority of the Democrats. What we saw in this hearing was an attempt by some Democrats to obtain by coercion something they could not pass in Congress.
If one wants to see what torture really is Google Daniel Pearl.I agree. I don’t understand how an entire party can denounce something but take no action against it. Where are their principles? What hypocrisy. What feigned piety.
Ender
And, ironically, the third party candidate might win while die-hard Republicans and Democrats vote the party line.
