Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

Status
Not open for further replies.
If abortion were truly the most important issue to the Republican Party another candidate would have been the candidate.

But it wasn’t.
 
Victoria33 said:
Nobody should forget that this headline was originally, some made-up headline and that has to be seen as likely being deceptive on this board and if it was intentionally that way, very prejudicial.
Click to expand...
The headline is not made-up. It is accurate reporting of what Gillum said about DeSantis’s remarks. Whether you agree with Gillum or not, the fact that Gillum and other Democrats have spoken about this issue is news and CNN is correct to report on it. CNN’s article does not take an editorial position on DeSantis’s remarks. It only reports what notable people have said.
 
Last edited:
F_Marturana said:
If abortion were truly the most important issue to the Republican Party another candidate would have been the candidate.

But it wasn’t.
Click to expand...
I will take the word of the Niece of Doctor Martin Luther King’s, Alvita and Father Pavone respectfully over yours. One might research what they say ahead of time, 2 pro-life leaders who praise what Trump has done for the pro-life movement, the good Father Pavone saying he is the most pro-life president yet.

Loading…

www.priestsforlife.org

Loading…

www.lifenews.com

And Concerned Women of America:

https://www.westernjournal.com/conc...mp-most-pro-life-president-in-modern-history/

But thank you for your opinion.
 
Last edited:
After father Pavone took the naked corpse of a baby and desecrated an altar (which the sole purpose of an altar is the consecration of the Eucharist), I don’t listen to him anymore. And he gets no more funds from my family either.

That baby deserved to be cleaned, dressed, prepared for burial, and given a funeral mass. Dead babies are not to be used as political props.
 
President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, PROMISED to keep us out of World War One.

He LIED.
 
abucs said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Yes, the Democratic Party used to be the party of conservatives. Slavery was, after all, the tradition.
Click to expand...
This is silly. Because we don’t have slavery today is the conservative position today one of anti-slavery and the Progressive one of slavery?
Your definitions are intentionally out of whack to produce the result you want.
Click to expand...
No, the conservative position is about maintaining traditional values. The progressive one is about changing those values and favoring new values. That’s the definition of conservative and progressive. I apply the same definition to 150 years ago as to now. It is just that what is considered “traditional” has changed.
Democrats at the time wanted slavery to be extended to the western territories.
The standard of the western territories was no slavery. By that logic you have to admit the people fighting against slavery being introduced to the western territories were conservatives which makes a mockery of your definitions.
Click to expand...
The Democrats wanted their traditional values of slavery extended to the western territories. The wanted others to change so they would not have to. They were still mostly the conservatives of the day. It is just that what they were conserving was bad.
Let’s get rid of all the mental gymnastics that tries to paint conservatives as being somehow pro slavery.
Click to expand...
Not today’s conservatives! Certainly not! The values that today’s conservatives are conserving are what passes for traditional values today. Of course the notion of “tradition” changes slowly, but it does eventually change in some ways, and the repudiation of slavery is one of those ways. Our long-standing tradition in the country now is no slavery.
Lets just be honest. The Republicans were the ones fighting against slavery and for the civil and voting rights of blacks.
Click to expand...
Yes. The Republicans of the 19th and early 20th century. And I applaud them for it. But the question is, what are today’s Republicans fighting for? That’s all that is relevant. I think you should forget about the slavery angle and focus on the pro-life angle, because that is one area in which you can say something positive about today’s Republicans.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, the conservative position is about maintaining traditional values. The progressive one is about changing those values and favoring new values. That’s the definition of conservative and progressive. I apply the same definition to 150 years ago as to now. It is just that what is considered “traditional” has changed.
Click to expand...
and the traditional position of the western territories as well as the north was not to have slavery. Therefore by your definition the north and the west, those peoples holding their traditional values and wanting to extend that to the south were conservatives.

Your definitions are too easily malleable to suit whatever view you want.

In other words, your forced re-definitions are meaningless except to avoid reality.
 
Last edited:
F_Marturana said:
After father Pavone took the naked corpse of a baby and desecrated an altar (which the sole purpose of an altar is the consecration of the Eucharist), I don’t listen to him anymore. And he gets no more funds from my family either.

That baby deserved to be cleaned, dressed, prepared for burial, and given a funeral mass. Dead babies are not to be used as political props.
Click to expand...
1 out of 3, pretty good.
 
Father Pavone appeared on EWTN numerous times in the past, one or two miscues does merit throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are all human.
 
I didn’t see what he did, so I can’t comment for sure, but it does sound extreme to me. But it’s not as extreme as the Dems’ promotion of abortion all day every day.
 
That’s a poorly chosen metaphor.

Desecration of an altar is serious. The disrespect of a dead child is serious.
 
abucs said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
No, the conservative position is about maintaining traditional values. The progressive one is about changing those values and favoring new values. That’s the definition of conservative and progressive. I apply the same definition to 150 years ago as to now. It is just that what is considered “traditional” has changed.
Click to expand...
and the traditional position of the western territories as well as the north was not to have slavery. Therefore by your definition the north and the west, those people sholding their traditional values and wanting to extend that to the south were conservatives.

Your definition are too easily malleable to suit whatever view you want.
Click to expand...
I’m not changing my definitions. If there were western territory Democrats who wanted slavery, I’ll bet they had recently moved there from the South and to them, slavery was a traditional value, even if it wasn’t a traditional value to western territory folks generally. So they were still acting like the conservatives of their day. If there were some western territory Democrats that had not moved recently from the South and had no history of experiencing a slavery society first hand, then I’ll grant you that those Democrats were not acting like conservatives. But how many such Democrats were there, if any?
 
Last edited:
Like it or not, Father Pavone knows a lot about the pro-life movement and pro-life struggle, if it serves one’s argument to reject all of his knowledge, have at it and that includes his work for Priests for Life, a non-profit organization.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I’m not changing my definitions. If there were western territory Democrats who wanted slavery, I’ll bet they had recently moved there from the South and to them , slavery was a traditional value, even if it wasn’t a traditional value to western territory folks generally.
Click to expand...
Right and to change the traditional values of the western territories in order to introduce slavery, by your definition they were progressives, not conservatives.

Your definitions are meaningless in an effort to avoid reality.

Democrats in the north favoured the allowance of slavery but the majority traditional values was no slavery. That is the traditional conservative values of the north (despite the Democratic minority) was not to have slavery.

These were Republicans who forced their better culture on the Democrats of the south. I don’t like war but if you had to give an example of when it was justified, this was it. The Republicans should be praised and their underlying philosophy has not changed, to their credit.
 
Last edited:
You can’t do evil in order to do good.

I’m sorry.

“The Church is very clear that the altar which is used for the sacrifice of the Mass cannot be used for any other purpose,” he said.

He pointed out that it’s an ancient human precept — not just a Church precept — that the dead must be laid to rest. The Church also has “very strict protocols about how bodies are meant to be treated.”

He also said that it would have been different if Father Pavone had been giving a homily at a funeral rite, where the deceased baby would have been dressed appropriately and placed in a casket in accord with the baby’s human dignity. But he said the fact that the baby’s body, “not cleaned and uncovered,” was being used for a “political statement as a sort of prop” both violated the dignity of the altar and the human person and, in his view, constituted what St. John Paul II called “intrinsic evil” in Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth, 80
 
Then, the Church should discipline him. I as a layperson will not nor pass such judgments on others. I don’t know if the church has acted against such an action, I have vaguely heard about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top