Hillary Clinton Thread

[Lily_Bernans]

Please give a citation from Catholic teaching or the bishops that support such a claim. Those who support the ability to do evil are culpable in the evil.

“Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13).

 

[_Abyssinia]

I agree with you. I think we all know that. That’s why I said there is no need to keep going over abortion again and again and again when there is so much else to discuss. We all know where everyone stands on abortion. People can post what they want, true, but in my opinion, we’ve done the abortion issue more than once or twice or three times on this board.

Why should it not be discussed over and over again? Thousands of unborn babies are being killed annually in the USA. It is an intricate evil issue for Catholics. Roe v Wade’s survival is potentially at stake with the choices the next president could make in terms of Supreme Court nominations. There will be at least one new Justice if one is not appointed before the next president, and it’s likely there will be more nominations in the first or possible second term of the next president. Abortion should be discussed over and over until it is eradicated.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Why should it not be discussed over and over again? Thousands of unborn babies are being killed annually in the USA. It is an intricate evil issue for Catholics. Roe v Wade’s survival is potentially at stake with the choices the next president could make in terms of Supreme Court nominations. There will be at least one new Justice if one is not appointed before the next president, and it’s likely there will be more nominations in the first or possible second term of the next president. Abortion should be discussed over and over until it is eradicated.

Because there’s nothing left to say here.

If you’re serious about eradicating abortion, you need to talk to people who haven’t heard all this stuff over and over and over and don’t care. Here it’s falling on deaf ears.

However, as I said before, you have a right to post what you want.

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by zz912 View Post
Please give a citation from Catholic teaching or the bishops that support such a claim. Those who support the ability to do evil are culpable in the evil.

“Thou shalt not kill” (Ex 20:13).

That doesn’t address the question of those who make murder legal. Can you please give a citation which address the culpability of those who facilitate or encourage sin?

 

[Peter_J]

I’m just sick of the abortion issue, period. By this time, we all know where one another stands.

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else; but I find it a little difficult *not *to repeat myself a bit, when I consider how severely the message of the prolife movement is being misrepresented here.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life.

1. In this great endeavour to create a new culture of life we are inspired and sustained by the confidence that comes from knowing that the Gospel of life, like the Kingdom of God itself, is growing and producing abundant fruit (cf. Mk 4:26-29). There is certainly an enormous disparity between the powerful resources available to the forces promoting the “culture of death” and the means at the disposal of those working for a “culture of life and love”. But we know that we can rely on the help of God, for whom nothing is impossible (cf. Mt 19:26).

ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2evang.htm

 

[Peter_J]

Well, I can’t speak for anyone else; but I find it a little difficult *not *to repeat myself a bit, when I consider how severely the message of the prolife movement is being misrepresented here.

P.S. Perhaps you could remind me who it was who said this:

Democrats aren’t “enabling” anything of the kind. The women make the choice to have an abortion. People, and I’m speaking in general, not of you in particular, need to look at the facts without being so emotional.

Suppose a man who wasn’t paid enough at work, was overlooked for a promotion and raise, and had a wife who degraded him all the time, and all the while he was trying to house, clothe, and feed this wife and his four kids, who were very badly behaved because the wife let them run wild all day. Suppose the wife picks one too many fights, and the man kills her. Would society say, “Oh, well, he was a victim,” and let it go? No. He’s be arrested and charged with murder. So why shouldn’t a woman who kills her defenseless, unborn child be charged with the same? She should be. And abortion will flourish until she is. Flourish.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Because there’s nothing left to say here.

If you’re serious about eradicating abortion, you need to talk to people who haven’t heard all this stuff over and over and over and don’t care. Here it’s falling on deaf ears.

However, as I said before, you have a right to post what you want.

If you feel “there’s nothing left to say”, why do you keep engaging in discussions on abortion?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If you feel “there’s nothing left to say”, why do you keep engaging in discussions on abortion?

Because like all other posters, I can post what I want as long as I abide by the rules.

I am not telling anyone what to do or post, but it just seems counterproductive to keep going over the same things here. People here are either very against abortion and don’t want women who procure an illegal one to be punished, very against abortion and do want women who procure an illegal one to be punished, or pro-choice. No one is going to be changing his or her mind.

It just seems to me that people who really want to stop abortion would branch out to others whose minds are not set in stone. We all know here how people feel, and none of us is going to be changing our mind no matter what is said. It just seems to me that people who have a cause to advance talk to different groups. The presidential candidates, for example, don’t spend all their time talking to the same group of people who aren’t going to change.

But as I said, people can post what they want as long as they abide by the rules. Some can even break the rules, apparently, because they do. I’m not telling people what to do. I’m just saying I can’t take people seriously when they keep at it here rather than going out to people who might change their minds.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because like all other posters, I can post what I want as long as I abide by the rules.

I am not telling anyone what to do or post, but it just seems counterproductive to keep going over the same things here. People here are either very against abortion and don’t want women who procure an illegal one to be punished, very against abortion and do want women who procure an illegal one to be punished, or pro-choice. No one is going to be changing his or her mind.

It just seems to me that people who really want to stop abortion would branch out to others whose minds are not set in stone. We all know here how people feel, and none of us is going to be changing our mind no matter what is said. It just seems to me that people who have a cause to advance talk to different groups. The presidential candidates, for example, don’t spend all their time talking to the same group of people who aren’t going to change.

But as I said, people can post what they want as long as they abide by the rules. Some can even break the rules, apparently, because they do. I’m not telling people what to do. I’m just saying I can’t take people seriously when they keep at it here rather than going out to people who might change their minds.

There are people here who support abortion and won’t change their minds. There are people here who have supported abortion and yet have changed their minds.

One never knows who is amenable to change and who is not, particularly when people have wrong ideas about the benefits in other ways of voting for abortion-supporting candidates. If one realizes that voting for most Dems is a vote for nothing BUT abortion, potentially is a significant number that might change.

And certainly when, on a Catholic site like this, there are those who push abortion indirectly by pushing abortion candidates, it invites response. Response is a duty in such a situation.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

There are people here who support abortion and won’t change their minds. There are people here who have supported abortion and yet have changed their minds.

One never knows who is amenable to change and who is not, particularly when people have wrong ideas about the benefits in other ways of voting for abortion-supporting candidates. If one realizes that voting for most Dems is a vote for nothing BUT abortion, potentially is a significant number that might change.

And certainly when, on a Catholic site like this, there are those who push abortion indirectly by pushing abortion candidates, it invites response. Response is a duty in such a situation.

A Democratic president is going to do more than grapple with the abortion issue. He or she isn’t going to ignore foreign affairs, for example.

One might say that a vote for Trump is a vote for building a wall and nothing more, but that would not make it true.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A Democratic president is going to do more than grapple with the abortion issue. He or she isn’t going to ignore foreign affairs, for example.

One might say that a vote for Trump is a vote for building a wall and nothing more, but that would not make it true.

Ignoring foreign affairs would probably have been better than what we got for the last 7 years; actively aiding Islamic terrorist groups. We don’t need any more Libyas or the authors of such debacles.

And Hillary Clinton won’t “grapple” with the abortion issue. She’s perfectly happy with abortion on demand as well as making us all pay for it. We just need, according to her, to “change our religion”.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Ignoring foreign affairs would probably have been better than what we got for the last 7 years; actively aiding Islamic terrorist groups. We don’t need any more Libyas or the authors of such debacles.

Do you honestly think “ignoring” foreign policy would be the best thing to do? Certainly it isn’t, no matter who is president.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Over the past years, Democrats have accomplished the following:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and AFDC. They also created OSHA, the SEC, the FHA, HUD, the EPA, the FTC, health care reform, the Civil Rights Act, including Title IX, the Voting Rights Act, and even the ADA, with a hat tip to George H. W. Bush.

Can the Republicans match that? I don’t think so, but I’m open to anyone who can supply a list. Republicans did create Part D of Medicare, which left many seniors in the “doughnut hole,” something the Democrats were forced to correct with the ACA, which even the Democrats say is not perfect - yet.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Over the past years, Democrats have accomplished the following:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and AFDC. They also created OSHA, the SEC, the FHA, HUD, the EPA, the FTC, health care reform, the Civil Rights Act, including Title IX, the Voting Rights Act, and even the ADA, with a hat tip to George H. W. Bush.

Can the Republicans match that? I don’t think so, but I’m open to anyone who can supply a list. Republicans did create Part D of Medicare, which left many seniors in the “doughnut hole,” something the Democrats were forced to correct with the ACA, which even the Democrats say is not perfect - yet.

Such an invitation is meaningless when one ignores Republican participation in any of the things mentioned. It only tells one that their participation would be ignored if anyone did bring some accomplishments.

I’m not a Republican, but every single one of those things had repub participation. The Civil Rights Act, in particular, was more a Republican accomplishment than a Dem one. Remember all the “Dixiecrats” who opposed it? But for Repubs, and particularly Repub leadership it would never have passed.

But for Orrin Hatch, the ADA would never have passed. OSHA was passed under Nixon.

AFDC no longer exists. It was replaced by Republican-authored TANF, which Bill Clinton twice vetoed, then finally signed, claiming it a great accomplishment; “ending welfare as we know it”.

And since virtually no Democrat legislator actually read Obamacare before it passed, they can hardly claim credit for that. Even Obama didn’t want it, wanting full government takeover of health care instead.

Social Security and Medicare would never have passed without Repub support, and without deception as well, in which both parties share. They’re unsustainable and everybody knows it. But nobody will touch it now except, I believe, Christie who proposed to means test them; something that should have been done before the future liabilities became impossible to pay, no matter what.

SNAP dates back to 1933 (different name then) and was a program whose purpose was actually to increase the price of severely depressed farm commodities. It also had bipartisan support.

Repubs alone, on the other hand, have been responsible for every prolife measure since 1973, mostly on the state level and always against Democrat resistance.

And, of course, the very last thing either party did for the truly poor was the Earned Income Credit, which was Reagan’s.

Dems have done nothing for the truly poor for decades.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’ll agree with you on all that except the last sentence.

Republicans did participate in all but the ACA.

I really don’t think either party has been truly concerned with the poor in decades, nor are they now. I don’t live under the illusion that any of the current candidates genuinely care about the poor. They would if they were poor themselves, but none of them are.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Such an invitation is meaningless when one ignores Republican participation in any of the things mentioned. It only tells one that their participation would be ignored if anyone did bring some accomplishments.

I’m not a Republican, but every single one of those things had repub participation. The Civil Rights Act, in particular, was more a Republican accomplishment than a Dem one. Remember all the “Dixiecrats” who opposed it? But for Repubs, and particularly Repub leadership it would never have passed.

But for Orrin Hatch, the ADA would never have passed. OSHA was passed under Nixon.

AFDC no longer exists. It was replaced by Republican-authored TANF, which Bill Clinton twice vetoed, then finally signed, claiming it a great accomplishment; “ending welfare as we know it”.

And since virtually no Democrat legislator actually read Obamacare before it passed, they can hardly claim credit for that. Even Obama didn’t want it, wanting full government takeover of health care instead.

Social Security and Medicare would never have passed without Repub support, and without deception as well, in which both parties share. They’re unsustainable and everybody knows it. But nobody will touch it now except, I believe, Christie who proposed to means test them; something that should have been done before the future liabilities became impossible to pay, no matter what.

SNAP dates back to 1933 (different name then) and was a program whose purpose was actually to increase the price of severely depressed farm commodities. It also had bipartisan support.

Repubs alone, on the other hand, have been responsible for every prolife measure since 1973, mostly on the state level and always against Democrat resistance.

And, of course, the very last thing either party did for the truly poor was the Earned Income Credit, which was Reagan’s.

Dems have done nothing for the truly poor for decades.

You left out the abolition of slavery.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Over the past years, Democrats have accomplished the following:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC and AFDC. They also created OSHA, the SEC, the FHA, HUD, the EPA, the FTC, health care reform, the Civil Rights Act, including Title IX, the Voting Rights Act, and even the ADA, with a hat tip to George H. W. Bush.

Can the Republicans match that? I don’t think so, but I’m open to anyone who can supply a list. Republicans did create Part D of Medicare, which left many seniors in the “doughnut hole,” something the Democrats were forced to correct with the ACA, which even the Democrats say is not perfect - yet.

Regarding the Civil Rights Act, I presume you mean the one signed by President Johnson, but look back further ( source for quoted comments theblaze.com/contributions/a-brief-history-of-civil-rights-legislation/ )

The Civil Rights Act 1886 was introduced in Congress by a Republican: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866

“Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed the bill. In less than two weeks after that veto, the Senate and the House voted to override Johnson’s veto by votes of 33-15 and 122-41 respectively. The Republicans would not take no for an answer.”

Then there was the Civil Rights Act of 1870:

“This bill, like the one in 1866, was easily passed through the Senate and the House by votes of 43-8 and 131-43 showing huge and almost universal support among Republicans while getting none from the Democrats.”

There was the 1875 Civil Rights Act:

“What is amazing about this bill, along with the previous two, is that by 1875, full and equal civil rights for blacks had been passed and signed into law, solely by Republicans I might add.”

Then an Anti-lynching bill in 1922:

“In 1922, the House passed one of many anti-lynching bills by a vote of 230-120, enjoying only eight Democrat votes in favor.”

Civil Rights of 1957, “signed into law by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower” :

“The Democrat opposition in the Senate created the longest filibuster on record, stretching over 24 hours of non-stop speaking by Strom Thurmond. This bill also established the Commission on Civil Rights which was in large part responsible for the famous bill in 1964.”

A Democrat president signed the Civil Rights Act 1965 and the Voting Rights Act into law but more Republicans than Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act and the Votings Rights Act. Politifact says:

The Civil Rights Act – which is best known for barring discrimination in public accommodations – passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964 by a margin of 290-130. When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, – nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history – the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/

Even going back to Dred Scott v Sanford, although all the nine Supreme Court justices were nominated by Democrat President’s, although I have some confusion over one or two presidents if they were Democrat or Whig, the seven Justices that voted to uphold Dred Scott v Sanders were Democrats. The two Justices that dissented were Republicans.

Republicans have a long track record, prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1965, of establishing majority support for various civil rights legislation, while the Democrats have a pretty poor record, certainly in Congress.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Someone disagrees:

“So there we have it. The Republicans are the party of ‘moral values’ only if those values happen to be corruption; cronyism; elitism; looting of the U.S. Treasury to benefit Republican corporations, financiers, and wealthy men; and self-righteous posturing.”

extremelysmart.com/andmodest/RepsVsDemsInHistory.php

Personally, I don’t think one party is inherently better than the other, and there isn’t much difference between them any longer. But the chart does lay out facts, history.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Someone disagrees:

“So there we have it. The Republicans are the party of ‘moral values’ only if those values happen to be corruption; cronyism; elitism; looting of the U.S. Treasury to benefit Republican corporations, financiers, and wealthy men; and self-righteous posturing.”

extremelysmart.com/andmodest/RepsVsDemsInHistory.php

Personally, I don’t think one party is inherently better than the other, and there isn’t much difference between them any longer. But the chart does lay out facts, history.

What a cherry picked list. It doesn’t even list Bill Clinton’s disbarment and impeachment for intentionally false testimony.