Republican convention

  • Thread starter Thread starter bellasbane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t vote for a pro-choice Democrat for dogcatcher. Actually, I find it incomprehensible to vote for any Democrat for any office, with very, very few exceptions.
 
scipio337 said:
You do? Who was the original sponsor? Who penned the bill?
Click to expand...
That’s called factual knowledge - not insight. What does it matter to me who sponsored or who penned? It matters to me what was penned: a new term (to me at least) “forcible rape”.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Republicans are pro entitlement reform which will help the poor because it means the safety net will exist in the future and not go bankrupt. Republicans are pro legal immigrant but are against illegal immigration
Click to expand...
The GOP has it right! 👍
 
_Abyssinia said:
Republicans are pro entitlement reform which will help the poor because it means the safety net will exist in the future and not go bankrupt. Republicans are pro legal immigrant but are against illegal immigration
Click to expand...
A GOP supporter heard from! 😃
 
seekerz said:
The sense of proportion is this: women and their babies have an equal right to life and both should be protected. I don’t see how this focuses more on women than on babies. Like I said, you can’t ‘trade’ one person’s right for another’s.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make (though I phrased it poorly in the prior posts), is that the outrage over personhood amendments is disproportionate to its potential impact. It seems to me that those in support of women’s rights are more concerned about the women than about the innocent children in the womb. While indeed “women and their babies [should] have an equal right to life,” there is not equal amount of outrage over the personhood amendments and abortion itself.

My point about proportion is about the voiced opposition, not the law itself.
 
seekerz said:
That’s called factual knowledge - not insight. What does it matter to me who sponsored or who penned? It matters to me what was penned: a new term (to me at least) “forcible rape”.
Click to expand...
I would say that factual knowledge is required for insight.

For example, Akin not being the author of the original version of HR 3, but perhaps the one who suggested the change to include any rape wouldn’t change the conclusion of your “insight”?
 
seekerz said:
So? Does it make my insights wrong that Sandra Fluke shares them? How about the rare occasions when you and I agree on a topic of discussion - does that agreement make your views wrong?
Click to expand...
The former shows that two people can come to the same conclusion when using the same faulty premise,

the 2nd shows that brilliant minds sometime think alike. 😉
 
Suudy said:
The point I was trying to make (though I phrased it poorly in the prior posts), is that the outrage over personhood amendments is disproportionate to its potential impact. It seems to me that those in support of women’s rights are more concerned about the women than about the innocent children in the womb. While indeed “women and their babies [should] have an equal right to life,” there is not equal amount of outrage over the personhood amendments and abortion itself.

My point about proportion is about the voiced opposition, not the law itself.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. However, I still disagree that outrage should be related to potential impact. You’d expect the outrage in society as a whole to be disproportionate because people are divided about the unborn’s right to life but not about the mother’s. That shouldn’t be, but it is. That disproportion cannot and should not be addressed by laws which potentially put women at risk. In other words, we can’t and shouldn’t try to save the drowning by tipping over those in the lifeboat.
 
scipio337 said:
The former shows that two people can come to the same conclusion when using the same faulty premise,

the 2nd shows that brilliant minds sometime think alike. 😉
Click to expand...
Yeah, they say “great minds think alike, but fools seldom differ” 😃
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
A GOP supporter heard from! 😃
Click to expand...
Maybe…

Cardinal Dolan said:
“I came to know and admire him immensely,” Cardinal Dolan added. “And I would consider him a friend. He and his wife Janna and their three kids have been guests in my house; I’ve been a guest at their house. They’re remarkably upright, refreshing people. And he’s a great public servant.”

Stating he was “speaking personally and not from a partisan point of view” and “not trying to be an apologist” for Ryan, Cardinal Dolan praised Ryan’s “call for financial accountability and restraint and a balanced budget” as well as his “obvious solicitude for the poor.”

Noting that there may be differences in “prudential judgment” over how to assist the poor, Cardinal Dolan added that “I admire him. He’s honest. He’s refreshing. Do I agree with everything? No, but . . . I’m anxious to see him in action.”
Click to expand...

catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15298

Apparently, protocol is for the local bishop to give a benediction, and many on the left are screaming foul.
And make no mistake: Dolan is an old-school Catholic pol - a figure who approved payments to molesting priests to expedite their firing, brazenly lied about it, then ran away abroad when the press demanded an explanation. His most important issues are criminalizing abortion, stripping gay couples of any civil legal protection, and making sure that non-Catholic employees of Catholic hospitals and schools be denied access to insured contraception. That he is saying the benediction for a ticket that explicitly endorses a priority for the super-rich over the working poor and views illegal immigrants as beneath contempt also tells you a lot about Dolan’s priorities.
Click to expand...
andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-republican-cardinal.html
 
And make no mistake: Dolan is an old-school Catholic pol - a figure who approved payments to molesting priests to expedite their firing, brazenly lied about it, then ran away abroad when the press demanded an explanation. His most important issues are criminalizing abortion, stripping gay couples of any civil legal protection, and making sure that non-Catholic employees of Catholic hospitals and schools be denied access to insured contraception. That he is saying the benediction for a ticket that explicitly endorses a priority for the super-rich over the working poor and views illegal immigrants as beneath contempt also tells you a lot about Dolan’s priorities.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I could have articulated a more slanted interpretation of Dolan’s actions if I tried. 😛

Why can’t people understand that everyone who disagrees with them is not a hearltess ogre? :confused:
 
threedogday said:
I see we are closing the separation between church and state.
Click to expand...
Even worse, I hear that the president swore his oath of office on a BIBLE! Someone call the FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION! POLITICIANS can’t be RELIGIOUS!

Geez…
 
I was already planning on watching it but now definitely plan on watching it after hearing about it on EWTN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top