It’s unwise to use absolutes because there might be someone worse. Maybe “one of the greatest thieves” would describe him more accurately.
If those are the best things you can come up with, I doubt she has done a lot more as well, but thanks for providing. I really did wonder if she had done anything.
First, as to “the best I can come up with,” those are pretty good things. Look at a lot of Republican sponsored legislation - good things too, but not necessarily spectacular either. You can’t have fireworks go off with every bill introduced in Congress.
Those things are pretty weak. Nobody on earth would oppose benefits for veterans - an easy pass, and benefit to only a small minority.
Then why hadn’t some Republican introduced the legislation before she did?
I don’t want my kid’s health to depend on supply and demand. The tests were demanded because they weren’t all being done.
Why???
I don’t believe I’m hard line and I support this administration. I remember 9/11 and my friends and coworkers that were killed and I respect a President that is trying to do something about it, rather than President Clinton who chose to repeatedly ignore the threat of terrorism.
Perhaps they thought that disability and retirement were 2 different things?
I would need further evidence that this was the case to believe it.
Drugs for kids doesn’t mean anything if they are killed by abortion.
Bush didn’t do anything in particular about terrorism either, prior to 9/11. Read about it. If you want to criticize presidents for what they didn’t do, both men are equally guilty before the WTC attack.
Interesting. It was conservatives that ended slavery.
Rich, you’re entitled to your opinions but I find this way out there. Bush was President for a whole 8 months, Clinton ignored repeated attacks for years. They are in no way equally responsible. Not even close.
Concept of political conservative and political liberal as we understand them today didn’t exist then, so you can’t say that conservatives anymore than liberals freed the slaves.
No one suggests that either man was responsible for the attack. They were, however, equally guilty of inaction vis-a-vis terrorism before 9/11.
Huh? The drugs were not intended for use in or even discussed in connection with abortion. Why would you even think so?
This is one of the more scary posts that I have read. It appears to me that the writer of this post is trying to justify voting pro choice. It is this erosion of our faith that has to stop, if there is a chance to reverse Roe vs Wade. I did a search on the internet and every where I looked I saw that rates were going down. Maybe I looked in the wrong place, BUT if they did go up, how can anyone unless they are blinded to the left make the argument that Bush is the blame for the rise (again my search shows a decline) in abortions? Catholics can have an impact on this decision. The problem is that over 50% Catholics voted for a pro choice president because of this most harmful view stated above. Look at the numbers 45,000,000 and climbing daily! I cannot understand and am amazed that people trivialize this most important issue.
It is as simple as you cannot promote pro choice and be Catholic. At this point the democratic party solicits support from the radical pro choice people. It is stated in the democratic policy that they do and will continue to. The republican party is mostly pro life. People do not get it, it is not liberal, left wing, conservative, right wing, the MOST important issue in politics to being a Catholic is pro life. Unless there may be an equal travesty to abortion which is almost impossible.