IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 What is he planning to do to that window? If this photo isn't a Howard Dean-like moment, I don't know what is. Put this photo next to a loop of Hillary collapsing, then flip the GOP ballot to have Pence as President and Trump as VP, and I may just get back into this game. Oh, wait. I live in California. Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 What is he planning to do to that window? Maybe he sees balloons too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I enjoyed my DVR'd episodes of Westworld and Gotham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 In fairness, if his wife's picture doesn't scream "beard" I don't know what does. Well, Pence seems like a nice enough guy. Maybe he can set Kaine up with some of that conversion therapy he likes so well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Well, Pence seems like a nice enough guy. Maybe he can set Kaine up with some of that conversion therapy he likes so well. And maybe in exchange, Kaine can help Pence understand how a devout Catholic can also be pro-abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I did not watch that debate, but Sweet Jesus this was atrocious on Kaine's part. What an asswipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 And maybe in exchange, Kaine can help Pence understand how a devout Catholic can also be pro-abortion. I think Kaine has done a good job of explaining his position already. He's personally against abortion, but doesn't think the government should intrude on individuals' decisions about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 I think Kaine has done a good job of explaining his position already. He's personally against abortion, but doesn't think the government should intrude on individuals' decisions about it. Kaine made three arguments for keeping abortion legal, while sidestepping Hillary Clinton’s support for subsidizing it. Argument 1: It’s not “the role of the public servant” to require non-believers to follow the dictates of one’s faith. Forbidding people from killing unborn children, then, is equivalent to making them go to Mass each week. Books could be written about what’s wrong with this argument. Briefly: It’s not faith that establishes that unborn children are living members of the human species. Nor do we need faith to ask whether anything distinguishes these members of the species from other members that justifies denying them the right to life that we ourselves take for granted, and to answer no. Argument 2: Without Roe v. Wade, states could punish women for procuring abortions. The last documented cases of such prosecutions happened in 1911 and 1922. Argument 3: “Why don’t you trust women to make this choice for themselves?” Because they’re not just making it for themselves; they’re making it for an innocent third party. A "Catholic" would know this. Kaine is perfectly capable of understanding why pro-lifers don’t trust anyone with the power to kill unborn children. But he doesn’t want to engage their argument. He doesn’t want to explicitly deny that unborn children have legitimate claims to our protection: That would be too callous, and too obviously at odds with Catholic teaching. Instead he hides behind a useful but empty bit of rhetoric, even though it slanders millions of his fellow citizens and the Church to which he belongs. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I think Kaine has done a good job of explaining his position already. He's personally against abortion, but doesn't think the government should intrude on individuals' decisions about it. Will the babies still be dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Kaine made three arguments for keeping abortion legal, while sidestepping Hillary Clinton’s support for subsidizing it. Argument 1: It’s not “the role of the public servant” to require non-believers to follow the dictates of one’s faith. Forbidding people from killing unborn children, then, is equivalent to making them go to Mass each week. Books could be written about what’s wrong with this argument. Briefly: It’s not faith that establishes that unborn children are living members of the human species. Nor do we need faith to ask whether anything distinguishes these members of the species from other members that justifies denying them the right to life that we ourselves take for granted, and to answer no. Argument 2: Without Roe v. Wade, states could punish women for procuring abortions. The last documented cases of such prosecutions happened in 1911 and 1922. Argument 3: “Why don’t you trust women to make this choice for themselves?” Because they’re not just making it for themselves; they’re making it for an innocent third party. A "Catholic" would know this. Kaine is perfectly capable of understanding why pro-lifers don’t trust anyone with the power to kill unborn children. But he doesn’t want to engage their argument. He doesn’t want to explicitly deny that unborn children have legitimate claims to our protection: That would be too callous, and too obviously at odds with Catholic teaching. Instead he hides behind a useful but empty bit of rhetoric, even though it slanders millions of his fellow citizens and the Church to which he belongs. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/ I respect your position on this. Many people disagree, however. I'm familiar with all the arguments (and "arguments"). It's an issue where thoughtful intelligent people can disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 5, 2016 Author Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) I respect your position on this. Many people disagree, however. I'm familiar with all the arguments (and "arguments"). It's an issue where thoughtful intelligent people can disagree. Quite right. I certainly don't want to derail the thread. My main point is that the media cheering on Catholic Politicians to "be brave" and "pro-choice" is laughable. . Tim Kaine is as unlikable as Hillary Clinton. . Edited October 5, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Will the babies still be dead? Damn, you tripped me up. Now I have to explain how my love of dead babies informs all of my personal beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I respect your position on this. Many people disagree, however. I'm familiar with all the arguments (and "arguments"). It's an issue where thoughtful intelligent people can disagree. At what point do you believe it should be illegal? Once the baby has a heart beat? Once the baby is able to live outside of the womb? 22 weeks After 7 months when it is nearly fully developed? One month before? Minutes before it is about to be delivered? When the baby is still at the hospital and just delivered? I'm being serious about the question and how did the conclusion you derived come about? What was the thought process behind it? My personal belief is once the baby has a heartbeat. However, in regards to legality, I would say at 22 weeks. That is the point when the baby has a shot at surviving outside of the womb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 At what point do you believe it should be illegal? Once the baby has a heart beat? Once the baby is able to live outside of the womb? 22 weeks After 7 months when it is nearly fully developed? One month before? Minutes before it is about to be delivered? When the baby is still at the hospital and just delivered? I'm being serious about the question and how did the conclusion you derived come about? What was the thought process behind it? My personal belief is once the baby has a heartbeat. However, in regards to legality, I would say at 22 weeks. That is the point when the baby has a shot at surviving outside of the womb. It's a good question and fair to ask. I do not support late term abortion. Around 20 weeks is where I draw the line. Later than that I am not comfortable. I don't pretend to know the answers about what Life is or exactly when it begins. I don't have religious affiliations which influence my feelings about it. But that doesn't mean I don't take morality seriously or wonder and think about spiritual aspects. Adults have the responsibility to do their best in dealing with complicated issues like this. If I take into account all the things that I value and what I know and my best instincts and factor in things like tolerance, compassion, liberty... that's the best I got: I support the choice of a mother to abort a pregnancy, but if she can't do it in the first few months, then she's got herself a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Damn, you tripped me up. Now I have to explain how my love of dead babies informs all of my personal beliefs. I purposely wrote that harshly to demonstrate a point. If Kaine is a 'devout Catholic" he believes life starts at conception. If so, a fetus is a baby in his eyes and he thinks the government has no place in protecting the life of a baby. If he is not a devout Catholic, then he may not believe that life starts at conception and his stance on government involvement makes sense. I can understand this position, but I can't understand it if he professes himself a devout Catholic. It is an inconsistent position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It's a good question and fair to ask. I do not support late term abortion. Around 20 weeks is where I draw the line. Later than that I am not comfortable. I don't pretend to know the answers about what Life is or exactly when it begins. I don't have religious affiliations which influence my feelings about it. But that doesn't mean I don't take morality seriously or wonder and think about spiritual aspects. Adults have the responsibility to do their best in dealing with complicated issues like this. If I take into account all the things that I value and what I know and my best instincts and factor in things like tolerance, compassion, liberty... that's the best I got: I support the choice of a mother to abort a pregnancy, but if she can't do it in the first few months, then she's got herself a family. This is solid, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I purposely wrote that harshly to demonstrate a point. If Kaine is a 'devout Catholic" he believes life starts at conception. If so, a fetus is a baby in his eyes and he thinks the government has no place in protecting the life of a baby. If he is not a devout Catholic, then he may not believe that life starts at conception and his stance on government involvement makes sense. I can understand this position, but I can't understand it if he professes himself a devout Catholic. It is an inconsistent position. I hear ya. But, as you know, Catholics (as well as other religious groups) don't always interpret all the pieces of gospel as gospel. I could point out some compartments of Pence's philosophy where he seems to have gone a la carte with his so-called faith. Anyway, it's no matter to me what a person's religion is. I'm more interested in the ideas that come from a person's better faculties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I enjoyed my DVR'd episodes of Westworld and Gotham Gotham's getting to be a really solid series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I hear ya. But, as you know, Catholics (as well as other religious groups) don't always interpret all the pieces of gospel as gospel. I could point out some compartments of Pence's philosophy where he seems to have gone a la carte with his so-called faith. Anyway, it's no matter to me what a person's religion is. I'm more interested in the ideas that come from a person's better faculties. That's all fine. But he shouldn't call himself devout because that word has a meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 That's all fine. But he shouldn't call himself devout because that word has a meaning. I think you're right about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts