Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) This is solid, thanks. I should have added that there are medical circumstances where I would consider terminating later. Edited October 5, 2016 by Cugalabanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster 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.He also said he's very pro second amendment, but we all know that's a crock of snot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 He also said he's very pro second amendment, but we all know that's a crock of snot. If he doesn't understand words he can claim to be pro or anti anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I don't have religious affiliations which influence my feelings about it. Which is why you're okay with Kaine's explanation: because you either don't understand or don't know anything about the Catholic faith as it relates to an unborn baby. There is no "up to 20 weeks" to a Catholic. There is no "I don't believe in abortion, but it's okay if you do it" to a Catholic. There is no middle-ground to a Catholic. It's very simple: Catholics are against abortions of any kind at any time. Period. The issue here is not whether Kaine is pro-choice. It's that he's nothing but a faithless hack who doesn't care about abortions or Catholicism nearly as much as he cares about being an elected official. He'd be perfect to follow the devout Christian that is Barack Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Which is why you're okay with Kaine's explanation: because you either don't understand or don't know anything about the Catholic faith as it relates to an unborn baby. Close. I understand the dogma. I just don't give a **** about dogma. Edited October 5, 2016 by Cugalabanza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Close. I understand the dogma. I just don't give a **** about dogma. You apparently don't give a schitt about your candidate's hypocrisy either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It's just an "inconvenient truth." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 You apparently don't give a schitt about your candidate's hypocrisy either. What do you expect from a Canuck living in Brazil commenting on American politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 What do you expect from a Canuck living in Brazil commenting on American politics? Well, I for one welcome Gouggabanza's posting here on the dark side of the Intarswebs. He and his views are far more tolerable than gatordude/birdbrain/marceldareuspowder and a few others. He's also pretty civil. Pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Which is why you're okay with Kaine's explanation: because you either don't understand or don't know anything about the Catholic faith as it relates to an unborn baby. There is no "up to 20 weeks" to a Catholic. There is no "I don't believe in abortion, but it's okay if you do it" to a Catholic. There is no middle-ground to a Catholic. It's very simple: Catholics are against abortions of any kind at any time. Period. The issue here is not whether Kaine is pro-choice. It's that he's nothing but a faithless hack who doesn't care about abortions or Catholicism nearly as much as he cares about being an elected official. He'd be perfect to follow the devout Christian that is Barack Obama. I think part of being a politician is realizing that we are in a society that values freedoms and doesn't believe in state sponsored religion. That practicing ones religion does not mean forcing those beliefs onto others just because that is what you may believe. I don't like Kaine , but it sounds like he gets it. Being Catholic means you don't get an abortion, possibly your wife or your daughter doesn't get an abortion. It doesn't mean your neighbor shouldn't have the right to do as they see fit. Even if you don't agree with it. Sounds like more politicians should be like him. Religion has zero place in politics. Disclaimer: I like Trump. I liked him better when he said he was pro choice, but I get it - he was pressured by the party bosses to "change his mind" . I have voted strictly on the basis of Roe v Wade in the past but I won't this time as I don't think it'll be overturned. Just can't go for Hillary and her taxes and her BLM love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Well, I for one welcome Gouggabanza's posting here on the dark side of the Intarswebs. He and his views are far more tolerable than gatordude/birdbrain/marceldareuspowder and a few others. He's also pretty civil. Pretty. Haha, thank you for that. If I were completely civil, I wouldn't stand a chance over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Religion has zero place in politics. It's funny. I hear this all the time, and yet here stands more candidates who lie about their religion exclusively to get votes. Their faith isn't something that guides their personal decisions. They have no faith at all. Trump is the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) IN VP DEBATE, TIM KAINE PROMISES TO BE HILLARY’S ‘RIGHT-HAND PERSON.’ no mas' I have to wonder if it was suggested that he refer to himself this way, or if it was his own idea? Either way, it's the contrived act of a weak man, bending over to signal his virtue to someone behind him. Putin, the Chinese, the Saudi's, the Israelis (could you imagine), would destroy Kaine were he ever allowed to negotiate with them on our behalf. I could see him besting Merkel, maybe Trudeau. (nah, not really) Edited October 5, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 I have to wonder if it was suggested that he refer to himself this way, or if it was his own idea? Either way, it's the contrived act of a weak man, bending over to signal his virtue to someone behind him. Putin, the Chinese, the Saudi's, the Israelis (could you imagine), would destroy Kaine were he ever allowed to negotiate with them on our behalf. I could see him besting Merkel, maybe Trudeau. (nah, not really) If you told me that he called himself a 'person' instead of a 'man' because he's transitioning al a Caitlyn Jenner, I would have absolutely no reason to disbelieve that. No matter what he said during the debate last night, all I heard was this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) If you told me that he called himself a 'person' instead of a 'man' because he's transitioning al a Caitlyn Jenner, I would have absolutely no reason to disbelieve that. No matter what he said during the debate last night, all I heard was this: Haha! I never hear anyone from the Clinton Campaign say anything that doesn't seem filtered through a demographic study, designed to pander to a special interest, or rehearsed and micromanaged. I am fully aware that Trump's team does some of this too, but nowhere near the level of Hillary and her people. It's insulting. Hillary is never off the cuff, it's all going through the motions. And for him/them to think referring to himself as a "right-hand person" is a good way to impress womyn reveals a pathetic level of pandering. When I go to pay at the gas station, and they call for the "next guest", I will think of Tim Kaine. Haha! This is so Hillary.... grinreaper, on 05 Oct 2016 - 3:04 PM, said: http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=41293&utm_source=reembed&utm_medium=widget&utm_campaign=popular Hillary using child actor to ask question at a town hall appearance. Edited October 5, 2016 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 It's funny. I hear this all the time, and yet here stands more candidates who lie about their religion exclusively to get votes. Their faith isn't something that guides their personal decisions. They have no faith at all. Trump is the same way. You are 100% correct. The problem is not really the candidate but a segment of the electorate that for some reason expects them to hold certain religious views. Scary stuff. It seems every presidential election I see polls asking which candidate would you be least likely to vote for re: religious affiliation and I'm always disheartened that the Atheist scores lowest. He's the only sane one worth voting for :one that doesn't believe in magic spells and voodoo and deities or at least has the nerve to say so. My faith in the voters is always dashed with those polls. I'd love a candidate who's decisions are guided by reason and logic, not fairy tales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 My faith in the voters is always dashed with those polls. I'd love a candidate who's decisions are guided by reason and logic, not fairy tales. Those fairy tales are the basis for western morality, and the concept of a creator (be it a deity, evolution, or pure random chance) is the underpinning of our Constitutional liberties. I'm not much of believer myself, but I can still respect and appreciate those that are. I once accompanied an old girlfriend to a Pentecostal service where people would leap up from their seat and speak in tongues, and the only other time I experienced a group of people displaying that intense a level of fervor was years later when I sat in on a meeting of a local atheists club. The similarities between both groups were undeniable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 You are 100% correct. The problem is not really the candidate but a segment of the electorate that for some reason expects them to hold certain religious views. Scary stuff. It seems every presidential election I see polls asking which candidate would you be least likely to vote for re: religious affiliation and I'm always disheartened that the Atheist scores lowest. He's the only sane one worth voting for :one that doesn't believe in magic spells and voodoo and deities or at least has the nerve to say so. My faith in the voters is always dashed with those polls. I'd love a candidate who's decisions are guided by reason and logic, not fairy tales. So edgy, bro. Careful to not get cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) You are 100% correct. The problem is not really the candidate but a segment of the electorate that for some reason expects them to hold certain religious views. Scary stuff. It seems every presidential election I see polls asking which candidate would you be least likely to vote for re: religious affiliation and I'm always disheartened that the Atheist scores lowest. He's the only sane one worth voting for :one that doesn't believe in magic spells and voodoo and deities or at least has the nerve to say so. My faith in the voters is always dashed with those polls. I'd love a candidate who's decisions are guided by reason and logic, not fairy tales. The portion of the electorate that is religious looks to their elected representative to be religious, because they desire a shared morality. The philosophy that gave birth to Western Democracy is rooted deeply in Judeo-Christian morality. Odd how religious voters seek to protect themselves from wolves like yourself who believe the moral code which created the greatest, most prosperous nation on Earth, is no more than "voodoo" and "magic spells" by electing like minded individuals. Edited October 6, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Those fairy tales are the basis for western morality, and the concept of a creator (be it a deity, evolution, or pure random chance) is the underpinning of our Constitutional liberties. I'm not much of believer myself, but I can still respect and appreciate those that are. I once accompanied an old girlfriend to a Pentecostal service where people would leap up from their seat and speak in tongues, and the only other time I experienced a group of people displaying that intense a level of fervor was years later when I sat in on a meeting of a local atheists club. The similarities between both groups were undeniable. This is what also gets me. I had a facebook argument recently (I know, I know) with a woman who was deriding christian fanaticism in the form of Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay for contraception for their employees by way of insurance. Her argument was they were "forcing their religious views" on employees. When I inquired as to whether she felt comfortable dictating what a -privately held- company's owners should do, she answered yes. So, I called her a hypocrite. That didn't go well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts