Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

dudara · 30-01-2017 11:45AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's different. If I as a citizen don't support abortion, why should I be made to pay for it?

If anything, everyone being forced to pay for it is worse.

Not everyone believes gayness is morally right. But they indirectly pay for services supporting LGBT. I don't see a difference. The basis for resistance to both comes from religious dogma.

listermint · 30-01-2017 11:52AM

dudara wrote: »

Not everyone believes gayness is morally right. But they indirectly pay for services supporting LGBT. I don't see a difference. The basis for resistance to both comes from religious dogma.

What if he has a johavah witness didn't support blood transfusion should his tax dollars pay for it.

See Hank is very picky choosey does not always make sense.

VinLieger · 30-01-2017 11:53AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's different. If I as a citizen don't support abortion, why should I be made to pay for it?

If anything, everyone being forced to pay for it is worse.

Jehovas Witnesses dont support blood transfusions, grand so lets stop paying hospitals that perform them

listermint · 30-01-2017 11:53AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Jehovas Witnesses dont support blood transfusions, grand so lets stop paying hospitals that perform them

Snap...

VinLieger · 30-01-2017 11:53AM

listermint wrote: »

What if he has a johavah witness didn't support blood transfusion should his tax dollars pay for it.

See Hank is very picky choosey does not always make sense.

Damn beat me to it :rolleyes:

Christy42 · 30-01-2017 11:58AM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't view it that way at all. Drink driving while being there illegally is a pure middle to the constitution endangering the lives of others who live there legally. How many times does the average drink driver do it before they get caught, or worse still, do serious damage to someone.

You're right in the sense that's what the law says, but in some cases cop on needs to be used too. If they drink drive they clearly don't give a bollox about being there in the first place.

I agree. However it should be changed for everyone. He said that drink driving without causing an accident is considered a minor offense? I presume he is correct in that.

Go against the fact that it is a minor offense. I will happily join you knowing it would lead to deportation of any illegal immigrants caught. I just think it should count as a major offense for everyone. Not just illegal immigrants.

Here cop on should not just cover immigrants but anyone who drink drives.

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2017 11:58AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Trump's campaign promises involved rolling back Obama's executive order outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity among federal contractors and signing FADA into law, a nationwide version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Pence had already signed into law in Indiana.

He added LGBT discrimination to the vetting system.

http://imgur.com/a/CEQ3L

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/

I watched his rallies and he never mentioned what you said, clearly you are well up on it though so I need to read up on it.

Grayson · 30-01-2017 12:01PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That's different. If I as a citizen don't support abortion, why should I be made to pay for it?

If anything, everyone being forced to pay for it is worse.

But a lot of Trumps staff are in favour of not just removing funding but criminalising it. They can't right now because of Roe Vs Wade but they could in the future if they stack the supreme court with activist judges.

I'm assuming that since you'd remove your support if LGBT rights were removed you'd do something similar of reproductive rights were removed.

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2017 12:03PM

listermint wrote: »

What if he has a johavah witness didn't support blood transfusion should his tax dollars pay for it.

See Hank is very picky choosey does not always make sense.

Well it's all opinion. Some people don't want to pay for what they deem in their own ideology as murder, I can understand it. Those who are OK with it can still support planned parenthood or whatever organisation.

osarusan · 30-01-2017 12:05PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I watched his rallies and he never mentioned what you said, clearly you are well up on it though so I need to read up on it.

If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics

Initially he was the only candidate (of the remaining 4 Republican primary candidates) who didn't say it would be a 'First 100 Days' priority, then he changed his mind.

listermint · 30-01-2017 12:07PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Well it's all opinion. Some people don't want to pay for what they deem in their own ideology as murder, I can understand it. Those who are OK with it can still support planned parenthood or whatever organisation.

But you seem to stray between separation of. State and religion when it suits.

Kinda have your cake and eat it style..

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2017 12:09PM

listermint wrote: »

But you seem to stray between separation of. State and religion when it suits.

Kinda have your cake and eat it style..

How so, abortion has always been a massive issue.

It's not the same as comparing it to a blood transfusion.

Butters1979 · 30-01-2017 12:11PM

listermint wrote: »

But you seem to stray between separation of. State and religion when it suits.

Kinda have your cake and eat it style..

You do not need religious reasons to be against abortion.

ScumLord · 30-01-2017 12:13PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Well it's all opinion. Some people don't want to pay for what they deem in their own ideology as murder, I can understand it.

But those people are nuts. Why should I have to suffer the delusions of a religous nut? Those that are OK with forcing women to live to bronze age values can just find a church and do it in there.

VinLieger · 30-01-2017 12:14PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

How so, abortion has always been a massive issue.

It's not the same as comparing it to a blood transfusion.

The size of an issue or how controversial it is has absolutely zero relevance, both are religious issues and should be handled exactly the same.

If you say people who don't believe in abortion on religious grounds shouldn't have to pay for it then similarly those who don't believe in blood transfusions shouldn't have to pay for it.

Like Listermint said you are trying to have your cake and eat it too with this argument

VinLieger · 30-01-2017 12:15PM

Butters1979 wrote: »

You do not need religious reasons to be against abortion.

True but lets be honest the vast vast vast majority of lobbying, funding and support for pro-life campaigns comes from religious groups

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2017 12:17PM

osarusan wrote: »

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics

Initially he was the only candidate (of the remaining 4 Republican primary candidates) who didn't say it would be a 'First 100 Days' priority, then he changed his mind.

Thanks for the link, didn't know. I hope it gets rejected again, it's something I'm against.

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2017 12:22PM

ScumLord wrote: »

But those people are nuts. Why should I have to suffer the delusions of a religous nut? Those that are OK with forcing women to live to bronze age values can just find a church and do it in there.

Well look at Ireland even, it's always been a touch and go issue.

listermint · 30-01-2017 12:24PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Thanks for the link, didn't know. I hope it gets rejected again, it's something I'm against.

But you said you would reject support for trump..

ScumLord · 30-01-2017 12:27PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Well look at Ireland even, it's always been a touch and go issue.

Yeah, because the catholic church instructed us to think it was bad.

Leroy42 · 30-01-2017 12:33PM

I see the UK and Australia have got exemptions for their dual nationality citizens if the flight is not coming from one of the 7 noted countries.

Whilst this is good, it shows the complete stupidity of the act in the first place. There is simply no evidence that the act will lead to a reduction in the terror threat, it left out the very countries that have proved to be of terrorist threat (Saudi). Will other countries now get exemptions? WE already have the rollback on the green-card issue, not it is being rolled back to include only direct flights for non dual citizens.

It is a disaster from a credibility point of view. The administration seems more intent in doing stuff, than doing the right stuff.

You've got Trump telling Mexico to pay for a wall or don't bother coming, and then blurting out about 20% tariffs, but not really.

They go on about the press, but they seriously need to get on top of the message they are putting out. It is currently all over the place. One minute Nato is obsolete, then he says nothing when May says to his face he stated he was 100% committed.

Its not the ban that I so much have an issue with. It is the apparent cack handed attempt at it that I find most worrying. When asked why not Saudi etc the normal response (from KellyAnne Conway etc) is to state that Obama had this list. But isn't this the Obama that was useless. And wasn't the list from the CIA, a bunch of Nazi's with no creidibility since they lied about WMD?

But all of a sudden Trump is willing to rock along with everything they say, except of course when it comes to Russia!

Igotadose · 30-01-2017 12:47PM

Well this should make the Nazi trumplodytes happy. Bannon's having his effect yet again. http://time.com/4652863/white-house-statement-holocaust-remembrance-day/

Summary: The last two Administrations included references to Antisemitism and Jews in their annual commemorative message.. Not Trump

Hank Scorpio · 30-01-2017 12:52PM

listermint wrote: »

But you said you would reject support for trump..

I've been reading on it because I don't know anything about it.

It seems to me to be some kind of religious liberty legislation.

ceadaoin. · 30-01-2017 12:53PM

Igotadose wrote: »

Well this should make the Nazi trumplodytes happy. Bannon's having his effect yet again. http://time.com/4652863/white-house-statement-holocaust-remembrance-day/

Summary: The last two Administrations included references to Antisemitism and Jews in their annual commemorative message.. Not Trump

Weird considering his daughter, son in law and grandkids are Jewish

Christy42 · 30-01-2017 01:05PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see the UK and Australia have got exemptions for their dual nationality citizens if the flight is not coming from one of the 7 noted countries.

Whilst this is good, it shows the complete stupidity of the act in the first place. There is simply no evidence that the act will lead to a reduction in the terror threat, it left out the very countries that have proved to be of terrorist threat (Saudi). Will other countries now get exemptions? WE already have the rollback on the green-card issue, not it is being rolled back to include only direct flights for non dual citizens.

It is a disaster from a credibility point of view. The administration seems more intent in doing stuff, than doing the right stuff.

You've got Trump telling Mexico to pay for a wall or don't bother coming, and then blurting out about 20% tariffs, but not really.

They go on about the press, but they seriously need to get on top of the message they are putting out. It is currently all over the place. One minute Nato is obsolete, then he says nothing when May says to his face he stated he was 100% committed.

Its not the ban that I so much have an issue with. It is the apparent cack handed attempt at it that I find most worrying. When asked why not Saudi etc the normal response (from KellyAnne Conway etc) is to state that Obama had this list. But isn't this the Obama that was useless. And wasn't the list from the CIA, a bunch of Nazi's with no creidibility since they lied about WMD?

But all of a sudden Trump is willing to rock along with everything they say, except of course when it comes to Russia!

Absolutely. The sheer amount of it that they have had to roll back on shows there was absolutely no serious thought out into it.

I mean the administration seems to be saying they are relying 100% on information supplied by people who they called liars. Never mind that none have advocated such an extreme step. They can't even justify who is or isn't on the list. Just a list they found lying around and went with. We are lucky Obama did not leave a list of potential holiday destinations lying around...

osarusan · 30-01-2017 01:06PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I've been reading on it because I don't know anything about it.

It seems to me to be some kind of religious liberty legislation.

People would have the freedom (from federal intervention) to act based on their religious beliefs or moral convictions in relation to same-sex marriage.

An example would be Kim Davis -the woman employed as a Kentucky county clerk who refused to register the marriage of a homosexual couple because it was against her beliefs as a Christian. Such a refusal would be protected under the FADA.

RobertKK · 30-01-2017 01:07PM

Katherine Zappone wants US pre-clearance removed from Dublin and Shannon over the travel ban controversy.

I just want to say she can go to hell if she wants that, it is a great facility that only we have in Europe and makes US travel so much easier once you board the plane, and arrive as if a US citizen.

She says it should be done as a protest against discrimination, when it is Irish people and others who use those airports for these facilities.
Nothing better than having the immigration stuff done before arriving in the US, especially if you have a connecting flight.

She shouldn't be trying to make things more complicated for us, but I don't think anyone of importance will listen to minister Zappone.

Christy42 · 30-01-2017 01:15PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Katherine Zappone wants US pre-clearance removed from Dublin and Shannon over the travel ban controversy.

I just want to say she can go to hell if she wants that, it is a great facility that only we have in Europe and makes US travel so much easier once you board the plane, and arrive as if a US citizen.

She says it should be done as a protest against discrimination, when it is Irish people and others who use those airports for these facilities.
Nothing better than having the immigration stuff done before arriving in the US, especially if you have a connecting flight.

She shouldn't be trying to make things more complicated for us, but I don't think anyone of importance will listen to minister Zappone.

These measures are immoral. It is a great facility but I hate my country being complicit in such acts. We should do the exact same amount of preclearance as before. The us can decide what to do on their side. If this results in extra hassle on the US side for travellers, well the US brought in these measures-not Ireland.

It will be tough given our economic interests with the US but the US should not be allowed do whatever it wants simply because of its size and economic strength.

snubbleste · 30-01-2017 01:15PM

I don't understand the uproar. Trump was very clear in his manifesto, he said he'd do this, he won the election and did it.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 01:17PM

snubbleste wrote: »

I don't understand the uproar. Trump was very clear in his manifesto, he said he'd do this, he won the election and did it.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

Then why do you think has he not included Saudi and Pakistan, probably the main two culprits on the planet of what he calls 'exporting terror' especially as pertaining to the US?

Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

Comments