‘You Can’t Protect Some Life and Not Others’

Great. His “family”. That’s all I keep hearing. His family, his family, his family.

But I never saw you complain about Trump’s kids cashing in on his name, so your whining has no weight.

Until anyone comes up with any proof about Joe himself, I’ll wait. So should you.
The Oligarch and TWO of Hunter's ex-partners referred to the Big Guy as Joe Biden. That is THREE people that have referred to Joe Biden as the Big Guy. Joe Biden was taking money from China and Ukraine. His Family (Hunter Biden) was the bag man.
 
Great. His “family”. That’s all I keep hearing. His family, his family, his family.

But I never saw you complain about Trump’s kids cashing in on his name, so your whining has no weight.

Until anyone comes up with any proof about Joe himself, I’ll wait. So should you.
BTW Trumps kids have legit businesses Biden's have none except for influence peddling.
 
I did not say I cannot. I said, I don't care if you support him.
You may as well be asking me why Charlie Manson has a bad reputation.

As I said you can't and no amount of spin is going to help you. Either give me logical evidence of his corruption like public bribery are just admit you are lying again..:laugh:
 
Last edited:
The Oligarch and TWO of Hunter's ex-partners referred to the Big Guy as Joe Biden. That is THREE people that have referred to Joe Biden as the Big Guy. Joe Biden was taking money from China and Ukraine. His Family (Hunter Biden) was the bag man.

Yeah, so he’s the Big Guy. Still waiting on any proof. You seem to have inside info. Let’s see it.
 
Just like Donald himself, his kids are nothing without Daddy.

Without his daddy, Donald is selling watches on a street corner.
OK they have a famous and rich daddy. Hunter is whoremongering crack head who couldn't even keep a job in the military. Remind me again why he raked in millions from countries his dad had influence in? What service or skill or product did he sell?
 
An opinion column by a female Anglican priest, Tish Harrison Warren.

"The whole life movement, for instance, rejects the notion that a party can embrace family values while leaving asylum-seeking children on our Southern border in grave danger. Or that one can extend compassion to those children, while withholding it from the unwanted child in the womb. A whole life ethic is often antiwar, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia and pro-gun control. It sees a thread connecting issues that the major party platforms often silo.

Yet no major political party embodies this consistent ethic of life. I find it strange that a view that is respected by so many religious bodies and individuals is virtually absent from our political discourse and voting options."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/18/opinion/whole-life-movement-polarization.html

The argument is very confusing. She seems to have most of her issues represented by the Democratic Party. Yet thinks unless Democrats are anti-abortion, neither party is a legitimate moral agent.

Agreed. Her argument is vacuous at best, stubbornly idiotic at worst. Here's why:

"The whole life movement, for instance, rejects the notion that a party can embrace family values while leaving asylum-seeking children on our Southern border in grave danger...

This is a non sequitur fallacy. One can embrace family values, while making exceptions for certain situations. Asylum-seeking children should be extremely rare. Where are the parents of these children? If there is a good segment of these supposed children who are actually young adults and they are lying about their age to seek advantage in getting into a country, should we ignore that lie? How are these children in "grave danger?"
A good portion, the larger majority, of asylum seekers are coming to the US, and other Western nations for economic reasons first and foremost. That is, they don't like being poor in a poor country.

Or that one can extend compassion to those children, while withholding it from the unwanted child in the womb.

Which children? The asylum seeking ones? The highlighted portion makes no sense. Is she saying that an unwanted child in the womb wants to be aborted? This sentence makes zero sense.


A whole life ethic is often antiwar, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia and pro-gun control. It sees a thread connecting issues that the major party platforms often silo.

Let's parse through this:

"Antiwar?" I'd say that's a good thing any sensible person would strive for. I guess she likes war...
"Anti-death penalty?" This is another conflation of issues. There are damn good arguments for a death penalty, and arguments can be made against it. But that is on the basis of criminality and punishment.
"Anti-euthanasia?" She's arguing in favor of suicide?
"Pro-gun control?" Another conflated argument. There are good arguments for and against gun control not based on life issues.

I agree that neither party is a 'legitimate moral agent.'
 
Isn't ironic how the right calls itself the party of morality, and then, they tell the world what strong believers in the sanctity of life that they are, but then, they are not willing to show any compassion the the asylum seeking children.
 
Yeah, so he’s the Big Guy. Still waiting on any proof. You seem to have inside info. Let’s see it.
So the oligarch calls Joe Biden the Big Guy long before Hunter's laptop revealed that Hunter was holding 10% for the Big Guy. Who do you think Hunter was holding 10% for? And how about James Gilliar, and Tony Bobulinski they both called Joe Biden the Big Guy. And you think that is just coincidence?
 
Back
Top