Media trying to make discussion of Joe Biden's health off-limits?

SCOTUS said that the third attempt was the charmer. It took Trump a while to catch on.

Nice of you to try to shift blame to a previous administration.

Why are you afraid of facts?

It was the Obama admin who identified these unstable and high risk countries, Trump admin just concurred with their solid work. You are the one trying to pretend it’s done from bigotry rather than facts.

SCOTUS is the only one that matters, if an issue rises to their level.

2 Likes

No reason to be insulting here. As little as it may seem so to you, it’s quite possible for another to understand events in ways different from the way you understand them.

1 Like

I think it was. Trump has a history of making statements of questionable veracity about Muslims (Remember what he claimed to see on 9/11 which did not happen and could not have been seen from his vantage point?). He acted with anti-Muslim animus, according to the courts.

You can’t put that on the previous administration in identifying possible terrorist cells.

I apologize if any of my remarks were insulting. They were not intended to be so.

Except you don’t win Bronze Stars playing golf

Trump campaigned on a Muslim ban.
Throuigh several iterations, it was softened to what he could get through the courts.

They weren’t. It’s another little trick you will see where you get accused of being insulting while being insulted.

have you read the latest accusation against Biden? is the woman wrong in this case? she didn’t mince words, she says she was sexually assaulted.

you don’t consider the hedonistic lifestyle which St. Paul states will not get a person into heaven a problem? you don’t consider the teaching and pushing of this lifestyle on our children from every aspect of their lives wrong? how many children will these policies lead away from the church, away from heaven? but you don’t see an issue

what was the valorous action Biden performed? simple question.

2 Likes

Are you referring to Iraq being removed?

No. …

I see Trump’s secular persuit and idolotry of mammon a much more global and profound problem

Then you are imagining this significant softening of the EO. Future revisions added North Korea and Venezuelan officials, which isn’t a softening.

The softening, as you probably remember, was a departure from the campaign promise of a religious based test to one that excluded all people of certain Muslim majority countries.

whose soul is he putting in danger besides his own? the dems are endangering a generation of children to the false god of this world. how many kids are making the wrong choice because of what they are being force-fed in schools, on tv, in music, etc. if you complain, you are the bigot

this is bigger than politics, it is an eternal issue. where will our children spend their eternity

still waiting on the combat info for Biden jr.

2 Likes

You are deflecting again.

Please clarify how the EO was softened!

I am not deflecting. The antecedent of 'it" in my sentence about softening was clearly the Muslim ban promised In the campaign. This antecedent is obvious from the preceding sentence,which speicifcally referred to Trump having campaigned on the “Muslim ban”. You may wish to try to shift the conversation, but what I was talking about is what I was talking about.

Whose soul is he putting in danger? As President, just about as many as a mortal can.
You cannot support our consumerist/ capitalist system and claim not to be a participant. As David Bentley Hart says, Capitalism and Secularism is identical. I don’t see how you can hide from making the cake and absolve yourself by culling out a spoonful of icing. That is a deception to one’s own self. A feel good formula

YES YOU ARE DEFLECTING.
We were talking about a specific executive order that was challenged in the courts
You insisted the court challenges softened the executive order.
But you couldn’t back up your claim.

Now you are trying to change the goal posts and pretend we were talking about ‘campaign promises’

nonsense, I thought half the nation doesn’t even recognize him as president and demonizes him. you can’t be referencing his support for church teaching so it must be just deflection from the sins of the democratic party.

you ignore the conflicts in the teachings of the church and the democratic party, these are not minor conflicts but conflicts St Paul says will keep a person from heaven. it isn’t what method is better to serve the social ills, it is what are they teaching that will keep a person from heaven, it isn’t your or my opinion but the opinion of an apostle of Jesus Christ the Lord.

as St John Paul wrote (bold mine)

in Centensimus Annus (1991), Pope John Paul reflects on both socialism and liberalism in light of the fall of the U.S.S.R. and the dominance of capitalism on the world stage. He contends that Pope Leo foresaw the negative political, social, and economic consequences of the social order proposed by socialism, including its suppression of private property [no. 12 in text]. Socialism’s flawed anthropology subordinates persons to socioeconomic mechanisms [13] and is rooted primarily in atheism [13] and class struggle [14]. “Real socialism” was embodied in the oppressive regimes which fell in 1989. Their fall, John Paul says, was due to violations of the rights of workers (private initiative, ownership of property, and economic freedom) [23], the inefficiency of the economic system as a consequence of violating human rights [24], and the spiritual void created by atheism [24].

note the rights of workers include private initiative, ownership of property, and economic freedom

Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum,

the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community. “

you still need to verify what combat Biden jr was in

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.