UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

Every time you use those words, you motivate your fringe to act. You are actively promoting violence with such language.

If you don't think it is time for a leftist insurrection, then start using less inflammatory terminology.

Demonstrators and untold millions of horn honking/waving drivers across the country on "No Kings" Day...Your Turn, Ned ;-)

(no message)

(no message)

It is neither an endorsement of, or an incitement to, violence.

But our Putin wanna-be loves guys like you who tell those pointing out the danger he poses to shut the hell up.

I won’t. Ever.

(no message)

(no message)

The DNC talking points aren’t convincing anyone.

(no message)

You are pretending autocracy is possible. You are denying the truth that it isn’t.

If so, they not fascist dictators.

If not, you are pushing violence.

So, either you are lying about fascism (and causing others to be violent who believe your politically expedient lies), or you believe violence is necessary yourself. Either way, you are promoting violence when you use those terms to describe a sitting president.

(no message)

(no message)

engaging on it. Chris is right about you.

(no message)

There is very little value in engaging with you. Sometimes you provoke me by lying about Catholic Church Doctrine, but everyone who reads this board now knows that your doctrine comes from the Democrat Party, and then you look for ways to twist Catholic Doctrine. Maybe try the other way around next time. But, since everyone knows this about you, there is often no gain in continuing a conversation with you.

of my position…and that’s why you stopped engaging…let’s resume…immediately….i’ll be glad to start…even if you don’t join in.

Answer my posts in our last discussion. I'm not starting over with you.

conditions, and the use of "Prudential Judgement"...nations may use lethal force to protect their own lives...and freedoms. In addition, I've cited not only Pope Francis' statement on fetal Personhood being "debated", but also an article on that issue by the Pro-Life leaning publication "Where's Peter" in which it acknowledges the RCC has never taught that Personhood begins at conception. These references are all true and certainly relevant to the issue of Abortion...yet you refuse to engage and discuss their relevance. Let's also remember that this country is not a single theocracy and that other religions, (e.g. Judaism), or Atheists believe that Personhood begins at either "Quickening" or Birth. BTW, the fact that the vast majority of conceptions do not naturally result in birth, due to failure to implant, or miscarriage...gives rationality to those beliefs.

Then there is the non-religious fact that at any point in time, here in the U.S., approximately 6M women have, during their reproductive lives, been forced or coerced into a pregnancy they never wanted. So, the question arises...if nations can engage in war (i.e. killing) to protect their lives and freedoms, why can't women Choose to end a pregnancy they never wanted, caused by outside force or coercion?

Stop abusing the word "Lie" and engage in a reasoned discussion of this important issue...for which the majority of Americans believe should be legal and available...especially for those women who have been subjected to forced or coerced pregnancies.


Link: https://catholicconscience.org/just-war/

Taking a statement by Pope Francis out of context to support a position he doesn't support is not citing to Catholic Doctrine. You know that he was saying whichever side you take on the personhood issue, abortion is wrong, and you took his statement to mean you can take either side of the abortion issue. Total misrepresentation. He clarified his statement later, which you never seem to quote. I assume you are intentionally lying about his statement.

But, regardless, his casual statement is not Church Doctrine. So, let's ignore it. Let's cite the Catechism like you did for Just War Theory. I presented a series of direct quotes from the Catechism on this subject. You apparently don't want to respond to them, because you know you disagree with Church Doctrine when it comes to abortion, so you don't want to cite to actual Catholic Doctrine.

[[ Aside: You say, "Stop abusing the word 'lie'." Funny coming from you, when you state that merely not talking about an issue among friends to avoid conflict is akin to lying. Talk about abusing the word "lie." ]]

including Catholics, hold the belief that under certain circumstances a woman should have the right to choose an abortion. I’m voicing their. opinion so that you can understand why you should listen and amend your extreme view.

"Just Wars" teaching, and Francis' comment to the Abortion issue. The RCC has never taught that "Personhood" begins at conception and that has legal ramifications as well as theological implications...Francis knew it...and so do you. Add in the 'sanctioned' killing of actual persons in one case and it's not rocket science to connect the dots for the other (terminated unwanted pregnancies)...which as the Pope for ALL Catholics on this contentious issue, chose not to do. It all revolves around the use of "Prudential Judgement" (see par. 2309 in the RCC Catechism) to discern the appropriate circumstances and conditions that would allow for the ending of a pregnancy...a decision that ONLY the woman facing such a situation can make...hopefully, with the advice and counsel of her faith leader, along with her medical and family resources.

Once more...as with "Just Wars", Abortion decisions are the responsibility of those who were victimized...no one else...and certainly not uninvolved bystanders, like you, who cannot possibly know the depth of those 'certain circumstances '.

Roe v Wade was the right solution...we need to reinstate it Constitutionally, while redirecting efforts...by all...toward a reduction in unwanted pregnancies...thus, fewer abortions.

Instead you make twisted logic arguments which rely on non-doctrinal sources, or if you mention a doctrinal source, you use one never meant to apply to abortion.

There is an entire section on abortion which clearly and unequivocally states that abortion cannot be morally justified, and I quoted it for you, but you refuse to address it directly.

(no message)

of Americans recently stood up to call it out, while untold millions honked their horns and waved in agreement.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

...but that liberal is the only person who ever brings up politics when I am in the conversation. They apparently haven't noticed that I _NEVER_ bring up politics with them; it is them, not me. I'm like, "What the...." It was a bizarre conversation. But they bathe in anti-Trump politics, and because they can't stop thinking about it, they assume everyone else does, too.

(no message)

Our friendships aren't based on politics. Our friendships transcend politics. It is only recently that they have found themselves unable to openly discuss politics without hating their opponent. I don't have that problem, but I recognize it in the Left.

For nearly 20 years now, I've been meeting nearly every week with friends from my days in the nuclear power industry...and we definitely discuss politics, with most of them being on the conservative side and me not pulling any punches as to where I stand. Sometimes our discussions would get a bit 'assertive', but never out of hand. Once at our frequented cafe, a woman stopped by our table as she was leaving to comment on the "High Spirited" conversation...but added that she had never seen such control, respect and friendship exhibited at the same time. My take for that remark is the emphasis on "Respect" shown by all to all. That respect had already been earned over the years through our hard work separately and together...a work environment that demanded attention to facts, data and reasoned decision making. For me, personally, I believe I also earned the respect of others when one of the most conservative members of our group, and the one who started the gathering, contracted Multiple Myeloma. He had always been a friend, going back to days we shared ski trips and a love of sports cars, Once his disease progressed, I joined him on hikes to keep his strength up and just get out of the house...then later helped take him to some of his infusions...sitting with him...and then taking him home since he couldn't drive. The others in our group saw this and knew that Politics would never overtake our Friendship.

Don't be afraid...let your friends know who you are.

Strange that you would think that.

The friend in question has known me for decades. I feel confident they know me.

It is only recently (past few years) that this person has been unable to discuss politics in a civil manner. Indeed, when we have discussed politics recently, they initiated it, but in every case they were so bothered not to hear their own talking points parroted back to them, they ended each recent conversation by refusing to talk further. So, I guess your criticism is intended for them, not for me, since they are the ones who get frustrated and then refuse to talk. I just seek to avoid that apparently inevitable disagreement by discussing things I know we have in common. I suppose the refusal to discuss politics in a civil manner by my leftist friends is a major success story for you...instilling TDS in your fellow party members, such that they cannot even be civil, in your efforts to divide America. Congratulations.

As for me lying, it’ll be cold day in Hades when you back that up…since it’s never happened.

What's the most embarrassing thing you ever did as a teenager? Don't lie by omission. You said failing to answer is lying by omission. And you are, after all, participating in this conversation with me.

Search. Since you make the assertion so readily, you must have an example close at hand...I deserve your evidence based response.

(no message)

But it's totally not real.