Jump to content

Orale

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    976
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Orale

  1. Some of you really think Trump is winning this or persuading anyone of anything?
  2. An interesting story because it will likely have significant long-term effects on the views of religious folks. Pope Francis, in Shift for Church, Voices Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions The comments, made in a new documentary, are the strongest yet from a pontificate that has taken a more tolerant and inclusive tone. Pope Francis, who since the beginning of his pontificate has taken a more tolerant tone toward homosexuality, appeared to break with the position of the Roman Catholic Church by supporting civil unions for same-sex couples, according to remarks Francis made in a new documentary that debuted in Rome on Wednesday. Speaking about pastoral outreach and care for people who identified as L.G.B.T., Francis directly addresses the issue of civil unions in the film. “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” Francis said amid remarks in which he otherwise reiterated his support for gay people as children of God. “I stood up for that.” It was not immediately clear when Francis made those remarks, but Evgeny Afineevsky, the director of the documentary, ‘‘Francesco,’’ said that Francis made the remarks directly to him for the film. Church teaching considers homosexual acts “intrinsically disordered” and the church is opposed to gay marriage. In 2003, under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then led by the future Pope Benedict XVI, issued “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons,” in which it wrote, “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” Matteo Bruni, a spokesman for the Vatican, declined to comment until he had seen the movies and the pope’s remarks. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-civil-unions.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
  3. After seeing your post, I read the previous page and holy shit that is classic Surly.
  4. There was $30 million for voting improvements in 2020 versus $4 million spent in 2016 for Harris County. I don't know how much credit she deserves for that, but an 800% increase in spending is pretty cool.
  5. Voted by mail last week. Straight ticket. Fuck off GOP!
  6. I want to start a game thread on the football board for UTSA v. Mormons, but it's not allowed. I've been paying tree fiddy a month since that was a thing, why can't I start a thread on the football board? Go Roadrunners!
  7. Good job Kamala. Who does Trump owe that fucking money to?
  8. What happens, in terms of the election, if he dies prior to the election? Other than widespread celebration.
  9. Was that good?
  10. So he invites toxic people that promote racist misogynistic views onto his show and then is shocked and hurt when he gets pushback on it. I don't dislike the guy, but grow the fuck up with that sensitive bullshit. Research your guests if you're going to be so sensitive about what people think about your guests.
  11. Goddamnit Joe, don't take Trump's bullshit bait. Ignore Trump! Literally ignore him. Don't look at him, don't listen to him.
  12. Why would Biden attend the second and third debate after Trump's shit show performance tonight? I don't think anyone would begrudge him skipping those debates.
  13. Why would Biden attend the second and third debate after Trump's shit show performance tonight? I don't think anyone would begrudge him skipping those debates.
  14. Yes. Stop listening to Trump and responding to his little quips. Just ignore him.
  15. Agreed. Though I haven't seen any comments from leading Democrats about her faith. I've only seen negative views about how she'll likely overturn Obamacare (and Roe) and imperil the healthcare of millions of citizens, and that's fair game.
  16. Not only did they pack the court, they reduced it to 8 justices for nearly a year. If they can reduce the number of justices for political purposes, Democrats can and should expand the number.
  17. Democracy is facing an existential threat right now. We can worry about it haunting us 25 years from now, 25 years from now. Though I'm curious of the basis for that assertion.
  18. I'm for separation of powers. I just want to alter the make up of one of the powers, as allowed by the Constitution.
  19. I would add that Republicans effectively reduced the number of justices from 9 to 8 for the bulk of Obama's last year in office.
  20. I agree with regards to Biden and elected Democrats. I think it's pretty safe to discuss it on an obscure football forum political board without tilting the election for Trump.
  21. Thought this deserved its own thread as this will soon be the defining political issue of our time. Assuming Barrett is a fait accompli, the question will be how Democrats respond should they take the Senate and WH. Do they dispense with the filibuster and add two, four, or more SC seats? I heard a podcast yesterday where doubling or even tripling the number of SC justices was entertained based on the view that the court would be less politicized and ideological if a nomination was unlikely to significantly sway the court's ideological composition. Likewise, how realistic is adding PR and/or DC as states and what are the pros and cons? A 6-3 court could potentially overturn any major Democratic legislation for decades if Democrats do not add justices. What's the point of holding the trifecta if your major legislation is repeatedly shot down by the SC. I don't see the advantage of adding two seats versus four as two only gets you to a 6-5 minority. Republicans are going to scream and howl regardless of the number, so might as well go for the 6-7 majority IMO. Same for adding DC and PR as states. Again, Republicans would scream bloody murder, but fuck em and their insincere protestations. The fear of course is that the traditionalists/moderates in the Democratic party will sabotage these efforts for fear of upsetting "bi-partisanship" and the way things have always been done. In my view, any Democratic member of the Senate/House that doesn't go along should be primaried. I'm tired of scared milquetoast Democrats too afraid to fight fire with fire. Some fear that Republicans will respond in kind should they ever win the trifecta again. However, there are no conservative states they could add, so adding DC and PR is a no-lose proposition. Likewise, it wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO, if Republicans add additional SC seats in the future because that would further dilute the power of individual SC seats. The more justices on the court, the better.
×
×
  • Create New...