See other Israel/Zionism Articles
Title: Trump Responds to "Tough, Nasty" Question About "Zionist Israel" During Town Hall Q & A
Source:
.
URL Source: http://libertyfight.com/2016/trump-asked-about-zionist-israel.html
Published: Jul 4, 2016
Author: .
Post Date: 2016-07-04 04:52:51 by Artisan
Keywords: None
Views: 1303
Comments: 70
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at a campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire, a man at the town hall told Donald Trump he's "opposed to wasting our military in the Middle East on behalf of Zionist Israel." Trump replied "Israel is a very, very important ally of the United States and we are going to protect them 100%. 100%. It's our true friend over there." Later, Trump added "That was a tough question on Israel. That was nasty. Whoa." The man who asked about "Zionist Israel" also said"I'm opposed to the murder of unborn babies being legal," to which Trump replied "We are with you." Watch the video here:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 34.
#3. To: All, lod, horse (#0)
what was "nasty" about the polite old guy's question?
I agree with the old guy on the 2nd question but not the first.
Do you support our giving away our blood and money to and for the zionists?
His first question was abortion. I disagreed with him on banning abortions. His second statement was on supporting Israel. He was opposed to wars for Israel as am I.
That has always been a touchy subject. A total ban on abortions would be too harsh since there are times when a woman cannot be expected to bear a child. If there are congenital problems or the pregnancy is from a rape, abortion should be considered. But then I went to High School with a kid. He got his girlfriend pregnant and they had to drop out. ;)
That has always been a touchy subject. A total ban on abortions would be too harsh since there are times when a woman cannot be expected to bear a child. If there are congenital problems or the pregnancy is from a rape, abortion should be considered. I understand rape is a terrible crime but why sentence an innocent to death over it? abortion should not be legal, period. any mind-twisting or attempted justification for infanticide is straight from hell. it really is as simple as that. :-)
any mind-twisting or attempted justification for infanticide is straight from hell. it really is as simple as that. :-) Would you oppose giving rape victims a morning after pill to prevent conception before the swimmer even makes it to home base?
Would you oppose giving rape victims a morning after pill to prevent conception before the swimmer even makes it to home base? I agree that is a specific distinction, since conception has not occurred, supposedly, but even that is not cut and dried. (see below.) The short answer is yes, I oppose RU486. Because catholics are not against 'contraception' depending on whether or not conception has occurred, they are against contraception because it is inserting human will and interest in place of God's. I should note that I am referring to the actual catholic teaching, not what a large majority of cafeteria catholics spout or practice. Natural family planning which involves abstinence at times is actually accepted and taught by parishes worldwide. imagine that! having to abstain periodically instead of using a rubber or death pills! :-) An RU486/PG induced abortion can take days, weeks, or never happen at all. It typically involves three (or more) visits to the doctor's office over a two week period. In her first visit, a woman is "counseled," given a physical examination, perhaps an ultrasound, and if there are no obvious contraindications (common red flags such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heavy smoking, allergies, etc. that could make taking the drug deadly or dangerous for her), she is given the RU486 pills, which she takes in the presence of the abortionist. Two days later, during a second visit to the doctor's office, she is given the prostaglandin, which she takes orally or has inserted vaginally. Gradually, as the drug begins to take effect, she experiences powerful, painful uterine contractions which begin to work to expel the baby. In U.S. trials, about half (49%) aborted during the four hours they spent waiting in the doctor's office following the administration of the prostaglandin. An additional 26 % aborted sometime over the next 20 hours, on the bus ride home, at work, in the shower, etc. The rest who aborted did so at some point during the following two weeks. Between 8% and 23% (depending on how many weeks pregnant the mother was) never completely aborted or didn't abort at all using the drugs. A third visit some 14 days from the woman's initial visit allows the doctor to confirm whether or not the abortion has been completed. If it hasn't, the abortionist will encourage the woman to undergo a surgical abortion to guard against the possibility that she will give birth to a child who may have been injured by the drugs. RU 486 abortion pill unsafe despite media reports http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ru_486_abortion_pill_uns afe_despite_media_reports/ Washington D.C., Aug 17, 2007 / 09:40 am (CNA).- A recent study appearing in the August 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reports that the abortion drug RU486 is as safe as having a surgical abortion. However, the study is being spun in favor of the abortion industry by the mainstream media. The study has concluded that the risk to future pregnancies after a RU486 abortion versus a surgical abortion is equal. Journalists have interpreted the finding to mean that the abortion drug is safe, when in fact, neither is ever safe. It is a leap in logic to say that both methods are safe, says Operation Rescue Senior Policy Advisor Cheryl Sullenger. "Women are dying at an alarming rate from RU486 abortions and its widespread misuse in the abortion industry,” she told LifeSiteNews.com. "Women who have had abortions have greater risks of miscarriage and infertility than women who have not had abortions,” she added. Sullenger noted that the study did not compare women who had RU486 abortions with women who did not have any abortions. “It is no accident that the study refused to compare these two groups of women, because we know they would have found that abortion hurts women, and that is obviously a conclusion that they did not want to reach," Sullenger was quoted as saying. RU486 is a drug approved for aborting children who are at six weeks or less in their development. Three office visits are usually required for this kind of abortion. Some reports indicate that RU486 has a 15% failure rate, and that many women who receive the drug must also have a surgical abortion to completely remove the pre-born baby and other pregnancy tissue. "Hiding the possibility of RU486's life-threatening dangers from women really shows that there is more concern [among the media] for selling abortions than for protecting and informing women,” Sullenger continued. “This misinformation campaign is really a horrific thing when you think about it that could needlessly cost women's lives."
Every time I ask some Catholic or funnymentalist parent whether they use birth control, they clam up. They're certainly not having kids like the Hasidim -- that would be a heroic level of self-restraint over decades!?!
well it certainly is an interesting topic. widespread birth control has been promoted by the likes of ghoul bush senior and his ilk for years. the power that be have been very successful, resulting in a plummeting birth rate. so I think its kind of funny when white power folks whine that the Mexicans are out- birthing them. also I believe that fertility rates in general have dropped substantially for a number of reasons, so this contributes to it.
Whom did GHWB successfully promote contraception to -- Africa? You'd disagree with that in other words? www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation- world/world/article24566695.html And you think white power people shouldn't complain about the invaders' prolificity, is that it? Rivero keeps saying they're having less kids and blaming it on GMO corn -- you know the Mexicanos and their tortillas. Every cloud has a silver lining :-]
To the entire world. George H.W. Bush: Evil Population Control Ghoul - Rubbers Goes to Congress Yes,. Bush is a freemason, a Satanist and arch criminal. I don't agree with him or the likes of him on anything. Also: The people who complain about whites not having kids should realize that that is by their own stupid choice. birth control, abortion and selfishness. it is pathetic.
So you're not going to agree with Bush about anything, even if he's right, and you think it's stupid to be alarmed by "immigrants" breeding like rabbits? Just trying to get the picture. Nobody's commenting on my thesis that by all powers of deduction, good Catholics have to be using lots of birth control :-)
Bush is not right . since he is a Satanist, he by definition can not be right. and no, abortion and population control is not right and has never been, with conservatives. a Catholic who uses artificial birth control is being selfish, hedonistic, and is playing God,. they are committing a mortal sin. That is not good.
Is having tubes tied OK with the Church?
#39. To: Lod (#34)
No. that is essentially the same thing except even worse because it is permanent (except in the case of if it an be reversed.) Here is the actual catechism on that which is quite interesting. http ://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm The fecundity of marriage 2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153 2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155 2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality: When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156 2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159 Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160 2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161 2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law. The gift of a child 2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.163 2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165 2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166 2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167 2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169 2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170 2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: Artisan (#3)
#7. To: Horse (#5)
#8. To: Lod, Artisan (#7)
#9. To: Horse (#8)
banning abortions.
#13. To: BTP Holdings, lod (#9)
#18. To: Artisan (#13)
I understand rape is a terrible crime but why sentence an innocent to death over it? abortion should not be legal, period.
#20. To: HOUNDDAWG (#18)
How long does a typical RU486/PG abortion take and how many steps does it involve?
#23. To: Artisan (#20)
#28. To: NeoconsNailed (#23)
Every time I ask some Catholic or funnymentalist parent whether they use birth control, they clam up. They're certainly not having kids like the Hasidim -- that would be a heroic level of self-restraint over decades!?!
#29. To: Artisan (#28)
#30. To: NeoconsNailed (#29)
Whom did GHWB successfully promote contraception to -- Africa?
You'd disagree with that in other words?
And you think white power people shouldn't complain about the invaders' prolificity, is that it?
#31. To: Artisan (#30)
#32. To: NeoconsNailed (#31)
So you're not going to agree with Bush about anything, even if he's right, and you think it's stupid to be alarmed by "immigrants" breeding like rabbits? Just trying to get the picture.
good Catholics have to be using lots of birth control :-)
#34. To: Artisan (#32)
Replies to Comment # 34.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 34.