- Status
D
Darryl1958
Guest
article:
European visitors to America at about the time that social justice became defined noted just how important private groups were in American life at that time. People gathering and working together for the good of the community in many ways defined American life and this is what the constitutionally guaranteed ‘freedom of assembly’ was all about
P
PTL
Guest
Go ahead ignore it, twenty states already want to re-appeal Obama care.So I’ve heard. It sets up death panels.Sorry but when I saw that, the rest I knew to just ignore. God bless you in your life and peace throughout.
P
PTL
Guest
Don’t you know that? It is in the news, 20 States are in the process of re-appealing Obama care. Their reason is this Health Care bill is unconstitutional.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I have to admit that I have not been paying as close attention to the healthcare law as I would like. But last I heard, Virginia is up pretty soon for a hearing and if they prove any part, any section of that bill is unconstitutional then the whole thing is thrown out of the window. None of it will stay law.
As far as the hospitals go, wasn’t there a few hospitals in California that were forced to shut down because people were not paying their medical bills? Why did the state not cover those?
B
Black_Rose
Guest
Again, my political position is not motivated by a belief that abortion is a morally neutral act or fervent support of it. Instead, my position is based on my opposition to neoliberal globalization. Thus, politically, I do believe that opposing neoliberal globalization is more important than opposing the culture of death. While I do not believe the Democrats are capable of combating neoliberalism (Clinton, being a centrist after the collapse of the Soviet Union, actually embraced the ideology), I do believe the Republican Party’s official policies and positions support it. A vote to a typical Republican is a vote of assent to neoliberalism, although I listed Pat Buchanan as an exception.
Also neoliberalism killed people too:
henryckliu.com/page116.html
If you want to know my values and conscience here are some of my posts:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=489715 (6th and 7th of the thread)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=453567 (380)
I
ishii
Guest
So you want to vote for Democrats to conquer world starvation first and worry about the systematic slaughter of the unborn later?
If I understand you correctly, you think neo-liberalism is more dangerous and responsible for more deaths than abortion. Here’s a question: how many deaths have there been in America due to “neo-liberalism” compared to abortion? I think we need to deal in the concrete: it is undeniable that millions of unborn babies have been killed since abortion became legal in the United States. I think you’re aware of the process by which the babies are killed: the doctor uses their instruments to either crush the baby’s head or vacuums it out. This is not any kind of “abstract” or passive killing via government policies that supposedly cause world starvation. This is nothing more than the systematic snuffing out of human life. Now, tell me how your “neo-liberalism” kills more people and how its worse than abortion and more worthy of your opposition. Be specific: tell me with concrete examples how this neo-liberalism monstor is worse than abortion and that it requires you to vote for pro-abortion rights Democrats. Also, tell me how voting for Democrats does anything to curtail this “neo-liberalism”. And please, no more links. If you have a good case for what you’re saying, then you should be able to explain it with examples of your own.
Lastly, a comment on “statism” from your link to one of your earlier posts: I think you’re focussing too much on political theory and not enough on morality and human rights. Most rational people save for anarchists acknowlege that some kind of security is needed to maintain order and protect people’s safety. The pro-lifer simply says that the unborn need to be included among those who are protected. Its not as if “right wing anti-government types” suddenly want the state to “coercively enforce anti-abortion policies” but rather, we want the unborn, too, to be included among those who are protected- i.e. the already born such as you and me. I think you’re overthinking this. Its not really about esoteric political theorizing. Its about simple human rights that not all that long ago were the law of the land
Lastly, your reference to Prohibition is laughable. The idea that we would allow something to be legal because by outlawing it, some might still do it. Well. Maybe we should let murder and rape be legal. And drunk driving. People do those things.
Ishii
C
CMatt25
Guest
Via, politics? A least at a glance of the states looks like a possibility.
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. Virginia has their own suit.
Even Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington state Attorney Generals are Republicans. Michigan’s Mike Fox was a Republican candidate in their primary this yr for governor but lost. PA’s Tom Corbett, Republican. Rob McKenna of Washington state, Republican.
Just say no ya know to everything Obama. That way if Obama fails they win.
What also scares me is if there are Republicans on the courts as this moves along. They could well legislate from the bench based on their politics as well.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I hate to admit there is a certain pride in being able to say, We told you so. There is no if in Obama’s world, it’s when. When Obama fails, liberalism this bad may provide some, very few if any, immediate results. But in the long run it just makes things worse.
As I pointed out before, along with a rise in government we have seen a rise in poverty.
Liberals will learn…some day.
C
CMatt25
Guest
What I learn is if Republicans just say no and Republicans turn back healthcare for instance and then healthcare fails because they turned it back, they win in their game of poltitics because it wasn’t given a chance in the first place. That’s good politics but a very poor and lousy way to govern.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Yes, well it cant fail if they turn it back.
It’s not a game when it comes to a junk bill like this. C’mon, Pelosi said you have to pass it to find out what’s in it, meaning none of them read the bill, it was written by special interest lobbyist and teams of lawyers, none of whom were elected but work for these politicians in exchange for donations and favors.
You want to see good governing, get out of peoples lives and let them govern themselves. Let the states control whatever programs for poverty and education there needs to be, it is the only way it’s going to work. It’s not perfect, no system is and never will be.
This healthcare issue, is a big one. To act as though republicans dont care and they will oppose Obama no matter what is ridiculous. This bill should have never passed, not like this. We will be too far gone before folks realise that the answers lay within themselves not some team of lawyers trying to figure out a way to scam the system to benefit themselves.
We as a society are wrong if we do not give 50 states the right to govern themselves 50 different ways. And its even more wrong if the states do not compete against each other by using what works and trying to make it better. If Oklahoma is failing with all the oil and gas(were not, just an example) we have and Arkansas is booming with all the gas they have then OKlahoma is doing something wrong. If Detroit is failing with the auto industry and gian unions they are doing something wrong.
A lot of people dont realise that when oil prices are as bad as they were years ago when they hit like 8 dollars a barrell, the good folks around here hunker down, plant more gardens, and do whatever other work they can find. A lot of the small producers shut wells in when that happens. Yea, these days, even we have people that get on the welfare these days even though they live in a free home they got handed down to them and a lot of free food from their family through cattle, hogs and gardens. But I’m proud of my state and my heritage, native american, german and all. We know how to survive in small communities. I can see here that things have gotten worse as far as welfare goes. I don’t really blame those folks though, you make it more expensive to live and dangle a carrot in their face and they are going to go after it.
Many small oil companies in this area are paying out the hind end in taxes and they cant pay their employees anymore than they are. So if they need to, they go get on welfare.
Sorry for the rambling, it just makes me angry to see someone support this joke of a healthcare bill.
C
CMatt25
Guest
The Republicans have opposed Obama all along. Take just most recently. Obama proposes tax breaks for business research. Tax breaks for business? A mantra of the Republicans. Yet Obama proposes, they come out against. Retaining tax cuts for those under a quarter million dollars? A no brainer one might think for conservatives. But no wait. Not for some. Unless the top 3% also keep their cuts. The top 3% going back to their rates in the 90s of the Clinton era? No can do for some conservatives. Their cry is the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 3% must not be rolled back even if it means holding the cuts for the other 97% hostage. And even though the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy did a hill of beans for the economy.
But anyway that’s ok my friend. We have opposing political views but I get angry sometimes too and need to vent. I was angry with the Dems when they took single payer off the table and didn’t push harder for a public option. So for other reasons but I would have preferred this bill not pass in its present form as well other than I believe something was better than the status quo in caring for the sick. The private sector and big insurance cos with their obscene profits, denying coverage, premiums and copays as they are, simply has failed and is not getting it done.
People talk of rationing. But the private sector has rationed healthcare based on pre-existing conditions and what they will and will not cover. And their profit motive results in higher and higher premiums and co pays and deductibles and costs to the consumer. As a result some folks even must choose between food on their tables or their prescriptions. And in a country as rich as ours this is just unacceptable to me.
I’ve never been to OK, but I have no doubt you are a fine ppl. Actually I know you are. Let us pray
for one another even with our political differences. And God bless you my friend. Peace. :hug1:
B
Black_Rose
Guest
I do not believe there is any moral obligation for me to vote Republican. Conservative Republicans are able to cloak, although with a diaphanous veil, their economic reasons for voting for the Republican Party by assuming a superior moral position by opposing abortion.
I am not going to directly respond this because of irreconcilable differences in our political values. Examination my rhetoric in thispost would confirm this. I am pro-life, but I am passionate about it.
Interesting, it seems contradictory to a previous because above you advocated universal protection for the rights of the unborn:
I only mentioned Prohibition as a brief tangent on unexpected consequences of coercive government policy, not an assertion that anti-abortion measures undertaken by the government would be futile or undesirable. Prohibition is an appropriate touchstone for speculating about potential consequences of an abortion ban such as back-alley abortions and people traveling to evade the restrictions, which would obviously happen if the issue of abortion is returned to the states as you advocated later since pregnant women can travel to a jurisdiction permissive of abortion. But, nevertheless, you would still advocate a restriction since you believe it cause a net reduction in abortions.
I suppose the degree of active enforcement of a statute should be proportional to the amount of societal harm that would happen if a declared activity was not restricted (such as alcohol consumption) and inversely proportional to its costs, such as easily quantifiable pecuniary costs and the opportunity costs of labor, or more intangible costs such as the infringement on the civil liberty of citizens. It seems that enforcing Prohibition does not have a cost/benefit ratio that justifies the statute.
P
PTL
Guest
Pelosi’s “Let’s pass it to find out what’s in it” is the most ridiculous and irresponsible thing !! American people are treated like idiots. You are right, this healthcare bill is a joke, a sad and evil joke which makes you not laugh but lament and cry.
Suudy
Active member
I agree. There is no moral obligation to vote Republican.
But I would argue there is a moral obligation to oppose pro-“choice” politicians. And usually that means voting for someone other than Democrats.
P
PTL
Guest
I think we need to cross the party line and vote for candidates who hold Christian values if you are a Christian.
If you are a Christian and do not support Christian values, it is time to stop calling yourself a Christian. Nothing complicated.
C
Catherine_D
Guest
I have seen posts right on this forum from many who claim to be pro-life, but vote for the party of death, where they complain that the politicians are just not getting the job done, so why bother voting pro-life?
But overturning Roe v. Wade was always going to be a protracted process. It cannot be undone by an act of Congress. It was always going to take years to reform the judiciary. This may not satisfy those who wish for instant results, but it’s a fact.
Having said that, I believe that if every Catholic in this nation had voted for ONLY pro-life candidates since the time Roe was decided, it would have been overturned already. It’s not the politicians’ fault, it’s ours. Some may just wish to avoid personal accountability by blaming others.
The fact that some Catholics vote for pro-abortion candidates while others refuse to results in an incoherent message. If there was a united pro-life message coming from Catholics in the US, it would make a difference. And babies wouldn’t have to die.
But overturning Roe v. Wade was always going to be a protracted process. It cannot be undone by an act of Congress. It was always going to take years to reform the judiciary. This may not satisfy those who wish for instant results, but it’s a fact.
Having said that, I believe that if every Catholic in this nation had voted for ONLY pro-life candidates since the time Roe was decided, it would have been overturned already. It’s not the politicians’ fault, it’s ours. Some may just wish to avoid personal accountability by blaming others.
The fact that some Catholics vote for pro-abortion candidates while others refuse to results in an incoherent message. If there was a united pro-life message coming from Catholics in the US, it would make a difference. And babies wouldn’t have to die.
P
PTL
Guest
It is the voters fault to put the pro-abortion, pro-death politicians in the Senate and House.
It was many Catholics’ fault to put the extreme leftists in on last election.
- Status