S
seekerz
Guest
Total irrationality is selectively choosing which racial issues to condemn which candidates for and which to ignore as if they never existed.
Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
God willing we will see what Romney can do as far as legislation. The democrats with Pelosi and company will be sure to fight him. But I am confident that he will appoint pro-life justices. Obama will not.
Furthermore…we already know Obama’s position on abortion…and it is too putrid to repeat again.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes.
S
seekerz
Guest
Romney and Obama are both largely irrelevant to whether or not a woman has an abortion.
Health care is something I can impact now by supporting one or other candidate - abortion is not, in my educated opinion. I do the good that I can now, and continue search for ways to do the good that is less easily attainable.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
All the Democrat talking points all at once, without , of course, a single fact to support them.
Let’s look at just a few. I don’t do this for a living.
Obama has, indeed, lowered taxes…the payroll tax, which makes Social Security even more insecure than it was before. Does he tell the people who think there’s a “trust fund” that they are spending up their retirement now? No.
Indeed, almost all working Americans pay taxes…the payroll tax that goes to Social Security. But slightly less than 50% pay nothing else, and some get back more than they put in through the Earned Income Credit. You know that.
Both Bush and Reagan had substantial periods of Democrat rule in Congress, which is when the deficits ballooned. But look more closely at Bush’s deficit for a moment. It increased with the wars, but then started to shrink. In 2007, it was roughly 1/10 of what Obama’s is every year. In a second term, Obama will double the debt Bush left, or more.
A substantial portion of the income of the elderly comes in the form of dividends and capital gains. Tax it more, and you’re taxing them more.
Claiming that the Estate Tax doesn’t affect family farms and businesses is just absurd. If the Bush cuts are not reinstated, a family hoping to inherit a 1,000 acre farm (not that big a farm nowadays) will pay over a million dollars in estate taxes. No farm family can pay that. Farmers all know that, but they are a small segment of the population, so the Dems don’t care what happens to them. Let giant agribusiness run the farms, right?
Romney reiterated in the first debate that he would not lower taxes on the wealthy overall and said his cuts would be revenue neutral. Obama asserted that it couldn’t be done, but never gave any support for his contention. And his campaign has not detailed it either, which tells me they know it’s not true.
I would love to give Romney a chance to prove you wrong about his increasing the deficit. If he’s elected, I am sure he will. Obama does not greatly fear for re-election by compounding the national debt because he doesn’t care about it and neither do his supporters who imagine that somehow by looting the more prosperous members of the middle class, they will somehow get some money. But Romney would lose all support if he did.
And Romney said he would get rid of some tax breaks by consultation with both sides of the aisle; something he has accomplished in the past and which Obama never has and never will. Even his own party wouldn’t adopt Obama’s budget. Obama is just a demonizer and a divider, and will never be a proper leader for this country because he isn’t a leader at all.
And all of that claim that tax breaks do nothing for the economy has already been thoroughly discredited. It’s based on one man’s opinion and even that man didn’t really say what people say he said. I read it, and it’s as weak as watered buttermilk.
Suudy
Active member
It sounds to me like you’ve given up on a political (and by extension, a legal) solution to abortion. No?
S
seekerz
Guest
This conversation is taking place in some sort of historical vacuum that seems unmindful of the fact that Obama/Romney are not the first two candidates who ran promising to oppose or support abortion. Since Roe v Wade, there have been several - including a pro-life Democrat.
If someone feels that their vote will make a difference this time, I respect that. As for me, particularly after Bush, I have come to realize the limitations of any president to change the legality of abortion.
M
Mickey
Guest
The most vulnerable among us are the voiceless choiceless martyrs in the womb who are being slaughtered by the millions. Obama champions this slaughter…and you are questioning the character of Romney as you vote for the enemy of the pre-born children? You are a real hoot. The blood of 55 million martyrs cries out for justice. Here is a president who has divided this country like I have never seen before…along racial, ethnic, and gender lines. And you question the character of Romney? Unreal!
S
seekerz
Guest
I just don’t see a legal solution as realistic and the political equation is seeming more and more opportunistic to me. Like I said earlier, medical technology has developed to the point where a woman doesn’t need a clinic (or a coat hanger) to induce an abortion. Times have changed and the time for radical strategy change is long overdue IMO; hopefully one which can unite opponents of abortion across political battle lines - needless to say, the modern political strategist’s nightmare.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Religious Freedom been the memo week after week.
You can read it all on FirstAmericanFreedom.com.We need that first. All else flows in charity from there and they cannot be seperated.
M
Mickey
Guest
Except this time, the next president may have the opportunity to appoint three supreme court justices. You keep glossing over that one. We know what type of Justices Obama will appoint.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Bush appointed Roberts and Alito who, with three other justices voted to uphold laws prohibiting partial birth abortion. Every Democrat appointee voted to keep partial birth abortion legal under all circumstances. Granted, kennedy is not a total prolifer. But one more appointment of a prolife justice and Roe vs. Wade would be a nothing bad chapter in the history of this nation, rather like Plessy vs. Ferguson. (upholding segregation)
S
seekerz
Guest
And the justices will of course, vote the way politicians tell them to…
Supposing that they do, we assume that the states will outlaw abortion? And what will that achieve? I’m still waiting to hear how American society will switch from supporting/tolerating (or in the case of the medical profession, providing) abortion to reporting and investigating it…
S
seekerz
Guest
I applaud your optimism. I wish I could share it but the post-SC (assuming they don’t ‘obamacare’ us once again) details escape me.
S
seekerz
Guest
Can you show me a Church document that proclaims my informed decision a sin?Religious Freedom been the memo week after week.
We need that first. All else flows in charity from there and they cannot be seperated.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Nobody can show you a Church document proclaiming that voting for Obama is a sin, any more than anybody can show you an ex cathedra pronouncement from the Pope saying a business transaction I will enter into tomorrow is a sin. The Church gives us the moral precepts. But the fact that the Pope has said there must be an equal (proportionate) evil to be avoided in voting for an abortion-supporter and numerous bishops have said there are no offsetting proportionate reasons in this election and that we really can’t vote for a man like Obama and the further fact that not a single bishop has supported your view of the primacy of your conscience, ought to give one pause.
Why it does not would be astonishing but for the fact that we have seen a fair amount of that on CAF previously.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
When NARAL approves and promotes appointees like Kagan and Sotomayor, you can be pretty sure they have vetted them well.And the justices will of course, vote the way politicians tell them to…
Supposing that they do, we assume that the states will outlaw abortion? And what will that achieve? I’m still waiting to hear how American society will switch from supporting/tolerating (or in the case of the medical profession, providing) abortion to reporting and investigating it…
I have little doubt that abortion would be banned in my state if the chance presents, or at least limit it greatly. Some of the nearby states would do it as well. Since, unfortunately, so many people identify “legal” with “moral”, it cannot help but have some effect on the abortion rate. Yes, some of the blue states would keep abortion on demand, but not all would. Even some limitations would be better than none at all.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I’ve tried using reason and scientific facts and it doesn’t work. This way is much simpler and makes me feel better.Throwing general insults at people is a GREAT way to convince them to choose life…
M
Mickey
Guest
Exactly.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
No, but I can find plenty that demonstrates that justifying a vote for a party that has it on record as not only supporting euthanisia, but also redefining marriage, abortion, destructive embryonic stem cell reseach is the result of an improperly formed conscience.
Apparently you seem convinced that the perpetuation of the confiscatory welfare state and the right of union leaders to extort money from hard working people to feed their lavish lifestyles is worth the sacrifice of a million souls a year, the complete and utter erosion of our moral culture, and the exploitation of the hopeless with the promise of death. Not sure where all that fits in with Catholic theology, but there you have it.
- Status