Catholic democrats?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dbrown
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
Ours are pretty good – but let me point out to you that when you over-stress to the point that something breaks, good protection in one area simply means the breakage will occur somewhere else.

At one time there were a lot of broken ankles among skiiers. Better ankle protection resulted in a lot of broken knees.
Fair enough. I am not an expert in this kind of science. The study was done by a friend of the family, one of the first women officers in the Canadian Navy. She is now a university physiotherapy professor. Her conclusions were that the boots were inadequate. I assumed it would be because of poor ankle support. But I could be wrong. It could be the soles. It could be any number of things.
 
Ani Ibi:
Fair enough. I am not an expert in this kind of science. The study was done by a friend of the family, one of the first women officers in the Canadian Navy. She is now a university physiotherapy professor. Her conclusions were that the boots were inadequate. I assumed it would be because of poor ankle support. But I could be wrong. It could be the soles. It could be any number of things.
I think we’d better drop this – too far off topic.

But military boots represent a special problem. Traditionally, fatigue or battle dress uniforms with boots are worn by office workers and so on. A boot that is comfortable under those circumstances is totally inadequate when the wearer is carrying 90 to 120 lbs of gear up and down mountains – yet most of the complaints come from the office workers, which shifts boot design in their direction.

Another problem is using boots for running shoes – we used to have a lot of knee injuries from running PT tests in boots. A good boot is just too heavy for a 5-mile run, and stresses the joints too much.
 
vern humphrey:
I think we’d better drop this – too far off topic.
OK.
vern humphrey:
But military boots represent a special problem. Traditionally, fatigue or battle dress uniforms with boots are worn by office workers and so on. A boot that is comfortable under those circumstances is totally inadequate when the wearer is carrying 90 to 120 lbs of gear up and down mountains – yet most of the complaints come from the office workers, which shifts boot design in their direction.

Another problem is using boots for running shoes – we used to have a lot of knee injuries from running PT tests in boots. A good boot is just too heavy for a 5-mile run, and stresses the joints too much.
Thanks for this. It is helpful.
 
guys, the whole thread has gone way askew, now i also am a catholic democrat. A Pro-Life democrat. What i dont understand is why is it perfectly allright to be a republican and reject the death penalty? I understand that those are on totally different levels but my point remains the same. You can not vote soley on catholic principals and still be a democrat or republican. It just doesent make sense to me. So my point is that i probally vote on exactly the same principals as most of you (i say most because there are some people so far right in here its not even funny) but i just prioritize them defferently. So stop attacking democrats for being pro-death and pro-abortion. 42.8% of democrats are pro-life so its not something that all democrats agree on. There is no catholic party so until then stop telling people to be in you non-catholic party.

Peace
 
Mr plagueman88 on the 5 non negotiable issues the reublicans are pretty much correct, while the democrats generally are not. issues like how to deal with poverty are negotiable, because the governemt really isnt required to deal with it. while on the issue of abortion everyone is supposed to have equil protection of their life under the law. please dont trivialize abortion by comparing it to other issues, all of which are not nearly as important. lets just put the other issues asside so we can get an antiabortion government from top to bottem, then once abortion is safely in the highly illegal category we can debate all the other not as important stuff.
 
Sorry to jump in. I just wanted to say that this doesn’t have to be an either / or proposition. Can’t we agree that abortion is simply wrong in all cases - and war is most often wrong except in very extreme cases.
Also, would like to add there are many, many ardent Democrats (me being one) who are actively trying to change the party’s stand on abortion. Finally, I will point out that Roe v. Wade was decided during a Republican administration (Nixon) and 5 of the 7 justices who voted to make abortion the law of the land were appointed by Republican presidents.

Funny, isn’t it, that Democrats are now viewed as the party that is “pro-abortion”. Funny also that with a Republican president and Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate (and a decidedly conservative Supreme Court) - that nowhere on the horizon do you see a concerted effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, all the Republican rhetoric seems to have vanished after the election. Hmmmmm!
 
the thing that keeps abortion from becoming illegal is the US senate, while the house of representatives is anti abortion the senate is not. some of the republicans in the senatecome from a state where both partys are ardently proabortion, ie the state of maine, In maine proaborts run both partys with heavy majoritys both senators from maine are republican, but moderate at best. what we need is more republicans from states like michigan, Illinois, etc states that are more porolife. here in michigan the republican party is very prolife, but because of michigan being heavily union, proabort democrats get ellected, with the help of catholics by the way. I have put my sugestion for getting abortion illegal in our country, if we dont do it,murder of the unborn will stay legal, and we will be getting Gods punishment for not changing our attitude. I hope Im not in the way when God’s punishment comes.
 
40.png
MikeInNH:
Funny, isn’t it, that Democrats are now viewed as the party that is “pro-abortion”. Funny also that with a Republican president and Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate (and a decidedly conservative Supreme Court) - that nowhere on the horizon do you see a concerted effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, all the Republican rhetoric seems to have vanished after the election. Hmmmmm!
In fact, the determinatkion to eliminate abortion is alive and well.

But if you wonder why the Democrat Party is seen as the party of abortion, look at every vote in Congress on the issue. Who consistently tries to limit abortion, and who opposes limiting it?
 
There’s a difference between believing abortion is wrong and wanting to make it against the law (earthly law, that is). What do we make of the fact that murder is wrong, and yet God ORDERED the Israelites to dash out the brains of all the enemy’s babies when they conquered a city?

In any case, I personally don’t vote based on one or two issues. To me, the current Republican administration is primarily characterized by arrogance, ignorance and dishonesty. Rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan, they launched – on spurious grounds – a attack on Iraq, a country unconnected to al-Qaeda or 9/11, and now that country has become a breeding ground for terrorists. At home, they want to cut Head Start and payments to disabled veterans to pay for a tax cut for millionaires. And they’ve launched an attack on our most basic rights – arresting people and holding them indefinitely, in secret, without charges or access to an attorney, turning innocent foreign nationals over to other governments to be tortured, etc. Oh, and they’ve created a deficit which threatens a worldwide financial crisis. They’re running the government for the benefit of their corporate pals, and they’re not even doing a very good job of that.

Meanwhile, the Republican position on abortion remains merely a plank in their platform. I simply don’t believe that abortion is going to be outlawed in this country, under either party. Therefore, if I WERE going to vote on this one issue, I’d vote for the party more likely to create an equitable, enlightened society in which there was less demand for abortion – and I think that party is the Democrats.

But I can of course see how people might view the issue differently, particularly if they’re closer to the Republicans on other issues.

It bothers me that so many posts here seem to strike a strident, self-righteous, judgmental tone, astonishingly quick to condemn, seldom striving for a loving dialogue. But maybe this format, by encouraging brevity, makes people sound harsher than they imagine. I hope so.
 
40.png
gnosys:
There’s a difference between believing abortion is wrong and wanting to make it against the law (earthly law, that is).
You are arguing from the point of view of Church/State separation.

a) Roe v Wade is bad law, period. It is self-contradictory law, period. I believe I posted an analysis of this precedent above. It is not my own analysis. Please read it.

b) It cannot be demonstrated that life begins at any point after conception. Therefore the presumption of life from conception forward is necessarily valid.

c) Given (a) and (b), the ‘benefits’ of the mother cannot be weighed against the ‘harm’ to the unborn baby. There is no question of proportionality. Why? Because the benefits to the mother are questionable, may not necessarily ensue directly after the abortion, are mitigated by the risk of health problems resulting from the abortion, and the harm to the unborn baby is absolute, immediate and irreparable. This is the application of the Doctrine of Double Effect. If you do not understand this Doctrine, then please advise me and I will post the manner in which this Doctrine applies to the question of abortion.
40.png
gnosys:
It bothers me that so many posts here seem to strike a strident, self-righteous, judgmental tone, astonishingly quick to condemn, seldom striving for a loving dialogue. But maybe this format, by encouraging brevity, makes people sound harsher than they imagine. I hope so.
What? Did you expect people not to be upset at the reality of 40 million deliberate baby-killings by their mothers? This is not the subject of a society tea. It is the subject of a 180 degree turnaround in the culture in which we live: a social revolution, if you will. As far as society-tea niceties: I say dump the tea over the sides of this ship!
 
There’s a difference between believing abortion is wrong and wanting to make it against the law
Does this mean you personally think abortion is wrong, but you want it to be legal (a la what Kerry claimed his stance was)?
I simply don’t believe that abortion is going to be outlawed in this country, under either party. Therefore, if I WERE going to vote on this one issue, I’d vote for the party more likely to create an equitable, enlightened society in which there was less demand for abortion – and I think that party is the Democrats.
The Supreme Court situation this term made Roe v. Wade being overturned the greatest possibility it has been since it came about. Kerry would have replaced Rheinquist (sp?) with a pro-abort and then the other two (or three?) that may be leaving would also be replaced with pro-aborts. Given the law it is now, the only way to outlaw abortion is through the courts. Obviously there is no 100% sure way to know how judges will vote, but Bush will appoint judges who are much more likely to be pro-life than the judges Kerry would appoint. It may only be one plank of the party, but it is very important to this president and the president is the only one who can change the courts.

As for an enlightened society, politicians that promote abortion do not enlighten the common folk to not demand abortions. Our society is moving more and more away from life and towards the contraceptive/abortive/babies are burdens mentality. I’ve heard this argument about the economy and tha under Bush there have been more abortions. I don’t think this has to do with the economy. Abortion is becoming less and less stigmatized and thereofre more women feel comfortable getting them. Our society is steadily accepting this mentality more and more and that is why abortions are on the increase.

How would you say the Democrats would enlighten people to not have abortions?

ps: I don’t think people here are being self righteous. We are Catholics and we are trying to follow the Church’s teachings to the best of our ability. Thinking one knows better than the Church would seem to be self-righteous to me. I think this is an honest post that is part of a “loving dialogue.”
 
40.png
Genesis315:
I don’t think people here are being self righteous. We are Catholics and we are trying to follow the Church’s teachings to the best of our ability. Thinking one knows better than the Church would seem to be self-righteous to me. I think this is an honest post that is part of a “loving dialogue.”
The self righteousness is on the part of those who want to preach to the rest of us how there is no difference between one sin and another (which is the opposite of what the Church teaches) or who claim that somehow they are the ones championing social justice, and abortion shouldn’t be such a high priority.
 
The Democrats care more about the poor, middle class and senior citizens than Republicans do. Bush does not care about the poor or else Bush would give the presidential salary away to the poor like Kennedy did. Bush does not care about the middle class or else Bush would give tax breaks only to the middle class and not to the wealthy. Bush does not care aobut senior citizens or else Bush would do something about the high cost of prescription drugs.

John
 
John Yurich:
The Democrats care more about the poor, middle class and senior citizens than Republicans do. Bush does not care about the poor or else Bush would give the presidential salary away to the poor like Kennedy did. Bush does not care about the middle class or else Bush would give tax breaks only to the middle class and not to the wealthy. Bush does not care aobut senior citizens or else Bush would do something about the high cost of prescription drugs.

John
Do you give YOUR salary away to the poor? Does Kerry? Does Teddy Kennedy?

Sounds to me like you’re using this as a fig leaf to cover your support for pro-abortion politicians.
 
John Yurich:
The Democrats care more about the poor, middle class and senior citizens than Republicans do. Bush does not care about the poor or else Bush would give the presidential salary away to the poor like Kennedy did. Bush does not care about the middle class or else Bush would give tax breaks only to the middle class and not to the wealthy. Bush does not care aobut senior citizens or else Bush would do something about the high cost of prescription drugs.

John
Above statement edited for accuracy:

The Republicans care more about the poor, middle class and senior citizens than Democrats do (the unborn populace included of course!). *Democrat *(name) does not care about the poor or else Democrat (name) would give the presidential/congressional salary away to the poor like Kennedy did. Democrat (name) does not care about the middle class or else Democrat (name) would give any tax breaks, not only to the middle class but to all working class. Democrat (name) does not care aobut senior citizens or else Democrat (name) would do something about the high cost of prescription drugs.
 
John Yurich:
The Democrats care more about the poor, middle class and senior citizens than Republicans do.

John
Really?..

Terri Schiavo’s Feeding Tube Removed

Friday, March 18, 2005

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay R-Texas, House Whip Roy Blunt R-Mo., and other lawmakers on Friday held a press conference urging the court to modify its ruling so the Schiavos and others could appear before the committee.

Saying removal of the tube would be “an act of barbarism” that must be prevented, DeLay blasted Sens. Barbara Boxer D-Calif., Ron Wyden , D-Ore., and Carl Levin , D-Mich., who he said blocked Senate passage of the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005, a measure inspired by the Schiavo case.

“Those senators responsible for blocking our bill … have put Miss Schiavo’s life at risk,” DeLay said. “We care about saving Terri Schiavo’s life. The House bill will do that.”
 
I notice that john yourich writes alot like albert kopsho, and has joined CA just after Mr kopsho was uspended. you cant fool me
kopsho! youve been spotted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top