Catholic Santorum winning the South ... our next Prez ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicBoy1957 said:
God Bless you, Jeanne. You are still innocent. Your heart will be broken here on this forum, when you read posts from the many who “self-identify” as Catholic, but are unfaithful. Think of how much Christ suffers because of this, and unite your sufferings with His that you sustain here.
Click to expand...
Duly noted;)
 
ishii said:
What was it about Palin did you not like? What did you think about her committment to pro-life values, for example?

I could not vote for her because I did not like her answers to questions. It was obvious she was ill prepared to be President in case something happened to McCain. As far as her “pro-life” values. I am pro-life as well but that does not qualify me to be President. To put someone, otherwise ill prepared, in the White House only because they are pro-life is, in my opinion…a terrible thing to do for the country.

I’ve said before that i don’t feel this big effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade will happened - and if it did- it still would not end abortion. The past is proof of that. And I feel that the whole abortion issue could be better addressed by dealing with the reasons woman have abortions, dealing with the adoption laws and using a positive campaign to make adoption the preferred method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. It would decrease the number of abortions - but that is not what the Pro-Life leadership seems to care about. It seems to be overturn the law or nothing. I am more interested in trying to decrease the numbers of babies aborted not spin my wheels politically.

I believe the GOP uses abortion as a political tool but see little evidence from their votes and bills that their solutions are “pro-family” at all. Not wanting to extend unemployment benefits to people during a recession - for example. Their opposition to having home mortgages renegotiated so that people would not loose their homes …did not strike me as 'pro-family". Their attack on public education in states like Wis. does not seem pro-children to me. I’m sorry, but people in office who claim to be pro-life and don’t care about children after birth…are just hypocrites in my eyes.

My question to you is, If ]Roe vs. Wade is overturned and all those unwanted children are born…what responsibility is the GOP going to take to ensure they have good homes? Food? Education? Are not abused by parents who did not want them? All this talk on the right about personal responsibilty and “food stamp Moms” makes me wonder how much they would help these children.

Just the fact that the GOP is against any kind of 'government mandated" program for health care - makes me concerned that these children will not have adequate health care. I don’t hear any screaming from any of the candidates about “children living in poverty in our own country” I do intakes for an agency that deals with families in need. Do you have any idea how many parents come in because they and their kids are living in cars, motels or just need food? Or can;‘t pay for a prescription? Obama’ bill makes sure they will have health care coverage. . And it upsets me that many states again like WIS now cutting school lunch programs - how is that “pro-children”.

The answer is not to put the government in control of healthcare. A healthy 22 year old has to pay for coverage he doesn’t need. Its one size fits all. There is inefficiency and increased costs. And you want the federal government to take over??? Name one program the federal government has ran efficiently and cut costs. You also need to look at the malpractice tort lawyers too - they help keep healthcare costs high, yet you let them off the hook. Why?

No- health care is too high in large part because of greed.Greedy drug companies - greedy insurance companies. I lived in Canada for five years and can tell you that despite what you hear about their system. It is a great system. It has problems, of course, but rationed healthcare is not one of them. If you have a problem that is serious you get seen right away. if it is not serious - you make an appointment. They triage there just like most emergency rooms here. Also all those Canadians coming over here for health care is simply exagerated. My friends in Canada say they have a problem with Americans going across the border and they don’t want to pay for them. . I agree that tort reform is part of the solution - just not the whole solution.

Here is a question for you: Do you think it is morally okay that insurance companies in the US hire doctors to help them find loopholes so they can drop people off of their insurance plans when they get sick? Or, when someone has a long term problem, to raise their rates so high they know they will have no choice but to drop the insurance? I see those kinds of things as right to life issues as well. Where is the outrage?

As far as the healthy 22 year old - healthy 22 year olds get sick as well. Isn’t that one age group that has the most car accidents and other types of accidents? People can be healthy today and in need of long term care tomorrow.

I wonder did you really think about it? Your whole post seems unreasonable - you give nothing more than a simplistic strawman caricature of what the conservatives and the GOP stand for and are offering and then you regard that as “much thought” ?

It was a hard decision to vote for Obama because of the pro-life issue. But I did vote for him, because he was going to do somehting about the health care system - especailly getting rid of the pre-existing conditions for children and adults, because he wanted us out of Iraq (another pro-life issue in my mind) and had a plan to do it, and because of Palin.

I’m sorry if I sound unreasonable - but I do find it unreasonable that the whole Tea Party and all but 3 Republicans signed that pledge to Grover Norquist. If someone can explain to me why they felt it so important to pledge themselves to a lobbyist - I would be willing to reconsider my opinon that they should all be in jail. Blessings.
Click to expand...
 
62Joy said:
What was it about Palin did you not like? What did you think about her committment to pro-life values, for example?

I could not vote for her because I did not like her answers to questions. It was obvious she was ill prepared to be President in case something happened to McCain. As far as her “pro-life” values. I am pro-life as well but that does not qualify me to be President. To put someone, otherwise ill prepared, in the White House only because they are pro-life is, in my opinion…a terrible thing to do for the country.

…I believe the GOP uses abortion as a political tool but see little evidence from their votes and bills that their solutions are “pro-family” at all. Not wanting to extend unemployment benefits to people during a recession - for example. Their opposition to having home mortgages renegotiated so that people would not loose their homes …did not strike me as 'pro-family". Their attack on public education in states like Wis. does not seem pro-children to me. I’m sorry, but people in office who claim to be pro-life and don’t care about children after birth…are just hypocrites in my eyes.

My question to you is, If ]Roe vs. Wade is overturned and all those unwanted children are born…what responsibility is the GOP going to take to ensure they have good homes? Food? Education? Are not abused by parents who did not want them? All this talk on the right about personal responsibilty and “food stamp Moms” makes me wonder how much they would help these children…

It was a hard decision to vote for Obama because of the pro-life issue. But I did vote for him, because he was going to do somehting about the health care system - especailly getting rid of the pre-existing conditions for children and adults, because he wanted us out of Iraq (another pro-life issue in my mind) and had a plan to do it, and because of Palin.

I’m sorry if I sound unreasonable - but I do find it unreasonable that the whole Tea Party and all but 3 Republicans signed that pledge to Grover Norquist. If someone can explain to me why they felt it so important to pledge themselves to a lobbyist - I would be willing to reconsider my opinon that they should all be in jail. Blessings.
Click to expand...
A private citizen should be in jail for wishing to limit confiscator taxes?

Do tell!

Laws against infanticide have not stopped infaticide. As the late, great Joe Sobran wrote:
In many cultures, from ancient Greece and Rome to modern China, infanticide has been accepted. Parents kill their newborn children or abandon them in places where they are exposed them to starvation and wild animals. Even in our liberal (but formerly Christian) culture, this still seems well-nigh incomprehensible.
Click to expand...
But infanticide is beginning to find its defenders among us — defenders who appeal to the logic of abortion, which says that nobody should be burdened with an unwanted child. They differ from most abortion supporters only in consistency: they don’t pretend that a human being isn’t being destroyed.
Click to expand...
Like abortion, infanticide has always occurred even when illegal. The law can never eliminate such evils entirely, for the simple reason that parents often hate and resent their children, as witness the phenomenon of child abuse. I know of one woman who wanted to get an abortion, was discouraged from doing so, and years later told the child: “I wish I’d aborted you.”
Click to expand...
Being self-centered leads inevitably to hating others who are obstacles to selfish desires. What is “natural” in fallen human nature easily descends to the diabolical. And our modern, post-Christian, liberal culture treats the self-centered life as normal, rejecting abortion laws as tyrannical impositions on what has been called “the imperial self.” Most of those who favor legal abortion now support even “partial-birth” abortion.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase Our Lord, greater hatred hath no parent than to kill the child. No false compassion should be allowed to create illusions about this terrifying fact of human nature.
Click to expand...
This, of course, would have to ignore Obama and his party’s efforts to fight any and every limitation on abortion.

Its called cognitive dissonance.

I may sound unreasonable, but I believe you to be a former GOPer about as much as anyone would be inclined to belive me to be a former pilot in the People’s Liberation Army Air Force.
 
See Jeanne? I don’t want to say “I told you so.”

Where do you begin to address all the fallacies proposed by the above poster? Off the top of my head

Catholic Charities kicked out of the adoption business in Illinois and Massachusetts
Catholic Charities kicked out of the Human Trafficking business because they won’t refer victims to abortion clinics
Republicans don’t really care about abortion
Obama giving healthcare to those who never had it. Never mind all the clinics for the poor and medicaid.
The Democratic party has in their platform the right to keep abortion safe and legal. (I know that’s an oxymoron).

Yea, the bloated federal government gonna take care of you. They’re gonna make things RIGHT. :mad:

Kill those babies because we don’t spend enough money on schools, healthcare, food, you name it, to keep them alive after they’re born.

Great logic. :mad:
 
qui_est_ce said:
See Jeanne? I don’t want to say “I told you so.”

Where do you begin to address all the fallacies proposed by the above poster? Off the top of my head

Catholic Charities kicked out of the adoption business in Illinois and Massachusetts
Catholic Charities kicked out of the Human Trafficking business because they won’t refer victims to abortion clinics
Republicans don’t really care about abortion
Obama giving healthcare to those who never had it. Never mind all the clinics for the poor and medicaid.
The Democratic party has in their platform the right to keep abortion safe and legal. (I know that’s an oxymoron).

Yea, the bloated federal government gonna take care of you. They’re gonna make things RIGHT. :mad: Yep,I see what you mean,same ole’ specious arguments to justify their beliefs!:(😦

Kill those babies because we don’t spend enough money on schools, healthcare, food, you name it, to keep them alive after they’re born.

Great logic. :mad:
Click to expand...
 
Joy…same specious arguments that have been used in the past to justify voting forth most pro abortion president ,ever!😦
 
CatholicBoy1957 said:
That takes care of the car issue, but how does Peggy Joseph pay her mortgage? Not that she’ll have her house anymore, once Christ comes again, and those who were complicit in this evil will get their just due.
Click to expand...
What mortgage? If you live in one of the 26 states that require judicial review for a foreclosure you could have stopped paying years ago and still have years to go before the sheriff boots you.
 
Geist said:
The black vote was what, 99% for Obama and the Catholic vote 54% for Obama?

Four more years. Sigh.
Click to expand...
Listen,

Percentages mean nothing. Zip, zero, zilch.

How many, in actual numbererical value, Catholics go to the poles during election year?

Now, same thing, how many blacks?
 
mary_bobo said:
Because the Democrats have successfully convinced them that they are too weak to fend for themselves, that someone has to take care of them.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t make sense. Asians and Jews have higher incomes than the rest of America so how have Democrats convinced them that they are too weak to find for themselves. Their voting %'s aren’t different at all from African-Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, or those from the Middle East.
 
62Joy said:
ishii;9073872:
What was it about Palin did you not like? What did you think about her committment to pro-life values, for example?

I could not vote for her because I did not like her answers to questions. It was obvious she was ill prepared to be President in case something happened to McCain. As far as her “pro-life” values. I am pro-life as well but that does not qualify me to be President. To put someone, otherwise ill prepared, in the White House only because they are pro-life is, in my opinion…a terrible thing to do for the country.

I’ve said before that i don’t feel this big effort to overturn Roe vs. Wade will happened - and if it did- it still would not end abortion. The past is proof of that. And I feel that the whole abortion issue could be better addressed by dealing with the reasons woman have abortions, dealing with the adoption laws and using a positive campaign to make adoption the preferred method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. It would decrease the number of abortions - but that is not what the Pro-Life leadership seems to care about. It seems to be overturn the law or nothing. I am more interested in trying to decrease the numbers of babies aborted not spin my wheels politically.

I believe the GOP uses abortion as a political tool but see little evidence from their votes and bills that their solutions are “pro-family” at all. Not wanting to extend unemployment benefits to people during a recession - for example. Their opposition to having home mortgages renegotiated so that people would not loose their homes …did not strike me as 'pro-family". Their attack on public education in states like Wis. does not seem pro-children to me. I’m sorry, but people in office who claim to be pro-life and don’t care about children after birth…are just hypocrites in my eyes.

My question to you is, If ]Roe vs. Wade is overturned and all those unwanted children are born…what responsibility is the GOP going to take to ensure they have good homes? Food? Education? Are not abused by parents who did not want them? All this talk on the right about personal responsibilty and “food stamp Moms” makes me wonder how much they would help these children.

Just the fact that the GOP is against any kind of 'government mandated" program for health care - makes me concerned that these children will not have adequate health care. I don’t hear any screaming from any of the candidates about “children living in poverty in our own country” I do intakes for an agency that deals with families in need. Do you have any idea how many parents come in because they and their kids are living in cars, motels or just need food? Or can;‘t pay for a prescription? Obama’ bill makes sure they will have health care coverage. . And it upsets me that many states again like WIS now cutting school lunch programs - how is that “pro-children”.

No- health care is too high in large part because of greed.Greedy drug companies - greedy insurance companies. I lived in Canada for five years and can tell you that despite what you hear about their system. It is a great system. It has problems, of course, but rationed healthcare is not one of them. If you have a problem that is serious you get seen right away. if it is not serious - you make an appointment. They triage there just like most emergency rooms here. Also all those Canadians coming over here for health care is simply exagerated. My friends in Canada say they have a problem with Americans going across the border and they don’t want to pay for them. . I agree that tort reform is part of the solution - just not the whole solution.

Here is a question for you: Do you think it is morally okay that insurance companies in the US hire doctors to help them find loopholes so they can drop people off of their insurance plans when they get sick? Or, when someone has a long term problem, to raise their rates so high they know they will have no choice but to drop the insurance? I see those kinds of things as right to life issues as well. Where is the outrage?

As far as the healthy 22 year old - healthy 22 year olds get sick as well. Isn’t that one age group that has the most car accidents and other types of accidents? People can be healthy today and in need of long term care tomorrow.

I wonder did you really think about it? Your whole post seems unreasonable - you give nothing more than a simplistic strawman caricature of what the conservatives and the GOP stand for and are offering and then you regard that as “much thought” ?

It was a hard decision to vote for Obama because of the pro-life issue. But I did vote for him, because he was going to do somehting about the health care system - especailly getting rid of the pre-existing conditions for children and adults, because he wanted us out of Iraq (another pro-life issue in my mind) and had a plan to do it, and because of Palin.

I’m sorry if I sound unreasonable - but I do find it unreasonable that the whole Tea Party and all but 3 Republicans signed that pledge to Grover Norquist. If someone can explain to me why they felt it so important to pledge themselves to a lobbyist - I would be willing to reconsider my opinon that they should all be in jail. Blessings.
Click to expand...
Unreasonable? Are you kidding? That has to be one of the better posts I’ve ever seen here! :bowdown2: Wow! Just when I was about to get even further discouraged I read from a Catholic something like this. About all I could add would be :amen: and :blessyou:
Click to expand...
 
oldcelt said:
Bless you ishii…I agree with cmatt…a brilliant post.

John
Click to expand...
Thank you but I don’t think he was saying that my post was brilliant - he was referring to the post written that supports the pro-abortion, anti-catholic policies of Obama. Liberalism is a mental disorder. I had a response all typed up and everything but decided what’s the point. All I need to say is, liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. And liberal catholics seem to have it the worst.

Ishii
 
Perhaps, but your analysis was excellent.

I’m of the opinion that, try, though we will, abortion is a terrible fact…and I see nothing that will stop it, save the changing of hearts and minds.

John
 
oldcelt said:
Perhaps, but your analysis was excellent.

I’m of the opinion that, try, though we will, abortion is a terrible fact…and I see nothing that will stop it, save the changing of hearts and minds.

John
Click to expand...
And laws, I’m of the opinion that we’d be nowhere near 50 million slaughtered children in this country if it had remained illegal.
 
ishii said:
Thank you but I don’t think he was saying that my post was brilliant - he was referring to the post written that supports the pro-abortion, anti-catholic policies of Obama. Liberalism is a mental disorder. I had a response all typed up and everything but decided what’s the point. All I need to say is, liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. And liberal catholics seem to have it the worst.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Yes Oldcelt. Ishii is correct. 62Joy was responsible for the post I praised. She was responding to an earlier one by Ishii and I think maybe the way she quoted him in hers made it appear Ishii wrote hers when I hit my quote icon. Or for whatever reason it appeared Ishii wrote it. But all I did was hit my quote icon.

Nevertheless indeed may God bless Ishii too.

However Ishii, if you think 62Joy wrote to support “pro abortion, anti catholic policies”, I believe you truly missed what she was saying. She did a great job discussing real aspects of the abortion issue imo. And superbly explained life and moral issues affecting the family, children, the sick, the homeless.

Again my :tiphat: to 62Joy.

I heard Obama say tonight in Atlanta he welcomes a debate on values. And I’d say bring it on to whoever his opponent turns out to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top