Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[HansTrappist]

How silly.

Since when was fraud a laughing matter.

 

[CMatt25]

My 97 year-old Grandmother receives more that your Mother In Law in Social Security (she worked until she turned 90). She receives no other income and has a life estate in one of my Father’s properties after she sold her home. She has never accepted public assistance. She worked two jobs for about forty years before reducing her workload. I admire her greatly. I am implying nothing derogatory about your relative because I know nothing of her circumstances.

God bless both Ringil’s MIL and your grandmother.

 

[CMatt25]

Long post, but I hope you read what I’ve written.

“How exactly do they leave?”

Haven’t those who have physically left by their non-participation in weekly liturgy and abandonment of the sacraments also spiritually left as well? They have freely turned their backs to the Church, - their total being, body and soul. Is that not “leaving?”

And for those unsure? Are you going to go through your entire life sitting on the fence when the answers (albeit not the ones you want to hear) have already been given? Perhaps it’s not answers you need or even want, but faith in the word of God and a submission of mind, heart and will to the One providing those answers. Sincere struggle is one thing and certainly grace will be given if asked for, but indifference to the gift which has been already been given, is as hostile to the message of Christ as is outright attack against His Church. “I will spew the lukewarm out of My mouth…”

That was my question Tigg. I think it might be some leave the practice or the full communion or no longer are 100% faithful. Maybe even some Obama voters. But no I don’t think that is the same as leaving behind their membership according to Catholic Church teaching nor not having the right to call themselves some sort of Catholic if they so choose. Non practicing, dissenting for instance. At least from what I previously knew and from what Deacon Lapey has explained to all of us. But I guess as an outsider looking into the Catholic Church, I never quite understand why faithful Catholics would want to tell their less faithful they should leave and not call themslves Catholics if that could alienate them further. I’d fear in that case it might lead them to never seek the reconcilation the faithful want so much for them.

But I won’t begin to imagine how long it might take anyone along their faith journey. Nor will I proclaim whose hearts are not lukewarm but instead are on fire for Jesus. I’m going to leave that one up to the Lord.

 

[CMatt25]

(sigh)

Well, I do like Clinton as Sec. of State but I am still having a hard time forgiving her for her comment when facing Obama for the primaries.

“We’ve got the white vote”.

Ringil, I’m white. They didn’t.

 

[CMatt25]

Times have changed, somebody on either political side who would be 69 and become president now would struggle to get support I think

I know there have been medical advances over the past few decades I would imagine. And some people strive to live healthier. I also sometimes pause to think how my generation in my family seems younger than our older relatives appeared to me when they were my age now. There are exceptions to be sure. But people even in their 60s and 70s often seem younger to me than those that age in previous yrs.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Immigration Reform 2012: Senators Put Forth Bipartisan Immigration Reform Blueprint

Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have announced they are restarting talks about a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform, which includes both high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security cards (to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers) and a potential path to citizenship for the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants who currently live in the United States.

---

The new Graham/Schumer blueprint has four components:

1. High-tech, fraud-proof Social Security cards to ensure that undocumented workers cannot be hired.

1. Strengthening border security and current enforcement of immigration laws.

1. Creating a process for admitting temporary workers.

1. Implementing a path to legal status for immigrants who already in the country (in which immigrants have to learn English, go to the back of the visa line, have a job, and a clean record).

Schumer - no, anti illegal immigration, not anti immigrant, there is a difference

Implementing E verify, which most Americans support should be key and why not change the visa system to make it easier to get a visa?

 

[BroomWagon]

Immigration Reform 2012: Senators Put Forth Bipartisan Immigration Reform Blueprint

Schumer - no, anti illegal immigration, not anti immigrant, there is a difference

Implementing E verify, which most Americans support should be key and why not change the visa system to make it easier to get a visa?

The English requirement is very interesting and it should be in there.

You can be granted citizenship status if you sincerely are committed to the requirements.

It will be interesting to see how this flies. I heard him talk about this yesterday.

 

[ProVobis]

Abortions would drop by 90+%.

You really think so? Republicans were the ones who made abortion legal in the first place, Nixon and Reagan being the worst, but have managed to finagle money out of the pro-life camps anyway.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, we may have to because this country needs a conservative right now.

Maybe someone who is honest as well.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, along with a corruption of the essence of the creation story. Adam and Steve are now the supporters of the DNC. God will have nothing to do with it. Whenever I hear a Democrat declare "God bless America’ I throw up in my mouth a little. Why would He bless a country, or a political party, that corrupts everything that belongs to God?

This has always bothered me too. We might consider changing our 7th inning tradition to God SAVE America. Like the Brits do with their kings and queens.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You really think so? Republicans were the ones who made abortion legal in the first place, Nixon and Reagan being the worst, but have managed to finagle money out of the pro-life camps anyway.

Republicans did not make abortion legal. Nixon supported exceptions for abortion

In 1967 Reagan signed Therapeutic Abortion Act, which had a democrat sponsor. Lou Cannon, biographer in ‘Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio’, says

“Reagan did not know what to do,” he says. “His staff was divided (also largely on religious lines), and he was lobbied heavily from both sides.… After several days of indecision, Reagan reluctantly signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act. After he recognized its consequences, he became an opponent of abortions, except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest”

1970 Reagan responsded to those who wanted to liberalise California’s abortion laws

“Who might they be doing away with? Another Lincoln, or Beethoven, an Einstein or an Edison? Who shall play God?”

Republican party was different in 1960s and 70s than it is now. If you chose which party would be more pro abortion you would of probably picked the republican party. Republican party became more pro life. Democrats who were pro life abandoned that stance to be cohorts with the abortion lobby and hollywood

Now, judges appointed by republican presidents are far more likely to uphold pro life regulations. Republican legislators are more likely to enact regulations of abortion. Republican executive branch administrators and officials are more likely to regulate rather than subsidise abortion and it is basically a given that a republican president will at minimum want restrictions on abortion if not want to rescind Roe v wade while a democrat president wants no restriction on abortion

 

[ProVobis]

This is right, and in fact, The Democrats didn’t want Clarence Thomas to go through

And yet it were Democrats like Dixon (Illinois) who finally put him through after the Anita Hill hearings, which Joe Biden had presided over and put all further attacks on Clarence to rest. (I still have the tapes from those hearings.) And Clarence Thomas hasn’t given the Democrats a break since.

 

[BroomWagon]

And yet it were Democrats like Dixon (Illinois) who finally put him through after the Anita Hill hearings, which Joe Biden had presided over and put all further attacks on Clarence to rest. (I still have the tapes from those hearings.) And Clarence Thomas hasn’t given the Democrats a break since.

Miguel Estrada I believe is the name of the Cuban that was nominated to the Supreme Court that the Democrats stifled.

Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court which Ted Kennedy and other Democrats fought, if Bork had been nominated, Roe V. Wade may have been reversed. So, the Democrats have made sure abortion on demand stays, Partial Birth Abortion Advocates like Russ Feingold, Democrat, was voted out of Office, Ted Kennedy was a champion of this as well.

 

[ishii]

Republicans did not make abortion legal. Nixon supported exceptions for abortion

In 1967 Reagan signed Therapeutic Abortion Act, which had a democrat sponsor. Lou Cannon, biographer in ‘Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio’, says

1970 Reagan responsded to those who wanted to liberalise California’s abortion laws

Republican party was different in 1960s and 70s than it is now. If you chose which party would be more pro abortion you would of probably picked the republican party. Republican party became more pro life. Democrats who were pro life abandoned that stance to be cohorts with the abortion lobby and hollywood

Now, judges appointed by republican presidents are far more likely to uphold pro life regulations. Republican legislators are more likely to enact regulations of abortion. Republican executive branch administrators and officials are more likely to regulate rather than subsidise abortion and it is basically a given that a republican president will at minimum want restrictions on abortion if not want to rescind Roe v wade while a democrat president wants no restriction on abortion

This is an excellent post, Abyssinia. We ought to save this and use as a template answer for all the times Democrat Catholics disengenuously say, “Republicans legalized abortion” and " GOP supreme court decided Roe V Wade." This is done in an attempt to divert attention away from the reality - the modern Democrat party - that is, the one that is in power now, is the pro-abortion rights party. The modern Republican party is the party that overwelmingly supports legislation and justices who want to protect the unborn. Democrat Catholics have made it clear which group they support, and they have no justification, no excuse for what they’ve done, just manipulation and misrepresentation of history.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Miguel Estrada I believe is the name of the Cuban that was nominated to the Supreme Court that the Democrats stifled.

Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Supreme Court which Ted Kennedy and other Democrats fought, if Bork had been nominated, Roe V. Wade may have been reversed. So, the Democrats have made sure abortion on demand stays, Partial Birth Abortion Advocates like Russ Feingold, Democrat, was voted out of Office, Ted Kennedy was a champion of this as well.

J’accuse.

Based on this, its fair to lay the blame for the continuing of Roe V Wade (and the ensuing abortions) on the doorstep of the Democrat party and the Democrat catholics who vote for them.

Ishii

 

[BroomWagon]

Thankfully, the Kennedy nominted Judge, (Blackmon?, unsure) voted against Roe V. Wade.

Reagan’s Darkest Hour:

nationalreview.com/articles/223437/reagans-darkest-hour/paul-kengor

Ronald Reagan on Abortion:

old.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation’s wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

More at the website.

 

[BroomWagon]

J’accuse.

Based on this, its fair to lay the blame for the continuing of Roe V Wade (and the ensuing abortions) on the doorstep of the Democrat party and the Democrat catholics who vote for them.

Ishii

I should have qualified what I said… I am not sure, this is foggy history that I might hear mentioned sometime but I think this is why they denied Robert Bork being a Supreme court Justice, whether Roe v. Wade would have been reversed is not clear.

But it is very clear, Reagan was trying.

Abortion was a states issue, it takes a lot of investigating to understand what this means, New York may have had some abortion too before Roe V. Wade. So, it is not like the Republicans brought it in, it is a matter to study up on.

 

[BroomWagon]

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.- Ronald Reagan

Had to ad the very last part of the paragraph, the slavery analogy is always important.

 

[Teelynn]

This gives the President more leverage in upcoming negotiations. McConnell is up for reelection in 2014 and Boehner is on the two-year treadmill. The President will never run again.

A number of analysts I have read or heard believe that the GOP will have to stand up to its more radical elements and look to be working for the people if they want to make gains in 2014 and be competitive in 2016.

I have also heard a call for Republicans to soften up on their social values, or they will not be able to survive. I don’t buy that line of thinking, but that’s the word on the street. Great article by Archbishop Chaput though, where he talks about faithful Catholics soon will not be able to support either party, the day is fast approaching etc. That I can concur with.

 

[seekerz]

Individualism can be selfish, but it doesn’t have to be. People need to be free to make that choice. They don’t need a moral theocracy based on religious or secular values. That always backfires. Just look at any other country that governs like that.

Do you really think the left isn’t ever selfish?

-Check out who contributes to your average democrat

-Conservatives, despite making less money that liberals, give four times as much to charity.

I’m so tired of hearing of how much more one person gives to charity than the next. How do you know how much a person gives? It might not be to a formal charity: it might be to the neighbor downstairs. Who knows and why is it anybody’s business but God’s? Have the parables on giving and on self-righteousness gone out of fashion or something?