Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

  • Thread starter Thread starter HansTrappist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ishii said:
Your post is a joke, Seekerz. Considering that Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Joe McCarthy Reid, said, " I have evidence that Romney did not pay any taxes" (when he didn’t and Vice President Joe Biden pandering to a black audience, " they’re (the Republicans) going to put y’all back in chains." Obama saying the Republicans “don’t care” about clean air and kids with autism. The history of leftist/liberal demonization of conservatives is long and shameful. You might get some on the fringes saying similar things about Obama but last I checked, they weren’t high up in the GOP, were they? All you got from Romney/Ryan was " Obama is a nice guy, but his ideas were wrong."

Ishii
Click to expand...
How high is high up? You had a US Republican Congressman shouting “You lie!” at a SOTU address. Never in all the yrs I’ve watched SOTU addresses by Presidents of both parties had I ever heard such a disrespectful outburst. You had the Republican leader in the Senate saying the party’s main goal was to keep Obama to 1 term. Nevermind the country had other matters to deal with in the meantime. Just obstruct. Apparently it was ok to get nothing accomplished and hope Obama is held to 1 term as a result. And then you had US Congresman Allen West who over the past 2 yrs had things to say about Obama and Democrats. You should google him sometime. Although right now you’ll probably get that he lost his race by about 2500 votes. And St Lucie county is doing a recount @ 7 am of the early votes and he hasn’t conceded and will be filing lawsuits if the recount doesn’t work out in his favor. His Democratic opponent’s response today? That he just wants to bring a greater civil tone to the discourse once again.
 
ringil said:
Cory Booker won’t be ready for the Dems in 2016, but when he is ready; he will mop the floor with any GOP they throw at him for the White House. 🙂
Click to expand...
Wow! Cory Brooker is the future of the Democrat party? I’m quaking in my boots at the prospect of Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal going up against such a political heavyweight as the mayor of Newark in 2016. Then again, don’t underestimate the power of the Democrat party to “groom” teleprompter readers to become president. The sad thing is given the state of our country, Cory Brooker could indeed become president in 4 years. Of course he’ll have to toe the line: pro-abortion, pro-gay rights. And the usual liberal Catholics will fawn over him. Its all about winning, after all.

Ishii
 
CMatt25 said:
Code: 
How high is high up?  You had a US Republican Congressman shouting "You lie!" at a SOTU address. Never in all the yrs I've watched SOTU addresses by Presidents of both parties had I ever heard such a disrespectful outburst.
Click to expand...
What was the congressmen’s name? Have to look it up, don’t you.
CMatt25 said:
You had the Republican leader in the Senate saying the party’s main goal was to keep Obama to 1 term. Nevermind the country had other matters to deal with in the meantime. Just obstruct.
Click to expand...
And that rises to the level of “putting blacks back in chains”, being against clean air? McConnel’s main political goal was to keep Obama to a 1 term. That is always the political goal of the opposition parties - do you not remember the Democrats during the Bush administrations? And the political goal of Tip O’neil was to keep Reagan from winning a 2nd term. Ditto for Jim Wright. What was McConnel able to “obstruct” when the Democrats had 60 seats in the senate and a House majority, Cmatt?
CMatt25 said:
Apparently it was ok to get nothing accomplished and hope Obama is held to 1 term as a result. And then you had US Congresman Allen West who over the past 2 yrs had things to say about Obama and Democrats. You should google him sometime.
Click to expand...
What did West say, Cmatt? If it was so bad and made the news, then you shouldn’t have to tell me to google it.
CMatt25 said:
Although right now you’ll probably get that he lost his race by about 2500 votes. And St Lucie county is doing a recount @ 7 am of the early votes and he hasn’t conceded and will be filing lawsuits if the recount doesn’t work out in his favor.
Click to expand...
Cmatt, the majority leader of the Senate and the vice president don’t really compare to a 1 term congressmen, now do they. But nice try.

Ishii
 
I’m quaking in my boots at the prospect of Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal going up against such a political heavyweight as the mayor of Newark in 2016.
Click to expand...
I think that Newark mayor is pretty cool. He’s a hero and saves people from burning buildings. He’s way better than Obama and deserves our respect. I would vote for him if he wasn’t pro-choice.

I have high hopes for Rubio. Jindal would be good too. I like Christie but he’s pro-abortion. They are all superior to Romney and likely would have fared better but who knows. There’s reason to be hopefull for sure. Obama will likely keep our economy in the doldrums.
 
CMatt25 said:
Yes I know this is the mantra of many today compared to the past. Maybe that’s the problem. The hierarchy today is saying something that it did not previously. I confess when I asked an Apostolic successor “who is a Catholic” it was decades ago. But my question which remains unanswered is if Catholic Church teaching considers these Catholic Obama voters members of the Catholic Church by virtue of their Baptisms which placed this indelible permanent mark upon their souls, albeit perhaps some are now non practicing, dissenting, unfaithful, how exactly do they leave? And something I meant to ask Tigg. What of the ones who are not sure if the Catholic Church is right. But also not sure She is wrong? Are they to leave too?
Click to expand...
I think the easiest way to answer your question would be by asking another question: Is Richard Dawkins an Anglican?

Now, according to your logic of OCAC, CMatt25, the answer would seem to be “yes” Richard Dawkins is an Anglican. But the assertion “Richard Dawkins is an Anglican” is absurd. Of course Richard Dawkins is not an Anglican. He is an Atheist (perhaps non-theist is the more politically correct term). How do we know? By his words and actions. If Richard Dawkins was to one day say “I am an Anglican” well then, we would have to take him on his word. But if he continued to live and speak like an Atheist then we would know that his words were empty.

I was baptized as a Catholic. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. But during a sinful, rebellious time in my life I would not have presumed to think of myself as member of the Body of Christ. I may have identified myself as a Catholic, but that was just semantics. In fact, the opposite could be said: I was living like an anti-christ and had rejected Christ’s Mystical Body. It was only after reconciling myself through the Sacrament of Confession that I again considered myself a Catholic.

I think Father William Most summed it up best when he said:

Speaking of full membership in the Church, Pius XII, in his Encyclical on the Mystical Body, said it is the society of those who have been baptized, and who profess the faith of Christ,** and **who are governed by their bishops under the visible head, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.
 
ishii said:
I’m quaking in my boots at the prospect of Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal going up against such a political heavyweight as the mayor of Newark in 2016.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Jerome Corsi, the guy who has been on Obama over the fraudulent birth certificate, has promised to also go after Rubio and Jindal should they decide to run for higher office. He claims that they are not natural-born citizens either (here: youtube.com/watch?v=OwIU1XN0pz8).
 
CMatt25 said:
I’m not at all saying I expect her to run. But I wouldn’t mind seeing another Clinton - Bush race. Democratic female vs another GOP white male. I have doubts she would be denied her party’s nomination a 2nd time. The 1st time was largely due to her original support for the Iraq war I think and Obama’s oppositon to it from the get go. It was my primary reason for supporting Obama over her at the time.
Click to expand...
You already know who the republican nominee is? News to me
meltzerboy said:
Calling Hillary…
Click to expand...
Do you not think that is too old? She said in a recent WSJ she would not run again. Hillary Clinton will be 69 in 2016, if she were elected the end of her 1st term she would be 73 or 74. That is old to be commander in chief
 
He_Man said:
I’d beck a few paychecks Scalia is not going anywhere. He’ll hang on and give it one more shot. His son’s a Priest, he knows the battle we are in.
Click to expand...
I hope Scalia and the other conservative Justices if they were considering retirement soon that with the reelection they will wait 4 more years
 
_Abyssinia said:
You already know who the republican nominee is? News to me

Do you not think that is too old? She said in a recent WSJ she would not run again. Hillary Clinton will be 69 in 2016, if she were elected the end of her 1st term she would be 73 or 74. That is old to be commander in chief
Click to expand...
Although one can still be in good shape at that age, for the job of President you may be right. And she may very well decide to retire from politics permanently. Still, a Hillary Clinton-Jeb Bush race would be glorious, and we would have two very qualified candidates, for a change.
 
ishii said:
Yes, the GOP is very much like the Democrat party on supreme court justices. Take Ginsburg compared to Scalia, for example. Oh wait, they’re polar opposites. But seriously, take Obama compared to Romney. Obama wants to nominate more Ginsburgs. Romney wanted to… oh wait, he had Robert Bork advising him. The truth is, there is a big difference between the goals of both parties, even if the outcomes of the GOP efforts can be frustrating (Souter, Anthony Kennedy, e.g.).

Ishii
Click to expand...
They both think the Supreme Court can solve our problems, but, as Chief Justice Roberts has shown us, it is on its face a lie and bad policy.
 
seekerz said:
Thank you very much.
  1. The people you quote do NOT give a comprehensive list of proportionate reasons but do give very relevant examples, examples which I can very much identify with.
  2. This quote in particular, makes sense to me in light of the campaign we just experienced:
Having had close contact with multiple women who aborted, I can categorically say that I neither believe legislation can be effective in preventing abortion if most women/docs are bent on having access to it (which seems to be the case), nor do I believe that passing laws to restrict abortion will have as great an effect as helping women to have a better standard of living. The statistics I have seen certainly seem to support the idea that abortion rates increase as one goes from more developed to less developed nations.

This stance is NOT the same as saying that economic concerns outweigh abortion, but rather it is a recognition of what government strategies ACTUALLY WORK better to decrease abortion. So, part of my proportionate reasoning, is choosing to support the candidate who genuinely seems to be more concerned with improving the lot of the vulnerable. The trend of pay scales and wealth over recent decades in this country certainly suggest that it is possible for a government to preside over a healthy economy which does little or nothing to improve the socioeconomic condition of the more needy among us. So for me it is not simply a question of who will do the most to improve the economy, but who will actively (not just passively) promote the good of those who need the most.
Click to expand...
Pro life legislation is effective in the abortion rate. Review of abortion info from 1985 to 2005 found ‘solid evidence’ laws that restrict abortion ‘have an impact on the childbearing decisions of women,’ Michael J New said in State Politics and Policy Quarterly, a peer reviewed publication targetted at state policymakers. Mr New found parental notification laws correlated with 15% decline in in state abortion rates for minors; Informed consent laws reduced in state abortions by 5 - 7%; limiting Medicaid funding for abortion reduced abortion by 9% in states with this law etc

In Minnesota because they have elected many pro life candidates to the legislature and pro life laws they have a 21% decline in abortion in the last 5 years

Abolitionist William Wilberforce did not wait to try and only change hearts on slavery, he sought to change the law

Bishops have said the economy is not a proportionate reason to vote for a pro abortion candidate; who you think will have better policies in place to take care of the economically poor is not a proportionate to vote for a pro abortion candidate
 
CMatt25 said:
Lapey, did you not say the Catholic Church is going through a cleansing time and it’s going to get worse and didn’t you bring up the role you and other deacons and the new younger priests have by speaking Catholic truth? If either one of us misinterpreted the other, I apologize if I did. But I’m not sure what you are getting so defensive about. My point is simply that I don’t understand if they leave, or in their minds they might feel pushed away. I don’t know in every case how a person might feel. But if they’re not there, how do you expect them to hear the truth you and other deacons and the new younger priests are speaking of. That’s the part I don’t get. If they’re sleeping in on Sun mornings or going out on Sat or Sun evening or doing something else by Sun Mass at noon, or attending another faith community, where are they going to learn the truth you speak? I understand you don’t want them to leave. But if they do, don’t you believe if they continued instead in the pews listening to you every wk or at least on occasion, that something might click in them someday, and they might come to believe? Sometimes I do post on the non Catholic subforum. I’m not here primarily to debate you Lapey or anyone else. Just to charitably and respectfully share faith and politics and to learn.of others’ world views. I find debating faith and politics rather fruitless because rarely do people change their minds. And right now in this case I’m trying to learn how people who leave are going to learn?
Click to expand...
The misinterpretation came in where you infer that the purpose of preaching and teaching truth is to drive them out, or cleanse the pews of people. No not in the least, the purpose is to drive out misconceptions of what the Church truly is, misunderstandings of what She teaches, and believes. No, I agree if a people like you leave in order to hold on to their ideological views, that is sad, but not the Churches fault, that would be you who decided to leave rather than learn. Sad but true, some will leave just as you cited John 6, most left. Same here, if the teaching is too harsh they will leave, but it will be a free choice to reject Jesus and His Church.

Back to the same story here, we are not liberal or conservative, not republican or democrat, we are Catholic!👍

If you are here to just “learn others world views” then what’s the point of learning them if you do not discern your own and adjust to Church teaching? To discuss politics outside of the light of Church teachings is just that, politics outside of the Light who is Jesus. The two must work together for a Catholic, they are inseparable and we MUST discuss these issues to help each other.
 
HansTrappist said:
Jerome Corsi, the guy who has been on Obama over the fraudulent birth certificate, has promised to also go after Rubio and Jindal should they decide to run for higher office. He claims that they are not natural-born citizens either (here: youtube.com/watch?v=OwIU1XN0pz8).
Click to expand...
I have certainly seen others who follow that same train of thought. There are some people who say “technically” McCain wasn’t a natural born citizen.
 
CMatt25 said:
Lapey, Seekerz explained to me somewhere back there that the Catholic Church says there can be proportional reason and the reasons don’t need to be the same for everyone. If there are none, then how can there be proportionate reasons the Church speaks about?.
Click to expand...
You can take Seekers word if you like, I’ll take the Magisterium’s. There are no proportionate reasons to vote for an extreme pro-abortion candidate over a much more pro-life one; not perfect by any means, but a great start as Paul Ryan his Catholic purely pro-life partner stated.

This is a misuse of the proportionate reasoning. This is intended to make determinations between candidates in issues which are not intrinsic evils. When the issues are intrinsic evils, the Church tells you how you can and cannot vote. In the case of the dem party platform, they have disqualified themselves from a Catholic vote by supporting almost all of the intrinsic evils.

If both candidates were on the same page for every IE issue, then the remaining issues can be looked at and proportionate reasoning used to decide.
 
Imagine, if the Republicans can and if we have a functioning country in 2016, get the Presidency, there is also going to be an unemployment hangover, it will be hard for a lot of people to get back to work like being out of the job market for a long time.
 
CMatt25 said:
I know. A homeless man, Mike, I used to converse with when he was on the corner wanted a cell phone to communicate with his family about 1500 miles and many states away.
Click to expand...
Look that one up, that is a result of a republican plan enacted by Ronald Reagan’s administration. So instead of “Obama phones” they should be called Reagan phones.
 
Lapey said:
Look that one up, that is a result of a republican plan enacted by Ronald Reagan’s administration. So instead of “Obama phones” they should be called Reagan phones.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t that program started to provide land line phones for indigents? I’m surprised it has evolved into a program which gives recipients 4g cell phones. Sounds a little generous to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top