Conservatives call on GOP leaders to step down

[ishii]

You have your opinion and I have mine. I do not criticize your choice as ‘wrong’ so why criticize mine? You see Romney as trustworthy and I see the exact opposite. I knew where Obama stood on abortion - I had no idea what principles Romney would compromise to get or stay in power. It seemed to all depend on the polls of the moment. Maybe he was better on the issue, maybe he wasn’t.

There’s no shame in agreeing to disagree. It is this insistence that one choice is evil and one choice is good (not referring to you personally, but the general trend) that I find disturbing. There is such thing as legitimate choice: chicken or turkey, bacon or cheese, Romney or Obama. Neither is perfect, the issues are many, and it’s up to us to choose.

What is the difficulty in respecting that?

So you were willing to vote for Obama knowing full well how pro-abortion he was, and not support Romney because of your uncertainty about his sincerity on abortion? That to me is a trade-off unbecoming of a Catholic who is interested in the sanctity of life. I think you are simply wrong, Seekerz. Am I not able to point out why I think you’re wrong? The false choice you present is laughable: the idea that choosing between a ham or turkey sandwich is comparable to choosing between a 100% guaranteed pro-abortion president and a flawed pro-life presidential candidate. You are suggesting a standard for supporting a pro-life candidate: i.e. there has to be 100% certainty that he/she be pro-life and anything short of that and you will vote for the 100% pro-abortion candidate!!! You’re right - I have great difficulty in respecting that view.

Ishii

 

[Lapey]

Uh, too easy: because pro-life is not a feeling or a label - it is real action, and a vote is not a seal of approval of a candidate’s heart, mind and soul.

How do we separate these issues from the candidates that espouse them??? I’m having difficulty here…

 

[ishii]

News flash: saying something over and over doesn’t make it any more true than the first time you said it. I supported Obama for president and I did not support abortion.

Maybe so, but voting for the 100% pro-abortion guy suggests that you don’t really care about the abortion issue - or am I wrong?

Ishii

 

[Lapey]

News flash: saying something over and over doesn’t make it any more true than the first time you said it. I supported Obama for president and I did not support abortion.

You can repeat that as many times as it takes to make yourself feel better, but it doesn’t make that so. I can play that game too. Our associations have consequences, you vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Obama for politically ideological reasons you own his entire platform, unless the other option is in the same boat, which he plainly was not.

 

[Mickey]

Uh, too easy: because pro-life is not a feeling or a label - it is real action, and a vote is not a seal of approval of a candidate’s heart, mind and soul.

You didn’t answer the question. You voted for a man who unapologetically supports abortion-on-demand, infanticide and abortion mill funding. Whether you like it or not you cast a “vote” of confidence for this man’s agenda.

This makes you liable…unless you want to plead obedience to your spirtual father.

 

[Mickey]

You can repeat that as many times as it takes to make yourself feel better, but it doesn’t make that so. I can play that game too. Our associations have consequences, you vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Obama for politically ideological reasons you own his entire platform, unless the other option is in the same boat, which he plainly was not.

Exactly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have one question and one only, don’t know if you can answer: does accusing people of supporting abortion - when in fact they don’t - result in some primordial sense of self-satisfaction among a particular subset of people?

I couldn’t possibly imagine. Nor can I help wondering about the validity of the hypothetical’s foundational propositions.

 

[Carlan]

You have the tools, just need to use them. The Scripture, the Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, the three legged stool of truth; the Church formed on the Rock Peter on which stands the cornerstone, Jesus Christ who is the Way, the Truth and the Life…ahhh, that felt good to type!

Yes, the tools which we use to grow in the holiness the Father requires of us.
But then there are the tools which the evil one uses to entice we sinners to disobedience,and they are most powerful,as the state of the world proves.
We must remember, even so, what Jesus told us that in this world we would have trouble but not to fear He has conquered the world.Peace, Carlan

 

[ProVobis]

This is ludicrous, go back to pre R v W numbers and see what was happening, the numbers are historically documented. You have lost your mind if you think the numbers would stay the same or increase if R v W were overturned. Come on man; think outside of the democrat party, think Catholic!

There are ways to overturn R v W which don’t even involve Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court, if that’s the concern.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It seems Hispanics in Texas are different in political ideology than Hispanics in many other states

Austin based pollster Martin Baselice

While Romney and Cruz got lopsided support from white voters, as the presidential ticket did nationally, pre-election surveys by Mike Baselice suggest Romney did 12 to 15 percentage points better with Hispanics in Texas than in California. Obama’s big share of the Latino vote in California more closely mirrors his performance in battleground states.

After comparing surveys from California and Texas, Baselice also said Hispanics self-identify as moderate and conservative at significantly higher rates in Texas. In California, 37 percent of Hispanics call themselves conservative, 30 percent say they’re moderate and 33 percent embrace the liberal label.

In Texas, 46 percent of Hispanics say they are conservative, 36 percent are moderate and 18 percent say they are liberal, Baselice said.

For Democrats, the day when Hispanics vote in high enough numbers to help put them back into statewide competition cannot come soon enough. Richard Morrison, a Democrat, barely won his re-election as a Fort Bend county commissioner — over a Republican abandoned by his own county party after records showed he had voted in both Texas and Pennsylvania three times, an alleged felony.

texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-elections/against-grain-tx-gop-dominated-election-day

 

[_Abyssinia]

There are ways to overturn R v W which don’t even involve Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court, if that’s the concern.

Such as

 

[seekerz]

So you were willing to vote for Obama knowing full well how pro-abortion he was, and not support Romney because of your uncertainty about his sincerity on abortion? That to me is a trade-off unbecoming of a Catholic who is interested in the sanctity of life. I think you are simply wrong, Seekerz. Am I not able to point out why I think you’re wrong? The false choice you present is laughable: the idea that choosing between a ham or turkey sandwich is comparable to choosing between a 100% guaranteed pro-abortion president and a flawed pro-life presidential candidate. You are suggesting a standard for supporting a pro-life candidate: i.e. there has to be 100% certainty that he/she be pro-life and anything short of that and you will vote for the 100% pro-abortion candidate!!! You’re right - I have great difficulty in respecting that view.

Ishii

You are discussing this on the level of one-issue: abortion. I don’t use one issue to decide who to support and the Church specifically directs us to inform ourselves and consider all issues in order of importance.

Yes, when I compare Obama and Romney (or politicians in general) on all issues, I see our differences over who to support as equivalent to choosing between sandwiches: what wouldn’t touch my mouth might be appealing to you and vice versa. It’s not like we’re comparing a human being to an angel or something…they are both flawed, some would say deeply so. I respect that your inclinations and mine will not be the same.

 

[ProVobis]

Such as

Constitutional convention.

archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

 

[estesbob]

You are discussing this on the level of one-issue: abortion. I don’t use one issue to decide who to support and the Church specifically directs us to inform ourselves and consider all issues in order of importance.

Yes, when I compare Obama and Romney (or politicians in general) on all issues, I see our differences over who to support as equivalent to choosing between sandwiches: what wouldn’t touch my mouth might be appealing to you and vice versa. It’s not like we’re comparing a human being to an angel or something…they are both flawed, some would say deeply so. I respect that your inclinations and mine will not be the same.

*Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
*
pope Benedict XVI

 

[ishii]

You are discussing this on the level of one-issue: abortion. I don’t use one issue to decide who to support and the Church specifically directs us to inform ourselves and consider all issues in order of importance.

Yes, when I compare Obama and Romney (or politicians in general) on all issues, I see our differences over who to support as equivalent to choosing between sandwiches: what wouldn’t touch my mouth might be appealing to you and vice versa. It’s not like we’re comparing a human being to an angel or something…they are both flawed, some would say deeply so. I respect that your inclinations and mine will not be the same.

Well, one would hope that two Catholics would not have such a hard time being on the same page when it comes to the decision to support or not support a president who voted unapologetically for infantice and gladly does the bidding of NARAL and Planned Parenthood. I see it as a no-brainer. Just like I would see it as a no-brainer on if the question was, say, voting for a member of the KKK. I think if you took your Democrat glasses off you might have an easier time understanding what I’m getting at.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

Constitutional convention.

archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Congress is needed for an amenendment. You said there are ways to overturn Roe v wade that do not need to involve a president, congress or the supreme court

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are discussing this on the level of one-issue: abortion. I don’t use one issue to decide who to support and the Church specifically directs us to inform ourselves and consider all issues in order of importance.

Yes, when I compare Obama and Romney (or politicians in general) on all issues, I see our differences over who to support as equivalent to choosing between sandwiches: what wouldn’t touch my mouth might be appealing to you and vice versa. It’s not like we’re comparing a human being to an angel or something…they are both flawed, some would say deeply so. I respect that your inclinations and mine will not be the same.

I don’t agree with your first proposition because the Church doesn’t equate abortion with any other political issue presently in play, or consider the latter proportionate to abortion at all. The moral duty is clear. The Pope said it and every bishop who addressed the subject said it.

But, since the Church does support a “preferential option for the poor”, a worthy principle, why would a person choose one party that does nothing for the truly poor over another that does nothing for the truly poor?

“Cash for Clunkers” and similar programs, perhaps? Subsidies to the middle class and to the rich, neither of which needs it? I don’t think the Repubs would have dared those. Reducing Medicare reimbursement below that of Medicaid? Maybe the elderly don’t count as proper objects of care?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t agree with your first proposition because the Church doesn’t equate abortion with any other political issue presently in play, or consider the latter proportionate to abortion at all. The moral duty is clear. The Pope said it and every bishop who addressed the subject said it.

But, since the Church does support a “preferential option for the poor”, a worthy principle, why would a person choose one party that does nothing for the truly poor over another that does nothing for the truly poor?

“Cash for Clunkers” and similar programs, perhaps? Subsidies to the middle class and to the rich, neither of which needs it? I don’t think the Repubs would have dared those. Reducing Medicare reimbursement below that of Medicaid? Maybe the elderly don’t count as proper objects of care?

Unfortunately too many have translated preferential option for the poor into preferential option for big govt

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

There are ways to overturn R v W which don’t even involve Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court, if that’s the concern.

A state can secede from the union. If it was good enough for slavery, its good enough for abortion, unless people think that the integrity of the union is more important than the lives of the unborn?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Congress is needed for an amenendment. You said there are ways to overturn Roe v wade that do not need to involve a president, congress or the supreme court

Actually, the States can ratify a constitutional amendment without Congress.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.