Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[John1956]

He said they were both paid for by the same people, and they are. They are both paid for by bankers and such.

He claimed someone owns Romney, without providing evidence for the claim.

 

[ishii]

If the Republicans would listen to Ron Paul, they’d know how much and where to spend the money. He’s more experienced than most of them. But they don’t. They won’t even let him talk at the convention. Or anyone from the Tea Party for that matter. What does that tell you about the sincerity of their “pro-life” position? After tonight I’m not open to the Democrats or Republicans this year. Sorry.

Anyone from the tea party? I believe the “crown prince of the tea party movement” will be speaking prominently. I don’t know if the decision to bypass Ron Paul was right or wrong. But if that is keeping you from voting for the pro-life ticket then I would urge you and any other disappointed or angry Ron Paul supporters to reconsider. As Tqualey wrote, there are no saints running. The stakes are high for this election. Don’t let a procedural manuever in the convention that denied the Ron Paul supporters a platform keep you from voting for the pro-life ticket. Do you think Ron Paul would have made a more eloquent appeal to the pro-life view than Paul Ryan did? What Romney/Ryan policy do you disagree with that rises to the level of the sanctity of life? We need to help the pro-life ticket get a chance to nominate judges, Provobis. The ticket will disappoint you, for sure. But if a supreme court overturns Roe V Wade in 3 years thanks to a Romney appointed justice then that would be a huge success.

Ishii

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Traditionalism,

Last time I heard of ‘distribution’ it was in the form of communism - and the idea was distribute my income to others…after they got their cut. After all, as I recall, “…some are more equal then others…”.

If this isn’t what you have in mind - why not supply a link so that I can do some serious reading. You do have one don’t you?

God bless

I’m not voting for Obama either. I’m a Monarchist and Distributist, Obama and Romney are both pawns of the same handlers.

You don’t know what Distributism is, do you? Distributism wouldn’t block anyone from having a computer at all. I suggest you seriously read up on what Distributism is.

 

[rlg94086]

So you believe that government has more power and is a greater force for good than the power of God to change lives?

How did you get that from my post? :whacky:

Apparently, you didn’t read it.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seeker,

I’ve got to hand it to you! You are asked to provide a reference to support the statement you made - and you make inane comments. No on asked for your tax returns - just a reference.

Pick your own source - do not prejudge others on what you think they will say about the source you provide… and then don’t provide it.

Now… this does assume you really do have a source - and just are not dusting this item up… Tell 'ya what - just supply the reference without comment and prove me wrong…

God bless

Wow, you’d think I was running for President and was expected to release my tax returns…

Any evidence provided on this forum that doesn’t come from LifeSite news is discredited as being “liberal” anyway. (liberal being a euphemism for Satan). I’m not bothering with that anymore.

I was once as you all are now. I bought it all, spouted the talking points and gave lots of money, time and energy to it. I was once a “true believer” in every sense of the word, but I learned the hard way that there will never be a Savior on Capital Hill.

 

[ishii]

Hi, Traditionalism,

Last time I heard of ‘distribution’ it was in the form of communism - and the idea was distribute my income to others…after they got their cut. After all, as I recall, “…some are more equal then others…”.

If this isn’t what you have in mind - why not supply a link so that I can do some serious reading. You do have one don’t you?

God bless

Distributism is often touted by Catholics who believe there is a Catholic political/economic philosophy that could replace capitalism or liberalism/socialism. One of the tenets is that there should be a limit on how much money/assets one should be able amass. Problem is, who would decide how much is too much? And based on what? If you become too successful, would someone come to you and say, “sorry, we have to take the rest.” ? It is an idealistic but misguided philosophy based on the idea that there is a “catholic” tax rate, “catholic” profit level, etc.

Ishii

 

[Seeker1961]

Hi, Seeker,

I’ve got to hand it to you! You are asked to provide a reference to support the statement you made - and you make inane comments. No on asked for your tax returns - just a reference.

Pick your own source - do not prejudge others on what you think they will say about the source you provide… and then don’t provide it.

Now… this does assume you really do have a source - and just are not dusting this item up… Tell 'ya what - just supply the reference without comment and prove me wrong…

God bless

You all have computers, you all have the ability to do a search. I do my own searches on all of the comments thrown out by people like Juliane who aren’t expected to provide links, so you can all do the same to mine.

Who knows? You might learn something…I sure have by doing my own research on some of the comments I’ve read here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seeker,

This response did not surprise me at all. Making poor and unsubtantiated statements and refusing to reference them when asked is real disappointment. It really goes to the heart of communications on CAF - they are done with integrity.

God bless

You all have computers, you all have the ability to do a search. I do my own searches on all of the comments thrown out by people like Juliane who aren’t expected to provide links, so you can all do the same to mine.

Who knows? You might learn something…I sure have by doing my own research on some of the comments I’ve read here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ishii,

Thanks for the clarification.

Throughout history, there have been many attempts to develop an economic system that addresses the needs of people. Failures result when the designers refuse to acknowledge that people will always act in what they consider to be their best interest. As I recall, this was originally identified by Adam Smith - maybe the first economist econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html

One of the many failures of President Obama is his refusal to recognize that artificial controls manipulations of the US economy ( e.g., Secretary of Energy Chu wants US gasoline prices to be as high as they are in Europe - politico.com/news/stories/0212/73138.html).and.and) that taxes are a method to redistribute income especially from people he thinks have made too much money (forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/09/19/obama-wants-1-5-trillion-in-tax-hikes-mostly-on-rich/ ) Our President has assumed a new role: Community-Organizer-in-Chief. The problem is, he still does not know how the US economy really operates.

I have been focused on mass abortion promotion and funding as the moral reason why Catholics should not vote for Obama. But, there really other reasons why Obama should not get another term in office - he simply did not earn it. Another 4 years with this President would only worsen the current condition.

God bless

Distributism is often touted by Catholics who believe there is a Catholic political/economic philosophy that could replace capitalism or liberalism/socialism. One of the tenets is that there should be a limit on how much money/assets one should be able amass. Problem is, who would decide how much is too much? And based on what? If you become too successful, would someone come to you and say, “sorry, we have to take the rest.” ? It is an idealistic but misguided philosophy based on the idea that there is a “catholic” tax rate, “catholic” profit level, etc.

Ishii

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Our President has assumed a new role: Community-Organizer-in-Chief. The problem is, he still does not know how the US economy really operates.

God bless

Do not believe that Barack H. Obama is ignorant of how the US economy operates. He knows very well, but does not believe that we should have the kind of economic freedom that we have enjoyed in the past. Since we are a neo-colonial nation (in his eyes) we deserve to get our “come-uppence” and lose our standing in the world. We have “colonized” other nations for our own benefit and now deserve to have those benefits removed. He knows how to accomplish this goal and has been achieving his goals since he first took office. He has support from various individuals and organizations who remain in the shadows but we will eventually see what has been driving this man from when he was very young. Many people will be stunned.

 

[gnjsdad]

Do not believe that Barack H. Obama is ignorant of how the US economy operates. He knows very well, but does not believe that we should have the kind of economic freedom that we have enjoyed in the past. Since we are a neo-colonial nation (in his eyes) we deserve to get our “come-uppence” and lose our standing in the world. We have “colonized” other nations for our own benefit and now deserve to have those benefits removed. He knows how to accomplish this goal and has been achieving his goals since he first took office. He has support from various individuals and organizations who remain in the shadows but we will eventually see what has been driving this man from when he was very young. Many people will be stunned.

I have no intention of voting for Obama (or Romney, for that matter), but I must point out that there is no factual basis (in the way Obama has governed) for any of the speculative points you’ve made.

“we are a ‘neo-colonial’ nation in his eyes”… you can’t point to a single utterance Obama has made, either in the Senate or the White House, that indicates that that is his belief.

*“we deserve to get our comeuppance and lose our standing in the world”…*again, what specific policies has Obama implemented that tell us that that is his motivation? I see rather, that Obama is intent on MAINTAINING, through his quieter, less bombastic, though increasingly lawless, “war on terror” American dominance (what is euphamistically called “American leadership”) of the world.

“*We have ‘“colonized”’ other nations for our own benefit” … *that, I agree with

*“and now deserve to have those benefits removed.”…*that is a case that others have certainly made, but not Obama.

*He knows how to accomplish this goal and has been achieving his goals since he first took office. He has support from various individuals and organizations who remain in the shadows but we will eventually see what has been driving this man from when he was very young…*pure speculation…shadowy individuals and organizations?

There are plenty of things to object to about Obama: support for abortion; support for “gay marriage”; failure to rein in Wall Street; his lawless drone strikes and his assault on due process through his targeted assassination policies; but this pseudo-intellectual speculation about anti-colonialism? All that does is feed into toxic “birtherism” that implies that Obama is somehow not really a legitimate ruler; that he is some foreign “other” who has illicitly managed to somehow get himself installed in the White House.

 

[Seeker1961]

I have no intention of voting for Obama (or Romney, for that matter), but I must point out that there is no factual basis (in the way Obama has governed) for any of the speculative points you’ve made.

“we are a ‘neo-colonial’ nation in his eyes”… you can’t point to a single utterance Obama has made, either in the Senate or the White House, that indicates that that is his belief.

*“we deserve to get our comeuppance and lose our standing in the world”…*again, what specific policies has Obama implemented that tell us that that is his motivation? I see rather, that Obama is intent on MAINTAINING, through his quieter, less bombastic, though increasingly lawless, “war on terror” American dominance (what is euphamistically called “American leadership”) of the world.

“*We have ‘“colonized”’ other nations for our own benefit” … *that, I agree with

*“and now deserve to have those benefits removed.”…*that is a case that others have certainly made, but not Obama.

*He knows how to accomplish this goal and has been achieving his goals since he first took office. He has support from various individuals and organizations who remain in the shadows but we will eventually see what has been driving this man from when he was very young…*pure speculation…shadowy individuals and organizations?

There are plenty of things to object to about Obama: support for abortion; support for “gay marriage”; failure to rein in Wall Street; his lawless drone strikes and his assault on due process through his targeted assassination policies; but this pseudo-intellectual speculation about anti-colonialism? All that does is feed into toxic “birtherism” that implies that Obama is somehow not really a legitimate ruler.

Don’t you know that anyone making statements that agree with the CAF approved opinion do not have to support those statements by providing any facts? Only those who dare to post anything contrary to the right wing conservative tea party talking points are expected to provide documentation -which will then be derided as “typical liberal bias” and false.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Don’t you know that anyone making statements that agree with the CAF approved opinion do not have to support those statements by providing any facts? Only those who dare to post anything contrary to the right wing conservative tea party talking points are expected to provide documentation -which will then be derided as “typical liberal bias” and false.

So true. Has anyone ever seen a conservative poster post “Source?” after a remark by another conservative?

 

[Seeker1961]

So true. Has anyone ever seen a conservative poster post “Source?” after a remark by another conservative?

I go and look the stuff up myself and boy, have I learned a LOT doing that! I’m thinking that most of it wouldn’t be what the original posters wanted me to think though…

 

[rlg94086]

I have no intention of voting for Obama (or Romney, for that matter), but I must point out that there is no factual basis (in the way Obama has governed) for any of the speculative points you’ve made.

“we are a ‘neo-colonial’ nation in his eyes”… you can’t point to a single utterance Obama has made, either in the Senate or the White House, that indicates that that is his belief.

*“we deserve to get our comeuppance and lose our standing in the world”…*again, what specific policies has Obama implemented that tell us that that is his motivation? I see rather, that Obama is intent on MAINTAINING, through his quieter, less bombastic, though increasingly lawless, “war on terror” American dominance (what is euphamistically called “American leadership”) of the world.

“*We have ‘“colonized”’ other nations for our own benefit” … *that, I agree with

*“and now deserve to have those benefits removed.”…*that is a case that others have certainly made, but not Obama.

*He knows how to accomplish this goal and has been achieving his goals since he first took office. He has support from various individuals and organizations who remain in the shadows but we will eventually see what has been driving this man from when he was very young…*pure speculation…shadowy individuals and organizations?

There are plenty of things to object to about Obama: support for abortion; support for “gay marriage”; failure to rein in Wall Street; his lawless drone strikes and his assault on due process through his targeted assassination policies; but this pseudo-intellectual speculation about anti-colonialism? All that does is feed into toxic “birtherism” that implies that Obama is somehow not really a legitimate ruler.

Don’t you know that anyone making statements that agree with the CAF approved opinion do not have to support those statements by providing any facts? Only those who dare to post anything contrary to the right wing conservative tea party talking points are expected to provide documentation -which will then be derided as “typical liberal bias” and false.

Actually, the case for all the points TheRealJuliane made are pretty well presented in the 2016 movie that is out right now. Yes, they are opinion, but they are supported by some good research…much of it from Obama’s own book. You should check it out.

I’ve read the “fact checks” on the movie, but none of them do any fact checking. They just disagree with the writer’s conclusion, which is, of course, opinion.

Oh…and none of it has anything to do with birtherism or Obama’s legitimacy as “ruler.” The documentary clearly states that Obama was born in Hawaii.

 

[Seeker1961]

Actually, the case for all the points TheRealJuliane made are pretty well presented in the 2016 movie that is out right now. Yes, they are opinion, but they are supported by some good research…much of it from Obama’s own book. You should check it out.

I’ve read the “fact checks” on the movie, but none of them do any fact checking. They just disagree with the writer’s conclusion, which is, of course, opinion.

Oh…and none of it has anything to do with birtherism or Obama’s legitimacy as “ruler.” The documentary clearly states that Obama was born in Hawaii.

I can just imagine what would happen here if someone used a Michael Moore documentary-which is again, an opinion piece based on selectively chosen facts- to support an argument.

 

[rlg94086]

I can just imagine what would happen here if someone used a Michael Moore documentary-which is again, an opinion piece based on selectively chosen facts- to support an argument.

Okay. Stay in your bubble.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheRealJuliane,

I stand corrected. Thank you for the insight.

God bless

Do not believe that Barack H. Obama is ignorant of how the US economy operates. He knows very well, but does not believe that we should have the kind of economic freedom that we have enjoyed in the past. Since we are a neo-colonial nation (in his eyes) we deserve to get our “come-uppence” and lose our standing in the world. We have “colonized” other nations for our own benefit and now deserve to have those benefits removed. He knows how to accomplish this goal and has been achieving his goals since he first took office. He has support from various individuals and organizations who remain in the shadows but we will eventually see what has been driving this man from when he was very young. Many people will be stunned.

 

[Seeker1961]

Okay. Stay in your bubble.

What does that have to do with what I posted?

I was told that Juliane’s “support” comes from a documentary opinion. If I posted a point and cited a left wing opinion piece, I’d get creamed. You’re just highlighting the double standard.

If it’s right wing conservative, it doesn’t have to be more than an opinion. If it’s even slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, you’d better have facts from “acceptable” sources-like LifeSite News because we all know there’s no bias there at all.

 

[rlg94086]

What does that have to do with what I posted?

I was told that Juliane’s “support” comes from a documentary opinion. If I posted a point and cited a left wing opinion piece, I’d get creamed. You’re just highlighting the double standard.

If it’s right wing conservative, it doesn’t have to be more than an opinion. If it’s even slightly to the left of Attila the Hun, you’d better have facts from “acceptable” sources-like LifeSite News because we all know there’s no bias there at all.

:yawn:

Until you actually seen the movie or read the author’s book, you are merely grasping. If opinion is based on decent research, then there is nothing wrong with using it to back up your personal views. You are discounting the views because of their place on the political spectrum. That has no basis whatsoever…other than in your contempt for conservatives.