Do we vote for the lesser of two evils?

[tqualey]

Hi, ProVobis,

Are you saying that Romney and Obama are in the same class? If so, I am not aware of:

any endorsements from Planned Parenthood for Romney when he was governor - like Obama is obtained alonng with a lot PP $

making public statements that he was not going to do his job - and enforce the laws passed the state legislature - like Obama did with DOMA

make a public policy that removes peoples right to act according to their conscience - like with the HHS Mandate

and while states do not engage in foreign policy as Obama has in promoting abortion world wide and tying US $ to those countries who promote changes to their laws favoring abortion - there is no record of Romney promoting abortion or PP while he was governor.

I really must disagree with lumping these two politicians in the same class.

Now, if you have evidence that Romney has done these things while governor (endorse PP and abortions, refuse to follow state laws, develop mandates that overturn individual rights to conscience and actively promote abortions whenever possible) I would be interested in hearing that.

God bless

Not really. Just like all other elected politicians, he’s in it to get votes and if he sees so many support such-and-such position, that’s the position he’ll take. In fact, Romney is doing the same thing with his etch-a-sketch rhetoric.

 

[seekerz]

Not really. Just like all other elected politicians, he’s in it to get votes and if he sees so many support such-and-such position, that’s the position he’ll take. In fact, Romney is doing the same thing with his etch-a-sketch rhetoric.

Exactly. And what’s more, we know Obama’s vision: what drives him, what he envisages is his role as president. We know that his stated motivation is to level the playing field and help each American have a chance at achieving the dream. What do we know of Romney’s vision? That he thinks he will be better on the economy than Obama? What part of the motivation that drives him is unrelated to the person now occupying the Oval Office. I just don’t see it. But I’m pretty sure a person does not just put themselves and their families through the grinder of a campaign such as this simply because they don’t like the job the office holder is doing.

It’s also interesting to me that a president who isn’t concerned with half the country could be concerned about the babies that half will be conceiving…those most likely to be at risk of never seeing the light of day.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Exactly. And what’s more, we know Obama’s vision: what drives him, what he envisages is his role as president. We know that his stated motivation is to level the playing field and help each American have a chance at achieving the dream. What do we know of Romney’s vision? That he thinks he will be better on the economy than Obama? What part of the motivation that drives him is unrelated to the person now occupying the Oval Office. I just don’t see it. But I’m pretty sure a person does not just put themselves and their families through the grinder of a campaign such as this simply because they don’t like the job the office holder is doing.

It’s also interesting to me that a president who isn’t concerned with half the country could be concerned about the babies that half will be conceiving…those most likely to be at risk of never seeing the light of day.

Obama wants equal outcomes for all, not simply equal opportunities. We are unequal in terms of talent, intelligence, education, and circumstances of birth. Fact of life. However, America is not so disparate in terms of opportunity that the federal government must inject itself into every facet of life to guarantee everyone’s American dream. Many people were born with more talent, higher intelligence, and greater wealth than I was. So what! I worked my way through college, studied hard, and succeeded. My wife did the same. As a result, we gave our daughters silver spoon starts in life. Hopefully, they will do even better for their children. That is how America works. Obama told successful business owners “you didn’t build that!” My response “yes, we did.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tampa Dave,

“Equal outcomes” sounds pretty good - until you look how every country that has made any effort at accomplishing this goal has done. Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, North Korea under Jong Il, his father and his grandfather (interesting how they keep it all in the family) and Cuba under Castro (ah, now the younger brother has it). All of those who believe that re-distributing income is the answer have yet to learn the real question. Such distribution only works while there are those with some to distribute. Once wealth dries up (different from Washington printing money 24/7) there is nothing to hand out.

No one can point to a success story of how taking from a wealth producer and giving to a wealth consumer has made anyone better. What it has done is provide the perfect disincentive for people to stop working and simply hold out their hand. In my opinion, the real sin of Romney is that he succeeded - and those who complain about his wealth are really quite envious.

We all want to be rewarded for our efforts - those who work hard have a much better chance of obtaining this - but, there are no guarantees. Those who don’t work at making their own dream (and not Obama’s) come true may win the lottery. But, the usual path is without rewards.

God bless

Obama wants equal outcomes for all, not simply equal opportunities. We are unequal in terms of talent, intelligence, education, and circumstances of birth. Fact of life. However, America is not so disparate in terms of opportunity that the federal government must inject itself into every facet of life to guarantee everyone’s American dream. Many people were born with more talent, higher intelligence, and greater wealth than I was. So what! I worked my way through college, studied hard, and succeeded. My wife did the same. As a result, we gave our daughters silver spoon starts in life. Hopefully, they will do even better for their children. That is how America works. Obama told successful business owners “you didn’t build that!” My response “yes, we did.”

 

[seekerz]

Obama wants equal outcomes for all, not simply equal opportunities."

That is your interpretation and you’re welcome to it. I take his words as I believe he meant them: equal opportunity for all. At least he enunciates his vision. What’s Romney’s?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That is your interpretation and you’re welcome to it. I take his words as I believe he meant them.

Did he mean his words in San Francisco that “those people” cling to their guns and their religion? (Meant as, at best, a scoff, at worst as a condescending slam)

How about “spreading the wealth around” aka socialism? Did he mean that?

 

[ProVobis]

All of those who believe that re-distributing income is the answer have yet to learn the real question.

Re-distribution has been around since taxation and other coercive measures were put into effect. Why is this suddenly a major concern of this election?

As long as the tax code exists, the government can and will perform some social engineering with it. Gingrich got that part right.

 

[seekerz]

Did he mean his words in San Francisco that “those people” cling to their guns and their religion? (Meant as, at best, a scoff, at worst as a condescending slam)

How about “spreading the wealth around” aka socialism? Did he mean that?

It was condescending, and he in all likelihood, did mean it. Appalachia has come in for more than it’s fair share of criticism, which is unfortunate and a candidate for president should definitely know better. That was just downright mean.

“Spreading the wealth around”? I’m pretty sure the aka part was your addition. He meant it just as he said it and there is nothing wrong in wanting to see more people prosper. If that is socialism then I’ll eat my hat, because I’ve seen the real thing - lived under it actually - so it makes me chuckle to think that people consider Obama a ‘socialist’.

I honestly don’t get what it is about material possessions that create such passionate rifts among people. It’s just stuff folks: acquire it, use it well, share what you can, be good stewards…but most of all get over it - it has no lasting value beyond this life.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I honestly don’t get what it is about material possessions that create such passionate rifts among people. It’s just stuff folks: acquire it, use it well, share what you can, be good stewards…but most of all get over it - it has no lasting value beyond this life.

I actually agree.

My beef is with individuals who would be charitable with my money. I’ll decide where my charity goes, thanks very much.

 

[tqualey]

Hang on just one moment, Seekerz,

This is the same President who accepted an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame University and promised he would accommodate the consciences of those who object to abortion … you do reacall him saying this… here are a couple of links:

ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-wenski-speaks-out-for-catholic-conscience/

humanevents.com/2012/05/23/cheer-cheer-for-old-notre-dame/

lifenews.com/2012/06/22/obamas-backwards-approach-protect-the-state-from-the-church/

cfnews.org/page10/page15/page15.html

And, if you need more, I will be happy to send them to you! Anyone who thinks our President is either truthful or trustworthy is living the fantasy life. The man is simply a liar. And, amazingly enought, he was called that when he addressed a Joint Session of Congress - here’s the link: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6165489/Barack-Obama-health-care-speech-Republican-calls-president-a-liar.html

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want - but, when you claim our President is truthful - you will need to show some references to back that statement up. Good luck in finding any.

God bless

That is your interpretation and you’re welcome to it. I take his words as I believe he meant them: equal opportunity for all. At least he enunciates his vision. What’s Romney’s?

 

[je333]

Hi, Je333,

No one is talking about ‘persecution’ or of being other-wise uncharitable to someone who claims to have an inclination to someone of the same sex. What is clearly being addressed is behavior - and this behavior has already been identified by the Catholic Church as ‘intrinisc evil’. I think the Catholic Church is well aware of the Love of God and how He extended Himself to all of us sinners.

*Let me first address the highlighted comment above, for now. I will address the rest of your comment some other time.

You said that the Catholic Church has identified the behavior as “intrinsic evil.” This is not correct. Please read, below, what the CCC says exactly and the Church Teachings on couragerc.net. *

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

And, according to couragerc.net, this is what the Church Teachings on homosexuality:

1. The Homosexual Inclination is Objectively Disordered
   “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” CDF Letter, no.3

Homosexual erotic attractions may arise for a number of reasons which can be understood, both psychologically and emotionally. Sometimes they’re temporary – especially for adolescents – but for some people, homosexual feelings are deep rooted and difficult to overcome. The Church says it’s not a sin to have such attractions (especially if the erotic element is not willfully cultivated), but it is an objective disorder, a problem.

It can be difficult to understand what an “objective disorder” is. It means that the very inclination toward a same sex act indicates that the desire itself is moving in the wrong direction; ordinarily the vast majority of men and women have a natural God given attraction toward physical union with a person of the opposite sex. This is natural and good because it leads the majority of people into marriage whereas same sex attractions while not sinful, end up in a disordered act if one gives into them.

It may be objected that a man lusting for a woman is a disordered act, but the inclination to such an act is considered natural but misdirected under ordinary circumstances. Under the circumstance of marriage however this inclination is good because it leads to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman and the procreation of a child.

Same-sex erotic attractions do not lead to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman nor to the procreation of a child; therefore they are considered objectively disordered but not sinful in and of themselves.

*So according to what the Church teaches, it is incorrect for you to say that the behavior is “intrinsic evil”. Rather, it is an intrisically disordered and has only a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil, if one gives into the temptations, but never is the inclination sinful.

God Bless,
je333*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Luigi,

Excellent response!

God bless

I actually agree.

My beef is with individuals who would be charitable with my money. I’ll decide where my charity goes, thanks very much.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Je333,

That was impressive - almost a dozen paragraphs to refute what I said - and not once did you actually mention BEHAVIOR within the context of the documents you quoted. These documents are addressing homosexual inclinations. And, that is fine as far as it goes - but, I am addressing sinful behavior.

Yes, I guess I did not quite use the exact terminology - it is disordered, and I said it is evil. Again, I am just talking behavior. Are you saying that homosexual BEHAVIOR is not sinful? is not evil? That is the issue. I would appreciate you addressing this - because this is what I was talking about.

I look forward to you addressing the rest of my post.

God bless

*Let me first address the highlighted comment above, for now. I will address the rest of your comment some other time.

You said that the Catholic Church has identified the behavior as “intrinsic evil.” This is not correct. Please read, below, what the CCC says exactly and the Church Teachings on couragerc.net. *

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

And, according to couragerc.net, this is what the Church Teachings on homosexuality:

1. The Homosexual Inclination is Objectively Disordered
   “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” CDF Letter, no.3

Homosexual erotic attractions may arise for a number of reasons which can be understood, both psychologically and emotionally. Sometimes they’re temporary – especially for adolescents – but for some people, homosexual feelings are deep rooted and difficult to overcome. The Church says it’s not a sin to have such attractions (especially if the erotic element is not willfully cultivated), but it is an objective disorder, a problem.

It can be difficult to understand what an “objective disorder” is. It means that the very inclination toward a same sex act indicates that the desire itself is moving in the wrong direction; ordinarily the vast majority of men and women have a natural God given attraction toward physical union with a person of the opposite sex. This is natural and good because it leads the majority of people into marriage whereas same sex attractions while not sinful, end up in a disordered act if one gives into them.

It may be objected that a man lusting for a woman is a disordered act, but the inclination to such an act is considered natural but misdirected under ordinary circumstances. Under the circumstance of marriage however this inclination is good because it leads to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman and the procreation of a child.

Same-sex erotic attractions do not lead to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman nor to the procreation of a child; therefore they are considered objectively disordered but not sinful in and of themselves.

*So according to what the Church teaches, it is incorrect for you to say that the behavior is “intrinsic evil”. Rather, it is an intrisically disordered and has only a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil, if one gives into the temptations, but never is the inclination sinful.

God Bless,
je333*

 

[seekerz]

Hang on just one moment, Seekerz,

This is the same President who accepted an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame University and promised he would accommodate the consciences of those who object to abortion … you do reacall him saying this… here are a couple of links:

ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-wenski-speaks-out-for-catholic-conscience/

humanevents.com/2012/05/23/cheer-cheer-for-old-notre-dame/

lifenews.com/2012/06/22/obamas-backwards-approach-protect-the-state-from-the-church/

cfnews.org/page10/page15/page15.html

And, if you need more, I will be happy to send them to you! Anyone who thinks our President is either truthful or trustworthy is living the fantasy life. The man is simply a liar. And, amazingly enought, he was called that when he addressed a Joint Session of Congress - here’s the link: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6165489/Barack-Obama-health-care-speech-Republican-calls-president-a-liar.html

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want - but, when you claim our President is truthful - you will need to show some references to back that statement up. Good luck in finding any.

God bless

What are you talking about?

I never claimed he was without fault…after all, he does not, last I checked, aspire to be God (not that I can take issue with a person holding whatever article of faith he chooses).

I’m simply saying that he has enunciated a clear vision to the American people, and I take him at his word. I never meant to imply that he has never gone back on his word. Every president has their “no new taxes moment”. Like I said, he is not God and does not claim to be…

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

What are you talking about?

I never claimed he was without fault…after all, he does not, last I checked, aspire to be God (not that I can take issue with a person holding whatever article of faith he chooses).

I’m simply saying that he has enunciated a clear vision to the American people, and I take him at his word. I never meant to imply that he has never gone back on his word. Every president has their “no new taxes moment”. Like I said, he is not God and does not claim to be…

WOW, just wow. Obama is to be trusted with this “clear vision” with the record he has
had? The president who has endangered our intelligence community by leaking information
to the world with a special White House session giving details to the movie industry?
By announcing to the world, the individuals (Seals) who were part of the Bin Laden mission
and by doing so endangering them and their families and their fellow seals?
The president who met with Cardinal Dolan, assured him that there would be conscience
protections for the Church, and then had the HHS mandates announced with not even
a call, note, etc. to explain his “change”???

 

[ProVobis]

The man is simply a liar.

And what would be the difference between lying and etch-a-sketching, a term incidentally brought about by Romney’s own party?

 

[seekerz]

WOW, just wow. Obama is to be trusted with this “clear vision” with the record he has
had? The president who has endangered our intelligence community by leaking information
to the world with a special White House session giving details to the movie industry?
By announcing to the world, the individuals (Seals) who were part of the Bin Laden mission
and by doing so endangering them and their families and their fellow seals?
The president who met with Cardinal Dolan, assured him that there would be conscience
protections for the Church, and then had the HHS mandates announced with not even
a call, note, etc. to explain his “change”???

I’ll repeat, he is not God and to my knowledge nor does he aspire to be. That is highly reassuring to me because it means he accepts that he can and will on occasion, err.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TexCatholic4JMJ,



The only thing that is ‘clear’ about our President is the trail of deceit he has blazed both in foreign and domestic policies.

I think it would be healthy to simply identify that Obama has captured the hearts of some people and no matter how he lies, no matter how he tries to curtail religious freedom, no matter laws he has chose to simply not enforce, that is ‘OK’ because he is doing it. The consequences we have experienced are nothing like another 4 years of this man’s rule by fiat. But, for those who are unaware of the poor outcomes experienced so far - another four years of ignoring the obvious will not matter anyway.

His ‘clear vision’ is quite frightening to me. His encouragement for the murder of the unborn both here and abroad is unprecedented. There is no unborn child safe from this man’s on-going policy of destruction. Ah, but what the heck - Shakespear’s “MacBeth” caught the mood right: "“I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.” Continue to bask in the ‘clear vision’ of this, our President and the turn-coat Catholics in his Administration. Crafting a more ruthless lot would have challenged no less a talent as Shakespear for this unfolding tragedy that is set before us. This last Act plays out in 34 days!

God help us all.

WOW, just wow. Obama is to be trusted with this “clear vision” with the record he has
had? The president who has endangered our intelligence community by leaking information
to the world with a special White House session giving details to the movie industry?
By announcing to the world, the individuals (Seals) who were part of the Bin Laden mission
and by doing so endangering them and their families and their fellow seals?
The president who met with Cardinal Dolan, assured him that there would be conscience
protections for the Church, and then had the HHS mandates announced with not even
a call, note, etc. to explain his “change”???

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ProVobis,

Glad you asked.

You see, there are just so many areas that cold be addressed I will pick just one. If you wish more, just let me know. Their number is Legion…

I think the only honest way to compare these two men and how they have handled their respective positions of temporal authority is to look at Obama as President and Romney as Governor. I have not found one instance with Gov Romney promised to respect religious freedom and then repeatedly went back on his word! Now, if you have such information, please share it with the thread. Converesly, President Obama’s betrayal of what he promised at Notre Dame University is profoundly disturbing for a leader to betray the trust of so many on such an important topic. And, here are the links:

ncregister.com/daily-news…ic-conscience/

humanevents.com/2012/05/2…ld-notre-dame/

lifenews.com/2012/06/22/o…om-the-church/

cfnews.org/page10/page15/page15.html

There seems to be the mistaken belief that since Obama is not ‘running for God’ then whatever he does is just fine because…shucks… none of us are perfect! “God” does not appear as a position on any ballot that will appear on Nov 6 - so, just trying to keep it real seems to be a major accomplishment.

And, in the process of ‘keeping it real’ you are invited to provide references where Romney betrayed others in a public speech that said one thing while he worked very hard to violate what he just promised. He, there is no belitteling this President’s ability to lie without blinking, winking or showing the least hint of embarrassment. He’s cool - very cool when it comes to deceit. But, just look at what he is doing - and then compare it to what Romney has done.

I await your references.

God bless

And what would be the difference between lying and etch-a-sketching, a term incidentally brought about by Romney’s own party?

 

[seekerz]

Hi, TexCatholic4JMJ,



The only thing that is ‘clear’ about our President is the trail of deceit he has blazed both in foreign and domestic policies.

I think it would be healthy to simply identify that Obama has captured the hearts of some people and no matter how he lies, no matter how he tries to curtail religious freedom, no matter laws he has chose to simply not enforce, that is ‘OK’ because he is doing it. The consequences we have experienced are nothing like another 4 years of this man’s rule by fiat. But, for those who are unaware of the poor outcomes experienced so far - another four years of ignoring the obvious will not matter anyway.

His ‘clear vision’ is quite frightening to me. His encouragement for the murder of the unborn both here and abroad is unprecedented. There is no unborn child safe from this man’s on-going policy of destruction. Ah, but what the heck - Shakespear’s “MacBeth” caught the mood right: "“I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er.” Continue to bask in the ‘clear vision’ of this, our President and the turn-coat Catholics in his Administration. Crafting a more ruthless lot would have challenged no less a talent as Shakespear for this unfolding tragedy that is set before us. This last Act plays out in 34 days!

God help us all.

God help us all indeed. Two people are running for president and only the vision of one of them is relevant?!