Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

[estesbob]

And lets not forget: One who is for the legalization and restriction-free murder, but wants to address the “reasons for murder” does more to end murder than one who wants it outlawed, and proposes legislation to that effect.

AND favors publicly funded hitmen

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I get my inspiration from the doctrines of the Catholic Church - which are hardly misogynist. We honor the Blessed Mother above all other saints - she is Theotokos. (You know that.) Doctrines have implications that are not always fully explored until the time is right. I pray that the next female doctor of the church will not be a virgin, but a mother. It is about time we had one.

Obama is wrong about a lot of things, but so are most Americans. He is also right about many things I care about. If the GOP had someone REAL to go up against him - instead of Mitt Romney, then maybe I’d vote differently. Mitt Romney has no substance - you can’t count on him for anything. You can’t trust a turn-coat to lead the nation on social issues.

I bet that if Karl Rove spent $25 million dollars on an add campaign that celebrates life and the Koch brothers spent a billion dollars providing scholarships to young parents so they can have kids and go to school - then maybe we would make some real progress toward ending abortion. But they don’t care about what real people experience. They only care about “economic freedom” and abstract promises of “opportunity” - ideas that are entirely undermined by the meme on the left that says you are doomed if you happen to be teenage girl who gets pregnant.

So I don’t see either side doing much to end abortion - but I do see one side (the GOP) using abortion as a wedge issue to grab power.

I dunno, St. Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton was completely devoted to CAtholic doctrine, was a devout religious, wife, AND a mother of 5.

 

[MidnightSun12]

As, I’m sure, has been said numerous times on this thread already, Catholics are morally obligated to vote based on issues of intrinsic evil first and foremost. In today’s society the issues of intrinsic evil include: abortion, gay marriage, contraception and euthenasia. These are issues that can be completely eliminated through legislation. A Catholic voting in this election would have to vote for a politician who first and foremost opposed these issues before considering anything else. For that reason, I would cast my vote for Mitt Romney in this election if I were an American citizen.

eliminating poverty, racism, and sexism are also good things but no political party can possibly eliminate these things by simply writing a piece of legislation… hence they cannot be issues of intrinsic evil in this election.

For example, a Catholic who wanted to vote democrat this election might argue that they are doing so because Jesus teaches us to help the poor. The problem is that the Democrats would never table a bill titled “Help the poor”, rather, they would present legislation to increase wealth re-distribution through taxation which may or may not help the poor depending on economic conditions, the number jobs lossed through increasing taxes, etc… The republicans, on the other hand, can very much table legislation titled “ban gay marriage”. In short, the republicans have the moral high-ground on at least 3 issues of intrinsic evil (4 if we count euthenasia) in this election… the Democrats have none (even the death penalty is not an issue of intrinsic evil).

In short, no Catholic (with full knowledge and consent) can vote Democrat in this election without being at risk of comitting sin.

 

[bellasbane]

I dunno, St. Mother Elizabeth Ann Seton was completely devoted to CAtholic doctrine, was a devout religious, wife, AND a mother of 5.

She definitely represents a good example of a saint who is also a mother, but I don’t see her elevated to “Doctor of the Church” status any time soon - or have I missed something?

There are other mother saints - like Saint Monica. Of course, her son was no virgin, fathered a child out of wedlock, and still managed to get “Doctor of the Church” status. I’m sure the fact that he was brilliant helped

 

[bellasbane]

As, I’m sure, has been said numerous times on this thread already, Catholics are morally obligated to vote based on issues of intrinsic evil first and foremost. In today’s society the issues of intrinsic evil include: abortion, gay marriage, contraception and euthenasia. These are issues that can be completely eliminated through legislation. A Catholic voting in this election would have to vote for a politician who first and foremost opposed these issues before considering anything else. For that reason, I would cast my vote for Mitt Romney in this election if I were an American citizen.

eliminating poverty, racism, and sexism are also good things but no political party can possibly eliminate these things by simply writing a piece of legislation… hence they cannot be issues of intrinsic evil in this election.

For example, a Catholic who wanted to vote democrat this election might argue that they are doing so because Jesus teaches us to help the poor. The problem is that the Democrats would never table a bill titled “Help the poor”, rather, they would present legislation to increase wealth re-distribution through taxation which may or may not help the poor depending on economic conditions, the number jobs lossed through increasing taxes, etc… The republicans, on the other hand, can very much table legislation titled “ban gay marriage”. In short, the republicans have the moral high-ground on at least 3 issues of intrinsic evil (4 if we count euthenasia) in this election… the Democrats have none (even the death penalty is not an issue of intrinsic evil).

In short, no Catholic (with full knowledge and consent) can vote Democrat in this election without being at risk of comitting sin.

How’s the health care system up in Canada?

 

[bellasbane]

Since we are all called to care for the welfare of one another’s lives, by your logic, laws against muder serve no purpose. God entrusted each of us to safeguard one another’s lives - we know that to be fact.

Why is abortion exempt from your logic, but rape and murder somehow need the veay hand of the government?

Is every homicide a murder? No.

So in your view, where does abortion fit on the homicide scale?

 

[He_Man]

Is every homicide a murder? No.

So in your view, where does abortion fit on the homicide scale?

Abortion is murder.

I’m not sure of your point. We have laws that ban homicide AND murder. Do you oppose both on the same grounds of personal responsibility?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Is every homicide a murder? No.

So in your view, where does abortion fit on the homicide scale?

Premeditated.

 

[rlg94086]

Is every homicide a murder? No.

So in your view, where does abortion fit on the homicide scale?

Premeditated.

Of course. And, certainly not justifiable. What else could it be considered?

 

[estesbob]

Is every homicide a murder? No.

So in your view, where does abortion fit on the homicide scale?

Therefore brothers, you see how perverse they are and hastening wickedness, who are immature, they seek abortion of the conception before the birth; they are those who tell us, "I do not see that which you say must be believed."

• Sermon 126, line 12
  St Augustine of Hippo

Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born.

-De Nube et Concupiscentia 1.17 (15)
St Augustine of Hippo

 

[MidnightSun12]

How’s the health care system up in Canada?

It’s not a bad system right now, but I believe it’s facing serious challenges in the future. Basically, the current level of services are un-sustainable with an aging population and there is enormous push-back against any attempt to improve the efficiency of the system by offering private alternatives to decrease wait times or the strain on the taxpayer. It’s not a horrible system at this exact point in time, but it’s future is not looking great and the changes that need to be made are not happening in the capacity that they need to happen.

 

[St_Francis]

… It is true that some (a very few) women cannot be trusted and are so disordered that they will kill their babies - but that is rare. …

Over one million abortions a year in the US–that is not really *rare. *What is much more “rare” is the number of murders, 16,400 in 2008. And when you consider that murder can be accomplished much less expensively than abortion, and by several times the number of people (men, non-pregnant women, menopausal women, etc), that’s pretty amazing, if one follows the logic that having a law against something doesn’t accomplish much.

Most often women who chooses to have an abortion do so out of fear or ignorance. Those are social problems we can fix without violating the natural order.

Most women who have abortions do so because they *chose *to have sex at a time when they weren’t ready to have a baby.

I don’t think a few disordered women is enough reason to stripe all women of their God-given authority and hand it over to the government, just like I don’t believe a few disordered men is enough reason to stripe all men of the priesthood and throw the vocation open to just anyone.

Read the article I link to in my signature. M. Cathleen Kaveny is a brilliant professor of law and theology at Notre Dame

Oh, so brilliant! So what? She doesn’t know about Catholic teaching: No virtuous motive and no other feature of an intrinsically evil act can make it a good act, although it can mitigate the wrongdoing substantially. To hold otherwise, according to the pope, is to be a “proportionalist” and thereby to place oneself outside the Catholic moral tradition. Needless to say, [unfortunately] there are [so-called] Catholic moralists who disagree with the tradition, and who argue for its revision on a number of grounds. But this is official Catholic teaching.
*Hello, brilliant theologian!!! Catholic teaching cannot change!!! *

She then goes on to wrote: *For many pro-life Catholics, the issue of voting and abortion comes down to this: what does one do if one thinks that the candidate more likely to reduce the actual incidence of abortion is also the one more committed to keeping it legal? *

Well, the first thing one might do is to check into a mental institution. What has happened since the 1960s? Abortion has increased, *but so has government aid to those in need. * In fact, when it comes to economics and abortion, a good economy and decreased rates of abortion correlate better than do abortion and government handouts.

So… explain to me why a person would vote for the candidate who not only supports abortion, who not only opposed the Babies Born Alive bill, but who also claimed he was going to bring down the coal industry in this country?

And seeing what Obama has done to the economy of this nation, who could possibly think *now *that he would do more to reduce the rate of abortion than have those who have struggled to pass parental notification laws, anti-PBA laws, laws requiring that abortion “clinics” be under the same standards as real clinics, informed consent laws… ?

And she also teaches law. Wow, you think she would understand the concept of a law, if she teaches about it in a college, but it is Notre Dame, after all, all they are really good at is football… She writes:

More generally, one’s obligation to intervene to prevent harm to others, whether or not it is directly caused by an intrinsically evil act, depends upon a number of factors. Is one in any way responsible for the harm about to occur? Does one have a special responsibility for either the perpetrator (if there is one) or the victim? What is the likelihood that one’s efforts to intervene will succeed? Will those efforts make matters worse if they do not succeed? What good will one fail to do, what evil will one fail to prevent, if one devotes oneself to this particular rescue effort rather than to another? Is intervening in this situation incompatible with performing other duties?

Wow, that just floors me. Does the government have *no responsibility *to protect human life? Apparently not, according to this brilliant law professor who seems to hang out with those same “Catholic” moral theologians that Pelosi gets her information from.

Does the brilliant professor of law think that laws are so ineffective as to be *useless, *in which case, why are we paying millions of dollars to members of Congress and Senators, much less brilliant professors of law?

Does she think that matters will be *worse *if abortion is outlawed? What? *More *abortions than when they are legal?

Does she think that outlawing abortion would take more paper or effort or finagling than did passing ObamaCare? That, I will admit, seemed to suck up a lot of time, but I think that saving the lives of over a million babies each year would be worth *at least *that amount of time and attention. What evil will we fail to prevent that would be *worse? *

And what duties of lawmakers would legal intervention in a million lives taken somehow interfere with?

Puh-leeeeese.

 

[St_Francis]

… It is true that some (a very few) women cannot be trusted and are so disordered that they will kill their babies - but that is rare. …

Over one million abortions a year in the US–that is not really *rare. *What is much more “rare” is the number of murders, 16,400 in 2008. And when you consider that murder can be accomplished much less expensively than abortion, and by several times the number of people (men, non-pregnant women, menopausal women, etc), that’s pretty amazing, if one follows the logic that having a law against something doesn’t accomplish much.

Most often women who chooses to have an abortion do so out of fear or ignorance. Those are social problems we can fix without violating the natural order.

Most women who have abortions do so because they *chose *to have sex at a time when they weren’t ready to have a baby.

I don’t think a few disordered women is enough reason to stripe all women of their God-given authority and hand it over to the government, just like I don’t believe a few disordered men is enough reason to stripe all men of the priesthood and throw the vocation open to just anyone.

Outlawing abortion is not quite the same as outlawing pregnancy, you know. Having an abortion is not under anyone’s “authority,” so outlawing it does not strip any woman of any authority.

Read the article I link to in my signature. M. Cathleen Kaveny is a brilliant professor of law and theology at Notre Dame

Oh, so brilliant! So what? She doesn’t know about Catholic teaching: No virtuous motive and no other feature of an intrinsically evil act can make it a good act, although it can mitigate the wrongdoing substantially. To hold otherwise, according to the pope, is to be a “proportionalist” and thereby to place oneself outside the Catholic moral tradition. Needless to say, [unfortunately] there are [so-called] Catholic moralists who disagree with the tradition, and who argue for its revision on a number of grounds. But this is official Catholic teaching.
**Hello, brilliant theologian!!! Catholic teaching cannot change!!! **

She then goes on to write: *For many pro-life Catholics, the issue of voting and abortion comes down to this: what does one do if one thinks that the candidate more likely to reduce the actual incidence of abortion is also the one more committed to keeping it legal? *

Well, the first thing one might do is to check into a mental institution. What has happened since the 1960s? Abortion has increased, *but so has government aid to those in need. * In fact, when it comes to economics and abortion, a good economy and decreased rates of abortion correlate more positively than do abortion and government handouts.

So… explain to me why a person would vote for the candidate who not only supports abortion, who not only opposed the Babies Born Alive bill, but who also claimed he was going to bring down the coal industry in this country?

And seeing what Obama has done to the economy of this nation, who could possibly think *now *that he would do more to reduce the rate of abortion than have those who have struggled to pass parental notification laws, anti-PBA laws, laws requiring that abortion “clinics” be under the same standards as real clinics, informed consent laws… ?

And she also teaches law. Wow, you think she would understand the concept of a law, if she teaches about it in a college, but it is Notre Dame, after all, all they are really good at is football… She writes:

More generally, one’s obligation to intervene to prevent harm to others, whether or not it is directly caused by an intrinsically evil act, depends upon a number of factors. Is one in any way responsible for the harm about to occur? Does one have a special responsibility for either the perpetrator (if there is one) or the victim? What is the likelihood that one’s efforts to intervene will succeed? Will those efforts make matters worse if they do not succeed? What good will one fail to do, what evil will one fail to prevent, if one devotes oneself to this particular rescue effort rather than to another? Is intervening in this situation incompatible with performing other duties?

Wow, that just floors me. Does the government have *no responsibility *to protect human life? Apparently not, according to this brilliant law professor who seems to hang out with those same “Catholic” moral theologians that Pelosi gets her information from.

Does the brilliant professor of law think that laws are so ineffective as to be *useless, *in which case, why are we paying millions of dollars to members of Congress and Senators, much less brilliant professors of law?

Does she think that matters will be *worse *if abortion is outlawed? What? *More *abortions than when they are legal?

Does she think that outlawing abortion would take more paper or effort or finagling than did passing ObamaCare? That, I will admit, seemed to suck up a lot of time, but I think that saving the lives of over a million babies each year would be worth *at least *that amount of time and attention. What evil will we fail to prevent that would be *worse? *

And what duties of lawmakers would legal intervention in a million lives taken somehow interfere with?

Puh-leeeeese.

 

[Mickey]

So… explain to me why a person would vote for the candidate who not only supports abortion, who not only opposed the Babies Born Alive bill, but who also claimed he was going to bring down the coal industry in this country?

Indeed.

 

[stevegravy]

So… explain to me why a person would vote for the candidate who not only supports abortion, who not only opposed the Babies Born Alive bill, but who also claimed he was going to bring down the coal industry in this country?

Because they are on the government teat and want more other people’s money.

 

[mary_bobo]

It’s not a bad system right now, but I believe it’s facing serious challenges in the future. Basically, the current level of services are un-sustainable with an aging population and there is enormous push-back against any attempt to improve the efficiency of the system by offering private alternatives to decrease wait times or the strain on the taxpayer. It’s not a horrible system at this exact point in time, but it’s future is not looking great and the changes that need to be made are not happening in the capacity that they need to happen.

As I have said many times before, I am glad that some Canadians are happy with the system they have. But as alluded to in the above post, it is unsustainable in its present form as is the system in this country. Instead to trying to improve it here, we are adding insult to injury as far as our national debt is concerned. Finally, while living in Canada, I spent three weeks in intensive care and am lucky to be here due to failings in the system at that time. I’m afraid I have nothing positive to add on the Canadian system.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Finally, while living in Canada, I spent three weeks in intensive care and am lucky to be here due to failings in the system at that time. I’m afraid I have nothing positive to add on the Canadian system.

And, my wife had a similar experience at one of the better New York hospitals some years ago. Anecdotes about how lousy she or you were treated hardly extend to the entire Canadian or U.S. health systems.

 

[qui_est_ce]

{snip}
And seeing what Obama has done to the economy of this nation, who could possibly think *now *that he would do more to reduce the rate of abortion than have those who have struggled to pass parental notification laws, anti-PBA laws, laws requiring that abortion “clinics” be under the same standards as real clinics, informed consent laws… ?

And she also teaches law. Wow, you think she would understand the concept of a law, if she teaches about it in a college, but it is Notre Dame, after all, all they are really good at is football… She writes:
{snip}
Wow, that just floors me. Does the government have *no responsibility *to protect human life? Apparently not, according to this brilliant law professor who seems to hang out with those same “Catholic” moral theologians that Pelosi gets her information from.

Does the brilliant professor of law think that laws are so ineffective as to be *useless, *in which case, why are we paying millions of dollars to members of Congress and Senators, much less brilliant professors of law?

Does she think that matters will be *worse *if abortion is outlawed? What? *More *abortions than when they are legal?

Does she think that outlawing abortion would take more paper or effort or finagling than did passing ObamaCare? That, I will admit, seemed to suck up a lot of time, but I think that saving the lives of over a million babies each year would be worth *at least *that amount of time and attention. What evil will we fail to prevent that would be *worse? *

And what duties of lawmakers would legal intervention in a million lives taken somehow interfere with?

Puh-leeeeese.

Brilliant!. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[estesbob]

As I have said many times before, I am glad that some Canadians are happy with the system they have. But as alluded to in the above post, it is unsustainable in its present form as is the system in this country. Instead to trying to improve it here, we are adding insult to injury as far as our national debt is concerned. Finally, while living in Canada, I spent three weeks in intensive care and am lucky to be here due to failings in the system at that time. I’m afraid I have nothing positive to add on the Canadian system.

It is sustainable as long as Canadians can come to the US when they need care quicker than the canadian health beuracracy can provide it.

 

[RACJ]

Communist currency manipulator George Soros funds more front organizations in America than Heinz has pickles. And they all propagandize for the global left. ACORN was one of hundreds.
FOX has Bob Beckel and Juan Williams, two Democrat shills, if you’ve noticed. Many of the others are hardly conservative. If the “megaphones” were so big on the right, Santorum would be the nominee, NOT Romney. It seems to me that some people are dissatisfied with the fact that the anti-Constitutional left ONLY has a lock on “entertainment” media, schools, courts and entitlement programs. Any murmur from the grandstands is treated with horror and shrieks. Note that popular talk radio hosts are largely conservative b/c it is the one free market arena where competition thrives. Liberalism preys on emotions of good people. It is hard to listen to pity parties for three hours per day! Rob

How are the public networks biased? I watch the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams now and then and don’t notice much of a bias, but maybe that is because I’m such a brain-washed progressive!

They are biased in OMISSION and commission. WHO among them, for example, is asking for Obama's medical or educational records? Where are his transcripts and theses? Closely guarded, that's where, b/c he is an unapologetic radical who rejects the American way of life. Where is the investigation of Obama's suing of Citibank in Chicago to FORCE them to give bad loans to unqualified minorities? Where is their relentless questioning about the catastrophic Fast and Furious debacle? 
 I'm only scratching the surface. You'll never hear much about any of the plethora of Obama scandals by watching Brian Williams or any of the other Obama apparatchiks.

BTW, do you know that the Obamacare law contains 2700 pages, and functionaries have already written 13,000 MORE pages? Or that we’re hiring 16,500 MORE IRS agents to enforce it? Does that sound like Obama is interested in preserving our freedom?

  Lots of grist for the liberal mill here, but unsurprisingly, NO response from anyone. I guess that as the old "Lost in Space" robot would say, "Emergency! This does not compute!" 
 Of course, there is SO MUCH MORE that I could bring up that your trusted press ignores. But, all of that would be ignored as well, since it doesn't  fit the comfortable template.  ;) Blessings, Rob