R
rlg94086
Guest
I would recommend no one reply to it, as discussion of candidates is against forum rules. We should stick to the topic.
Neocon Catholic leaders nurtured by GOP and Conservative Philanthropy on their heels
- Status
G
goofyjim
Guest
So now there are only two “real” parties? That seems like a limited democracy.
M
melensdad
Guest
Not voting clearly is an act of a true coward. One who cannot seem to sift through the issues and come to rational conclusions.
When it comes to most issues, the simple fact is that Democrats traditionally apply a band-aid. Most of the underlying problems are left to fester as they are the party that simply wants to create a situation where people rely on government for their every need. How can it be moral to support policies that oppose human dignity, the dignity of honest labor and oppose (often through court action) private charity?
When it comes to most issues, the simple fact is that Democrats traditionally apply a band-aid. Most of the underlying problems are left to fester as they are the party that simply wants to create a situation where people rely on government for their every need. How can it be moral to support policies that oppose human dignity, the dignity of honest labor and oppose (often through court action) private charity?
Semi-Agree. Many who consider the GOP to be anti-environment are not informed. Further, some would suggest that the Democrats are delaying environmental issues that would make us less reliant on foreign oil such as preventing the drilling for oil in ANWAR where the oil reserves are plentiful and were less than 1% of the preserve would be impacted by the drilling operations. Or where the Democrats are playing “God” with their animal rights alliances by preventing any sort of control of species, despite the fact that man may now be the only natural control remaining.
Again, semi-agree. The GOP is not opposed to all government programs, but it does typically suggest that government programs should be designed as a stop-gap or a temporary solution. The GOP has often suggested that benefits should be designed to assist people to get off the benefits and into the private sector in phases. The Democrats have typically pushed for permanent benefits, called entitlements, that are more and more generous. One could suggest that there is no moral standing for a government to create a situation where the culture is to stay on government programs and rely on handouts.
They also seem to be supportive of mercy killing/euthanasia. They are also in favor of fetal stem cell research, despite the fact that virtually all medical advances in stem cell research, and all usable advances in stem cell research have come from the moral use of adult stem cells. We should not forget that they also promote the Homosexual agenda. We should not forget they support the easing of restrictions on what can be shown on TV, which is evident in why we see so much immoral garbage on TV these days.
R
rlg94086
Guest
That is called reality. We do have other parties, but we always have two major parties. Since the winner is the candidate with the most votes, a third party siphons off votes from, generally from one of the parties, and helps elect one of the opposing candidate.
The only “third party” that succeeded was the Republican party, but that was because the Whigs collapsed before the election.
R
rlg94086
Guest
We don’t “semi-agree.” I agree completely with what you wrote. I just oversimplified mine into soundbytes. 
E
estesbob
Guest
I have never voted for a pro-abortion candidate in my life and I’m not about to start now. If that makes me a coward so be it.
M
melensdad
Guest
There are always choices and ways to support pro-life candidates.
But many folks, and I am speaking in general terms here not specifically to you, seem to simply disagree with some issues of each candidate so they don’t vote at all. The better choice is to rank the candidate by life issues and then go down from there. Many folks seem to not vote for Pro-Life candidates because they don’t like that same candidates position on the environment or on social programs. In the eyes of the church those may be somewhat important issues, but the issue LIFE is the most important issue and not voting against a Pro-Abortionist, in many elections, is essentially supporting abortion.
Z
zeito_alitheia
Guest
takimag.com/site/article/wars_and_rumors_of_war/
"Hitchcock may be unpleasant and mendacious, but he is not a stupid man. He knows precisely where Joe Sobran and The Wanderer stand on abortion and all other life issues. What upsets him is that Mr. Sobran, Mr. Likoudis, and other writers for The Wanderer have dared to stand with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in opposing the American war in Iraq. Worse yet, they have sometimes written about their opposition without also mentioning abortion. If that, however, indicates “that, for some on the Catholic part of ‘the Right,’ the life issues are no longer paramount, if they ever were,” one could equally surmise that, for Hitchcock, the Church’s teaching on contraception is no longer important, if it ever was, because Hitchcock has spent more time discussing abortion than he has contraception.
Political debates, and religious discussion of political issues, do not take place in a vacuum. There is a reason why pro-life Catholics who agree with two consecutive pontiffs’ moral admonitions about the war in Iraq spend some time discussing the war rather than abortion: There’s a war going on. That such a point is blindingly obvious only serves to make it clear that Hitchcock’s own concern is not to bring Catholic moral principles to bear on current public debates. He, of course, takes the path of all Catholic supporters of the war in dismissing two consecutive pontiffs’ moral admonitions as “prudential judgments.” Too bad for them that the Church teaches, in the words of Fr. John Hardon, S.J., that prudence “is the intellectual virtue whereby a human being recognizes in any matter at hand what is good and what is evil.” Which seems like an important question, when one is discussing the rights and wrongs of a war.
Hitchcock is not really concerned that Mr. Sobran and Mr. Likoudis and others are occasionally talking about something other than abortion; he’s concerned that they are talking about the war, and about the Church’s social teaching, and about other issues where the Church dares stray from the agenda of the Republican Party. Perhaps the Vatican is too naïve to realize that “involvement in political action necessarily brings with it the moral ambiguities inherent in all politics.”
Clinton % in polls in 1991 = 2%
With 13 months left do not discount anything or anyone
"Hitchcock may be unpleasant and mendacious, but he is not a stupid man. He knows precisely where Joe Sobran and The Wanderer stand on abortion and all other life issues. What upsets him is that Mr. Sobran, Mr. Likoudis, and other writers for The Wanderer have dared to stand with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI in opposing the American war in Iraq. Worse yet, they have sometimes written about their opposition without also mentioning abortion. If that, however, indicates “that, for some on the Catholic part of ‘the Right,’ the life issues are no longer paramount, if they ever were,” one could equally surmise that, for Hitchcock, the Church’s teaching on contraception is no longer important, if it ever was, because Hitchcock has spent more time discussing abortion than he has contraception.
Political debates, and religious discussion of political issues, do not take place in a vacuum. There is a reason why pro-life Catholics who agree with two consecutive pontiffs’ moral admonitions about the war in Iraq spend some time discussing the war rather than abortion: There’s a war going on. That such a point is blindingly obvious only serves to make it clear that Hitchcock’s own concern is not to bring Catholic moral principles to bear on current public debates. He, of course, takes the path of all Catholic supporters of the war in dismissing two consecutive pontiffs’ moral admonitions as “prudential judgments.” Too bad for them that the Church teaches, in the words of Fr. John Hardon, S.J., that prudence “is the intellectual virtue whereby a human being recognizes in any matter at hand what is good and what is evil.” Which seems like an important question, when one is discussing the rights and wrongs of a war.
Hitchcock is not really concerned that Mr. Sobran and Mr. Likoudis and others are occasionally talking about something other than abortion; he’s concerned that they are talking about the war, and about the Church’s social teaching, and about other issues where the Church dares stray from the agenda of the Republican Party. Perhaps the Vatican is too naïve to realize that “involvement in political action necessarily brings with it the moral ambiguities inherent in all politics.”
Carter % in polls in 1975 = 1%
Clinton % in polls in 1991 = 2%
With 13 months left do not discount anything or anyone
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Just in case some of you have not seen this, try this to find your candidate:
It is interesting
Code:
[www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html](www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html)
E
estesbob
Guest
Well I got a guy I never heard of!
J
Jennifer123
Guest
The only option for people of conscience if a pro-choice candidate is nominated is to write in a suitable pro-life candidate. As I’ve always said, the GOP nominates a pro-choice candidate at the risk of alienating, once again, their religious base. A Democrat wins.
Z
zeito_alitheia
Guest
I would also like to add to this that if the republican party doesn’t denounce this war and foreign policy, then there will be a 100% chance of Democrats gaining a president come 2008 and more control of them over the government. For the GOP to pander to a pro-war minority within their party is committing suicide and they will soon go the way of the Whig party unless they make a u-turn.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I don’t think you are correct, but I think you also need to take a look at the Democrats in regards to the war. If they don’t commit to pulling troops out, they may not get all the support they are counting on. The Greens could have a good year.
Related thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=186951
M
melensdad
Guest
** Which war are you talking about? What foreign policy?**
There is a lot of support for the action in Afghanistan. There is not a lot of support for the action in Iraq. But those are 2 completely different actions (wars) and one is clearly just, the other is probably not.
The reality is that no matter how much the Democrats bluster about it, they will not pull the troops out of Iraq. The best they will do is pull SOME troops out and watch as genocide occurs, then they will have the blood of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis on their hands.
Fact of the matter is we are there. We don’t all like that fact. But to pull out would simply hand the nation of Iraq over to Iran, which is fomenting all the Sunni - Shiite warfare now. Saudi Arabia, a religious ally of Iran, would have to side with Iran despite the fact that the two nations are not on friend terms because they share the common religion. Proof of this point comes from Saudi Arabia which has stated that it would support Iran in any outright war.
Further, the Kurds would love to form an independent nation in the north, and they are trying to divide Turkey, which has a large population of Kurds in the south of its nation. Turkey has already amassed troops to prevent a Kurdish rebellion and there would be a new war opening up in Turkey and northern Iraq. Turkey is also a member of NATO and the US is pledged to defend Turkey in any war, so we would have to go in and fight our own Kurdish supporters if the Democrats were stupid enough to begin a pull out of troops and cause EVEN MORE instability in the region.
I don’t like the Iraq war, but if we pull out it will be worse! The Democrats realize this and they can blow a lot of wind, they can talk all they want, but they will not pull the troops out of Iraq after an election. Any American who thinks they would do that is simply a fool who has not looked into international politics.
Z
zeito_alitheia
Guest
The same people who say that pulling out of Iraq will make things worse are the same people who said that invading Iraq and installing a stable government and country would be a cakewalk. Forgive me but I will not fall for the same nonsense twice.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Guiliani is not pro-abortion. He is in favor of returning the decision to individual states—in other words, pre Roe v. Wade.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
And we’re not a pro-war ‘minority.’
In large part, America supports its troops and this war. We don’t like to lose. Unfortunately the media is shockingly partisan in its approach. Anything or anyone that stands against American intererests is right up their alley.
M
melensdad
Guest
I’m sorry, but this is a gross misrepresentation, bordering on an outright lie.
I know MANY people, who, like myself, were NOT in favor of going into Iraq, but now feel that we cannot leave.
Our very own Pope B-16 expressed those same feelings to President Bush. If I understand the message from the Pope to our President correctly, we have a moral obligation to fix what we broke.
Go back and look at the polls of the American people pre-Iraq invasion and you will not find a huge amount of support for the invasion. There was, at best, a slim majority who favored the invasion of Iraq.
By the way, many of us may disagree with military action in Iraq but still support our troops. I fall into that category and have ‘adopted’ several soldiers and send monthly care packages to people I have never and probably will never meet. I’ve collected nearly 1000 DVD movies and built up video libraries at two different bases *(one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan) *so the soldiers can watch movies during their off time. I send food, personal care items, games and other things to these folks who are volunteering to serve in our place. I’ve coordinated with a Girl Scout troop to send letters to the soldiers and to send cases and cases of G.S. cookies. We are supposed to show charity and comfort but much of what I see from Americans, and even Catholic Americans, is far from that.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Polls are skewed by those who ask them. (I know several poll workers; I report what they tell me).
I know this is a far-fetched example but they’re almost worded like:
“Would you rather withdraw life support from a brain-dead woman or have your home invaded by madmen and your family slaughtered before your very eyes?”
Ouch.
Polls are written and conducted by humans. There is always bias. Let’s not turn a blind eye to it.
I support not only the war but our troops, and I liken Iraq to Nazi Germany in WW II. It was Japan that attacked us, but Germany was the first battle front.
It isn’t patriotic in the least to openly oppose the war, as many would have you believe. It’ s like saying, “I support the Pope, but I’m a good Catholic so I’m gonna oppose most of what he says in the name of Catholicism.”
I know this is a far-fetched example but they’re almost worded like:
“Would you rather withdraw life support from a brain-dead woman or have your home invaded by madmen and your family slaughtered before your very eyes?”
Ouch.
Polls are written and conducted by humans. There is always bias. Let’s not turn a blind eye to it.
I support not only the war but our troops, and I liken Iraq to Nazi Germany in WW II. It was Japan that attacked us, but Germany was the first battle front.
It isn’t patriotic in the least to openly oppose the war, as many would have you believe. It’ s like saying, “I support the Pope, but I’m a good Catholic so I’m gonna oppose most of what he says in the name of Catholicism.”
Z
zeito_alitheia
Guest
Yeah right, and I’m Santa Clause!
Because a nation with a GNP 1/20th of Spain and under a decade of sanctions is as much a threat as the Third Reich…
Hitler said that also
And have you sent any money or aid to any of the Iraqi Christians who have been displaced because of the war? Have you sent anything to those Iraqis who’s limbs have been blown off by aerial bombs? Any letters apologizing for the sanctions which killed over 500,000 Iraqi children (Which the UN denies therefore it is true)?
…Yeah just what I thought.
- Status