Obama and Romney Hit the Final Stretch PT 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jwinch2 said:
Agreed to a point. Either way, I don’t watch the news to be told how to feel about something. Nor do I watch it to see someone play the “gotcha game” every time a politician who they disagree with opens their mouth or to provide cover when a politician they agree with makes a mistake or does something wrong.

It serves them ill in my view to have someone so blatantly partisan on their network.
Click to expand...
Another difference is that all of the programing on MSDNC is Pro-Obama spin, they have no news that doesn’t have some kind of a spin for Obama. While Fox News has mostly conservative commentators, they also have liberal commentators. And Fox News has real news. The Fox News commentators are presented as opinion and not as news. But the liberal mainstream media regularly presents opinion or “gotcha” stories as news.
 
livingwordunity said:
Another difference is that all of the programing on MSDNC is Pro-Obama spin, they have no news that doesn’t have some kind of a spin for Obama. While Fox News has mostly conservative commentators, they also have liberal commentators. And Fox News has real news. The Fox News commentators are presented as opinion and not as news. But the liberal mainstream media regularly presents opinion or “gotcha” stories as news.
Click to expand...
I know. I watch Fox with regularity, among other news organizations. I said I didn’t care for Hannity and that he shouldn’t be on a network which touts the idea of fairness and balance, not that I don’t like Fox News.

Peace,
 
jwinch2 said:
I’m a fairly conservative guy but I won’t watch Hannity. He is a partisan hack and makes no bones about being so. He’s absolutely no different than many of the people on MSNBC, except from the other side of the argument.
Click to expand...
I don’t watch any of them except Hannity…only because he is so absurd, along with most of his guests. In truth, I have nothing good to say about the man, and it troubles me that people would even consider his opinion on anything, particularly military matters.
I will say this…he is very good at suggesting that the President send others to die…there is a term for people like that who never served…gee…what is that?

Never mind,

John
 
livingwordunity said:
Another difference is that all of the programing on MSDNC is Pro-Obama spin, they have no news that doesn’t have some kind of a spin for Obama. While Fox News has mostly conservative commentators, they also have liberal commentators. And Fox News has real news. The Fox News commentators are presented as opinion and not as news. But the liberal mainstream media regularly presents opinion or “gotcha” stories as news.
Click to expand...
Really, like that four to one round table they try to pass as …fill in their slogan.

I listen to NPR once a day.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Okay. I trust Mitt over Barry any day! I’ve twice given money to Mitt, so I feel we have a friendly relationship. 🙂
Click to expand...
LOL.
Today I had a refreshing experience and your post reminds me of it. Had this elderly
gentleman call me for help after he had spent a few minutes with the ballot. He asked
me if he was reading his summary correctly. He specifically asked if he had marked
it correctly for “his friend” Romney. I pointed out that his choices were all in blue and
he turned and said" Ah, yes Romney/Ryan" and then gave me this big smile.
 
oldcelt said:
Really, like that four to one round table they try to pass as …fill in their slogan.

I listen to NPR once a day.
Click to expand...
NPR is hardly balanced. They are clearly pro-left and support this administration.
 
jwinch2 said:
I know. I watch Fox with regularity, among other news organizations. I said I didn’t care for Hannity and that he shouldn’t be on a network which touts the idea of fairness and balance, not that I don’t like Fox News.

Peace,
Click to expand...
Well, he used to be on with Colmes, but I think that Colmes wanted more appearances on other shows so he left.

At least Hannity doesn’t pretend that he isn’t biased. Most right-wing commentators don’t.

And from what I’ve seen, FOX seems to try and play it fair. If you want a more liberal perspective, check out Colmes’s radio show.
 
Even EWTN says you can’t vote for pro-abortion Romney
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters.
Click to expand...
Romney believes it is permissible for the states to decide whether abortion is legal or not. Why is that any different than the women and her doctor deciding?
My view is that the Supreme Court should reverse Roe v. Wade and send back to the states the responsibility for deciding whether it’s is legal or not."
Click to expand...
Dale Ahlquist, editor of Gilbert Magazine isn’t voting for Romney. You shouldn’t either. 👍 Vote pro-life!
 
Pork_Roll said:
Even EWTN says you can’t vote for pro-abortion RomneyRomney believes it is permissible for the states to decide whether abortion is legal or not. Why is that any different than the women and her doctor deciding?Dale Ahlquist, editor of Gilbert Magazine isn’t voting for Romney. You shouldn’t either. 👍 Vote pro-life!
Click to expand...
I’m voting pro-life. I’m voting Romney. I won’t vote for an unelectable nobody, just because they are closer to perfect. One of two people will occupy the White House next year. I hope it will be the one who is closest to my beliefs.
 
One of two people will occupy the White House next year. I hope it will be the one who is closest to my beliefs.
Click to expand...
Then why does the church say you can’t vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils? If everybody keeps voting for the lesser of evils, the pro-life candidate will never have a chance.
 
Pork_Roll said:
Then why does the church say you can’t vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils? If everybody keeps voting for the lesser of evils, the pro-life candidate will never have a chance.
Click to expand...
The Church clearly teaches that you can vote to lessen evil. Don’t misrepresent the Church, or EWTN, by claiming that Catholics can’t vote for Romney. They don’t have to, but they can. For me, it is the only intelligent choice this election, but Catholics can also vote for an unelectable nobody or choose not to vote. Any of those options is licit.
 
The Church clearly teaches that you can vote to lessen evil.
Click to expand...
The church says an elected official can support legislation aimed at limiting evil given their personal opposition is well known. Nowhere official that I’m aware of says that we Catholics can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when he is lesser evil when there are other candidates who are less likely to win.
 
Pork_Roll said:
The church says an elected official can support legislation aimed at limiting evil given their personal opposition is well known. Nowhere official that I’m aware of says that we Catholics can vote for a pro-abortion candidate when he is lesser evil when there are other candidates who are less likely to win.
Click to expand...
Romney isn’t a “pro-abortion” candidate, so your point is moot.

From EWTN, whom you falsely stated says we can’t vote for Romney:
ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
  1. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?
As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.
  1. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?
In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.
 
Romney isn’t a “pro-abortion” candidate, so your point is moot.
Click to expand...
If Romney supports a state’s right to decide whether abortion should be legal or not, then he is pro-abortion by definition. The whole point of the pro-life movement is to make it illegal. What if this were slavery? Would this be a moral solution to slavery to make the decision at the state level? Give me a break.
My view is that the Supreme Court should reverse Roe v. Wade and send back to the states the responsibility for deciding whether it’s is legal or not
Click to expand...
Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.
Click to expand...
Obviously I disagree with this jump in logic and like to point out that this is not official church teaching. This assumption is just an excuse for catholics to support the pro-choice GOP in my opinion. If the pope wanted this to apply to lesser of two evil candidates, he would have said so.
 
Pork_Roll said:
If Romney supports a state’s right to decide whether abortion should be legal or not, then he is pro-abortion by definition. The whole point of the pro-life movement is to make it illegal. What if this were slavery? Would this be a moral solution to slavery to make the decision at the state level? Give me a break. Obviously I disagree with this jump in logic and like to point out that this is not official church teaching. This assumption is just an excuse for catholics to support the pro-choice GOP in my opinion. If the pope wanted this to apply to lesser of two evil candidates, he would have said so.
Click to expand...
If repeatedly calling for overturning roe v wade makes you pro abortion then what makes you pro life! How can you make abortion illegal with out this first being overturned?
 
Seeker1961 said:
And if he wins, perhaps that it God’s message to us that we must step up and care for each other because we cannot expect help from the government. Perhaps that would be God saying that we need to privately fund nursing homes and hospitals to provide care for those in need.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that plan. Even the Catholic Church takes money from government to fund its charities.

Romney’s plan is to cut taxes, regardless of the consequences. That is fiscally irresponsible and greedy. The tax cut part will be easy, and will be based on projected revenue increases which will not occur, and projected spending cuts which will never be implemented. It is the same old Republican game that was popularized by Saint Reagan.
 


My prediction: Obama wins with at least 350 electoral votes.

And, about a year later:



And then, a couple of years after that:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top