Obama and Romney hit the final stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HansTrappist said:
I woud also suggest that Mitt Romey is the one who has forced Catholics into this dilemna. It is his support for MURDER (abortion) in the cases of rape and incest that is the issue. He has changed his mind on numerous issues numerous times over the years but for some inexplicable, illogical, and irrational reason he will not budge one millimeter on this issue of exceptions, even though he claims that he is aware of the “science of life” which means that he knows full well that his posititon will lead to the murder of unborn innocents and that by revising his position he will save the lives of unborn innocents. There is no valid reason for Romney to have this exception on a matter of intrinsic evil. He has had more than ample time to revise this postition and he refuses to do so. Oh, well. I take the “science of life” more seriously than he does and I don’t find Romney’s position credible. And the Bishops make it clear that I have every right not to vote when faced with a this dilemna that Romney could end tomorrow if he wanted to.
Click to expand...
Critical on Romney on abortion but not on Obama?

Yikes!
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
As long as they are made to the same safety standards. Not fair to require it from US companies, but not Chinese ones (lead paint leaps to mind) 😉
Click to expand...
In business, it is all about price, let the buyer decide the fairness issue.
 
ishii said:
Hanstrappist, the history of supreme court appointments in the past 40 years has been well documented on these forums. But rather than give up - consider that we have Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Thomas Alito and John Roberts. We need one more. There is likely to be a vacancy in the next four years. Either Obama or Romney will be choosing the justice. Romney will have Robert Bork advising him on this. So for anyone interested in seeing Roe V Wade overturned - voting for Mitt Romney is a no-brainer. The fact that there is no 100% guarantee with a Mitt Romney appointed justice is no reason to give up - which is what you seem to be doing.

As for my response to your comments on Romney’s stance on abortion with exceptions for rape or incest - I would say two things:
  1. Its irrelevant.
  2. Its irrelevant.
Hanstrappist, its not fair to the unborn that you would hold them hostage based on the technicality of Romney’s position on allowable exceptions. There will be millions of unborn killed because Roe V Wade is the law of the land. We ought not to do nothing in a fit of stubborn perfectionism. Think of the unborn, Hanstrappist.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Might I also suggest thinking about the four other non-negotiables. They count also.
 
According to the self-proclaimed #1 liberal talker and former Air America icon, Thom Hartmann,

HARTMANN: Call me a conspiracy nut but first came the memo saying that, or it was leaked actually out of the Romney campaign, that they were going to turn Barack Obama into Jimmy Carter. Now what did that mean? Who was planning that? Who, you know, and then comes out this anti-Muhammad movie, just before 9/11, just in time for 9/11. And then the attacks, you know, in Benghazi in, on 9/11. And then Darrell Issa, you know, who’s got a history as a small-time crook, is trying to politicize this thing. It makes you wonder who funded the movie. You know, is this thing a setup?

(H/T: MRC)

Sigh.

Deserves a papal facepalm.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
mary_bobo said:
Might I also suggest thinking about the four other non-negotiables. They count also.
Click to expand...
You are correct. But Hanstrappist is basing his vote entirely on the abortion issue - and specifically what he/she regards as Romney’s allowance for exceptions based on rape, etc. So I wanted to speak directly to that. Of course there are a myriad of reasons why we need to vote effectively against Obama. I am frustrated with those who would not effectively oppose Obama out of a misguided perfectionism and a desire to “feel” good.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
As for my response to your comments on Romney’s stance on abortion with exceptions for rape or incest - I would say two things:
  1. Its irrelevant.
  2. Its irrelevant.
Hanstrappist, its not fair to the unborn that you would hold them hostage based on the technicality of Romney’s position on allowable exceptions. There will be millions of unborn killed because Roe V Wade is the law of the land. We ought not to do nothing in a fit of stubborn perfectionism. Think of the unborn, Hanstrappist.

Ishii
Click to expand...
I can’t believe what I am hearing!

On one hand your are accusing me of holding the unborn hostage when I am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to not vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Yet nary a word of condemnation for a man who wants to use the label “pro-life” in front of his name but will not budge one iota over his support for murdering the unborn in the cases of rape and incest, and who at the same time pretends that he understands the “science of life.” This is unbelievable! It is not me who needs to be thinking of the unborn. I have done enough of that. I am not running for President nor do I support the final solution for unborn children in the cases of rape and incest. Mitt Romney will have to answer for that but the fact remains that he could easily change his position tomorrow if he wanted. Why hasn’t he? This remains the great mystery of this campaign and the silence is deafening. Its amazing how you will make every excuse for the man simply because the alternative is Obama. That is crazy and explains why the two candidates keep getting closer and closer together on the issue over the years and why nothing has changed in the last 40 years other than some nibbling around the edges. The unborn are waiting for some real change. Mitt Romney will not give it to them and I think this will be the last election that conservatives are going to buy the “lesser of two evils” argument.
 
ishii said:
I am frustrated with those who would not effectively oppose Obama out of a misguided perfectionism and a desire to “feel” good.
Ishii
Click to expand...
What a load of nonsense!

“Feeling good” and “perfectionism” has nothing to do with it. Please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Mitt Romney’s stated positions and the stated positions of the Bishops, are what matter.

You are entitled to your opinions but let’s stop pretending that I MUST vote for Romney and that if I do not that I am holding the unborn hostage.

I am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to not vote for Romney until he refrains from supporting an intrinsic evil.

I did not create this dilemna and the Bishops are perfectly clear about what we are to do in such a dilemna.

Obama and Romney have to answer for supporting intrinsic evil.
 
ishii said:
You are correct. But Hanstrappist is basing his vote entirely on the abortion issue - and specifically what he/she regards as Romney’s allowance for exceptions based on rape, etc. So I wanted to speak directly to that. Of course there are a myriad of reasons why we need to vote effectively against Obama. I am frustrated with those who would not effectively oppose Obama out of a misguided perfectionism and a desire to “feel” good.

Ishii
Click to expand...
While one should not vote for Obama, there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says one must vote for Romney.
 
ABC:Rep. Paul Ryan Talks Upward Mobility: 'In This War on Poverty, Poverty Is Winning’
Paul Ryan said today that the Republican presidential ticket will do more to help the poor in this country, declaring, “in this war on poverty, poverty is winning,” and calling for a shift from federal government programs helping the poor to a community-focused model.

He said the GOP ticket would set such a model into motion if it gets to the White House.

Ryan cited the amount of money the federal government spends on “means-tested programs,” saying it accounts to more than $1 trillion, or giving “every poor American a check for $22,000.”

“We spend all that money attempting to fight poverty through government programs. And what do we have to show for it?” Ryan asked, saying one in six Americans are living in poverty and citing high food stamp use and high school drop-out rates.
From the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:
** 186. *The necessity of defending and promoting the original expressions of social life is emphasized by the Church in the Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, * in which the principle of subsidiarity is indicated as a most important principle of “social philosophy”. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them”[399].
  • On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies*. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.
Subsidiarity, understood* in the positive sense *as economic, institutional or juridical assistance offered to lesser social entities, entails a corresponding series of negative implications that require the State to refrain from anything that would de facto restrict the existential space of the smaller essential cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and responsibility must not be supplanted.
From Pope John Paul II:
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.
Nice to see a politician reflect Catholic Social Teaching in his proposals. Wish it would happen more often.
 
markomalley said:
]Nice to see a politician reflect Catholic Social Teaching in his proposals. Wish it would happen more often.
Click to expand...
Nicer still would be if poiticians did more than make proposals, but put our social teaching into our laws. Talk is cheap. 🙂
 
HansTrappist said:
What a load of nonsense!

“Feeling good” and “perfectionism” has nothing to do with it. Please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Mitt Romney’s stated positions and the stated positions of the Bishops, are what matter.

You are entitled to your opinions but let’s stop pretending that I MUST vote for Romney and that if I do not that I am holding the unborn hostage.

I am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to not vote for Romney until he refrains from supporting an intrinsic evil.

I did not create this dilemna and the Bishops are perfectly clear about what we are to do in such a dilemna.

Obama and Romney have to answer for supporting intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
Speaking of intrinsic evils, do you consider Pres. Obama and Gov Romney to be equally evil? Equal in the sense that one is no worse than the other?
 
HansTrappist said:
“Feeling good” and “perfectionism” has nothing to do with it. Please keep the personal attacks to a minimum.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember saying that about you specifically. I try not to worry so much about anyone’s personal attacks on me, but more on the attacks on the Catholic Church and the unborn that come from the Obama administration - and I am focussed on how to defeat them by voting effectively. Its not about you, Hanstrappist, but the unborn.
HansTrappist said:
You are entitled to your opinions but let’s stop pretending that I MUST vote for Romney and that if I do not that I am holding the unborn hostage.

I am perfectly within my rights as a Catholic to not vote for Romney until he refrains from supporting an intrinsic evil.

I did not create this dilemna and the Bishops are perfectly clear about what we are to do in such a dilemna.

Obama and Romney have to answer for supporting intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
Here is what I am saying Hanstrappist:
  1. In order for all our states to reform our laws so that the unborn are protected, Roe V Wade needs to be overturned.
  2. If a state wants to restrict abortion except in cases of rape, Roe V wade needs to be overturned.
  3. If a state wants to restrict abortion except in cases of incest, Roe V Wade needs to be overturned first.
  4. ***If a state wants to restrict abortion in all cases, Roe V Wade needs to be overturned first. ***
  5. Mitt Romney will quite possibly choose the next two supreme court justices. This could give the supreme court a pro-life majority. Roe V Wade could get overturned. Remember - Robert Bork is advising Romney on supreme court justice appointments.
Now you can wait for the perfect presidential candidate to come along and say " I am against all abortions in all cases, no ifs and or buts." And how many millions of abortions will happen in the meantime? But we have a candidate who will help to overturn Roe V Wade, right now - and that is what we need.

We will all have to answer for what we do. I wouldn’t want to have to explain why, when we had a candidate who was committed to overturning Roe V Wade, I opted not to support that candidate and allow abortion on demand for 30 more years. Again, Hanstrappist, think not of perfection but of the unborn.

Ishii
 
This video is awesome, its only a couple of minutes.
Regardless of your party 🙂
Very educational.

Thanks for your post Tampa Dave:thumbsup:

God bless you all :signofcross: Peace!

chicksontheright.com/categories/weeps-and-glees/item/23269-this-is-without-question-the-best-7-minutes-and-38-seconds-you-will-see-today
Tampa_Dave said:
washingtonexaminer.com/poll-shows-romney-leading-in-blue-pennsylvania/article/2511153#.UIPaDIVvZFV

Poll shows Romney leading in blue Pennsylvania

A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.

Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.

It’s the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.

“The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it,” Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.

Romney isn’t spending much time or money in Pennsylvania, which hasn’t backed a Republican presidential candidate since 1988.

Every other Pennsylvania poll shows Obama ahead, though by a narrowing margin. A Quinnipiac University poll taken around the same time as the Susquehanna poll shows Obama leading Romney 50 percent to 46 percent.

Susquehanna’s automated poll of 1,376 likely voters was taken between Oct. 11 and 13, before the second presidential debate Tuesday that many saw as a comeback for Obama since his Oct. 3 showdown with Romney.

Lee said Romney has made significant gains in the all-important suburbs of Philadelphia, a ring of counties that helped push Obama to victory in 2008.

“Republicans haven’t been able to do that in 20 years,” Lee said. “Romney has made some major inroads.”

Lee said Romney also gained ground in western Pennsylvania, where socially conservative, blue-collar Democrats have turned their backs on Obama.

Susquehanna has traditionally shown a much tighter race between Obama and Romney than other polls, in part because it weights its results by party registration. Firms that don’t do this tend to over-sample Democrats.

Weighting results in Pennsylvania is particularly important, Lee said, “because we know with a pretty good degree of certainty how many registered Republicans and Democrats are going to show up” on Election Day.
Click to expand...
 
meltzerboy said:
I don’t consider either Obama or Romney to be evil, equally or otherwise.
Click to expand...
I agree that “evil” is an inappropriate descriptor for either candidate, but the term could certainly apply to their positions on abortion in variations of degree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top