Obama and Romney hit the final stretch

[estesbob]

Fortunately there is more than two choices on the ballot so there is more than one way to vote against Obama.

The Christians were excited. Even though their party was only two years old they realize they had enough votes to determine who the next ruler would be. The only other candidate was Herod who was running on a platform of continuing the policies of his father which included infanticide. Why only 35 years ago Herod’s father had had every infant in the kingdom killed and this support of infanticide was very popular among those who worshipped BAAL. After all infanticide was a core of their religion. And many progressives in the kingdom supported this policy even though they would never think of killing their own child-r all this was 35 AD and the government really had no right telling a woman she could not kill her child.

So the Christians met to nominate their candidate. First they proposed Peter but he was voted down because, after all, he had denied Jesus three times. Thomas was rejected for doubting Jesus, James and John because they’re too pretentious-actually having their mother asked Jesus to give them special favor. Someone suggested Matthew but he was quickly dismissed because he was a rich tax collector and could not relate to the people. One by one the apostles were rejected so finally someone mentioned Paul. “He’s new to the religion but he speaks his mind and is dedicated to the Lord”. “Wait a minute” said another, didn’t he participate in the stoning of Stephen?" From the back of the crowd someone was heard to mumble “to bad Jesus isn’t here, we could nominate him”. To which several others said “no way look at the people he chose to lead his new church.” So in the end they decided it was best not to vote at all. And Herod won

Several years later as some of those who attended the meeting stood in the arena being circled by lions and tigers and bears they wondered, in retrospect, if it would that have been better to have voted.

 

[stinkcat_14]

IMO that is illogical nonsense.

Albeit; true you are not voting FOR Mr Obama - BUT You are not voting AGAINST Mr Obama.

In your own mind. Now, does the Church require that we only vote for the candidate that has a chance of winning?

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Christians were excited. Even though their party was only two years old they realize they had enough votes to determine who the next ruler would be. The only other candidate was Herod who was running on a platform of continuing the policies of his father which included infanticide. Why only 35 years ago Herod’s father had had every infant in the kingdom killed and this support of infanticide was very popular among those who worshipped BAAL. After all infanticide was a core of their religion. And many progressives in the kingdom supported this policy even though they would never think of killing their own child-r all this was 35 AD and the government really had no right telling a woman she could not kill her child.

So the Christians met to nominate their candidate. First they proposed Peter that he was voted down because, after all, he had denied Jesus three times. Thomas was rejected for doubting Jesus, James and John because they’re too pretentious-actually having their mother asked Jesus to give them special favor. Someone suggested Matthew but he was quickly dismissed because he was a rich tax collector and could not relate to the people. One by one the apostles were rejected so finally someone mentioned Paul. “He’s new to the religion but he speaks his mind and is dedicated to the Lord”. “Wait a minute” said another, didn’t he participate in the stoning of Stephen?" From the back of the crowd someone was heard to mumble “to bad Jesus isn’t here, we could nominate him”. To which several others said “no way look at the people he chose to lead his new church.” So in the end they decided it was best not to vote at all. And Herod won

Several years later as some of those who attended the meeting stood in the arena being circled by lions and tigers and bears they wondered, in retrospect, if it would that have been better to have voted.

Compelling.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I repeat.

But is it the way that will promote the most good? If the candidate has no chance of
making any changes because there is NO way he will be elected, it is futile, except
MAYBE for your peace of mind. I had someone very close who would always choose
options such as this because of his “conscience” but after knowing him a long time
I found out he had a real problem in deciding one way or another and always defaulting
to the safe or moderate or a no vote. Not saying that’s the problem here, but I do
think the evidence of the facts in this election is very clear.

 

[estesbob]

The difference in abortion stances of Obama and Romney is only a matter of degree IMO.

"Other than that ,how was a play, Mrs. Lincoln?

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

In your own mind. Now, does the Church require that we only vote for the candidate that has a chance of winning?

Please respond to my post. Thanks

 

[stinkcat_14]

But is it the way that will promote the most good? If the candidate has no chance of
making any changes because there is NO way he will be elected, it is futile, except
MAYBE for your peace of mind. I had someone very close who would always choose
options such as this because of his “conscience” but after knowing him a long time
I found out he had a real problem in deciding one way or another and always defaulting
to the safe or moderate or a no vote. Not saying that’s the problem here, but I do
think the evidence of the facts in this election is very clear.

First of all, it is reasonable to expect that electing Romney is going to have a marginal impact on abortion at best. Therefore, whether Romney is elected or not elected in the short run there will not be a big impact. Voting for a third party candidate could be a better decision in fighting abortion in the long run. So voting third party is a perfectly acceptable and moral choice. If you disagree, please cite some Church teaching telling me that I am wrong.

 

[kimmielittle]

In your own mind.

Well let’s examine your mind then.

Can you logically defend your thoughts that voting for someone else KNOWINGLY ] with no chance to win, is a vote AGAINST Mr Obama?

Now, does the Church require that we only vote for the candidate that has a chance of winning?

NO, The Church asks us to defeat intrinsic evils.

 

[kimmielittle]

"Other than that ,how was a play, Mrs. Lincoln?

:clapping:

It was only a millimeter degree ] off

 

[stinkcat_14]

NO, The Church asks us to defeat intrinsic evils.

But we don’t have to cooperate with evil to do so. Romney’s position on abortion is evil, not as evil as Obama’s, but we are free to vote for a better alternative.

 

[kimmielittle]

First of all, it is reasonable to expect that electing Romney is going to have a marginal impact on abortion at best. Therefore, whether Romney is elected or not elected in the short run there will not be a big impact. Voting for a third party candidate could be a better decision in fighting abortion in the long run. So voting third party is a perfectly acceptable and moral choice. If you disagree, please cite some Church teaching telling me that I am wrong.

I think ALL of Catholic teaching tells us to ** defeat ** intrinsic evils.

The only way to **defeat **Mr Obama’s support of intrinsic evils is to get him out of office.

IT is MR Obama AND his support of these evils ] we need to **defeat **. THEN AND ONLY THEN ] can we work on the other intrinsic evils left in place!

 

[stinkcat_14]

I think ALL of Catholic teaching tells us to ** defeat ** intrinsic evils.

The only way to **defeat **Mr Obama’s support of intrinsic evils is to get him out of office.

IT is MR Obama AND his support of these evils ] we need to **defeat **. THEN AND ONLY THEN ] can we work on the other intrinsic evils left in place!

Cite the Church teaching then. What you are stating is merely your opinion. If I am wrong, then I am sure that you can cite me the document that says I have to vote for a lesser pro-life candidate. So, do you intend to state anything other than your opinion? Is this really the best you can do?

 

[kimmielittle]

But we don’t have to cooperate with evil to do so. Romney’s position on abortion is evil, not as evil as Obama’s, but we are free to vote for a better alternative.

Sorry, your logic is flawed IMO

Asking again:

Can you logically defend your thoughts that voting for someone else KNOWINGLY ] with no chance to win, is a vote AGAINST Mr Obama?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Sorry, your logic is flawed IMO

Asking again:

At least we agree that we are arguing at the level of your opinion. We therefore agree that there is nothing in Church teaching that says that one must vote for Romney, since you have presented no Church teaching supporting that.

Tell me again, why must I vote for the pro-abortion Romney? We agree that he is pro-abortion in the case of rape and incest, so why does the Church say that I have to vote for Romney?

 

[St_Francis]

Altho I disagree with Stink_Cat about her decision, I do believe that a person has no moral obligation to vote for Romney just because he is vastly closer to the 100% pro-life stance on abortion than Obama and way more likely to win than Goode.

Our vote is like choosing between various actions. If I needed money, I could choose to rob a bank, to apply for a job, or to go and borrow some money from friends. I might decide to put my energy into borrowing because I am a cashier and do not want to ring up abc. But my friends are really broke, so it’s unlikely they’ll be able to lend me any money.

Obviously this is a terrible analogy, but the reality is that *neither *of the two latter choice is wrong, even tho the last will lead me to a position in which all I have left is robbing a bank!

*We are not responsible for the outcomes of our actions. *We are only responsible for the actions themselves. For those who believe that they cannot in good conscience vote for someone who is less than 100% pro-life, that is fine. That is not a sinful or immoral position.

 

[kimmielittle]

Cite the Church teaching then.

EVANGELIUM VITAE

1. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which **no human law **can claim to legitimize.
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

That is what you are voting against.

What you are stating is merely your opinion. If I am wrong, then I am sure that you can cite me the document that says I have to vote for a lesser pro-life candidate. So, do you intend to state anything other than your opinion? Is this really the best you can do?

So you intend to not protect the lives of 37 only 1% of the 3700 babies killed a day, under Mr Obama ] babies a day - because of the ** degree ** of evil?

You would allow this:?

cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-orders-catholics-act-against-their-faith-bishops-call-it-unconscionable

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” Dolan said in a statement.

“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable,” said Dolan. “It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically, this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

WE KNOW Mr Romney - doesn’t.

There is more than one reason to defeat Mr Obama - you chose to wear blinders in order to not vote AGAINST this administration. IMO

 

[RACJ]

I’ll be honest. After today’s news about Benghazi, I don’t understand how a single human with character being could vote for Obama and Biden. The father of slain SEAL Tyrone Woods said that Hillary promised him that the creator of the fraudulently blamed video would be arrested. No comment about bringing the REAL KILLERS to justice. And Biden asked the grieving dad if his son had always had b*lls the size of cueballs. We now learn that the White House denied THREE CIA urgent requests for support. No doubt Obama himself gave the order to stand down, despite the fact that a drone was taping the massacre real time.
Please Obama supporters, wake up before America suffers this evil man for four more years. Don’t force us to wake up to a nightmare on Nov. 7. Rob

 

[_Abyssinia]

NBC/Marist has a tie in Colorado (48%) and Obama up 2 in NV (50-47). Their last polls has O up 5 in CO and 2 in NV

Fox News VA poll has Romney up 2, 47-45. Their last poll had Obama up seven (a 9 pt shift)

[video]

Colarado republicans lead in early voting

Romney Draws 12,000 in Defiance, Ohio; Population 16,484–Obama Draws 12,000 in Cleveland; Population: 393,806

Romney places TV ads in Minnesota

Obama camp says MN ads are targeted to WI (Minneapolis market covers 7 WI counties) but buy comes after Romney camp went up in MN

Breaking: Obama campaign is going up with TV ads in… Minnesota

CNN Talks With Obama Camp And Says Obama’s Math “Still Doesn’t Add Up”

Former Obama National Security Adviser: No Progress In Middle East Under Obama

Romney “All In” on Ohio

Va: Obama underperforming amVA poll: Obama under performing among Black voters

Ohio in one tweet: 220k fewer Dems have voted vs 2008, 30k more GOP. That’s net 250k. Obama won by 260k in '08. Now 11 days left

CNN: Top Obama advisers “privately say it does look more likely that Romney will eke out a Virginia win”

Swingometer: Gallup Party ID figures predict solid Romney win

Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom says he believes race in MN is tied, which is why they’re going up with ads in Minneapolis

New Rasmussen poll - Wisconsin: Obama 49%, Romney 49%

Romney +35 w Independents in Nevada, Tied w D+9 sample - Gravis Poll gravispolls.com/2012/10/gravis-marketing-nevada-presidential.html … Devastating Internals for #Obama2012 #p2 #Mitt2012

 

[RACJ]

Altho I disagree with Stink_Cat about her decision, I do believe that a person has no moral obligation to vote for Romney just because he is vastly closer to the 100% pro-life stance on abortion than Obama and way more likely to win than Goode.

Our vote is like choosing between various actions. If I needed money, I could choose to rob a bank, to apply for a job, or to go and borrow some money from friends. I might decide to put my energy into borrowing because I am a cashier and do not want to ring up abc. But my friends are really broke, so it’s unlikely they’ll be able to lend me any money.

Obviously this is a terrible analogy, but the reality is that *neither *of the two latter choice is wrong, even tho the last will lead me to a position in which all I have left is robbing a bank!

*We are not responsible for the outcomes of our actions. *We are only responsible for the actions themselves. For those who believe that they cannot in good conscience vote for someone who is less than 100% pro-life, that is fine. That is not a sinful or immoral position.

I fail to understand folks who insist that if we can’t save 100% of the babies, we have no obligation to try to put people in place who will save as many as possible. Rob

 

[St_Francis]

I fail to understand folks who insist that if we can’t save 100% of the babies, we have no obligation to try to put people in place who will save as many as possible. Rob

That’s not where I am either, but it is a valid and moral position. We must act according to our conscience, which should be well-formed and shaped by prayer. I believe it *is *immoral to vote for Obama, no matter what (and the more I hear about him, the more I feel that way!), but I do not think that voting for Goode is immoral.