C
CMatt25
Guest
The right we have to vote for whom we choose should never be threatened and I for one will never lambast you for voting for Virgil Goode. Peace be with you in your vote.
- Status
E
epan
Guest
You are correct. Both Biden and Romney talk impulsively, in my opinion. Have you listened to Romney on foreign affairs? Every time he opens his mouth, he sounds like a fourth grader. Every time that he has been critical of the President publicly, he has gotten the facts wrong, or it was inappropriate to be criticizing him at that time. He only appears to think of his own personal gain, and not what is best for our country. If you don’t like Obama’s lack of sophistication in those matters, then you might like Romney’s less.
I heard a first hand account of Mr. Obama making the decision to go in with force in Libya to save some lives. The right in the press and the Congress were vilifying him for not taking military action. He met with the Joint Chiefs. They recommended “no fly” zone, as favored by France and Britain. “What would a no fly zone achieve against a ground attack?” the President asked. “Nothing,” was the reply. “What are our other options?” “None.” Getting nowhere in his effort, the President turned to the lesser ranked individuals, who normally would not speak in such a meeting. He asked each one for their opinion on alternatives. Then he directed the Chiefs to go come up with plan which would save lives, and they would meet again in two hours. When they did meet the next time, a plan was presented to intercept the ground forces. The plan was executed. Now the same people who vilified the President for not taking action changed their attacks to criticizing him for taking military action, and risking another conflict. The very same people, and on the very same day criticized him publicly on the one hand for not doing something fast enough, and then for doing what they wanted him to do supposedly as fast as he could, given the situation. Go figure.
My point is that everything have become so adversarial, that no matter what a president does, he will be attacked either by the conservative or the liberal press. Then when he does the opposite, he will again be attacked by the same people. The point is not that they want the right thing done. The point is that they want to weaken the President at every opportunity.
No matter who is elected, I will support him to the best of my ability.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Don’t get tired of it, it’s a fact. Intention is irrelevant when the person has no chance on the face of the earth of winning. It is the equivalent of not voting at all. The one candidate who is pro life that has a chance to win (Romney) loses a vote because you decide to vote for a candidate who can’t win.
If you really can’t see the logic you have deluded yourself.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Logic?
How is a lost vote for one an automantic vote for the other when neither of them gets it?
R
ringil
Guest
I agree with this. I speak of Conservative and Liberal as that is the terminology of politics and is the discussion of the CAF political forum.
There is no right or left in Catholicism.
I am a liberal in terms of the role of Government and my believe that it can and should contribute to the betterment of society. I believe that Governments can be a powerful and positive engine of social change on a secular level. That is what Liberal is- a pro-choice stance or an approval of Gay marriage is not part and parcel of what Liberalism is.
T
Tommy72
Guest
I’ll be voting for Romney; the is no way a practicing Catholic can vote for Obama.
Morality requires we avoid doing evil, even indirectly. Citizens support evil indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them.
The 5 non-negotiables are:
Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual “marriage”.
I teach RCIA and I’ll be addressing this on Sunday. Ill be using the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics which is actually put out by Catholic Answers. It states: “in many elections the are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the non-negotiable issues. Citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.”
Morality requires we avoid doing evil, even indirectly. Citizens support evil indirectly if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them.
The 5 non-negotiables are:
Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual “marriage”.
I teach RCIA and I’ll be addressing this on Sunday. Ill be using the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics which is actually put out by Catholic Answers. It states: “in many elections the are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the non-negotiable issues. Citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.”
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I agree with you.
Romney was not my first choice or my second, but I’ll vote for him all the same because I feel it is morally imperative to oppose evil when I have the opportunity to do it. The promoter of evil in this campaign is Barack Obama. No question about that from a Catholic perspective.
So, if Romney does not please me in every way, and if someone else does who has no chance at all is more pleasing to me, does that change my moral obligation and allow me to throw my vote away on a candidate who cannot possibly defeat Obama?
I see no way that it does. I am sure I will have a lot to answer for in front of the King of Kings someday. But failing to effectively oppose evil when I could have done it, is not going to be one of those things.
People really ought to think about that and about whether they are motivated by anything other than personal vanity in voting for themselves or Virgil Goode, or whomever.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Catholics Are Prohibited From Voting for Obama / Educational Video
youtube.com/watch?v=0BTVNpLyrKc
Created by Catholic Answers, producer of Rosary Films
youtube.com/watch?v=0BTVNpLyrKc
Created by Catholic Answers, producer of Rosary Films
S
Seeker1961
Guest
“I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message”
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
waits for the Left wing spin to begin: the article isn’t a real article; the article means the opposite of what it says; the article was written on Mars, so it doesn’t apply to us; but I have to vote for Obama, he is for free bubble gum for everybody
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Video does not say you have to vote for Romney, but given Obama’s record on embryonic stem cell research, abortion, homosexual marriage etc he rules himself out for Catholics votes
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
I get this stuff from friends on both sides. “How ever can you refuse to vote? That’s the same as a vote for Obama!!”
And, “Not vote? That’s a vote for Romney!!” To me, a vote for neither is just that - a vote for neither.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
It is CATHOLIC TEACHING. Now, you can ignore it all you want, I suppose, but it doesn’t make it any less Catholic Teaching.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
A distinction without a difference.
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
Nope. They are saying, in effect, that you can’t vote for Obama. You could choose to not vote at all. (Although I would argue that that could get Obama re-elected).A distinction without a difference.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
The other commercials don’t either, but there is no missing the intent of the message.
It just struck me funny…carry on.
S
Seeker1961
Guest
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Politics should not be of more importance then obeying Catholic teaching and the state of your soul
L
Luigi_Daniele
Guest
I won’t. I have prayed for you, actually.Ya gonna kick me out of the Church if I don’t vote your way, copper?
A person risks kicking themself out (that is what excommunication really is, after all) by voting for a candidate that is proven to support several intrinsic evils (abortion, gay so called marriage, forcing the Church to pay for abortions or be fined). It really is as simple as that.
T
Tommy72
Guest
- Status