Obama vs Romney, who are you voting for and why?

[mary_bobo]

:hmm:Wow, love the way you spin that one, Guess you must have missed his speech to his friends in Boca,at the fund raiser you know, when he told them he didn’t have time for the 47% non tax payers , the"Victims".
Put faces on those 47%,Sir, the wounded warriors, the old sick and feeble , the struggling t Mothers in the projects scrapping to nurture and care for their babes, the handicapped men, women and children and the list goes on, I didn’t hear the compassion in that man when he was talking to the choir.
Peace, Carlan

WOW, talk about spin! If you don’t know what Romney meant when talking to a bunch of donors, then you don’t know much about how political campaigns work. He was merely telling them that those are not votes, or donations, he can count on. In no way did he say he did not care about their well-being.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

He “alienated” a Polish parish that “hired” a priest from another diocese without the bishop’s consent. This priest drives a BMW and lives in a downtown loft, because living in the Rectory was too stressful. This priest also officiated at a Womenpriest “ordination” of women (in a Synagogue no less)!!

He did not protect naughty priests. He didn’t “leave” St. Louis. He was elevated to the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.

Because of him, our seminary is over flowing. Additions had to be made to accommodate these many fine men.

Christine has it exactly right, though I’d note that there’s nothing wrong with a priest driving a BMW. Wish I could!

 

[Pitcharan]

You are NOT to vote for a pro abortion candidate as a Catholic.What is it that you are not getting? Do the research if you are so perplexed. You are to vote for the candidate that will do the least harm to the unborn. Read the Catholic voters guide to start.

Catholic voters who do not heed this guide cannot be called foolish. The authors of the guide had valid reasons and the ones who did not accept it had their own valid reasons.

 

[Lapey]

:hmm:Wow, love the way you spin that one, Guess you must have missed his speech to his friends in Boca,at the fund raiser you know, when he told them he didn’t have time for the 47% non tax payers , the"Victims".
Put faces on those 47%,Sir, the wounded warriors, the old sick and feeble , the struggling t Mothers in the projects scrapping to nurture and care for their babes, the handicapped men, women and children and the list goes on, I didn’t hear the compassion in that man when he was talking to the choir.
Peace, Carlan

He may have been off just a tad on the percentage, but for the most part his comments were dead on. I would guess that about 44% of the electorate will vote for Obama no matter what, this is the point he was trying to make. The media and the present administration have turned it into Romney not caring for these people or “writing them off” in anything more than their votes. He can write off their vote, right? This is what he said in context.

We’ve already had this discussion; it is close to half of the population that does not pay fed income taxes. This is fact. Now move on please. And btw, true compassion is not words. If you hear compassion in Obama’s voice where is that compassion in his actions? Condemning people to unemployment rolls and welfare addiction is not compassion, neither is it charity.

 

[seekerz]

1. The mills run because abortion on demand is legal. Bill Clinton’s “safe legal. and rare” is not good enough. This is only the mother’s rights and perspectives, what about the living child which is always ended in a safe, legal and rare abortion?
2. Abortion is one of the issues the Church defines and an intrinsically evil act. There are several; abortion, euthanasia, same sex unions, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning. The democrat party platform endorses some if not all of them. The republican platform endorses none.

It is not name calling nor accusatory to discuss these issues in the truth of Church doctrine, this is the authoritative teachings which we Catholics are called to form our conscience to be in compliance with. If we choose to be outside of that then we must try our best to learn why our conscience is in opposition to the truth of the Church. Is it our conscience that is right, or is it the Church?

This is the question that each of us Catholics must ask ourselves, not which candidate we “can” vote for. I asked myself a question when I was much younger than I am now, back in the early 90’s when I was a registered democrat who voted party line. When the 94 republican “revolution” as it was called happened I was furious. “Why were they lying about what Bill C was trying to get done”, I remember asking my mother, I was about 28 at the time? Well then this question kept ringing in my head, why is it I can support someone who believes in legal abortion, and other issues my Church teaches against? Am I Catholic first, or a free American; which is it, I must choose? No matter which it is my responsibilities come in either way to protect the most vulnerable in society.

Some may think this next statement means I do not care about the poor, I can assure you the diaconate ministry I participate in is not directed at the rich in society, I am a deacon in the Church a servant to the poor. With that said the level of poverty in this country does not even come close to the loss of life and suffering caused by abortion. Suffering of the unborn that are being killed, the mothers who will suffer traumatically for the rest of their lives, suffering of the families of everyone involved, suffering of the entire American community which we call home. I have worked with and I’m sure I will again soon, young ladies who have been talked into taking this “choice” called abortion, it destroys much more than the child in the womb.

There is also nothing in the republican platform, nor from what the candidate does that you can discern the disdain for the poor which some say Romney holds. Some of the issues brought up against him are hard to believe about anyone.

To those who will dismiss my words as simply toeing the republican line there is nothing I can say to change that thought, only you can change that. I pray you can at least see my words are sincere, you may choose to disagree with me as that is your choice; all I ask is to read my words with the intent in which they are written.

Thank you for your words sincere words. Thank you also for not dismissing my views or questioning my faith. Obviously, people of faith can disagree respectfully. My moral evaluation of Romney vs Obama is based on more than abortion or the needs of the poor. I expect reasonable people of faith to understand and respect that even if they don’t see the same issues I see.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Originally Posted by Robert Sock
I will not be voting. I’ll be praying instead.

May y’alls praying lead you to voting, so get to praying!

 

[seekerz]

Regardless of who wins, there will be poor and downtrodden. However, after four years of the man you endorse, they are much worse off.

Why the inconsistent logic?

What inconsistent logic? You assume much. Abortion and poverty are not the only moral issues to be evaluated in this campaign. At least, not in my book, as a person of faith.

 

[seekerz]

Catholic voters who do not heed this guide cannot be called foolish. The authors of the guide had valid reasons and the ones who did not accept it had their own valid reasons.

Truth.

 

[_Abyssinia]

His Excellency Most Rev. Alexander Sample, Bishop of Marquette has written an article on the Church’s teaching on life

Another called ‘A Consequential Election’

 

[rlg94086]

What inconsistent logic? You assume much. Abortion and poverty are not the only moral issues to be evaluated in this campaign. At least, not in my book, as a person of faith.

Can you share the non-prudential faith issues that lead you to prefer Obama?

 

[Richca]

Thank you very much

for that information. Yes, he was serious.
From his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court:

Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?

Mr. Roberts. I don't--Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the

land. It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

This provides even less of a rational reason to assume the Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade, and makes by decision to vote for Obama even easier.

If you agree with Mr. Roberts that legalized abortion is a settled law of the land, then your conscience is in error as is Mr. Roberts. For no human law that is not in conformity with the divine law is a law at all, it is illicit and nobody can be forced against their conscience to obey it. ( Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life)

It fully confirms what I had said earlier about this issue and the GOP:

 

[seekerz]

Can you share the non-prudential faith issues that lead you to prefer Obama?

Not in this thread, but maybe in a theology one.

 

[seekerz]

As this point was made by another poster on this thread, it is not rational or reasonable to assume that a candidate and party who fully support an illicit law such as legalized abortion is more in conformity with the divine law than a candidate and party who is opposed to such a law. This is very irrational.

 

[rlg94086]

Not in this thread, but maybe in a theology one.

Why? What is inappropriate about sharing your reasons in a thread titled "Obama vs Romney, who are you voting for and why?"

What is irrational to you might be perfectly logical to someone else, particularly one who is not a one-issue voter.

It might be…hard to tell when that “logic” is being kept a secret.

 

[seekerz]

Why? What is inappropriate about sharing your reasons in a thread titled "Obama vs Romney, who are you voting for and why?"

Forum rules regarding discussion of a candidate’s faith.

 

[rlg94086]

Because to my knowledge, discussion of a candidate’s faith is not to be done in political threads though it may be done on theology threads that do not name the individuals.

Ah…it’s a religious bigotry issue. Now, I understand. I think it’s okay to just say “because he’s Mormon.”

 

[seekerz]

Ah…it’s a religious bigotry issue. Now I understand.

Bigotry? What on earth gave you that idea?

 

[seekerz]

It might be…hard to tell when that “logic” is being kept a secret.

I do not have to explain my logic to anyone. I was simply responding to those who take it upon themselves to judge the consciences of people like myself. It’s not their place - a really simple concept to digest…

 

[rlg94086]

I do not have to explain my logic to anyone. I was simply responding to those who take it upon themselves to judge the consciences of people like myself. It’s not their place - a really simple concept to digest…

Sure. You don’t have to explain your reasons to anyone. It just seems like a complete waste of time in a forum to not share your views, opinion and logic. Unless, of course, you are just here as a contrarian and to post a lot of smilies.

 

[seekerz]

I think it’s okay to just say “because he’s Mormon.”

Thanks for the permission, but calling someone a Mormon provides as much information on the reasoning we are discussing, as calling someone a Protestant. I don’t like dealing in labels: specific or generic ones, however, I do like dealing in*** concepts*** as those tend to be what shape human actions and decisions.