It should be remembered that there are five non-negotiables as far as the Church is concerned and the current president is in favor of all of them. The other things that have been mentioned are not as black and white and IMO are only thrown in to muddy the waters by those who put party over policy. Often these are the same folks who think there is only one way to solve a problem and that would be to throw more money at it.
Who has proposed that the only one way to solve a problem is to throw more money at it?? I think that any politician who would say such a thing would be out of office at the next election, so I’m in the dark about who said that.
Ya, freedom, personal liberty, and responsible government are so 18th century. What we really need are more bourgeois elitist intellectual power mongers telling us how to live our lives. I can see why people like Obama, Romney, and Santorum.
So what does one call the overturning of the Mexico City policy as one of the first acts as president, or fighting the Infants Born Alive Act as a state Senator?
Why? Who said that I will vote for Mr. Romney in November? I certainly won’t vote for Mr. Obama in November (NB: I can’t BELIEVE I just used both of their proper names…but CAF rules are CAF rules…)
Without me wanting to sound patronizing that is something else people have to realize, the views of abortion of a President don’t just influence the abortion laws in America they extend to other countries via the Mexico City Policy. Barack Obama has also tried to illegally push abortion in Kenya.So what does one call the overturning of the Mexico City policy as one of the first acts as president, or fighting the Infants Born Alive Act as a state Senator?
Hehehe, We, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, are prone to calling our northern border the DMZ and our northern neighbor the People’s Republik of Merryland (It was named after the Blessed Virgin, but I think she left a while ago).
You are right, to keep your seat as a Democrat, you have to say “more of rich peoples money”.Who has proposed that the only one way to solve a problem is to throw more money at it?? I think that any politician who would say such a thing would be out of office at the next election, so I’m in the dark about who said that.
Yep. Should have made that clear. Can’t get blood out of a stone by proposing to get more money from the poor.
I submit to you that with the ability to print and borrow in the trillions, the only reason to put the squeeze on the rich is for votes. Just off the top of my head, I’m going to guess that you couldn’t get a trillion of our debt paid off if you taxed the rich 100 percent.
This
And all this spending on the poor has only increased those who are on the dole.
Are there any statistics corroborating that relationship? It sounds quite possible as those who are getting assistance will attract others to do the same, but it might not necessarily be so.This
And all this spending on the poor has only increased those who are on the dole. .
Wrong. I’m a liberal, but I can’t abide Obama and I won’t vote Republican, so I will need not vote for President at all. You can do the same.
The fact is there are more Americans on the dole than ever. Do you want me to link?
My question focused on whether that increase is the cause of having more on the dole. Of course, there are more on welfare, but why?
Unless you are developing the Manhattan Project or trying to get men into space.
I guess you realize that you are not only electing a president, you are electing his party as well. IMO, not voting is a vote for Obama. Do you really think the country can go with another four years of Obama?
Because they can’t get jobs or are underemployed. Obama’s policies are not helping the poor.
Those are not problems, they’re projects!Unless you are developing the Manhattan Project or trying to get men into space.
T’would seem that the number of things that went wrong with those two, especially with the space program, made for a host of problems the solutions for which cost large amounts of money.
whatever!!!
