Our Next President

[Rich_Olszewski]

It’s arrogance to suggest that the government can wipe out poverty and injustice.

Yes, but it can help those of us who fight poverty on an individual level. As far as injustice is concerned, I think that the government, at our prodding and insistence, can do a great deal to wipe out injustice, more than we can as individuals. It’s done a decent job with civil rights legislation, for instance.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

The problem for many of you in this discussion is that politics in the US is based on a two party system. Never in the history of the US has a third party canditate succeeded. At best, most third party presidential candidates were spoilers, they took votes away from one candidate or another insuring that another candidate that they secretly backed would win the election. A classic example of this in recent years was H. Ross Perot.
As important as the abortion issue is, please realize that voting for a third party candidate or abstaining from voting in November, is in effect a vote for Obama.
Never forget that Obama is the most anti-Catholic president in the history of the U.S… And, remember that he has lied (softened by “spin”) more often to the people than all of his predecessors put togetheri including Clinton.
So, face up to the realities of American politics: you may not approve or even like a candidate in opposition to a someone you cannot abide, but voting for him or her is preferable if it gets an abhorrant candidate out of office. An abstination from voting in such an election almost guarentees that the candidate you oppose will be elected.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes, but it can help those of us who fight poverty on an individual level. As far as injustice is concerned, I think that the government, at our prodding and insistence, can do a great deal to wipe out injustice, more than we can as individuals. It’s done a decent job with civil rights legislation, for instance.

Civil rights laws did nothing to erase racism from people’s hearts. There are still a lot of racists in our society. Injustice is how we treat one another.

Jesus wants us to change our hearts. He wants mercy, not sacrifice.

Government cannot eradicate poverty and injustice.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Civil rights laws did nothing to erase racism from people’s hearts. There are still a lot of racists in our society. Injustice is how we treat one another.

Jesus wants us to change our hearts. He wants mercy, not sacrifice.

Government cannot eradicate poverty and injustice.

I can almost guarantee that the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only legally balanced the scales. They actually, in many places, entrenched racial hostility in a lot of people.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

As important as the abortion issue is, please realize that voting for a third party candidate or abstaining from voting in November, is in effect a vote for Obama.

Why is he the default candidate? Why doesn’t an abstention from voting accrue to the GOP candidate?

So, face up to the realities of American politics: you may not approve or even like a candidate in opposition to a someone you cannot abide, but voting for him or her is preferable if it gets an abhorrant candidate out of office. An abstination from voting in such an election almost guarentees that the candidate you oppose will be elected.

There’s such a thing as principle. There will be some, e.g. writing in Dr. Paul’s name even knowing that he will not win.

As far as I’m concerned, that “a no vote is a vote for Obama” is just GOP propaganda.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Civil rights laws did nothing to erase racism from people’s hearts. There are still a lot of racists in our society.

Yes, but the laws served to open opportunities closed to black people, who were getting no justice under the racial laws. Racists, like the poor, will always be with us, to be sure.

Injustice is how we treat one another.

We have different definitions. I see injustice as how some people are treated, not necessarily how we treat people.

J

 

[qui_est_ce]

I can almost guarantee that the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only legally balanced the scales. They actually, in many places, entrenched racial hostility in a lot of people.

That’s a good thing and about all government can do for injustice.

Racial tension is still very high in this country despite civil rights laws. This is because people have not changed their hearts and government cannot change a person’s heart.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I can almost guarantee that the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only legally balanced the scales. They actually, in many places, entrenched racial hostility in a lot of people.

I agree. But, legal balance was a step forward, and a stepping stone towards more.

 

[qui_est_ce]

We have different definitions. I see injustice as how some people are treated, not necessarily how we treat people.

I didn’t word that well.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

This is because people have not changed their hearts and government cannot change a person’s heart.

But, it can serve to minimize the effect of a refusal to change one’s heart. One can still hate black people, but can no longer be overt about practicing that hatred.

 

[pnewton]

Just curious, what makes you think this?

Context.

 

[SamH]

Context.

OK, at least you are not claiming it was based on something of substance.

 

[exoflare]

I’m not sure of his point either. Perhaps that there will always be poor. But that doesn’t mean society should not further strive to eleviate the numbers.

This is just about the best Freudian slip ever.

 

[VLS2487]

I feel Santorum is more pro family and has worked consistantly for the family unit. Until the United States starts protecting the family unit and all that strengthens it all other issues are irrelevant.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Which after listening to a homily about the poor, is exactly a reason why I no longer attend the Catholic Church in what is the territorial parish for Catholics in my neighborhood. His guidance on how to live the Gospel didn’t square with what I read in the Gospel.

If that is true, why are you corresponding on a Catholic site? Guilt??? Your statement is right out of a Protestant handbook. You sound more like a Southern Baptist than a Roman Catholic.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Obama will win

 

[ishii]

Obama will win

And so will abortion rights, gay marriage, trillion dollar deficits, etc.

Ishii

 

[JimG]

And so will abortion rights, gay marriage, trillion dollar deficits, etc.

Ishii

Which means that everyone loses. The deficit in particular will destroy the U.S., which will drag down the rest of the western economies with it.

 

[Bklynguy]

Wow…pretty conservative group here, although I’m not too surprised. If this forum was available in 1960, the Democratic candidate, JFK, would have probably won by a landslide. This shows how much the Democratic party over the last generation has turned off religious Catholics. I make a distinction between Catholics as a whole and religious Catholics. President Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008, but that includes lapsed Catholics, and there are many.

 

[JimG]

Wow…pretty conservative group here, although I’m not too surprised. If this forum was available in 1960, the Democratic candidate, JFK, would have probably won by a landslide. This shows how much the Democratic party over the last generation has turned off religious Catholics. I make a distinction between Catholics as a whole and religious Catholics. President Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008, but that includes lapsed Catholics, and there are many.

Indeed, the Democratic party has changed drastically since 1960, becoming the party of abortion, enormous spending, gay marriage–but mainly abortion, which has become central to the party’s identity. I voted Democratic for a long time after 1960 out of habit before I realized that my old party was no more.