Ah, the old “Your party hasn’t been able to end abortion because my party has blocked them, so you have to vote for my party” ploy.
Actually, Vern refuses to acknowledge rather the candidate he clearly supports holds a lict position on abortion or not. He does, however, refer to him as “the pro-life candidate”.
You missed my point. They are, by Catholic morality standards, supporters of intrinsic evil on multiple fronts. By secular standards, they are ultra conservative lunatics - yet they have established a meaningful political voice.
Vern, just awhile ago you managed to be dishonest, uncharitable, illogical, and in possible violation of forum rules all in one post. Yet, you still can’t bring yourself to not be evasive to straightforward questions. I would take you more seriously if I had any indication that you felt a Christian obligation to the truth.Ah, the old “Your party hasn’t been able to end abortion because my party has blocked them, so you have to vote for my party” ploy.
Now, since there are no perfect candidates in any party, and since you say voting for an imperfect candidate is “intrinsically evil” then you can’t vote, now can you?
I didn’t miss your point. I disagree with it, as do the Priests for Life. In reality, we have a choice between two candidates. It is lunatic, by any standards, to deny that reality. While a vote for a third party is licit, I believe it is ill-advised and helps to elect someone who will be the worst choice for the direction of our country from a pro-life standpoint. However, you have made it clear that you don’t care about actual results. I have yet to see anything from the Church that supports that viewpoint.
Therefore you prefer that Democrats be elected? No? Well that is what your vote leads to.
Even if Vern is every ridiculous thing you, in your post, say about him, one thing can be said in his favor. Unlike you, he will not support abortion by voting for pro-abortion candidates or trying to convince other Catholics to betray their religion by doing it.Vern, just awhile ago you managed to be dishonest, uncharitable, illogical, and in possible violation of forum rules all in one post. Yet, you still can’t bring yourself to not be evasive to straightforward questions. I would take you more seriously if I had any indication that you felt a Christian obligation to the truth.
You keep talking about politics, reality, and practicality. But are you willing to take that to its logical conclussion? That is, are you saying that you put more trust in politicians than in God?
So far, I see no indication that there is boundary you will not cross with regards to abortion. Right now you are beating your chest for a canidate who publicly supported upholding Roe in 1999 and raised concerns about the risks of ‘back alley abortions’ (which was always a myth) just last year. Even in flip flopping, his position is intrinsically evil under Catholic teaching. Even when the field was flooded with blatant pro-abortionists, I never had a doubt you would ‘reconcile’ and vote GOP.
You did not even seem to catch the irony of the candidate’s name you raised to deride me. Don’t you recall what so many prominent leaders on the religious right warned about that candidacy? They threatened to ‘split’ with the GOP and support a 3rd party candidate if that nomination occured. I didn’t believe them, why should I have? Some of them made the same threat about the current presumptive nominee, they have since ‘converted’. It is inevitable, once faith is compromised for power, it is hard to regain one’s moral footing (see St. Paul’s epistles you profess to be fond of).
But even though I didn’t believe them, I still noticed that you did not decry them as a bunch of ‘pro abortionists’ working for the forces of evil. In fact, you voiced some support for the position at the time. Now that whining time for the poor cousins in the GOP caucus is over and it is time to pursue political goals, that argument is gone and you openly decry it. Another casuality of sacrificing one’s moral obligations for political expediency - one has to stomach representing an utter lack of moral consistancy.
But if you are as politically savvy as you proclaim, feeling confident in telling folks what’s what, how do you explain how the RNC views you? Surely someone as politically astute as you would have read, say, “How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative” by Allen Raymond, the convicted Republican operative. If you find his disclosures to be suspect (he is, after all, a convict), try looking at the discovery from some of the Abramof convictions.
So, oh-politically-savvy-one, which demographic do you think that the RNC puts you, “mouth breather” or “knuckle dragger”? I’d have guessed “RT”, but I am taking you at your word that abortion actually matters to you.
Oops! I think I just made an inaccurate statement directed toward SoCalDNC. I said he is trying to convince Catholics to vote for abortion. That is an inadequate statement. His alternative is to persuade Catholics to vote for impossible third party candidates, thus wasting their votes so the abortion candidate will win.
Vern, just awhile ago you managed to be dishonest, uncharitable, illogical, and in possible violation of forum rules all in one post. Yet, you still can’t bring yourself to not be evasive to straightforward questions. I would take you more seriously if I had any indication that you felt a Christian obligation to the truth.
You keep talking about politics, reality, and practicality. But are you willing to take that to its logical conclussion? That is, are you saying that you put more trust in politicians than in God?
So far, I see no indication that there is boundary you will not cross with regards to abortion. Right now you are beating your chest for a canidate who publicly supported upholding Roe in 1999 and raised concerns about the risks of ‘back alley abortions’ (which was always a myth) just last year. Even in flip flopping, his position is intrinsically evil under Catholic teaching. Even when the field was flooded with blatant pro-abortionists, I never had a doubt you would ‘reconcile’ and vote GOP.
You did not even seem to catch the irony of the candidate’s name you raised to deride me. Don’t you recall what so many prominent leaders on the religious right warned about that candidacy? They threatened to ‘split’ with the GOP and support a 3rd party candidate if that nomination occured. I didn’t believe them, why should I have? Some of them made the same threat about the current presumptive nominee, they have since ‘converted’. It is inevitable, once faith is compromised for power, it is hard to regain one’s moral footing (see St. Paul’s epistles you profess to be fond of).
But even though I didn’t believe them, I still noticed that you did not decry them as a bunch of ‘pro abortionists’ working for the forces of evil. In fact, you voiced some support for the position at the time. Now that whining time for the poor cousins in the GOP caucus is over and it is time to pursue political goals, that argument is gone and you openly decry it. Another casuality of sacrificing one’s moral obligations for political expediency - one has to stomach representing an utter lack of moral consistancy.
But if you are as politically savvy as you proclaim, feeling confident in telling folks what’s what, how do you explain how the RNC views you? Surely someone as politically astute as you would have read, say, “How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative” by Allen Raymond, the convicted Republican operative. If you find his disclosures to be suspect (he is, after all, a convict), try looking at the discovery from some of the Abramof convictions.
So, oh-politically-savvy-one, which demographic do you think that the RNC puts you, “mouth breather” or “knuckle dragger”? I’d have guessed “RT”, but I am taking you at your word that abortion actually matters to you.
Actually, socal refuses to acknowledge that his argument support the pro-abortionists.
I’m glad you made a correction. Your first assertion is incoherent unless you have a very skewed understanding of Catholic pro-life teaching. This assertion is utterly false. And I have offered to defend myself against it once before. But I indicated that I wanted to tackle your incoherent theological argument first.
As usual, you have a real problem with honesty.
We have already established that you are proud to proclaim that you do not read what you condemn. ‘I don’t need to know anything to have an opinion’ is not a position I would broadcast (given the secular bias towards informed thought over ignorant intolerance), but you are welcome to it.
No, you’re the one with a problem with honesty.
There is your honesty problem. You keep pretending that the Church forbids me to vote for a less than perfect candidate. That is evidence of disnhonesty on your part.
Is honesty not part of your makeup? Does your ability cast slurs of incest on those you debate make you proud? Or is it simply a matter of believing that deception and misdirection are suitable forms of discourse?
Got rained out of my work, so I guess I can waste a few minutes here for one post before undertaking my wife’s bidding. There’s always Monday.
And he forgot that PMs are automatically archived.Incest? You really accused someone on here of committing incest? My, my.
SocaIRC speaks with conviction, with beliefs lived. It is good to listen more carefully to him/her.
Like Ridgerunner, I think Vern does not deserve some unpleasant labels. I appreciate Vern’s action: Not supporting aborton by voting or pro-abortion candidates. People must stand and act by the faith the claim to possess.
Ridgerunner, relax! Let us be reminded that someone said (and did it) that a lie repeated many times is perceived as true. In like manner, someone may have the notion that a silly argument repeated so many times in so many posts would appear to be reasonable. But, we trust there are many intelligent people who will not fall for that strategy. If one has really good logical arguments, will he hide it in unpleasant language?Got rained out of my work, so I guess I can waste a few minutes here for one post before undertaking my wife’s bidding. There’s always Monday.
Did you really accuse someone of incest in a PM as Vern says? If you’re capable of that, then your absolutely false statements, slander really, of Catholic Justices Roberts and Alito should have come as no surprise.
The problem with engaging in theological argument with you, SoCalDNC is that you pay no attention to anything anyone says. You assert something. Somebody overwhelmingly proves you wrong. Then you simply assert the same thing again later or some new thing that’s equally a misrepresentation of the Church’s position. That’s why this thread is so excruciatingly long, and why so many who have absolutely devastated your arguments, have just quit posting in it. But you know that.
It’s a shame that people seem to visit these threads but do not post. Those who do at random, see your last blast, but would have to have the patience of Job to go back through the 500+ posts to see where you have been definitively refuted on some point, which you have, many times. I guess that’s the objective of your approach. When trying to get Catholics to vote for abortionists or to waste their votes so the abortionist supporters, who will not waste their votes on third party candidates, there is some advantage in filling the screen time and again as you do. It’s too bad, really.
But there’s a bright side. Judging from the last couple of posts, you seem to be getting nastier and nastier in your comments. That’s a good thing, because people who read them without reading everything that went before, may well conclude that you’re just a mean-spirited jerk, and go to another thread.
Incest? You really accused someone on here of committing incest? My, my.
But, I am sorry for his convictions. I pray that he will have good life.
The exact circumstances are as follows, I noted that there was no reason maligning people with stereotypes, though it is occassionally very tempting to do so in anger.