Republican hopefuls in TV debate

[CMatt25]

No, but you favor allowing other people to abort…there is no difference. As Scott said, it’s like saying, *I wouldn’t never kill my own wife, but I wouldn’t think it fair to prevent someone else from making that choice." Ditto for my comments on slavery. You’ve come full circle in your lack of argument.

So, you are for banning all abortions except for cases where a woman will absolutely die if she doesn’t have one? I’m okay with that political compromise.

I already addressed Scott’s proposal. And just because you do not agree with a pro choice POV on **this **issue in a democracy of plural faith beliefs does not make it any more a lack of anything than your argument and opinions are. That’s nice though you’re ok with some compromise. I just didn’t know your church favored direct abortion in such cases. If it doesn’t though, I won’t say you can not identify as a Catholic and risk discouraging you. I know the Church’s Catholic answer is you can. In any case as I said this issue is not going to be decided by us on this thread on CAF. So I depart from this thread rather than continuing to go in circles with you here. Again may God bless. Carry on with GOP hopefuls.

 

[rlg94086]

I already addressed Scott’s proposal. And just because you do not agree with a pro choice POV on **this **issue in a democracy of plural faith beliefs does not make it any more a lack of anything than your argument and opinions are.

Nope. My argument is well reasoned. You’ve been unable to defend your’s in a logical fashion. You’re attempt to dismiss it all with an everything’s relative approach won’t cut it.

CMatt25:

That’s nice though you’re ok with some compromise. I just didn’t know your church favored direct abortion in such cases. If it doesn’t though, I won’t say you can not identify as a Catholic and risk discouraging you. I know the Church’s Catholic answer is you can. In any case as I said this issue is not going to be decided by us on this thread on CAF. So I depart from this thread rather than continuing to go in circles with you here. Again may God bless. Carry on with GOP hopefuls.

God bless. I hope you continue to educate yourself on the Truth as revealed by Christ’s Church and come into full communion.

 

[ishii]

Hi Ishii, no I’ve already said I do not agree the terms are necessarily interchangeable. Neither do I necessarily think it is correct to make such a blanket statement about pro choice Americans advocating abortion on demand. Roe v Wade itself allows for restrictions. And many pro choice persons don’t even vote for a candidate because that candidate is pro choice. They are not single issue voters.

I take life seriously Ishii. Life to me is a range of a whole host of issues.

Being billed later might be the concern, Ishii, that Leader Pelosi has for many women who could not afford the bill if the GOP House denies them health insurance coverage. And then as a result their choice is either not being able to afford saving their life or die.

Other than spending time on anti abortion legislation to pacify their base, when in these times the priority for Americans is not these social issues but jobs and the economy, I’m not sure what the GOP wants other than to also make Barack Obama a 1 termer. I do wonder though at times if perhaps the GOP has not considered the many facets of this very difficult issue, including what happens to the woman’s life if she could not afford the out of pocket expense to save her life.

Peace be with you Ishii.

So just to be clear, you disagree with the bishops when they said that pro-choice= pro-abortion?

Ishii

 

[Pork_Roll]

How does one reconcile a “just distribution of wealth” and “free market principles” ? Who is going to do the distributing? Also, in what way does the GOP/conservative movement support damaging the environment?

Santorum supports the coal industry which can’t be made clean. Current coal development is destructive to the landscape and pollutes the air horribly. I grew up with asthma likely because I had to breath coal pollution from Pennsylvania and Ohio. Let me make something clear, how we tax or how we protect the environment is of secondary importance to the right to life or the protection of marriage between a man and woman.

Unfortunately, too few catholic politicians have allowed papal encyclicals to inspire their economic plans. I believe that these encyclicals could put our country on the right track economically.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes. And yes I know it is not only Catholic. And yet there are many Christians who are pro choice. Everything is not so simple and black and white to many Christians. And that 1% rare life you mentioned is just as important to some who strive to choose life . God bless!

Who said the 1% life wasn’t important? And yes it is Black and White. When you play in the mud you get dirty. Beause your get dirty you choose genocide? What a lovely concept of rational thinking.

Emergency medical is rare, no-one is contesting this point. The wanton acts of pleasure which lead to Abortion are an abomination. And it is that simple. Because you chose to act off you feelings another should pay with their life? Bottom line is its immature thinking with the ME MYSELF and I concept in mind only.

What possible senerio makes sense? I’m listening?

Peace

 

[Pork_Roll]

My favorite part of the debate was when Santorum finally brought up the point that the family is the center of the economy–That was awesome. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would only benefit the most wealthy who make most of their income on capital gains. What a stupid tax plan.

 

[irishpatrick]

My favorite part of the debate was when Santorum finally brought up the point that the family is the center of the economy–That was awesome. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would only benefit the most wealthy who make most of their income on capital gains. What a stupid tax plan.

Yes, I agree–Santorum made the best point of the night, and it shocks me that so few people (on a Catholic forum of all places) refuse to support him. They have no right to complain of the next President goes against what they wanted–they have a very strong Catholic man running and a ton of people here simply refuse to give him serious consideration. I am amazed.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes, I agree–Santorum made the best point of the night, and it shocks me that so few people (on a Catholic forum of all places) refuse to support him. They have no right to complain of the next President goes against what they wanted–they have a very strong Catholic man running and a ton of people here simply refuse to give him serious consideration. I am amazed.

Santorum is a little to hawkish for my tastes and seems to have little clue about why the economy is in such a state of disaster.

 

[scipio337]

All except Romney are toast. Gingrich really doesn’t want to be President, he wants to be Professor in Chief. Santorum is a very good man, unable to keep the spotlight on himself.

The campaign will be between Obama and Romney. Romney will be hobbled by his Mormonism and Obama will be dogged with claims that he is Muslim.

Still, the claims that Obama is Muslim might be enough to allow the Christian Right to hold its collective nose and accept Romney.

God save America.

Wasn’t religion taken off the table as a campaign topic in 2008? If our President can get by with attending Rev. Wrights church for 20 years, why would Romney’s Mormonism, or even Perry’s pastor’s puerile comments (say that quickly, 3 times!) matter?

 

[_Abyssinia]

GOP debates are attracting twice the TV audiences of four years ago - New York Times

 

[Pork_Roll]

they have a very strong Catholic man running and a ton of people here simply refuse to give him serious consideration. I am amazed.

Newt is catholic too and is very sharp. I think between them and maybe Ron Paul you have some pretty solid choices. But yeah he’s a good guy, too bad he has no chance. I probably wouldn’t agree with his foreign policies of military interventionism and his idea of cutting social security and keeping military spending as is.

 

[ManOnFire]

“Legalization” is not Ron Paul’s position. Decriminalization at the federal level is his position. He wants to reduce the federal government’s role in illegal drugs and put it back on the states and local communities that have closer, more rational control over the issue. Saying that he “supports the legalization of all drugs” is a gross misinterpretation of the position. If it is being done out of ignorance, that is one thing, but if the position is being intentionally distorted, it is a form of bearing false witness.

Q: In your 1988 campaign you said, “All drugs should be decriminalized. Is that still your position."
A: Yeah. It’s sort of like alcohol. Alcohol’s a deadly drug, kills more people than anything else. And today the absurdity on this war on drugs has just been horrible. Now the federal government takes over and overrules states where state laws permit medicinal marijuana 1 for people dying of cancer. The federal government goes in and arrests these people, put them in prison with mandatory sentences. This war on drugs is totally out of control. If you want to regulate cigarettes and alcohol and drugs, it should be at the state level. That’s where I stand on it. The federal government has no prerogatives on this.
Q: But you would decriminalize it?
A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there.

If Paul could couple it with a rider which states that the States cannot receive federal aid to help with all the new dependency once they decriminalize drugs, then fine, but the reality is that it’s just too easy to vote to give someone else’s money away.

 

[irishpatrick]

Newt is catholic too and is very sharp. I think between them and maybe Ron Paul you have some pretty solid choices. But yeah he’s a good guy, too bad he has no chance. I probably wouldn’t agree with his foreign policies of military interventionism and his idea of cutting social security and keeping military spending as is.

He has no chance because Catholics won’t take a serious look at a Catholic (not applying this to any specific person here).

 

[irishpatrick]

Santorum is a little to hawkish for my tastes and seems to have little clue about why the economy is in such a state of disaster.

He understands that we need serious cuts to make real progress and that the way of socialism must be immediately dumped. However, he is the only candidate with the wisdom to understand that the family is the key to the economy. He wants to incentivize families and he wants to protect traditional marriages, all with an eye on the fact that only with strong families, can we have a thriving economy–families are, and always have been, the keep to a robust and healthy nation (on all levels) and he has the wisdom to see that. Two parent (as in one father one mother) provided the stable foundation for children and for the culture at large.

I fear (and I do mean fear) that we are trying to put the cart before the horse. We want fixes to the economy without giving serious thoughts to the real solutions. If we cannot become a more family centered people, and if we cannot become a more life centered people, than our economy will never flourish. Santorum is 100% correct about that and imo we Catholics should stand with him!

 

[qui_est_ce]

Does anybody know which-] channel/-] network will air the debates?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I know this is a little off topic, but don’t know where else to ask. Pat Buchannon asserts that the Republican Party will not be on a national level by 2041 because of a lack of White predominance in America.

Excerpt:

What are the seemingly inevitable consequences of an America where whites are a shrinking minority?

First, the end of a national Republican Party that routinely gets 90 percent of its presidential votes from white America.

California is the harbinger of what is to come.

Carried by Richard Nixon in all five presidential elections when he was on the ticket and by Ronald Reagan all four times he ran, California, where whites are now a shrinking minority, is a state where the GOP faces extinction. John McCain’s share of the California vote was down to the Barry Goldwater level of 1964.

When Texas, where two-thirds of the newborns and half the schoolchildren are Hispanic, goes the way of California, it is the end for the GOP. Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, also critical to any victorious GOP coalition, are Hispanicizing as rapidly as Texas.

In every presidential election since Bush I in 1992, Hispanics have given 60-70 percent of their votes to the Democratic ticket.

For Hispanics, largely poor and working class, are beneficiaries of a cornucopia of government goods - from free education to food stamps to free health care. Few pay federal income taxes.

Why would they not vote for the Party of Government?

cnsnews.com/blog/patrick-j-buchanan/ad-2041-end-white-america

As a non White person I am curious if what he is saying about the end of the Republican Party on a national level by 2041 true? Why wouldn’t the Republican Party just take on a new face, so to speak? So instead of predominately white Republicans you would see more Hispanic Republicans? The majority of Hispanic and Black people have social conservative values.

 

[Caldera]

Does anybody know which-] channel/-] network will air the debates?

CNN tonight 8pm ET

cnn.com/2011/10/18/politics/las-vegas-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

[qui_est_ce]

CNN tonight 8pm ET

cnn.com/2011/10/18/politics/las-vegas-debate/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Why wouldn’t the Republican Party just take on a new face, so to speak? So instead of predominately white Republicans you would see more Hispanic Republicans? The majority of Hispanic and Black people have social conservative values.

That hasn’t ever translated into black or hispanic majorities going over to the GOP. It’ll be a long time coming before the Dems lose those two groups, and the Jews as well.

 

[mary_bobo]

My favorite part of the debate was when Santorum finally brought up the point that the family is the center of the economy–That was awesome. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would only benefit the most wealthy who make most of their income on capital gains. What a stupid tax plan.

And are the economists who back this plan, as well as Paul Ryan, also stupid? Since you think the plan is stupid, perhaps you have a better plan. Have you read anything on the Fair Tax? I suspect that the 9-9-9 plan is a preface to a fair tax which I think is ultimately fair.