Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter CMatt25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The food stamp program is a good safety net; however a lot of people become complacent, and never go beyond their free hand outs.

These Bishops should agree that we need to get people BACK UP off their feet so they too can enjoy lives that aren’t dependent on food stamps.
 
The_Rock said:
Can anyone site for me the authoritive Catholic teaching which states that being opposed to the food stamp program is an “intrinsic evil”?

Oh, I guess reforming welfare programs would be considered an “intrinsic evil” proportionate in gravity to supporting abortion on demand.
Therefore I could vote for Obama in good conscience? :whacky:
Click to expand...
Yes that is how the liberal Democrat catholic mind works. There doesn’t need to be reason or logic, just good intentions and feelings. And a strong desire to control people.

Ishii
 
Apparently some of you missed the part about Santorum saying he does not want to make “bla… people’s” lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. Santorum later said he intended to use a word other than “black” but did not say what that word would have been. :rolleyes: Of course he couldn’t say. Unless of course there is such a thing as “bla” people, people knew what he meant. 🤷
 
CMatt25 said:
Apparently some of you missed the part about Santorum saying he does not want to make “bla… people’s” lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. Santorum later said he intended to use a word other than “black” but did not say what that word would have been. :rolleyes: Of course he couldn’t say. Unless of course there is such thing as “bla” people, people knew what he meant. 🤷
Click to expand...
Santorum argued with a liberal over whether or not the government created 240 MILLION jobs or 270 MILLION jobs and then argued that a difference in projected estimates was the same as an absolute loss of jobs…I’m honestly hoping that he’s not going to be in the race much longer.

Either way, I’d take him at his word before I accused him otherwise.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Santorum argued with a liberal over whether or not the government created 240 MILLION jobs or 270 MILLION jobs and then argued that a difference in projected estimates was the same as an absolute loss of jobs…I’m honestly hoping that he’s not going to be in the race much longer.

Either way, I’d take him at his word before I accused him otherwise.
Click to expand...
I might be better able to take him at his word if only he could say what the other word was he meant to use.
 
I thought I was reading an article from The Onion, and then it said,

**
In their open letter, the Catholic leaders — many of them associated with progressive and Democratic causes — say that raising “racist caricatures is irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders.”
Click to expand...
**
That explains it. These are not orthodox Catholic leaders. The title should be edited to 'progressive Catholic leaders. That Washington Post article should of put the quoted statement, right at the top.

What fascinates me - it is liberals who are guessing that they are insinuating race, not conservatives. Why is Gingrich saying under Obama’s presidency the most food stamps have been given out racist? It is the truth!
Apparently some of you missed the part about Santorum saying he does not want to make “bla… people’s” lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. Santorum later said he intended to use a word other than “black” but did not say what that word would have been. Of course he couldn’t say. Unless of course there is such a thing as “bla” people, people knew what he meant.
Click to expand...
He said on Fox news:
“If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of – blah – came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t," Santorum said. “And I can tell you, … I don’t use the term ‘black’ very often. I use the term ‘African-American’ more than I use ‘black.’ … I think sometimes you want to give someone the benefit of the doubt if it’s a little bit of a blurred word.”
Click to expand...
The context of the a question did not even have anything to do with race. His word is unclear, there is no evidence he said ‘black’ from the video, it sounds like ‘mblagh,’ so I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
 
The_Rock said:
Here is the actual letter and those who signed. Decide for yourself if those who signed represent a cross section of “Catholic leaders” or …?
[faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/newsroom/press/catholic-leaders-challenge-gingrich-and-santorum-on-divisive-rhetoric-around-race-and-poverty/](http://www.faith(name removed by moderator)ubliclife.org/newsroom/press/catholic-leaders-challenge-gingrich-and-santorum-on-divisive-rhetoric-around-race-and-poverty/)
Personally, I find it unchaitable at best to ascribe “race baiting” to these two. Indeed, it is now the left who is attempting to play the race card for political gain.
Click to expand...
Aren’t these people dissenters?
 
Washington Times:
Public employees union heaps cash into GOP ad attacks on Romney
Click to expand...
An unlikely combatant has jumped into the big-money battle between independent groups running ads weighing in on the Republican presidential primary: a national union representing public employees. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent $1 million Friday on an ad accusing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney of greed, Federal Election Commission records show.
Click to expand...
The liberal group’s intent is to sway the outcome of the Republican primary in Florida, with ads running there before the state’s party elections Jan. 31. The strategy seems to indicate that the union views Mr. Romney as the most realistic threat to President Obama and would much prefer to see Republicans field another candidate, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, against Mr. Obama in the general election.
Click to expand...
The piling-on of a liberal group on top of the Republican organizations attacking Mr. Romney highlights an irony to the 2010 Supreme Court decision that injected massive independent expenditures into politics with a ruling cheered by many conservatives: The majority of the spending thus far has been used to demonize Republicans.
Click to expand...
Strange bedfellows indeed.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
McCain threw away the 2008 election by saying then what Mitt is saying now.
Click to expand...
McCain and Romney are simply parroting what the GOP establishment wants them to. Its almost as if the Good Old Boy network WANTS to loose elections.
 
Semper_Zelare said:
Well, ironically, I too (at least at present) am pretty confident I won’t be voting for Romney either if he gets it. So much so that I was looking through some of the third parties today. There are at least 3 or 4 conservative ones I’ll be considering.

Again, I live in Alabama… so its not gonna matter. I’d rather vote for someone I feel comfortable with and not have to settle and vote for a “lesser evil” in Romney.

And that’s my point to the Romney people I’m trying to make. Here’s you and me, two solid members of the conservative side of the coin… and we ain’t votin Romney if he’s on the ballot.

And then you’ve got Ishii’s sig that says “If you vote 3rd party you make Obama’s day”. It seems that Romney’s “inevitability” hinges on his crowd harassing all the conservatives who don’t want to vote for him.

Obviously I hope I get to vote for Gingrich. Or even Santorum or even Paul if they get it. But, the moment Romney becomes the nominee is actually the moment I become uncertain of who I’m voting for…
Click to expand...
A lot of my friends in elections past … they didn’t want to vote for the worst candidate, so they voted for a third party candidate … and what they got WAS THE WORST candidate.

So, if you don’t look where you step, you will fall into a really bad hole.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
If Gingrich can pull off Florida, it might be lights out for Romney.
Click to expand...
The Republican National Committee is backing Romney because it outright DOES NOT WANT TO WIN the 2012 election.

They do not want to face facts. They especially do not want confrontation of any sort or description.

The RNC’s policy is: backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.

Look at what the RNC did to both John McCain and especially to Sarah Palin in 2008. The RNC sandbagged and backstabbed both of them all day, every day until they actually lost the election.

The RNC REFUSED to vet Barack Obama. REFUSED!

The RNC wants to lose.

But to lose with dignity. [sarcasm]

So, if Newt “wins”, the RNC will attack him with full force.

The RNC’s positions on anything identical to the DNC’s, “only not so much”.

[The RNC is run by RINOs. And that’s it. So the rest of the country has to fight the DNC **and the RNC.]

Gingrich wants to state the differences between the DNC/Obama versus Constitutional, limited government. Between “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. Socialist versus Conservative. The RNC … not so much.
 
My being a Pro-Life, conservative, Catholic gentleman makes it impossible to be anything other than true to my convictions and thus, the only candidate I can vote for in good conscience is Rick Santorum. I refuse to let the Media dictate who I vote for based on the likelihood of someone beating Obama. Last night’s debate was clear evidence of the Media’s bias and determination to influence and shape the Republican nomination for President. What happened to the Catholic social conservatives in this nation? Are our values no longer a factor in shaping our nation anymore? Have we given up on that notion to simply promote prosperity? I want the economy to rebound as much as the next guy, but at what cause?
 
NickFrance said:
My being a Pro-Life, conservative, Catholic gentleman makes it impossible to be anything other than true to my convictions and thus, the only candidate I can vote for in good conscience is Rick Santorum. I refuse to let the Media dictate who I vote for based on the likelihood of someone beating Obama. Last night’s debate was clear evidence of the Media’s bias and determination to influence and shape the Republican nomination for President. What happened to the Catholic social conservatives in this nation? Are our values no longer a factor in shaping our nation anymore? Have we given up on that notion to simply promote prosperity? I want the economy to rebound as much as the next guy, but at what cause?
Click to expand...
OK, so an anti-anti-Obama vote will assure Obama’s victory … and thus shape the United States as mega-Socialist one-party police state. Is that what third-party voters had in mind?
 
When voting in a primary, we must vote for the very best person available, without paying attention to biased ads, the secular news media who has their own agendas, etc.

Just watch televised debates and decide for oneself, and pray to vote correctly.

As of this date and time, I intend to vote for Rick Santorum.
It came to me at Mass on Sunday out of nowhere, since I was undecided.
His sincere message on the “Family” needs to be heard; plus his other positions are good and appropriate.
Of course in the general election, I will vote against Obama, and our current Democratic Senator who has a pro-abortion voting record and supports Obama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top