Republican Primary

[qui_est_ce]

Growth and opportunity for all is the answer to poverty.

Growth and opportunity for all is the answer to all things economic.

The best anti-poverty program is the one that creates jobs.

The answer to large budget deficits? Grow the economy, create jobs, watch incomes rise, and let the tax revenues come rolling in.

Growth is the single best solution for our economic ailments.

We need to stop looking at the world in terms of specific income classes or categories.

Instead, look at the whole economy and realize that everyone is tied together.

Dragging down the top earners will not help the middle class.

And providing an ever larger safety net will not solve poverty.

The safety net is important, and we need to maintain it; but, it is only a stop-gap, not a solution.

Well said. Thank you for posting this.

 

[didymus]

Local NBC station investigating non-citizens voting in FL primary:

“I vote every year,” Hinako Dennett told NBC2. The Cape Coral resident is not a US citizen, yet she’s registered to vote.

NBC2 found Dennett after reviewing her jury excusal form. She told the Clerk of Court she couldn’t serve as a juror because she wasn’t a U.S. citizen.

We found her name, and nearly a hundred others like her, in the database of Florida registered voters.

Naples resident Yvonne Wigglesworth is also a not a citizen, but is registered to vote. She claims she doesn’t know how she got registered.
“I have no idea. I mean, how am I supposed to know.”

Records show Wigglesworth voted six times in elections dating back eleven years.

“I know you cannot vote before you become a citizen, so I never tried to do anything like that,” Samuel Lincoln said.

He isn’t a U.S. citizen either, but the Jamaican national says he doesn’t know how he ended up registered to vote.
“It’s their mistake, not mine,” said Lincoln.

We obtained a copy of his 2007 voter registration application. It’s clearly shows he marked U.S. citizen.

in the comments the station added:

[People seem very interested in which party these ineligible voters were for, so let’s look at the numbers we have. We found 87 people who said they couldn’t serve on a jury but were registered to vote. Of those:

33 were registered as Democrats (3 inactive).
25 were registered as Republicans (1 inactive).
1 was a registered Independent.
20 were No Party Affiliation (1 inactive).
8 were unknown.

NBC2 News](http://www.facebook.com/NBC2News)

 

[pnewton]

Since the bishops have not given a scorecard or direction on who to vote for, obviously a faithful Catholic can vote for one of the Republican primary candidates or a Democratic candidate who might happen to be pro choice but be voting for them for other reasons. And in either case remain a faithful, good Catholic.

Yes, they can, but don’t forget that last part of Catholic teaching. The can vote for a pro-abortion candidate for other reasons that are considered proportional. You can not, for example, vote for a pro-abortion candidate because you like his hair. From the latest guide, it is worded thus:
usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/Forming-Consciences-for-Faithful-Citizenship-2011.pdf

Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to

advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental
moral evil.

Note that in the guide even not voting is given as a possible option in extreme cases.

I think two things are clear from what the bishops have all taught. The Catholic must work on properly forming their conscience and understanding the varying gravity of different issues. Second, these accusations back and forth condemning each other’s choices in voting is not something even our shepherds are going to do. We can easily cross the line of discussion into judgementalism when dealing with those that vote differently.

 

[estesbob]

I’ll give you a start where your view has been demonstrated to be flawed and if you’re truly interested, you can search further yourself.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8794697&postcount=28

The reason the poster in the link above said your quotes don’t cut it is because the bishops or Church have not stated a Catholic can not vote for a particular candidate.

The bishops make this abundantly clear here when they say they do not “offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote”.

jsi5q8ys1r.com/showthread.php?t=604357

Since the bishops have not given a scorecard or direction on who to vote for, obviously a faithful Catholic can vote for one of the Republican primary candidates or a Democratic candidate who might happen to be pro choice but be voting for them for other reasons. And in either case remain a faithful, good Catholic. If the bishops do not intend this to be, then they need to give specific direction on which candidates to vote for. And as Ringil said in the above linked post to you, he as a faithful practicing Catholic would listen. But as Ringil said that has not happened.

Did you read the links you posted??? None of them linked to any Catholic teachings-just Democrat catholics giving us their unsourced opinion of what Catholic teaching is. Nothing, for instnace, like this:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
*
Archbishop Charles Chaput*

 

[JP_Noel]

“We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion”

You mean to tell me they were doing abortions at a time when only one out of five children lived past the age of five?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Mitt Romney Defended Pro-Life Conscience Rights as Governor

lifenews.com/2012/02/03/mitt-romney-defended-pro-life-conscience-rights-as-governor/
Romney’s strong record on religious liberty

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26087

 

[LovePatience]

Lol, I’m not the one in denial here.

What Bloomberg says doesn’t matter.

Look up the charts for tax rates and tax revenues. If you are right then you should be able to easily prove that as rates went up, so did revenue.

It is obvious that tax revenue is dependent on taxes; thus an immediate decrease in the tax rate will cause an immediate decrease in taxes and vice versa. If you want to claim that the reverse is true by means of some complex mechanism, you justify the “easily” obtained proof. Otherwise, calling me in denial for defending an obvious linkage is arrogance. But for the sake of debate, let’s look at social spending in comparison to tax rate. The obvious holds; countries with higher social spending also have higher tax rates. :doh2:

 

[estesbob]

“We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion”

You mean to tell me they were doing abortions at a time when only one out of five children lived past the age of five?

Yes:

The earliest known description of abortion comes from the Ebers Papyrus (ca. 1550 BCE), an ancient Egyptian medical text drawn, ostensibly, from records dating as far back as the third millennium BCE. The Ebers Papyrus suggests that an abortion can be induced with the use of a plant-fiber tampon coated with a compound that included honey and crushed dates. Later herbal abortifacients included the long-extinct silphium, the most prized medicinal plant of the ancient world, and pennyroyal, which is still sometimes used to induce abortions (but not safely, as it is highly toxic).

*civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/When-Did-Abortion-Begin.htm

 

[qui_est_ce]

Did you read the links you posted??? None of them linked to any Catholic teachings-just Democrat catholics giving us their unsourced opinion of what Catholic teaching is. Nothing, for instnace, like this:

The argument that the US bishops didn’t spell out “You can’t vote for Obama” therefore it is okay to vote for him is getting -]tiring./-] ridiculous.:hypno:

 

[estesbob]

The argument that the US bishops didn’t spell out “You can’t vote for Obama” therefore it is okay to vote for him is getting -]tiring./-] ridiculous.:hypno:

Especially in light of comment like this:

*To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said. *

Archbishop Charles Chaput

And this:

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant …
*

*Cardinal Edmund Burke
*

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Especially in light of comment like this:

*At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."And I say this with a heavy heart, because **we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant ***…

*Cardinal Edmund Burke
*

With all due respect to Cardinal Burke, I don’t know that, at all (at least in the case of my family). Out here, the community and the Church helped the new immigrants, not the Dems.

 

[qui_est_ce]

*Cardinal Edmund Burke
*

He’s my guy! Archbishop emeritus of St. Louis. I’m obliged to follow my shepherd!

 

[_Abyssinia]

Koch Brothers, Allies Pledge $100 Million At Private Meeting To Beat Obama:

huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/koch-brothers-100-million-obama_n_1250828.html

 

[estesbob]

Koch Brothers, Allies Pledge $100 Million At Private Meeting To Beat Obama:

huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/03/koch-brothers-100-million-obama_n_1250828.html

I would be excited about this except it’s from the Huffington Post

 

[CMatt25]

The argument that the US bishops didn’t spell out “You can’t vote for Obama” therefore it is okay to vote for him is getting -]tiring./-] ridiculous.:hypno:

You appear to miss the argument. The argument is not that the bishops did not spell out “You can’t vote for Obama”. This is not just in regard to Obama.

The argument is that the bishops clearly state their Faithful Citizenship guide “does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=604357

What I find, using your word, “tiring”, is the bishops statement is then dismissed here as a statement “not linked to any Catholic teachings” or as “unsourced opinion of what Catholic teaching is”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8916620&postcount=296

That’s what I find, again using your choice of words, “ridiculous” because one would think the bishops’ words here would be representative of Catholic teaching.

On the other hand if the truth is a Catholic can not vote for a particular candidate, I would think the bishops would offer specific direction on which candidate to vote for by name instead of issuing a statement which says they do not. As I don’t think they’d withhold truth just to for instance maintain a tax exemption.

I’m tired quoting the bishops’ words about voting for now.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You appear to miss the argument. The argument is not that the bishops did not spell out “You can’t vote for Obama”. This is not just in regard to Obama.

The argument is that the bishops clearly state their Faithful Citizenship guide “does not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues, or direction on how to vote”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=604357

Things have realy “progressed” since that statement came out in 2007. A lot.

I’m tired quoting the bishops’ words about voting for now.

My bishop has come out with it.

At this point, the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitively into a “party of death” due to its choices on bioethical issues, as Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts and the Disregard for Human Life."And I say this with a heavy heart, because we all know that the Democrats were the party that helped our Catholic immigrant …

Cardinal Edmund Burke

I will not vote for the party of death.

Obama is demanding abortions be paid for by Catholic institutions through health insurance.

Even Jesus wouldn’t qualify for the religious exemption because he ministered to non Jews.

 

[bbarrick8383]

As I don’t think they’d withhold truth just to for instance maintain a tax exemption.

Considering the structure of the Catholic Church, it’s not just the tax exemption.

For instance, how many times have you stated something along the lines of if it weren’t for other liberals, you’d have a hard time considering yourself Catholic.(Don’t remember exactly, but you’ve stated something similar.)

Don’t want to be rude or insult your personal faith/beliefs. But that tells me there is a lack of religious confidence there and a strong confidence in a political party.

Why do you question a religion, but not your own political beliefs?

You and others have complained about this forum having too many conservatives, I disagree as I want as many conservatives here as possible, but even more so I would also like to see more liberals here as well. It seems they are the ones most likely to get frustrated and leave.

Conservatism and even more so, libertarianism requires a lot of faith for a Christian to stand by their beliefs. You have to have faith that God will provide for those where you choose to keep the Federal government out. Your faith is that government will do the right thing, our faith is that God will help us do the right thing without government.

 

[LovePatience]

Citing an opinion piece about what Rick Perry does with a Texas program does not tell us very much. In my state, a Repub legislature and Repub governor added funds to child protective services, and really has improved its effectiveness by some structural changes as well.

What state do you live in? When measuring all states, those states where the Republican has won in 2004 do worse on child poverty than those states where the Democrat has won. The example of Perry helps understand the dynamics as to why.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

And those states where the Democrats have won the last 4 times are on the verge of bankruptcy,

Brings to mind

Lies. Damn Lies. And Statistics

 

[ringil]

Did you read the links you posted??? None of them linked to any Catholic teachings-just Democrat catholics giving us their unsourced opinion of what Catholic teaching is. Nothing, for instnace, like this:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide. Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.
*
Archbishop Charles Chaput*

Opinions of individual Churchmen like Chaput and Burke (and just reposting their quotes) doesn’t make Catholic Teaching.

Catholics can vote for Pro-Choice candidate despite their position on abortion, if through prayer, reading of pertinent teaching, and conscience they come to that conclusion.

Now keep it up: Burke and Chaput, Burke and Chaput, Burke and Chaput. . . . . . I’m sure you could find something from Bruskewitz as well, if you seek it out as well so go for it, it still isn’t Catholic Doctrine.