Republican Primary

[kubark]

This issue comes up frequently. The Church HAS changed its teaching. It is not infalliable and has never claimed to be so except on a few issues. Since you are saying things that are easily proven false, read Judge Noonan’s book: The Church that Can and Cannot Change or simply browse through the direct texts of Papal Encyclicals in the appendix of Father Fanzer’s book: The Popes and Slavery.

Nevertheless, the statement by Mary does not contradict with the Cathechism. If you don’t want to believe it, you don’t have to as it is private revelation. But Fatima has been declared “worthy of belief” by the church after a canonical enquiry and Popes Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all voiced their acceptance of the supernatural origin of the Fátima events in unusually clear and strong terms. (line from wikipedia) No good reason exists not to believe it.

The book that you refer to (The Popes and Slavery) was written by one Joel S. Panzer (not Fanzer). The thesis of the book is that Catholics were guilty for centuries of having slaves or profiting from the slave trade while the popes taught clearly and frequently the evil of slavery, and even legislated severe ecclesiastical penalties for engaging in it. Slavery was continued, then, in Catholic countries, by disobedience. To further complicate this issue, there are different forms of slavery. Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to** racial slavery **in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Even today we can see prisoners picking up litter along interstates and highways accompanied by armed guards. Also the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under very limiting circumstances (Panzer, p. 3). However, such circumstances are very rare today. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification.

Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to “beasts of burden” due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In 1404, the Spanish discovered the Canary Islands. They began to colonize the island and enslave its people. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (subdiderunt perpetuae servituti), sold then to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them . . . Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (servituri subicere). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment imposed today on Catholics who participate in abortion. Some people may claim that Pope Eugene only condemned the practice in the Canary Island and not slavery in general. This claim is hard to accept since he does condemn together this particular case of slavery along with “other various illicit and evil deeds.”

You are barking up the wrong tree, “LovePatience.”

 

[kubark]

The phenomenon we are dealing with is this: liberals attack pro-life policies and pro-life politicians with every fiber of their strength. And then they attack pro-life politicians for not fighting hard enough to resist their onslaught.

The Catholics in the Senate who demolished Robert Bork’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court [and who also challenged every other nominee who might have even remotely have been construed or suspected of being pro-life] bear full responsibility and will some day have to bear full accountability for the continuation of abortion in the United States.

It is possible to use clever words, but they do not change the essential facts.

They will have to account for themselves. And clever words are not going to make it easier.

The phenomenon we are dealing with here is that many in the pro-life movement are not educated as to fact that we are living in a constitutional republic, not a monarchy.

The only solution to the question of legal abortion MUST be a constitutional solution.

Only those pro-lifers that have a competent understanding of the Constitution should be allowed to offer solutions to this problem.

Sadly, the pro-life movement is dominated by folks who look to the Courts, the President and the Federal Government as the answer to this problem. They couldn’t be more wrong in pursuing this strategy and this foolish and unconstitutional strategy is literally costing lives.

The answer to this problem MUST come from the proper Constitutional branch - the Legislature. The answer to this problem MUST come from the States, not the Federal Government. Until pro-lifers come to grips with this reality, abortion will remain legal. Until pro-lifers take a man like Ron Paul seriously, abortion will remain legal for a VERY LONG TIME.

It pains me to say this.

 

[_Abyssinia]

You haven’t addressed Kennedy, a conservative appointed justice who is content to reduce abortion but will not end Roe v. Wade. Are you confident that any reasonable justice appointed will be willing to turn over Roe v. Wade as long as the issue is immensely politicized as a liberal vs. conservative issue? No country has eliminated the conservative vs. liberal divide, but some countries have eliminated abortion - Malta, Ireland, Poland.

If the issue hadn’t become political football instead of a nonpartisan cause (see how pro-life democrats such as Stupak and Casey get attacked but pro-choice Republicans such as Guiluani or Meg Whitman get supported under the argument that at least they are GOP and the GOP is pro-life even if they aren’t), then public opinion wouldn’t be so hostile against abortion. VERY liberal countries such as Norway have significantly lower abortion rates than we do so liberalism can’t be 100% blamed.

Some of the problem is also with the cheapness with which Republicans use abortion to claim moral high ground while prioritizing other priorities. Then, when those other priorities are unpopular, they ask to be supported on pro-life grounds. They should follow their own advice. If abortion is the most important issue, then stop prioritizing other issues above it and tying them together when they are unrelated! That can be seen by the collapse of the Tea Party, which is only slightly more popular than Occupy Wall Street that includes rapists and defecators in the street. “Budget showdowns” and other brinksmanship strategies are obvious to observers with open eyes.

So any conservative who pushes strongly for unpopular policies that are unrelated to abortion knowing it will cause loss of support instead of acting as a single issue voter shares some blame. Can you do what you ask others to do?

Other liberal countries like Britain, Germany etc. have high abortion rates. So you shouldn’t look at it too simplistically.

Stupak supported ObamaCare, he sold out on the pro life movement. Stupak and other so called ‘pro life Democrats’ said no public funds would be used for abortion - wrong!

Bob Casey Jr supports over the counter sale of emergency contraception. He voted ‘no’ on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. He doesn’t think Plan B morning after pill causes abortion - that is not what the manufacturer says. Casey has a mixed record on abortion and I would not say he is completely pro life.

 

[ringil]

The issue of truth and whether the church has changed is an issue. In this thread, conservatives repeatedly denied that popes had disagreed with each other and that previous popes have supported slavery. They insulted me, and told me I was wrong and needed to look up the information.

I am showing the proof that they are blowhards and need to stop misrepresenting the truth. Popes have disagreed with each other; at one time, the popes did support slavery. This is not the only issue where the Church has changed teaching.

Should I just let people post lies and not respond?

Well, I have to say that I am quite liberal in terms of politics, but I do not believe that the Church has changed her teachings over time.

The Church has DEVELOPED and APPLIED in historical context, her teachings, but has not changed them.

There are subtleties in the issue os slavery which are confusing to me as well, but my understanding is that the Church has always condemned what we, as a society condemn today.

I have heard that doctrine can be described as a tree where truth remains the same but does grow and spread out.

We also must distinguish between official doctrine and socio-political practice, which, indeed, has been quite incorrectly expressed by churchmen, and even Saints, throughout history.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The book that you refer to (The Popes and Slavery) was written by one Joel S. Panzer (not Fanzer). The thesis of the book is that Catholics were guilty for centuries of having slaves or profiting from the slave trade while the popes taught clearly and frequently the evil of slavery, and even legislated severe ecclesiastical penalties for engaging in it. Slavery was continued, then, in Catholic countries, by disobedience. To further complicate this issue, there are different forms of slavery. Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to** racial slavery **in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Even today we can see prisoners picking up litter along interstates and highways accompanied by armed guards. Also the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under very limiting circumstances (Panzer, p. 3). However, such circumstances are very rare today. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification.

Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to “beasts of burden” due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In 1404, the Spanish discovered the Canary Islands. They began to colonize the island and enslave its people. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

… shortened …]

Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment imposed today on Catholics who participate in abortion. Some people may claim that Pope Eugene only condemned the practice in the Canary Island and not slavery in general. This claim is hard to accept since he does condemn together this particular case of slavery along with “other various illicit and evil deeds.”

You are barking up the wrong tree, “LovePatience.”

I know we are way off topic, however “LovePatience” raised a question that needs to be addressed.

In support of your discussion on indentured servitude, here is an excerpt from Wiki, which I acknowledge may not be the most acceptable source. Nevertheless, there are a couple of interesting sentences which I have highlighted:

The Transatlantic slave trade peaked in the late 18th century, when the largest number of slaves were captured on raiding expeditions into the interior of West Africa. These expeditions were typically carried out by African kingdoms, such as the Oyo empire (Yoruba), the Ashanti Empire,[96] the kingdom of Dahomey,[97] and the Aro Confederacy.[98] Europeans rarely entered the interior of Africa, due to fierce African resistance. The slaves were brought to coastal outposts where they were traded for goods.

An estimated 12 million Africans arrived in the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries.[99] Of these, an estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States. The usual estimate is that about 15 per cent of slaves died during the voyage, with mortality rates considerably higher in Africa itself in the process of capturing and transporting indigenous peoples to the ships. Approximately 6 million black Africans were killed by others in tribal wars.[100]

The white citizens of Virginia decided to treat the first Africans in Virginia as indentured servants.[101] Over half of all European immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants.[102]

In 1655, John Casor, a black man, became the first legally recognized slave in the present United States.

**
pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html

The first slave owner in the United States was a black man who got a legal indentured servant to be determined to have a lifetime condition of servitude.
**

The largest number of slaves were shipped to Brazil.[106] In the Spanish viceroyalty of New Granada, corresponding mainly to modern Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela, the free black population in 1789 was 420,000, whereas African slaves numbered only 20,000. Free blacks also outnumbered slaves in Brazil. In Cuba, by contrast, free blacks made up only 15% in 1827; and in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (present-day Haiti) it was a mere 5% in 1789.[107] Some half-million slaves, most of them born in Africa, worked the booming plantations of Saint-Domingue.[108]

 

[ishii]

So you blame BOTH Souter AND Kenney on Bork?

If you look at the political realities of that era and really try to be open about it, I think you’d have to agree that both the Bork and the Clarence Thomas confirmation battles had a big effect on GOP presidents and who they nominated after. One other thing to remember is that the Senate, which decides everything, was in Democrat hands for both the Bork, Kennedy, and Souter confirmation battles. And as you know, the Democrat party isn’t exactly kind to nominees who have any kind of history that suggests they might vote to overturn Roe V Wade and ruin the Democrats’ precious right of a woman to kill her baby. As Monte said, the Democrats fight tooth and nail to protect the precious right of a mother to kill her unborn child and then you complain that the GOP has failed.

Its pretty simple: Get a Republican senate and a Republican president and we’re more likely to get an Alito, Scalia, or Roberts. Get a Democrat senate and you’ll get a wishy washy guy like Anthony Kennedy or a closet liberal like Souter. Get a Democrat president and a Democrat senate and you’ll get justices who fight tooth and nail to protect the precious right of a mother to kill her unborn baby.

You haven’t addressed Kennedy, a conservative appointed justice who is content to reduce abortion but will not end Roe v. Wade. Are you confident that **any reasonable justice **appointed will be willing to turn over Roe v. Wade as long as the issue is immensely politicized as a liberal vs. conservative issue? No country has eliminated the conservative vs. liberal divide, but some countries have eliminated abortion - Malta, Ireland, Poland.

I have addressed it extensively. But you seem to want to ignore my points. Am I confident that any reasonable justice will be willing to turn over Roe V Wade ? My answer is this: There are no guarentees other than that a Democrat nominated justices will be 100% pro-Roe V Wade. No surprises. A GOP nominated justices might or might not vote to overturn Roe V Wade - as you’ve eloquently pointed out with Kennedy. But there is a pretty good chance that a GOP senate and a GOP president will give us a truly good justice. Either a Democrat president or a Republican president will nominate the next one or two justices. The decision on which party to support, based on past history to me seems like a no-brainer. A no brainer if one is really pro-life.

You can ignore the political reality if you want, but its still the political reality.

Ishii

 

[LovePatience]

The book that you refer to (The Popes and Slavery) was written by one Joel S. Panzer (not Fanzer). The thesis of the book is that Catholics were guilty for centuries of having slaves or profiting from the slave trade while the popes taught clearly and frequently the evil of slavery, and even legislated severe ecclesiastical penalties for engaging in it. Slavery was continued, then, in Catholic countries, by disobedience. To further complicate this issue, there are different forms of slavery. Even though repugnant to our modern sensitivity, servitude is not always unjust, such as penal servitude for convicted criminals or servitude freely chosen for personal financial reasons. These forms are called just-title servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which brought an end to** racial slavery **in the U.S., does allow for just-title servitude to punish criminals: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Even today we can see prisoners picking up litter along interstates and highways accompanied by armed guards. Also the 1949 Geneva Conventions allow for detaining power to use the labor of war prisoners under very limiting circumstances (Panzer, p. 3). However, such circumstances are very rare today. During biblical times, a man could voluntarily sell himself into slavery in order to pay off his debts (Deut. 15:12-18). But such slaves were to be freed on the seventh year or the Jubilee year (Lev. 25:54). The Church tolerated just-title servitude for a time because it is not wrong in itself, though it can be seriously abused. The Popes did, however, consistently oppose racial slavery which completely lacks any moral justification.

Now we usually think of slavery in terms of innocent people who were unjustly captured and reduced to “beasts of burden” due solely to their race. This was the most common form in the U.S. before the Thirteenth Amendment. This form of slavery, known as racial slavery, began in large-scale during the 15th century and was formally condemned by the Popes as early as 1435, fifty-seven years before Columbus discovered America. In 1404, the Spanish discovered the Canary Islands. They began to colonize the island and enslave its people. Pope Eugene IV in 1435 wrote to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote in his Bull, Sicut Dudum:

“They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (subdiderunt perpetuae servituti), sold then to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them . . . Therefore We … exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands … who have been made subject to slavery (servituri subicere). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”

Those faithful, who did not obey, were excommunicated ipso facto. This is the same punishment imposed today on Catholics who participate in abortion. Some people may claim that Pope Eugene only condemned the practice in the Canary Island and not slavery in general. This claim is hard to accept since he does condemn together this particular case of slavery along with “other various illicit and evil deeds.”

You are barking up the wrong tree, “LovePatience.”

You are addressing an issue that does not change the facts. There have existed Catholic Popes who supported slavery.

His Holiness, Pope Nicholas V, on January 8, 1455 (“Apostolic Constitutions” carry more authority than an “Apostolic Letter”, and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was issued as an Apostolic Letter):
We (therefore) weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery,…

Our Church would now teach it is intrinsically evil to reduce all pagans to slavery. Can you address why Pope Nicholas V once taught otherwise if the Church has not changed teaching?

 

[LovePatience]

Other liberal countries like Britain, Germany etc. have high abortion rates. So you shouldn’t look at it too simplistically.

Stupak supported ObamaCare, he sold out on the pro life movement. Stupak and other so called ‘pro life Democrats’ said no public funds would be used for abortion - wrong!

Bob Casey Jr supports over the counter sale of emergency contraception. He voted ‘no’ on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. He doesn’t think Plan B morning after pill causes abortion - that is not what the manufacturer says. Casey has a mixed record on abortion and I would not say he is completely pro life.

Both Britain and Germany also have lower abortion rates than we do.

If the pro-life issue isn’t a political screen, why do pro-life groups repeatedly support pro-choice Republicans who are 100% pro-choice just because they are Republicans while attacking pro-life Democrats on matters of prudential decision?

Pope Benedict also supports contraception in certain cases, and the issues of abortion and contraception are in no way equivalent. Its ridiculous and bad for the pro-life cause to act as if they are. Are conservatives really committed to ending abortion or to just to attacking Democrats?

In the original German (Light of the World), Ratzinger said this:
“There may be justified individual cases, as, for example, when a prostitute uses a condom, in which this can be a first step to a moralization, a first bit of responsibility, in order to again develop a consciousness for the fact that not everything is permitted and that one cannot do anything he wants. But it is not the authentic way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. This must really lie in the humanization of sexuality.

“Seewald: Does that now mean that the Catholic Church is not in principle opposed to the use of condoms?
“Ratzinger: She regards it naturally not as a real and moral solution. In one or the other case, however, it can, with the intention of decreasing the danger of infection, be a first step on the way to a differently lived, more human sexuality.

How does George Bush get off scot free when the Guttamcher Institute data shows that abortion increased during his second term. So how is that pro-life?

 

[LovePatience]

Clinton was in office from 1993 to 2001, according to the attachment you linked the abortion rate declined about 3% during that time? Abortions fell 8.1% between 2000 to 2005, during Bush’s presidency:

jillstanek.com/archives/2009/05/correction_abor.html

You’re comparing apples with oranges. First, you are comparing the abortion rate (abortions per 1000 women) with the # of abortions total (without adjusting for # of women). Second, you aren’t using the same formula to calculate the change To get the percentage decline of 8.1 = 1- 1206200/1312990 = .081. For Clinton from 1993 to 2001, using the same calculation= 1 - 1291000/1495000 = .136.

So for Bush: 8.1%; Clinton 13.6%. And that’s not a fair comparison for Bush, since he was president from 2000-2008, not 2005, and between 2005 and 2008 the abortion rate increased not decreased.

 

[kubark]

You are addressing an issue that does not change the facts. There have existed Catholic Popes who supported slavery.

Our Church would now teach it is intrinsically evil to reduce all pagans to slavery. Can you address why Pope Nicholas V once taught otherwise if the Church has not changed teaching?

You say that, “there have existed Catholic Popes who supported slavery.”

Which ones and based on what statements? And what is your definition of “slavery” LovePatience? And what a Pope “supports” is very different than what The Church teaches. There have been corrupt Popes from time to time. No one disputes that. The evidence that I provided demonstrates very cleary the Church’s teaching on slavery. Nothing you say has countered that historical fact.

You say that, “Pope Nicholas V once taught otherwise…”

Will you please back up your assertions with some evidence. What “teaching” are you talking about?

 

[LovePatience]

You say that, “there have existed Catholic Popes who supported slavery.”

Which ones and based on what statements? And what is your definition of “slavery” LovePatience? And what a Pope “supports” is very different than what The Church teaches. There have been corrupt Popes from time to time. No one disputes that. The evidence that I provided demonstrates very cleary the Church’s teaching on slavery. Nothing you say has countered that historical fact.

You say that, “Pope Nicholas V once taught otherwise…”

Will you please back up your assertions with some evidence. What “teaching” are you talking about?

I have already posted two evidences of these assertions. Anyways, I’m glad you now see my point, as people certainly DID disagree with me when I said that Popes have supported slavery and Popes have disagreed with each other.

Papal Bull: Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex by Pope Nicholas V. The Third Lateran Council.

The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out four “just titles” for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.

Here are more links: liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/Church&slavery.html

 

[ringil]

Well Lovepatience,

I admit that the documentation you provide above, regarding Nicholas V and his apostolic letter are troubling to me, and give me pause to think.

I have had course to think over this issue and so I hope I am able to come to a level of peace regarding a level of consistency between the doctrine of the Church and egregious comments by pontiffs. Saints are one thing, and they have made some really shocking statements, but to read them from a Pope is a bit upsetting.

I need some unbiased sources, which is surely impossible to find.

 

[ishii]

If the pro-life issue isn’t a political screen, why do pro-life groups repeatedly support pro-choice Republicans who are 100% pro-choice just because they are Republicans while attacking pro-life Democrats on matters of prudential decision?

What pro-life groups support pro-choice Republicans? Examples?

Are conservatives really committed to ending abortion or to just to attacking Democrats?

We are definitely committed to ending abortion, or atleast reducing it and making our laws recognize the sanctity of life. To say “ending” abortion would be like saying “ending” murder. You won’t do either, but we can reduce their occurence, and have moral laws. But our efforts would be much more successful if they weren’t repeatedly thwarted by Democrat catholics who are in the pocket of the abortion lobby.

How does George Bush get off scot free when the Guttamcher Institute data shows that abortion increased during his second term. So how is that pro-life?

Pretty hard for Bush to do much when Democrat catholics fight to keep Roe V Wade the law of the land.

Would still like to hear your answer to my earlier points/questions. Are you interested in a discussion?

Ishii

 

[LovePatience]

What pro-life groups support pro-choice Republicans? Examples?

I am not going to post the example I have here for privacy, but I have been on lists where official pro-life groups compare candidates and explain that the pro-choice Republican candidates are more moderate than their opponents.

Here is Concerned Women for America defending Meg Whitman.
cwfa.org/content.asp?id=19553

We are definitely committed to ending abortion, or atleast reducing it and making our laws recognize the sanctity of life. To say “ending” abortion would be like saying “ending” murder. You won’t do either, but we can reduce their occurence, and have moral laws. But our efforts would be much more successful if they weren’t repeatedly thwarted by Democrat catholics who are in the pocket of the abortion lobby.

If the commitment is to reducing and not ending, it seems that Clinton did better than Bush so it is confusing why voting GOP becomes a moral issue. Why didn’t the Democrat catholics thwart him?

Pretty hard for Bush to do much when Democrat catholics fight to keep Roe V Wade the law of the land.

Would still like to hear your answer to my earlier points/questions. Are you interested in a discussion?

Ishii

As you can see, I have been only one person replying to a great deal of people. I am unlikely to reply for a while since I can’t stay here all day and have other more important tasks. I will log on again next weekend and reply to your post.

 

[CMatt25]

I think the question will be which way the independents and moderates will go.
Ishii

Indeed Ishii. If enough independents and moderates agree with the message the President is getting out there and will I imagine more so as the campaign unfolds into the year. That the Republicans have obstructed him, be it with the 60 vote threshhold in the Senate, giving the minority such power in the Senate regardless of the party in the minority. Or with him being fought against at nearly every turn in the House since the 2010 election. And that we don’t want to go back with Romney or whomever the Republicans nominate in their primary process, likely to be Romney, to policies that got us into the mess in the first place. And there is a trend things are beginning to get better and the American people realize you can not blame Obama for everything but then not give him any credit. President Obama then has a chance at reelection and defeating whomever comes out of the Republican primary as the nominee.

 

[CMatt25]

Slavery is not an issue this election year.

Could have fooled me. People here bring it up enough trying to compare it to the abortion issue.

 

[rlg94086]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch… (i.e. back on topic after complete derailment by Democrat Catholics)

…Romney won 50% of the vote in Nevada.

cnn.com/2012/02/05/politics/romney-nevada-analysis/index.html

This is a state where nearly half of Republicans describe themselves as not just conservative, but “very conservative.” It’s also a closed primary, where the only voters weighing in are part of the Republican base. But Romney decisively captured conservatives, tea partiers and evangelicals on his way to a win.

Just how big was Romney’s win? It was so dominant he drew more support than the rest of the field combined. A quarter of Saturday’s voters were Mormon, and 9 in 10 of those voters backed Romney. However,as his campaign was quick to point out, even if you take those voters out of the mix, the former Massachusetts governor would still have walked away with a double-digit advantage.

I’m sure this will make some people who bemoaned the fact that Romney hadn’t been able to win a majority anywhere feel much, much better.

 

[CMatt25]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch… (i.e. back on topic after complete derailment by Democrat Catholics)

…Romney won 50% of the vote in Nevada.

cnn.com/2012/02/05/politics/romney-nevada-analysis/index.html

I’m sure this will make some people who bemoaned the fact that Romney hadn’t been able to win a majority anywhere feel much, much better.

I was surprised he lost the support of those Republican voters describing themselves as independents.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I was surprised he lost the support of those Republican voters describing themselves as independents.

Independent doesn’t equal centrist, especially in conservative states.

 

[ishii]

 Indeed Ishii.  If enough independents and moderates agree with the message the President is getting out there and will I imagine more so as the campaign unfolds into the year.  That the Republicans have obstructed him, be it with the 60 vote threshhold in the Senate, giving the minority such power in the Senate regardless of the party in the minority.  Or with him being fought against at nearly every turn in the House since the 2010 election.

Of course, that is your take as a liberal Dem. Don’t be surprised if those moderates don’t quite see it your way. Hard to complain about an obstructionist congress when your Obamacare got rammed through courtesy of a filibuster proof Senate. Obama was fought every turn because the American people voted in the guys to do exactly that. But now we are getting away from the objective political analysis and reverting to partisan discussions, which I was trying to avoid with you.

And that we don't want to go back with Romney or whomever the Republicans nominate in their primary process, likely to be Romney, to policies that got us into the mess in the first place.  And there is a trend things are beginning to get better and the American people realize you can not blame Obama for everything but then not give him any credit.  President Obama then has a chance at reelection and defeating whomever comes out of the Republican primary as the nominee.

Hopefully enough Catholics will see what Obama is doing to them and therefore abandon him. They helped elect Obama in 2008. Maybe now they can help defeat him.

Ishii