Republican voters??

[melensdad]

What is wrong with you people? You vote Republican no matter what their position is don’t you? Be honest. Bush is the worst president this country has ever had to suffer through and I bet most of you voted for him - - twice. The Republican Party uses and abuses the religious right’s positions only as a ploy to get votes, they could care less about the poor and middle class. If they have a choice to vote on something benefiting big business and the rich or the poor and middle class, they will choose the former every time. It’s time for you to grow up and stop blindly following these corrupt people.

Don’t believe the lie that only the Republicans are pro-life. They don’t decide that - it is the Supreme Court that does, and at the moment they are very conservative and will eventually rid us of Rove v Wade.

I bet most of you listen to far right neo-con commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Rielly. You probably watch way too much FOX news. They are the media that twist stories to confuse the narrow minded.

I thought this was supposed to be a religious site but it seems that it is only a front. Don’t let this site be “FOX Catholic Answers”.

Let’s see, I don’t listen to or watch Fox. I don’t know who Sean Hannity or Bill O’Rielly are. And while I know who Rush Limbaugh is, I don’t listen to him.

But if you think the current Supreme Court will rid of us Roe v Wade then you are sadly wrong. The topic is not on their radar. So if any court rules on Roe v Wade it will be the next one, or the one after that. What you must understand is the NEXT president will very likely nominate 2 new Supreme Court justices, so those 2 folks may be the critical votes to overturning Roe v Wade, if the issue even appears before them.

And while some in the GOP are not Pro-Life, it is very very clear that** most** in the Democratic party are Pro-Abortion.

And you may be correct that many in the GOP ‘don’t care’ about the poor or middle class but the GOP does not hold the middle and lower classes under its thumb like the Democrats do. Last time I checked many of the middle and lower classes were suckling off the teat of government programs and can’t get off those programs because they are designed to keep people oppressed. Those wonderful Democratic programs are actually counter-productive and hurt people rather than help them. They give them a hand-out, but not a hand-up. Keeping people dependent upon programs is not a very good form of charity, in fact it seems very anti-Christian to me.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I just heard a snippet from Denis Prager. He was commenting that Conservatives tend to be more respective of Liberals than Liberals are of Conservatives. It appears that Liberals must condemn Conservatives as evil lest they be obliged to consider that theyt might be right.

 

[mozart-250]

Don’t be tempted to stick your head in the sand. Simply plugging your nose and “throwing your vote away” is the height of irresponsibility in our democratic society.

Why is voting for a third party candidate any more “throwing your vote away” than voting for a R or D you know is going to lose.

Up here in Vermont, I know the D will get our electoral votes. So I see no logical difference between voting for a third party candidate you know is going to lose and a Republican you know is going to lose.

:newidea: Actually what we should do in the case of a less desirable Republican candidate and a worse Democratic candidate is a reverse Nadar trader of 2000. It works like this

Two people pair up. One person is in a safe state where the outcome is known either way (like Vermont). The other person is in a competitive state like say Ohio.

The person in the safe state votes for the preferable third party candidate.

The person in the competitive state votes for the less desirable Republican.

 

[mozart-250]

I think this current lineup of “major candidates” is really bottom of the barrel. I am having a hard time finding any of them with whom I am comfortable; Ron Paul is, however, a staunch pro-lifer and plain-spoken…

…and an anti-war Republican!

 

[melensdad]

…and an anti-war Republican!

While Ron Paul is anti-war, both the USCCB and the Pope have both stated that the US cannot pull out of Iraq until AFTER we stabilize the government. While the Church opposed the US invading Iraq, is similarly opposes pulling out of Iraq until we fix it. Basically they say we broke it, we are now morally obligated to fix it.

So from that perspective, a vote for Ron Paul (or any of running Dems) might be considered a vote against the current position of the Church (at least on this particular issue).

 

[vern_humphrey]

mikerod,

Your post is very uncharitable. Catholic Republicans are just as thoughtful as Catholic Democrats and Catholic “Independents” (not to be confused with the Independent Party).

Ah, the lad has his nether garments tangled and it makes him testy.

Of course, we all know it would be better and more moral to vote for someone who not only supports abortion on demand (including partial birth abortion) but also wants the taxpayer to pay for it.

 

[tomarin]

What is wrong with you people? You vote Republican no matter what their position is don’t you? …
I thought this was supposed to be a religious site but it seems that it is only a front. Don’t let this site be “FOX Catholic Answers”.

mike, this is a religious website. but the reality is that most religious people tend to be politically conservative, so it’s not surprising you would encounter a disproportionate number of conservatives here. you’ll have to get used to it or find another website.

 

[tomarin]

both the USCCB and the Pope have both stated that the US cannot pull out of Iraq until AFTER we stabilize the government. While the Church opposed the US invading Iraq, is similarly opposes pulling out of Iraq until we fix it. Basically they say we broke it, we are now morally obligated to fix it.

but we know that on issues of war and peace catholics can have a legitimate difference of opinion so i think what the vatican is offering is its considered opinion, nothing more.

for that reason i think you can disagree with the premise of the “pottery barn rule” and still be a faithful catholic.

 

[mozart-250]

While Ron Paul is anti-war, both the USCCB and the Pope have both stated that the US cannot pull out of Iraq until AFTER we stabilize the government. While the Church opposed the US invading Iraq, is similarly opposes pulling out of Iraq until we fix it. Basically they say we broke it, we are now morally obligated to fix it.

While I respect that position (and it may be right) I do question the moral authority and ability for “us” to stabilize their government. In otherwords, that position to me sounds like an impossibility. I also have wondered whether the Iraq people want us to stay or leave and whether we have no moral ground to stay if they really want us to leave. But that is another issue.

 

[rlg94086]

but we know that on issues of war and peace catholics can have a legitimate difference of opinion so i think what the vatican is offering is its considered opinion, nothing more.

for that reason i think you can disagree with the premise of the “pottery barn rule” and still be a faithful catholic.

Yep. The difference of opinion cuts both ways. As we were able to debate the Vatican stance on going into Iraq, it is fair to debate the Vatican stance on staying in Iraq.

That said, both sides need to be respectful of the others’ opinions and not condemn people who supported the Iraq war as being evil…not that anyone on CAF would do that.

 

[rlg94086]

Yep. The difference of opinion cuts both ways. As we were able to debate the Vatican stance on going into Iraq, it is fair to debate the Vatican stance on staying in Iraq.

That said, both sides need to be respectful of the others’ opinions and not condemn people who supported the Iraq war as being evil…not that anyone on CAF would do that.

Fellow posters,

Just my recommendation, as my above post also deserves the same warning, but we need to be careful not to turn this into another Iraq war thread. I think we have all fought that out *ad nauseum *over the last few years.

 

[Newzie52]

I think you should rethink your policy; although, I do support your decision to support Paul in the primaries.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2793500&postcount=13

Let me be clear though, I am giving my opinion - not “telling you how to vote.” We all have to pray about it and make the best decision.

I do understand where you’re coming from. Pro-life sensibilities are so ingrained (my whole family has been “in the trenches” since even before Roe v. Wade) that it is well nigh impossible to vote for someone with a pro-abortion track record. I figure it will be Clinton vs. Giuliani in the general election; I know folks who worked for the Clintons in Arkansas and cannot possibly, under any circumstances, vote for her. Giuliani is, in my opinion, amoral. He has, however, said he would appoint judges more in the “strict constructionist” mold. Joe Schriner is refreshing and moral, though he supports some far-out social policies that require study, and Ron Paul is pro-life, though I have some questions re: his really austere fiscal policies.

I guess lots of praying is what I’ll be doing!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

While Ron Paul is anti-war, both the USCCB and the Pope have both stated that the US cannot pull out of Iraq until AFTER we stabilize the government. While the Church opposed the US invading Iraq, is similarly opposes pulling out of Iraq until we fix it. Basically they say we broke it, we are now morally obligated to fix it.

So from that perspective, a vote for Ron Paul (or any of running Dems) might be considered a vote against the current position of the Church (at least on this particular issue).

Documentation, please.

Ironic how when the USCCB and the Holy Father are alleged to say something in line with a particular right-wing party’s talking points, it becomes obligatory, but when it’s NOT in line with that party, then it’s a “prudential judgement” kinda thingy.

 

[tomarin]

Fellow posters,

Just my recommendation, as my above post also deserves the same warning, but we need to be careful not to turn this into another Iraq war thread. I think we have all fought that out *ad nauseum *over the last few years.

amen to both of your posts.

 

[tomarin]

Documentation, please.

Ironic how when the USCCB and the Holy Father are alleged to say something in line with a particular right-wing party’s talking points, it becomes obligatory, but when it’s NOT in line with that party, then it’s a “prudential judgement” kinda thingy.

you shouldn’t assume a particular poster’s position on the war unless he (or she) explicitly states it. i believe melensdad was opposed to the war before it started.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I can’t bring myself to vote for Giuliani and definitely not for Clinton.

I hope Fred Thompson surges ahead and picks Romney or
Paul as a running mate.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[vern_humphrey]

I can’t bring myself to vote for Giuliani and definitely not for Clinton.

I hope Fred Thompson surges ahead and picks Romney or
Paul as a running mate.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

Or Mike Huckabee.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

you shouldn’t assume a particular poster’s position on the war unless he (or she) explicitly states it. i believe melensdad was opposed to the war before it started.

First, I asked for documentation that the USCCB and the Holy Father said what they were alleged to have said. I’ve seen this claim made in several places and have yet to see proof thereof. This was the first post I’ve hard the opportunity to comment on and ask for the backup.

Second, I was commenting on the general flavor that I get when discussing hot-button issues in general, not melensdad in particular. As an example: the USCCB speaks on immigration and it’s a “prudential judgment” that one can agreement and it just so happens to not be in line with what the right wing stands for but when they now are alleged to have said that we must stay in Iraq until it’s “stablilized” (whatever that means), it’s a moral imperative…and it just happens to be in line with the right wing’s point of view. Seems to be a bit too convenient to me.

 

[SoCalRC]

Amnesty for illegal immigrants, restitution to Native Americans, North American Union (NAU), Department of Peace, just to name a few bold proposals…

Let me rephrase. Why, exactly, are any of these radical for a Catholic?

Ender claims that this somehow does not represent Church teaching. But we can find similiar wish lists from Catholic Bishops all over the world.

Others claim that it is a matter of priorities and pragmatism. Is the unstated assumption that God is too weak to stand with alone?

I always find it interesting when God and politics collide. Case in point, our Catholic teaching on abortion stems from an expansion of our understanding of pro life. Holy Scripture is mute, so we have to rely on an expansion of principles and the Gift of Authority from our apostolic Church. When abortion was declared an infallible teaching, it was done in a document that expanded our Catholic understanding of pro life in every conceivable direction.

On the flip side, politics finds an expanding concept of pro life difficult. If we walk into a Wall Mart and see, not affordable products, but a testament to exploitation and human suffering, our domestic political ‘battle lines’ get blurry. Sometimes it isn’t enough to even narrow the discussion to abortion. We have to go further, and disucss only secular law. If we muddy the waters with, say, a criteria of actually reducing abortions, political camps and alliances are once again threatened…

Obvioulsy the Gospel we heard recently is right, it is hard to serve two masters.

 

[SoCalRC]

Last time I checked many of the middle and lower classes were suckling off the teat of government programs and can’t get off those programs because they are designed to keep people oppressed. Those wonderful Democratic programs are actually counter-productive and hurt people rather than help them. They give them a hand-out, but not a hand-up. Keeping people dependent upon programs is not a very good form of charity, in fact it seems very anti-Christian to me.

Wow, that is silly. We’ve just seen the largest redistribution of wealth and ownership in US history. This concides with the most massive examples of corruption and chronism in US history.

War profiteering CEOs have seen their pay rise 700%. We’re using our tax dollars to cover up Pinochet thug’s drunken shooting sprees, lest we rock the gravy boat for the well connected…

And you are worried about a greedy middle class suckling at the public teet?

I guess it is true, politicians can get away with anything, as long as they give the public scapegoats to blame and hate…