Republican voters??

[rlg94086]

It would not be up to “par” with the minimum requirements of being generated by Fox, so why bother? I don’t want to get into an argument about sources when anything I post will be have its veracity challenged because it’s not generated by the source deemed acceptable. If you would state here and now that you will be willing to accept sources that do not tow the Republican party ideological line such as Fox, National Review, Free Republic, et al, then I’ll see what I can do.

FoxNews wouldn’t have data like that, so I’m not sure why you keep putting up such strawmen. The data would come from an outside source, regardless of the news outfit reporting on it. If you can’t support your assertion, just say so. Don’t play victim. It’s tiresome.

LCMS_No_More:

By the way, I am not saying that Republicans are directly responsible (it’s not the stated intent) but that their polices have resulted in those things. To wit, since Republicans have had total domination over the US government, the results have been an increase of abortions, a lowering of the life expectancy rate, and an increased rate of off shoring. Don’t take what I say out of context.

IOW…it is your opinion, and you have no facts to back it up. Understood, and that’s fine. My opinion is that you are wrong. Correlation does not equal causation. There are more factors in place than just who is in charge of government.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

FoxNews wouldn’t have data like that, so I’m not sure why you keep putting up such strawmen. The data would come from an outside source, regardless of the news outfit reporting on it. If you can’t support your assertion, just say so. Don’t play victim. It’s tiresome.

Hmmm…quick search reveals that no new data has been generated since 2003 on any of these things…yet before that, a lot of new data was generated on a fairly regular basis. So, I stand corrected on the fact that there is a lot of information out there; however, it leads me to question WHY no new data has been generated.

One would imagine that if Republican policies are improving the standard of living for all Americans, they would like to trumpet it from the rooftops, but they’re not interested in new data…why?

IOW…it is your opinion, and you have no facts to back it up. Understood, and that’s fine. My opinion is that you are wrong. Correlation does not equal causation. There are more factors in place than just who is in charge of government.

Um…really. Is it my opinion or a fact that the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% during “wartime” have resulted in a massive deficit when Republican claim that tax cuts always increase revenue?

 

[rlg94086]

Hmmm…quick search reveals that no new data has been generated since 2003 on any of these things…yet before that, a lot of new data was generated on a fairly regular basis. So, I stand corrected on the fact that there is a lot of information out there; however, it leads me to question WHY no new data has been generated.

One would imagine that if Republican policies are improving the standard of living for all Americans, they would like to trumpet it from the rooftops, but they’re not interested in new data…why?

Um…really. Is it my opinion or a fact that the Bush tax cuts on the top 1% during “wartime” have resulted in a massive deficit when Republican claim that tax cuts always increase revenue?

Nice leap from “teen pregnancy and abortion.”

Yes, it is your opinion that the Bush tax cuts, deficits, standard of living, etc. are the cause of teen pregnancy and abortion increases. There is no amount of data that you can give to prove causation. Knock yourself out trying though.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Nice leap from “teen pregnancy and abortion.”

Yes, it is your opinion that the Bush tax cuts, deficits, standard of living, etc. are the cause of teen pregnancy and abortion increases.

No, those, along with a serious relaxation in enforcement of regulatory laws that protect the people of the United States, are the cause of the things in the first paragraph (rich/poor gap growing, middle class shrinking, etc.), not the second (the other issues).

There is no amount of data that you can give to prove causation. Knock yourself out trying though.

I did a little additional research and found that no new data has been generated since 2003. Since there has been no new data in the past FOUR YEARS, one can’t speak to these things without any knowledge…Why? One would think that if Republican policies on these issues were successful in improving these factors, they’d want to trumpet them from the rooftops and give them first story importance on FOX “News.”

But they don’t…why?

 

[melensdad]

Republican free-trade policies that remove all incentives to keep jobs in the United States (tariffs) are a major factor in this. Yes, Democrats have also voted for free-trade policies after the Republicans continually served the Kool-Aid on the issue. To a Republican, there is no greater possible evil than a tax (taxes are considered even worse than abortions, which is my point). Since a tariff is a form of taxation, it is completely reprobated, thus must never be considered in making policy for the United States…to a Republican, that is.

Include the fact that there are tax incentives to send American jobs out of the country and you have a double-whammy on the American working person.

I’ve never seen proof that the US offers tax incentives to move American jobs to foreign nations. I have seen proof to the contrary that totally disputes your point. In fact it is very common for cities/states to fight to keep/attract industry by offering tax increment financing, tax abatements, etc but those are often not enough to save businesses because of the other factors that also come into play.

I do know that many foreign nations offer tax incentives for companies who come to their nations. But that is their nation’s policy and NOT our nation’s policy.

As for tariffs, even the United Auto Workers ultimately admitted that they were ineffective at saving US jobs from foreign autos. Tariffs are a great short term tool used by the government when a foreign nation is “dumping” product below cost but they are dangerous when used as long term “protection” because all they do is make foreign firms compete harder while American firms lose incentive to compete. This failed scenario has played out with several industries and most honest people will admit that tariffs are not a good solution.

 

[scottm]

Personally, I will keep working in the party that holds pro-life views as part of its platform and most closely matches my ideology.

Most closely matches in word or in deed? Which way do you measure it? Different people measure it different ways.

You won’t find a party that matches the Church 100% that every Catholic will agree on.

We don’t have to. We only have to find a Party where the actions conform to the words. Said another way, we only have to vote for the non-hypocrites.

Voting Republican is not “giving lip service to God.” Pro-life Republicans, like myself, are doing what we can to keep pushing our politicians to vote pro-life. The Republican Party is pro-life in its platform, but that does not mean that all Republicans are pro-life. I know you are cynical and believe that it is all some party conspiracy, but that is not the case.

You contradicted yourself. If God is pro-life, and if the Party is pro-life in its words, and if the people elected under the Party are not pro-life in their actions, then voting Republican is just “giving lip service to God.” Follow the chain: the actions contradict the words. Then, after following the chain, let us all “be doers of the Word.” As Jesus said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not what I say?”

 

[melensdad]

We don’t have to. We only have to find a Party where the actions conform to the words. Said another way, we only have to vote for the non-hypocrites.

So voting for the non-hypocrites is voting for the pro-abortion supporters, how does that help? How does that reconcile with the teachings of our Church? Remember there are only 2 parties we can realistically choose from when voting. While some minor parties exist on the fringe, only 2 parties field viable candidates in the vast majority of elections in the US.

The reality is that the party of hypocrites (the G.O.P.) is made up of many pro-life supporters and many vote that way. Many more so than the party of non-hypocrites (the Democrats). I simply do not understand your logic. To throw away ALL members of the GOP because of the votes of some is illogical when the GOP is mostly pro-life. There are clearly degrees of support from many of those members and we can’t count on every vote. But they are also, as a party, and voting shows it, against many things that the Catholic Church teaches such as Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriage and Human Cloning.

But with the Democrats we know that the vast majority of them are voting Pro-Abortion, Pro-Human Cloning, Pro-Euthanasia, Pro-Gay Marriage and Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell research. Those are pretty non-negotiable issues within the Church teachings. Why would you suggest we support them?

Seriously, I cannot understand your logic for throwing away the entire party platform over some votes from some legislators who do not support what we support in exchange for electing people who will do great harm and commit great evil, just because they ADMIT that they will do it.

 

[Ender]

If God is pro-life, and if the Party is pro-life in its words, and if the people elected under the Party are not pro-life in their actions, then voting Republican is just “giving lip service to God.” Follow the chain: the actions contradict the words.

Be specific: which actions by which individuals contradict their pro-life claims? What are the positions of the pro-life organizations - do they agree with your claims that Republicans are just as bad on the life issues as Democrats, with the added sin of hypocrisy to boot? What about the pro-death organizations? Do they welcome the actions of the Republicans as closet helpers or do they characterize them as implacable enemies?

The only people who charge Republicans with hypocrisy on life issues are pro-life Democrats who recognize the evils their party supports (abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, fetal stem cell research) and are unwilling to admit that Republicans are not equally at fault. Whatever faults Republicans may have on other issues, as a party they are right on the life issues (this is not universally true of all Republicans) and their actions, while not perfect, are in stark contrast with those of the Democrats.

Ender

 

[scottm]

So voting for the non-hypocrites is voting for the pro-abortion supporters, how does that help?

I never advocated voting pro-abortion, nor do I believe that we are forced into that position. We have other options.

Remember there are only 2 parties we can realistically choose from when voting.

That is not how God chose leaders in the Bible. God never looked down and say, “Wow, realistically only these here people could win. I am forced therefore to only pick from them.” To the contrary, God always in the Bible ignore popularity when choosing people. ALWAYS. I can think of no counter-examples.

To throw away ALL members of the GOP because of the votes of some is illogical when the GOP is mostly pro-life.

I’ll consider voting for Alan Keyes, if he runs, and he’s a Republican by name. I liked him very much in the past when he was a presidential candidate.

Why would you suggest we support [Democrats]?

Never did, never will.

 

[melensdad]

So you would choose to vote for someone who cannot win because the reality of a 2 party system dictates that you vote for either party A or party B and any vote for any other party is realistically a vote against the party that is more closely aligned to your ideal, and realistically favors the party that is less closely aligned to your ideal.

 

[rlg94086]

Most closely matches in word or in deed? Which way do you measure it? Different people measure it different ways.

We don’t have to. We only have to find a Party where the actions conform to the words. Said another way, we only have to vote for the non-hypocrites.

You contradicted yourself. If God is pro-life, and if the Party is pro-life in its words, and if the people elected under the Party are not pro-life in their actions, then voting Republican is just “giving lip service to God.” Follow the chain: the actions contradict the words. Then, after following the chain, let us all “be doers of the Word.” As Jesus said, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not what I say?”

You are funny. If you vote for your “non-hypocrite” third party candidates, you will never be able to confirm if they are “non-hypocrites” because they won’t get elected. However, I guess you will feel better, and that is the important thing right?

As far as the Republicans being hypocrites, I agree with melensdad…

The reality is that the party of hypocrites (the G.O.P.) is made up of many pro-life supporters and many vote that way. Many more so than the party of non-hypocrites (the Democrats). I simply do not understand your logic. To throw away ALL members of the GOP because of the votes of some is illogical when the GOP is mostly pro-life. There are clearly degrees of support from many of those members and we can’t count on every vote. But they are also, as a party, and voting shows it, against many things that the Catholic Church teaches such as Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Gay Marriage and Human Cloning.

The solution to the problem is not to abandon the party and help put pro-choice Democrats in office. The solution is to get more pro-life Republicans into office.

 

[melensdad]

The solution to the problem is not to abandon the party and help put pro-choice Democrats in office. The solution is to get more pro-life Republicans into office.

 

[SoCalRC]

So you would choose to vote for someone who cannot win because the reality of a 2 party system…

Yes. I am not asked to do what is expedient, but what is right.

Really, what has pragmatic produced? The party that we’ve carried water for has pursued a policy they, themselves, describe as perpetual war. I follow the Prince of Peace.

If the values the spouted truly mattered to them, why would they profiteer off abortion, hide sexual predators and pedophiles, and then run a string of candidates with the family values of a tom cat and a long history of pro abortion involvement as potential party leaders…

You keep talking about chances, or odds. What odds did early Christians have against the Roman empire? How much easier it would have been to answer violence with violence. But three centuries of following Christ and rejecting the all-too-human response of answering evil with evil allowed those same Christians to become the empire.

The question is, is your faith strong enough to stand with God against seemingly impossible odds, or at the end of the day do you put more trust in earthly political power?

 

[SoCalRC]

The solution to the problem is not to abandon the party and help put pro-choice Democrats in office. The solution is to get more pro-life Republicans into office.

So saving the party is more important than answering your duty to God?

 

[SoCalRC]

Since you chose that particular Hebrew word and used it in the doxocology of Romans in the context of the Republican party, it would appear that you have already answered my question…

 

[rlg94086]

So saving the party is more important than answering your duty to God?

It has nothing to do with the party and everything to do with my duty to God. Electing more pro-lifers to the major party that has a pro-life platform is the right thing to do, and it will have 1000% more effect than voting for a third party pro-lifer who will never have a chance to effect change.

 

[melensdad]

It has nothing to do with the party and everything to do with my duty to God. Electing more pro-lifers to the major party that has a pro-life platform is the right thing to do, and it will have 1000% more effect than voting for a third party pro-lifer who will never have a chance to effect change.

All I can add to that is

 

[SoCalRC]

It has nothing to do with the party and everything to do with my duty to God. Electing more pro-lifers to the major party that has a pro-life platform is the right thing to do, and it will have 1000% more effect than voting for a third party pro-lifer who will never have a chance to effect change.

That’s interesting. We just had a stretch of single party rule, including a majority of judicial appointees. In that time we made less progress on reducing abortions than under two terms of Clinton. Plus, we have seen errosion on a number of other values central to the Catholic faith.

It seems we need to either redefine “1000%” or “more effect” to remotely connect your claim to reality. But, again, I am persuing this from a Catholic point of view. According to the Cardinal Ratzinger, obviously now Pope, and Pope John Paul II, it is “incoherent” and a “detriment” for Catholics to base their participation in secular politics on a single aspect of Church teaching:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

In this context “Limiting the harm”], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.

Abortion is an uncompromisable position for a Catholic, from the same document:

When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate)…

However, we have already been warned that we must take Christian teachings as a cohesive whole, so we must read the entire paragraph:

…Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such. The same is true for the freedom of parents regarding the education of their children; it is an inalienable right recognized also by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery (drug abuse and prostitution, for example). In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good, with respect for social justice, the principles of human solidarity and subsidiarity, according to which «the rights of all individuals, families, and organizations and their practical implementation must be acknowledged».[21] Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always «the work of justice and the effect of charity».[22] It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.

The Church has identified forms of modern slavery, for example, USCCB specifically identified the situation in Saipan. The GOP congressional leadership has been blocking extending US laws against such practices for nearly a decade, all while accepting millions of dollars through a corrupt and convicted lobbyist. If slavery does not raise to your level of Christain concience, how about abortion? In addition to forcing woman into sex trades, garment workers are housed in guarded compounds and subjected to forced abortions…

That’s what you are ‘pragmatically’ voting for. Thumping your chest and calling it “pro life” doesn’t take the stench away.

 

[estesbob]

It has nothing to do with the party and everything to do with my duty to God. Electing more pro-lifers to the major party that has a pro-life platform is the right thing to do, and it will have 1000% more effect than voting for a third party pro-lifer who will never have a chance to effect change.

Well I almost agree with everything you say. There are no circumstances whatsoever I’ll vote for a candidate who supports abortion. I don’t care what party they belong to -I know the church differs with this and says we should go for the politician who would do the least harm but the way I look at it I end up with blood on my hands either way I’m hoping that those of us that are pro-life will make it crystal clear to the Republican Party that we will not support them if they abandon us.

 

[SoCalRC]

Well I almost agree with everything you say. There are no circumstances whatsoever I’ll vote for a candidate who supports abortion. I don’t care what party they belong to -I know the church differs with this and says we should go for the politician who would do the least harm but the way I look at it I end up with blood on my hands either way I’m hoping that those of us that are pro-life will make it crystal clear to the Republican Party that we will not support them if they abandon us.

The Republican party already supports, and profits from, abortion. Again, just find the courage to read about the human tragedy in Saipan and examine the evidence and testimony in Abramof’s conviction.

They also protect pedophiles and sexual predators, all in the name of political power.

The only difference is that the GOP is now rubbing your nose in it. This is always the problem when religion get’s in bed with politics. It is religion that has to be worred about being respected in the morning, and which loses its moral independance. The GOP can be blatant, as if wholly unfullfilled promises has not been enough, because it is counting on your chosing the false religion of earthly political power over the true religion of our Savior.

You are also mistating the Church’s position. Look closely, it is not about “limiting harm” in the context you imply. It is a reaffirmation that our faith is a single, cohesive, path to salvation. Virtually all our beliefs can be connected to our recognition of the “human person” in the context beautifully explained by the Second Vatican Council. If you persue changes to secular law about abortion at the expense of another aspect of our understanding of the human person, you are not truly embracing the Catholic teaching on abortion.

Look closely at Pope Pius XII’s ALLOCUTION TO MIDWIFES. It explains very clearly why we cannot use abortion even for the most laudable of goals, to save the life of a mother. Evil can never be embraced as a means to good. When we embrace evil means, we inherently become evil.

Now, few Christians could look at Saipan and not decry what has happened there as a grave evil. Similiarly, most would accept that protecting a predatory sexual predator for the protection of status and power is evil. Our Pope has chosen Easter to decry the situation in Iraq as evil. And, I have a hard time undertanding why the US’s new policy of aiding the same militias who are both killing US troops and killing Christians and driving hundreds of thousands of others from their homes does not weigh on the heart of every US Catholic…

It is tempting to convince oneself that pursuit of a single goal can be at the expense of all others, but it isn’t just the Church that warns us against this, but the Gospels as well. Look at a ‘minor’ evil, activiely supressing voter turnout among minorities. We could argue that the greater good, say over turning Roe v. Wade, requires it. But look at the means, we are specifically attacking the inalianable rights of human persons, the very foundation of our teaching on abortion and euthanasia. Further, we are victimizing the poor. Christ tells us that simply ignoring their plight is enough for damnation.

If you want to talk about blood on your hands, accept all of it. Then ask yourself if you serve the one true master, or two.