E
estesbob
Guest
I have long since quit reading your responses. Save your rants for somebody who hasn’t already picked them apart numerous times.
- Status
F
Fitz
Guest
I have come around to this also. I used to vote the lesser of two evils. I will only vote prolife now. Sorry if that does not save any party. That is not my responsibility. The older I get I realize that I need to answer for what I do. Life all the way!
I look at their voting record on life issues., and don’t rely on their promises or quick sound bites.
E
estesbob
Guest
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Interesting, you use terms like “lame” and “rants” with abandon, but I primarily cite Church documents and Holy Scripture.
It is your logic that makes you a willing abortionist for profit and power, not mine.
Similiarly, I have written that you are indisputably an equal child of God. You are the one that has repeatedly declared your moral superiority over other “sideline” Catholics.
Again, that is a behavior we can look directly to the Gospels on. But, since you appear to be closing your mind and heart to Christ and the Vicar of Christ, there is little reason to expect any less with regards to me.
S
scottm
Guest
They’ll get elected if you and I both vote for them. That’s the whole point. That’s the beginning, middle, and end – they’ll get elected if you and I both for them.
To vote 2-party-system is to get more of what you’ve been getting. If you like what you’ve been getting, then hey, keep doing it. If you don’t like what you’ve been getting then — sheesh! “Stupid is as stupid does”!
Funny thing here – David would not have been king under your method of choosing leaders, but he would have been king under my method. Does that mean that my method is more in line with God’s heart than your method?
[ponder … ponder … ponder]
E
estesbob
Guest
If the republican party does not turn its back on it pro-life base there is not a problem.We simply can not validate their embracing of any canidate that supports abortion and homosexual behavior. I am not leaving them-they are leaving me.They’ll get elected if you and I both vote for them. That’s the whole point. That’s the beginning, middle, and end – they’ll get elected if you and I both for them.
To vote 2-party-system is to get more of what you’ve been getting. If you like what you’ve been getting, then hey, keep doing it. If you don’t like what you’ve been getting then — sheesh! “Stupid is as stupid does”!
Funny thing here – David would not have been king under your method of choosing leaders, but he would have been king under my method. Does that mean that my method is more in line with God’s heart than your method?
M
melensdad
Guest
Do you participate at the local, county or state level in any political organization?
My wife and I used to be very involved when were in our 20s and 30s and it was amazing how much influence you could have in your area and even in your state. We were both involved enough to get our voices heard at state level and it really didn’t take very much time or as much effort as you’d think.
Realize that politicians come from towns and cities and work their way up the system. The primary system is the best place to stop the pro-abortion folks and it can be done even before they become candidates.
What I see a lot of in this thread are people who seemingly voice total dissatisfaction but don’t get involved. If you are pro-life, pro-Catholic, then you should be at least minimally involved in politics in your area. If you are not then you really don’t realize how effective your voice COULD be, but clearly is not.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m sorry? David was elected democratically in a 2-party system as a third party candidate? As far as your claim that you are more in line with God’s heart than I am, I think that is a little more pride than I would prefer to exhibit.They’ll get elected if you and I both vote for them. That’s the whole point. That’s the beginning, middle, and end – they’ll get elected if you and I both for them.
To vote 2-party-system is to get more of what you’ve been getting. If you like what you’ve been getting, then hey, keep doing it. If you don’t like what you’ve been getting then — sheesh! “Stupid is as stupid does”!
Funny thing here – David would not have been king under your method of choosing leaders, but he would have been king under my method. Does that mean that my method is more in line with God’s heart than your method?
I will continue to pray and then vote my conscience. I hope you will pray and vote according to your conscience as well. It’s all we can do. I disagree with your assessment of the Republican Party, but you are free to vote third party and help elect the Democratic Party candidate.
M
Melo
Guest
Good info from the book! Thanks!
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Pro-life Republican or PLINO Republican? I think the former is extremely rare almost to the point of extinction. The latter is extremely prolific (ha!) but they’re so good at mimicking the former that they’re indistinguishable until their position of power is threatened…then their true colors come through.
R
rlg94086
Guest
No offense, LCMS_No_More, but all of this “PLINO” talk is merely a tiresome anti-Republican talking point. As many have explained, there are pro-life Republicans and there are pro-choice Republicans. The party plank is pro-life, but we don’t have enough pro-lifers to outnumber the combined efforts of pro-choice Republicans and pro-choice Democrats (and the 1 or 2 pro-choice third party members).
IF…and it’s a HUGE IF, you can get your possibly, genuinely pro-life third party candidate elected (you won’t know if he is a “PLINO” until he actually has a chance to vote, eh?), he will have the same issues overcoming the pro-choice politicians.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
You need to look closer at the facts. Judge Roberts, whom you identified by name, has already joined an opinion reaffirming the key precedents in Roe and Casey. Scalia and Thomas noted that they did not agree with the constitutionality of Roe, but indicated that they would have found the Partial Birth Abortion Ban unconstitutional if the Commerce Clause had been raised…
I think everything a Catholic needs to know about today’s GOP can be found in the recent Graham Frost story. The s-chip program is not a Democratic program, but a long standing bypartisan one. Both Huckabee and Romney supported expansions almost identical to the current version when they were govs.
FamiliesUSA.org is involved in family health care advocacy, period. Over the last 25 years the group has been a tremendous friend to Faith based health care initiatives and has lobbied with Catholics many times. That group identified the Frost family as a good representative of the positive effects the program can have.
From all the information available, the Frosts appear to be everything the GOP claims it wants people to be. Hard working, family oriented, they even managed to buy their own home for about $50,000. Their principle ‘sins’ appear to be, using a government program to get health care for their children and being in a terrible accident which incurred astronomical health care costs.
So when a 12 year old, brain damaged, boy tells his own story what happens? The right wing attack monkeys come screaching out of the trees. Worse, the smears they fling are false. Both the New York Times and the Baltimore Sun rand good articles on this yesterday, wholly debunking the attacks.
I wish we could stop right there. Accept that one major party’s idea of a policy ‘discussion’ is to conduct an orchestrated attack and bear false witness against a brain damaged child. But I think that the aftermath of having been caught lying about a disabled child is worse.
Today, the majority of Republicans polled do not accept the version of reality we saw yesterday in the papers. All the records, documents, etc. that those articles cite do not matter. According the CNN, roughly 3/4 of all Republicans reject documentation, confirming eye witnesses, etc. and accept, instead an oral tradition spread by a convicted drug abuser who also has been in the awkward position of being caught smuggling a bucket of Viagra to an “all boys vacation” in the underage male prostitute capital of the western hemisphere.
We are not just talking about the widespread rejection of what would normally be considered objective reality, but a seeming inability to recognize even the most blatant hypocrisy. I’ve already noted that Romney and Huckabee were for expanding s-chip before they were for the president vetoing it. But what about Michelle Malkin? In 2004 she wrote a blistering piece about her near inability to obtain and afford private health care insurance. She proclaimed that the system was a mess and noted that it is no wonder that so many folks have to go without insurance.
In 2007? She is physically stalking a family with two disabled children who simply report having been in the same situation and using government assistance to at least protect their children…
Once a political ideology must rely on a “flapper” method of reality management (ala GULLIVER’S TRAVELS), you inevitably start treading dangerously near idolotry. No wonder the Church expressely warns against Christianity via political proxy (see the citation I provided above).
Look at estesbob’s actions here. The argument was presented that he will not have the blood on his hands. But what was the response when I brought up Saipan? It is not ‘my word’. He can look to the USCCB, to the confessions of Tom Delay’s close associates, to the testimony in the Abramof conviction, to the US Government’s own reports on human rights, to records in the US Senate and US House… His response? I’m not listening…
For me, it is simple. God comes first. If you stand with child abusers, you are an abuser (sadly, Frost isn’t the only example). If you stand with abortion profiteers, you are an abortion profiteer. If standing for what is right costs political power, too bad. I’ve simply come to believe that the Church is right, if you don’t accept our faith and teachings as a coherent whole, you don’t really accept them at all.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Very well stated! :clapping:
R
rlg94086
Guest
I stopped reading your diatribe after you contradicted yourself in the first couple of paragraphs. You said that S-Chip is a bipartisan supported legislation with a couple of Republican candidates who also back it. Then, you start explaining how the evil GOP is denigrating the Frosts.
You constantly lump all Republicans as a monolithic group. It’s boring, and I just have no interest in reading your posts anymore. I will continue to pray and vote my conscience as a Catholic. I expect you will do the same.
God bless you in your choices.
E
estesbob
Guest
Welcome to the club!
S
SoCalRC
Guest
That was the point. Thank you for reinforcing it.
Now that we have two examples here, I can point out something that political economist and so-called father of the neoconservative movement Francis Fukuyama has pointed out. In modern conservatism, it is no longer just necessary to deny objective fact, but it seems necessary to do so proudly.
Again, look to estebob and yourself. You both proudly indicated that you did not read what I had to say, and then immediately went on to critique it. Think about it, if we were working in the context of coherent thought, you would have to read something to be qualified to intellectually critique it.
Fukuyama likens this to Leninism, the substitution of faith and allegience for any coherent or consistant ideology; all on a foundation of fear. And it is hard to disagree with the assessment of a leap of faith. Think about it, you are accusing me of dealing with Republicans as a monolithic stereotype, but I am actually reading your posts and responding to them. On the flip side, you are proudly declaring that you can respond without even going through the steps of reading something, let alone thinking about it.
In the secular world, having a strong opinion about something without actually even examining it or thinking about it is generally condemned. It is only in the context of faith that blind devotion is considered a virtue.
As far as ‘coherent ideology’ goes, I think the “funding father” of modern conservatism, Richard Viguerie makes the case best. His CONSERVATIVES BETRAYED makes a compelling argument that the modern GOP has been loyal to absolutely no conservative principles, social or fiscal.
Let’s go back to what the Church has advised Catholic voters, particularly on non negotiable Church teachings:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html, #4
Notice that multiple non-neogiable things are emphasized in the original text. Abortion, euthanasia, human embryo, family, education, protection of minors, modern forms of slavery, religious freedom, economic development that reflects social justice, and peace.
The common way to reconcile the discrepencies between this list and the GOP is to argue that abortion trumps all other beliefs. This requires ignoring the paragraph just prior, which I have quoted previosly, but the argument is not completely incoherent.
The rubber really hits the road when we discuss abortion. The top five contenders for leadership of the GOP in '08 all have ties to abortion. This should not be surprising, the entire GOP leadership in both chambers of congress, and the White House, have ties to the forced abortion profits that Abramof illegally funneled out of Saipan. These are the same folks that helped harbor a pair of pedophiles in their ranks and who paid dolled out hush money to cover up for drunken Pinochet thugs randomly killing people in Iraq.
As C.S. Lewis noted in MERE CHRISTIANITY. I cannot look into another person’s heart and see if they are Christian. I also am called upon not to judge. But I can observe. And it strikes me as important that you are willing to reject the teachings of the Magesterium when it puts you at odds with the GOP, but you are not willing to turn your back on the GOP even when falter badly on an issue you claim is the center of your political life.
As we heard recently from the Gospel. When a man serves two masters he will eventually show, through his deeds, whom he loves more.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I have to thank you for reinforcing the Fukuyama point as well.
M
melensdad
Guest
Well unlike those folks, I did do a good bit of reading. I went back and reread it a couple times, and I also spent a good amount of time reading/rereading the Vatican document that you cited.
I am not convinced that you are correctly reading and interpreting the position of the Church. While I agree that you bring up good points that we must consider, I do not see that we can be expected to be held accountable for the political actions of another nation, that our nation has some political ties to. Our nation has political ties to virtually every nation, and has under both Republican and Democratic rule, and for the most part our relations with each of those nations has been reasonably the same under both parties under most circumstances. You seem to hold one party of this nation responsible for the actions of other nations and you then suggest rather strongly that the party is at fault for the actions of a nation that our government has some relations with. You offer no quarter at all for the fact that the political party does not have absolute control over all the policies of this nation, and has even less control over any other nation. You suggest, rather, that those who even vote for the party are somehow morally doomed because the party has some influence in government and that influence translates into some foreign relations influence even if that is not enough influence to correct the sins of the nation we have some relations with.
Further, the Vatican suggest that we need to make a practical choice.
You have yet to offer any semblance of a practical choice or suggestion on how to cast a vote. You criticize the GOP, and to some extent they deserve to be slapped. You offer little suggestion that the Democrats are better, in fact I gather you feel they are in many ways far worse. Still, nothing is forthcoming from you other than criticism of what we have and no constructive solutions are given.
Please provide some additional insight into realistic solutions.
S
scottm
Guest
"rlg:
Thanks but no. I don’t play hypocracy.
No – he would have never been chosen by the people in an election. Never. Ever. That’s the point – he would have never ever been chosen by the people in an election.
In the past I too was involved. I worked on campaigns for Justice of the Peace, State Assembly, US Congress, and the President. I walked door-to-door, I hung up and took down signs, I made phone calls, and I stuffed mailers. I was a precinct committeeman one year. I started a Republican club at college from scratch. I was in the crowd at the Republican Convention in Houston, TX in the summer of 1992. My friend was a delegate down there on the floor. (That’s how I got the ticket.) After that election I changed my voter registration because the Party wasn’t acting according to my beliefs. The written platform was fantastic, and it still is good, but the Party wasn’t following the platform in its actions. Later elections have repeatedly confirmed this. Dole versus Clinton? Are you kidding? That’s like lite beer versus regular beer. And our current “Republican” is a Democrat’s dream. In one term he increased the scope, breadth, touch, influence, size, and cost of the federal government more than any Democrat could hope in such a short time. That is totally a Democrat thing, yet George was chosen by Republicans.
Thanks but no. I don’t play hypocracy.
M
melensdad
Guest
Seems to me you walked away when you were needed the most! I totally agree with all your criticism of the party, by the way, but I am still looking for a better alternative and await an answer from anyone who can provide it.
All the complaints I hear are valid, none however solve the problems. The Democrats offer an alternative of pure evil on all things related to life issues. So what is the alternative other than to work with the GOP and fight those members of that party that are contrary to its platform.
- Status