Stacey Dash defends herself on Twitter after posting 'vote for Romney' message

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markomalley

Guest
From the NY Daily News:Clueless” actress Stacey Dash is rolling with Mitt Romney for President — remaining undeterred by the racially-based Twitter attacks against her.

Dash, 46, tweeted Sunday to “vote for Romney. The only choice for your future,” and included a picture of herself wearing a tight red top in front of an American flag.



That public support of the Republican presidential nominee sent some users into a Twitter tirade against Dash, who starred in VH1’s “Single Ladies” during its first season last year.

“You’re an unemployed black woman endorsing @MittRomney. You’re voting against yourself thrice. You poor beautiful idiot,” one user tweeted.
Also see coverage on
My comment:

Typical for leftist “tolerance”. I chuckle that whenever a minority person dares to support somebody other than the minority/leftist candidate, they are instantly targeted for the most vile racist character assassination.

Yet conservatives are the racists.

Go figure.
 
If liberal-progressives bash anyone, it’s freedom of speech. If non-libprogs (short for non-liberal-progressive) say anything, it’s hate speech.
 
There seems to be a double standard being overlooked here. Look through these forums and see what happens to someone who show support for other candidates, or even stating they will not vote at all.:rolleyes:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There seems to be a double standard being overlooked here. Look through these forums and see what happens to someone who show support for other candidates, or even stating they will not vote at all.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Really? Did you read the posts? :rolleyes:
 
Are you saying the double standard is that someone who supported the Democratic ticket for president would be attacked on this webpage?

If that is the case, I would first hope that good Christian people don’t simply attack others for having a different opinion, but I would expect others on the forum to respectfully challenge the basis for that support in this case.

At the Democratic convention this year-- when the Democratic Party took the word “God” out of and put taxpayer funded abortion into their official party platform, I would expect everyone of right conscience to reject that party or at least expect to explain why they are unwilling to do so (especially when posting that opinion on an obviously religious forum).
 
Gail_Autumn said:
Are you saying the double standard is that someone who supported the Democratic ticket for president would be attacked on this webpage?

If that is the case, I would first hope that good Christian people don’t simply attack others for having a different opinion, but I would expect others on the forum to respectfully challenge the basis for that support in this case.

At the Democratic convention this year-- when the Democratic Party took the word “God” out of and put taxpayer funded abortion into their official party platform, I would expect everyone of right conscience to reject that party or at least expect to explain why they are unwilling to do so (especially when posting that opinion on an obviously religious forum).
Click to expand...
I have had false accusations made against myself, had my faith questioned, and much worse, just for stating that I was either not voting, or writing in another candidate.
 
That wasn’t very nice. I’m sorry that happened to you. I know (believe me I know) how politically charged the country is right now.

On one hand, there is an argument to be made that a write-in (assuming it is a conservative write-in) or non-vote is effectively another vote to re-elect the president-- the enemy of my enemy is my friend philosophy.

Bottom line is that it is your right to vote for whomever you choose. I would be prepared to explain WHY you intend to vote that way, but attacked-- that is just not productive.
 
Gail_Autumn said:
That wasn’t very nice. I’m sorry that happened to you. I know (believe me I know) how politically charged the country is right now.

On one hand, there is an argument to be made that a write-in (assuming it is a conservative write-in) or non-vote is effectively another vote to re-elect the president-- the enemy of my enemy is my friend philosophy.

Bottom line is that it is your right to vote for whomever you choose. I would be prepared to explain WHY you intend to vote that way, but attacked-- that is just not productive.
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF, btw.

You’ll see; explanations are given in detail and then spun and twisted to insinuate you said something entirely different than what you say. It seems some take political discussions as license to drop all charity, required of all believers.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There seems to be a double standard being overlooked here. Look through these forums and see what happens to someone who show support for other candidates, or even stating they will not vote at all.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How many racist japes or suicide request have you endured?
 
scipio337 said:
How many racist japes or suicide request have you endured?
Click to expand...
A lack of charity is a lack of charity, even if it’s displayed differently at different times. To question one’s faith is in a way ‘racist’, in that it shows a desire to separate one from sharing a common identity. To be accused of supporting an intrinsic evil, after going into detail and plainly stating you are pro-life, is as bad as a suicide request in my opinion, or so that’s how wounded one feels when that sort of tactic is falsely used.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
A lack of charity is a lack of charity, even if it’s displayed differently at different times. To question one’s faith is in a way ‘racist’, in that it shows a desire to separate one from sharing a common identity. To be accused of supporting an intrinsic evil, after going into detail and plainly stating you are pro-life, is as bad as a suicide request in my opinion, or so that’s how wounded one feels when that sort of tactic is falsely used.
Click to expand...
Racist means basing your opinion on the race of the person, not on the political leanings of a person

Uncharitable posts are not allowed here. People are privately reminded by the monitors, and the posts removed. The :rolleyes: is provided by CAF, and is not in itself uncharitable.

Questioning a person’s faith is also not allowed.

If you’ve had any of these accusations made against you, you should report them to the mods because it reflects badly on Catholics, especially for lurkers.

On thing I must say, because many liberals don’t meet many conservatives, liberals may be shocked to find conservatism mainstream here on CAF.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
A lack of charity is a lack of charity, even if it’s displayed differently at different times. To question one’s faith is in a way ‘racist’, in that it shows a desire to separate one from sharing a common identity. To be accused of supporting an intrinsic evil, after going into detail and plainly stating you are pro-life, is as bad as a suicide request in my opinion, or so that’s how wounded one feels when that sort of tactic is falsely used.
Click to expand...
Not sure how many false analogies we can cram into one post:

Questioning a pro-life position = suicide requests

Questioning allegiance to the Magesterium = racism

All uncharitible acts lumped together? 🤷 Try reading the article. If anyone came close to making those comments to you, I would highly suggest you contact a moderator to have the offender banned.

Oh well. Not to deflect anymore. Since when has Sandra Fluke become a “women’s health activist”??
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There seems to be a double standard being overlooked here. Look through these forums and see what happens to someone who show support for other candidates, or even stating they will not vote at all.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Catholics on here question some who say they will not vote because Catholic teaching says Catholics have a duty to vote

Catholics question question Catholics for voting for pro abortion candidates because Catholic teaching prohibits it when there is a pro life alternative. Why would Catholics want to sit by while pro abortion voting Catholcis are putting the state of their soul at risk? Totally different from the vitriol that Stacey Dash has recieved
 
I take it none of you have been ‘wounded’ by ‘fellow’ Catholics on these forums. From personal experience I can state it’s very challenging, to say the least, to have Catholics state one must go against their conscience, especially in ‘partisan’ matters. CAF is supposed to be Catholic forums and neither conservative or liberal.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
A lack of charity is a lack of charity, even if it’s displayed differently at different times. To question one’s faith is in a way ‘racist’, in that it shows a desire to separate one from sharing a common identity. To be accused of supporting an intrinsic evil, after going into detail and plainly stating you are pro-life, is as bad as a suicide request in my opinion, or so that’s how wounded one feels when that sort of tactic is falsely used.
Click to expand...
I think you were so harshly spoken to because you were confusing to follow and you could lead people to wrongly believe it is ok to vote for a pro-choice canidate even if that wasn’t your intention it certainly read like that and I know I asked you several times to clear up the confusion and state who you were going to vote for and you never responded to me or to anyone else. You also called people “right wingers” and accused people of being partisan which furthered the confusion. I also showed you where Cardinal Dolan said it was ok to vote for Mitt Romeny you said the Cardinal was wrong. You also suggested if our salvation was in such risk the Pope would tell you who to vote for ignoring everything the Cardinals and Bishops have said about our vote. If I hurt your feelings I am very sorry.
 
KP3243 said:
I think you were so harshly spoken to because you were confusing to follow and you could lead people to wrongly believe it is ok to vote for a pro-choice canidate even if that wasn’t your intention it certainly read like that and I know I asked you several times to clear up the confusion and state who you were going to vote for and you never responded to me or to anyone else. You also called people “right wingers” and accused people of being partisan which furthered the confusion. I also showed you where Cardinal Dolan said it was ok to vote for Mitt Romeny you said the Cardinal was wrong. You also suggested if our salvation was in such risk the Pope would tell you who to vote for ignoring everything the Cardinals and Bishops have said about our vote. If I hurt your feelings I am very sorry.
Click to expand...
I’ve clearly stated that I did not support either of the two main party candidates and I would either not vote, or write in a pro-life candidate. I have also said, repeatedly, that I am pro-life. I don’t know how to make it anymore clear than that.

You are mistaken, I never called anyone right wingers. I never said a Cardinal was ‘wrong’. I have pointed out that my conscience leads me to disagree on some issues, that are not infallible issues.

When we have Bishops who state differently, which one should we follow? Do we pick one that agrees with our view and state all others are wrong? I’ve always stated that in that case, we should look to the one voice over the entire Church. The Pope is over His flock. When it was insinuated that people, who didn’t vote for one candidate in particular, were endangering their salvation, I said it would be remiss of he who watches over His flock to say nothing, if it were indeed true.
 
I think that the issues involved in the “attacks” are different. (I also think the nature of the attacks is different, but I won’t go into that!)

If I said, I am a Democrat but I am going to vote Republican all the rest of my life, that would be like saying I am no longer a Democrat, and other Democrats could rightfully point that out to me. The point of “being Democrat” is to vote at least mostly Democrat.

Now, abortion is a very serious issue, and Catholic teaching is that it is a very serious issue. To vote so much against the teachings of the Church on such a serious matter requires, as the Pope said, a proportionate reason. The point of “being Catholic” is a lot different than the point of “being Democrat;” “being Catholic” is understanding that our purpose in life is to “know, love, and serve God in the world so we can be happy with Him in the next.”

As Catholics, we are to admonish sinners and instruct the ignorant. These are two of the spiritual acts of mercy, and they are to be done by *all *Catholics, not just members of the hierarchy.

For a Catholic to come on a Catholic board and say that he or she is going to vote for Obama is on the face of it going against what the Church counsels us to do when voting; the nature of Catholicism requires other Catholics to instruct the ignorant wrt Church teaching on abortion, etc., Church counseling on the matter, and on the facts of Obama’s record wrt the issue(s). This would not be an “attack,” which is not to say that everyone always maintains their charity in their responses.

Now, all of this is different from the responses Stacey Dash has received. For several generations now, we have held that blacks in the US should be viewed as Americans, not as some lesser class of people. We have eliminated laws which unjustly discriminated against people based on the accident of the color of their skin. We have one law in particular, the Voting Rights Act, which is to guarantee the right of all to vote without hindrance.

The responses to Ms Dash’s statement are based on the accident of the color of her skin. The responses assume that because of the color of her skin, she is a member of a particular class, which membership apparently requires that she vote Democrat whether she wants to or not, regardless of her reasons.

In short, the responses, some of which were very vile (ie, *real *verbal attacks), indicated a sort of inverse racism, that the color of one’s skin ought to determine one’s political party regardless of what that political party does or stands for.

But the reality is that this just reiterates that “being black” is no longer an accident of skin color, but membership in a particular group which is not really defined by skin color but by political idealogy. When a Southern white man can be called “the first black president,” as Clinton was, when black children are criticized for “acting white” for studying, when people who happen to be black and make up their own minds to be conservative or vote Republican are said to be not black or Oreos, the definition of what it means to “be black” in this country has morphed, and sadly it has morphed into just as bad a situation as existed in the earlier part of the 1900s.

It is no longer Jim Crow laws which hold black Americans back; it is the ostracism when a black woman works hard to avoid becoming pregnant and tries to pull ahead; it is the mockery when a young black man gets a minimum wage job instead of dealing drugs; it is the rejection of black people who dare to think differently.
 
St_Francis said:
Now, abortion is a very serious issue, and Catholic teaching is that it is a very serious issue. To vote so much against the teachings of the Church on such a serious matter requires, as the Pope said, a proportionate reason. The point of “being Catholic” is a lot different than the point of “being Democrat;” “being Catholic” is understanding that our purpose in life is to “know, love, and serve God in the world so we can be happy with Him in the next.”

As Catholics, we are to admonish sinners and instruct the ignorant. These are two of the spiritual acts of mercy, and they are to be done by *all *Catholics, not just members of the hierarchy.

For a Catholic to come on a Catholic board and say that he or she is going to vote for Obama is on the face of it going against what the Church counsels us to do when voting; the nature of Catholicism requires other Catholics to instruct the ignorant wrt Church teaching on abortion, etc., Church counseling on the matter, and on the facts of Obama’s record wrt the issue(s). This would not be an “attack,” which is not to say that everyone always maintains their charity in their responses.
Click to expand...
The Pope never clarified ‘proportionate’ reasons. That’s a moot point in my case, as I read the rest of your post, as I have said I am against abortion, and I would not vote for, nor do I support, Obama.

The Church does not put us into a position of supporting ONLY one candidate.
 
scipio337 said:
Not sure how many false analogies we can cram into one post:

Questioning a pro-life position = suicide requests

Questioning allegiance to the Magesterium = racism

All uncharitible acts lumped together? 🤷 Try reading the article. If anyone came close to making those comments to you, I would highly suggest you contact a moderator to have the offender banned.
Click to expand...
You were too early with your question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top