Texas Gov. Rick Perry Entering 2012 Race

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg94086 said:
There isn’t an anti-war policy. It’s one of the fallacies that many Catholics fell for, when they voted for Obama. I did my best to explain that neither party is anti-war, but apparently I had little influence last election. 😛

Don’t worry though…I’m just finishing up my mind control classes, so I should be able to make it happen this time! 😃
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to be policy. If pushing aside the issue of war, or threat of war, has a possibility of nominating a pro-life candidate that can unite Catholics again, and pull votes away from the democrat, isn’t it an obligation? Ron Paul is anti-war. It seems hypocritical to say a Catholic must vote against their conscience because there are no proportionate reasons, then fail to nominate a candidate that can unify Catholics because of ‘other issues’. Does proportionate reasons only apply to a particular view?
 
irishpatrick said:
Yes, and they are wrong.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing out how they are wrong.

Some view it as the same, or use the term anti-war instead of pro-peace. Either way, a lot of voters went against McCain because they were afraid of expanding the wars. Those voters could stand behind a ‘pro-peace’ president.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
It doesn’t have to be policy. If pushing aside the issue of war, or threat of war, has a possibility of nominating a pro-life candidate that can unite Catholics again, and pull votes away from the democrat, isn’t it an obligation? Ron Paul is anti-war. It seems hypocritical to say a Catholic must vote against their conscience because there are no proportionate reasons, then fail to nominate a candidate that can unify Catholics because of ‘other issues’. Does proportionate reasons only apply to a particular view?
Click to expand...
Your post doesn’t make sense. That said, no Catholic is obligated to agree with you on the above bolded statement, which is based on your prudential judgment. And, I’ve never said a Catholic should vote against their conscience.
 
rlg94086 said:
Your post doesn’t make sense. That said, no Catholic is obligated to agree with you on the above bolded statement, which is based on your prudential judgment. And, I’ve never said a Catholic should vote against their conscience.
Click to expand...
Then, in your prudential judgment, a Catholic can write in a candidate if they do not like the view of issues by either candidate in the presidential election?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Thanks for pointing out how they are wrong.

Some view it as the same, or use the term anti-war instead of pro-peace. Either way, a lot of voters went against McCain because they were afraid of expanding the wars. Those voters could stand behind a ‘pro-peace’ president.
Click to expand...
Aw, that is what you were getting at. Since war can be licit, it is not a non-negotiable issue. In fact, the Catholics who made that error by voting for Obama last election have hopefully learned their lesson. They were dead wrong, and their vote expanded “abortion rights.” That’s what happens when you misunderstand and misapply proportionate reasoning.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Thanks for pointing out how they are wrong.

Some view it as the same, or use the term anti-war instead of pro-peace. Either way, a lot of voters went against McCain because they were afraid of expanding the wars. Those voters could stand behind a ‘pro-peace’ president.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between being pro-peace and anti-war. People who think they are the same thing, are simply wrong.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Then, in your prudential judgment, a Catholic can write in a candidate if they do not like the view of issues by either candidate in the presidential election?
Click to expand...
Sure. I disagree with their reasoning and decision, but voting third party or writing in a candidate is licit.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Thanks for pointing out how they are wrong.

Some view it as the same, or use the term anti-war instead of pro-peace. Either way, a lot of voters went against McCain because they were afraid of expanding the wars. Those voters could stand behind a 'pro-peace’ president.
Click to expand...
Which President Obama most certainly is not, having actually added a war (Libya) 🙂
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Which President Obama most certainly is not, having actually added a war (Libya) 🙂
Click to expand...
There are many who would agree with you. I believe a candidate like Ron Paul could pull them across the ‘aisle’, so to speak. He’s my first choice and I’m considering Rick Perry as a second choice, depending on his view of foreign policy.
 
irishpatrick said:
If you desire an elbboration on my part, why not ask? Otherwise, I am confused because I cannot discern if you agree or not.
Click to expand...
I am pro-peace, and anti-unjust war, as well as a ‘rush’ to war, however it would be nice if you would share the differences, as you see them.
 
MODERATOR NOTE

This thread is wandering. Please return to the topic of the original post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top