G
- Status
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
More like Gingrich 3 away from 2nd place in Iowa!
Cmon. Herman Cain cannot lead this country. He is not qualified to be leader of the free world. And, in two days it’s gonna show in his knowledge of foreign policy. Foreign policy matters, it’s not just about war. They’ll be talking about China’s artificially lowered money and them owning our debt. Not that the wars aren’t important. But, in an election centered around the economy, foreign policy has a part to play in our economic woes.
Ron Paul is going to look crazy. [And to the Ron Paul ppl here] By that I mean, 90% of the American public will flatly reject his approach to foreign policy. On the other hand, we’ll have Santorum and probably Perry say we should be in Iraq and Afghanistan for another 5 years.
I implore people to listen to Newt Gingrich. He is proposing a complete shift in our Mid-East policy, in response to the complete shift of the Arab Spring in the Mid-East. Gingrich has furthermore called it the “Anti-Christian Spring”
life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/01/44450/
article:
article:
So, which GOP candidate’s position sounds more like the Pope and the Patriarch [Kirill] on the Arab Spring? Newt Gingrich.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Barack Obama has removed any qualification criteria from any future President. All you need to do is appeal to 51% of the population and you’re in. What you are capable of doing is irrelevant.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Ahh, but your post only proves what I’m saying. I agree with you 100%.
Herman Cain is about as qualified as Barack Obama. That should be the end of his campaign right there.
Hmm… I furthermore do not agree with you 100%. Because there are 4 different occasions in U.S. history in which the person elected President did not win the popular vote. 3 of those occurred in the 1800s. But, it still matters in modern politics because of George Bush in 2000. You do not need 51% of the population, you need 270 electoral votes.
Thus, getting 51% of the vote does not necessarily mean “you’re in”. I say this as a history nerd
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ishii, I have not said “catholics ought to hold back when trying to outlaw the practice of abortion”. In fact I have said everyone has the right to fight for their views and to try to sway public policy. But that includes not only anti choice Catholics but yes pro choice folks, Ishii. So there is no contradiction.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ishii, we will just have to agree to disagree. We have veered off topic and I am leaving this thread at this point unless I have something to say regarding the GOP field as the field does seem set. Peace and God bless you.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
GOP’s view of Mitt Romney’s electibility may get him past rivals in end:
npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/07/142095419/gop-view-of-mitt-romneys-electability-may-get-him-past-rivals-in-the-end
npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/07/142095419/gop-view-of-mitt-romneys-electability-may-get-him-past-rivals-in-the-end
D
domandcarols
Guest
Where’s the option for “none of the above”? 
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Obama campaign zeroes in on Romney:
According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Michigan donors have contributed roughly $1.03 million to Romney’s second bid for the White House, making him the top fundraiser in the state.
The president came in second, bringing in $718,519.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/obama-campaign-zeroes-in-on-romney/
Interesting.
According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, Michigan donors have contributed roughly $1.03 million to Romney’s second bid for the White House, making him the top fundraiser in the state.
The president came in second, bringing in $718,519.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/obama-campaign-zeroes-in-on-romney/
Interesting.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
I’ve thought about this before. I wonder if anyone here supports Romney simply because he might be able to deliver Michigan, or possibly Massachusetts in the Presidential contest?
I know people who supported Tim Pawlenty because he could deliver Minnesota’s 10 votes. But Michigan has 16, and Massachusetts has 11. But do people support Romney for that reason? possibly, but probably very few people.
I
ishii
Guest
Cmatt, I think if you went back and looked at your previous posts on other similar threads - you always make the point that even if we are personally opposed to abortion, we really shouldn’t push to change the laws because we don’t live in a theocracy and live in a nation that is a pluralistic democracy, etc. “we have to respect others who disagree with us in this pluralistic democracy” - I have been discussing this issue with you for a long time, do you not remember your own posts? Do we need to find them?
Now you’re saying " the pro-abortion folks have a right to fight for their views." Its obvious that you’ve been caught in a contradiction. I would seriously reflect on your own view on this issue. Those of us who are pro-life believe that any unborn life would want to choose to live, don’t you agree? If so, then why do you call us “anti-choice” ? It seems to me that those who call themselves, “pro-choice” are really pro-abortion, as the US conference of catholic bishops stated in their document which I’ve posted many times, and will again if you like.
Reconsider your position on this, Cmatt, its not too late to change.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
I urge you to not give up, Cmatt. We may have veered off topic, but perhaps we’ve gotten to the very heart of the matter, no? Perhaps we can better understand the disregard for human life we see in this country, the devaluation of life - the violence, drugs, abuse, etc. when we reflect on the fact that it is okay in this country to put an unborn child to death. Would you not agree, Cmatt? It would be too bad if you leave this thread just as we are getting to the most important point.
Ishii
P
ProVobis
Guest
Why not make these polls multiple choice? I have more than one favorite.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Semper Zelare, I think some of Romney’s supporters think he has the best chance in a general election. Whether they support him specifically because of MI and Massachusetts I don’t know. But you mentioned Tim Pawlenty. Which got me wondering with Bachmann up earlier in IA and then her drop in the polls. And then after Perry’s rise when he entered the field and subsequent drop-off, if Pawlenty wishes he hadn’t gotten out of the field as early as he did?
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Well, first Cmatt I do appreciate you taking the high road. I would, in non-specific terms say that what has recently been posted amounts to little more than “wouldn’t you agree that I’m right and you’re wrong?”
Hmm, I have seen a few people say that Pawlenty would definitely have gotten some momentum, but then they discredit it and say he would never have gotten to first tier. But, idk, I was certainly open to Pawlenty myself. Chances are that if he were more inspiring than Mitt Romney, with this fickle of an electorate there may have been a contest among the moderate candidates as well as the conservatives.
It might’ve looked like a semi-finals line up
Pawlenty vs. Romney Cain vs. Perry vs. Gingrich vs. Bachmann
_________ moderate vs. _____________ conservative
As for Bachmann, all I have to say is that it is easy to in retrospect call her the “Romney-challenger”, and a lot of media frequently like to simplify the race so far by saying “it was Bachmann than Perry and now Cain”. All I have to say is that her numbers were never as high as Perry or Cain. So, while she mounted a challenge, many conservatives wouldn’t get on board even for a brief period (leaving her 10ish points below Romney). Having gone from 2nd behind Romney to polling 4% and 3%, she needs to drop out.
T
Theodora
Guest
Agreed. He knows what he is talking about.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
A Majority of Democrats Seldom or Never Go to Church, Says Gallup:
cnsnews.com/news/article/majority-democrats-seldom-or-never-go-church-says-gallup
cnsnews.com/news/article/majority-democrats-seldom-or-never-go-church-says-gallup
T
Teelynn
Guest
There is none. IMHO you could pick any one of them and they would absolutely do a better job than who we have that sits in the chair now! I would vote for Forest Gump over this guy.Where’s the option for “none of the above”?
T
Teelynn
Guest
Newt Gingrich is probably the most knowlegable and capable to do the job. I didn’t care for some of the things he did when he was speaker, but that is then…this is now. People do change. I can tell you this much…he would wipe the floor with Obama in any kind of a debate. I would give anything to see the two of them debate. If it came down to it…I would most definitely be happy to vote for Newt Gingrich.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
CMatt & Ishii:
The great writer/philosopher, G.K. Chesterton and also Archbishop Fulton Sheen to name a couple. (I’m sure the philosophy of this goes back much father. The idea can be found in Plato, and Aristotle I believe, but I am time limited). The concept is, that the idea of freedom doesn’t imply a right to promote evil. Freedom, is rather the right to be unemumberred in doing what one “ought” to do under God’s law, (or natural law). The be free to stand what is right. That which is intrinsically correct. A society should afford it’s citizens the right…the freedom…to live without offense to the Lord. This isn’t simply a Judeo-Christian idea. It is implied in all of philosophy and history (until perhaps Nietchze)… The “right” to assemble, petition the Government, protest, etc., is only moral or correct to the extent that it is not a promotion of harm to persons or groups. If a group can protest, speak out, petition government and even make law which fosters ideas and concepts which are intrinsically evil on their face, such as abortion or euthanasia, then this is in fact a perversion of the right of free speech. And a perversion of freedom itself. True freedom may not be employed in the commission of evil. When “freedom” is invoked as the basis for evil, it doesn’t stand, and so freedom can only be applied to the ability of a citizen to express what is right and just. Abortion is not right and just. It doesn’t serve the public interest. It doesn’t protect society. It doesn’t ensure domestic tranquility. The so-called “right” to abortion was not the result of use of freedom. It was the misuse of the power of the judicial branch of the United States Government. A government originally set up to separate the judiciary, the legislative, and the executive bodies. Legislation may not legitimately occur in the judicial branch. The freedom referenced in the U.S. condoning the murder of innocents is not valid freedom. It was an illegal act of an out of control judiciary branch of a government which has lost it’s way. Freedom would imply the right of a society to protect life, so when protesters assemble in the interest of correcting this judicial apostasy in order to restore the fundamental idea of the right to exist. The right to BE. The rights to life and liberty, then the pro-life groups ARE exercising freedom, in it’s truest sense.
Those fighting against the valuation of human life, are fighting not only on the side of a moral evil, and are therefore self-negating in their purpose, they are misusing and misrepresenting the true essence and core of freedom itself. The God given right to do what one is right in doing. The freedom, once again, to do what one ought.
Our great country was set up with this principle of freedom, so that the people wouldn’t have to be subjected to something like the say the 1 child policy in China. We have the freedom to fight peacefully against our government if they were to try to impose something of that nature, because what they would be trying to impose would be evil on it’s face. We have the right to protest and do all we can to get the Government to return to protection of the life of the unborn. It is a moral mandate, protected by freedom. We DON’T have the freedom to fight our Government for the right to murder innocent people. This is not an exercise of freedom, and a government which listens to, and obeys commands from it’s citizens to protect evil as a way of life, is a society which has lost it’s way, and it’s moral compass, and no longer offers freedom to it’s citizens. We are instead living under a tyranny caused by illegal actions of an out of control judiciary branch of the Government. This has robbed us of our freedom. It has robbed our babies of not only freedom, but even the fundamental right of existence.
Words are important. It’s hard to stand by and hear the beautiful concept of freedom degraded and applied to the proponents of evil. If the freedom to commit evil is truly, and honestly what was meant by our founding fathers when they wrote the declaration of independence, and the constitution of the United States, then I’ve really missed something fundamental in my understanding, and put my butt on the line in the military for 8 years defending a cause that is ultimately immoral in it’s nature.
We can disagree on the economy. We can disagree on immigration. We can disagree on entitlements, tax codes, state’s rights, etc… These are all subjects which are governed under the ideas and notions of freedoms.
We can fight FOR the protection of marriage if it’s under attack, because it is morally and ethically right. It is a fight FOR protection of an intrinsic good. Fighting against the protection of marriage is disobedience to human morals and ethics.
We can fight FOR the protection of life in the womb, or of the elderly, because to fight FOR life is morally and ethically supported and correct. The active fight against the preservation of life, and the right to become is not an exercise of freedom. It is the attempt to dissolve the freedom of others to exist.
I haven’t been in this argument, and I’m sorry for poking my head into the middle of it, but I wanted to share an understanding of “freedom” and “rights” which doesn’t often get a fair hearing. I hope it contributes to your discussions, if not, then please disregard as the ramblings of a cranky, retired, old veteran.
May our Lord bless and keep you both,
And the peace of our Lord be with you always,
Please pray for me,
Yours in Christ,
Steven
- Status