Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[qui_est_ce]

{snip}For those Catholics who consider abortion the number one issue, it is my opinion that Santorum is the only viable candidate. I need not comment on Obama’s stance, which we all know.

 

[irishpatrick]

While I am sure you are sincere in your belief in a real, substantive distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion”. Here is an excerpt from a USCCB document that you might find revealing: (my bold italics added)

"Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless,* pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups ***have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand. These organizations have formed new political arms and have intensified efforts to defeat politicians who do not support permissive abortion. Because of the critical importance of the issue and the need for a timely response, we wish to reaffirm our conviction that all human life is sacred whether born or unborn. With the Second Vatican Council we declare that “from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes”

old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml

Clearly, the USCCB views pro-abortion and pro-choice as synonomous. And so do I.

Ishii

Yes, I agree. If one feels that abortion should be legal, they are pro-abortion. It amazes me how many people try to hide behind false constructs with this issue, seemingly just so they can feel better about helping to advance the cause of legal abortion.

Every single time a person knowingly votes for a pro-abortion politician, they are helping advance the cause of legal abortion!

 

[qui_est_ce]

The Daily Kos describes the attitude well:

“I meet you all the time. You hate Obama. You hate gay people. You hate black people, immigrants, Muslims, labor unions, women who want the right to make choices concerning their bodies, you hate em all. You hate being called racist. You hate being called a bigot. Maybe if you talked about creating jobs more than you talk about why you hate gay people we wouldn’t call you bigots. Maybe if you talked about black people without automatically assuming they are on food stamps while demanding their birth certificates we wouldn’t call you racist. You hate socialism and social justice. You hate regulations and taxes and spending and the Government. You hate.”

dailykos.com/story/2012/01/09/1053088/-An-open-letter-to-the-people-who-hate-Obama-more-than-they-love-America

What has this to do with our discussion? Nobody here has said they hate anyone.

 

[Nec5]

What has this to do with our discussion? Nobody here has said they hate anyone.

Well, I hate whoever wrote that comment on the Daily Kos.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Well, I hate whoever wrote that comment on the Daily Kos.

Whoever wrote the piece was full of hate.

 

[_Abyssinia]

They were only unclear if no one knows what bLL people are. I don’t even know why he started to use his BL word in the first place. If he realized mid-sentence he shouldn’t say “black people”, he wouldn’t have been speaking to many African Americans anyway. Not that many African Americans vote in Republican primaries. Only about 5% or !0% or so of African Americans have voted Republican in general elections. So I wonder if the BL word was just code or something to GOP voters.

But he never said it, so it is a non issue.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Daily Kos describes the attitude well:

“I meet you all the time. You hate Obama. You hate gay people. You hate black people, immigrants, Muslims, labor unions, women who want the right to make choices concerning their bodies, you hate em all. You hate being called racist. You hate being called a bigot. Maybe if you talked about creating jobs more than you talk about why you hate gay people we wouldn’t call you bigots. Maybe if you talked about black people without automatically assuming they are on food stamps while demanding their birth certificates we wouldn’t call you racist. You hate socialism and social justice. You hate regulations and taxes and spending and the Government. You hate.”

dailykos.com/story/2012/01/09/1053088/-An-open-letter-to-the-people-who-hate-Obama-more-than-they-love-America

I am surprised to see such a comment posted on here by a Catholic.

I don’t hate Obama, I just do not agree with him on a multitude of issues. I don’t hate gay people. I don’t hate black people, I am Black myself. Do not hate immigrants. Do not hate Muslims. Labor unions have there problems, but do not hate them. Do not hate women who have an abortion, we hope for healing for women after the trauma of abortion, and education and support so that women know they never have to make the choice to have an abortion. I have never been called a racist. I have never been called a bigot. The Republican party has always been a party that was, is and always will free the slaves. Socialism creates huge bureaucracies, which are over staffed, over taxed, and stagnate. Socialism is opposed to the freedom that the Constitution is based on. The Popes have condemned socialism consistently. Regarding social justice, are they referring to the entitlement programs, Conservatives do advocate social welfare policies for individuals who are genuinely unable to provide for themselves, but conservatives do not think that large scale federal programs are always the way to help the needy, it can make people trapped and dependent on the government.

“It’s simple: I’ll have those n***** voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”* — *Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according to Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”
*
He must of known what the Great Society programs would do. Look how the great society welfare programs started by Lyndon B Johnson have trapped a large percentage of Black people in poverty, the Great Society programs gave incentive for women to have children out of wedlock, housing in ghettos etc.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thank you for the statistics. It seems that relatively few people approve of abortion on demand with no restrictions. Also, relatively few approve of no abortion under any circumstances. The majority seem to favor keeping abortion legal only under rare circumstances, including endangerment of the mother’s life, incest, and rape. This appears sensible to me, although I realize it is not in accord with Catholic teaching. Whether it will come to pass even under a Republican Presidential administration is still in doubt. As I’ve stated before, it is my impression Romney is not the one who would push for this, and I don’t believe Paul would either despite the pledge he signed. Gingrich might, but only Santorum definitely would. For those Catholics who consider abortion the number one issue, it is my opinion that Santorum is the only viable candidate. I need not comment on Obama’s stance, which we all know.

Romney has stated many times he supports the reversal of roe vs wade, and hand it back to the states. Santorum also supports this. This must happen under the next administration, whoever the Republican nominee is.

lifenews.com/2012/01/09/romney-and-santorum-roe-v-wade-should-be-overturned/

 

[estesbob]

I am surprised to see a comment posted on here by a Catholic.

.

I am surpised a Catholic would even read this viruntely anti-catholic site-more or less post it. For instance:

• “There’s heated debate about whether it’s appropriate to call Ratzinger the Nazi Pope. It is not clear he’s still influenced by the Nazi teaching during his childhood, however, it is clear he was in the Nazi Youth Camp and he is notoriously ultraconversative.” *

*"…I will call him Nazi Pope, plain and simple, for his past, more importantly, for his current facist doctrine." *

“I hate the liberals whining when they do not know how to fight. I don’t care whether this guy is a real Nazi or not. He’s an ultraconservative and we need to demonize him as soon as possible.”

---

I make no secret of that. I despise religion, all of it, even that part that does good, because it’s all based on lies. Like the war in Iraq, no good will ever come out of it, because it started with a lie. I concede ‘most’ priests were probably not pedophiles. They didn’t molest children physically, only developmentally, teaching them to remain forever infantile emotionally, with this idea that if they are only ‘good boys’ or ‘good girls’, a magical ‘father’ will break the physical laws of the universe on their behalf. Molesting them emotionally, by teaching them that the most joyful aspects of their physical nature are dirty, sinful; Abusing them intellectually, by teaching them there is an all-powerful authority they must never question. I could go on and on. The church, in particular the Catholic church, is an evil organization, that has nothing much in common to do with the man they claim they follow. The whole thing is based on lies, beginning with the fact that it was founded by Jesus- not so.

-------------------------------------------------------

• Look Arken, you confuse me with someone who gives a **** how Catholics these pope worshipping, blood drinking, superstitious hoopleheads. If they want ot live under Republican rule the rest of their lives, there’s nothing I can do or say. I’m certainly not interested in wasting any of my time on this earth convincing them otherwise. Nor in censoring my own opinions in the hope of not offending them. Anyone who is offended by my opinions is welcome to turn the page.*

---

Being Catholic is adhering to a set of beliefs, just like being a Republican. No one is born Catholic, that’s why they have confirmations. Adults can choose their own belief systems and at some point they must take responsibility for their choices. The Catholic church is a force for evil in the world, no different than the KKK, the Republican Party, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Would Senator Boxer and the rest be willing to be present during an abortion?

I’m willing to bet that Mrs. Boxer (Ma’am) has been present during an abortion.

 

[JimG]

This from the DNC 2008 Platform, the most recent:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

The Democratic Party that I used to belong to could never have made such a statement, and no Catholic could support such a statement.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

There is one word that explains (and nearly guarantees) why Obama will win in November:

CATHOLICS

This makes me sick to my stomach.

How any Catholic can reconcile being a Democrat, I just don’t get. What other issue compares with ripping a living baby from its mother’s womb, or depriving a person of needed sustenance because his/her life has been determined to be worth nothing, or creating children in an artificial, anti-God manner? These are the mainstays of the Democrat Party platform, and all of them are against our Church.

Yet invariably, Catholics still defend their vote for someone like Barack Obama.

 

[seekerz]

So stating the facts is being “dismissive” of the poor?

It depends on how you define facts and no…stating the facts does not excuse insulting or belittling people. Are poor children the only ones who might benefit from learning to use a toilet brush? Are they the only ones whose parents make a living by illegal means? It amazes me that caring, ‘pro-life’ people can stomach/excuse attacks on human dignity which occur outside the womb. Sad…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You’ll find that you can’t tell a lot of people anything that falls outside of their either/or mindset.

You’re right. Either a baby lives and is born, OR it dies from being killed its mother’s womb.

Pretty darn simple on that level.

 

[seekerz]

Here’s what you said Republican candidates do:
“…the demonization of the poor, or the denial of their existence.”

Here’s what your clip showed Santorum as actually saying:

“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money; And provide for themselves and their family.”

So, he didn’t deny the existence of the poor. Nor did he demonize them. He didn’t say (in the case of blacks in your chosen selection) “They won’t go out and work because blacks are lazy” or anything of the sort. His statement ASSUMES that black people would, with sufficient opportunity, be the exact opposite, and it ASSUMES his hearers would agree with that assessment. Absolutely nobody in this society, and I am sure you would be included in this, questions that a very substantial number of blacks in this country lack opportunity.

So, Santorum did neither of the things you accused him of doing. Like Romney’s message, Santorum’s is positive. He assumes good faith and willingness to be diligent on the part of those who can’t find jobs. Both men are the polar opposite of what you accuse them of being.

He did demonize them by singling them out as receiving other people’s money. Are black people the only recipients of assistance? Why stigmatize them? What’s another name for taking people’s money and what’s word for those who accept what others have taken? If his message was so positive, why didn’t he use your explanation instead of denying it? Nice try, though.

 

[seekerz]

Did Gingrich, as you put it, really engage in “… the demonization of the poor, or the denial of their existence.”

Gingrich is essentially saying the same thing Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an unassailably liberal Senator was (now less famously) quoted as saying about the effects of the welfare state on poor people. But that was back when even liberal Democrats were able to speak the truth.

Among many other things on the subject, he said this:

"At the other end of the spectrum - about a quarter of the people - are those who are unmarried and in real trouble and go on welfare very young. If you don’t get hold of those people very quickly and work very hard and put a lot of resources into them, you have a spoiled life. And their children have fairly chancy prospects."

He said more, of course.

One could criticize Gingrich for purporting to say something new that’s really an old analysis, but not for “demonizing” the poor or “pretending they don’t exist”.

Gingrich is singling out black children and stigmatizing them. It is no small thing for youth to hear these negative generalizations about themselves, particularly when their prospects are indeed slim. Can you imagine a poor teenager working his/her way through school hearing that he/she never acquired a work ethic? How would you feel if someone insulted you in that way? Uplifted? I think not.

 

[seekerz]

This Mediaite writer, a self described liberal, didn’t hear “blacks” in Santorum’s speech.

Last Wednesday Santorum said on Fox news:

“If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of – blah – came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t," Santorum said. “And I can tell you, … I don’t use the term ‘black’ very often. I use the term ‘African-American’ more than I use ‘black.’ … I think sometimes you want to give someone the benefit of the doubt if it’s a little bit of a blurred word.”

His words were unclear and the context had nothing to do with race.

Oh goody - a different explanation! My post was about stigmatizing people, e.g the underprivileged. It was not simply about race-baiting. Whatever word Santorum said, he was stigmatizing some group of b---- people and that was precisely the point of my post. In addition, it is my opinion that this is a replay of the old political game of blowing the right whistles to whip up the aptly named base…

 

[Ridgerunner]

He did demonize them by singling them out as receiving other people’s money. Are black people the only recipients of assistance? Why stigmatize them? What’s another name for taking people’s money and what’s word for those who accept what others have taken? If his message was so positive, why didn’t he use your explanation instead of denying it? Nice try, though.

No he didn’t. You want him to have been characterizing black people in order to fantasize that he’s a racist, but that’s not what he did. It is not even clear that he “almost” said “black”. He was talking about poor people, and that message was positive, whether he intended to talk about poor blacks or not.

And what’s wrong with the message that it’s better for poor people, black or otherwise, to have jobs than to have handouts? What’s wrong with that? That was his message. Speak to the message, not the bogus innuendo.

You post one ten second clip and characterize the man with it. Obviously, J.C. Watts and other blacks have no problem with Santorum.

Yes, yes, we know. It’s Democrat strategy to characterize Repubs as racist. Old story.

 

[Ridgerunner]

it is my opinion that this is a replay of the old political game of blowing the right whistles to whip up the aptly named base…

In other words, you believe conservative Catholics are racists as well. An extraordinarily bigoted position, if that’s what you intended.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a pro-liberal Democrat catholic to answer a straightforward question.

Ishii

:clapping::bowdown2:

They can’t, it gives them migraines.