Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[stevegravy]

It’s the GOVERNMENT that is taking the money and redistributing it. THAT’s the problem.

We have arrived at a great time in this thread to ask a salient question I like to throw out now and then. It never is answered and mostly always ignored and if anyone notices it at all they laugh at it. Here it is, tell me what is morally different in the following two scenarios.

Scenario 1
Grandma is out of food desperately needs medicine and the rent is due but she hasn’t any money. Being a dutiful grandson I grab a gun, begin threating to kill everyone if they don’t turn over their money to me provided they don’t have the means to fight back. I don’t care how hard or long they worked for their doe. It is their money or their life. I keep 10% for handling expenses and bullets.

Scenario 2
Grandma is out of food desperately needs medicine and the rent is due but she hasn’t any money. Being a dutiful grandson I go into the legislature, cry, and plead for the legislature to do my poor old grandma a favor and give her some money out of the treasury. Weeping and fear being labeled a race-baiting-bigoted-hater they cave and award Grandma money. If anyone opposes paying their taxes the full weight of the law will descend on the reluctant tax payer with incarceration and potentially death. At least disappear if the military decide not paying taxes is a terrorist plot.

What is different in the above tale of two robberies?

I’ll give you liberal democrat/republican a hint (my normal practice is to refer to you as demopublicans/republocrats but I got yelled at for that so I don’t do it anymore.)

Things that are the same in both scenarios:

1. Use coercion to extract someone’s hard earned income
2. The extraction of income deprives that individual the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
3. An individual will only earn so much money in the course of their working life, how much is unknown as earning potential changes and exact length of anyone’s life is indeterminate. Nevertheless, the salient point is taking someone’s income forcefully is taking part of their life; at best, it is enslaving them to the taker as they have now worked without compensation, especially if that compensation goes into someone else’s pocket and not for public goods.

If you don’t like it being grandma think of ethanol or solar energy or gubmint motors. Whatever, samie same.

Well all you lovers of humanity and insist on doing the social justice catholic right thing what is the difference in my tales. Better question yet what would Jesus ask us to do?

 

[qui_est_ce]

We have arrived at a great time in this thread to ask a salient question I like to throw out now and then. It never is answered and mostly always ignored and if anyone notices it at all they laugh at it. Here it is, tell me what is morally different in the following two scenarios.

Scenario 1
Grandma is out of food desperately needs medicine and the rent is due but she hasn’t any money. Being a dutiful grandson I grab a gun, begin threating to kill everyone if they don’t turn over their money to me provided they don’t have the means to fight back. I don’t care how hard or long they worked for their doe. It is their money or their life. I keep -]10%/-] 30% for handling expenses and bullets.

Scenario 2
Grandma is out of food desperately needs medicine and the rent is due but she hasn’t any money. Being a dutiful grandson I go into the legislature, cry, and plead for the legislature to do my poor old grandma a favor and give her some money out of the treasury. Weeping and fear being labeled a race-baiting-bigoted-hater they cave and award Grandma money. If anyone opposes paying their taxes the full weight of the law will descend on the reluctant tax payer with incarceration and potentially death. At least disappear if the military decide not paying taxes is a terrorist plot.

What is different in the above tale of two robberies?

I’ll give you liberal democrat/republican a hint (my normal practice is to refer to you as demopublicans/republocrats but I got yelled at for that so I don’t do it anymore.)

Things that are the same in both scenarios:

1. Use coercion to extract someone’s hard earned income
2. The extraction of income deprives that individual the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
3. An individual will only earn so much money in the course of their working life, how much is unknown as earning potential changes and exact length of anyone’s life is indeterminate. Nevertheless, the salient point is taking someone’s income forcefully is taking part of their life; at best, it is enslaving them to the taker as they have now worked without compensation, especially if that compensation goes into someone else’s pocket and not for public goods.

If you don’t like it being grandma think of ethanol or solar energy or gubmint motors. Whatever, samie same.

Well all you lovers of humanity and insist on doing the social justice catholic right thing what is the difference in my tales. Better question yet what would Jesus ask us to do?

Great analogy with the above correction.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We have arrived at a great time in this thread to ask a salient question I like to throw out now and then. It never is answered and mostly always ignored and if anyone notices it at all they laugh at it. Here it is, tell me what is morally different in the following two scenarios.

Scenario 1
Grandma is out of food desperately needs medicine and the rent is due but she hasn’t any money. Being a dutiful grandson I grab a gun, begin threating to kill everyone if they don’t turn over their money to me provided they don’t have the means to fight back. I don’t care how hard or long they worked for their doe. It is their money or their life. I keep 10% for handling expenses and bullets.

Scenario 2
Grandma is out of food desperately needs medicine and the rent is due but she hasn’t any money. Being a dutiful grandson I go into the legislature, cry, and plead for the legislature to do my poor old grandma a favor and give her some money out of the treasury. Weeping and fear being labeled a race-baiting-bigoted-hater they cave and award Grandma money. If anyone opposes paying their taxes the full weight of the law will descend on the reluctant tax payer with incarceration and potentially death. At least disappear if the military decide not paying taxes is a terrorist plot.

What is different in the above tale of two robberies?

I’ll give you liberal democrat/republican a hint (my normal practice is to refer to you as demopublicans/republocrats but I got yelled at for that so I don’t do it anymore.)

Things that are the same in both scenarios:

1. Use coercion to extract someone’s hard earned income
2. The extraction of income deprives that individual the right to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
3. An individual will only earn so much money in the course of their working life, how much is unknown as earning potential changes and exact length of anyone’s life is indeterminate. Nevertheless, the salient point is taking someone’s income forcefully is taking part of their life; at best, it is enslaving them to the taker as they have now worked without compensation, especially if that compensation goes into someone else’s pocket and not for public goods.

If you don’t like it being grandma think of ethanol or solar energy or gubmint motors. Whatever, samie same.

Well all you lovers of humanity and insist on doing the social justice catholic right thing what is the difference in my tales. Better question yet what would Jesus ask us to do?

There is NO DIFFERENCE and these scenarios are exactly what has happened through legislation and government over-reach. It is NOT what our Constitution was written to do. In fact it is subversive of the very freedoms our Constitution protects. But the people searching for the Government as Daddy will keep crying poormouth and the power-hungry elected mis-representatives will use that to grab even more power until there is nothing left.

 

[stevegravy]

Thank you qui est ce and therealjuliane you have been the first to offer answers and humbly I accept your assessments both on the morality and the taking percentages. Only other response I ever received someone pretended not to know what I wrote another said it is more complicated than that without explanation of how it is more complicated.

I submit the failure of Americans to face the question and decide just how much of a workers life the government has the right to take will doom this country. As the debts pile up endlessly, there will be point when the world will no longer fund the US and we go broke. How the mighty will fall. The good news for the social justice crowd everyone will be broke then. Except the politicians

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Of course. Any other straw dummies you feel the need the set up

Again: I have never met a Catholic who voted Democrat BECAUSE of their support of abortion and gay marriage. I have met many Catholics who have voted Democrat IN SPITE OF abortion and gay marriage.

Because they have heeded the USCCB admonition that we are not to be one issue voters:tsktsk:

Because they support the majority of the Democratic Platform:shrug:

Because, apart from abortion, they find little in the GOP platform to support:dts:

Because they know the word “intrinsic” does not mean “infinite”

Because they are grownups, and spell the name as “Obama”, not “obama”

We cannot vote of a man who supports intrinsic evils, and abortion is the greatest evil of this day.

 

[stevegravy]

Just need to add that a positive message does not begin by telling people your negative views of them, which is exactly what Santorum did i.e. recipients of money taken from other people - a wording which in itself has implications regarding dishonesty, greed and ambition.

Well isn’t that what taxpayer subsidized welfare does? If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I submit the failure of Americans to face the question and decide just how much of a workers life the government has the right to take will doom this country. As the debts pile up endlessly, there will be point when the world will no longer fund the US and we go broke. How the mighty will fall. The good news for the social justice crowd everyone will be broke then. Except the politicians

No, the politicians will be broke too. There is only one reason the greedy rich Democrats want to increase taxes on themselves - power. They use that tax money to pay off people to keep them in power.

Psalm 2 - very prescient"

2*Kings on earth rise up

and princes plot together

against the LORD and against his anointed one:*b

3“Let us break their shackles

and cast off their chains from us!”c

4The one enthroned in heaven laughs;

the Lord derides them,d

5Then he speaks to them in his anger,

in his wrath he terrifies them:

6“I myself have installed my king

on Zion, my holy mountain.”

7I will proclaim the decree of the LORD,

he said to me, “You are my son;

today I have begotten you.e

8Ask it of me,

and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,

and, as your possession, the ends of the earth.

9With an iron rod you will shepherd them,

like a potter’s vessel you will shatter them.”f

10And now, kings, give heed;

take warning, judges on earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear;

exult with trembling,

Accept correction

lest he become angry and you perish along the way

when his anger suddenly blazes up.g

Blessed are all who take refuge in him!*

 

[stevegravy]

We cannot vote of a man who supports intrinsic evils, and abortion is the greatest evil of this day.

Sure anybody can. People have an infinite ability to lie to themselves,… conservatives are evil race baiting haters…… or I am not a one issue voter…… Opposing social justice transfer payments is bigoted race-baiting hater neo-Nazi….It is a blob of tissue….I am personally against killing babies but a mom has a right to kill her baby with impunity…Paying planned parenthood to do abortions is a sign of hating abortions…. Preventing religious institutions from imposing their private views on the public is religious liberty for all….Locking American citizens up without trial or being charged with a crime or facing their accuser without habeas corpus is preserving freedom and liberty…you can lie to yourself about anything and everything.

I was watching a BBC documentary I think it was about what happened to the local nazi supporters in East Europe who were members of the Eisenstat Group and the dude didn’t think he did anything wrong. Even after talking about shooting some 6-year-old kid in the head. Bet he wasn’t a one issue voter.

 

[1voice]

Obama falls 4 points overnight…

gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

 

[qui_est_ce]

Sure anybody can. People have an infinite ability to lie to themselves,… conservatives are evil race baiting haters…… or I am not a one issue voter…… Opposing social justice transfer payments is bigoted race-baiting hater neo-Nazi….It is a blob of tissue….I am personally against killing babies but a mom has a right to kill her baby with impunity…Paying planned parenthood to do abortions is a sign of hating abortions…. Preventing religious institutions from imposing their private views on the public is religious liberty for all….Locking American citizens up without trial or being charged with a crime or facing their accuser without habeas corpus is preserving freedom and liberty…you can lie to yourself about anything and everything.

I was watching a BBC documentary I think it was about what happened to the local nazi supporters in East Europe who were members of the Eisenstat Group and the dude didn’t think he did anything wrong. Even after talking about shooting some 6-year-old kid in the head. Bet he wasn’t a one issue voter.

I never bought into “how do they sleep at night.” They sleep perfectly fine.

 

[jediliz]

you do know that Obama could appoint another PRO ABORTION Supreme Court Judge, right? We are approcacing the start of FORTY YEARS of legal CHILD MURDER and if obama is relelected, we can probably kiss overturning Roe Vs Wade before the 23rd century. Justices are appointed for LIFE! You think he’s going to appoint a judge that actually does NOT find “abortion” in the constitution? (cause we ALL KNOW its not there)? No, he will not appiont strict constitutionalists!

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Do social programs, or foreign policies, or economic policies, matter much when we are busily killing 1.3 million unborn babies every year?

Do you think those dead people (aborted) care about those other issues?

Isn’t the very act of placing those other issues above the innocent lives of the aborted a form of choosing who should live and who should die?

Don’t you think that the most vulnerable human life are those living in the womb?

How can any other program matter if there is no true love for life?

The census reports that the number of youths (age 0-18) is lower than it has been since the 1940s. Yet, over the last 18 years we have collectively killed 22,000,000+ babies through abortion. How healthy would our economy, along with the various social programs, be if we had those people to care for and support?

Well, other issues do matter on pretty much an equal level. Embryonic stem-cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. Add them all together and I find it near impossible to vote Democratic and not Republican. Of course, most Americans aren’t Catholic or wanna-be Catholics.

 

[CMatt25]

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

Maybe you could enlighten us on who are bLL people then? I had never heard of them before.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, and the Nazi party wasn’t perfect either - they made the trains run on time and all, and instituted lots of social welfare programs, but the whole “final solution” thing, I’m glad I didn’t support the Nazis for that reason and that I supported them for the other issues.

That in a nutshell is what you’re saying, Cmatt. You need to open up your eyes.

Ishii

So in a nutshell you are telling Jewish voters for instance who vote for Democratic Party candidates that they are voting for a Nazi-like holocaust. If I were Jewish that might offend me.

 

[Alan55]

So in a nutshell you are telling Jewish voters for instance who vote for Democratic Party candidates that they are voting for a Nazi-like holocaust. If I were Jewish that might offend me.

Face it – whether they are Jewish or Catholic, anyone who visits this website and speaks favorably of Obama will almost immediately be accused of supporting the murder of innocents. No offense intended, of course.

 

[CMatt25]

Matt, you seem like a rational person. So, since I really do not know the answer to this question, would you say you for or against legal abortion?

I am quite surprised you say you do not know since I have addressed this before and I would have been almost certain you were a participant on such a thread.

But for your benefit I would again say that living in a democratic society of pIural beliefs I have struggled a great deal throughout my life trying to balance the rights of the unborn with the legal rights of women on this issue.

And upon much prayer and the use of my rational mind (thank you btw), it is still not simply a black and white issue to me. And thus on this one particular issue I currently separate my personal religious and faith beliefs from what is now legal under the law of the land in a democracy of plural beliefs.

At the moment I am still uneasy beyond current law to force by mandate onto others my faith beliefs as to when human life with a soul begins and when personhood rights should begin. I am not yet comfortable making it illegal for a woman to choose in cases of rape or incest or illegal for her to choose to save her life.

We have had a law of the land for nearly 40 yrs now. It allows for restrictions. I have voted to restrict minors for instance from being able to obtain a legal abortion without parental notification. Subject to a judicial “out” in cases where the minor could be threatened with harm by her parents if they were notified.

So at this time I strive for some common ground. And since it is legal with restrictions allowed, safe but rare seems like a rational place to me to start. And I turn my attention then to the many other issues I as a pro life voter must ponder, consider, and pray upon.

Frankly this one issue is not something in which I have ever singularly based my voting on. And I certainly have never said, oh this candidate is pro choice so I am going to vote for him or her. There are always plenty of other differences between the candidates which I weigh and pray upon.

Abortion is an important issue but perfection is not on earth. There will always be some satisfied with and others unhappy with a particular earthly law. And so I do not believe the focus of a democratic society of plural beliefs on abortion should be such then that it occurs at the expense and detriment of a multitude of other life issues in which I believe Jesus at least as much directly addressed.

 

[CMatt25]

We cannot vote of a man who supports intrinsic evils, and abortion is the greatest evil of this day.

That’s what I read some Catholics saying here and then I read others having a different interpretation of the bishops’ Faith Citizenship document. I do know the bishops say they are not directing people how to vote in their guide.

 

[CMatt25]

Face it – whether they are Jewish or Catholic, anyone who visits this website and speaks favorably of Obama will almost immediately be accused of supporting the murder of innocents. No offense intended, of course.

I know. And no offense taken. God bless and peace.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Face it – whether they are Jewish or Catholic, anyone who visits this website and speaks favorably of Obama will almost immediately be accused of supporting the murder of innocents. No offense intended, of course.

I’ll admit right up front that I would say it. Probably not the first thing I would say. It would depend on the nature of the argument in favor of Obama. Regardless, at some point, a person needs to tell the truth, including the very worst part of it. This is not some parlor game. We really are talking about human lives here, and what we do in the next election will, without question, have an effect on the death rate among them, and could have a dramatic effect.

 

[meltzerboy]

I am quite surprised you say you do not know since I have addressed this before and I would have been almost certain you were a participant on such a thread.

But for your benefit I would again say that living in a democratic society of pIural beliefs I have struggled a great deal throughout my life trying to balance the rights of the unborn with the legal rights of women on this issue.

And upon much prayer and the use of my rational mind (thank you btw), it is still not simply a black and white issue to me. And thus on this one particular issue I currently separate my personal religious and faith beliefs from what is now legal under the law of the land in a democracy of plural beliefs.

At the moment I am still uneasy beyond current law to force by mandate onto others my faith beliefs as to when human life with a soul begins and when personhood rights should begin. I am not yet comfortable making it illegal for a woman to choose in cases of rape or incest or illegal for her to choose to save her life.

We have had a law of the land for nearly 40 yrs now. It allows for restrictions. I have voted to restrict minors for instance from being able to obtain a legal abortion without parental notification. Subject to a judicial “out” in cases where the minor could be threatened with harm by her parents if they were notified.

So at this time I strive for some common ground. And since it is legal with restrictions allowed, safe but rare seems like a rational place to me to start. And I turn my attention then to the many other issues I as a pro life voter must ponder, consider, and pray upon.

Frankly this one issue is not something in which I have ever singularly based my voting on. And I certainly have never said, oh this candidate is pro choice so I am going to vote for him or her. There are always plenty of other differences between the candidates which I weigh and pray upon.

Abortion is an important issue but perfection is not on earth. There will always be some satisfied with and others unhappy with a particular earthly law. And so I do not believe the focus of a democratic society of plural beliefs on abortion should be such then that it occurs at the expense and detriment of a multitude of other life issues in which I believe Jesus at least as much directly addressed.

Eloquently put and a courageous statement, particularly on this Forum. The confrontation of one’s faith, reason, individual conscience, and sense of equity with the law of the land is never easy.