Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

[Saint_Castulus]

gallup.com/fvideo.aspx?i=H5WWIzp90Mw-Sm2xw5NZkgaa​

Worth considering. I think with all the fighting we have going on in the GOP primary process, Obama remains the favorite to win next November.

He has a 47% approval rating, which really shocks me…and Bush had similar approval ratings at this time in the process and he obviously won re-election.

We will see how things look after the GOP gets a firm candidate, but right now it does not look very good. Sadly.

Further complicating this is the fact that Romney looks like the likely candidate and I am guessing he will not poll any higher than McCain, so the election will be tighter, but will more than likely end with the same outcome as the last election.

With the pain this nation has suffered, Obama’s approval should be in the 30s, the fact that it is so high really tells the tale for the next election since so many people just do not blame Obama for the nation’s troubles.

I have no faith in our political system, the white house has been privatized…“corporations are people too” how sad.I intend casting my vote for Pope Benedict XVI:knight1:

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have no faith in our political system, the white house has been privatized…“corporations are people too” how sad.I intend casting my vote for Pope Benedict XVI:knight1:

A noble thought. However, one needs to realize that if one throws one’s vote away, he is in fact supporting the death salesman in the White House, and everything he stands for.

Personally, I don’t like Ron Paul at all. But if he’s the nominee, for instance, I will put a bullet between my teeth and vote for him in order to oppose Obama.

 

[mary_bobo]

Dr. Walter Williams had an excellent column recently on why Obama will be reelected. Hopefully someone can find it and post. Meanwhile, the crux on his article was that the American electorate is so economically ignorant that most don’t realize the precarious position we are in as far as our economy goes. And this president has done nothing but make it worse.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Goodnight brethren in Christ.

I believe Obama will win the next election, if only because those who consider themselves superior in the faith department, have failed to back up that conviction with real love for ‘the least of these’. Sometimes, we get so caught in our roles, that we forget to act, thinking mistakenly that the costumes and the set are sufficient. I also believe that God has a calling for the president as He has for all of us. May he find it and may he take heed.

God can use anybody He chooses, for whatever reason He sees fit. We don’t call the shots, He does.

I personally serve “the least of these” with volunteer time at our parish’s St. Vincent de Paul Center and our Church’s food bank. I am in discernment for the diaconate, and one of the things I do is visit the sick at the hospital. To say that non-Democrats “fail to back up their convinction with real love for the least of these” is a FLAT OUT LIE. Just because we don’t delegate that moral duty to some government bureaucrat doesn’t mean we don’t do it. We actually do it in the manner that Christ commanded. He said Feed the Hungry, not “pay more taxes so the government can give food stamps to the hungry”. He said, Visit the Sick, not “pay more taxes so a government social worker can make their rounds in the hospital”.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You’ve posted opinions not doctrine approved by the Magisterium.

Abortion is intrinsically evil. Supporting Democrats, who’s party platform includes the RIGHT to abortion means that you support instrinsic evil and are running against Church doctrine.

That is not an opinion, it is a logical deduction based on fact and reason.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Dr. Walter Williams had an excellent column recently on why Obama will be reelected. Hopefully someone can find it and post. Meanwhile, the crux on his article was that the American electorate is so economically ignorant that most don’t realize the precarious position we are in as far as our economy goes. And this president has done nothing but make it worse.

I did some research and found what you were looking for, however, it appears to be a fake that has been incorrectly attributed to Mr. Williams.

 

[Publisher]

That is true, but why should the Pope words on politics be ignores? The Catechism is part of the Magisterium which is clear on the importance of human life from conception to natural end. It does not make sense for anybody to say it would be really licit for a Catholic then voting for a pro abortion candidate who opposes everything the Catechism has to say on the value of human beings.

We do not ignore the Pope’s words when he is not speaking ex cathedra, so why should he be ignored when it comes to politics.

It’s not an issue of “ignoring” his words…you claimed he was “infallible”…including his opinions…were you mistaken or is that what is truly believed? You asked "How are the comments made by the infallible Pope Benedict just 'opinions?’

 

[estesbob]

I’m sorry, was my statement about the question being baseless. ridiculous and offensive too vague? Let me clarify. There is absolutely no comparison to the safe and legal medical procedure of abortion that affirms a woman’s control over her own body and the illegal, immoral and reprehensible aberration that is an inclination towards sexual gratification with or from children. Trying to find a link between these two things would be laughable if it weren’t so disturbingly misguided. Are we clear now? Great!

A perfect summation of how the culture of death has so desensitized people to the horrors of abortion It does not surprise me to see a Non-catholic express these views. It suprises me greatly when I see Catholics trying to rationalize supporting this intrinsic evil

 

[stevegravy]

I personally serve “the least of these” with volunteer time at our parish’s St. Vincent de Paul Center and our Church’s food bank. I am in discernment for the diaconate, and one of the things I do is visit the sick at the hospital. To say that non-Democrats “fail to back up their convinction with real love for the least of these” is a FLAT OUT LIE. Just because we don’t delegate that moral duty to some government bureaucrat doesn’t mean we don’t do it. We actually do it in the manner that Christ commanded. He said Feed the Hungry, not “pay more taxes so the government can give food stamps to the hungry”. He said, Visit the Sick, not “pay more taxes so a government social worker can make their rounds in the hospital”.

Mr. Scott I pray for your discernment. My take on all the “Catholics” who are “not one issue voters,” who discern the whole plethora of life issues and party positions in respect for the “least of our brothers,’ ……who basically want us to love them to death (read statistics on American family conditions prior to the “Great Society” and current conditions newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Belmont—Fishtown-7250) and you can only come to the conclusions they are:

1. Deluded
2. Cynical
   Deluded, they lack all logical ability to draw a conclusion from obvious data regarding the destruction of families. Cynical because they are part of the government apparatchik that administer the “Great Society” programs to least peoples who cannot exist without them. That is they are the plantation keepers and need the job. They are voting their own self-interest.

It is all about money.

Government taking on the role, the Church provided in the middle ages, of providing succor to the real poor I do not disagree with: provided if indeed private charity will not suffice. However, it must have been effective prior to LBJ. I think this because you never read about mass starvation, dead and dying bodies all over American cities, Poor yes, destitute yes but folks littering the gutter dying for lack of care…no. Prior to LBJ America did not subsidize sloth and reckless behavior. People paid the piper for their bad decisions. Always sad but it was inevitable.

 

[lynnvinc]

A joke that was adressed in 2008:

*To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred ‘‘prolife’’ option is to subvert what the word ‘‘prolife’’ means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essay from earlier this week, ‘‘Obama’s Abortion Extremism,’’ and his follow-up article, ‘‘Obama and Infanticide.’’ They say everything that needs to be said.
*

Archbishop Chaput

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

I know pro-abortion Catholics get upset when I quote members of the magisterium. But the truth must be proclaimed

This is a misrepresentation of what I said – I said Obama was the least “pro-death” candidate, the others being much more “pro-death.” And I was referring to environmental problems (on which no candidate is good, but the Republicans are extremely pro-death on, and the Democrats only somewhat pro-death on) – see

.

But I think the real problem is the term “pro-life” as it is used by Republicans and many Catholics – to mean only abortion, and ony medical abortions, and not to include abortions caused by pollution (which many call miscarriages) or killing of people through environmental and other harms (both directly and indirectly). If we persist in a business-as-usual path, these deaths and harms will be increasing perhaps exponentially in decades, centuries, and millennia to come triggered by the pollution and greenhouse gases we emit in our current time frame, until most if not all of life flatlines. That is the mother of all pro-life issues in my books, and one not being addressed adequately by either party, especially not by Republican candidates who to a man and woman deny it and assassinate the character of good and decent scientists to boot…and misrepresent every little word they say like “hide the decline” (which means hide the decline in the proxy data NOT the real data, so as to splice the current real data with the proxy data, since the current warming is perhaps even responsible for harming the trees from which the proxy data is taken). Anything to deny the truth of what is happening.

We need a candidate who will address this seriously and help the country and the world (the U.S. is the largest per capita emitter of GHGs) to reduce in sensible ways that also help the economy and the common good.

It is a very sad thing that pro-life for Republicans only means putting women who have had abortions in prison, thinking that will solve or end the medical abortion problem, but in no way includes reducing our killing of fetuses and born people in the many other ways that we do so.

Perhaps on the medical abortion issue Republicans are partly (not fully) pro-life and the Democrats mainly pro-death, but on other serious life issues Republicans are extremely pro-death.

I realize that killing most if not all people on planet earth is an effective way to reduce medical abortions, but I’m against that method. Sorry. And I don’t care how many priest tell me I’m wrong. One priest told me my morally reasoning was sound, but another told me we had to vote for laws against abortion, even if it meant more deaths and abortions. Well, let him vote for the pro-deather Republicans. My conscience will not allow me to do so. I’ve been pro-life since I was a Proestant kids, and I have not waivered. I cannot vote for the worse pro-death candidate, and do feel bad about voting for the least pro-death candidate.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Mr. Scott I pray for your discernment. My take on all the “Catholics” who are “not one issue voters,” who discern the whole plethora of life issues and party positions in respect for the “least of our brothers,’ ……who basically want us to love them to death (read statistics on American family conditions prior to the “Great Society” and current conditions newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Belmont—Fishtown-7250) and you can only come to the conclusions they are:

1. Deluded
2. Cynical
   Deluded, they lack all logical ability to draw a conclusion from obvious data regarding the destruction of families. Cynical because they are part of the government apparatchik that administer the “Great Society” programs to least peoples who cannot exist without them. That is they are the plantation keepers and need the job. They are voting their own self-interest.

It is all about money.

Government taking on the role, the Church provided in the middle ages, of providing succor to the real poor I do not disagree with: provided if indeed private charity will not suffice. However, it must have been effective prior to LBJ. I think this because you never read about mass starvation, dead and dying bodies all over American cities, Poor yes, destitute yes but folks littering the gutter dying for lack of care…no. Prior to LBJ America did not subsidize sloth and reckless behavior. People paid the piper for their bad decisions. Always sad but it was inevitable.

“The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.” Matt 26:11.

I always look with suspicion ANYONE in the government who says its mission is to eliminate poverty. God Himself said that the poor would always be with us. That means that they are put there BY GOD HIMSELF as a test for us, as Christians, to see if we will do our moral duty and care for them, personally, individually. He did not say, “Establish large government bureaucracies who’s paid duty will be to ensure that they have little more than they need to survive and become dependents of the state.”

So, in that sense you are right. The programs of LBJ had nothing to do with caring for the poor and everything to do with keeping poverty pimps in power.

 

[qui_est_ce]

We don’t need the Pope to speak infallibly that MURDER IS A MORTAL SIN

Abortion is murder in the womb.

 

[mary_bobo]

This is a misrepresentation of what I said – I said Obama was the least “pro-death” candidate, the others being much more “pro-death.” And I was referring to environmental problems (on which no candidate is good, but the Republicans are extremely pro-death on, and the Democrats only somewhat pro-death on) – see

But I think the real problem is the term “pro-life” as it is used by Republicans and many Catholics – to mean only abortion, and ony medical abortions, and not to include abortions caused by pollution (which many call miscarriages) or killing of people through environmental and other harms (both directly and indirectly). If we persist in a business-as-usual path, these deaths and harms will be increasing perhaps exponentially in decades, centuries, and millennia to come triggered by the pollution and greenhouse gases we emit in our current time frame, until most if not all of life flatlines. That is the mother of all pro-life issues in my books, and one not being addressed adequately by either party, especially not by Republican candidates who to a man and woman deny it and assassinate the character of good and decent scientists to boot…and misrepresent every little word they say like “hide the decline” (which means hide the decline in the proxy data NOT the real data, so as to splice the current real data with the proxy data, since the current warming is perhaps even responsible for harming the trees from which the proxy data is taken). Anything to deny the truth of what is happening.

We need a candidate who will address this seriously and help the country and the world (the U.S. is the largest per capita emitter of GHGs) to reduce in sensible ways that also help the economy and the common good.

It is a very sad thing that pro-life for Republicans only means putting women who have had abortions in prison, thinking that will solve or end the medical abortion problem, but in no way includes reducing our killing of fetuses and born people in the many other ways that we do so.

Perhaps on the medical abortion issue Republicans are partly (not fully) pro-life and the Democrats mainly pro-death, but on other serious life issues Republicans are extremely pro-death.

I realize that killing most if not all people on planet earth is an effective way to reduce medical abortions, but I’m against that method. Sorry. And I don’t care how many priest tell me I’m wrong. One priest told me my morally reasoning was sound, but another told me we had to vote for laws against abortion, even if it meant more deaths and abortions. Well, let him vote for the pro-deather Republicans. My conscience will not allow me to do so. I’ve been pro-life since I was a Proestant kids, and I have not waivered. I cannot vote for the worse pro-death candidate, and do feel bad about voting for the least pro-death candidate.

Can you site a place where pollution causes abortion (miscarriage or spontaneous abortion in medical terms)? I also notice that while you credited the GOP as being pro-life, you did not mention gay marriage, fetal stem cell research, or any of the other intrinsic evils that are supported by the present day Democrat party. You are, IMO, attributing events to the environment and pollution that have not been scientifically proven, or are still only theories.

 

[mary_bobo]

It’s not an issue of “ignoring” his words…you claimed he was “infallible”…including his opinions…were you mistaken or is that what is truly believed? You asked "How are the comments made by the infallible Pope Benedict just 'opinions?’

Did she say that? I don’t think so. The Pope is infallible when he pronounces on faith and morals. Other quotes are opinions. There is a huge difference. Please don’t confuse the two.

 

[seekerz]

In Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis Pope Bendicts lists the non negotiables to be of central concern to Christians in politics, “respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms.”

Pope John Paul II states in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

*Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it. *

Why would it be any more licit to vote for a candidate who is in favor of abortion?

Bishops must guide their faithful to use their vote to oppose efforts to legalize abortion and euthanasia, Pope Benedict XVI told bishops from Brazil;

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004432.htm

In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. – (CDF DOCTRINAL NOTE
on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life, 4)

“Catechism of the Catholic Church”, "2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "

If you vote for a candidate that supports unrestricted abortion over a pro life candidate you may be able to be excommunicated. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, your voting for a candidate who is extreme in his support for abortion, that may be regarded as material cooperation.

Support of abortion can be direct or indirect. One party supports it directly, another indirectly. Does that make a difference to the babies? No, dead is dead no matter how you got dead or why.

As for your bolded part, abortion is already legalized here so how can we oppose efforts to legalize it? All we can do is support efforts to make it illegal - which obviously are not working - or work to convince people not to practice it regardless of the law.

Nothing in what you quote tells me that it is against Catholic doctrine to vote for Obama.

 

[estesbob]

This is a misrepresentation of what I said – I said Obama was the least “pro-death” candidate, the others being much more “pro-death.” And I was referring to environmental problems (on which no candidate is good, but the Republicans are extremely pro-death on, and the Democrats only somewhat pro-death on) – see

But I think the real problem is the term “pro-life” as it is used by Republicans and many Catholics – to mean only abortion, and ony medical abortions, and not to include abortions caused by pollution (which many call miscarriages) or killing of people through environmental and other harms (both directly and indirectly). If we persist in a business-as-usual path, these deaths and harms will be increasing perhaps exponentially in decades, centuries, and millennia to come triggered by the pollution and greenhouse gases we emit in our current time frame, until most if not all of life flatlines. That is the mother of all pro-life issues in my books, and one not being addressed adequately by either party, especially not by Republican candidates who to a man and woman deny it and assassinate the character of good and decent scientists to boot…and misrepresent every little word they say like “hide the decline” (which means hide the decline in the proxy data NOT the real data, so as to splice the current real data with the proxy data, since the current warming is perhaps even responsible for harming the trees from which the proxy data is taken). Anything to deny the truth of what is happening.

We need a candidate who will address this seriously and help the country and the world (the U.S. is the largest per capita emitter of GHGs) to reduce in sensible ways that also help the economy and the common good.

It is a very sad thing that pro-life for Republicans only means putting women who have had abortions in prison, thinking that will solve or end the medical abortion problem, but in no way includes reducing our killing of fetuses and born people in the many other ways that we do so.

Perhaps on the medical abortion issue Republicans are partly (not fully) pro-life and the Democrats mainly pro-death, but on other serious life issues Republicans are extremely pro-death.

I realize that killing most if not all people on planet earth is an effective way to reduce medical abortions, but I’m against that method. Sorry. And I don’t care how many priest tell me I’m wrong. One priest told me my morally reasoning was sound, but another told me we had to vote for laws against abortion, even if it meant more deaths and abortions. Well, let him vote for the pro-deather Republicans. My conscience will not allow me to do so. I’ve been pro-life since I was a Proestant kids, and I have not waivered. I cannot vote for the worse pro-death candidate, and do feel bad about voting for the least pro-death candidate.

Let me make sure I understand this. It is okay for Catholic support pro-abortion candidates because the Republican party wants to annihilate all life on earth.?

 

[estesbob]

Support of abortion can be direct or indirect. One party supports it directly, another indirectly. Does that make a difference to the babies? No, dead is dead no matter how you got dead or why.

As for your bolded part, abortion is already legalized here so how can we oppose efforts to legalize it? All we can do is support efforts to make it illegal - which obviously are not working - or work to convince people not to practice it regardless of the law.

Nothing in what you quote tells me that it is against Catholic doctrine to vote for Obama.

Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence.

Cardinal Bernadine

 

[lynnvinc]

Let me make sure I understand this. It is okay for Catholic support pro-abortion candidates because the Republican party wants to annihilate all life on earth.?

That’s my voting decision. It’s a terrible thing. It’s like being a general who has to send troops in – he knows many will likely die, but if he doesn’t send them in many more will likely die. I have to vote for the candidate I feel will cause the least death and harm. Just as I suppose you and others have to do.

It is perhaps a matter of what we know and accept as facts, what our knowledge and educational background is. ((And it’s no surprise that certain politicians want to reduce funding for education and keep us blinded.))

I imagine people who vote for whatever Republican candidate gets selected (except maybe Huntsman) would also feel bad about the death and harm that would come about from that president’s tenure in office, as those who vote for the Democrat should feel. If not, then may God have mercy on their souls.

It is not good simply to deny the wrong in a candidate and over-glorify the positive qualities because it makes us feel better. Let us live in our cognitive dissonance and psychological suffering, and offer it up to God. Denying the wrong in a person we favor or select (and over-attributing good) is a further sin.

 

[estesbob]

That’s my voting decision. It’s a terrible thing. It’s like being a general who has to send troops in – he knows many will likely die, but if he doesn’t send them in many more will likely die. I have to vote for the candidate I feel will cause the least death and harm. Just as I suppose you and others have to do.

It is perhaps a matter of what we know and accept as facts, what our knowledge and educational background is. ((And it’s no surprise that certain politicians want to reduce funding for education and keep us blinded.))

I imagine people who vote for whatever Republican candidate gets selected (except maybe Huntsman) would also feel bad about the death and harm that would come about from that president’s tenure in office, as those who vote for the Democrat should feel. If not, then may God have mercy on their souls.

It is not good simply to deny the wrong in a candidate and over-glorify the positive qualities because it makes us feel better. Let us live in our cognitive dissonance and psychological suffering, and offer it up to God. Denying the wrong in a person we favor or select (and over-attributing good) is a further sin.

You are aware the Church does not put enviromentalism on the same level as abortion? In fact i can not find a single church document that eqautes enviromentalism with being “pro-life” The idea that the republcian party wants to destroy all life on earth is utter nonsense-the idea that holding this view gives a Catholic a proportionate reason to suport a pro-abortion canidate is specious.

 

[Scalia]

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”

BHO supports abortion

BHO supports infanticide (infant born alive act).

BHO supports “gay” rights

BHO’s Justice Department just tried to take away the ministerial exception

BHO’s Justice Department sells guns to Mexican drug lords

BHO sends his kids to a $30,000 year school but is against school choice.

BHO’s healthcare plan is on a crash course with Catholic institutions and the providing of “reproductive health” services.

BHO has started two wars of his own

BHO kills U.S. citizens, via a secret panel, with drones in the Pakistan etc. Yet he was indignant about water boarding.