Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[Veritas_Vincit]

Refute with specifics. Generalizations don’t accomplish a thing. And I agree that our nation is being dummed down. Look at our education system, as an example. It falls behind many countries and it should not.

Generalizations are all anyone uses around here. All auguments are just opinions. No one backs anything up with legitimate sources. When progressives post articles that back up what they are saying, the thread generally goes dead.
BTW I do agree with you that we are falling behind most nations in acedemics.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Again thoroughly refuted as recent as post 822. And again even if true does allow a Catholic to support a pro-abortion politician. It has been my experience that those who claim to be pro-.life but vote for non viable third party candidates are in reality Democrats looking to insure the defeat of pro-life candidates. Those truly committed to the cause of life know we can not sacrifice the unborn with counterproductive votes.

Apparently anyone who doesn’t vote for your beloved GOP is wrong regardless of his or her choice of candidate, even a pro-lifer though not of your party. Your partisanship goes too far, Bob.

 

[Contarini]

I guess it’s time once again to trot out the Catholic Voters Guide.

Which has no authority behind it whatever as far as I can see and yet is preferred by so-called “serious” Catholics to the pronouncements of the apostles’ successors.

American Catholics really are good Protestants–conservatives not the least.

Edwin

 

[addictedkoala]

The USCCB’s Conscience and the Catholic Voter states:

And while Faithful Citizenship acknowledges that one may vote for a politician who supports pro-abortion policies “only for truly grave moral reasons,” a conscientious voter must question what grave moral issue rises to the level of nearly 49 million lives lost to the evil of abortion. On the other hand, a politician who opposes abortion should not go unchallenged if he or she adopts positions that undermine human dignity in other ways.

The full document is found here (This is a pdf)

Unlike the Catholic Voter’s Guide this is approved and issued by the USCCB. So we can see that the voter’s guide is incorrect insofar as it presents any particular issue as non-negotiable when the USCCB acknowledges the possibility of other issues trumping abortion. Of course as indicated these circumstances are rare and certainly neither mainstream liberal nor conservative economics are outside allowed social teaching. It seems highly doubtful that disagreeing with conservative economic politics is enough to warrant voting for a pro-choice politician, no matter how vehemently some of us may disagree. There may be times where other issues, even some economic, do trump abortion, but this is currently rare in America.

 

[irishpatrick]

The USCCB’s Conscience and the Catholic Voter states:

The full document is found here (This is a pdf)

Unlike the Catholic Voter’s Guide this is approved and issued by the USCCB. So we can see that the voter’s guide is incorrect insofar as it presents any particular issue as non-negotiable when the USCCB acknowledges the possibility of other issues trumping abortion. Of course as indicated these circumstances are rare and certainly neither mainstream liberal nor conservative economics are outside allowed social teaching. It seems highly doubtful that disagreeing with conservative economic politics is enough to warrant voting for a pro-choice politician, no matter how vehemently some of us may disagree. There may be times where other issues, even some economic, do trump abortion, but this is currently rare in America.

Tell me one issue that exists today that trumps 50,000,000+ slaughtered unborn babies and counting! Please, I have asked for this many times, and I have yet to get even one rational response…just give me one issue that trumps abortion (current issue).

 

[irishpatrick]

Again thoroughly refuted as recent as post 822. And again even if true does allow a Catholic to support a pro-abortion politician. It has been my experience that those who claim to be pro-.life but vote for non viable third party candidates are in reality Democrats looking to insure the defeat of pro-life candidates. Those truly committed to the cause of life know we can not sacrifice the unborn with counterproductive votes.

A house divided…

 

[addictedkoala]

Tell me one issue that exists today that trumps 50,000,000+ slaughtered unborn babies and counting! Please, I have asked for this many times, and I have yet to get even one rational response…just give me one issue that trumps abortion (current issue).

I do not vote for pro-choice politicians as a general rule because of this teaching from the bishops, and I agree that those who do vote for them when other options are available have to examine their justification extraordinarily seriously because, as you indicate, the issues they have with the pro-life candidate must outweigh tens of millions of murdered children. However at the same time it would be incorrect to state that objectively speaking it is always non-negotiable to vote for someone pro-choice, as rare as possible justification exists. This is what the Bishops of our country have said.

 

[PPeterson]

as Archbishop Chaput said it’s not a matter of voting for the lesser of two evils, it’s a matter of voting to lessen an evil.

What exactly is the Archbishop saying? Is he actually suggesting some people vote for the lesser of two evils, because they are hoping to support the evil in question but derive greater satisfaction when the evil occurs with lesser frequency?

More likely he is using a meaningless platitude to recommend throwing away your moral credibility in exchange for “relevance” in the world. Voting for the candidate who most clearly represents your values is the only practical step you can take to put it on record that your values are worth anyone taking seriously. I’ll do so even when it means backing a loser.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Again thoroughly refuted as recent as post 822. And again even if true does allow a Catholic to support a pro-abortion politician. It has been my experience that those who claim to be pro-.life but vote for non viable third party candidates are in reality Democrats looking to insure the defeat of pro-life candidates. Those truly committed to the cause of life know we can not sacrifice the unborn with counterproductive votes.

Since the Democrat party has done nothing for the truly poor in decades (just like the Republican party) and canoodles with the rich just as much (if not more…recent history being fairly dramatically indicative), there’s really not much point in supporting abortion by voting Democrat (or third party if one is really prolife) unless one favors the middle-class welfare the Democrat party has been pursuing for the last two years. I suppose if one has an expectation of getting some benefit from that, maybe he would vote Democratic if he didn’t care about its pro-abortion position or the poor, either one.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m proud that the administration took on health care reform, and all though Republicans turned out to be quite a huge hurdle, we were able to get something passed.

What exactly do you think is good about what was passed without even reading the bill?

March 5, 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, made the invitation list as did other pro-abortion groups.

lifenews.com/2010/11/07/obamaabortionrecord/

Can’t be denied base on pre-existing conditions now.

Are you trying to say a simple law couldn’t have accomplished this same goal? - Without taxes and the creation of 159 bureaucracies?

saveyourrights.com/government-control/the-new-labyrinthine-bureaucracy-of-obamacare-159-new-ones-to-streamline-and-decrease-cost-of-healthcare/

Also, allowing children to remain covered by their parents’ insurance until the age of 26

Outside of special circumstances - can you tell me why adults should be under mommies insurance?
This IS NOT a special circumstance law - it IS a broad brush bill. Why do you think ** ALL Non Dependant children **deserve / are entitled to this?

I’m happy about the unemployment benefits being extended. Although they did not cause this economic recession, the middle and lower classes are the ones being punished for it.

Yippie!!! Such programs as “cash for clunkers” “stimulus packages” etc were also to relieve the recession. IMO he put a bandage with no follow-up for stitching up the wounds.

I’m happy that Obama has fought the Tea Party in their unholy war on the poor and needy.

Give me your reference source for this bolded statement, please. Otherwise, I consider it to be an uncharitable and a subjective statement - only… and will base my thoughts, about what you say in other posts, on this.

Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids – 4 million of whom were previously uninsured

At what cost?
Did he really provide anything?

There are approximately 10.2 million children with Special Needs in the USA

The survey by the Health Resources and Services Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found 10.2 million U.S. children in the have special healthcare needs, or 14 percent of all U.S. children. More than one-fifth of U.S. households with children have at least one child with special needs.

upi.com/Health_News/2008/03/05/14-percent-of-US-kids-with-special-needs/UPI-93651204755296/

Side note : These are the Non Dependant 26 year olds ] That should be counted under mommies insurance IMO - No one else.

What happened?
Read… Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” takes effect Jan. 1, 2011: This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 billion)

Met with the Pope!

Why? I would be impressed with this, if it wasn’t just a photo-op for Mr Obama.

“In the course of their cordial exchanges, the conversation turned first of all to questions which are in the interest of all and which constitute a great challenge … such as the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience,” the statement said.

Even in his gift to the U.S. leader, the pope sought to underscore his beliefs. Benedict gave Obama a copy of a Vatican document on bioethics that hardened the church’s opposition to using embryos for stem cell research, cloning and in-vitro fertilization. Obama supports stem cell research.

I would have been impressed if Mr Obama had learned from meeting the Holy Father.
huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/obama-pope-to-hold-frank-_n_229317.html

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Since the Democrat party has done nothing for the truly poor in decades (just like the Republican party) and canoodles with the rich just as much (if not more…recent history being fairly dramatically indicative), there’s really not much point in supporting abortion by voting Democrat (or third party if one is really prolife) unless one favors the middle-class welfare the Democrat party has been pursuing for the last two years. I suppose if one has an expectation of getting some benefit from that, maybe he would vote Democratic if he didn’t care about its pro-abortion position or the poor, either one.

Given the recent track record, the Democrats are just as much in favor of giving welfare to big corporations and unions as the Republicans. They are not the “defenders of the poor” that everyone claims they are here.

 

[Veritas_Vincit]

Since the Democrat party has done nothing for the truly poor in decades (just like the Republican party) and canoodles with the rich just as much (if not more…recent history being fairly dramatically indicative), there’s really not much point in supporting abortion by voting Democrat (or third party if one is really prolife) unless one favors the middle-class welfare the Democrat party has been pursuing for the last two years. I suppose if one has an expectation of getting some benefit from that, maybe he would vote Democratic if he didn’t care about its pro-abortion position or the poor, either one.

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say all generalizations and no substance, no sources, just one person’s opionion that we should take as fact.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is exactly what I am talking about when I say all generalizations and no substance, no sources, just one person’s opionion that we should take as fact.

Obama and the Democrats were the recipients of more campaign largess from investment banks than Republicans were. Lots of big corporations in this list:

opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

Obama championed the bailout of GM and Chrystler, screwing over preferred shareholders and giving the company to the government, foreign companies, and the unions.

online.wsj.com/article/SB124398927774279631.html

Democrats were just as in favor of TARP and the bank bailouts as Republicans, and ironically, received more campaign cash from the bailed out companies.

 

[mary_bobo]

Generalizations are all anyone uses around here. All auguments are just opinions. No one backs anything up with legitimate sources. When progressives post articles that back up what they are saying, the thread generally goes dead.
BTW I do agree with you that we are falling behind most nations in acedemics.

I thought maybe since you made such all-sweeping statements as to the accomplishments of our president you might be able to answer the questions I asked. Guess not.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Tell me one issue that exists today that trumps 50,000,000+ slaughtered unborn babies and counting! Please, I have asked for this many times, and I have yet to get even one rational response…just give me one issue that trumps abortion (current issue).

How about FEAR? Fear of economic insecurity - of providing for oneself, one’s children (born or unborn), one’s parents, encompassing education, health care, living income and job security, retirement, public safety services. Fear of social stigma - despite cultural advances in the acceptance of public pregnancy, it still invites looks, questions, and complications to be a pregnant student or business professional, and if you are in a position dependent on your looks, size, or athleticism (model, actress, cheerleader, airline stewardess, even many wait staff and retail sales), forget about keeping your job.

I think many pro-life conservatives want to eliminate abortion through legislation and and restricted access - basically, trying to reduce supply. Many pro-life progressives believe in eliminating abortion through eliminating its causes (fear and perceived necessity) - basically, trying to reduce demand. We need to work on both simultaneously.

If we reduce abortion supply without reducing demand, the cost of that choice goes up. I’m not just talking about the price of procuring an abortion (which would increase, either because the abortionist can charge more for rarity or because the procurer must travel farther or jump through more hoops to do so). Costs to the individual go up in terms of personal safety (think back-alley), and costs to society increase as we have more children growing up in families and communities insufficient for their needs. Then those emerging adults are less able to contribute to a growing economy and more likely to perpetuate a cycle of under-educated, under-employed, dependent parenthood.

If, however, we improve the economic security of individuals, families, and communities in sustainable ways (education, preventative health care, public safety, living-wage job creation, environmental protection, greener energy and community infrastructure, etc), we create a society that is less toxic to parenthood. Couple that with increased societal messages that a fetus really is a complete human life that deserves protection, and abortion demand will dwindle. If a pregnant woman is looked upon not as a whore to be shamed but a heroine to be championed, she will have little reason to kill her child.

 

[kimmielittle]

You are wrong on just about every issue you countered on. I believe our nation is being intentionally dummied down on a regular basis… Your post shows just how underinformed the general voting public is. It’s taking too much energy to even read the threads these days. God bless you all. Here’s hoping the Holy Spirit can enlilghten us all with the gift of wisdom.

How about you trying to enlighten us?

When challenging a statement, in debate, it is customary to offer resources links ]. As you can see…I, and many others, do so.

 

[addictedkoala]

How about FEAR? Fear of economic insecurity - of providing for oneself, one’s children (born or unborn), one’s parents, encompassing education, health care, living income and job security, retirement, public safety services. Fear of social stigma - despite cultural advances in the acceptance of public pregnancy, it still invites looks, questions, and complications to be a pregnant student or business professional, and if you are in a position dependent on your looks, size, or athleticism (model, actress, cheerleader, airline stewardess, even many wait staff and retail sales), forget about keeping your job.

I think many pro-life conservatives want to eliminate abortion through legislation and and restricted access - basically, trying to reduce supply. Many pro-life progressives believe in eliminating abortion through eliminating its causes (fear and perceived necessity) - basically, trying to reduce demand. We need to work on both simultaneously.

If we reduce abortion supply without reducing demand, the cost of that choice goes up. I’m not just talking about the price of procuring an abortion (which would increase, either because the abortionist can charge more for rarity or because the procurer must travel farther or jump through more hoops to do so). Costs to the individual go up in terms of personal safety (think back-alley), and costs to society increase as we have more children growing up in families and communities insufficient for their needs. Then those emerging adults are less able to contribute to a growing economy and more likely to perpetuate a cycle of under-educated, under-employed, dependent parenthood.

If, however, we improve the economic security of individuals, families, and communities in sustainable ways (education, preventative health care, public safety, living-wage job creation, environmental protection, greener energy and community infrastructure, etc), we create a society that is less toxic to parenthood. Couple that with increased societal messages that a fetus really is a complete human life that deserves protection, and abortion demand will dwindle. If a pregnant woman is looked upon not as a whore to be shamed but a heroine to be championed, she will have little reason to kill her child.

This is not, however, what the Church teaches us. We should absolutely do what you suggested, but at the same time the Bishops have made it clear that we must also oppose legalized abortion.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Also, allowing children to remain covered by their parents’ insurance until the age of 26

I can’t answer for that poster, but it seems that in Europe and elsewhere, “youth” are considered to be anybody age 25 or younger. One can buy “youth” tickets for transit and museums at cheaper rates if under 26.

I don’t think that 26 is necessarily an arbitrary number either. It is increasingly common that youth must stay in college longer (or return for more education) to earn a degree and may have greater difficulty finding long-term full-time employment which should offer health benefits. It is also becoming well-known that children do not achieve full rational maturity until about age 25 when the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for abstract decisioning and higher-moral-level reasoning, finishes development. (Statistically this makes sense when you note that auto insurance rates for 25-year-olds drop; they can perceive and judge situations on the road and respond in ways that are safer driving behaviors.)

So yes, I think that if children are entitled to health care through the full range of their development, it is not unreasonable to insure them through age 26.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I can’t answer for that poster, but it seems that in Europe and elsewhere, “youth” are considered to be anybody age 25 or younger. One can buy “youth” tickets for transit and museums at cheaper rates if under 26.

I don’t think that 26 is necessarily an arbitrary number either. It is increasingly common that youth must stay in college longer (or return for more education) to earn a degree and may have greater difficulty finding long-term full-time employment which should offer health benefits. It is also becoming well-known that children do not achieve full rational maturity until about age 25 when the pre-frontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for abstract decisioning and higher-moral-level reasoning, finishes development. (Statistically this makes sense when you note that auto insurance rates for 25-year-olds drop; they can perceive and judge situations on the road and respond in ways that are safer driving behaviors.)

So yes, I think that if children are entitled to health care through the full range of their development, it is not unreasonable to insure them through age 26.

What a load of hooey. If a person can be sent off to a foreign land to die for their country, they are no longer a “youth”.

 

[kimmielittle]

How about FEAR? Fear of economic insecurity - of providing for oneself, one’s children (born or unborn), one’s parents, encompassing education, health care, living income and job security, retirement, public safety services. Fear of social stigma - despite cultural advances in the acceptance of public pregnancy, it still invites looks, questions, and complications to be a pregnant student or business professional, and if you are in a position dependent on your looks, size, or athleticism (model, actress, cheerleader, airline stewardess, even many wait staff and retail sales), forget about keeping your job.

I think many pro-life conservatives want to eliminate abortion through legislation and and restricted access - basically, trying to reduce supply. Many pro-life progressives believe in eliminating abortion through eliminating its causes (fear and perceived necessity) - basically, trying to reduce demand. We need to work on both simultaneously.

If we reduce abortion supply without reducing demand, the cost of that choice goes up. I’m not just talking about the price of procuring an abortion (which would increase, either because the abortionist can charge more for rarity or because the procurer must travel farther or jump through more hoops to do so). Costs to the individual go up in terms of personal safety (think back-alley), and costs to society increase as we have more children growing up in families and communities insufficient for their needs. Then those emerging adults are less able to contribute to a growing economy and more likely to perpetuate a cycle of under-educated, under-employed, dependent parenthood.

If, however, we improve the economic security of individuals, families, and communities in sustainable ways (education, preventative health care, public safety, living-wage job creation, environmental protection, greener energy and community infrastructure, etc), we create a society that is less toxic to parenthood. Couple that with increased societal messages that a fetus really is a complete human life that deserves protection, and abortion demand will dwindle. If a pregnant woman is looked upon not as a whore to be shamed but a heroine to be championed, she will have little reason to kill her child.

Fear? Can you point to one thing this administration has done to elevate these concerns?
The ONLY thing I can see - Is more funding to abortionists.

I agree, these are social justice issues - BUT Social Justice - like a house, needs a firm foundation.

We have no firm foundation when we fail to protect the most innocent of society.