Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All the way with Sarah Palin for me. I like Cain, Bachmann, West, Bolton, Rubio and Perry also, but aside from a Perry run, I don’t think that any of these have a chance at the nomination. I’d still choose Sarah b/c she is a known fighter, not the least bit intimidated by the Marxist radical in the White House. I’m tired of the weak campaigns of the McCains, Doles and Bushes. I don’t want my kids futures flushed down the toilet with a second BHO term. Rob 😦
 
RACJ said:
All the way with Sarah Palin for me. I like Cain, Bachmann, West, Bolton, Rubio and Perry also, but aside from a Perry run, I don’t think that any of these have a chance at the nomination. I’d still choose Sarah b/c she is a known fighter, not the least bit intimidated by the Marxist radical in the White House. I’m tired of the weak campaigns of the McCains, Doles and Bushes. I don’t want my kids futures flushed down the toilet with a second BHO term. Rob 😦
Click to expand...
My problem is Palin proved to be a politcal quitter.
 
buffalo said:
Your Bishop said to ignore these references?

CCC *Catechism of the Catholic Church *
CPL Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, *Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life *
CRF Pontifical Council for the Family, *Charter of the Rights of the Family *
EV John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life)
RHL Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, *Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation *
UHP Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, *Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons *
Click to expand...
It seems that I hit a nerve.

I have read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which states on the first page:

The document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States was developed by the chairmen, in consultation with the membership, of the Committees on Domestic Policy, International Policy, Pro-Life Activities, Communications, Doctrine, Education, and Migration of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved by the full body of bishops at its November 2007 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.
Msgr. David J. Malloy, STD
General Secretary, USCCB

That’s a pretty impressive list of credentials. Why should I disregard the advice given in a document that was approved by the full body of bishops in any part of form? This document clearly states that I should seek voter guides that have been authorized by the Church leadership - so that’s what I’m doing. I’m being a good Catholic.

Has the document you are asking me to read been through any sort of official review process by the Church at all? At least tell me that much.

(All of the underlined titles above are links to the document if anyone cares to read it.)
 
valentino said:
I believe that.s a good starting point.If enough states were to vote against abortion maybe it could finally be made illegal federally.
Click to expand...
Nope. Sorry. As Irishpatrick and I both noted, RvW has to go first, then the states can vote against legalized abortion.
 
RACJ said:
All the way with Sarah Palin for me. I like Cain, Bachmann, West, Bolton, Rubio and Perry also, but aside from a Perry run, I don’t think that any of these have a chance at the nomination. I’d still choose Sarah b/c she is a known fighter, not the least bit intimidated by the Marxist radical in the White House. I’m tired of the weak campaigns of the McCains, Doles and Bushes. I don’t want my kids futures flushed down the toilet with a second BHO term. Rob 😦
Click to expand...
Looking at the names you’ve given, I don’t see anyone whom the President ought to be afraid of.
 
bellasbane said:
It seems that I hit a nerve.

I have read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which states on the first page:

The document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States was developed by the chairmen, in consultation with the membership, of the Committees on Domestic Policy, International Policy, Pro-Life Activities, Communications, Doctrine, Education, and Migration of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved by the full body of bishops at its November 2007 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.
Msgr. David J. Malloy, STD
General Secretary, USCCB

That’s a pretty impressive list of credentials. Why should I disregard the advice given in a document that was approved by the full body of bishops in any part of form? This document clearly states that I should seek voter guides that have been authorized by the Church leadership - so that’s what I’m doing. I’m being a good Catholic.

Has the document you are asking me to read been through any sort of official review process by the Church at all? At least tell me that much.

(All of the underlined titles above are links to the document if anyone cares to read it.)
Click to expand...
OK - by referring to the document you cite:

WIll you vote for a pro-death politician and why?
 
bellasbane said:
It seems that I hit a nerve.

I have read Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which states on the first page:

The document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States was developed by the chairmen, in consultation with the membership, of the Committees on Domestic Policy, International Policy, Pro-Life Activities, Communications, Doctrine, Education, and Migration of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved by the full body of bishops at its November 2007 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.
Msgr. David J. Malloy, STD
General Secretary, USCCB

That’s a pretty impressive list of credentials. Why should I disregard the advice given in a document that was approved by the full body of bishops in any part of form? This document clearly states that I should seek voter guides that have been authorized by the Church leadership - so that’s what I’m doing. I’m being a good Catholic.

Has the document you are asking me to read been through any sort of official review process by the Church at all? At least tell me that much.

(All of the underlined titles above are links to the document if anyone cares to read it.)
Click to expand...
Bellasbane,
The Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics is put out by Catholic Answers. It has been criticized as having a Republican agenda:
Code: 
Before the 2004 presidential election, Catholic Answers published the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics.[11] It was produced both in pamphlet form and as an insert to the newspaper USA Today. This publication promoted five "non-negotiable" issues that were also major political questions in the election cycle. The five non-negotiable issues explained and discussed were abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, same-sex marriage and human cloning.[further explanation needed] The term "non-negotiable" is used by Catholic Answers to describe issues that are "intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by law." [12] Catholic Answers maintains that there are many more "non-negotiable" issues but these were "selected because they involve principles that never admit of exceptions and because they are currently being debated in U.S. politics."[12]
Click to expand...
"The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" was criticized for correlating with a Republican agenda.[citation needed] Critics[which?] argued that the publication did not take into account the full breadth of Catholic Social Teaching, including economic, social justice, or other life issues. Catholic Answers responded that political candidates can have a range of policy stances on issues that are not “non-negotiable” and still be in line with Church teaching. On the other hand, Catholics must not vote for candidates who take the wrong stance on “non-negotiable” issues.[citation needed]
Click to expand...
Code: 
While "The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" made no endorsements of any candidate or political party, the organization came under strong attack by liberal organizations and Democratic Party candidates as a partisan publication. In 2004 complaints were filed by Catholics for a Free Choice with the IRS claiming that it was in "blatant violation of its charitable status"[13] in an attempt to revoke Catholic Answers tax exempt status.
Click to expand...
Code: 
An IRS investigation resulted in no action against Catholic Answers; the IRS ruled that the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics could be safely distributed by religious organizations because it did not comprise political intervention:
Click to expand...
Code: 
"[Catholic Answers, Inc.] created, published and distributed the "Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" ("VGSC"). The VGSC asserts that it is intended to help the reader vote for candidates for public office in a manner consistent with Catholic moral teachings. The VGSC identifies five issues it deems to be "non-negotiable" issues and instructs the reader on how to narrow down the list of candidates to those who are acceptable based on the non-negotiable issues. The VGSC does not directly or indirectly make reference to any specific candidate, political party or election. Therefore, the content of the VGSC, standing alone, is not political campaign intervention because the VGSC does not support or oppose any specific candidate for public office [Addendum to Letter 3609P, May 2, 2008]."[14]
Click to expand...
Code: 
A new legal entity called Catholic Answers Action[15] was created which has a separate 501(c)(4) tax status.
Click to expand...
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Answers
 
I haven’t decided. I like Bachman, Pawlenty and Santorum at the moment
 
antonivs said:
Bellasbane,
The Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics is put out by Catholic Answers. It has been criticized as having a Republican agenda:
…
The Voters Guide for Serious Catholics" was criticized for correlating with a Republican agenda**.[citation needed]** Critics**[which?]** argued that the publication did not take into account the full breadth of Catholic Social Teaching, including economic, social justice, or other life issues.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Looking at the names you’ve given, I don’t see anyone whom the President ought to be afraid of.
Click to expand...
I do not think Obama can do a lot to win peoples votes, I think people have already made up their mind whether they will vote for Obama after his being three years in office. The Republican candidates have to win votes.

Pawlenty and Romney are names Obama should be concerned about. They are going to take advantage of a bad economy, low job creation and high unemployment.
 
buffalo said:
OK - by referring to the document you cite:

WIll you vote for a pro-death politician and why?
Click to expand...
Name ONE political candidate from the list above who is not a pro-death politician. That is, one who does not distort the Church’s defense of life in one of these two ways:

(empahsis added by me)
  1. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:
  2. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.
  3. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith
    fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ. Sec1:9 (14 of 42)
And since you are so keen for an answer - you go first.

WIll you vote for a pro-death politician and why?
 
gilliam said:
Assuming these people run, who would you vote for in 2012 for President of the US?

Let’s do this periodically as the year progresses and see how things change.
Click to expand...
Way too early to even think about asking that question.
 
antonivs said:
Yes, someone who can’t take the heat of being governor of Alaska certainly couldn’t handle the Presidency. I was extremely disappointed in her.
Click to expand...
I honestly do not see anyone in the race that has any chance of beating Obama…and that is what is needed. I think Rick Perry or someone like him has a chance, but right now he is not in the race.

I think the vast majority of those who voted for Obama the last time will do so again and I also think Obama is going to wait to pull some surprises out of his Presidential hat to help ensure his second term.

I place it at a 90% probability that Obama will be re-elected, which means we need to focus on taking a large control of congress to help halt his agenda.
 
bellasbane said:
WIll you vote for a pro-death politician and why?
Click to expand...
Yes-because the Pope himself said it is ok to do so:

***There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
***Pope Benedict XVI
 
irishpatrick said:
I honestly do not see anyone in the race that has any chance of beating Obama…and that is what is needed. I think Rick Perry or someone like him has a chance, but right now he is not in the race.

I think the vast majority of those who voted for Obama the last time will do so again and I also think Obama is going to wait to pull some surprises out of his Presidential hat to help ensure his second term.

I place it at a 90% probability that Obama will be re-elected, which means we need to focus on taking a large control of congress to help halt his agenda.
Click to expand...
Obama will lose and lose big to Romney.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top