Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

The facts are this: The Church says not to vote for a candidate that has a voting record in favor of abortion or same sex marriage. Nothing is mentioned about the economy, it is obvious that only with a strong moral foundation that respects life can everything else prosper, including the economy.

Ever heard of China?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[irishpatrick]

Well, most Catholics like myself are not conservative, nor are we one-issue voters

Yes, which is precisely why abortion is still legal.

Catholics have it within their reach to end legal abortion–they just won’t do it because they hold things (other than life itself) more sacred. Many Catholics in the “I am not a single issue voter” camp are also in the social justice camp; however, how can a person receive social justice if our culture is busy killing that person?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Generally speaking, governors do better in presidential elections than non-governors.

So, perhaps Perry of Texas and Christie of New Jersey.

But if they get the Republican nomination, they would need the active support of the other candidates … they would need the other candidates to go out there and speak up for the Republican Party … because we know the Republican Party is not going to speak up for itself or for its own accomplishments.

[It irritates me to this day that the Republican Party didn’t speak up for its own candidate George W. Bush, who I found out years later only incidentally had spent years flying F-102 supersonic data-linked single seater single-engine all weather jet interceptors overwater at night. And then I looked on line at the weapons he carried. And the Republicans let the Democrats go on like Bush never even showed up. The Air National Guard bases the service of its members on a points system, rather than on a time served system. And Bush had more than enough points.]

 

[irishpatrick]

Most people = want God’s blessing in their lives and upon their nation and upon the world.

Many people = take no issue with killing the unborn or destroying traditional marriage, yet at the same time think God will still bless them and us.

 

[irishpatrick]

Generally speaking, governors do better in presidential elections than non-governors.

So, perhaps Perry of Texas and Christie of New Jersey.

But if they get the Republican nomination, they would need the active support of the other candidates … they would need the other candidates to go out there and speak up for the Republican Party … because we know the Republican Party is not going to speak up for itself or for its own accomplishments.

[It irritates me to this day that the Republican Party didn’t speak up for its own candidate George W. Bush, who I found out years later only incidentally had spent years flying F-102 supersonic data-linked single seater single-engine all weather jet interceptors overwater at night. And then I looked on line at the weapons he carried. And the Republicans let the Democrats go on like Bush never even showed up. The Air National Guard bases the service of its members on a points system, rather than on a time served system. And Bush had more than enough points.]

Very good points–there is no chance without some cooperation among all Republicans. The GOP either sees a need for real change, or we will get more of the same.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Most people = want God’s blessing in their lives and upon their nation and upon the world.

Many people = take no issue with killing the unborn or destroying traditional marriage, yet at the same time think God will still bless them and us.

God will bless me and I’m very sure of it! I’m not the one doing the abortion.

No Catholic in their right mind will tell you that abortion is a “non-issue”. What we are contending is if whether that is the only thing we should vote for. According to the false consensus here, abortion is pretty much the only thing Catholics should vote for. But try and tell that to someone who just lost their house, or someone who now has to eat a slice of bread once a day because of the bad economy, and get back to me as to how far you get.

And has it occurred to anyone that if you so despise abortion, why don’t you just pray it will end? Why not say a rosary once a day, or have a Mass said. God is omnipotent, so it’ll no doubt be within His reach to end the massacre. But of course, as usual, it’s so much easier to lecture everyone in the open about how to live their lives than to do good works behind closed doors so that only your Heavenly Father can see them!

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk **

 

[irishpatrick]

God will bless me and I’m very sure of it! I’m not the one doing the abortion.

No Catholic in their right mind will tell you that abortion is a “non-issue”. What we are contending is if whether that is the only thing we should vote for. According to the false consensus here, abortion is pretty much the only thing Catholics should vote for. But try and tell that to someone who just lost their house, or someone who now has to eat a slice of bread once a day because of the bad economy, and get back to me as to how far you get.

And has it occurred to anyone that if you so despise abortion, why don’t you just pray it will end? Why not say a rosary once a day, or have a Mass said. God is omnipotent, so it’ll no doubt be within His reach to end the massacre. But of course, as usual, it’s so much easier to lecture everyone in the open about how to live their lives than to do good works behind closed doors so that only your Heavenly Father can see them!

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk **

Be honest, if our nation had legal slavery and Party X wanted to keep legal slavery going, and Party Y wanted to end legal slavery, would that be enough for you to be a single issue voter?

[btw, do not assume that those who are strongly fighting for life do not pray and do all those things you listed and a lot more]

[note: there is both personal and corporate sin…we can work hard to keep our personal lives in good order, yet still suffer the stain of the corporate sins]

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Be honest, if our nation had legal slavery and Party X wanted to keep legal slavery going, and Party Y wanted to end legal slavery, would that be enough for you to be a single issue voter?

[btw, do not assume that those who are strongly fighting for life do not pray and do all those things you listed and a lot more]

Funnily enough, slavery is an economic system and so it has to do with the economy. And as such, I would vote for Party Y because slavery is an unsustainable economic system (history has taught us that).

It’s impossible for the economy to be a single issue, because it encompasses so many things (federal spending, monetary policy, deregulation, privatization, etc).

Where some Catholics here are wrong is in drawing a link between abortion and the economy. In reality, abortion has virtually nothing to do with the economy, but the economy has everything to do with abortion. Simple logic tells us that when the economy is bad, morality generally degenerates, and vice versa: when the economy is good, it helps morality somewhat. This would explain why child labour is viewed in modern era as wrong, yet in developing countries, it is an absolute necessity because of low income. Same with abortion. A bad economy is only going to help foster abortion as families (who probably won’t be Catholic) may deem it necessary because of their income status. This would explain why African-Americans - the poorest group in America - generally perform more abortions per family than any other ethnic group. The Pro-Choice movement love prying on the poor because those are really their only viable “customers”.

To that end, I would be looking for a candidate who has a good plan for the American economy rather than one who lives in a quasi-dream world of a “Catholic America”. And in reality, that’s what a lot of Pro-Life candidates are about. Once they get their wish of outlawing abortion, they won’t be satisfied. They’ll be imposing embargoes on birth control, imposing strict standards on television programmes and games…probably even go the whole way and force everyone to listen to Gospel music. But whose right is it for one person to dictate how another person should live?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[estesbob]

Funnily enough, slavery is an economic system and so it has to do with the economy. And as such, I would vote for Party Y because slavery is an unsustainable economic system (history has taught us that).

It’s impossible for the economy to be a single issue, because it encompasses so many things (federal spending, monetary policy, deregulation, privatization, etc).

Where some Catholics here are wrong is in drawing a link between abortion and the economy. In reality, abortion has virtually nothing to do with the economy, but the economy has everything to do with abortion. Simple logic tells us that when the economy is bad, morality generally degenerates, and vice versa: when the economy is good, it helps morality somewhat. This would explain why child labour is viewed in modern era as wrong, yet in developing countries, it is an absolute necessity because of low income. Same with abortion. A bad economy is only going to help foster abortion as families (who probably won’t be Catholic) may deem it necessary because of their income status. This would explain why African-Americans - the poorest group in America - generally perform more abortions per family than any other ethnic group. The Pro-Choice movement love prying on the poor because those are really their only viable “customers”.

To that end, I would be looking for a candidate who has a good plan for the American economy rather than one who lives in a quasi-dream world of a “Catholic America”. And in reality, that’s what a lot of Pro-Life candidates are about. Once they get their wish of outlawing abortion, they won’t be satisfied. They’ll be imposing embargoes on birth control, imposing strict standards on television programmes and games…probably even go the whole way and force everyone to listen to Gospel music. But whose right is it for one person to dictate how another person should live?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Your post is the typical dissident Catholic rationale as to why it OK to reject the teachngs of the Church when they conflict with ones pOlitical views. All rights flow from the right to life-without the right to life all other rights are meaningless. Ones view on what is best for the economy is NEVER an excuse to support abortion either directly or indirectly

 

[irishpatrick]

Funnily enough, slavery is an economic system and so it has to do with the economy. And as such, I would vote for Party Y because slavery is an unsustainable economic system (history has taught us that).

It’s impossible for the economy to be a single issue, because it encompasses so many things (federal spending, monetary policy, deregulation, privatization, etc).

Where some Catholics here are wrong is in drawing a link between abortion and the economy. In reality, abortion has virtually nothing to do with the economy, but the economy has everything to do with abortion. Simple logic tells us that when the economy is bad, morality generally degenerates, and vice versa: when the economy is good, it helps morality somewhat. This would explain why child labour is viewed in modern era as wrong, yet in developing countries, it is an absolute necessity because of low income. Same with abortion. A bad economy is only going to help foster abortion as families (who probably won’t be Catholic) may deem it necessary because of their income status. This would explain why African-Americans - the poorest group in America - generally perform more abortions per family than any other ethnic group. The Pro-Choice movement love prying on the poor because those are really their only viable “customers”.

To that end, I would be looking for a candidate who has a good plan for the American economy rather than one who lives in a quasi-dream world of a “Catholic America”. And in reality, that’s what a lot of Pro-Life candidates are about. Once they get their wish of outlawing abortion, they won’t be satisfied. They’ll be imposing embargoes on birth control, imposing strict standards on television programmes and games…probably even go the whole way and force everyone to listen to Gospel music. But whose right is it for one person to dictate how another person should live?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

So, you would not consider morality in your vote for Party Y? Now I understand you better. thank you for clarifying matters–to you money means everything and certainly much more than life. In your world view the USA should have kept slavery legal if it proved to help the economy.

[btw, a simple fact: to the majority of prolife people, the economy means NOTHING compared to protecting life, yet now I have a more clear understanding of where you and others like you are coming from]

[note: I know of no Catholic who wants this to be a “Catholic America.” Defending innocents and marriage comes from people of all walks of life–not just Catholics and it does not mean one wants some sort of theocracy]

 

[irishpatrick]

Your post is the typical dissident Catholic rationale as to why it OK to reject the teachngs of the Church when they conflict with ones pOlitical views. All rights flow from the right to life-without the right to life all other rights are meaningless. Ones view on what is best for the economy is NEVER an excuse to support abortion either directly or indirectly

It is worse than that. For people holding their views, nothing is more important than their own well being, their own money, their own jobs, their own economic security, they own life. Self is 100% at the center of people who believe that way, which of course means that what the Church teaches means nothing unless it fully agrees with what they want for THEIR life.

It is a clarifying message in truth because it shows us just what prolife people are facing.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Funnily enough, slavery is an economic system and so it has to do with the economy. And as such, I would vote for Party Y because slavery is an unsustainable economic system (history has taught us that).

It’s impossible for the economy to be a single issue, because it encompasses so many things (federal spending, monetary policy, deregulation, privatization, etc).

Where some Catholics here are wrong is in drawing a link between abortion and the economy. In reality, abortion has virtually nothing to do with the economy, but the economy has everything to do with abortion. Simple logic tells us that when the economy is bad, morality generally degenerates, and vice versa: when the economy is good, it helps morality somewhat. This would explain why child labour is viewed in modern era as wrong, yet in developing countries, it is an absolute necessity because of low income. Same with abortion. A bad economy is only going to help foster abortion as families (who probably won’t be Catholic) may deem it necessary because of their income status. This would explain why African-Americans - the poorest group in America - generally perform more abortions per family than any other ethnic group. The Pro-Choice movement love prying on the poor because those are really their only viable “customers”.

To that end, I would be looking for a candidate who has a good plan for the American economy rather than one who lives in a quasi-dream world of a “Catholic America”. And in reality, that’s what a lot of Pro-Life candidates are about. Once they get their wish of outlawing abortion, they won’t be satisfied. They’ll be imposing embargoes on birth control, imposing strict standards on television programmes and games…probably even go the whole way and force everyone to listen to Gospel music. But whose right is it for one person to dictate how another person should live?

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Honestly, slavery has been around since the dawn of civilization (and before) and it is still a vibrant industry today. Yes, we consider it morally reprehensible in THIS country, but many of the countries whom we consider friends and allies either openly or discretely continue the practice. Here in the states, we don’t call it slavery. We call it illegal immigration. Businesses use them as chatel to make sure that you have cheap lettuce for your salad, politicians use them to get votes. Meanwhile, nothing changes. Children from around the world are kidnapped and sold right under the noses of law enforcement into the labor and sex industries.

 

[irishpatrick]

Honestly, slavery has been around since the dawn of civilization (and before) and it is still a vibrant industry today. Yes, we consider it morally reprehensible in THIS country, but many of the countries whom we consider friends and allies either openly or discretely continue the practice. Here in the states, we don’t call it slavery. We call it illegal immigration. Businesses use them as chatel to make sure that you have cheap lettuce for your salad, politicians use them to get votes. Meanwhile, nothing changes. Children from around the world are kidnapped and sold right under the noses of law enforcement into the labor and sex industries.

It seems YOU do not agree that slavery is a morally reprehensible practice so long as the economy does well–and only if the economy suffers is banning slavery a good act under your posted pov.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

So, you would not consider morality in your vote for Party Y? Now I understand you better. thank you for clarifying matters–to you money means everything and certainly much mroe than life.

[btw, a simple fact: to the majority of prolife people, the economy means NOTHING compared to protecting life, yet now I have a more clear understanding of where you and others like you are coming from]

It’s astonishing how you’ve vilified money. Like I said in my previous post, people have bills to pay. That is the reality whether you like it or not. And when they can’t pay their bills, unfortunately, their homes get repossessed (foreclosed). They end up living on the streets. How am I the one being immoral when I clearly sympathize with those who have lost their homes? Or those struggling to make ends meet with higher prices? I even started a prayer thread a while ago for people struggling in the US and around the world with their expenses: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548513&highlight=prices

This is the fact - those who vote with logic must necessarily be moral. For, whatever works will work. Those who vote with morality are not necessarily logical, and therefore not necessarily moral. If something won’t work, then it won’t. Some would call Karl Marx’s philosophy moral and look at what it brought numerous countries.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[estesbob]

It’s amazing how you’ve vilified money. Like I said in my previous post, people have bills to pay. That is the reality whether you like it or not. And when they can’t pay their bills, unfortunately, their homes get repossessed (foreclosed). They end up living on the streets. How am I the one being immoral when I clearly sympathize with those who have lost their homes? Or those struggling to make ends meet with higher prices? I even started a thread a while ago for people struggling in the US and around the world with their expenses: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548513&highlight=prices

This is the fact - those who vote with logic must necessarily be moral. For, whatever works will work. Those who vote with morality are not necessarily logical, and therefore not necessarily moral. If something won’t work, then it won’t. Some would call Karl Marx’s philosophy moral and look at what it brought numerous countries.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

“Logic” has been used to excuse supporting evil sinc ethe dawn of time. And Catholics have been berated for their lack of 'logic: since the beginning of the Church:

• but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles*

 

[irishpatrick]

It’s astonishing how you’ve vilified money. Like I said in my previous post, people have bills to pay. That is the reality whether you like it or not. And when they can’t pay their bills, unfortunately, their homes get repossessed (foreclosed). They end up living on the streets. How am I the one being immoral when I clearly sympathize with those who have lost their homes? Or those struggling to make ends meet with higher prices? I even started a thread a while ago for people struggling in the US and around the world with their expenses: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=548513&highlight=prices

This is the fact - those who vote with logic must necessarily be moral. For, whatever works will work. Those who vote with morality are not necessarily logical, and therefore not necessarily moral. If something won’t work, then it won’t. Some would call Karl Marx’s philosophy moral and look at what it brought numerous countries.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

Friend, the last thing you will ever be able to accurately claim of me is a villifyer of money. I am 100% behind our system and believe it is the best in the world and the best in history…it, of course, has its weaknesses.

However, the fact that you would vote for Party Y because of economic reasons, while ignoring the clearly gravely immoral act of intentionally taking innocent life, shows just how bankrupt your views are regarding life. A moral person understands that without life all other issues mean nothing–yet people who want to justify their anti-faith and anti-Church positions will twist morality in all sorts of strange ways in order to feel better.

I too want a strong economy and plenty of jobs and a just society–yet there are certain absolutes that must be placed first. If protecting life does not come first, then none of the other things will be rightly ordered and our culture will fall into disarray (which it has). Our nation has a very dim future if we continue to murder the unborn.

BTW, my faith informed logic tells me abortion is equal to murder. What does your superior secular logic tell you about abortion: is it just a choice, an inconveincee? What?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Friend, the last thing you will ever be able to accurately claim of me is a villifyer of money. I am 100% behind our system and believe it is the best in the world and the best in history…it, of course, has its weaknesses.

However, the fact that you would vote for Party Y because of economic reasons, while ignoring the clearly gravely immoral act of intentionally taking innocent life, shows just how bankrupt your views are regarding life. A moral person understands that without life all other issues mean nothing–yet people who want to justify their anti-faith and anti-Church positions will twist morality in all sorts of strange ways in order to feel better.

I too want a strong economy and plenty of jobs and a just society–yet there are certain absolutes that must be placed first. If protecting life does not come first, then none of the other things will be rightly ordered and our culture will fall into disarray (which it has). Our nation has a very dim future if we continue to murder the unborn.

First of all, I don’t have bankrupt views on life. And yes, I would base my decision on slavery from a purely logical standpoint. It is illogical, and because it is illogical, it is also immoral. It is because of it’s illogicality and it’s consequent immorality that it does not work. Simple logic tells us that when one group of people oppress another group of people, eventually the latter will rise up against the former. After all, “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth” (Matthew 5:5).

When people criticize slavery from a moral viewpoint, they are really criticizing it from a logical one. We live in a world where Humans desire free will. It’s because of this that slavery is ultimately wrong. This would also explain why robots can never endure “slavery”, since they desire no freedom.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[estesbob]

First of all, I don’t have bankrupt views on life. And yes, I would base my decision on slavery from a purely logical standpoint. It is illogical, and because it is illogical, it is also immoral. It is because of it’s illogicality and it’s consequent immorality that it does not work. Simple logic tells us that when one group of people oppress another group of people, eventually the latter will rise up against the former. After all, “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth” (Matthew 5:5).

Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

How are those who are denied the right to life going to inherit anything?

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

How are those who are denied the right to life going to inherit anything?

When did I ever say abortion was right? I am against abortion. You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion…

Abortion is wrong because it is an infringement upon the life and liberty of another person. You’ve just confirmed what I was going to say all along

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[estesbob]

When did I ever say abortion was right? I am against abortion. You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion…

Abortion is wrong because it is an infringement upon the life and liberty of another person. You’ve just confirmed what I was going to say all along

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

So you agree that as Catholics we can not support one who supports abortion? CAF is rife with Catholicswho claim to oppose abortion but never, never let that oppostion effect their vote.