Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
It is not unreasonable to expect 18 year olds to vote - serve in armed forces AND be accountable.

Go AWOL at 18 -19- 20 … And see if you aren’t held responsible.
🤷🤷

Why should mommies pay for your insurance They Mommies ] don’t get it free ]?
The ONLY excuse I see is Special Needs Dependants.

Buy your reasoning - Mommies should be required to pay auto insurance on 26 year olds.

Remember, this is ** Non Dependant Adults **🤷
 
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.
You are preaching to a choir, Kimmie. Those who would vote Republican shall do so regardless of Democratic arguments, and vice-versa. I expect no one to have a sudden epiphany and change sides.
 
That is neither logical or mature, insulting people who do not agree with you. If you are truly sick and tired, then quit posting. I happen to know the history of the Republican Party and what has happened, what and how they have failed to curtail abortion, in office or out. The political establishment perpetuates this two party mentality to maintain their own power. This country has operated with more than two parties in the past. It need not be a given.
Typical non-answer. You said that the Republican party “maintained the status quo of Roe V Wade.” I asked you about Democrat catholics who derailed Bork (who would have likely been the fifth vote overturning Roe V Wade) and you respond that I’m insulting you? Are Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito “maintaining the status quo?” No, I won’t quit posting - incorrect analysis (to put it charitably) needs to be answered and refuted - not because I have any illusions about the posters of that analysis, but because there are a lot of people who visit these forums who might be influenced.

Also, can you tell me when America operated with more than two significant parties? i.e. an election when the 3rd party actually had a chance to win? Examples please.

Ishii
 
Typical non-answer. You said that the Republican party “maintained the status quo of Roe V Wade.” I asked you about Democrat catholics who derailed Bork (who would have likely been the fifth vote overturning Roe V Wade) and you respond that I’m insulting you? Are Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito “maintaining the status quo?”
I actually ignored the question because I do not vote for pro-abortion Democrats. Therefore I do not understand the logic of the question.

Also, can you tell me when America operated with more than two significant parties? i.e. an election when the 3rd party actually had a chance to win? Examples please.

Ishii Abraham Lincoln’s first victory was in a field of four (as did Jackson). While the Democratic Party has been around from the beginning, the Republican Party has not. However, I would like to add that I do not see 2012 as being the final election in the United States. Therefore, I try to maintain historical perspective.
 
You are preaching to a choir, Kimmie. Those who would vote Republican shall do so regardless of Democratic arguments, and vice-versa. I expect no one to have a sudden epiphany and change sides.
You are mistaken. I vote Republican 90% of the time. However, the last crop of Republicans have left me severely disappointed. I would love to consider Democratic Candidates more often, but they will have to drop the pro-abortion activities.
 
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.🙂
Unfortunately, most do not. That’s the problem I have with discussion here.
 
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.
Huh? Now I need you to enlighten me. What all-sweeping statement as to the accompllishments of our president did I make?
 
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.
I don’t see how anyone can argue with you on this, but I’m sure you will stir the pot and the party line will be reiterated over and over. good luck, and God bless.
 
Looks like Barack Obama is ahead in the poll. I’m surprised that Rick Santorum made it as far as he did.
 
This thread is entirely too long for me to go through each page and see if this has been stated already, so I apologize if I am repeating something that’s already been brought up…but…HOW…in the WORLD…is Mr. Obama…somehow winning this poll, on a CATHOLIC website no less!!! I don’t understand…
 
To Kimmielittle Your quote:

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?Because, if you hadn’t noticed, kids are graduating from college with huge student loans and no jobs. I’m glad that my kid is at least covered with my insurance if he/she gets in a car accident. it’s a normal parental concern. Most people I know are thrilled with this reform.
 
I don’t see how anyone can argue with you on this, but I’m sure you will stir the pot and the party line will be reiterated over and over. good luck, and God bless.
The issue is that ChemicalBean’s post contains no ideas that need to be argued about. I doubt you’ll find anyone saying that they think we shouldn’t further the common good and reduce the causes of women making the wrong choice. The issue with the statement is simply that the bishops have firmly stated that we also need to oppose legal abortion, and that, in the vast majority of situations, we must support politicians for being pro-life before our own personal economic beliefs, whatever they may be.
 
…HOW…in the WORLD…is Mr. Obama…somehow winning this poll, on a CATHOLIC website no less!!! I don’t understand…
Simple. Catholics have minds of their own and don’t all march in lockstep on every issue.
 
Simple. Catholics have minds of their own and don’t all march in lockstep on every issue.
Catholics don’t march in lockstep on ANY ISSUE. There are plenty of Catholics who support gay marriage, abortion, contraception, women priests, and DIVORCE as proved in Malta. The thing these people need to understand is called:

latentae setentiae. They receive automatic excommunication.

Edit: Can all Catholics agree that God is a man?!?! I know there are heretics out there who say otherwise.
 
Catholics don’t march in lockstep on ANY ISSUE. There are plenty of Catholics who support gay marriage, abortion, contraception, women priests, and DIVORCE as proved in Malta. The thing these people need to understand is called:

latentae setentiae. They receive automatic excommunication.

Edit: Can all Catholics agree that God is a man?!?! I know there are heretics out there who say otherwise.
They may hold heretical positions and be poor Catholics, but you don’t incur automatic excommunication from holding any particular incorrect belief.
 
For a Catholic forum, I’m shocked! Obama is in the lead in this poll. The most pro abortion president in history who supports late term. I’m shocked! Almost 99% of Catholics here where I live in Texas ARE anti abortion. It just proves politics DO trump religion many times! It is politics don’t deny it!
First, the vote’s split

Second, most people aren’t one-issue voters
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top