Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[Raskolnikov]

I agree with you 100 %. As you mention, teaching is more than a job. It’s a vocation.

For some reason here in America teachers and professors are accorded by some about the same degree of status as the homeless people who wash car windows by highway off ramps, while those who work in private business are accorded about as much esteem as the clergy. I have yet to understand why a person who’s sole job is to make as money as possible for shareholders should make a better leader than a teacher, but I presume that’s because I’ve already been corrupted by those useless academics.

 

[Tsuwano]

It’s a commercial here in the states.

I see. Thank you for the information.

 

[estesbob]

What’s your point? No one should spend a night at a Holiday Inn express?

For example

youtube.com/watch?v=wHlBdjwnSqc

 

[Tsuwano]

For example

youtube.com/watch?v=wHlBdjwnSqc

Clever. Thank you.

 

[acarlson]

Haven’t decided yet . . . definitely not Obama. But hey, I’ve got plenty of time!

 

[merne9]

I will be voting for Obama. Although I am a social conservative, I noticed these issues come down to a state level anyway…I ask my self what is the moral thing to do…WWJD? what’s most important to me is immigration, health care, changing our current energy sources.

 

[ishii]

Hey Ishi. I really have to smile when I hear you describe Barry Goldwater as “mellowed out” in his later years. Goldwater was anything but mellow. In fact, he was a genuine conservative who felt that the Republican Party was being hijacked by the religious right and their agenda as represented by the Moral Majority under Falwell and the 700 Club under Robertson. He raged against the influence of a particular religious viewpoint on the Republican Party and challenged the religious right’s view that conservatism was based upon holding this view. As a conservative who was very much a libertarian at heart, he opposed making opposition to abortion a litmus test for Republicans, feeling that the individual was capable of making moral decisions without government interference. He also opposed an anti homosexual stance on the part of the party and felt that the Repblican Party should not even involve itself in questions such as should Gays be allowed to serve in the military. He felt it was an ignorant question considering that many of the great military forces throughtout the ages, such as the Roman Army, had many homosexuals serving in it, probably including Julius Ceasar himself. He felt that such questions had less to do with conservative thought than with a religious viewpoint that was attempting to suppress true conservatism. Now, when we look at the Republican Party today and watch the candidates bend and twist to meet the requirements of the morality police in the party, we can see that Goldwater was correct to fear the influence of the religious right. The agenda for the Republican Party was recreated by the religious right and is now so identified with conservatism, that many so called conservatives think it is perfectly acceptable for a conservative to overrule individual conscience in the name of morality. Goldwater warned against such an identification for conservatives and the Republican Party and even wondered how he and Bob Dole, after years and years of being conservative champions in the Senate, were, in the light of the religious right agenda, were then considered to be on the left wing in the party. Barry Goldwater and his warning may have been ignored by Republicans, but he was not mellow about it. He raged against it to the bitter end.

I agree with you that Goldwater didn’t like at all the social conservatism that characterized the Republican party in his later years. But I disagree with your contention that somehow “genuine conservatism” can’t oppose the radical gay agenda, or the radical abortion agenda, the euthenasia, etc. Also, you are very unfairly identifying all social conservatism with Falwell and Robertson and evangelical protestants. Do you know that just as significant as the rise of the evangelical right on politics was the defection of conservative blue collar Democrats(many of whom were Catholic) to the Republican party because of social issues? They helped elect Reagan twice. Also, you’re forgetting just how many Catholic conservative thinkers are social conservatives. And, isn’t it a bit ironic that the woman who wrote one of the most important books on politics ( A Choice, not an Echo) and which helped unify and rally supporters of Goldwater - helping him eventually win the GOP nomination - was Phyllis Schlaffly? Schlaffly is one of those dreaded social conservatives like Falwell who was in the forefront of conservatism in the 80’s. Sort of refutes the idea that Goldwater was “real conservatism” and was “hijacked” by illegitimate social conservatives.

One thing we shouldn’t forget is just how depraved our culture has become since Goldwater ran in 1964. When he ran in 1964 the issues were civil rights for blacks, the Cold War, and fiscal issues. Since then there has been an all out assault on traditional values in our culture. And the breakdown has been very costly in both human terms and monetary terms. We live in a culture of death that is a product of the assault on traditional values. It is no wonder that religious people - evangelicals and Catholics - and traditional Jews too, believe that while government can’t do everything, there certainly is a role to be played. Perhaps the biggest role is to allow the people to decide - if they want to pass a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then the law should stand, not be struck down by a judge with a leftist secular culture agenda. We live in different times than in 1964, or even 1980 or 1990. Some of us are fighting to merely preserve some of the last vestiges of traditional values that still remain (traditional marriage, e.g.). It is worth fighting for. Moreover, the immoral values of the secular left are worth fighting against. Given that the courts are the battle ground for all of this it makes sense to me to vote for candidates who will nominate and confirm judges who will not strike down legitimate laws passed by voters that preserve our institutions that are the backbone of society. Goldwater lamented that some conservatives complained about Sandra Day O’connor: “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ***.” Well, Sandra Day O’connor went on to vote to uphold Roe V Wade which of course prevents states from passing their own laws curtailing abortion. Not a very conservative view. Perhaps Goldwater wasn’t really a conservative after all, but a liberal - a right wing liberal. (there is such a thing).

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What is typical of academia?

youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I will be voting for Obama. Although I am a social conservative, I noticed these issues come down to a state level anyway…I ask my self what is the moral thing to do…WWJD? what’s most important to me is immigration, health care, changing our current energy sources.

So you are going to vote for the guy who wants to usurp state authority and federalize everything? :hypno:

 

[jediliz]

Jesus would NEVER vote for anyone who thinks abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Jesus LOVED the little children and weeps at the site of ALL abortion.

What would Jesus do? NOT vote Obama!

 

[estesbob]

I will be voting for Obama. Although I am a social conservative, I noticed these issues come down to a state level anyway…I ask my self what is the moral thing to do…WWJD? what’s most important to me is immigration, health care, changing our current energy sources.

Welcome to the forums!

Do you really think Jesus would support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand and to use United States funds to promote abortion and for sterilizations overseas? Interesting.

What good is immigration reform healthcare and energy to those who are denied the right to live?

I notice you are new to the forum so perhaps you haven’t researched this issue but you are aware that your position is a direct contradiction to what our Church teaches?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What good is immigration reform healthcare and energy to those who are denied the right to live?

Is it not a good to those already born? They count, too, don’t they?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Is it not a good to those already born? They count, too, don’t they?

Most of them can fend for themselves, though…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Most of them can fend for themselves, though…

Except juveniles and some elderly, or the extreme sick, homeless, and poverty stricken, yes.

What percentage of those are acceptable numbers to ‘override’?

Trying to provide hypothetical examples as food for thought. Our goals should be to find a candidate that represents the ‘majority’ of all people, from conception to natural death. The problem of only going by a single issue leaves many to ‘fend for themselves’. Doesn’t the Church teach Catholics are not single issue voters?

 

[mary_bobo]

Except juveniles and some elderly, or the extreme sick, homeless, and poverty stricken, yes.

What percentage of those are acceptable numbers to ‘override’?

Trying to provide hypothetical examples as food for thought. Our goals should be to find a candidate that represents the ‘majority’ of all people, from conception to natural death. The problem of only going by a single issue leaves many to ‘fend for themselves’. Doesn’t the Church teach Catholics are not single issue voters?

Not single issue voters, but there are five non-negotiables that the Church has noted and the implementation of them is not found in the conservative genre.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not single issue voters, but there are five non-negotiables that the Church has noted and the implementation of them is not found in the conservative genre.

Yes, five non-negotiables…seldom do we see the ‘five’, but often we see the ‘single’ being discussed.

 

[antonivs]

Most of them can fend for themselves, though…

That’s the Libertarian and Randian view but I don’t think I’d call it the Christian view.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yes, five non-negotiables…seldom do we see the ‘five’, but often we see the ‘single’ being discussed.

I rarely see anything about euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning on this Forum. Shouldn’t there be as much as on the one “non-negotiable”?

 

[Rence]

Except juveniles and some elderly, or the extreme sick, homeless, and poverty stricken, yes.

What percentage of those are acceptable numbers to ‘override’?

Trying to provide hypothetical examples as food for thought. Our goals should be to find a candidate that represents the ‘majority’ of all people, from conception to natural death. The problem of only going by a single issue leaves many to ‘fend for themselves’. Doesn’t the Church teach Catholics are not single issue voters?

I don’t think someone who loses their home and is out on the street is able to fend for themselves. Such a person is a priority as well. I don’t think someone who is struggling to feed their family is sufficienly able to fend for themselves. Such a person (and the persons in their family) are a priority as well. I don’t think an elderly person whose social security and pension has dropped in half is sufficiently able to fend for themselves if they wind up losing everything because of it.

People are important after they are born too. Let’s show it by making them priorities too.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Yes, five non-negotiables…seldom do we see the ‘five’, but often we see the ‘single’ being discussed.

Because others refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the one that faithful Catholics should fight against.