Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[antonivs]

…I humbly suggest that Ron Paul is the only candidate that perfectly fits your own Vatican’s values and principles…

Perfectly? Is the Vatican now libertarian on Social Justice issues?

 

[bellasbane]

Absolutely right. I don’t believe, personally, that the law will be changed no matter who is elected. The only way to end abortion is to change hearts. That’s going to take prayer, personal & organizational care for pregnant women, prayer, witness at the abortion clinics, prayer . . .

I totally agree. Did you read this article? It gives me great hope and makes my skin tingle to think of the power behind it.

lifesitenews.com/news/chapel-to-open-opposite-north-dakotas-only-abortion-clinic-devoted-to-praye/

 

[jomoco]

Perfectly? Is the Vatican now libertarian on Social Justice issues?

The last time I looked Ron Paul was running as a conservative republican. The only such candidate that would get our troops out of these ridiculous 10 billion dollar a week of borrowed money wars asap.

jomoco

 

[estesbob]

Absolutely right. I don’t believe, personally, that the law will be changed no matter who is elected. The only way to end abortion is to change hearts. That’s going to take prayer, personal & organizational care for pregnant women, prayer, witness at the abortion clinics, prayer . . .

I disagree that the laws not going to be changed.but as long as you do not try to claim that a belief the abortion laws will never change allows us to vote ote for pro-abortion candidate it really doesn’t matter. We need people praying and caring for the victims of abortion and women in crisis pregnancy centers just as much as we need people fighting tooth and nail to and this evil on the political front.They are not mutually exclusive regardless of what some would have us believe

 

[estesbob]

Regarding Hillary Clinton’s speech, I look at what the other side is doing to find arguments that will resonate across the political divide. It may not be a strategy that inspires a revolution, but incremental change in reorienting people towards the pro-life cause is a valid strategy that is supported by the Church.

Hillary Clinton is like most politicians. She wants to win elections. How many politicians are like Ron Paul, who will vote against powerful lobbies out of principle? Not many. I am not defending her voting record in the Senate, which I believe reflects her desire to win elections and what the Bishops describe below:
Nonetheless, pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand. These organizations have formed new political arms and have intensified efforts to defeat politicians who do not support permissive abortion.
usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml
But she didn’t have to make this speech. She was speaking on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and could have celebrated all the political success that abortion rights groups have had over the previous 30 years. Instead she choose to bring moral arguments into the discussion. Arguments that undermine the heresy that abortion is not only tolerable, but good for society. Once you eliminate that heresy, the ugly truth of what NARAL and Planned Parenthood are really all about begins to emerge.

Perhaps this is why NARAL didn’t endorse her. It says something about who they felt would be a better champion of their cause. I’m surprised Hillary Clinton would be so naive as to believe they would overlook the threat that her views on ending abortion posed for them.

Hillary Clinton made no threat to end abortion. She merely advance the age-old “hearts and mind” argument on ending abortion- that we can only end abortion when we change the hearts and minds of the people and that this is accomplished by endorsing the Democrat party platform and pouring massive amounts of money into social programs. She has 100% rating from every pro-abortion organization that offers such a rating. She has never in her life offered legislation, or voted for legislation that would any way limit abortion. In 2008. She made it clear she supported unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand.

Once more the Bishops get it right:

***So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is ‘‘lost’’ as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow ‘‘prolife,’’ are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child. And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to. ***

***Archbishop Charles Chaput

---

 

[antonivs]

The last time I looked Ron Paul was running as a conservative republican. The only such candidate that would get our troops out of these ridiculous 10 billion dollar a week of borrowed money wars asap.

jomoco

What does that have to do with your claim that Ron Paul **perfectly** fits the Vatican's values and principles and my question about how he lines up concerning Social Justice?

My point is that no candidate PERFECTLY fits the Vatican's values and principles.  I truly wish one did.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What does that have to do with your claim that Ron Paul perfectly fits the Vatican’s values and principles and my question about how he lines up concerning Social Justice?

My point is that no candidate PERFECTLY fits the Vatican's values and principles.  I truly wish one did.

Last election, Ron Paul by far matched the majority of issues important to Catholics as per Church teachings. It was ‘secondary’ issues, I believe, that caused people to overlook him, the whole time pushing the single issue as the most important. It is a very important issue, but that does not mean we can just forget the other issues.

 

[antonivs]

Last election, Ron Paul by far matched the majority of issues important to Catholics as per Church teachings. It was ‘secondary’ issues, I believe, that caused people to overlook him, the whole time pushing the single issue as the most important. It is a very important issue, but that does not mean we can just forget the other issues.

My only problem is with the word “perfectly” as it implies on ALL issues to me.

 

[estesbob]

Last election, Ron Paul by far matched the majority of issues important to Catholics as per Church teachings. It was ‘secondary’ issues, I believe, that caused people to overlook him, the whole time pushing the single issue as the most important. It is a very important issue, but that does not mean we can just forget the other issues.

Agreed. As long as the candidate is pro-life we should look at the other issues. The primaries are a perfect example were Catholic has multiple choices in casting their vote. It is unfortunate that we do not have this kind of choice in most other elections.

 

[jomoco]

My only problem is with the word “perfectly” as it implies on ALL issues to me.

The issue of life or death whether applied to a fetus, soldier or citizen, of any country, should be of primary importance to every good Christian. In my humble opinion, Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who intends to conserve as much life as possible, while minimizing as much death as possible.

jomoco

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Perfectly? Is the Vatican now libertarian on Social Justice issues?

Only if you believe in the principle of subsidiary and the right of private property.

 

[bellasbane]

So-called pro-life Democrats are marginalized by a party leadership that allows absolutely no dissent on this issue. They are further marginalized by the fact that pro-life Democrats continue to vote in pro-abortion candidates. In spite of the fact they support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand under the guise that other issues are more important.

You’re right. It’s very hard to be a pro-life Democrat.

As for using tax payer money to fund abortions, to me it is no different than asking Northerners back in 1850 to return fugitive slaves. The outrage against it will only increase as people realize the moral depravity of what is happening. So we agree on something.

I suspect things will go back to the way they were before Roe V Wade was imposed… Women were not punished for having an abortion. Rather, the law would exclusively after those who profit most from the action-the abortionist can those who helped them

Again I agree. Now lets work on getting the message out there loud and clear, because politicians are being asked these questions and we don’t want them ending up like Tim Pawlenty.

There you go again claiming this is somehow a woman’s issue… The presence of breasts a uterus does not justify killing one’s child.

A woman mediates the relationship between her unborn child and society. That’s not an opinion, but a fact, whichever way you want to look at it. So the state must “go through” a women’s body in order to make sure the unborn are being protected. Does the state have a “right of way” through a woman’s body? Right now, the answer is absolutely not.

There are human rights arguments about the state having a compelling interest in protecting the unborn. These arguments will be tested in court against counter arguments about the state having a compelling interest in protecting already established women’s rights since half of the “state” is female.

This litigation has a long way to go, and there is no guarantee there will not be setbacks. In the meantime, women’s souls are being imperiled and babies lives are being lost.

Only by those who measure compassion as tolerating evil.

The Bishops got it right again when they outlined their Resolution on Abortion. The only way we will succeed is to implement the WHOLE plan, which isn’t just anti-abortion, but PRO-LIFE.

Yes the bishops did get it right, that is the church got it right. We cannot support abortion in any way shape or form, either directly or indirectly. We cannot support pro-abortion candidates. Every body involved in abortion from the woman to the partner that supported her to the doctor who did the deed and those who helped him are automatically excommunicated. I am sure that you find that as indicating a lack of compassion.

It depends if you leave it at that. It does not seem to me that the Church is content to simply let these people go, but does what it can to encourage them to repent and return to the Church. Project Rachel mentioned by Ishii is a wonderful program that promotes healing as well.

You are correct that we need look at the whole plan. But the linchpin of the plan is prohibiting this file action. The nonpolitical war against abortion today is carried out at the multitude of crisis pregnancy centers across the country where women are offered alternatives to abortion is and support in carrying bearing and raising their child. I have been privileged to work at these CPCs over the last 30 years and has seen the great strides we have made in limiting this evil. You seem to believe that we are faced with that either or scenario. We are not. We are perfectly capable of doing everything we can to help women faced with a crisis pregnancy while fighting tooth and nail to end the legal approval of abortion.

You are the one who wants to make this out to be an “either or scenario”. I hope you are proud of your success and God bless you for it. But maybe there is more we can do in the nonpolitical arena to encourage women to choose life.

If you accept the status quo and try to make it work for women who get pregnant and mothers with young children, then you are doing a good thing. However, I do not accept the status quo, but want to make fundamental changes in society to make it more accommodating for women who get pregnant and parents with young children (that includes fathers too). So perhaps that is the fundamental difference between us. I’m not going to try to change your point of view and there is nothing you can do or say to change mine. So I guess that’s that.

 

[snowpea]

How can you vote for and fund the campaign of a who is pro-abortion even if you are arent pro-abortion?

How do you settle that in your own conscience as a Catholic?

What issues would Hillary Clinton support that would trump the issue of taking a life?

Guess I get no response to this from Rich-was hoping to hear his answers

:ehh:

 

[RobbyS]

He taught law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Surely that counts for something. Before that he was a community organizer in one of the toughest neighborhoods in Chicago. I wouldn’t say that counts for nothing. He’s earned his living.

Yes, but he is not now a member of the bar. His knowledge of the law is academic rather than practical. As for community service, he seems have accomplished about as much as George W. did as an oilman in West Texas.

 

[RobbyS]

That is not fair. Just about every modern president golfs (Nixon was a bowler), and some golf a lot. It is relaxing for them. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Some of our greatest presidents had similar hobbies. You may have problems with him, but this shouldn’t be one of them.

This article is a little dated, but points out the other presidents who golfed.

President-elect Barack Obama will become the 15th of the past 18 American presidents who has played golf. …Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who discovered golf less than 10 years ago, has a Handicap Index of 8.2. Here’s our ranking of the golfing presidents, with an assist from Don Van Natta Jr., author of the book, First Off the Tee: Presidential Hackers, Duffers, and Cheaters from Taft to Bush.

1 John F. Kennedy Despite chronic back pain, averaged 80.
2 Dwight D. Eisenhower Had a green outside the Oval Office.
3 Gerald R. Ford Clumsy, but was a legitimate 80s-shooter.
4 Franklin D. Roosevelt At 39, polio robbed him of a powerful golf swing.
5 George H.W. Bush Once got his handicap down to 11.
6 George W. Bush Outgoing prez is a capable 15-handicapper.
7 Bill Clinton Can break 90, especially using his “Billigans.”
8 Barack Obama The lefty plays more hoops than golf.
9 Ronald Reagan Didn’t play often or well (best was low 90s).
10 Warren G. Harding Struggled to break 95.
11 William Howard Taft As hapless a golfer as he was a chief executive.
12 Woodrow Wilson Played more than Ike but almost never broke 100.
13 Richard M. Nixon He shot 79 once and quit the game.
14 Lyndon B. Johnson Played with senators to secure votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
15 Calvin Coolidge When he vacated the White House, he left his clubs behind.

Read More golfdigest.com/magazine/2009-02/presidentsranking#ixzz1PE3RGNCq

The following presidents were members of the Congressional Country Club (5 were actually presidents of the club)

• William Howard Taft
• Woodrow Wilson
• Warren G. Harding
• Calvin Coolidge
• Herbert Hoover
• Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Gerald R. Ford

Obama has spent more time golfing than Bush did in 8 years. Any doctor who spent as much time on the links as the President is not devoting much time to his practice.

 

[SamDash]

The more pro-life candidate,i.e., whoever the Republican nominee is.

As for the Republican primary, I would like to see Rick Perry run. Beyond that, I haven’t decided. Of course, by the time the primaries get to my state (Texas), the race will already be decided for all intents and purposes.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Based on the “debates” and everything else … right now …

Either Palin/Bachmann … or

Bachmann/Palin

They are the candidates who are most likely to restore the economy quickly and restore a pro-life agenda and get our foreign policy back on an even keel … reward your allies and punish your enemies and convert totalitarian regimes to a more republican/christian form of government.

Restore our now dumbed down educational system back to one in which science and math and history and geography were appreciated and understood.

And allow us to avail ourselves of the low-cost energy that is THERE … readily available … but denied to us by the current administration / bureaucracy.

 

[antonivs]

The more pro-life candidate,i.e., whoever the Republican nominee is.

As for the Republican primary, I would like to see Rick Perry run. Beyond that, I haven’t decided. Of course, by the time the primaries get to my state (Texas), the race will already be decided for all intents and purposes.

As far as I know, only Bachmann and Santorum are 100% Pro-Life.

“Perry believes abortion should always be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother (Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 6/26/02)”

source: laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/ig/features/0503_01/voter-guides/njdc02.pdf

 

[antonivs]

We need a new poll with all the current candidates (i.e. Bachmann).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Obama has spent more time golfing than Bush did in 8 years. Any doctor who spent as much time on the links as the President is not devoting much time to his practice.

Where do you get that from and what importance does it play?

Also, can you provide the time spent on vacation between the two?