Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[estesbob]

This is false. He believes the Feds don’t have a right to dictate who businesses can and can’t hire. Which was rammed through deceptively and insidiously in a an act that was meant to help African Americans, but served a hidden agenda on the part of the Fed. Do you get it yet?
You continue to make it an issue of race and playing into emotional response and fear, which is exactly how the Feds get away with the erroding of liberty.

You continue to ignore the fact that the Civil Rights Act ended segregation of African-Americans in the South. His assertion that there is some sort of hidden agenda in allowing African-Americans, free access to commercial establishments, jobs and voting strengthens my belief that he has a far out political philosophy prone to conspiracy theories and wacky simplistic solutions to the problems of the country .The idea that the Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with race is specious. I don’t care whether Dr. Paul know if Dr Paul is a racist or not-his opposition to this act puts him on the same side as racists

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I said, I would vote for Ron Paul if he was Republican nominee, despite reservations about his commitment to end abortion and my concerns about his political philosophy, as there is no doubt he is much more pro-life than Barack Obama. I have no idea who you voted for in 2008. But if you voted for Obama you are complicit in empowering the most pro-abortion president in the history of the country and if you didn’t vote or threw away your vote on a nonviable third-party candidate you are just as complicit as if you voted for Obama

I take the abortion issue very seriously-when this poll started I was for Romney but his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge has dropped in far down my list. I am hopeful that Rick Perry will get into the race as he has rocksolid pro-life potentials and the contrast between his record and Barack Obama’s record is stark.

You’re beating another horse here bob. Show me where I stated I voted for Obama, or does the continued accusation make it so?

Now, I ‘threw’ my vote away? But you have the freedom to vote for whoever you want?

Does anyone else see a contradiction in what I’m being told here?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You continue to ignore the fact that the Civil Rights Act ended segregation of African-Americans in the South. His assertion that there is some sort of hidden agenda in allowing African-Americans, free access to commercial establishments, jobs and voting strengthens my belief that he has a far out political philosophy prone to conspiracy theories and wacky simplistic solutions to the problems of the country .The idea that the Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with race is specious. I don’t care whether Dr. Paul know if Dr Paul is a racist or not-his opposition to this act puts him on the same side as racists

Your ‘theory’ maybe right?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

This is false. He believes the Feds don’t have a right to dictate who businesses can and can’t hire. Which was rammed through deceptively and insidiously in a an act that was meant to help African Americans, but served a hidden agenda on the part of the Fed. Do you get it yet?
You continue to make it an issue of race and playing into emotional response and fear, which is exactly how the Feds get away with the erroding of liberty.

You know, I’ve been turned away from public accommodations on account of my race. It was no fun at all. So folks who comment on segregation as a type of inchoate philosophy miss the point of real and personal degradation.

That aside, we must remember that the Sherman Antitrust Act got government involved in dictating the activities of businesses more than a hundred years ago. It was support of capitalism over barbarism.

As to the Civil Rights Act, I consider it benighted sophistry to object to it on personal liberty grounds. If the 14th amendment was interpreted literally, there would have been no need for such a law.

 

[estesbob]

You’re beating another horse here bob. Show me where I stated I voted for Obama, or does the continued accusation make it so?

Now, I ‘threw’ my vote away? But you have the freedom to vote for whoever you want?

Does anyone else see a contradiction in what I’m being told here?

Please try reading my post before responding. I never said you voted for Obama. I did say you’re free to vote for anyone you want but that does not mean that when you exercise this freedom in a way that rejects the teachings of the Church people cannot criticize you for your actions.

Now before I start getting criticized by other people who don’t read a post before replying I’m am in no way saying that a Cathplic cannot vote for Ron Paul. I have problems with his stands on a lot of issues, but none of these issues would preclude a Catholic from voting for him.

.

 

[estesbob]

You know, I’ve been turned away from public accommodations on account of my race. It was no fun at all. So folks who comment on segregation as a type of inchoate philosophy miss the point of real and personal degradation.

That aside, we must remember that the Sherman Antitrust Act got government involved in dictating the activities of businesses more than a hundred years ago. It was support of capitalism over barbarism.

As to the Civil Rights Act, I consider it benighted sophistry to object to it on personal liberty grounds. If the 14th amendment was interpreted literally, there would have been no need for such a law.

And when Beau and I agree on something you can almost rest assured were right.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please try reading my post before responding. I never said you voted for Obama. I did say you’re free to vote for anyone you want but that does not mean that when you exercise this freedom in a way that rejects the teachings of the Church people cannot criticize you for your actions.

Now before I start getting criticized by other people who don’t read a post before replying I’m am in no way saying that a Cathplic cannot vote for Ron Paul. I have problems with his stands on a lot of issues, but none of these issues would preclude a Catholic from voting for him.

.

You basically said, that if I voted for anyone besides McCain, I was ‘complicit’, even though I didn’t believe McCain to be telling the truth. There’s no escaping your accusations, it appears.

As I said, I would vote for Ron Paul if he was Republican nominee, despite reservations about his commitment to end abortion and my concerns about his political philosophy, as there is no doubt he is much more pro-life than Barack Obama. I have no idea who you voted for in 2008. But if you voted for Obama you are complicit in empowering the most pro-abortion president in the history of the country and if you didn’t vote or threw away your vote on a nonviable third-party candidate you are just as complicit as if you voted for Obama

I take the abortion issue very seriously-when this poll started I was for Romney but his refusal to sign the pro-life pledge has dropped in far down my list. I am hopeful that Rick Perry will get into the race as he has rocksolid pro-life potentials and the contrast between his record and Barack Obama’s record is stark.

 

[jam070406]

You know, I’ve been turned away from public accommodations on account of my race. It was no fun at all. So folks who comment on segregation as a type of inchoate philosophy miss the point of real and personal degradation.

That aside, we must remember that the Sherman Antitrust Act got government involved in dictating the activities of businesses more than a hundred years ago. It was support of capitalism over barbarism.

As to the Civil Rights Act, I consider it benighted sophistry to object to it on personal liberty grounds. If the 14th amendment was interpreted literally, there would have been no need for such a law.

We have a party and president that is in bed with a company, Planned Parenthood, who participates in Black genocide and who’s founder was racist and wanted to eliminate the weeds. Ie African Americans.
When will speak out against that injustice?
You are a Democrat, no?

 

[estesbob]

You basically said, that if I voted for anyone besides McCain, I was ‘complicit’, even though I didn’t believe McCain to be telling the truth.

That is correct.

I likewise have a problem with Ron Paul and whether he’s telling the truth about his opposition, the Civil Rights Act. But I would vote for him in a minute over Barack Obama. Regardless of what you may think about McCain we do know he would not have roof rescinded the Mexico City policy, appointed a pro-abortion cabinet, rammed through a health care bill that funds abortions, would not have seen the end of don’t ask, don’t tell, and, if media accounts are correct would not have endorsed homosexual marriage as Obama will do this week. Those who voted for Obama or staff the election out by wasting their vote or not voting at all rest complicit this , \

 

[jam070406]

And when Beau and I agree on something you can almost rest assured were right.

Or liberalism has clouded your capacity to reason.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is correct. Since McCain has an unblemished pro-life record the idea that he wasn’t telling the truth is just sophistry-an excuse to ignore the Church and pursue your own political agenda.

So, I have to believe everything he said? Seems you’re contradicting yourself.

Vote ONLY for the far right conservatives, they never lie or pander to a bloc of voters.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Or liberalism has clouded your capacity to reason.

This is not a Conservative v. Liberal thing, it is a Statist v. Liberty thing. There are statists on both sides of the isle. John McCain is a semi-conservative Statist.

 

[estesbob]

So, I have to believe everything he said? Seems you’re contradicting yourself.

Vote ONLY for the far right conservatives, they never lie or pander to a bloc of voters.

please note my edited reply to your post:

That is correct.

I likewise have a problem with Ron Paul and whether he’s telling the truth about his opposition, the Civil Rights Act. But I would vote for him in a minute over Barack Obama. Regardless of what you may think about McCain we do know he would not have roof rescinded the Mexico City policy, appointed a pro-abortion cabinet, rammed through a health care bill that funds abortions, would not have seen the end of don’t ask, don’t tell, and, if media accounts are correct would not have endorsed homosexual marriage as Obama will do this week. Those who voted for Obama or staff the election out by wasting their vote or not voting at all rest complicit this , \

---

 

[jam070406]

This is not a Conservative v. Liberal thing, it is a Statist v. Liberty thing. There are statists on both sides of the isle. John McCain is a semi-conservative Statist.

Very true. I, like you, stand for liberty.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

please note my edited reply to your post:

That is correct.

I likewise have a problem with Ron Paul and whether he’s telling the truth about his opposition, the Civil Rights Act. But I would vote for him in a minute over Barack Obama. Regardless of what you may think about McCain we do know he would not have roof rescinded the Mexico City policy, appointed a pro-abortion cabinet, rammed through a health care bill that funds abortions, would not have seen the end of don’t ask, don’t tell, and, if media accounts are correct would not have endorsed homosexual marriage as Obama will do this week. Those who voted for Obama or staff the election out by wasting their vote or not voting at all rest complicit this , \

---

Before the last two supreme court justices were appointed, there were only 2 serving that were appointed by democrats. Them good 'ole republicans got the job done then, didn’t they?

 

[ishii]

Before the last two supreme court justices were appointed, there were only 2 serving that were appointed by democrats. Them good 'ole republicans got the job done then, didn’t they?

Still peddling that myth are you? Have you read any of my posts on the nominations of the GOP in the past twenty-five years? If you did read those with an open mind, you wouldn’t make such simplistic statements. Are you interested in the truth or in scoring cheap political points?

Ishii

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Still peddling that myth are you? Have you read any of my posts on the nominations of the GOP in the past twenty-five years? If you did read those with an open mind, you wouldn’t make such simplistic statements. Are you interested in the truth or in scoring cheap political points?

Ishii

That is the truth. Before the last two appointed justices, only two serving were appointed by democrats. But we have to believe every republican is not pandering to a bloc of voters.

Join bob, he says I complicit because I didn’t vote for someone I totally did not believe…

 

[estesbob]

Before the last two supreme court justices were appointed, there were only 2 serving that were appointed by democrats. Them good 'ole republicans got the job done then, didn’t they?

How many pro-life judges on the Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats?

 

[estesbob]

Very true. L, like you, stand for liberty.

I guess that works out great, unless you are the one being denied the right to vote, eat where you want, and wanted equal access to employment and lodging. Again, you have highlighted what the problem with Ron Paul is-a political philosophy that has terrible consequences regardless of whether that was what was intended or not.

 

[tomarin]

I guess that works out great, unless you are the one being denied the right to vote, eat where you want, and wanted equal access to employment and lodging. Again, you have highlighted what the problem with Ron Paul is-a political philosophy that has terrible consequences regardless of whether that was what was intended or not.

That’s what I was thinking. Liberty for me, but not for thee.