Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MillTownCath said:
You act as if electing a Republican president would actually do something about Roe v Wade. Historically, it has not.
Click to expand...
It wouldn’t be overturned overnight. But having a president who nominates justices who don’t necessarily believe that there exists in the constitution a right to privacy that gives women the right to abortion will ensure the ultimate overturning of Roe V Wade. On the other hand, Democrats nominate justices who basically believe the decision of Roe V Wade is sacred. It should be obvious to any serious Catholic which viewpoint is worthy of support.

Ishii
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Based on what I have seen, these candidates would take on Roe.

Santorum
Paul
Palin
Bachmann
Click to expand...
I agree, but I don’t think they have much of a chance of winning. I suppose Palin would have the best chance, but she isn’t a candidate yet.

Ishii
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Ron Paul, unless he dies before 2012. Then I am looking at Herman Cain. I want to hear how the left will decry conservatives as racist if Herman Cain runs against Obama. It takes away their narrative.
Click to expand...
How about a black Harvard graduate for president?!?!

Alan Keyes.
 
Ron Paul actually introduced legislation that would undo Roe. That’s the closest a Republican’s gone to overturning the decision. That is one reason he has my vote, though I doubt he will win, it’s worth a try.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
You are the foremost apologist for the Republican Party on this Forum, and your defense of it is understandable and appropriate for one of its partisans.

You, however, will never hear me dumping on any political party nor urging any poster to vote in any way based on what I say. Good advice for all, I’d think.
Click to expand...
Nor calling in to question a persons decency or quality of their Faith.
 
I am voting for Jimmy Carter II because I can’t get enough of government of control. I need higher gas prices to curb my profligate commuting to work by car. Anything to stem global warming; and Lord knows I can’t even be trusted to chose a low-watt light bulb. So what’s a little mercury in those CFL’s…I need stagflation because I am overweight and the less food I can afford, the better. I need government health care because I trust 15 experienced so-called “death panel” bureaucrats to make those difficult decisions I can’t make for myself and my once-loved ones. I need useless eaters to be eradicated in legal partial birth abortions because that recycled fetal tissue could lead to a cure for what’s ailing me.

I need more Monopoly money printed to properly reflect the value of my slacker American labor compared to noble Communist Chinese serfs. It’s the survival of the fittest, and if George Soros adds to his 11 tons of gold shorting the collapsing dollar, he earned it. I need greedy insurance companies punished by government takeover of this reprehensible industry. I need strong Wall Street cabals using my money in wise ways I never could. I need to be taken off that ladder of success and put on the plantation that cared for us in years past. The media said so, and if it’s on TV, it must be true.

I need strong voting blocs supporting the will of the people to vote the way the New Black Panthers tell them to because a house divided cannot stand. I need strong government car companies because even Hitler gave us the beloved Volkswagon, the people’s car. I need strong respect for Islam, because they will run the world after their “fixed” women make all those babies we refuse to waste our precious time and money on. I need strong international alliances with the PLO, and with nuclear Venezuela, because every under-dog must have his day. Israel had their chance. In short, I am voting for Jimmy Carter II because I am more important than theoretical future generations. Just keeping it real.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The sad thing is estesbob, Republicans have had opportunities, but nothing happened. It can make someone suspect of what they say, compared to them ‘pandering’ to a bloc of voters on a single issue.

While there is no ‘explicit’ condemnation from the Church, the majority of justices on the supreme court were placed by Republican presidents.

Also, wasn’t there a deal with China on abortifacient drugs during G.W.B.'s terms in office?

We’re going to have to hold people personally accountable and quit trying to apply everything to partisan politics. I remember the last presidential election and the threads on these forums. There were other issues that the ‘single issue’ voters didn’t agree with, and again it becomes suspect as to is the single issue really the only drive to vote GOP?

God is neither Republican or Democrat, or any other political party.
Click to expand...
Well done sir. Amen to that.
 
ishii said:
Proof positive than neither race nor being a Harvard graduate qualifies someone to be president.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Plus, Alan Keyes sounds like Kermit the Frog, as SERIOUS detriment to debates and public speeches.
 
ishii said:
Nothing happened because of Democrat catholics like Biden, Kennedy, et al. who derailed Bork and prevented a solid justice from being approved. The truth (if you’re interested in the truth) is that the GOP has given us Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, and tried to give us Bork. The Democrats have given us - Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayer and Kagan - all of them rock solid pro-Roe V Wade justices. That is the reality. You should consider that before you accuse the GOP of doing nothing to stop abortion.
Click to expand...
Of course I’m interested in truth, more His truth than any other. Nice way to condescend and bring someone around to your ‘truth’. That happened a lot and much worse last presidential election. That kind of a lack of charity removes any feelings of hearing a ‘Christian’ truth through those type remarks.

Let’s look at the current list of justices, it’s easy enough.

Republicans gave us 1.) Scalia, 2.) Kennedy, 3.) Thomas, 4.) Roberts, 5.) Alito
Democrats gave us 1.) Ginsburg, 2.) Breyer, 3.) Sotomayer, 4.) Kagan

Sotomayer and Kagan replaced Stevens and O’Connor, both of who were placed by a Republican president. Before Sotomayer and Kagan, there were 7 justices serving that were placed by Republicans and 2 that were placed by a Democrat, and that’s the truth.

Rock solid? You need to revisit the interview with Thomas on 60 minutes…
“Your opponents were afraid that you might at some point rule against or help overturn Roe V. Wade?” Kroft asks.
Click to expand...
Thomas believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the Constitution and should be left to the states to decide. If that were to become the majority opinion on the court, abortion could be outlawed in 40 percent of the country.
Click to expand...
“One of the most surprising things in the book, in it, you say, ‘Like most Americans, I had mixed emotions about abortion. I wasn’t comfortable telling others what to do in that difficult circumstance,’” Kroft remarks.
Click to expand...
“There are tough decisions we have to make in life. And of course, we all feel about that. People think that because you might agree or disagree with them on certain things, that you don’t have that concern about people who are left with tough choices. You do have that concern. But none of that had anything to do with what’s in the Constitution. The point is simply this. The Constitution is what matters. Not my personal views, whatever they may be. And I don’t go around expressing them on that issue,” Thomas says.
Click to expand...
Read more: cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/60minutes/main3305443.shtml#ixzz1OWQ6mcCH
Click to expand...
ishii said:
That is an obvious strawman - no one is suggesting that God is a Republican. All we’re saying is that supporting the pro-abortion rights policies of the Democrat party goes against Catholic moral teaching on the sanctity of life.

Ishii
Click to expand...
You might want to reread this thread…

If we had a pro-life Democrat run for the office, would you consider voting for them?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
No such thing. Next. 🤷
Click to expand...
The question was moot as this will be a re-election and not an election for the Dems.

One thing is certain to me. All the usual posters are hardened in their party choices even this early. We’re not going to see crossovers from the people on this Forum. IMO, of course.
 
pete_29 said:
I’m voting for ME! Back to the fifties for everyone.😛
Click to expand...
Well I suppose you mean back to the Fifties without all the lynching and denial of civil rights for those of us blessed with a little extra melanin in our skin, right?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The sad thing is estesbob, Republicans have had opportunities, but nothing happened. It can make someone suspect of what they say, compared to them ‘pandering’ to a bloc of voters on a single issue.
Click to expand...
Demonstrably false. And it is been refuted so many times one wonders why people continue to post this falsehood. In fact the only people who think Republicans have not done anything to limit abortion are allegedly pro-life Democrats trying to rationalize their support of abortion
While there is no ‘explicit’ condemnation from the Church, the majority of justices on the supreme court were placed by Republican presidents.
Click to expand...
You are sorely mistaken if you believe the church does not explicitly condemn support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand . You are also sorely mistaken if you do not believe that this is not a core tenet of the Democrat Party Pat platform As far as Supreme Court justices go your point is totally irrelevant .The fact that not every judge appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican has turned out to be pro-life does not give a Catholic free reign to support a pro-abortion politician.
Also, wasn’t there a deal with China on abortifacient drugs during G.W.B.'s terms in office?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. But again why does it matter? We’re talking whether a Catholic can legitimately support a pro-abortion candidate. Are you making the case that a Catholic could not support George Bush? Unless I am mistaken he is not rening in 2012
tWe’re going to have to hold people personally accountable and quit trying to apply everything to partisan politics. I remember the last presidential election and the threads on these forums. There were other issues that the ‘single issue’ voters didn’t agree with, and again it becomes suspect as to is the single issue really the only drive to vote GOP?
Click to expand...
The only people engaging in partisan politics in this thread are Democrat Catholics trying to rationalize why they can reject the teachings of the Church in favor of their political agenda . Again you have not said a single thing in support of the proposition that a Catholic can legitimately vote for pro-abortion candidate.
God is neither Republican or Democrat, or any other political party.
Click to expand...
And the relevance of that vacuous comment to the discussion is?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top