Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[crazzeto]

As I asked crazzeto, what should Catholics consider among a ‘list’ of pro-life candidates?

As for Romney, I am not sure about supporting a candidate whose faith finds the Catholic Church in apostasy.

There is another thread where a poster stated something to the affect of, ‘even if Satan himself was elected, he would have to toe the line within the party’. Yes, it’s an absurd analogy, but scary that one could use an example of the ‘great deceiver’ having to ‘toe the line’ or even being trustworthy to believe he represents Church interests (teachings).

Any candidate who more than just “personally finds abortion reprehensable”… The candidate must work for pro-life. They must cross that line a libertarian would feel uncomfortable crossing, the line of legislating prolife. It is not good enough to publicly register your dislike for abortion, frankly I know far too many people, for instance, who are willing to say:

“Well it is the opinion of the Church that contraception is wrong, but I feel it is ok and that is perfectly ok”. More over, far too many people who think this is a good, positive and accepitable thing to say in a CCD class (for instance).

With this kind of crud in mind, that is “we are all adults, and we all have opions which must be valid because hey, we’re all adults”… I would say pro-life needs to be legislated. I think it’s time we’re willing to say, no not all opinions are equally valid. It is not equally valid to say abortion is perfectly ok, as it is to say it is morally reprehensable. Abortion, should be legislated out of existance.

I can’t trust a libetarian to do that, and frankly for at least two good listed reasons I can’t trust Ron Paul.

 

[estesbob]

As I asked crazzeto, what should Catholics consider among a ‘list’ of pro-life candidates?

As for Romney, I am not sure about supporting a candidate whose faith finds the Catholic Church in apostasy.

There is another thread where a poster stated something to the affect of, ‘even if Satan himself was elected, he would have to toe the line within the party’. Yes, it’s an absurd analogy, but scary that one could use an example of the ‘great deceiver’ having to ‘toe the line’ or even being trustworthy to believe he represents Church interests (teachings).

There is nothing in Romney’s background either in business or government that would lead one to believe his Mormon faith would be a problem.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Any candidate who more than just “personally finds abortion reprehensable”… The candidate must work for pro-life. They must cross that line a libertarian would feel uncomfortable crossing, the line of legislating prolife. It is not good enough to publicly register your dislike for abortion, frankly I know far too many people, for instance, who are willing to say:

“Well it is the opinion of the Church that contraception is wrong, but I feel it is ok and that is perfectly ok”. More over, far too many people who think this is a good, positive and accepitable thing to say in a CCD class (for instance).

With this kind of crud in mind, that is “we are all adults, and we all have opions which must be valid because hey, we’re all adults”… I would say pro-life needs to be legislated. I think it’s time we’re willing to say, no not all opinions are equally valid. It is not equally valid to say abortion is perfectly ok, as it is to say it is morally reprehensable. Abortion, should be legislated out of existance.

I can’t trust a libetarian to do that, and frankly for at least two good listed reasons I can’t trust Ron Paul.

Prior to the last election there was a right to life rally in Washinton, D.C. While some ‘called in’ supporting views, only one candidate put himself in the spotlight as supporting pro-life by making a physical appearance. That was Ron Paul.

I agree with being wary of everyone who says they are pro-life. Pro-lifers are a very large bloc of voters that some politicians recognize as needed in their corner to be elected.

With all this said, I’ve seen nothing to infer Ron Paul cannot be taken as pro-life.

 

[gilliam]

Ron Paul is 76 years old. He will be 77 next fall. Even if he was the best candidate in the field, he is probably too old to be president.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ron Paul is 76 years old. He will be 77 next fall. Even if he was the best candidate in the field, he is probably too old to be president.

Age didn’t seem to be a problem when John McCain was running? Wasn’t Ronald Regan 71 when he was elected and 79 when he left office?

The older I get the more I find age discrimination deplorable.

 

[gilliam]

Age didn’t seem to be a problem when John McCain was running? Wasn’t Ronald Regan 71 when he was elected and 79 when he left office?

The older I get the more I find age discrimination deplorable.

And Regan was pretty much burned out before he left office. We are talking about someone going into office at 77 and would be 81 by the end of their 1st term.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I believe his isolationist foreign-policy as unworkable.

And the “go to war with anyone who looks at us funny when we are not policing the planet” foreign policy is working out that smashingly for you?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

And Regan was pretty much burned out before he left office. We are talking about someone going into office at 77 and would be 81 by the end of their 1st term.

So what, Pope Benedict was 78 when the conclave selected him and he is 84 now. I don’t hear anyone clamoring for him to get out of office, retire, or that the pressures of leading the 1 billion Catholics around the world is too much to bear for an old man.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And the “go to war with anyone who looks at us funny when we are not policing the planet” foreign policy is working out that smashingly for you?

I’m not an economist but my better judgment sees a connection between our current economy and the previous administration entering into two wars at once. Because of that, it’s hard for me to view the status as wholly the fault of the current administration. I mean, how do we recover from those costs associated with two wars?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So what, Pope Benedict was 78 when the conclave selected him and he is 84 now. I don’t hear anyone clamoring for him to get out of office, retire, or that the pressures of leading the 1 billion Catholics around the world is too much to bear for an old man.

Good example Scott.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m not an economist but my better judgment sees a connection between our current economy and the previous administration entering into two wars at once. Because of that, it’s hard for me to view the status as wholly the fault of the current administration. I mean, how do we recover from those costs associated with two wars?

We have been constantly engaged in some war somewhere since Woodrow Wilson. Its not a Bush thing, its an American foreign policy thing and it is pervasive in both parties.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I believe his isolationist foreign-policy as unworkable.

I’m exaggerating slightly, but the United States was “isolationist” from 1787 when it was formed … Constitution was adopted … until 1805 when we went all the way to North Africa to take on the Muslim extremists. Jefferson’s War.

Even before missiles and submarines, isolationism just didn’t work.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m exaggerating slightly, but the United States was “isolationist” from 1787 when it was formed … Constitution was adopted … until 1805 when we went all the way to North Africa to take on the Muslim extremists. Jefferson’s War.

Even before missiles and submarines, isolationism just didn’t work.

Ummm, we were responding to the Barbary pirates who were continuing to capture and enslave the crews of American commerce ships. That wasn’t an element of isolationism, it was protecting our national interests from a legitimate and recognized threat. We even tried to handle it by paying tribute, but Jefferson eventually realized that the Barbars would continue to raise the tribute every time we capitulated to it. We engaged in Naval battles and selective land disputes. We never set up a near permanent camp in Tripoli and attempted nation building.

 

[gilliam]

Ummm, we were responding to the Barbary pirates who were continuing to capture and enslave the crews of American commerce ships. That wasn’t an element of isolationism, it was protecting our national interests from a legitimate and recognized threat. We even tried to handle it by paying tribute, but Jefferson eventually realized that the Barbars would continue to raise the tribute every time we capitulated to it. We engaged in Naval battles and selective land disputes. We never set up a near permanent camp in Tripoli and attempted nation building.

Same as the Gulf War then… same kind of interest…

 

[ExDom]

It is huge responsibility, it’s on your back, American people.

You have the possibility in 2012 actually to do something, make things for the better.
Not any of us, in other parts of the world, has similar opportunity.

And current policy is not good, not for you in the states, neither for the rest of the world.
And you see it, you feel it, basically we all do, and you know that something is terribly wrong.

And what is the gain by choosing the same/similar? A hope? A hope, once more??

If there is no real change in the USA there is little chance for the world, and if there IS THE change in the USA there are all chances for the world, for all.

Pray for wisdom, think carefully, choose wisely.
The 2012 election may be your/our last chance.

Remember your roots, founding fathers and proud American Republic.
Isn’t it about You, the people? And not about the government?

God bless!

 

[mary_bobo]

It is huge responsibility, it’s on your back, American people.

You have the possibility in 2012 actually to do something, make things for the better.
Not any of us, in other parts of the world, has similar opportunity.

And current policy is not good, not for you in the states, neither for the rest of the world.
And you see it, you feel it, basically we all do, and you know that something is terribly wrong.

And what is the gain by choosing the same/similar? A hope? A hope, once more??

If there is no real change in the USA there is little chance for the world, and if there IS THE change in the USA there are all chances for the world, for all.

Pray for wisdom, think carefully, choose wisely.
The 2012 election may be your/our last chance.

Remember your roots, founding fathers and proud American Republic.
Isn’t it about You, the people? And not about the government?

God bless!

Thank you for your wonderful post. It is truly sad that we need to be reminded of America’s exceptionalism by someone other than an American. What we do in this country does have influence on the rest of the world and we have not been doing a very good job of it, in my opinion.

 

[CathModerate]

Admirable goals, to be sure. How do we do this in the fiscal freefall the country is in?

Im not the politician, thats for a professional to figure out, lay it out without bumper sticker bullet points and try to convince me it makes sense…and his explanation needs to be UNMODERATED and last longer than 5 minutes and not contain thephrase, “I will establish a commission to look into it”

Otherwise…aside from some other issues, I dont vote

 

[ishii]

Ron Paul is libertarian, not liberal. There is a big difference. He believes that you should control your own life, not the government control it for you.

I honestly don’t understand your response here. I didn’t say Ron Paul is liberal - I said that maybe Americans aren’t as libertarian as Ron Paul. Go back and read the post. And while Ron Paul is definitely pro-life, you have to admit that his " I should control my life, not the govt." philosophy could easily feed the " my body, my choice" mantra of the pro-abortion rights crowd - in spite of his pro-life stance.

Ishii

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And while Ron Paul is definitely pro-life, you have to admit that his " I should control my life, not the govt." philosophy could easily feed the " my body, my choice" mantra of the pro-abortion rights crowd - in spite of his pro-life stance.

It’s certainly a way to offer something to both sides!

 

[crazzeto]

I honestly don’t understand your response here. I didn’t say Ron Paul is liberal - I said that maybe Americans aren’t as libertarian as Ron Paul. Go back and read the post. And while Ron Paul is definitely pro-life, you have to admit that his " I should control my life, not the govt." philosophy could easily feed the " my body, my choice" mantra of the pro-abortion rights crowd - in spite of his pro-life stance.

Ishii

Yep, being genuienly pro-life goes far beyond a personal philsophy that you keep to your self. Due to Dr (I think?) Paul’s affiliations I have to believe he would not extend his profile stance beyond his own personal beliefs for him self proper. This is little better than voting for a pro-choicer.