Newt Gingrich: Will You Vote For Him?

[qfnol31]

There is no way he was worse than his nephew. I refuse to believe it.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328204151' post='2379609']
I don't see the other Republican candidates as offering me any bit of a loaf. they are offering my Church less of a cross, but look how good this latest Obama-Sellius cross is actually being for the Church! We have bishops standing up with backbone... nothing could be better for the Church at this point than to stand up on principle and close down its institutions so as to obey God rather than men. we have long been complacent and lukewarm about things, this is a shock, a jolt, that will help the Church make saints.

The Obama-Sebellius war machine can be fought against through things like the Supreme Court. To support a lesser of two evils because we are scared of persecution from Obama is simply unacceptable in my opinion. It's selfish and wrong. We should stand up strong against the persecution, but it's absolutely wrong to side with someone who will do so much bad for the country in order to avoid the persecution that we are called to.

I actually think the Supreme Court is likely to side with conscience provisions here. Obama likely knows that and wants to look good to his base by fighting the big bad Catholic Church, and the Supreme Court will eventually 1st ammendment that croutons.
[/quote]
Hadn't thought about it this way. Good point.

And anybody who thinks that Mitt would do anything to further the pro-life cause is a fool. Period.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1328206948' post='2379640']
Hadn't thought about it this way. Good point.

And anybody who thinks that Mitt would do anything to further the pro-life cause is a fool. Period.
[/quote]What happens if one of the Supreme Court Justices goes up for grabs? Do you think he won't be better for us in this case than our current President?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328206207' post='2379633']
Al, that sounds like saying that if you had a choice, you'd vote in Diocletian just so that the Church could have more martyrs.

There are other grave evils we hope to correct, and some of them were slowly corrected under the previous president.
[/quote]

Pretty sure there's a moral difference between not voting for a marginally lesser evil, and intentionally voting for a great evil specifically so that it can carry out its evil, which is exactly what you'd be doing if you voted for someone hoping he'd kill Catholics.
But you know that. At least I sure hope you do.

Besides that, Diocletian built a ballin' palace in Croatia. Been there? Major winrar.
[img]http://www.touristspots.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Diocletians-Palace.jpg[/img]

Edited February 2, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1328208248' post='2379653']
Pretty sure there's a moral difference between not voting for a marginally lesser evil, and intentionally voting for a great evil specifically so that it can carry out its evil, which is exactly what you'd be doing if you voted for someone hoping he'd kill Catholics.
But you know that. At least I sure hope you do.

Besides that, Diocletian built a ballin' palace in Croatia. Been there? Major winrar.
[/quote]That's a pretty cooI place...I'd love to see it.

You're right, there is a bit of difference between the two. I was just pointing out that the way Al wrote in that last post, it could be construed as saying we should vote for Obama so that the Church can unite, and I'm sure that's not what he meant at all.

There is also a difference between doing everything morally possible to stop a greater evil and permitting it to happen by our inaction. If this were a different situation, would it make a difference? I like hypothetical situations because they make us think our viewpoint out, so I'll try my best to come up with an equivalent. I'm a bit of a Thomist so his language will inevitably creep into this conversation. Forgive me if I make this overly complex.

[color=#0000ff]If there were an innocent person on stage and a dictator came along to kill him, if you can act morally and prevent this action, should you?[/color] If we don't look at other circumstances surrounding this situation, it seems clear that you must do all possible to stop him in this instance.

[color=#0000ff]What if by your actions you put into place a moderately less acceptable dictator? This dictator will cause many problems down the line and the whole process may get better, but at least the innocent killings are at a minimum. Should you still stop him in this case?[/color] This becomes a little more complex, but even in this case it seems that the innocent person ought to be saved, even if another dictator comes into place.

[color=#0000ff]What happens if this second dictator is as bad as the first?[/color] This is always a possibility, although at this point I don't think anyone can imagine things getting worse. If the next dictator is worse and you genuinely thought that he wouldn't be and can't be help culpable for your ignorance, then you still acted rightly. This is where part of our disagreement takes place.[color=#00ff00] [/color][color=#a52a2a]I don't honestly think Romney or Newt (I know Newt, so I'm a bit biased) will be worse than Obama. I think it would be hard to argue this point legitimately at this point, even if they both have their failings.[/color]

[color=#0000ff]What if, by leaving this dictator there to kill the innocent person there would be a revolt that would end the dictatorship for good? Should you allow the person to die that this greater good can come about?[/color] No! Unless you are a Utilitarian, you cannot make a valid argument for this, no matter where you stand. So long as you have an opportunity to prevent this death, you are responsible to act. [color=#a52a2a]If you think that talking to the dictator reasonably will stop this killing, then great. If you realize that talking to him won't do any good, then why are you going to do it anyways? If you know it won't work and you still try to talk to him rather than act, then you are just about as culpable as if you had not acted in the first place.[/color]

Now let's extend this to the current political sphere. I know that dictator probably isn't the right word to use here, but I wanted to illustrate a point. If the pro-life cause is important to you, and by this I primarily mean the million plus abortions that occur every year, then why not vote as though it is? If we are right and abortion is killing millions of innocent babies, how can we justify not acting? Is it fair to say we'll let a few more die so that we can make a political point? Is it fair to let abortion go on another four years unchecked under the Obama administration, under whose authority access to abortion will become even more accessible, just to make a political point that we don't like our current government?

I realize that the current crop of political candidates isn't ideal. They weren't ideal back when Bush ran for President. If you search, I'm sure you can find a long list of things that Bush did to limit the number of deaths, and when we voted for him, we too supported these actions.

Most importantly, we have to keep in mind the Justices of the Supreme Court. When they retire or die, the person in office can choose whom he wants to succeed them. Bush put a couple of great people on the bench when it comes to pro-life issues, and I think this will show soon.

Is it legitimate to stand by and talk when a particular action is necessary to prevent the worst from happening? I do realize there is a difference between supporting a candidate like President Obama and merely accepting his election, but there is also a difference between allowing him in without really fighting it and doing everything we can to keep him out. To be a legitimate option not to fight his reelection by voting for the only other viable candidate, there must either be some greater immediate good that is gained (such as saving two lives rather than one in the case given above) or there must be some long-term gain without further present consequences.

There is no immediate good that outweighs getting him out of office. I don't think that anyone will reasonably argue this.

As for a future good down the road, sure maybe we could end the "dictatorship", i.e. maybe we'll get the political climate in Washington to change ([color=#a52a2a]as an aside, I do not think this is really possible[/color]), but to be inactive in our fight against the current political environment is not a legitimate option in this case because of the ongoing and present evil that exists in our society.

This means, then, that your whole argument must be based on whether or not you think Romney or Newt as bad or worse than Obama. I know that they aren't perfect, but do you really think they're as bad an option?

Edited, I don't like the phrase "razzle dazzle".

Edited February 2, 2012 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

Oh, and after all that, there is the other possibility that you rank things higher than being against abortion, being for freedom of religion, etc. Those could make for good discussions as well.

[Nihil Obstat]

It certainly can be argued that, while there may be very marginal differences in specific areas between Romney or Newt and Obama, that overall the magnitude of evil is essentially the same. Newt might be marginally (very marginally) better for freedom of religion, but guaranteed he's just as bad if not worse on foreign policy and domestic security.
Like the great Lounge Daddy says, they're all just Republicrats. Some put an R after their name and some put a D. Both parties have a vested interest in the status quo. The rhetoric changes depending on the party, even some of the marginal policies change, but the fundamentals never do. The theft and violence never changes, because the theft and violence is what keeps the leeches in power.

[qfnol31]

I don't think you can legitimately argue that unborn children stand an equal chance under either side at this point. Is that a marginal difference to be overlooked?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328215350' post='2379719']
I don't think you can legitimately argue that unborn children stand an equal chance under either side at this point. Is that a marginal difference to be overlooked?
[/quote]
Honestly, I don't think either Newt or Mitt would do a single thing about abortion. They'd give a bit here and take a bit elsewhere, whatever they could do to increase the power of their office. The judges might be somewhat better, although I think that's far from guaranteed. Especially with Mitt.
The rhetoric would be different, that you can count on, but honestly, do you actually trust a politician's rhetoric?

[Aloysius]

I wouldn't vote for Nero over Diocletian, I'd vote for Ronus Paulus. And I'd justify it saying that even if a vote for Ronus Paulus takes away from votes for Nero and ends up ensuring Diocletian's victory, well then the persecution of Diocletian is good for the Church anyway. lol, that's my answer to that.

I don't really think it'll be much better under Romney than under Obama, to be quite frank. When it comes to the Supreme Court, generally the balance will be kept under either so long as there's a division between Repubs and Dems in the whole government (so when pro-choice justices leave, we get new pro-choice justices and when pro-life justices leave, we get pro-life justices). I refuse to allow the pro-life movement to be held hostage and marginalized by the appointment of justices anymore, which is why I think the whole pro-life movement must rally behind Ron Paul's We the People Act and use the legislature to STRIP the Federal Courts of their jurisdiction over the abortion issue.

and anyway, I personally think that we can have great confidence that the huge precedence of law in favor of a conscience exception will prevail against the Sebellius dictates and the Supreme Court will uphold the First Ammendment in this instance. In fact, I believe it's likely that Obama himself knows this quite well and expects it to be overturned; he expects not to have to deal with a bunch of bishops closing down hospitals and such. but he can look good to a certain constituency that likes to see him battle against the big bad Catholic Church in favor of their contraceptive rights, and then not have to dig into a very hard battle because the Supreme Court will save him from having to. in other words, it's a political move, it makes him look good to his base, and he gave us a year probably so that the Supreme Court can overturn it by then and he won't have to look like the guy who made all the Catholic hospitals close down.

things are not as dreary as we are sometimes led to believe, methinks, because the people in charge on both sides actually prefer the status quo mostly. so I'm not sure I buy this argument, the same argument put forth every four years, that says "the other guy is so one hundred million times worse than our guy so we had better keep him from getting power! yeah sure, maybe someday we can have a real movement in favor of something instead of just limiting against the big bad boogey man (in this case, it's Obama), but for now just get in line behind our guy." because if we buy into that argument every four years, the some day will never come. maybe there needs to be a few election cycles where the big bad boogey man gets to win because we are starting to form a real movement in favor of something good for our government. for a long term plan to save the country, it could be okay if we lose a few elections to Obama and his ilk. eventually the power-players in the Republican party would get the message that they can no longer string us along, that they have to offer something serious and real that we can be excited about or else we'll keep letting them lose. that's what needs to happen, and it doesn't happen so long as people keep buying the gloom and doom stories about how we're all gonna die if a republican doesn't take the white house back from Obama this year.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328215350' post='2379719']
I don't think you can legitimately argue that unborn children stand an equal chance under either side at this point. Is that a marginal difference to be overlooked?
[/quote]
I can indeed argue that. Unborn children do indeed stand an equal chance under either Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. That's not an indefensible position; I kind of think of it as a fact.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328216904' post='2379738']
I wouldn't vote for Nero over Diocletian, I'd vote for Ronus Paulus. And I'd justify it saying that even if a vote for Ronus Paulus takes away from votes for Nero and ends up ensuring Diocletian's victory, well then the persecution of Diocletian is good for the Church anyway. lol, that's my answer to that.

I don't really think it'll be much better under Romney than under Obama, to be quite frank. When it comes to the Supreme Court, generally the balance will be kept under either so long as there's a division between Repubs and Dems in the whole government (so when pro-choice justices leave, we get new pro-choice justices and when pro-life justices leave, we get pro-life justices). I refuse to allow the pro-life movement to be held hostage and marginalized by the appointment of justices anymore, which is why I think the whole pro-life movement must rally behind Ron Paul's We the People Act and use the legislature to STRIP the Federal Courts of their jurisdiction over the abortion issue.

and anyway, I personally think that we can have great confidence that the huge precedence of law in favor of a conscience exception will prevail against the Sebellius dictates and the Supreme Court will uphold the First Ammendment in this instance. In fact, I believe it's likely that Obama himself knows this quite well and expects it to be overturned; he expects not to have to deal with a bunch of bishops closing down hospitals and such. but he can look good to a certain constituency that likes to see him battle against the big bad Catholic Church in favor of their contraceptive rights, and then not have to dig into a very hard battle because the Supreme Court will save him from having to. in other words, it's a political move, it makes him look good to his base, and he gave us a year probably so that the Supreme Court can overturn it by then and he won't have to look like the guy who made all the Catholic hospitals close down.

things are not as dreary as we are sometimes led to believe, methinks, because the people in charge on both sides actually prefer the status quo mostly. so I'm not sure I buy this argument, the same argument put forth every four years, that says "the other guy is so one hundred million times worse than our guy so we had better keep him from getting power! yeah sure, maybe someday we can have a real movement in favor of something instead of just limiting against the big bad boogey man (in this case, it's Obama), but for now just get in line behind our guy." because if we buy into that argument every four years, the some day will never come. maybe there needs to be a few election cycles where the big bad boogey man gets to win because we are starting to form a real movement in favor of something good for our government. for a long term plan to save the country, it could be okay if we lose a few elections to Obama and his ilk. eventually the power-players in the Republican party would get the message that they can no longer string us along, that they have to offer something serious and real that we can be excited about or else we'll keep letting them lose. that's what needs to happen, and it doesn't happen so long as people keep buying the gloom and doom stories about how we're all gonna die if a republican doesn't take the white house back from Obama this year.
[/quote]
[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1328217403' post='2379740']
I can indeed argue that. Unborn children do indeed stand an equal chance under either Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney. That's not an indefensible position; I kind of think of it as a fact.
[/quote]

You know, when I spend a bit of time away I tend to forget how amesome you are. This thread has reminded me all over again. You have my enormous respect.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1328206659' post='2379637']
There is no way he was worse than his nephew. I refuse to believe it.
[/quote]
Didn't have the same opportunity.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1328218314' post='2379756']
Didn't have the same opportunity.
[/quote]Ironic how that worked out for him, considering our current conversation.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1328081236' post='2378841']
Great post, man. Kudos.
[/quote]
Thank, bro.


A correction for clarity's sake:
[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1328050478' post='2378540']
Neither option is pleasant, but the second is still preferable.
[/quote]
This should have read: "Neither option is pleasant, but the [b]first[/b] is still preferable." As in, it's better to save a little bit than have the whole thing burn to the ground and be destroyed.