Catholic Does Not Equal Gop

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1346878187' post='2478941']
Our government is not dedicated to the common good. It is a modern fascist state.
[/quote]You snivel like a third grade boy sent to sit with the girls.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1346878743' post='2478947']
You snivel like a third grade boy sent to sit with the girls.
[/quote]
I accept your surrender.

And when I was sent to sit with the girls in third grade, I did anything but snivel.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Winchester

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346877819' post='2478932']
I got the impression you were looking down your nose at Catholics who will vote for Romney, and was defending that valid choice for Catholics. By all means, vote for your third party if you feel so convicted-but you don't seem to view this as a personal conviction, more as a 'I'm doing this because it is the only right/moral thing to do,' and that is not true according to the Church.

I never said it was the moral choice to vote for Romney- I was defending the people who aren't willing to vote for a third party, ie people who want their vote to have a direct impact on who the next President will be. Don't jump on the 'direct impact' phrase-third party votes have an impact, but the Bishop I quoted would agree with me that it is an indirect impact.

I majored in politics/theology also, though I'm not finishing my degree so it doesn't hold much water.
[/quote]
Looking down your nose at anyone is unbecoming, no matter the opinion held.

[emmaberry]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1346878311' post='2478942']
I guess we need Federal laws for everything.
[/quote]

Gotta be honest, I'm not following you.

[Winchester]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346879348' post='2478959']
Gotta be honest, I'm not following you.
[/quote]
You should, because your attempts to lead yourself seem disastrous.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346828928' post='2478668']
Did you read my post? That is your personal opinion, but the Church firmly says that the Faithful can, in good conscience, vote for the lesser of two evils. You cannot judge fellow Catholics for voting for Romney in the hopes that Obama will not be re-elected, since the Church has stated that this is okay.

So you are fed up with Romney and will vote for a third party, though you don't sound too thrilled about that either. When Obama is re-elected, you will probably blame those who voted for him, and not look at the fact that your voting for a third party is supporting President Obama in his hopes for re-election. That is not me, it is a Bishop:

""Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Kerry, who is completely for abortion on demand, Bush, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and Peroutka, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. [b]The Catholic can vote for Peroutka, but that will probably only help ensure the election of Kerry. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Bush, since his vote might help to ensure the defeat of Kerry and might result in the saving of some innocent human lives.[/b]""
[/quote]

Did you read my post?

As a Catholic, it is my duty to not sit idly by and watch fellow Catholics mistakenly apply a line of thinking that is not applicable to every situation. I can and will judge. And I expect my fellow Catholic brethren to do the same to me. I expect them to make sure I think through things straight and not just lap up what I say.


At what cost is one to vote for the lesser of two evils? Does this principle extend to infinity? Is this teaching infallible? Your cited example of Bush is a different place in a different time. There was reasonable hope with Bush. And even he still failed the pro-life cause. And even his pick of Roberts has failed us!

Granted this does not mean that Romney will not do anything. But he is much more forwardly moderate. Which means social issues will not be addressed. Or at the least, one should not have any hope that he will. Romney is a political opportunists. He will sell when the second he can. He his already a traitor to the pro-life movement by calling for Todd Akin to step down. Todd Akin, a principled ethical person who actually lives on what he says. And he says two sentences, and Romney wants to end his 6 congressional terms of pro-life commitment. And you want me to back Romney?

I am thrilled to be free of the shackles of supporting Obamney. And to clarify, if Romney was behind by one vote, and I was the last person to vote, I would write-in Ron Paul. Because the odds are very, very, very good that Romney will let me down. Much better to take a stand and join the Revolution for a better America instead of selling my support and integrity to a broken system.

At the RNC convention, Romney and the RNC [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg"]blatantly cheated[/url] to ensure that Ron Paul had NO chance of winning. When you reject delegates and replace them with delegates you know will vote your way......I put no trust in such people.

Romney does not care about the [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSulRyQiNrs"]constitution[/url]......he just needs to consult with some lawyers...and basically do what he wants. Great guy to give integrity and respect to, right?


My vote for Ron Paul will simply be a show of support for a reasonable candidate and a display of no confidence in the remaining two candidates.

[size=5][b]There's more than 2 colors people![/b][/size]

----

So how low do you go before you demand change? Because tolerating picks like Romney only ensures we'll end up with Romney 2 next time......and then you and others will be rehashing the same line of "pick the lesser evil." And then I and others will point out the continued NON-progress these fake pro-life candidates do.

The difference is I am seeking to END this viscous broken cycle as opposed to selling my vote for basically nothing in return.

If politicians actually did what they said, abortion would be near non-existent. But as Catholics continually blindly believe what shady GOP candidates throw at them, we will never get anywhere. Look at voting records. Vote accordingly.


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346854962' post='2478726']
So who is this third party candidate everyone is talking about?
[/quote]

Restore America Now! And not pretend to in 40 years.

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346871302' post='2478836']
Even if Romney and Ryan do a flip and switch once they take Office, you cannot say that Romney will try to put an amendment in the Constitution that says abortion is a right.[/quote]

Romney has flipped before.....on several issues......like abortion. Who is to say he will flip again? It could easily happen. Honestly, Romney already has. He is pro-life in speech, but he won't do anything real to act it out and is quite willing to throw dedicated pro-life politicians out the door!


[quote]To say that Romney will end as many human lives as Obama has is not realistic, as is saying that Romney will take the same steps toward spreading/expanding abortion as Obama. If Romney does try to give out a healthcare plan with contraceptives, we'll elect someone else at the end of his term.[/quote]

No, you will re-elect him because he is the "lesser of two evils."

[quote]We, as Catholics, have to try though. We cannot let our pessimistic attitudes keep us from voting for something that might (key word MIGHT) enable us to live with a clean conscience.

Let's not forget that Obama voted that abortion-surviving babies should be killed anyway. Romney at his deceptive worst still looks like a kitten in light of the monstrous damage Obama has done (and plans to do) concerning abortion.

Of course, this doesn't address economics, but the Catholic vote is based on the non-negotiables: abortion, contraception, and euthanasia. War, the death penalty, and economics are negotiable in varying situations, according the Church.

I can't believe I am explaining these basic tenets of the Catholic moral vote on a Catholic forum.
[/quote]

I can't believe Catholics sold themselves so fast to such a low character......and they actually think things are going to change simply because the guy gives you 4 seconds of attention in a 30-40 minute speech.

I look at records, and bet accordingly. And there is nothing in Romney. Much better to demand a better candidate.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346809453' post='2478541']
This will be a close election,
[/quote]

but only in a a few states. Remember Ed, we don't elect the president, the [url="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html"]electoral college[/url] does. There are states (like Texas & Georgia) where a vote for a third party candidate will not help Obama because the state is bleeding red to begin with. If the Libertarian party, for example, were to show gains in those states it might have an effect on future elections.

[emmaberry]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1346879416' post='2478962']
You should, because your attempts to lead yourself seem disastrous.
[/quote]
I think I've been the only one to quote passages from Bishops and other Church documents on this, whether you think they were applicable or not. How this is leading myself I am not sure.

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346882430' post='2479049']
As a Catholic, it is my duty to not sit idly by and watch fellow Catholics mistakenly apply a line of thinking that is not applicable to every situation. I can and will judge. And I expect my fellow Catholic brethren to do the same to me. I expect them to make sure I think through things straight and not just lap up what I say.

At what cost is one to vote for the lesser of two evils? Does this principle extend to infinity? Is this teaching infallible? Your cited example of Bush is a different place in a different time. There was reasonable hope with Bush. And even he still failed the pro-life cause. And even his pick of Roberts has failed us!

....Much better to demand a better candidate.
[/quote]
I think you misunderstood the sources I cited-they were not talking about the one-time situation of Bush and the other candidates, they were a prototype for voting Catholics of the moral choice in a typical American situation.

I really think you need to stop representing the third party vote as the only choice for faithful Catholics:
A) because it goes against what the Church has said through her American bishops and through then-Cardinal Ratzinger,
B) because, if President Obama were on PM (just go with it), he would be propping all your posts.
[size=4]C) If Catholics voted like you, Ron Paul would still not be elected, since our vote alone would not propel someone into office. President Obama would be elected. Hopefully, we can both agree that Obama is not the right choice.[/size][/background][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][size=4]D) It does not, as your last post said, demand a better candidate. A third party vote just votes for the third party that (usually) does not win.[/size]
I said before that you are allowed (by the Church not by me) to vote for a third party candidate.

From the Bishop's Guide to Voting: [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]

[b] WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE[/b]

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at [i]limiting the harm[/i] done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, [b]but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. [/b] [/size][/font]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I still hold that while voting for a third party may directly line up more with Catholic morals (and, in the case of Ron Paul, he is pro-homosexual/group marriages, which is a non-negotiable, according to the Voting Guide.), it does not actually limit evil done by politicians. This is something addressed in the Guide to Voting. As Adrestia said, in certain states the third party vote won't change anything because they swing too far to the right or left anyway. Not every third party voter is in one of those few states, obviously.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I am not going to change your mind, and I am not trying to, but if you are going to blame Catholics for something the Church has allowed-even endorsed in Church documents-read the Guide to Voting. I am assuming you have not read it, perhaps you have, but I don't see how you could and still accuse all Romney-voting Catholics that they are voting wrongly not just on a personal level, but according to Catholicism. [/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]*You are judging the Bush situation with 20/20 hindsight. What is important is to look at the fact that Bush and Romney claim many of the same things on the non-negotiables. In the current situation, even if Romney is far less moral than Bush, we have to remember that Obama is far less moral than Kerry on the non-negotiables. [/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I am bowing out. I don't want to give you a chance to post more and convince Catholics not to have a direct vote for our next President. All I can say is that if Obama gets elected again, I am glad I will be living in voluntary poverty already, before he strips our country of its wealth and good name.[/font][/size][/background][/size][/font][/color]

Edited September 6, 2012 by emmaberry

[Adrestia]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346896708' post='2479214']
[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I really think you need to stop representing the third party vote as the only choice for faithful Catholics:
B) because, if President Obama were on PM (just go with it), he would be propping all your posts.[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
Can you explain this to me? I really don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

[Winchester]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346896708' post='2479214']
I think I've been the only one [s]to quote passages from Bishops and other Church documents[/s] proof-texting on this, whether you think they were applicable or not. How this is leading myself I am not sure.

[/quote]
I don't even need to argue. You're making my case, for me.

[emmaberry]

[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1346897165' post='2479217']
Can you explain this to me? I really don't understand how you came to this conclusion.
[/quote]
It's the same reason Obama's campaign loved the idea of Santorum-it gives him a better chance of winning. The third party vote will help Obama win, if indirectly. The third party vote is one less person not voting for the other candidate, and since Obama is the dominant candidate, it helps him.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1346897460' post='2479219']
I don't even need to argue. You're making my case, for me.
[/quote]

I think I'm getting the hang of this.... So you're like the PM Mascot troll?

Edited September 6, 2012 by emmaberry

[missionseeker]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346896708' post='2479214']
I think I've been the only one to quote passages from Bishops and other Church documents on this, whether you think they were applicable or not. How this is leading myself I am not sure.


[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]I think you misunderstood the sources I cited-they were not talking about the one-time situation of Bush and the other candidates, they were a prototype for voting Catholics of the moral choice in a typical American situation.

I really think you need to stop representing the third party vote as the only choice for faithful Catholics:
A) because it goes against what the Church has said through her American bishops and through then-Cardinal Ratzinger,
B) because, if President Obama were on PM (just go with it), he would be propping all your posts.
C) If Catholics voted like you, Ron Paul would still not be elected, since our vote alone would not propel someone into office. President Obama would be elected. Hopefully, we can both agree that Obama is not the right choice.[/font]
[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]D) It does not, as your last post said, demand a better candidate. A third party vote just votes for the third party that (usually) does not win.
I said before that you are allowed (by the Church not by me) to vote for a third party candidate.

From the Bishop's Guide to Voting: [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]

[b] WHEN THERE IS NO "ACCEPTABLE" CANDIDATE[/b]

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at [i]limiting the harm[/i] done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).
Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, [b]but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. [/b] [/size][/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I still hold that while voting for a third party may directly line up more with Catholic morals (and, in the case of Ron Paul, he is pro-homosexual/group marriages, which is a non-negotiable, according to the Voting Guide.), it does not actually limit evil done by politicians. This is something addressed in the Guide to Voting. As Adrestia said, in certain states the third party vote won't change anything because they swing too far to the right or left anyway. Not every third party voter is in one of those few states, obviously.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I am not going to change your mind, and I am not trying to, but if you are going to blame Catholics for something the Church has allowed-even endorsed in Church documents-read the Guide to Voting. I am assuming you have not read it, perhaps you have, but I don't see how you could and still accuse all Romney-voting Catholics that they are voting wrongly not just on a personal level, but according to Catholicism. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]*You are judging the Bush situation with 20/20 hindsight. What is important is to look at the fact that Bush and Romney claim many of the same things on the non-negotiables. In the current situation, even if Romney is far less moral than Bush, we have to remember that Obama is far less moral than Kerry on the non-negotiables. [/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I am bowing out. I don't want to give you a chance to post more and convince Catholics not to have a direct vote for our next President. All I can say is that if Obama gets elected again, I am glad I will be living in voluntary poverty already, before he strips our country of its wealth and good name.[/font][/font]
[/quote]

1) no one is blaming anyone. We are pointing out that "the lesser of two evils" may not be a great idea to apply to this and future elections.
2) We agree Obama is not a good choice (I'm actually not sure there IS a worse choice or if it's a "more of the same choice")
3) No one is trying to lead faithful Catholics astray. We're simply pointing out that Romney is not the ONLY choice for Catholics. Perhaps, he's not even the best. Especially given the way our system works.

[emmaberry]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346899185' post='2479233']
1) no one is blaming anyone. We are pointing out that "the lesser of two evils" may not be a great idea to apply to this and future elections.
2) We agree Obama is not a good choice (I'm actually not sure there IS a worse choice or if it's a "more of the same choice")
3) No one is trying to lead faithful Catholics astray. [b]We're simply pointing out that Romney is not the ONLY choice for Catholics. [/b]Perhaps, he's not even the best. Especially given the way our system works.
[/quote]

Hey, I agree with that.

How did I get back in this?

[Winchester]

[quote name='emmaberry' timestamp='1346898982' post='2479232']
I think I'm getting the hang of this.... So you're like the PM Mascot troll?
[/quote]
Sort of. Except there is method to my madness.


You [i]are [/i]proof-texting.

Of course, most people do, when citing Church teaching regarding politics, government, and social issues. The Federal government is not a justly constituted government. You'll never find a document refuting that--it's beyond the ability of the Church. I have no obligation to participate in the farce that is the presidential election. I will.

It will not really matter if Obama gets in. I'd say it's well proven by the failure to overturn the clearly unconstitutional croutons that is (Romney)Obamacare. They will not make abortion illegal. There will be a weaseling. The best thing is to remove the Federal government from abortion, which is truly the constitutional action. I'm not worried about supreme court appointments--it's political theater. They will do as they damned well please. They can do nearly anything through a regulatory body without going through Congress.

[BG45]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1346900246' post='2479245']
Sort of. Except there is method to my madness.


You [i]are [/i]proof-texting.

Of course, most people do, when citing Church teaching regarding politics, government, and social issues. The Federal government is not a justly constituted government. You'll never find a document refuting that--it's beyond the ability of the Church. I have no obligation to participate in the farce that is the presidential election. I will.

It will not really matter if Obama gets in. I'd say it's well proven by the failure to overturn the clearly unconstitutional croutons that is (Romney)Obamacare. They will not make abortion illegal. There will be a weaseling. The best thing is to remove the Federal government from abortion, which is truly the constitutional action. I'm not worried about supreme court appointments--it's political theater. They will do as they damned well please. They can do nearly anything through a regulatory body without going through Congress.
[/quote]

You know I tried to argue once that you and Soc have methods behind the trolling, only to be assured that wasn't the case, and now you just have to go and explain the method and reasoning behind the madness this time.