Catholic Does Not Equal Gop

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346933967' post='2479352']
Now who is this?
[/quote]

Restore America Now was Ron Paul's campaign slogan. The 40 years reference is to the Ryan plan known as the "[i]Path to Prosperity[/i]" which is a budget plan that only cuts [b]future [/b]spending increases and fails to do real cutting that our nation is in so dire need of.

[Papist]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346959635' post='2479449']
Restore America Now was Ron Paul's campaign slogan. The 40 years reference is to the Ryan plan known as the "[i]Path to Prosperity[/i]" which is a budget plan that only cuts [b]future [/b]spending increases and fails to do real cutting that our nation is in so dire need of.
[/quote]
So Ron Paul is an option on the ballot? I thought he already gave it a shot trying to get the Republican nomination and failed.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1346904713' post='2479271']
Eagle eye, so your a Ron Paul fan and think he is more straight forward and pro-life than Romney? Ron Paul takes the easy road on all issues, he says it should be up to individual states, that takes all responsibility off him and his views are really non existent at that point. Bu the way he says he is " Strongly pro-life " yet he has voted for funding embryonic stem cell research, does that trouble your idealistic view of him ? I also worry about a candidtae that believes we should disband our military as " we can defend our country with 2 nuclear submarines " does this mean he would just nuke a country like afghanistan for being the staging ground for the terrorists involved in 9/11 . Heck patty that would make him even more of an assassin than Obama with his drone use.

I just threw that out there for your thought, I think Ron Paul has many great ideas and is a good man. He is not electable, he has said many odd things that would kill his candidacy if he ever became a serious contender, the remark that women who were victims of sexual harassment should just quit their jobs unless they were actually forced to have sex would be a killer for the woman vote.

My point, there is no messiah candidate. Anyone would be less evil in policies and practises than Obama.

ed
[/quote]

The federal government was not intended to have such overreaching power on so many issues. I could reverse your cop-out assault by saying that states could cop-out of deciding issues and just say the federal government should decide. What matters is where you want the power allocated. Do you trust your freedoms with a big federal government that decides a lot, or do you trusts 50 states competing with each other for residents?


Ron Paul on embryonic stem cell research. You claim he supports it. Let's look at what he says on it and how he votes.

[url="http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Stem_Cell_Research/"]http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/Stem_Cell_Research/[/url]
[url="http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm#2007-020"]http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm#2007-020[/url]

Actually, Ron Paul comes out looking pretty amesome on the issue. His votes and what he would do with it, show us that he would seriously limit it even happening. I don't see what your big complaint is. He votes to never use government funds for it...and states could ban it if they want. This is a very good stance and like marriage and abortion, the moral-minded would be able to make much better inroads on defending marriage and ending abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

So what does Ron Paul think of the military? I highly suggest the 2nd link as it is from one of the primary debates and one of the hosts gets stuck on the same misconception as you are right now.

[url="http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/"]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhaz-WYl3k"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duhaz-WYl3k[/url]


I didn't see anything about disbanding the military. In fact it looks like Dr. Paul wants to have a strong military defense. He is just against policing the whole world and getting stuck in these unjustified wars. Sound good, no?


As for what he has said as you claim which may or may not be true, I am not troubled by such comments as his stance on so many other issues is so much better than the other candidates. Honestly, I can go to the other candidates, and pull quotes that make them look like the devil......however, what really matters at the end of the day is their voting record and what they actually do........a snippet comment doesn't lose my vote or gain it as that would mean I could never vote for anyone save Jesus.


If you have some legitimate arguments against Dr. Paul, please accurately list them.


Again, I disagree with the "lesser evil to infinity" guide. It tolerates way too much evil and promotes a continuing acceptance of such. It does nothing to reform either party and promotes a status quo. The Church as cited by you does not see it this way necessarily, but these candidates and parties see it this way and they will continue to act as they always do as long as they get your vote.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346961306' post='2479465']
So Ron Paul is an option on the ballot? I thought he already gave it a shot trying to get the Republican nomination and failed.
[/quote]

There is something called "write in."

Even if write in was not an option or it didn't count, I still would not select either the GOP or the Dem candidate. Sort of similar to those philosophical questions about where you have the power to throw a switch and kill one person instead of five. I refuse to act in such a manner to give my support and integrity to such low options.

The moral thing to do is to stand up, and stop supporting the awful question.

[Papist]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346962369' post='2479476']
There is something called "write in."

Even if write in was not an option or it didn't count, I still would not select either the GOP or the Dem candidate. Sort of similar to those philosophical questions about where you have the power to throw a switch and kill one person instead of five. I refuse to act in such a manner to give my support and integrity to such low options.

The moral thing to do is to stand up, and stop supporting the awful question.
[/quote]
So not voting for Romney and Obama is for moral reasons?

[missionseeker]

Have we not been clear throughout the whole thread?

Yes. NOT voting Romney or Obama is for moral reasons. As well as political.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346962718' post='2479479']
So not voting for Romney and Obama is for moral reasons?
[/quote]

To rephrase what I have been arguing through this thread,

Yes. I will not vote for Obamney.

I'm throwing in the towel. It's time to join the Revolution and restore America!


As I stated before, if I was the last person to vote, and Obama was ahead by one vote, I would write in Dr. Ron Paul. Romney won because of his organization (2nd place from the last GOP presidential primary), and partially his money (although I have no qualms about using your own money as money does not directly affect elections necessarily as plenty of rich people have lost before). Romney also won because many people mistakenly believe they had to support him.

I refuse to tolerate or give my integrity to such a garbage pick who has just recently shown in the Todd Akin-Missouri senate race incident that Obamney will irrationally take down pro-life politicians with whom he should be supporting.

I mean, you guys want to vote for a traitor and a backstabber?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346964160' post='2479486']
I mean, you guys want to vote for a traitor and a backstabber?
[/quote]

The funny thing is that people will vote for one of the two murderous thieving sociopaths, and then complain that the government is full of murderous thieving sociopaths.

[Papist]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346964160' post='2479486']
To rephrase what I have been arguing through this thread,

Yes. I will not vote for Obamney.

I'm throwing in the towel. It's time to join the Revolution and restore America!


As I stated before, if I was the last person to vote, and Obama was ahead by one vote, I would write in Dr. Ron Paul. Romney won because of his organization (2nd place from the last GOP presidential primary), and partially his money (although I have no qualms about using your own money as money does not directly affect elections necessarily as plenty of rich people have lost before). Romney also won because many people mistakenly believe they had to support him.

I refuse to tolerate or give my integrity to such a garbage pick who has just recently shown in the Todd Akin-Missouri senate race incident that Obamney will irrationally take down pro-life politicians with whom he should be supporting.

I mean, you guys want to vote for a traitor and a backstabber?
[/quote]
Is that productive?

and who is 'you guys'?

[Papist]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346963328' post='2479482']
Have we not been clear throughout the whole thread?

Yes. NOT voting Romney or Obama is for moral reasons. As well as political.
[/quote]
And what moral reasons are these?

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346972349' post='2479540']
Is that productive?

and who is 'you guys'?
[/quote]

Yes. It is productive to reform the GOP and demand reasonable candidates to have any hope of Restoring America!

_____

Is it productive to enforce the status quo and give integrity and support to traitorous backstabbers of the pro-life cause?

Is it productive to support candidates whose lawyers force rule changes so that grassroots movements will have even LESS opportunity of succeeding in the future?

Is it productive to tell the RNC that it is okay to withhold funds so as to bleed real pro-life candidates dry so that they can be replaced by villainous moderates who maintain the status quo?

Is it productive to ignore the vote history and go all in on the 4 seconds of attention the GOP nominee gives to the pro-life cause?

When was the last time the RNC or Mitt Romney actually did something substantial on ending or even limiting abortion?

[quote][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney#Abortion_and_related_issues"]In 2011, Romney declined to sign a pro-life pledge[/url] sponsored by the [/size][/font][/color][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_List"]Susan B. Anthony List[/url][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] to support legislation to end all taxpayer funding of abortion and to sign a law to "protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion." The pledge also commits signers to nominate judges and appoint executive branch officials who are pro-life. Romney's spokeswoman said the pledge could have "unforeseen consequences" and that Romney could not "in good conscience sign it."[/size][/font][/color][/quote]


Where "you guys" refers to all who intend to support and/or vote for Mitt Romney.

[Papist]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1346973277' post='2479546']
Yes. It is productive to reform the GOP and demand reasonable candidates to have any hope of Restoring America!

_____

Is it productive to enforce the status quo and give integrity and support to traitorous backstabbers of the pro-life cause?

Is it productive to support candidates whose lawyers force rule changes so that grassroots movements will have even LESS opportunity of succeeding in the future?

Is it productive to tell the RNC that it is okay to withhold funds so as to bleed real pro-life candidates dry so that they can be replaced by villainous moderates who maintain the status quo?

Is it productive to ignore the vote history and go all in on the 4 seconds of attention the GOP nominee gives to the pro-life cause?

When was the last time the RNC or Mitt Romney actually did something substantial on ending or even limiting abortion?




Where "you guys" refers to all who intend to support and/or vote for Mitt Romney.
[/quote]
I am not out to reform the GOP.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346974534' post='2479555']
I am not out to reform the GOP.
[/quote]
Are you out shopping?

[missionseeker]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346972349' post='2479540']

Is that productive?

and who is 'you guys'?
[/quote]
[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1346972421' post='2479541']

And what moral reasons are these?
[/quote]

I guess the great thing about pm is that when I feel like I'm just repeating myself I can just quote myself and save the trouble typing....
[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346874336' post='2478884']


Since I've studied theology at a very Catholic university, I really don't need that explained to me.

Since I've studied politics, I really don't need that explained to me either.

Since I am member of this Republic, I know what my civic rights/duties/etc. are.
Since I am a member of the Catholic Church, I know what my moral obligations are.

I refuse to think that the only moral choice is to vote for someone who has past political ties with Planned Parenthood, who policies are eerily similar to Obama's and who most people describe as "the lesser of two evils"


Evil is evil is evil is evil.

The ends do not justify the means.
[/quote]
[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346808453' post='2478523']



I cannot in good conscience vote for either of these candidates.
[/quote]
[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346810618' post='2478565']
Given that you have no idea of anything about me think that's an awful lot of words spouting forth from your fingers. I didn't read it all I stopped at "god save me from idealists. "

You should read Chesterton.

Am I young? Yeah. Am I idealistic? I'll grant that to you because I do think that if more people voted what they actually believed it would make some difference. Do I think a third party candidate could win this election? No. Do I think I should vote for a candidate whose record is full of policies that are 1) contrary to what I think a presidents should be and 2) contrary to what he is currently saying his policies are/will be. Heck no.
[/quote]
[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346812203' post='2478580']


I've actually already given several quite freely.
have you looked at MAs healthcare? Romney has no problem defending it. Confusing because it's crazy similar to the one that Obama passed. So... Obama's is not ok and romneys is. At the same time.

If a person wants to make the issue of abortion important then they need to back it with their votes. If you'll notice, Romney's exception doesn't stop at "in cases of rape or incest". He also adds "or when the mother's Health is in jeopardy.". There an no explanations as to what that means/who determines that, etc.

Also did you notice during the RNC he said "I will not increase taxes on the middle class". Great. Who's getting the tax increase?
Have you ever looked at his spending policy while he was governor of MA?

And for those who think Ryan will make it better how do you justify him saying that he sometimes has to vote against his own values so that later he can vote for them. What? That doesn't even make sense.

I have no Internet, only a phone and my family's about to pray so that's all I can do for now.
[/quote]
[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346791999' post='2478403']


I think it's interesting that so many Catholics can say "abortion in cases of rape or incest is never ok" or "the end doesn't justify the means"


Until the political party with which theyd like to attach themselves refuses to budge on such things. In that case it's "well it's lesser of two evils" or "I don't want to waste my vote". The lesser of two evils is still EVIL. Any number of the political decisions that Romney has made Are neither morally or politically agreeable. His plan for MA's healthcare is the model on which obama's was built. And you really think he's going to repeal it? Paul Ryan voted for the bailouts and yet claims to be pro small government.

Wasting a vote is voting for a candidate you neither like not trust and whose policies are neither politically or ethically acceptable. Keep voting for the major parties and nothing will ever change.
[/quote]
[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1346804933' post='2478472']
Politics are not passive. People should vote. Even if they vote for third party. Imagine if all the people who dislike either candidate actually did vote third party. It's doubtful that that candidate would get elected, but it would show that people are willing to deflect from these parties and some folks have been loyal democrats or yellow dog republicans for DECADES. To lose votes is to lose money and more importantly power. There's nothing that Republicans or Democrats like worse than money, except for losing power.
[/quote]


Do I think it will immediately productive? No. Not this election. Maybe not next time either. But I think it's way more productive to vote for someone you can morally, ethically, socially, econimically, and politically agree with than to just settle for the candidate who just not quite as bad the other.


The moral stuff I don't agree with is probably the same stuff you don't agree with.

Abortion/planned parenthood, HHS, embroynic stem cell research, etc.

[PhuturePriest]

I never really liked Ron Paul since my mother always told me that he was an idiot, but after listening to what he actually has to say I like it a lot. I honestly think voting for a 3rd party candidate (Gary Johnson, for instance) would send a message to the GOP, even if the 3rd party candidate loses. This two-party system needs to end whether the two parties like it or not. There are more options than liberal or even more liberal, and the American public doesn't know it.