Will You Anti-romney People Apologize?

[dUSt]

I think Aloysius is arguing that Romney and Obama are equal. That is the only way I understand his stance to make any sense anyway.

From how I interpret the Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship guide.
[url="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/"]http://www.usccb.org...ul-citizenship/[/url]

IF: Obama and Romney's policies are equal in regards to intrinsic evils.
THEN: Withholding vote or voting third party is acceptable.

-but-

IF: Obama's policies are more intrinsically evil than Romney's.
THEN: We have an obligation to vote for Romney.

Again, when I read the bishop's direction, that is how I interpret it.

So, despite all of Aloysious' arguments he's made, I have not come close to believing that Romney's policies are anywhere near as intrinsically evil as Obama's. Therefore, according to my interpretation of the bishops direction, and my conscience formed based on that direction, I must vote for Romney.

[Aloysius]

Here, let me fix that for you:

IF: Obama's policies are more intrinsically evil than Romney's.
THEN: We [b]MAY [/b]vote for Romney to mitigate the evil.

Note that it isn't that we MUST do so, but that we MAY choose to do so. It is ALLOWABLE, not morally obligatory, that's all it says in Faithful Citizenship. Even if you do not hold to my interpretation that the two are fundamentally the same on the major issues, and you view Mitt as an improvement over Barack, you are still not OBLIGATED to vote for Mitt. You have that moral option if you have come to that conclusion.

[Jesus_lol]

Or, as an observer who isnt necessarily supporting one candidate or the other, who sees two people arguing about how much better one sandwich is than the other and decides to point out that even though one of them has some nice cheese and lettuce, both are using cuts off the same piece of rotten ham.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1351653245' post='2500891']

So Winchester you are saying you are anti - Obama then, thats good. We can agree on that, Obama has started two wars without going through with approval of the congress, which of course is just another bypass of the constitution.
[/quote]
I am not against Obama. Obama is a man. I am against the positions he holds. And Romney largely agrees with him.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/mitt-romney-says-he-could-wage-war-on-iran-without-congress-approval/258607/

Romney doesn't give two turds about the Constitution's limits on Federal power. Just like Obama. Don't give me proof-texting in response. I bet you can find a quote where he talks about the limits of the Constitution--in relation to some Democrat abuse of Federal power. He's partisan, but not "conservative".

[kujo]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1351653245' post='2500891']

[s]Obama[/s] [b][color=#ff0000]Bush and the Republicans[/color][/b] [s]has[/s] started two wars without going through with approval of the congress, which of course is just another bypass of the constitution. [s]Obama [/s][b][color=#ff0000]Every president since FDR[/color][/b][color=#ff0000][b] [/b][/color][s]has[/s] increased not only the size but the scope of the Federal Government...
[/quote]

Fxd

[Roamin Catholic]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351685864' post='2501069']

Romney doesn't give two turds about the Constitution's limits on Federal power. Just like Obama. Don't give me proof-texting in response. I bet you can find a quote where he talks about the limits of the Constitution--in relation to some Democrat abuse of Federal power. He's partisan, but not "conservative".
[/quote]


I think that is what is being lost in the debate over Romney. Neither one of them gives two poos about the ever increasing size of the government and them controlling things that they were never designed to...

[Adrestia]

I know Catholics who have justified their belief that Romney is worse than Obama. They cite economic & domestic policy - they believe that Romney will drive more people into poverty and will destroy more American jobs. They are against abortion, but believe that Romney is just playing that card to get Catholic votes. While they hate the birth control mandate, they believe that Obamacare is better for society and that the birth control mandate will eventually be overturned. They still blame Bush for the wars and see Romney as a status quo Republican that would have done the same thing. I disagree with them, but I could never even suggest that they are somehow less Catholic than I am.


This article illustrates many of the reasons that I cannot vote for either Romney or Obama in good conscience:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/31/pick-your-constitutional-poison

In summary, they both support unmanned drone strikes against perceived threats, including US citizens. Both seek to limit free speech, but in different ways. Both seek to limit religious freedom, but in different ways. Both seek to impose restrictions on firearms. Both support indefinite detainment and killing of "terror suspects," and Romney wants to expand Guantanamo. Both support the NDAA. Both support the PATRIOT Act. Romney endorses "enhanced interrogation techniques." In 2008 Obama sounded better than G. W. Bush on civil liberties, but he has not only failed to deliver, he has increased extrajudicial killings.



Regarding domestic policy & the economy, some points are listed in this article:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-exactly-the-same

Of note, both support Geithner, Bernanke, the Federal Reserve, & TARP. Both are showered with money from Wall Street. Both support policies that hurt domestic jobs. Both support the TSA, the DEA, & the IRS.



On a personal note, as an immigrant, a Black person, and a woman, I have always felt that voting is not just a right, but a responsibility [i]for me[/i]. Every time I vote, I remember all the people that suffered and died for my right to vote. It's not something I take lightly.

[Winchester]

Unfortunately, Obama is right about local handgun bans being consistent with the Second Amendment, which really only applies to the Federal Government. That means the ATF is an unconstitutional organization. The incorporation doctrine, which I would love to apply to crapholes like Chicago, is bunk.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351665977' post='2501003']
Here, let me fix that for you:

IF: Obama's policies are more intrinsically evil than Romney's.
THEN: We [b]MAY [/b]vote for Romney to mitigate the evil.

Note that it isn't that we MUST do so, but that we MAY choose to do so. It is ALLOWABLE, not morally obligatory, that's all it says in Faithful Citizenship. Even if you do not hold to my interpretation that the two are fundamentally the same on the major issues, and you view Mitt as an improvement over Barack, you are still not OBLIGATED to vote for Mitt. You have that moral option if you have come to that conclusion.
[/quote]

You interpret the use of prudence different than me.

[i]"The Church fosters well-formed consciences not only by teaching moral truth but also by encouraging its members to develop the virtue of prudence. Prudence enables us "[color=#ff0000][b]to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it[/b][/color]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1806). Prudence shapes and informs [color=#ff0000][b]our ability to deliberate over available alternatives, to determine what is most fitting to a specific context, and to act decisively[/b][/color]. Exercising this virtue often requires the courage to act in defense of moral principles when making decisions about how to build a society of justice and peace."[/i]

I read these lines and immediately rule out a wasted symbolic vote.

[Winchester]

Of course, when we look at Romney's [i]record[/i] instead of his [i]rhetoric[/i], we see he is not pro-life. Romneycare, which he chose to support with his signature instead of rejecting (cue empty defense of "it's a liberal state"), pays for abortions. Romney chose freely to materially cooperate in the State-funded murder of unborn children. That's not pro-life.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Winchester

[dUSt]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351695884' post='2501116']
Of course, when we look at Romney's [i]record[/i] instead of his [i]rhetoric[/i], we see he is not pro-life. Romneycare, which he chose to support with his signature instead of rejecting (cue empty defense of "it's a liberal state"), pays for abortions. Romney chose freely to materially cooperate in the State-funded murder of unborn children. That's not pro-life.
[/quote]
Blah blah blah.
The bottom line is Romney will be more pro-life than Obama. Period.

If you deny this, I will still continue to enjoy you for your comedic skills, but not your intelligence or judgement.

[kujo]

Guys, Romney is Republican. That means he's okay with killing unborn babies at the STATE level, but isn't okay with some corrupt politician in Washington telling warmhearted American patriots they're allowed to kill their unborn babies. It's called federalism, duh. Pick up a constitution, idiots.

[dUSt]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351696459' post='2501120']
Guys, Romney is Republican. That means he's okay with killing unborn babies at the STATE level, but isn't okay with some corrupt politician in Washington telling warmhearted American patriots they're allowed to kill their unborn babies. It's called federalism, duh. Pick up a constitution, idiots.
[/quote]
How often do you pray?

[kujo]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351696561' post='2501123']
How often do you pray?
[/quote]

Every day[font="arial"][size=3]. [/size][/font]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351696459' post='2501120']
Guys, [s]Romney[/s] Ron Paul is Republican. That means he's okay with killing unborn babies at the STATE level, but isn't okay with some corrupt politician in Washington telling warmhearted American patriots they're allowed to kill their unborn babies. It's called federalism, duh. Pick up a constitution, idiots.
[/quote]
Fxd.