Will You Anti-romney People Apologize?

[Aloysius]

refusing to support either side.

when enough people stand up and join you in that refusal, then you have a powerful moral force.

so long as people keep picking the 90,000 guy over the 100,000 guy; we're always going to get a choice between a 90,000 guy and a 100,000 guy. you have to be willing to take a stand.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDbfCbQnH8[/media]

[Winchester]

There's even no participating in national elections, then supporting nullification on a local level.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351727097' post='2501508']
refusing to support either side.
[/quote]
[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351727008' post='2501506']
Refuse to vote. Stage a coop. Be willing to put our lives on the line to stand against intrinsic evil. Be radical examples of the truth. We talk such a big game about the martyrs, about Catholic blood running in the streets. But do we have enough guts to stand up into the line of fire? Settling for a false dichtomy between two evils makes us no better than the Lukewarm Christians of the Church of Laodicea.
[/quote]
That still results in either 90,000 or 100,000 people dying. I already listed that as an option. I asked what the third option was.

[Roamin Catholic]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351727329' post='2501513']
That still results in either 90,000 or 100,000 people dying. I already listed that as an option. I asked what the third option was.
[/quote]

And if enough people voted 3rd party. 0 dying would be possible.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351727329' post='2501513']
That still results in either 90,000 or 100,000 people dying. I already listed that as an option. I asked what the third option was.
[/quote]

I already told you.

[quote]Refuse to vote. Stage a coop. Be willing to put our lives on the line to stand against intrinsic evil. Be radical examples of the truth. We talk such a big game about the martyrs, about Catholic blood running in the streets. But do we have enough guts to stand up into the line of fire? Settling for a false dichtomy between two evils makes us no better than the Lukewarm Christians of the Church of Laodicea.[/quote]

We are not required by Church teaching to be complicit in grave evil. You can't make me vote for 90,000 people to die because it's "better."

And if 90-100 thousand people are actually dying, then there's probably a genocide on our hands, and we have to consider the bigger picture, and work to overthrow the government. Thinking only in the short term only makes you complicit in creating more evil.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1351723500' post='2501448']
So, given the opportunity to vote for Stalin, or Hitler, you would look up the total number of people killed and then vote for Hitler on a clear conscience?

Yeah, this guy killed a few less people, so obviously he is the only choice. I mean, not voting is just silly, or voting for the guy who hasnt killed anyone is just unrealistic, he cant win anyways..


A silly comparison to make to obama and romney and i apologize for the Godwin'ing, but just the logical extension of the side of the argument you are on currently[size=4][font=sans-serif][color=#000000][b] [/b]vis a vis the 90,000 dead vs 100,000 dead "debate":[/color][/font][/size]
[/quote]

[color=#000080][font=Arial][size=1][size=5]The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies[/size].[/size][/font][/color]

[size=5][color=#000080][font=Arial]-Adolf Hitler[/font][/color][/size]

Maybe you should ask "If Hitler was the Republican nominee -- and he was running against Obama -- how many people would vote for him?"

[dUSt]

[quote name='Roamin_Catholic' timestamp='1351727509' post='2501517']

And if enough people voted 3rd party. 0 dying would be possible.
[/quote]
That is not a realistic option. Let's please keep this hypothetical in the realm of possibility. Still waiting to hear that third option.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351727618' post='2501520']
Thinking only in the short term only makes you complicit in creating more evil.
[/quote]
No, thinking in the short term saves 10,000 lives. Then we develop a long term strategy.

Again, you have not presented a realistic third option. We are still losing either 90,000 or 100,000 lives. Still waiting...

[Aloysius]

The third option is to not give a beaver dam whether it's 90,000 or 100,000 people dying, to step up with courage and refuse to support any such monster.

I am curious as to what the response is to the scenario of 99,999 vs. 100,000 people; would you support the 99,999 guy to save a single life?

I know it seems silly in this abstract form, but honestly the difference between Obama and Romney to me is very similar to a 99,999 killer vs a 100,000 killer.

1. Statistical trends for numbers of abortion indicate that they will continue to remain relatively steady under either administration, as they have since 2005.
2. Romney has specifically said he does not foresee any abortion related legislation being part of his agenda; his record indicates he's likely to oppose such initiatives either explicitly or implicitly.
3. Because of points 1 and 2, the issue of abortion in the choice between those 2 options is completely moot.
4. Romney has used more aggressive war-mongering language than Obama, and has shown himself much more willing to engage in wars without recourse to every diplomatic avenue than Obama, and will likely bring us into a war with Iran that could result in huge numbers of civilian casualties.
5. Romney is supportive of Obama's evil drone policies that have resulted in huge numbers of civilian casualties.
6. Romney is supportive of assassination lists wherein the President authorizes certain persons to be hunted down and killed like animals, without due process of law.

So which one of these two is going to kill less civilians? I'm honestly not sure I could venture a guess, it might as well be a difference of 99,999 to 100,000... the monstrosities are just as terrible. Limiting it by 1 or 10 or even 10,000 (based on the fictional scale I am using) is just not worth supporting one monstrous person over another.

[qfnol31]

Where does Romney stand on gay marriage? I just got something in the mail from Barack and another piece from Michelle telling me to support "gay marriage" in Maryland.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351729255' post='2501543']
The third option is to not give a beaver dam whether it's 90,000 or 100,000 people dying, to step up with courage and refuse to support any such monster. [/quote]
I disagree with your flippant disregard for 10,000 lives.

[quote]I am curious as to what the response is to the scenario of 99,999 vs. 100,000 people; would you support the 99,999 guy to save a single life?[/quote]
You are adjusting your analogy because your first one did not work, but I will play along.

Yes, that one life is worth my vote.

[quote]I know it seems silly in this abstract form, but honestly the difference between Obama and Romney to me is very similar to a 99,999 killer vs a 100,000 killer.[/quote]
OK, this shows that you have bad judgement in terms of evaluating politics and worldy affairs, but not Catholic teaching, so for that, I forgive you. You should watch more CNN or Fox News, and I feel bad that MSNBC is the only channel you apparently get at your house.

But like I said, even then, that one life is still worth my vote.

[Aloysius]

it's cute that you think that any of the mainstream news networks are reliable at all. everyone should turn off those propaganda machines and do their best to research news items in a discerning way from multiple sources. 24 hour news channels rot the mind.

and it's pretty hilarious that you think MSNBC would paint Mitt as pro-choice; I believe to MSNBC, Mitt is the evil pro-lifer out to take away a woman's right to choose. it fires up their base.

I adjusted the numbers because I was curious, I had various numbers in my first analogy, but yeah it's interesting to understand what I view to be a rather twisted decision making process.

I have not flippantly disregarded 10,000 lives; I have stood up against both monsters, and if I have lost so be it. I won't sell out 90,000 people to save 100,000 other people just because it's 10,000 less.

[qfnol31]

Okay, besides my last half-serious post, I feel the need to point out how ridiculous this argument has become. The President is not directly responsible for the number of abortions, but he can help prevent them, lower the number.

The question is misleading and would require him being directly responsible, but then we'd have to be talking about civilian casualties and that's not an easy thing to compare directly to abortion.

A better situation would be: a nasty regime is going to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Would you vote for the person who will not say anything against this regime, but might do a bit here and there to mitigate the numbers, or would you vote for someone who will speak out against the regime (limitedly) and might do a bit more here and there to mitigate the numbers. Or do you remain silent?

[dUSt]

If there were 10 people holding onto a giant helium balloon floating out to a sea of hot lava, with no chance of survival, and you had a chance to pop the balloon before it reached the lava, but they might possibly die from the fall, would you pop the balloon or do nothing?

I would pop the balloon.

The sea of hot lava is Obama.
The possible death from the fall is Romney.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351730973' post='2501571']
If there were 10 people holding onto a giant helium balloon floating out to a sea of hot lava, with no chance of survival, and you had a chance to pop the balloon before it reached the lava, but they might possibly die from the fall, would you pop the balloon or do nothing?

I would pop the balloon.

The sea of hot lava is Obama.
The possible death from the fall is Romney.
[/quote]
That's a silly argument.