Voting For Anyone Other Than Romney Is Pro-obama

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1351829822' post='2502688']
tsk tsk.
Post. I called her post dumb. Many of the people I know and associate with (most, perhaps) are going to or have cast votes for Obama, and they're - for the most part - otherwise intelligent individuals.
It is, however, an unintelligent assertion to posit that a Catholic in good standing with a properly formed conscience can vote for Obama.
[/quote]
I don't claim to disagree with your logic. You're a smart guy and we know each other well enough at this point to know that. I assume - perhaps ignorantly - that your smarts also contribute to your understanding that I can read a sideways comment with the best of them and spot a technicality resulting in my innocence from five miles out. You might be squeaking by an official warn, but we all see what you did there. (Only time will tell.)

[vee]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351829747' post='2502686']
Canada is that girl in sixth grade that still thinks boys have cooties but is still jealous of the girls who eats lunch with boys and doesn't understand why.
[/quote]


nah, more like


[img]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/1795795/2/stock-photo-1795795-couch-potato.jpg[/img]

[vee]

or this

[img]http://www.tunc.biz/couch_potato.jpg[/img]

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351829676' post='2502684']
Why does it have to be doing nothing?
[/quote]

croutons, I should have worded that differently.

I want to be a part of the government that's governing me. Not voting and not contributing my tiniest part to this country wouldn't be right. And like I said before, I'm not completely proud of the way I chose to vote. I wouldn't be if I voted any other way from the way I did.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LinaSt.Cecilia2772' timestamp='1351830315' post='2502700']

croutons, I should have worded that differently.

I want to be a part of the government that's governing me. Not voting and not contributing my tiniest part to this country wouldn't be right. And like I said before, I'm not completely proud of the way I chose to vote. I wouldn't be if I voted any other way from the way I did.
[/quote]
The way I have started to look at it, if they are supposed to govern by the consent of the people, and if I do not agree with most or all of government does right now, then the only symbolic gesture I have to withdraw my consent is to not vote.
So for me, not voting is not doing nothing. I simply do not want to play by their rules any longer.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351828651' post='2502661']

Fiiiiiiiine.

Then I guess we are this guy:
[img]http://bookchase.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/lumberjack.jpg[/img]
[/quote]my buddy used to date him. Good call for Canada. Complex.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351830468' post='2502702']
The way I have started to look at it, if they are supposed to govern by the consent of the people, and if I do not agree with most or all of government does right now, then the only symbolic gesture I have to withdraw my consent is to not vote.
So for me, not voting is not doing nothing. I simply do not want to play by their rules any longer.
[/quote]
I have been wondering recently, and your post offers me the perfect opportunity, but by this logic shouldn't Winnie not vote since by voting he effectively gives his consent to our form of government? But isn't that implied in the act of voting?

[missionseeker]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1351829274' post='2502676']

[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4]I think this is the hang-up for a lot of people: they expect a very flowery version of dUSt (except for maybe once every year or two when he makes some decision that drives people to start their own lesser version of PM (THIS IS A JOKE)) instead of a weird bald dude with a website and an opinion about the future of our nation.



dUSt addressed this directly and I think he did an excellent job of it. I'd like to say I think you made a lot of assumptions about what dUSt meant by his thread instead of reading what he actually wrote.

I know his responses are colored by Freedom's posts and by the props he's awarded her, but I don't think it's totally fair or rational to get as angry as a lot of people have gotten about his expression of his opinion in a political matter. (If anyone had stopped to talk to dUSt about how he came to his conclusion, he may have divulged that some very holy people we all respect helped him to decide the best practical route that also served a clean conscience.)

The thing that trips me up the most, I think, are the double-standards in play:
1. We have some first-class internet bullies in our phamily. I love some of them, and tolerate the others. Freedom is no more of a bully than many we tolerate or love here. She's new, sure, but no different than many others who have graced us with their presence over the years. To call foul on Freedom and demand some kind of punishment is to do the same with 1/5 of the other posters here EXCEPT that that's not really true. People want to see Freedom punished, but they let others slide. Why? I don't assume to know.

2. We have all propped or supported people who have said some pretty nasty (and often sideways) things to and about other Catholics on the site (I say, since people seem to be hung up on religion and not human dignity) WITHOUT GUILT. Why? Because we thought our logic was solid and other people were mean. Or deserved it. Or should learn to deal. I can't claim to know the motivation for every prop, but I guarantee it came off just as ugly. Not amesome, but true. I've been extremely disappointed in some of our "better" members for the props they hand out to posts that are just plain mean.

Perhaps this is a prime example of pluralistic ignorance coming to an end, but frankly, it just sounds like childish rubbish; the double-standards helped develop the situation.

3. It would seem many posters here want to preserve some level of freedom (hmm... probably should have picked a better word) to express themselves -- even if it goes against popular opinion -- and not be questioned by certain people. And in the debate table of all places! If a priest had the freedom (again with that word) to come in and make the same claims dUSt has made, would you all have thrown around the same harsh words? I doubt it. You might say the same things in private, but I should doubt any of you would have the audacity to make such ridiculous claims against a religious in public.

4. You want dUSt to accept your decision as the best without reservation but still maintain he's wrong in his and say whatever you want. It's like asking that someone relate to how you feel instead of how you act; to assume what you meant instead of what you said. The really beautiful thing about what dUSt has done here is that he's seen where he has been misunderstood and tried over and over to correct the error. USAirwaysIHS called Lina stupid. No one said anything. In fact, I think Winnie supported him. Why is no one up in arms over THAT?


I'm having trouble communicating what I'm seeing here, but suffice it to say this: it reads as really emotional. It reads as whining. It reads as complete loss of coherent, rational thought with regards to a man who goes out of his way consistently to please each and every one of you.

Perhaps we are past the place of reconciling differences, but I think a deep breath would help us recover what we can.



I know I'm not dUSt and this isn't directed at me but humor me:
How has dUSt held politics above Christ in "arguing for" a certain political candidate? You might take issue with his logic, but your accusation seems as loaded as the ones you are all bemoaning.



Seems clear to me. I still appreciate you taking the time to say what you did. My hope is people read what you wrote, not assume what you meant.



I think he does. And I think if everyone backs up and takes all the emotions and assumptions of intention out of it, his words have clearly shown that. He can debate the point as long and hard as anyone else and still understand that you've a right to your ultimate decision. In my opinion, he has not acted in any outrageous way, or done anything differently than anyone else on the phorum arguing for any party or person.



Perspective: lots of others have not.[/size][/font]
[/quote]


Ill try and respond well, but some of what you are saying is confusing me. I'm quite tired.

Firstly, I wasn't assuming or jumping to conclusions beyond logical anymore than those who say that Aloysius or Winnie are supporting (actively supporting) Obama. Also, I wasn't responding directly to the OP, but to the posts asking why people were upset. I was pointing this out (and explaining my stance, as I'm not sure I had actually debated personally with dust) and I don't think I was whining or complaining. If it came off that way, you read into it something that wasn't there.

I never said that I agreed with methods that others had used. I don't recall propping nasty posts. I don't think that is a way to gain respect or for people to be convinced of anything other than "beaver dam, [that person] is a jerk. I may have propped one, I'm human, and sometimes I do, I'll be the first to admit it.

I don't care if dust thinks mine or his decision is best. I just want to be sure that he accepts my decision as morally acceptable, and I HONESTLY up until today after this conversation with dust, had not found anywhere where he said that. And I don't think that was me misreading (although I think maybe it had been said in a thread I didn't see until later) I think that it was really not clear that the people saying voting third party is voting for Obama were not saying that voting third party was morally licit.

If you take away the assurance that these persons recognize third party/write in/non votes as morally permissible then you can see that, it wasn't assumption. It was reading exactly what had been written. (Regardless of the OP of this thread, because the post you quoted was not responding to it).

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1351829274' post='2502676']

[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4]I think this is the hang-up for a lot of people: they expect a very flowery version of dUSt (except for maybe once every year or two when he makes some decision that drives people to start their own lesser version of PM (THIS IS A JOKE)) instead of a weird bald dude with a website and an opinion about the future of our nation.



dUSt addressed this directly and I think he did an excellent job of it. I'd like to say I think you made a lot of assumptions about what dUSt meant by his thread instead of reading what he actually wrote.

I know his responses are colored by Freedom's posts and by the props he's awarded her, but I don't think it's totally fair or rational to get as angry as a lot of people have gotten about his expression of his opinion in a political matter. (If anyone had stopped to talk to dUSt about how he came to his conclusion, he may have divulged that some very holy people we all respect helped him to decide the best practical route that also served a clean conscience.)

The thing that trips me up the most, I think, are the double-standards in play:
1. We have some first-class internet bullies in our phamily. I love some of them, and tolerate the others. Freedom is no more of a bully than many we tolerate or love here. She's new, sure, but no different than many others who have graced us with their presence over the years. To call foul on Freedom and demand some kind of punishment is to do the same with 1/5 of the other posters here EXCEPT that that's not really true. People want to see Freedom punished, but they let others slide. Why? I don't assume to know.

2. We have all propped or supported people who have said some pretty nasty (and often sideways) things to and about other Catholics on the site (I say, since people seem to be hung up on religion and not human dignity) WITHOUT GUILT. Why? Because we thought our logic was solid and other people were mean. Or deserved it. Or should learn to deal. I can't claim to know the motivation for every prop, but I guarantee it came off just as ugly. Not amesome, but true. I've been extremely disappointed in some of our "better" members for the props they hand out to posts that are just plain mean.

Perhaps this is a prime example of pluralistic ignorance coming to an end, but frankly, it just sounds like childish rubbish; the double-standards helped develop the situation.

3. It would seem many posters here want to preserve some level of freedom (hmm... probably should have picked a better word) to express themselves -- even if it goes against popular opinion -- and not be questioned by certain people. And in the debate table of all places! If a priest had the freedom (again with that word) to come in and make the same claims dUSt has made, would you all have thrown around the same harsh words? I doubt it. You might say the same things in private, but I should doubt any of you would have the audacity to make such ridiculous claims against a religious in public.

4. You want dUSt to accept your decision as the best without reservation but still maintain he's wrong in his and say whatever you want. It's like asking that someone relate to how you feel instead of how you act; to assume what you meant instead of what you said. The really beautiful thing about what dUSt has done here is that he's seen where he has been misunderstood and tried over and over to correct the error. USAirwaysIHS called Lina stupid. No one said anything. In fact, I think Winnie supported him. Why is no one up in arms over THAT?


I'm having trouble communicating what I'm seeing here, but suffice it to say this: it reads as really emotional. It reads as whining. It reads as complete loss of coherent, rational thought with regards to a man who goes out of his way consistently to please each and every one of you.

Perhaps we are past the place of reconciling differences, but I think a deep breath would help us recover what we can.



I know I'm not dUSt and this isn't directed at me but humor me:
How has dUSt held politics above Christ in "arguing for" a certain political candidate? You might take issue with his logic, but your accusation seems as loaded as the ones you are all bemoaning.



Seems clear to me. I still appreciate you taking the time to say what you did. My hope is people read what you wrote, not assume what you meant.



I think he does. And I think if everyone backs up and takes all the emotions and assumptions of intention out of it, his words have clearly shown that. He can debate the point as long and hard as anyone else and still understand that you've a right to your ultimate decision. In my opinion, he has not acted in any outrageous way, or done anything differently than anyone else on the phorum arguing for any party or person.



Perspective: lots of others have not.[/size][/font]
[/quote]


Ill try and respond well, but some of what you are saying is confusing me. I'm quite tired.

Firstly, I wasn't assuming or jumping to conclusions beyond logical anymore than those who say that Aloysius or Winnie are supporting (actively supporting) Obama. Also, I wasn't responding directly to the OP, but to the posts asking why people were upset. I was pointing this out (and explaining my stance, as I'm not sure I had actually debated personally with dust) and I don't think I was whining or complaining. If it came off that way, you read into it something that wasn't there.

I never said that I agreed with methods that others had used. I don't recall propping nasty posts. I don't think that is a way to gain respect or for people to be convinced of anything other than "beaver dam, [that person] is a jerk. I may have propped one, I'm human, and sometimes I do, I'll be the first to admit it.

I don't care if dust thinks mine or his decision is best. I just want to be sure that he accepts my decision as morally acceptable, and I HONESTLY up until today after this conversation with dust, had not found anywhere where he said that. And I don't think that was me misreading (although I think maybe it had been said in a thread I didn't see until later) I think that it was really not clear that the people saying voting third party is voting for Obama were not saying that voting third party was morally licit.

If you take away the assurance that these persons recognize third party/write in/non votes as morally permissible then you can see that, it wasn't assumption. It was reading exactly what had been written. (Regardless of the OP of this thread, because the post you quoted was not responding to it).

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351830546' post='2502705']
I have been wondering recently, and your post offers me the perfect opportunity, but by this logic shouldn't Winnie not vote since by voting he effectively gives his consent to our form of government? But isn't that implied in the act of voting?
[/quote]
I do not fault anyone for coming to a different conclusion than me, nor do I necessarily think that where I am now is where I will stay. It is possible that I will, but I will not rule out coming to new conclusions as I continue studying these issues.
For me personally, that is why I stopped voting. I have no issues with people who recognize the same problems as me, and think that voting third party is the best response. Plus, I have always said that if there was a Canadian Ron Paul, I would quite possibly re-evaluate my decision. But alas, there is not.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[missionseeker]

Also, Claire DID say something when USAir said that.

[franciscanheart]

I just realized something:

The difference between Freedom and our beloved phamily bullies is this: Winnie, USPlaneGuy, NikkiO, & Co. have learned how to slant their comments in ways that protect them from editing; Freedom hasn't been around long enough to know how to do that with such skill.

We have some seriously refined, top-notch meanies around here. I say we all give them a big round of applause for their dedication to the degradation of the human person. (I wish this was sarcasm.)

Give Freedom some time and report the heck out of her; one day she'll be just another member of W. U. N. & Co. and we'll have each of you to thank for it.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351829551' post='2502683']
franciscanheart, you posted about five words and two emoticons in all of October. Were you saving up for this recent post?

It's like reading a monologue Al or I would write!
[/quote]

I love franciscan's posts a little piece of me goes yey when I see one while I'm reading a thread.h

[missionseeker]

And just so you know


[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351639004' post='2500605']
For me, it is the only moral choice. I do not understand nor wish to understand how other people form their consciences. Too much thinking. No time. Must catch up on TV shows.
[/quote]

Posts like that seriously do not help when someone is trying to engage in actual debate. I'm very interested in the ways that people come to their conclusions. I don't think it's black or white at all.

So I din't know what I can do. I don't think I was rude and if you can show where I was, I'll apologize. I didn't call anyone dumb or participate in the insults. So.. that's all I can do.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1351831218' post='2502715']
I just realized something:

The difference between Freedom and our beloved phamily bullies is this: Winnie, USPlaneGuy, NikkiO, & Co. have learned how to slant their comments in ways that protect them from editing; Freedom hasn't been around long enough to know how to do that with such skill.

We have some seriously refined, top-notch meanies around here. I say we all give them a big round of applause for their dedication to the degradation of the human person. (I wish this was sarcasm.)

Give Freedom some time and report the heck out of her; one day she'll be just another member of W. U. N. & Co. and we'll have each of you to thank for it.
[/quote]

If by "Nikki" you mean me, then I do not appreciate being called a bully.

[qfnol31]

Can we please start calling you NikkiO? That is such a great, nerdy name if you know Ecclesiastical Latin.