Voting For Anyone Other Than Romney Is Pro-obama

[Jesus_lol]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/LlXud.jpg[/img]

[Basilisa Marie]

Tacos are so tasty and so good for you. I literally just google-imaged "phatmass" and that picture was one of the hits. Incidentally, it also led me to a 2005 post on the Something Awful forums trying to make fun of us.

Wait! So...

Third party voters are even MORE like Christians because the WHOLE WORLD hates us!

We win.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351932360' post='2503398']

Third party voters are even MORE like Christians because the WHOLE WORLD hates us!

We win.
[/quote]I don't hate you, but I think you're wrong. I think you don't realize the effects of what you do.

It makes me sad, because you think you win, but I think in-womb persons lose. Badly.



Did some digging and went to Pew Reasearch for statistics. Approx 27% of the 131,000,000 in 2008 identified as Catholic and voted for Obama. That about 37,000,000 votes. The Democratic Party's platform is to protect Woe V Wade, pay for abortion, and protect women's right to choose abortion. They've demonstrated that with word and action.

Only either Romney or Obama will be elected in 2012. There's not enough voters for a 3rd party. 4 more years of pro-abortion party and president with the power advantage in Washington. That's what the vote is about.

It's a very close election. 10% of the Catholic vote (3,700,000 votes) can make the difference. Under which column would you put those millions of votes?

A-4 more years of giving the political power to pro-Abortion Democrats who will defend Roe v Wade, support free Abortion, support free Choice, resist Government restrictions.

B-A vote for the political party that pro-Life organizations work with, has brougt legislation to restrict Abortion, has supported abortion restrictions, has nominated "conservative" Justices.

C-Neither. You have no preference for A or B.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1351910327' post='2503292']
Feel free to completely ignore me - I feel like the lady running after the bus. I haven't been very active on Phatmass in a LONG time, as I have been very busy with my 2 year old and 5 month old (hence why, when I have been active, it's mostly been in RSH). Therefore ... I haven't been a part of ANY of the election discussions on Phatmass (I really regret that, as I've been so active about the issue IRL that I would have loved to have been a part of those discussions here), I'm certainly not "in the loop" (nor have I really ever been, to be honest) but this is an issue I feel passionately about, so I wanted to add my two cents. Most of you probably have no idea who I am, and maybe this isn't the thread for me to start rambling in, but oh well.

I agree with dUSt.

Obama is the most anti-Biblical, anti-life president in our nation's history. The facts on this matter are irrefutable and, frankly, shocking, when you see them all piled up, one after the other. This is a crisis situation, and I truly believe that. Those who know me IRL know I'm passionate about politics, but I'm not a kook about it (for example, I'm not one of those who go around stating things like, "Obama is a horrible Muslim who wants America to [i]DIE[/i]!!!") But I do believe, especially in regard to religious freedom (HHS Mandate) and abortion (as Senator, he voted against protecting babies born alive in a failed abortion) ... that it truly is a crisis our country is facing. And we can turn it around.

Therefore, I believe that it would be [i]imprudent[/i] and, frankly, [i]foolish[/i] for a Catholic, especially in a swing state, to vote for a third party candidate in this election. It's not immoral to vote for a third party candidate, not at all. It's true, you must follow what your well-formed conscience tells you to do. I'm not making a moral judgement on anyone's character or calling anyone a bad Catholic for voting for a third party candidate. However, with our current president's record, I would hope that a Catholic considering a third party vote would look at the [i]bigger picture,[/i] the [i]greater good,[/i] the (however unfortunate) [i]political reality of a 2-party system [/i]in our country, the facts of our current state under president Obama and what resources we have at our hands to turn things around ... and realize that a vote away from Romney, ESPECIALLY in a swing state,[i] [/i]is, essentially, a vote FOR Obama. And what's a vote for Obama? A vote for the slaughter of millions of precious unborn children.

I love what Gianna Jessen, abortion survivor, said on the subject:



("akin to 'Mary Poppins'" quite obviously refers to voting for a third party candidate who can't even garner 1% of the vote.)

Also, I'm not making a judgement of character on anyone, but I cannot for the life of me fathom a devout Catholic specifically voting [i]for[/i] Obama -- what he has proposed with his HHS Mandate is the biggest attack on the Catholic Church in this nation's history. I'm sure Catholics who have voted or are voting for him are good people. I'm sure they're nice and I'm sure their personalities are just a big piece of amesome. But I am seriously disappointed (to say the least) in their reasoning behind why they think it's ok to vote FOR Obama. I think it's a very bad decision.

I'm sure all of those things have been said before. I just thought I'd include them as my personal opinion, for the record.

[size=2]Now I suppose I shall retreat back into the troll mist of the internet?[/size]
[/quote]


[size=5][color=#000000][font=Calibri]Here's what Aloysius said in another thread. [/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=Calibri]"I don't think anyone should vote for Romney. I suggest a third party, a write-in, or leaving the choice for POTUS blank; anything else is a waste of your vote, making yourself as a voter a manipulated pawn in their political machines.

Here's why you shouldn't vote for him:

[b]He's not pro-life[/b][/font]

[font=Calibri]Romney has always touted himself as pro-choice and defending Roe v. Wade, until it became politically beneficial to act pro-life and be opposed to Roe. Since winning the Republican Primaries he has stated his support for abortion in the case of the "health of the mother"; though the campaign later said he misspoke, it sounds to me like he was just stating his real position--the position he has consistently held for decades. Just like Obama, he will appoint Supreme Court Justices to maintain the SCOTUS status quo. The "health of the mother" exemption allows for abortion in nearly every case, both because pregnancy is always a burden to a mother's health and because it is often stretched to include "mental health".[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times New Roman]Quote[/font][/color]

[font=Calibri][color=#000000]“No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.”[/color][/font]
[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-im-in-favor-of-legal-abortion-for-health-and-life-of-mother-rape-inc"][font=Calibri][color=#0000FF]http://www.lifesiten...mother-rape-inc[/color][/font][/url]


[color=#000000][font=Calibri][b]He's not actually in favor of conscience exemptions on contraceptives in health insurance plans[/b][/font]

[font=Calibri]When it was politically expedient in the Republican Primaries, he made clear that he would stand up for Religious Liberty in the form of conscience exemptions in the case of contraception being required to be offered through insurance programs of all employers even religious employers. Of course, Romney-care didn't include those conscience exemptions and actually forced Catholic institutions to offer contraceptive insurance. And then in the second debate he made clear: he doesn't think access to contraceptives through an insurance plan should be in any way inhibited because of an employer's personal conscience (and let's be clear: the only way an employer affects access to contraceptives is by including or excluding it on their health insurance, so he's clearly supporting disallowing employers from excluding contraceptives in health insurance)[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times New Roman]Quote[/font][/color]

[b][color=#000000]Obama: [/color][/b][font=Calibri][color=#000000]“In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception [i]through her insurance coverage.[/i]”
[b]Romney: [/b]“I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care [in their insurance plan, he's clearly saying] or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And — and the — and [i]the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.[/i]”[/color][/font]



[color=#000000][font=Calibri][b]He's not against Obama-care[/b][/font]

[font=Calibri]Romney designed Romney-care and publicly supported using it as a blueprint for a Federal level healthcare system; he only came out in opposition to it when it became politically beneficial in the Republican Primary season to oppose Obama-care. Since winning the Republican Primaries, he has already said that he would keep much of Obama-care in place, including elements that can only be kept in place within the context of the mandate. He even cites his own mandate-based plan as an example of how he has put in place the types of things he likes in Obama-care.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times New Roman]Quote[/font][/color]

[b][color=#000000]Romney: "[/color][/b][font=Calibri][color=#000000]I'm not getting rid of all of healthcare reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I'm going to put in place... one is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage [which was only made possible by making everyone have insurance; it literally cannot be done any other way]. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I say we're going to replace Obamacare. And I'm replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people"[/color][/font]
[url="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/romney-keep-parts-obamacare/2012/09/09/id/451193"][font=Calibri][color=#0000FF]http://www.newsmax.c...09/09/id/451193[/color][/font][/url]


[color=#000000][font=Calibri][b]He will lead us further towards disastrous wars[/b][/font]

[font=Calibri]He is just as war-mongering as Obama, if not MORE so. He wants to ramp up the rhetoric on war with Iran (which is, of course, the most disastrous thing we could do), he is less likely to seek peaceful solutions (as Catholic doctrine REQUIRES before war, that we exhaust all peaceful solutions), and he wants to increase an already bloated military budget.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times New Roman]Quote[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Calibri]Former Israeli Intelligence Chief: "Negotiating with Iran is perceived as a sign of beginning to forsake Israel. That is where I think the basic difference is between Romney and Obama. [b]What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war.[/b] Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said."[/font][/color]
[url="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/22/1063201/halevy-romney-destroying-iran-resolution/?mobile=nc"][font=Calibri][color=#0000FF]http://thinkprogress...tion/?mobile=nc[/color][/font][/url]


[color=#000000][font=Calibri][b]He will further discredit "conservative" economics while hurting the middle class and wrecking the economy[/b][/font]

[font=Calibri]His economic plan is both vague and disastrous for the Middle Class. He refuses to give details on what loopholes he will cut in order to pay for decreasing taxes while increasing spending (and spending will increase because he's given no details of any spending he'd like to cut). Most experts agree that the only "loopholes" he can cut are the kind that will affect the middle class (especially middle class families), and even then the math doesn't really quite add up, but based on the only details he's provided, a Romney administration will not be beneficial for middle class tax brackets while wealthy taxes are decreased. I'm all for having all tax burdens decrease, but you have to actually cut spending (both defense and entitlement) to make that happen, and you should NOT have middle class and lower income families forced to pay higher taxes.[/font][/color]
[url="http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-plan-return-rate-rich-cuts-brookings-policy-center-2012-8"][font=Calibri][color=#0000FF]http://www.businessi...y-center-2012-8[/color][/font][/url]
[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/24/even-mitt-romney-admits-hell-need-to-raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class/"][font=Calibri][color=#0000FF]http://www.washingto...e-middle-class/[/color][/font][/url]

[color=#000000][font=Calibri]I know some of you will dismiss some of what this says as "liberal" propaganda, especially the criticism of Romney's vague economic plan (he keeps it so vague you can dismiss criticism of it easily, that's probably it's biggest problem); and indeed much of these facts are jumped upon and exploited by Obama's voter-pawns as much as Romney's voter-pawns jump on things about Obama, but it is all so very consistent with Mitt Romney's record that you would be fools to dismiss it. The rule in politics should be to listen both to what a candidate says and to compare it with his record; when the things he says are consonant with his record, you should tend to believe him; when they are not, you should see how consistently he's saying his changed position; and when he clearly isn't being consistent and he's not going to the mat the defend the position (ie "pro-life" Mitt) and he's going in the direction of his old positions every chance he can, there's a good chance the position reflected by his record is the one that's real.

What does this all leave? In what way is Romney better than Obama? I don't see a single thing; certainly not enough of an iota of hope that would make me throw my vote away on the man.

What say you?"[/font][/color]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/124758-dont-vote-for-romney/"][color=#0000FF]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/124758-dont-vote-for-romney/[/color][/url] [/size]

Edited November 3, 2012 by tinytherese

[Anomaly]

I don't see a single thing; certainly not enough of an iota of hope that would make me throw my vote away on the man.


What about the difference of giving political power to the person and party that has stated their goals to ensure abortion is a legal, free, and unrestricted right and have successfully acted to achieve their goals which has enabled the killing of millions of people in the womb?

I se at least an iota difference between may and will.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Anomaly

[BG45]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351914725' post='2503331']
according to U.S. Flag Code, the flag is not to be worn as clothing. Not even Jesus.
[/quote]

We should totally tell politicians on both sides of the aisle.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351945149' post='2503417']
I don't hate you, but I think you're wrong. I think you don't realize the effects of what you do.

It makes me sad, because you think you win, but I think in-womb persons lose. Badly.
[/quote]


...clearly I still don't understand how to convey a bad joke on phatmass.

[Freedom]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351911554' post='2503301']
Yeah, that is rather crass.
[/quote]

Yes, it's for real, love God right under your country. If you guys don't like Jesus, it's your problem not mine, live with it.

[Jesus_lol]

And you talk about other people not being christian enough. Pathetic.

[Freedom]

America is a Christian Country no matter what Obama thinks. It was built under Christian Foundation.

[Freedom]

I meant Judeo Christian.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351970582' post='2503530']
America is a Christian Country no matter what Obama thinks. It was built under Christian Foundation.
[/quote]
It was built under the foundation?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Freedom' timestamp='1351970363' post='2503528']
Yes, it's for real, love God right under your country. If you guys don't like Jesus, it's your problem not mine, live with it.
[/quote]
Do you really mean to love God "right under" your country? So, country first, God second?? I don't think that's what you mean.

[Freedom]

God first, your country, 2nd Amendment and everything else.

[Freedom]

Built under the Judeo-Christian foundation.