Voting For Anyone Other Than Romney Is Pro-obama

[vee]

here come the lumberjack jokes...

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351828262' post='2502652']
Honest question: if you are not proud of it, why? Why not refuse to be party to such a disgusting system?
[/quote]

Honestly I wouldn't be proud with any vote I would make with any party. All parties have significant faults.

[vee]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351828575' post='2502658']
I could say other stuff.


No need to take it personally.
[/quote]

[Lil Red]

[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]
No judgements here.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LinaSt.Cecilia2772' timestamp='1351828748' post='2502663']

Honestly I wouldn't be proud with any vote I would make with any party. All parties have significant faults.
[/quote]
Why vote, if you cannot be proud of any of your choices?

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1351823638' post='2502536']

I officially apologize to Freedom for giving it the Dumbest Post of the Day award before the day ended.
[/quote]
[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1351824967' post='2502567']
He called the post dumb. You're the poster. He didn't call the poster dumb.
[/quote]
[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1351828363' post='2502654']
Please report where someone called you dumb because I can't find it. Sarcasm is like a staple in some people's diet here and it can't be warned for anyway.
[/quote]

I might be overreacting, but to me with the way it's phrased and responded to is calling me dumb. But then again, you're right about the sarcasm and I could be taking it the wrong way.

[franciscanheart]

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)][quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351781337' post='2502024']
No, I wouldn't say he's abusing his position. Maybe I'm just used to him being the great and powerful mysterious webmaster who only deigns to come down and interact with us plebeians when there's something important to say.
[/quote]
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.


[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351783105' post='2502039']
dUSt, the title of this thread is saying that voting for anyone except Romney is voting FOR someone who is contrary to all of the things that Catholics hold important when considering a vote, the moral choices, and the ones that have political consequences that will be contrary to the teachings of the church.

I live in Alabama. There are three democrats on the entire ballot. Including Barack Obama. People who used to run as democrats have switched to Republican - partly because they think the Democrats have crossed the moral line. Partly because in Alabama, if you run as a democrat, you are unlikely to win. The only candidate that Alabama democrats seriously think is viable is for the Chief Justice and they're not even running him based on his merits. they're running him because his opponent is a federally indicted criminal and cooky. Last time he was in office he cost the state millions of dollars. There have been several politicians who were unwilling to change their party affiliation and moved out of state to run in more blue leaning states. In Alabama, a vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul will in no way help Obama win this election. Alabama is red. Even Auburn fans bleed red during the elections.

What I have done is to evaluate my choices based on the previous [i]actions [/i]of the candidates. Often, I was running the line of Princess Bride through my head while reading - "We are men of action. Lies do not become us" Looking at the actions of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan since 1996 (well, not Ryan, obviously, but as far back as his record goes), I cannot in good conscience vote for him. His past actions include everything from voting for big government (and in Romney's case enforcing it through his gubernatorial mandates) to signing laws that increase abortions tax dollars and support war crimes. I cannot vote for a person based on what they say will do. I've never met a politician (and I used to hang out at the state capitol and chill with them) who did what they said they would 100% of the time no matter what the party was.

Knowing that Alabama is going to Romney anyway and knowing that Romney's actions don't mesh with the words coming out of his mouth (and Ryan said [though i don't remember the quote exactly] that he occasionally has to vote against his principles so that later he can vote for them (Whaaa????)) I can in good conscience vote for someone who is not Romney. And who sure as heck isn't Obama.

I understand that not everyone will make that same judgement call. I respect the people who disagree with mine. But you're saying that I'm voting pro- Obama (hence, pro- anti-Catholicism, and others have taken that even further and said hence going to Hell) and that's not only insulting to me as a Catholic who voted by conscience, but as a person who spent MONTHS informing myself and weighing my options.
[/quote]
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.


[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1351791768' post='2502070']
Something tells me that the devil is laughing his butt off at the division here right now.

dUSt, please don't alienate your phamily by holding politics above Christ on this site. Adrestia's right -- you've gone way too far.
[/quote]
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.


[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351793340' post='2502088']
Remember, the first line of my post after the title was this, "t[color=#282828][font=Open Sans]his is not a moral or theological statement".[/font][/color]

[font=Open Sans', sans-serif][color=#282828]In other words, I am not addressing the moral implications of any of this. That is what your consciences are for. I attempted to approach this from a logical standpoint rather than a moral one. Anyone who jumped to the conclusion of me condemning their morality did that one their own. I've repeatedly said many times in several threads that I do not think it is immoral to withhold your vote or vote third party.[/color][/font]

[color=#282828][font=Open Sans]My arguments on this matter or not trying to convince you of the morality of how to vote, but rather, the practicality and strategy for accomplishing goals.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=Open Sans]I've repeated this over and over, yet, am still being attacked by people who claim I am somehow condemning their conscience or judging their faith.[/font][/color]
[/quote]
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.


[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1351797751' post='2502123']
You formed your conscience to lead you to what you believed was the best, most moral choice in a very difficult situation.

Those that will be voting third party have done the same thing.

We're all acting with the same intention here, dUSt. We all want to make the best decision we can to honor God and protect life. We may disagree on what that decision should be, but at the end of the day, we all have the same goal in mind.

Please try to see that.
[/quote]
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.


[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1351798273' post='2502126']
I already voted.
[/quote]
Perspective: lots of others have not.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[LinaSt.Cecilia2772]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351828794' post='2502667']
Why vote, if you cannot be proud of any of your choices?
[/quote]

Because not voting is doing nothing. I can't just stand by and do nothing about some of the serious issues of this country especially when I have a voice to do it. I know a lot of people who are in the same position as I am.

[qfnol31]

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!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='LinaSt.Cecilia2772' timestamp='1351829401' post='2502678']

Because not voting is doing nothing. I can't just stand by and do nothing about some of the serious issues of this country especially when I have a voice to do it. I know a lot of people who are in the same position as I am.
[/quote]

Why does it have to be doing nothing?

[Jaime]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1351829274' post='2502676']
[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]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.[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]


[mod]Personal attack --franciscanheart[/mod]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1351828142' post='2502647']

America is like the dumb jock that sneaks out at night to go to make-out point with the cheerleaders to get drunk and fool around in the back seat of their cars.
[/quote]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.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='franciscanheart' timestamp='1351829274' post='2502676'][color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]USAirwaysIHS called Lina stupid. No one said anything. In fact, I think Winnie supported him. Why is no one up in arms over THAT?[/background][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]
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.

Edited November 2, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[qfnol31]

[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 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]
You weren't here eight years ago when Kerry was all the rage on here.

By that I mean about 10 people were really cheering for him, but yeah. It's a pretty common thing for people to do.

[Nihil Obstat]

[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]

I can handle this, I guess.