John Kerry

[Spiritual_Arsonist]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Jul 29 2004, 10:56 PM'] I cannot stand this man. i cannot stand this "America will change the world" BS. It's the Churches job to change the world and be the beacon of light not america!!! Isnt the Anti-Christ called "the Destroyer" this man was born in the army. [/quote]
You just figured this out now??? I saw video of this guy in the 70s. HAs not changed much. I am writing in Pope John Paul for president.

[Norseman82]

This is what made me sick in Kerry's speech: he made a reference that we should not be claiming God is on our side, but that we should hope that we are on God's side. I'd believe him more if he hadn't voted against the partial-birth abortion ban.


Or did he vote against it after first voting for it?

[Rocco]

My vote for president is JP 2!

Good idea!

Rocco

[Matty_boy]

The whole point of the DNC was for John Kerry to show America who he really is. It's a shame that he didn't mention anything about any of the big issues like abortion, terrorism, the economy, his 20 years in the senate. His speech lasted 55 minutes and the whole thing was about his vietnam record, three purple hearts (two of which are allegedly self-inflicted), and not-so-subtle Bush bashing in the form of "we need a president who will blah blah blah, NOT blah blah blah." Kerry did mention all the wonderful things he wanted to do with the economy and health care but he didn't say a thing about HOW he was going to do it. Also, the movie that was shown right before his speech was edited by Steven Speilberg; they superimposed bullets in the water onto the film of John Kerry in vietnam. Does anybody care about the truth anymore?

[Matty_boy]

Furthermore, the President does not have the power to say "Abortion is no longer legal." It doesn't work that way. Congress makes the laws. Roe v. Wade isn't even legal. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to MAKE laws, only interpret the laws. The Supreme Court abused their power by declaring abortion legal. In order to make a law, it would have to be introduced by a member of Congress, then voted on by the House of Representatives, then the Senate, then the President would have to sign it into law or veto it. So don't blame President Bush for abortion still being legal cause he can't do a [i]fill in the blank[/i] thing about it.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Rocco' date='Aug 2 2004, 09:10 AM'] My vote for president is JP 2!

Good idea!

Rocco [/quote]
He wouldn't be able to take the oath of office as he is not a native-born citizen.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Aug 2 2004, 12:22 PM'] Furthermore, the President does not have the power to say "Abortion is no longer legal."  It doesn't work that way.  Congress makes the laws.  Roe v. Wade isn't even legal.  The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to MAKE laws, only interpret the laws.  The Supreme Court abused their power by declaring abortion legal.  In order to make a law, it would have to be introduced by a member of Congress, then voted on by the House of Representatives, then the Senate, then the President would have to sign it into law or veto it.  So don't blame President Bush for abortion still being legal cause he can't do a [i]fill in the blank[/i] thing about it. [/quote]
If the senate stated that life begins at conception, then abortion becomes illegal.

To many cowards in the senate.

To bad no one has pointed out that there is "reasonable doubt" that the Godless person must follow... since there is reasonable doubt where life begins, no abortion can be completed without the chance of killing someone, therefore should be illegal.

Why hasn't anyone of power and influence pointed this out???? WHY?

The whole reasonable doubt thing was entered for capital punishment because it's better for a 1000 guilty men to go free than one innocent man to die, therefore abortion must be illegal on human reasoning alone.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited August 2, 2004 by ironmonk

[Rocco]

[quote]He wouldn't be able to take the oath of office as he is not a native-born citizen.[/quote]

Yes i am aware of this but he still gets my vote!

Rocco

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 31 2004, 02:46 PM']
Well, although this is a nice icing to put on the cake, its not working. Sure, lets put 1.2 million people out of work so that a 3rd world country (Who doesnt give a carp about us Americans to begin with) can make a few extra penny's a day.

Im not sure I can claim that my current status would be considered *spoiled* as you call it. I admit, things could be alot worse in my life and I thank God He's been this patient with me.

However, I dont mind helping my lesser brethren just as long as I can survive and take care of my own kids at the same time. When a company moves to Mexico and 300 people are let out of work at the same time, it destroys that town and surrounding area's. Work is even harder to find because you have 300 other people competing for that one crappy job. Sure people in Mexico are happy, but what about those 300 that lost their jobs? I am a firm believer that in order to help outside countries OUR country should be fixed first.

The only assistance is Unemployment. Did you guys know that Bush put a law out back in December that says when your Unemployment runs out you cannot renew it again? Even though you do not have a job and you've been looking? My unemployment ran out 3 weeks ago. Normally I could of just renewed it and it would of gotten me by until I found something..but NOOO, thanks to G Dub, I cant.

Did you also know that G Dub is trying to pass a law that says Companies dont have to pay you overtime anymore?

How many of us live off of Overtime pay? I tell you 80% of my town does from Delphi and Chrysler factories here in my town. Without the overtime pay there are going to be alot of hurting people.


[b]Important Note from yours truely[/b]
I am not saying I support Kerry. I just like some of his idea's. Ideas I wish Bush would take.

Im sorry, but it does make me mad when I hear bush go on TV and say that he 'Created' jobs..Bush didnt create anything, those jobs are normally crappy jobs and are no where near the jobs that the person had before.

I will not, cannot vote for Kerry. But like I said, I like his idea's and thinking on some things.

but just so I make myself clear [b]I will not, cannot, vote for Kerry. As a faithful Catholic, I cannot do that[/b]

But dang, I dont wanna vote for Bush!

God Bless everyone and have a great weekend. [/QUOTE]
Bro (not all of this post is to you),




The OT thing is a lie. I thought we already covered this on another thread?

[url="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=151"]http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=151[/url] [list]
[*]1.3 million low-paid workers who would gain the legal right to overtime,
[*] 644,000 higher-paid, white-collar workers who would lose coverage
[/list]
...many low-income workers would be gaining the right to overtime pay. Under the proposed rules any employee making less than $425 per week would be eligible for overtime benefits, [b]up from the present level of $155, a figure that hasn't been changed since 1975[/b]

The proposed rule changes are extensive, covering executive employees who can hire and fire others,
administrative employees in a "position of responsibility",
so-called "Learned Professional Employees" who have "knowledge of an advanced type,"
creative professionals,
outside sales workers and
certain computer workers such as systems analysts or software engineers.

[b] (None of these groups look very much like the blue-collar factory hand in the Moveon.org ad, by the way.)[/b]


--------------------------


Bush has helped create jobs. From tax breaks to reductions in spending, Bush has done a great job. All of his efforts to stop abortion, if he is reelected he'll have a chance to appoint good supreme court judges.

People claimed he cost jobs from clinton's screw ups. The economy was going downhill at the end of the Clinton admin. The economy is also a cycle. It has ups and downs. Clinton gave china most favored trade nation, do you have any idea how many factories moved there after that?


Don't believe the media spins, look at what Bush has to say before you start to believe the media.

The democrats are always lying about the republicans, and I'm sick of it. For instance when they were all over the news before Clinton got into office, they were saying that the Republicans would take food from the poor.... this is the biggest lie. The republican plans included providing for welfare and training the poor to support themselves... the tax breaks to corporations came when they opened businesses in the US.

Those who constantly lie are crooked. Therefore they are crooks.


Anyone who votes for Kerry is not Christian, nor knows what it means to be Christian, and is very far from Catholic.

Why do I say this?

Because of what the Pope and Bishops have said. Because I am Catholic.

[url="http://www.moraltruth.com/mtbbs/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=82"]http://www.moraltruth.com/mtbbs/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=82[/url]

From: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url]

[url="http://www.moraltruth.com/mtbbs/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=136"]http://www.moraltruth.com/mtbbs/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=136[/url]



God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
Max,

Thanks for the post bro, I dont support Kerry at all, but some of his ideas just sound good..whatever that is worth. But I believe you in what you posted.

Its easy to believe the media when it says something especially when you dont see Bush coming out and saying what he REALLY believes.

But im on limited time here, just wanted to say thanks for the post man, you set it straight.

God Bless bro, have a great day. talk to you tomorrow.


Yo Just, i wanna hear that solo song about Kerry..holla!

[Ellenita]

[quote]Mr. Kerry's views on abortions, euthanasia, homosexuality, etc., are contrary to the defined dogma of the Church; and so, if a Catholic voter, knowing this to be the case, votes for Mr. Kerry they commit a grave sin and are no longer in full communion with the Catholic Church, and they, like Mr. Kerry, should not be receiving Holy Communion until they repent of their sin and are restored to communion with God and His Church.[/quote]

Presumably the same applies to those Catholics who voted for JF Kennedy - a serial adulterer - adultery being 'contrary to the defined dogma of the church.'

Personally, if I was voting in the US elections, I wouldn't vote for Kerry, but neither do I beleive that it is right to assume that Catholics can only vote for 'right wing' political parties or candidates.


I remember what it was like living under a right wing party in the UK.....

.....though there are many who would claim that we still are!!!

[Aloysius]

i don't know what Kennedy's policy's were (perhaps i should, too lazy to look it up) on important issues, but when one votes they are voting for a person's policies and thus if someone's policies are contrary to the Church Catholic may not vote for them.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 2 2004, 04:40 PM']Presumably the same applies to those Catholics who voted for JF Kennedy - a serial adulterer - adultery being 'contrary to the defined dogma of the church.'

Personally, if I was voting in the US elections, I wouldn't vote for Kerry, but neither do I beleive that it is right to assume that Catholics can only vote for 'right wing' political parties or candidates.

I remember what it was like living under a right wing party in the UK.....

.....though there are many who would claim that we still are!!!  [/quote]
A little historical clarification is necessary. First, although there were rumors in 1960 that Mr. Kennedy had not been faithful to his wife, there was no public confirmation of this at the time. Secondly, John F. Kennedy didn't have a public policy advocating adultery, nor did the Democratic Party platform endorse adultery as an "alternate lifestyle" choice; and to be blunt, had he or the Democratic Party had such a policy in 1960, there is no way he would have been elected to any public office. In 1960 the American electorate still had a sense of right and wrong, and sadly, that appears by and large to be lacking today.

Now, had I been alive in 1960, I wouldn't have wanted to vote for Kennedy, but I wouldn't have wanted to vote for Nixon either. Clearly, my dissatisfaction with both of the candidates running at that time is not all that important, but what is important to note is that neither candidate at that time had taken political positions openly contrary to the natural moral law. So, the issues then involved would have been less pressing, because neither candidate supported abortion, euthanasia, homosexual activity, etc., and had either one endorsed such ideas at that time, they would have most assuredly lost the election.

That being said, I don't understand why you constantly mention "right wing" versus "left wing." Where in any of my posts have I mentioned these political categories? No where, and that is because I could really care less about such concepts, but what I am concerned about is the promotion of moral evil within our political system.

Finally, one of the things that concerns me about Mr. Kerry, is that he claims to be Catholic, and this claim, based on his political positions on moral issues, is to put it quite simply, a lie. I could never vote for a man who, as Isaiah said, can "call evil good and good evil, who [can] put darkness for light and light for darkness." [Isaiah 5:20] Especially when that man claims to be a faithful son of the Church.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 3, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Ellenita]

[quote]That being said, I don't understand why you constantly mention "right wing" versus "left wing." Where in any of my posts have I mentioned these political categories? [/quote]

Apologies! It may be that this a simplistic analysis of republican/democrat political categories from an outsiders view of American political parties! There has been that sort of divide between the main political parties in the UK in the past, though it's perhaps not as wide a gap under the present Labour government! The alignment between the Conservative ("right wing") party and the Republicans and the Labour ("left wing") party and the Democrats has been made on several occasions in the past by political commentaries when discussing politics in the US and UK.

That said, there are many threads here at Phatmass - often by people for whom I have the greatest respect in terms of their defense of the Catholic faith - which implicitly state that you can only be a 'true' Catholic if you vote Republican.

My point has been that there is no one political party that contains the Truth. There are faithful Catholics (and I include myself in this group!) who have political leanings that are more 'to the left' (for the want of a better phrase!) and it's distressing to see the implication that we are in some way less faithful to Catholic belief or the Church than others. I wait with great interest to see what the Bishops advise during the general election in the UK......

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 3 2004, 05:17 AM']That said, there are many threads here at Phatmass - often by people for whom I have the greatest respect in terms of their defense of the Catholic faith - which implicitly state that you can only be a 'true' Catholic if you vote Republican. [/quote]
My point all along has been that Catholics cannot vote for individuals who publicly advocate positions contrary to the moral teaching of the Church. I never vote for pro-abortion politicians, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Now, the fact that the Democratic Party has, in its own political platform, adopted positions contrary to the moral law, makes it harder to vote for a Democrat in general; but if a pro-life Democrat were running in my Congressional District against a pro-abortion Republican, I most certainly would vote for the pro-life Democrat. Sadly, my district has had the same pro-abortion Congressman for 30 years, a man who claims to be Catholic, and who used to go to the parish I attended, before I changed to the Byzantine Rite.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Aug 3 2004, 05:17 AM'] My point has been that there is no one political party that contains the Truth. There are faithful Catholics (and I include myself in this group!) who have political leanings that are more 'to the left' (for the want of a better phrase!) and it's distressing to see the implication that we are in some way less faithful to Catholic belief or the Church than others.  I wait with great interest to see what the Bishops advise during the general election in the UK...... [/quote]
Of course no one political party has a monopoly on truth, and so long as you are not voting for parties and individuals that are pressing for changes in law that will legitimize deviant sexual behavior, and the murder of the innocent through the crimes of abortion and euthanasia, along with other immoral practices, I don't think there is anything wrong with being "liberal," for lack of a better word. But it is important to familiarize yourself with the Social Doctrine of the Magisterium on the right ordering of society, because the Church does not support a view of the State that gives it extensive powers to control or micromanage people's lives in either the economic or political orders. Society and the State are not synonymous terms, and in fact society exists prior to the State, and gives rise to it. When the State usurps powers that actually belong to individuals and to society in general, it is an abuse, and in doing this, the State acts in opposition to the principle of subsidiarity.

God bless,
Todd

Edited August 3, 2004 by Apotheoun