Bush Is Not Pro-life...

[qfnol31]

All the more reason for us to believe that they will vote for Kerry, which would then make it really pointless for us to vote for a third party, because the Catholics aren't behind us.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:18 AM'] All the more reason for us to believe that they will vote for Kerry, which would then make it really pointless for us to vote for a third party, because the Catholics aren't behind us. [/quote]
Remaining a lukewarm moderate doesn't promote better Catholicism. This sounds almost like giving up the cause. That last post was meant to be really idealistic. It's my obligation to vote with the Church and that's what I'm going to do, and you can either join the bandwagon or join someone elses. I dunno positively who yet though.

Edited August 6, 2004 by M.SIGGA

[qfnol31]

We're not here to promote Catholicism as much as saving the souls of those aborted, first priority of the Church.

Edited August 6, 2004 by qfnol31

[Good Friday]

[quote name='dUSt']War is not intrinsically evil because there are cases where a war can be just.[/quote]
Yes, but an unjust war is evil because of its injustice. Thus, the question is not whether or not war is intrinsically evil (it isn't), the question is whether or not [b]this war was unjust[/b]. If it was, it was evil, and whether or not it was [b]intrinsically[/b] evil is a matter of semantics. Evil is evil.

And by the way, if all the Catholics in this country voted for a third party candidate, there would be a substantial chance of victory for him, not to mention that it would wake up both of the major parties to the fact that Catholics aren't going to compromise their principles for them anymore. But it is the very Catholics who refuse to vote third party because a third party can't win who make it impossible for a third party candidate to win. Ironic, isn't it, that the people who say a third party candidate can't win are the people who prevent third party candidates from winning? If everyone who said that voted third party, a third party candidate would win. Something to think about.

I, however, will not be voting for anyone for President. My conscience prevents me from voting for either of the major candidates, and my conscience raises grave concerns about helping either candidate by voting for a third party candidate. So I just won't vote for anyone. I will, however, be voting straight Republican for state and congressional positions, except in situations where there are pro-life Democrats.

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:27 AM'] We're not here to promote Catholicism as much as saving the souls of those aborted, first priority of the Church. [/quote]
I am. As a former Democrat you should be rejoicing that John Kerry does not have my vote. This is my first priority.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:30 AM']Yes, but an unjust war is evil because of its injustice.  Thus, the question is not whether or not war is intrinsically evil (it isn't), the question is whether or not [b]this war was unjust[/b].  If it was, it was evil, and whether or not it was [b]intrinsically[/b] evil is a matter of semantics.  Evil is evil.[/quote]
It's not necessarily an unjust war. And it is an evil of less concern than abortion by far because we are taking great care not to harm innocents (yes, I know it has happened, but we are making sure it doesn't happen again).

And intrinsically evil is not a matter of semantics. It means that something may be evil in one case, but not another. It is a teaching held by the Church that not all evil actions are intrinsically evil.

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:30 AM']And by the way, if all the Catholics in this country voted for a third party candidate, there would be a substantial chance of victory for him, not to mention that it would wake up both of the major parties to the fact that Catholics aren't going to compromise their principles for them anymore.  But it is the very Catholics who refuse to vote third party because a third party can't win who make it impossible for a third party candidate to win.  Ironic, isn't it, that the people who say a third party candidate can't win are the people who prevent third party candidates from winning?  If everyone who said that voted third party, a third party candidate would win.  Something to think about.[/quote]

Yeah, but realistically I don't think that will happen.

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:30 AM']I, however, will not be voting for anyone for President.  My conscience prevents me from voting for either of the major candidates, and my conscience raises grave concerns about helping either candidate by voting for a third party candidate.  So I just won't vote for anyone.  I will, however, be voting straight Republican for state and congressional positions, except in situations where there are pro-life Democrats.[/quote]

Well, if your conscience says not to, then it would be wrong for you to do so.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:30 AM'] I am. As a former Democrat you should be rejoicing that John Kerry does not have my vote. This is my first priority. [/quote]
Wouldn't the best way to promote Catholicism be through the salvation of more souls?

[M.SIGGA]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:37 AM'] Wouldn't the best way to promote Catholicism be through the salvation of more souls? [/quote]
how is myself, voting for a prolife candidate instead of a prodeath candidate, whose party I formerly supported, in a 60% red state, have to do with not wanting to save more souls?

[qfnol31]

I live in Texas, and am concerned that the vote here could go either way.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:10 AM'] Okay, let's use some common sense here.

Anybody who votes for a candidate who has no chance of being elected is doing the equivalent of not voting. Period.

Seriously, what is the point? Someone please explain the reasoning behind it. What positives will come out of voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning? Why not just stay home? It will have the same effect as the exercise in futility you partake in by voting for someone who has no chance of being elected. [/quote]
This is exactly what I was saying earlier, but got told that I was "not called to politics".

[Sammy Blaze]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 5 2004, 10:10 PM'] I thought he was talking about abortion too. [/quote]
i was talking about abortion

[MorphRC]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Aug 6 2004, 04:40 PM'] Okay, let's use some common sense here.

Anybody who votes for a candidate who has no chance of being elected is doing the equivalent of not voting. Period.

Seriously, what is the point? Someone please explain the reasoning behind it. What positives will come out of voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning? Why not just stay home? It will have the same effect as the exercise in futility you partake in by voting for someone who has no chance of being elected. [/quote]
[quote]Anybody who votes for a candidate who has no chance of being elected is doing the equivalent of not voting. Period. [/quote]

Well the whole point of elections and the democratic system is to give that chance. Also what if the only options youve got are between two parties[major] that both do not met the requirements or your wants, you vote for one of them, or do you vote for a independent that would, or could represent your needs?

[quote]What positives will come out of voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning? [/quote]

The Major parties wont have so much of a 'hugging' and therefore would have to discuss and debate with other parties, unless you'd like some party to be able to pass any laws they like with a majority!?

[Anna]

I'm dashing out the door to work, and haven't the time to read all these wonderful posts, though, JMJTina, I did see yours while scrolling down. Bravo!

I'm a member of my state's Right to Life political party. Most states don't even have a Right to Life party. Our party will only endorse 100% pro-life candidates. The guidelines are pretty dern rigid. Not sure if they've endorsed Bush yet or not...

But, may I just say that as a protestant, he's not got the fullness of Truth ~ yet, he is as close to the Truth about the Sacredness of Human Life that we are going to get in this election.

And his opponent, John Kerry, who should know, and has even been pressured by the Church which does possess the fullness of Truth, has rejected that Truth for the sake of garnering support from the pro-abort Democrat party, which has given him the opportunity to run for President of the United States. His voting record is also a reflection of his strong pro-abortion advocacy, as are his past speeches.

There simply is NO COMPARISON. To vote for John Kerry, is to advocate for the deliberate, tax-funded murder of innocent unborn children. (Innocent children may killed in a tax-funded war, but they are not the deliberate targets. In abortion, the child IS THE TARGET FOR DESTRUCTION.)
[b]
Can any of you live with that on your conscience??????!!!!!!![/b]

[MorphRC]

[quote]But, may I just say that as a protestant, he's not got the fullness of Truth ~ yet, he is as close to the Truth about the Sacredness of Human Life that we are going to get in this election.[/quote]

Imo thats not a valid excuse for supporting abortion. Why? There are no excuses.

[AnomilE]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 5 2004, 04:39 PM'] You are not sinning by voting for a third party. The point is if you do vote for that third party (which in the past few elections I can remember, has not won) then Bush loses a vote that may put him one ahead of Kerry.

Bush is not the greatest guy in the world. He has flaws just like everyone else. However, his past term, he has done pro-life actions. He has proved that. [/quote]
That a political move, not a moral one.