Democrats - From someone's blog

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 20 2005, 06:43 PM'][b]Ironmonk[/b], I lean towards the Right-Wing of the political spectrum, but your assumptions were uncalled for.  hot stuff, Cam, and Carrie are [b]devout, orthodox Catholics[/b], and all you can do is put them into the same stereotype as ignorant, cafeteria Catholics?

There are many Catholics who are ignorant of the faith, and/or vote for Democratic canidates because of such, but this doesn't apply to everyone.  [b]You know[/b] there are exceptions, [b]you know[/b] not everyone is the same, [b]you know[/b] that just because someone prefers to remain in the Democratic party and try to change it for the better (instead of destroying it), doesn't mean they're not a devout, orthodox, Catholic.

The [b]Democrats For Life[/b] organization is a noble effort to turn the party around, instead of abandoning it and leaving it to the wolves.
[b]Note:[/b] I do not endorse Catholics voting for pro-abortion canidates of anykind, either Democrat or Republican.  As long as those in the Democrats For Life organization are keeping this in mind, it's just prime with me.
[right][snapback]651548[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


You've been on the board long enough to know my response as I have said before....

It's common knowledge that generalities do not fit every case. Common knowledge does not need to be repeated, and I think that those who have a hard time thinking that deeply about and get all up and arms about it will one day learn that basic principle of things that go on in the society. That being said, I know there are those who are devout Catholics that are registered democrat, and if you noticed I wrote....

"[i]insists on voting democrat [/i][u][b]and [/b][/u][i]being a part of that party[/i]"

This says that someone who votes democrat purely because the politician is a democrat AND being a reg. democrat fits one of the four statements.
If someone is Catholic and strictly votes a straight party line ignoring the issue has a great deal to learn about the Catholic Faith... The exact same thing can be said about someone who is republican.

If they don't vote dem just because someone's a dem, then they don't fit the profile I described.

It will be nice when one day people can give a little thought into what exactly that they are reading.


Some people here seem like they just like to be in a huff, and I have to admit, it does make for good entertainment and keeps the board a bit lively. It just gets so boring around here without the mustbenothings and circle masters.


Ta ta & God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 21, 2005 by ironmonk

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:42 PM']I don't recall writing that a Catholic must be republican, if I wrote such a thing, please show me. Don't show me your assumptions that lack a reasonable amount of thought.
Dear God,
Thank you for the high IQ, and I ask that you grace me with patience in dialoging with those that have been blessed with big hearts and little brains.
Amen.
God Bless
ironmonk
[right][snapback]651820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='Ironmonk']Catholics come out of the evil and join the people's party so you can vote in primaries and we can get good Catholics in office... Republican.[/quote]

What is the implication?

[quote name='Ironmonk']As I have stated before... anyone who is a Catholic and insists on voting democrat and being a part of that party fits one or more of the following.....

1.) knows little about our faith
2.) is a fake Catholic
3.) has been dooped by lies
4.) does not possess a high enough intelligence to realize how the modern democrat party agenda is crooked and incompatible with Catholicism

The proof of the above statements will be obvious to anyone who has an average IQ, knows the Catechism, the Scriptures, and the democrat agenda.[/quote]

What is the implication?

While you may not have written it outright, you most certainly implied it. All subtleties aside, we all know what you are attempting to do. Don't flip on this now (Well, actually, do). We are not stupid, we know what your intentions are, even if you think yourself coy enough to not write it outright.

So, you are saying that it is ok to be a Democrat and a Catholic then? I am correct in that statement.

I can say,

[b]Ironmonk thinks that a Catholic can be and should be a Democrat if his political leanings and moral conscience leads him to be as such.[/b]

That is a perfectly acceptable statement of your position then, correct?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ironmonk']It will be nice when one day people can give a little thought into what exactly that they are reading.[/quote]

It most certainly will.....and the veiling can come off anytime.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ironmonk']There is no logical reason for a Catholic to be a democrat in today's times.[/quote]

One more implication for posterity's sake. No implication there either......Go on, be a Democrat, using that war cry, I dare you.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 04:33 PM']Hey Ironmonk......

How do you reconcile this?

[quote name='USCCB; Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility']A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of "right" or "left," nor tthe platforms of any party. Our values are often not "politically correct." Believers are called to be a community of conscience within the larger society and to test public life by the values of Scripture and the principles of Catholic social teaching. Our responsibility is to measure all candidates, policies, parties, and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person?whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good.[/quote]

That would be from your link. So, being "right" is what we are supposed to do?
[right][snapback]651365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Still waiting on this one.....based upon your earlier statements....it is from your link after all.......

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 05:33 PM']Hey Ironmonk......

How do you reconcile this?

[quote name='USCCB; Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility']A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of "right" or "left," nor tthe platforms of any party. Our values are often not "politically correct." Believers are called to be a community of conscience within the larger society and to test public life by the values of Scripture and the principles of Catholic social teaching. Our responsibility is to measure all candidates, policies, parties, and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person?whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good.[/quote]

That would be from your link. So, being "right" is what we are supposed to do?
[right][snapback]651365[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



Someone doesn't pay very good attention to the details.

The issue between today's dems and reps is not right and left, it is right and wrong.

[b]Ecclesiastes 10:2 [/b]The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left.


If you want to imply things to my writing, you will be wrong. The implication is in your head. Pay attention to detail, and give some effort in thought to what you read. If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't imply things, I write what I mean. I am to the point.

When looking at everything I wrote on this thread, you'll also see that I wrote that the reason why I am a rep is so to be able to vote in the primaries... hmmm.... if you want to play the implication card then that would imply that I don't believe that someone has to be republican. hmmm... a little thought and attention to detail would get you a long way. Granted, at times I miss a detail here and there, but as I have posted many times on this board to many different people to pay attention.

Please note the term that I used... "Logically"

[u][b]logical: [/b][/u]
adj 1: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; "a logical mind" [ant: illogical]
2: in accordance with reason or logic; "a logical conclusion" [syn: legitimate]
3: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly presentation" [syn: consistent, ordered, orderly]
4: based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year"
5: capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and consistent manner; "a lucid thinker"; "she was more coherent than she had been just after the accident" [syn: coherent, lucid]



I cannot fathom any logical reason why any Catholic, who knows the faith, would vote the democratic party line. Unless they met one of the four points I listed. Especially after reading the Catholic Bishops call to Catholic voting responsibility.

If there are logical reasons, please show me.

Show me with references to Scripture and the Catechism.

Then, you will have changed my opinion and we both win because I learn the truth and you helped me learn it.

BUT.... if you CAN'T show me and only find that you are wrong, then change for the Truth... and we both win because you learn the truth and I helped you learn the truth.

Now, I'm talking democratic party national agenda.... I'm not talking about some mayor who is pro-life. I'm talking about national level agenda. I don't mean fluff speach either... not the "We want a stronger america" garbage... I want the how and what, not a general statement that is meaningless of the stance held by the person speaking.... when you see someone say something like that please find out the "How".....

Dem Pol: "I want to make america stronger"
Me: "How do you plan to do that"
Dem Pol: "By fixing what is wrong with it"
Me: "What do you think is wrong and how do you plan on fixing it"
Dem Pol: "Making sure women will not loose their right to kill their unborn children and getting rid of all the rich people (except for me of course) by making everyone poor and then we all will be equal. Except that I'm better than you because I want to give your money to those people who do not want to work"

[url="http://www.democrats.org/"]http://www.democrats.org/[/url]


Keep in mind, there is nothing greater in regards to proportionate reasoning in todays time than abortion. That is the number one issue according to the Church... EVERYTHING else is secondary.


In regard to the dems version of the welfare state and Catholic teaching.... please note the bold.

[b]2 Thess. 3:10
In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat. [/b]


[quote]Efforts to provide for the basic financial needs of poor families and children must enhance their lives and [u][b]protect their dignity[/b][/u]. The measure of welfare reform should be reducing [u][b]poverty and dependency[/b][/u], not cutting resources and programs. We seek approaches that both promote greater responsibility and offer concrete steps to help families leave poverty behind. Welfare reform has focused on providing work and training, mostly in low-wage jobs. Other forms of support are necessary, including tax credits, health care, child care, and safe, affordable housing. Because we believe that families need help with the costs of raising children, we support increasing child tax credits and making them fully refundable. These credits allow families of modest means with children to keep more of what they earn and help lift low-income families out of poverty.

We welcome efforts to recognize and support the work of faith-based groups not as a substitute for, but as a partner with, government efforts

[url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html"]http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/b...pStatement.html[/url][/quote]

See, I remember as a child when Carter was in office I had friends who wanted to grow up to be on welfare like their mom and grandparents... making more money than that would working for minimum wage and not having to do anything. See, I lived in the poor part of town growing up... I saw this stuff first hand.... When I worked at Publix (a grocery store) I would see people come in my line (I was a cashier) decked out in gold, a mink coat, and drive away in a jaguar.... which nothing is wrong with that expect she paid for her food in foodstamps. Point being, what the dems want and what currently is in place is not reducing dependancy. Most people want to take the easy way out, the poor do need help, but the lazy should not receive any. As the Apostles taught, those who don't want to work should not eat. Note that the key term here is "unwilling", if someone wants to work and cannot find a job, then they should receive help... I am speaking of those who flat out don't want to work.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited July 21, 2005 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote]So, you are saying that it is ok to be a Democrat and a Catholic then?  I am correct in that statement. 

I can say, 

[b]Ironmonk thinks that a Catholic can be and should be a Democrat if his political leanings and moral conscience leads him to be as such.[/b]

That is a perfectly acceptable statement of your position then, correct?[/quote]

As long as the person is not voting for a dem simply because they are a dem and not voting for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life one.

I have a hard time trusting any dem politician that is on a local level and claims to be pro-life because almost every dem that has moved into the national arena has changed to anti-life.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 20 2005, 10:43 PM'][quote name='Cam42']That would be from your link.  So, being "right" is what we are supposed to do?
[right][snapback]651365[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Someone doesn't pay very good attention to the details.

The issue between today's dems and reps is not right and left, it is right and wrong.

[b]Ecclesiastes 10:2 [/b]The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's understanding turns him to his left.
If you want to imply things to my writing, you will be wrong. The implication is in your head. Pay attention to detail, and give some effort in thought to what you read. If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't imply things, I write what I mean. I am to the point.

When looking at everything I wrote on this thread, you'll also see that I wrote that the reason why I am a rep is so to be able to vote in the primaries... hmmm.... if you want to play the implication card then that would imply that I don't believe that someone has to be republican. hmmm... a little thought and attention to detail would get you a long way. Granted, at times I miss a detail here and there, but as I have posted many times on this board to many different people to pay attention.

Also, you should learn the meaning of "Logically"

[u][b]logical: [/b][/u]
adj 1: capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning; "a logical mind" [ant: illogical]
2: in accordance with reason or logic; "a logical conclusion" [syn: legitimate]
3: marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts; "a logical argument"; "the orderly presentation" [syn: consistent, ordered, orderly]
4: based on known statements or events or conditions; "rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year"
5: capable of thinking and expressing yourself in a clear and consistent manner; "a lucid thinker"; "she was more coherent than she had been just after the accident" [syn: coherent, lucid]
I cannot fathom any logical reason why any Catholic, who knows the faith, would vote the democratic party line. Unless they met one of the four points I listed. Especially after reading the Catholic Bishops call to Catholic voting responsibility.

If there are logical reasons, please show me.

Show me with references to Scripture and the Catechism.

Then, you will have changed my opinion and we both win because I learn the truth and you helped me learn it.

BUT.... if you CAN'T show me and only find that you are wrong, then change for the Truth... and we both win because you learn the truth and I helped you learn the truth.

Now, I'm talking democratic party national agenda.... I'm not talking about some mayor who is pro-life. I'm talking about national level agenda. I don't mean fluff speach either... not the "We want a stronger america" garbage... I want the how and what, not a general statement that is meaningless of the stance held by the person speaking.... when you see someone say something like that please find out the "How".....

Dem Pol: "I want to make america stronger"
Me: "How do you plan to do that"
Dem Pol: "By fixing what is wrong with it"
Me: "What do you think is wrong and how do you plan on fixing it"
Dem Pol: "Making sure women will not loose their right to kill their unborn children and getting rid of all the rich people (except for me of course) by making everyone poor and then we all will be equal. Except that I'm better than you because I want to give your money to those people who do not want to work"

[url="http://www.democrats.org/"]http://www.democrats.org/[/url]
Keep in mind, there is nothing greater in regards to proportionate reasoning in todays time than abortion. That is the number one issue according to the Church... EVERYTHING else is secondary.
In regard to the dems version of the welfare state and Catholic teaching.... please note the bold.

[b]2 Thess. 3:10
In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat. [/b]
See, I remember as a child when Carter was in office I had friends who wanted to grow up to be on welfare like their mom and grandparents... making more money than that would working for minimum wage and not having to do anything. See, I lived in the poor part of town growing up... I saw this stuff first hand.... When I worked at Publix (a grocery store) I would see people come in my line (I was a cashier) decked out in gold, a mink coat, and drive away in a jaguar.... which nothing is wrong with that expect she paid for her food in foodstamps. Point being, what the dems want and what currently is in place is not reducing dependancy. Most people want to take the easy way out, the poor do need help, but the lazy should not receive any. As the Apostles taught, those who don't want to work should not eat. Note that the key term here is "unwilling", if someone wants to work and cannot find a job, then they should receive help... I am speaking of those who flat out don't want to work.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]651887[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

May God bless the humble of heart.......Gee whiz.....

Incidentally, I pay very close attention to the details. I know exactly what you are insinuating.....and it is most certainly not subtle. As I have stated, I am a Republican, I embrace those things Republican, but I also understand that my view is not the only view.

I also understand that to be a Catholic American is different from an American Catholic. I am Catholic first, Republican second. The same would apply to one who is a Democrat.

However, to assume that one is somehow less, because he chooses to accept and condone those things in which he believes is not being patrotic nor is it being Christian.

I agree that one must choose the pro-life position, from that you will get no argument from me. That is a bi-partisan train of thought. However, there are issues that one can accept in the Democratic party line and will not affect the Catholicity of a person.

You, on the otherhand assume, incorrectly, that the whole of the party hinges on the pro-life movement. That is most certainly not the case. I would assert that the same problem exists in the Republican party.....must I say Rudy Guiliani? Must I say Nancy Reagan? Must I say Kay Bailey-Hutchison?

If you are going to demonize the Democrats over one issue, then you have lost already. Yes, the pro-life issue is large and the pro-life issue is paramount, but it is not the end of the party.

You say,
[quote name='Ironmonk']The party has become anti-Catholic in nature. Catholics come out of the evil and join the people's party so you can vote in primaries and we can get good Catholics in office... Republican[/quote]

Flawed thinking. No amount of inflammatory language toward my person will change that.

You can't think of one good bi-partisan issue?
[quote name='Ironmonk']I cannot think of one good thing about the dem party's agenda. It seems that it is simply based on the opposite of what the reps want.[/quote]
How about this one?

[url="http://ccjr.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=20880"]Bi-Partisan Legislation to Protect the Innocent from Wrongful Convictions[/url]

There are more. You just refuse to see the forest for the trees. Don't live and die by Rush Limbaugh (one of my hero's by the way), Sean Hannity, and Alan Colmes.....they are partisan as a career.

Not all are so polarized. Not even Geo. W. Bush.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 20 2005, 10:48 PM']As long as the person is not voting for a dem simply because they are a dem and not voting for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life one.

I have a hard time trusting any dem politician that is on a local level and claims to be pro-life because almost every dem that has moved into the national arena has changed to anti-life.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]651891[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And what about those Republicans who vote the party line? Are you condemning them too?

Would you vote for:
Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
Senator Susan Collins of Maine
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska
Senator John Warner of Virginia

Are you going to quit the Party now that Jo Ann Davidson is co-chair? She's ardently pro-choice you know.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 21 2005, 12:09 AM']And what about those Republicans who vote the party line?  Are you condemning them too?
[right][snapback]651914[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'm not condemning anyone.

I'm saying the action is wrong.

The Church is very clear that it is wrong to vote any party line, our votes should be guided by issues not which party we are registered with.

I did write that the same could be said about republicans above somewhere.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Paladin D]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:53 PM']someone who votes democrat purely because the politician is a democrat AND being a reg. democrat fits one of the four statements.
If someone is Catholic and strictly votes a straight party line ignoring the issue has a great deal to learn about the Catholic Faith... The exact same thing can be said about someone who is republican.

If they don't vote dem just because someone's a dem, then they don't fit the profile I described.[right][snapback]651833[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I apologize for missing that detail.

However, as Cam said, the Democratic party at times comes up with good ideas, just not as much in my opinion.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:14 PM']The Church is very clear that it is wrong to vote any party line, our votes should be guided by issues not which party we are registered with.
[right][snapback]651923[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I certainly agree with you on this, and no doubt many others on Phatmass would also.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:06 PM']
You, on the otherhand assume, incorrectly, that the whole of the party hinges on the pro-life movement.  That is most certainly not the case.  I would assert that the same problem exists in the Republican party.....must I say Rudy Guiliani?  Must I say Nancy Reagan?  Must I say Kay Bailey-Hutchison?[/quote]


Don't forget Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ironmonk']The Church is very clear that it is wrong to vote any party line, our votes should be guided by issues not which party we are registered with.[/quote]

or

[quote name='Ironmonk']The rep agenda needs a little work, but it is more in line with Catholic teaching by leaps and bounds compared to the dems party.[/quote]

and

[quote name='Ironmonk']There is no logical reason for a Catholic to be a democrat in today's times. It is foolish to remain loyal to a party simply because of the party. The agenda should dictate what party to belong to.[/quote]

and

[quote name='Ironmonk']The Church is where I get my opinions, your attempts at twisting the teachings are sad and show anyone that has read the guide from the US Conf. of Bishops that you have no clue what you are talking about.[/quote]

Well.....isn't that a bit contradictory?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Jul 20 2005, 11:19 PM']
[quote name='Cam42 @ Jul 20 2005' date=' 11:06 PM']You, on the otherhand assume, incorrectly, that the whole of the party hinges on the pro-life movement.  That is most certainly not the case.  I would assert that the same problem exists in the Republican party.....must I say Rudy Guiliani?  Must I say Nancy Reagan?  Must I say Kay Bailey-Hutchison?[/quote]

Don't forget Arnold Schwarzenegger.
[right][snapback]651929[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I just realized that I misspoke.....it should not be Kay Bailey-Hutchison, but rather Christie Todd Whitman....too many three name, names out there.....mea culpa.