Azriel Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 Its no secret that I don't like how the man has run the country...that doesn't mean I hate 'em. Actually, I think he'd be fun to hang out with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akalyte Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 [quote name='SailahÃna' post='966159' date='Apr 30 2006, 04:40 PM'] I don't think Bush is evil or dumb,[b] I think he is a great president [/b] (I'm not afraid to say it) and doing a good job leading this country in such hard times. I don't think any president has handled as much chaos as Bush has. Imagine putting yourself in his shoes... And Bush is pro-life, he doesn't have the power to make it stop just like that. I honestly think abortion will never end but that is another topic... Bush is not perfect and you may disagree with some of the things he does but if you followed the Catholic teachings you would vote for him and not Kerry. Who knows what our country would like like if he was our president And I'm am not anti-war, sure I don't like war but if we didn't have war things wouldn't be the way they are today, for example if we didn't have a civil war, blacks might not have ever been free...do you understand me? lol, I have a hard time explaining things. [/quote] you make perfect sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Seriously as a Catholic board, we have to agree on one fact. If someone supports three exceptions for abortion, they are pro choice. We can politely disagree (or in some cases not so politely) on how Bush is running the country, but going by the Church's definition, we have to be in agreement on the fact that he cannot be considered prolife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 [quote name='goldenchild17' post='964595' date='Apr 28 2006, 08:57 PM'] ugh, I hate democracy. [/quote] I do too... democracy always goes to the lowest common denominator. That's why I'm glad I live in a republic. It's just a shame that people who know nothing about the issues can vote for someone that they know nothing about. God Bless, ironmonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironmonk Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 [quote name='hot stuff' post='966258' date='Apr 30 2006, 07:47 PM'] Seriously as a Catholic board, we have to agree on one fact. If someone supports three exceptions for abortion, they are pro choice. We can politely disagree (or in some cases not so politely) on how Bush is running the country, but going by the Church's definition, we have to be in agreement on the fact that he cannot be considered prolife [/quote] wrong. He is pro-life. He has done more for the pro-life movement than any other president. In many prots eyes incest and rape are valid reasons... which are still wrong but they cannot be counted pro-choice because of it. If Bush had his way 99.999% of abortions would not happen. His way is better than any crooked democrat at the national level would have it. It appears that you try to twist truths and twist reason to justify not voting for him (that is if you didn't vote for him). If you voted for Kerry, then you know very little about the faith. It appears you try to get him labled as pro-choice so you can say "both people are pro-choice"... which is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarf Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 This is not the first time you've applied the logic "Y is closer to X than Z, so Y is Z". You can't call Bush pro-life just because he baits both sides of the issue while Kerry was honest about being pro-choice. If you really wanted to, you could call Bush's inconsistency as being a "lesser evil", but for that to be accurate you'd have to wait a few decades to see what exactly his legacy is going to be. My guess is that his legacy will go something like "the man who got elected by the pro-lifers, did not make abortion illegal, and left a path of destruction in every other sphere." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 A Kerry presidency would have ensured a pro-abortion majority in the SCOTUS into the indefinite future. That is a fact that should never be overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 [quote name='ironmonk' post='966343' date='Apr 30 2006, 08:38 PM'] wrong. He is pro-life. He has done more for the pro-life movement than any other president. In many prots eyes incest and rape are valid reasons... which are still wrong but they cannot be counted pro-choice because of it. If Bush had his way 99.999% of abortions would not happen. His way is better than any crooked democrat at the national level would have it. It appears that you try to twist truths and twist reason to justify not voting for him (that is if you didn't vote for him). If you voted for Kerry, then you know very little about the faith. It appears you try to get him labled as pro-choice so you can say "both people are pro-choice"... which is wrong. [/quote] Ironmonk if you define Bush as prolife, you do not understand the Church's definition. There is no grey area. None. Supporting 1% of abortion is still pro choice. Since he is on record for supporting exceptions allowing abortions, you have no alternative but to call him prochoice. To state anything to the contrary is twisting the truth. And for the record, I voted prolife in the last election. As opposed to two pro choice candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SailahÃna Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 George W. Bush on Abortion: Build a culture of life. (Feb 2005) Partial birth abortion is a brutal practice to be banned. (Oct 2004) Not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion. (Oct 2004) First president to fund embryonic stem cell research. (Oct 2004) Kerry voted no on partial-birth abortion ban. (Oct 2004) Must make a place for the unborn child. (Sep 2004) Kerry's abortion stance shows the wrong priorities. (Jul 2004) Supports adult stem-cell research but limits on embryos. (Jun 2003) No funds to international groups that offer abortion. (Jan 2001) Accepts FDA approval of RU-486 but concerned about overuse. (Oct 2000) Ban partial-birth abortions, and reduce abortions overall. (Oct 2000) Approval of RU-486 is wrong. (Sep 2000) Good people can disagree; but let’s value life. (Aug 2000) Every child born and unborn ought to be protected. (Jun 2000) Welcome all children; supports adoption tax credits. (Apr 2000) Supports GOP abortion plank but disagrees on exceptions. (Feb 2000) No Republican will allow partial-birth abortion. (Feb 2000) Ideal: Value every life; but many steps to get there. (Jun 1999) Supports Parental Notification Law for minor girls. (Jun 1999) Ban partial-birth; ban taxpayer funding. (Mar 1999) Encourage fewer abortions via adoption & abstinence. (Jul 1998) Taken from: [url="http://issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm#Headlines"]http://issues2000.org/George_W__Bush.htm#Headlines[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Bush on abortion [quote]"The state legislature of South Dakota has just passed a new law which allows abortion in case of threat to the mother's life, but denies it to all ages in cases of rape and incest, said the reporter. He then asked, "Does the President believe that rape and incest victims should be denied the right to an abortion?" McLellan responded saying, "the President has made very clear that he is pro-life with three exceptions." While McLellan did not state those exceptions they are widely assumed to be rape, incest and the life of the mother.[/quote] There is no grey area. If you believe in allowances, you are prochoice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Catholics rarely surprise me anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 [quote name='jasJis' post='966446' date='Apr 30 2006, 10:19 PM'] Catholics rarely surprise me anymore. [/quote] It surprises me when Catholics ignore what the Church teaches on prolife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 (edited) It doesn't surprise me when Catholics ignore what the Church teaches about civility, charity, and politeness, but do what the Church does, not say. I've learned that Catholic means the people who are Universally Right. I'm cool with that. That's why this 'hatred for Bush' thread lasted long and was of more interest than the thread about the problems in Iran that are looming and why it took George Clooney to motivate people about Sudan. Do Pentecostal have Canon Lawyers? I think Scientologists have lawyers. They must be a real religion too. Edited May 1, 2006 by jasJis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salveregina Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Okay, look to the number of posts I've made...and realize I'm new and therefore still have my feelers out to get an idea of what people around this place are like. My conclusion from this post: Snarky Cruel Will use ad hominem arguments quite liberally And quite uncharitable! Now, I know that's not true, and it's one of those "never talk religion or politics" things, but come on now, guys, when we're discussing things in a religious setting such as Phatmass, perhaps it might be the Christian thing to speak to one another as if we're temples of the Holy Spirit. Because we are. That said, I realize most people rely heavily upon common news media for their source of what President Bush does, and that's just great...but we have to remember that each news station has it's own agenda (be that Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, somewhere in between because they hate the alternatives (the "Purple Party")...) and because of this, we can't take really anything we read as Gospel truth. Not that any of us would. But for anyone who's been in a leadership position, you know that this position is a very painful position at times, because everything you say/do is found out. You say something stupid, Jay Leno is cracking jokes on it. You do something stupid, it's on SNL. Fill in the blanks. You're in a fishbowl. Imagine your life like that, and if you think you're perfect...I laugh. Leadership can be dreadful at times, especially when they drudge up things you did/said years ago, and use it as something you said/did yesterday. Matthew Kelly speaks of how we cannot judge people based on opinion, because our opinions change often. If our opinions change often, we have to be willing to take what people say/do with a grain of salt, preserving their personal integrity, and hoping to lead them to the truth, rather than stepping on them because of that misconception. Back to Bush, I think he's a great president. I've heard him speak in person, and I find him to be a man who genuinely cares. I find him to be a faithful man, who loves his wife dearly. He loves his daughters dearly, as well. And although he may not be Catholic, he's a Christian man who has appointed Catholic pro-lifers to the Supreme Court. He's also used Catholic phrases, like "Gospel of life", which I find pretty sweet. I think he's a good man. John Kerry's a swindler who happened to marry rich (twice), commit sacreliges, encourage things contrary to Catholic teaching, and is a generally not-so-good person (his campaign tactics were cheap). I won't waste further cyber-breath on him. In response to the pro-life issue - as this is a democracy and not a dictatorship, he cannot just march into the Oval Office, rewrite everything, and march out 4 (or 8) years later with everything the way we and he would like to see it. If you don't understand that, take a course in 8th grade government. And to responsd to the war issue: read Augustine's just war, and read what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about war in the Summa. I just wrote a paper for my "War and Pacifism" class defending the war based on Catholic thought, and my liberal Democratic professor gave me an A. We can have that chat all day long, if you'd like. The thing that really gets me is how little respect we're showing our soldiers when we criticize the war so harshly. These men and women are literally putting their lives on the line for us, and what have we to show them? We march because of the cost of the war, when we should be considering what it might cost (in non-financial terms) to be living in a country that is a dictatorship, with little to no rights, where killing civilians in the streets is commonplace, where people turn up missing with no explanation from the government, etc. There are horrible things happening in other countries, my friends. If our biggest complaint is that the war is costing too much money, we really ought to be counting our blessings. I guess my whole point in this is that we really ought to put ourselves in the positions of others before judging what they're thinking when they say/do things... And if you think you can do it better...let's see your name on that ballot in this coming election. P.S. Gandhi wasn't really all he's cracked up to be either. Look him up. He was quite cold and absent to his wife and children and closest friends because he was always off starting up revolutions and whatnot. That doesn't sit well with me...I don't know about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted May 1, 2006 Share Posted May 1, 2006 Salveregina I'm glad you're sticking around. And yes things get snarky sometimes. However a few points I'd like to address Criticizing the war does not translate into criticizing the soldiers. I have family and friends who have served and are currently serving. Any criticisms I have of the war, they respect and they know it bears nothing on them. As far as your paper, I congratulate you on your A. I've read Aquinas and Augustine as well. And there is no justification for first strike in their writings or in Just War theory. The Holy Father spoke about this before he took the chair of Peter. In regards to your statements about Bush and Prolife. He has put two prolife justices on the bench and I applaud him for that. But by his own statements, he is not prolife. He is prochoice. He does not support the the new law in South Dakota banning all abortions. He has said repeatedly that he is for exceptions to the abortion ban. This is not a prolife stance. If we're going back to eigth grade civics, take this example into consideration. Would a politician be considered a civil rights politician if he was for civil rights for everyone but people of Samoan descent? No. He would be considered prejudice. The things that are true and reported by all media sources are Bush believes in three exceptions to an abortion ban Bush modified the ban on torture to allow executive priviledge to override the ban in cases of National Security Then Cardinal Ratzinger expressed criticism to a first strike doctrine stating that it was not morally just. No we are not going to have a perfect president. However, we have to call things as they are. And these facts are against Catholic teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts