Presidential Candidates '08

[pyranima]

Good Catholics cant be democrats... Democrats are Pro-Death. I vote to we get rid of Democrats and Republicans. Oligarchy, though i prefer Kingship.

communism and Nazism have alot in common. the Homosexual handbooks are The Communist Manifesto(have read) And Mein Kamph(have read). What??? i read what people tell me not to... so i was rebelious i have also read The Satanic Bible (What i was really rebelious? Did you know that Lavey Satanism is Atheist?) which believes homosexuality is alright. Liberals are pro-death and pro-homosexual its kind of a requirement to be a democrat.

i dislike democrats because they dont use logic only emotion.

[JP2Iloveyou]

"Its true that Democrats are by a slight majority pro-choice, however they are pro-life on many other issues and their abortion stance is changing rapidly. Many prominant pro-life Democrats hold office or are running. The minority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid is pro-life, as is Senator Ben Nelson. In the house, many representatives from my own state of PA are pro-life Democrats such as John Murtha and Mike Doyle. More are running for office too. In PA, Bob Casey a pro-life Democrat and devout Catholic is running for the senate seat. It is estimated that as many as 47% of Democrats are now pro-life. For more info check out www.democratsforlife.org."

The Democratic Party in the United States, as a party, not necessarily individual members, is certainly pro-death. There is no question about it. I do not say this as a hard core Republican either. I am a conservative and quite frankly I´ve had it with the Republicans so called "conservative" leadership. However, it is stated policy of the democratic party to support abortion (a woman´s right to choose as they like to term it), gay marriage, human cloning, and unlimited stem cell research. To suggest that Harry Reid is pro-life is not looking at the facts. Harry Reid opposed partial birth abortion, just like 70% of Americans, roughly. That does not make him pro-life. In fact, if you look at his voting record, he typically has about a 70% favorability rating with UnPlanned Parenthood and a 30% favorability rating with National Right to Life. This is not the definition of someone who is pro-life. Senator Santorum, on the other hand, typically has a 100% approval rating from National Right to Life and a 0% approval rating from UnPlanned Parenthood.

Ben Nelson is pro-life. Great. That one voice in the entire poplace of democratic senators should drown out the voices of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Harkin, Johnsonville brat Durbin, Jack Reed, Barack Obama, Carl Levin, Russ Feingold, Herb Kohl, Thomas Carper, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer... ( I could keep going if you´d like). As for you web address, would that be the same Democrats for Life that the National Democratic Party removed from their website? I wholeheartedly admit that the Republicans are far from perfect on life issues, but in a two-party system, they are far, far, FAR better than the Democrats. To assert otherwise is not being honest.

[pyranima]

Democarats are still pro-death what about contraceptives? they are still a form of abortion and still against the Church.

[zwergel88]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1018402' date='Jul 6 2006, 12:57 PM']
i dont need to be reminded of anything or check my facts.. But big deal there is a tiny splinter group of pro-life democrats, but will they ever make it into office? Many Liberal democrats are acting like atheistic communists, as for Nazi's, there are Nazi's in the democratic party.

Liberalism has been condemned by the Church, I really dont care how many "pope quotes" ya'll take out of context either. Especially modern quotes. Its quite obvious how the liberal democrats are furthering the Culture of Death. Even as they are claiming they are caring for the poor.

oh yeah and Ann Coulter is cool.
[/quote]


You ask if pro-life Democrats will ever make it into office, when I named you like four of them. There are in fact thousands of pro-life Democrats who hold office all over the country. The pro-life democratic movement is a very important part of the Democratic party and is growing every day.

Also, no offense but both you and Socrates need to get a better grip on political philosophy. Nazis are on the extremely far right of politics and communists are on the left. They are opposites. A communist cannot be a Nazi.

Ann Coulter is a total nutcase.

[jswranch]

I would like to see Johnsonville brat Cheney run. Too bad he has poor health, though I am not sure where he stands on the pro-life issue.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='DAF' post='1018017' date='Jul 5 2006, 10:19 PM']
Do you guys think Wesley Clark is thinking about running for president again? He's been making alot of appearences on news programs, and it seems like he wants people to see him with opinions.

Who do you guys think will run for president in '08, and who do you want to win?

Yo soy Condita!
[/quote]

i hope not (to wesley clark)

[stbernardLT]

Abortion is the greatest evil. These babies cannot defend themselves. They can't run or hide. Anyone who votes for any candidate or party that supports this is committing a gave error, and producing scandal among the church. I think there are many other issues that should be taken into consideration, but this should always be the most important.


If some of you haven't noticed, the Democratic Party supports everything that is anti-family and anti- religion. How can a good catholic vote against limitations on there own religion, and vote for attacks against the sacredness of the family.

Republicans are far from perfect, but have more positives than negatives.

[Era Might]

[quote]Anyone who votes for any candidate or party that supports this is committing a gave error, and producing scandal among the church.[/quote]
[quote]Republicans are far from perfect, but have more positives than negatives.[/quote]
Well, which is it gonna be? George Bush and Condoleeza Rice both support abortion. Is it "a grave error" to vote for them, or do we turn a blind eye because they "have more positive than negatives"?

If we can turn a blind eye to Republicans, then it's not necessarily a "scandal" to vote for "any candidate or party that supports" abortion, including Democrats. If you're gonna take the hard line, basically suggesting that Catholics are forbidden from voting for a Democrat, then you have to be consistent and refuse to vote Republican for the same reason. If you're gonna recognize that you have to vote for someone imperfect, then you are free to choose and advocate who you see as the best candidate; but don't infringe on other people's freedom to balance various goods and proportional issues as a citizen.

Part of responsible citizenship is voting for a VIABLE candidate, so I personally wouldn't recommend voting third-party.

Edited July 7, 2006 by Era Might

[stbernardLT]

You can go ahead and vote for someone who supports abortion, but I refuse to. This is just my opinion. I wouldn't vote for any individual who supports it including Bush or Rice. I first look at the party then at the individual if neither suit my expectations I will not vote for them.

[Era Might]

Ok, that's what I was trying to clarify. If you refuse to vote across the line, regardless of party, because of abortion, then I respect that. I disagree, but I respect it for being consistent.

[JP2Iloveyou]

Remember what Cardinal Arinze wrote. A Catholic may vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil for a proportionate reason. I would argue that there is nothing, short of someone advocating starting a nuclear war, that is proportional to the atrocity of abortion over the last 30 years. Given that we live in a two-party system and the only viable candidates for President are either Republicans or Democrats, it is certainly conceivable to have to vote for someone who supports one of the five non-negotiables in order to prevent a greater evil. I think that this is the case with President Bush. For example, he allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. However, he has also made his opposition to abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother clear. This is far from perfect. However, the alternative, John Kerry and before him Al Gore, had mae clear their support for abortion in all cases. The Archbishop of Atlanta wrote a wonderful pastoral letter on this topic which can be found at www.ewtn.com.

Here`s the address for Archbishop Donohue`s letter.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM[/url]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' post='1019401' date='Jul 7 2006, 03:21 PM'] Remember what Cardinal Arinze wrote. A Catholic may vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil for a proportionate reason. I would argue that there is nothing, short of someone advocating starting a nuclear war, that is proportional to the atrocity of abortion over the last 30 years. Given that we live in a two-party system and the only viable candidates for President are either Republicans or Democrats, it is certainly conceivable to have to vote for someone who supports one of the five non-negotiables in order to prevent a greater evil. I think that this is the case with President Bush. For example, he allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. However, he has also made his opposition to abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother clear. This is far from perfect. However, the alternative, John Kerry and before him Al Gore, had mae clear their support for abortion in all cases. The Archbishop of Atlanta wrote a wonderful pastoral letter on this topic which can be found at www.ewtn.com.

Here`s the address for Archbishop Donohue`s letter.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM[/url] [/quote]This is a very sensible and appropriate view to have when it comes to elections. I hold to the same ideas posted here.



Many Catholics vote as if most/all of the Catholics in this country follow/will follow the teachings of the Church, but unfortunately this is not the case.

[MonkeyTape]

New here, saying hello.

I personally think that on the Democratic side Hillary will loose the nomination and take a VP position running with Biden, I was thinking maybe Edwards but he rubbed too many the wrong way and in the end is far too inexperienced, Wes Clark, maybe Bill Richardson.

With a woman as VP nominee for Dems then the Republicans will need Condoleeza Rice as a VP nominee, then we have Frist, Santorum, or McCain - though I wonder how many times you can loose a nomination and still be considered a serious candidate.

My two cents.

Sean

[Fulton Sheen Warrior]

+JMJ+

I'd back Santorum.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' post='1019401' date='Jul 7 2006, 02:21 PM']
Remember what Cardinal Arinze wrote. A Catholic may vote for someone who supports an intrinsic evil for a proportionate reason. I would argue that there is nothing, short of someone advocating starting a nuclear war, that is proportional to the atrocity of abortion over the last 30 years. Given that we live in a two-party system and the only viable candidates for President are either Republicans or Democrats, it is certainly conceivable to have to vote for someone who supports one of the five non-negotiables in order to prevent a greater evil. I think that this is the case with President Bush. For example, he allowed federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. However, he has also made his opposition to abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother clear. This is far from perfect. However, the alternative, John Kerry and before him Al Gore, had mae clear their support for abortion in all cases. The Archbishop of Atlanta wrote a wonderful pastoral letter on this topic which can be found at www.ewtn.com.

Here`s the address for Archbishop Donohue`s letter.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/CONSVOTE.HTM[/url]
[/quote]
Agreed.

While Bush does leave something to be desired, he has at least made some good steps with the abortion issue - nominated pro-life Supreme Court candidates, and supports limits on abortion, and is against spending federal money for abortion overseas.
Kerry (and other Democratic candidates) would have only nominated judges who would support abortion on demand, and oppose any and all restrictions to abortion, as well as support funding of abortions with your tax dollars.

In today's political situation, abortion will have to be fought incrementally. Nominating of judges is critical to this process.
And I don't think a Catholic can, in good conscience, support a candidate, who will do all in his/her power to actively support and perpetuate abortion, and oppose any restrictions on it whatsoever.

This said, if the Republicans run a "pro-choice" candidate in '08, I may vote Constitution Party.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Socrates