Who To Vote For?

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 07:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
With the issue of abortions, the main thing issue is the election of Supreme Court justices. No, that will not suddenly end abortion, but as SC justices are elected for life, this becomes an important issue long term.
Challenges to Roe v. Wade will be brought first by individual states (as the South Dakota case). These cases will ultimately be decided by the U.S. supreme court.

How will the Bush nominees vote? That remains to be seen; let's pray for the best.
However, there is no question what kind of justices a Gore or Kerry would have elected.

Bush has also made some restrictions on the funding of abortions, which would have been supported by a Democrat president.

I'm not saying Bush is perfect on abortion, or is doing all he can do, but the election of SC justices is very important in the long-run future of the pro-life movement politically/legally.
Electing liberal Democrat presidents will ensure that abortion-on-demand with no restrictions will be enforced by our government into the indeterminate future.

There is absolutely no moral justification for a Catholic to vote for a Democratic Presidential nominee such as the last several nominees. They are truly the Party of Death.

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087871' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:13 PM']
True, but then again it's only a matter of time before power swings in a different direction again and things will head back in the other direction. It's just the way it goes with democracy it seems. No real long-term stability with one agenda in place.
Which is no small mistake considering the millions this decision puts to death.
[/quote]
True.
However, it would be foolish naivety to assume that an official under Kerry would have voted any different.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087887' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:23 PM']True.
However, it would be foolish naivety to assume that an official under Kerry would have voted any different.
[/quote]

Sure but then again, is there any evidence that a Kerry-led administration would have taken us into this mess of a war? For me there's just too much guesswork. Politicians just say whatever their party-lines want them too so they can get into office. If we could ever have someone that actually did everything he said he would do then "maybe" we'd have a different situation. But as it is, I don't think I can vote for someone not knowing what they will support. My vote for Bush in the last election is my example of this. I voted for him because all the talk was that he was pro-life etc. But then we have this craziness overseas, resulting in many many deaths. Yes, I think if given enough time, his plans for implementing pro-life policies would work. But as it is, presidents only have 4-8 years to work their magic. That's just not enough time for these slow-moving issues. Even if he does all he can as far as putting the right people on the Supreme Court and such, he doesn't have the time to do all of it. Eventually the other party will get back into power and promptly work to undo everything that was being prepared previously. So it goes in a nation where the people are so narrowly divided on their loyalties.

[XIX]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087838' date='Oct 9 2006, 07:50 PM']
I think so too. However we need to remember that it isn't necessarily one OR the other. In the case of the current administration we have the issue in Iraq AND what real progress has been made against abortion? I understand it's a legal process and there are many hoops to jump through. But many people elected Mr. Bush in order to cut down the abortions. Has that actually happened? I'm not so sure it has. And then we have the extra deaths in this very poorly conducted war added on top of that.
[/quote]
Valid point, but Bush has appointed two judges who might want to overturn Roe v. Wade. So there is progress.

But he really shot himself in the pro-life foot with the whole plan-B fiasco (allowing OTC access to anyone 18 or older).

If Kerry was in office things would be worse--the gov't would be funding stem cell research all over the place, killing millions more. The Mexico City Act would be repealed, allowing the US to fund abortions overseas. The situation in Iraq would still be bad, maybe we'd give more aid to Africa (but it would all be tied to contraception, I bet). Social Security would still be a shambles because families refuse to have more than 2.1 children. Our President would still be throwing us curveballs left and right. The partial birth abortion ban would be on its way out. Planned Parenthood and NARAL would still be endorsing liberal democrats.

And of course, we'd still have OTC Plan B pills. Only this time they'd be available to minors.

at least we might get lower gas prices.

The President is doing a really sketchy job in office, but people need to quit fooling themselves into thinking that a change would have made things better. "Had enough? Vote Democrat." Then you'll [b]really[/b] be having enough.

I'll either vote Republican or Constitution. If the R's lose my vote I at least want to make a statement as to what values they'll have to adopt to get my support back. If the Constitution Party get 1.3% and some R loses by 0.8%, you don't think that'll have an effect on future compaigns?

I'm sick of the political game. I'm not playing anymore. I'd rather just play it straight. I'd like to vote R on election day and I'd like to see them win, but I don't know if I'll do that because they usually support intrinsic evils. "Lesser of two evils" reeks of "ends justifying the means."

I'm thinking "no thanks"

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087897' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:31 PM']
Sure but then again, is there any evidence that a Kerry-led administration would have taken us into this mess of a war? For me there's just too much guesswork. Politicians just say whatever their party-lines want them too so they can get into office. If we could ever have someone that actually did everything he said he would do then "maybe" we'd have a different situation. But as it is, I don't think I can vote for someone not knowing what they will support. My vote for Bush in the last election is my example of this. I voted for him because all the talk was that he was pro-life etc. But then we have this craziness overseas, resulting in many many deaths. Yes, I think if given enough time, his plans for implementing pro-life policies would work. But as it is, presidents only have 4-8 years to work their magic. That's just not enough time for these slow-moving issues. Even if he does all he can as far as putting the right people on the Supreme Court and such, he doesn't have the time to do all of it. Eventually the other party will get back into power and promptly work to undo everything that was being prepared previously. So it goes in a nation where the people are so narrowly divided on their loyalties.
[/quote]
Kerry (who intitially supported the war) has shown no clear evidence of a plan to get us out. (And even if we pulled out, the killing would continue overseas.)

And you really can't equivicate the Iraq war with abortion.

Of course, with the Supreme Court, that is all the more reason not to allow a liberal Dem (or a "pro-choice" Republican for that matter) into office.
Yes, it's a slow, frustrating process, but simply giving up and handing over all government to godless pro-death liberals is hardly a solution to anything.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087903' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:39 PM']
Kerry (who intitially supported the war) has shown no clear evidence of a plan to get us out. (And even if we pulled out, the killing would continue overseas.) [/quote]
Yes, but who knows. Maybe he wouldn't have gone to war at all. There are indications both ways. Again comes in the guessing game.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087903' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:39 PM'] And you really can't equivicate the Iraq war with abortion. [/quote]
Of course, and I'm not (as I indicated already). I'm equating many abortions AND the war vs. many abortions vs. NO war.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1087903' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:39 PM']Of course, with the Supreme Court, that is all the more reason not to allow a liberal Dem (or a "pro-choice" Republican for that matter) into office.
Yes, it's a slow, frustrating process, but simply giving up and handing over all government to godless pro-death liberals is hardly a solution to anything. [/quote]

Until Roe V. Wade is overturned there is no real hope for abortions to decrease (even then I don't think they will, but at least they will be illegal). Note that I'm not saying that I think Roe V. Wade will never be overturned. I think there is a good chance that it will be. Plessy vs. Ferguson was in effect longer than Roe V. Wade has been. So I don't see any reason to assume that Roe will always exist as law. And no people who have the energy to do this should fight if they see it worthwhile. Maybe someday this will be turned around. But even if it is, it will only be a temporary thing. If abortions was outlawed before, and legal now, chances are it'll be outlawed again in the future and then again made legal again. It's just the nature of circulation within the government. No long-term stability.

[Norseman82]

I normally vote Republican on the moral issues.

But this year in Illinois there is no Senate contest, and the big thing is the gubernatorial contest. Aside from partial-birth abortion, and maybe a few 2nd amendment issues, there is little to distinguish between the Republican and Democrat candidates of the "bipartisan combine" , as John Kass puts it. I was considering voting for the Republican as "the lesser of two evils" because their Lt. Gov. candidate is pro-life, but when the gubernatorial candidate came out in favor of some expansion of gambling in Chicago, I knew that the major difference between the two candidates really boiled down to which one's cronies would be getting the pork.

Unless she convinces me otherwise, I'm probably going to write-in the Constitution party candidate.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087897' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:31 PM']
Sure but then again, is there any evidence that a Kerry-led administration would have taken us into this mess of a war? For me there's just too much guesswork. Politicians just say whatever their party-lines want them too so they can get into office. If we could ever have someone that actually did everything he said he would do then "maybe" we'd have a different situation. But as it is, I don't think I can vote for someone not knowing what they will support. My vote for Bush in the last election is my example of this. I voted for him because all the talk was that he was pro-life etc. But then we have this craziness overseas, resulting in many many deaths. Yes, I think if given enough time, his plans for implementing pro-life policies would work. But as it is, presidents only have 4-8 years to work their magic. That's just not enough time for these slow-moving issues. Even if he does all he can as far as putting the right people on the Supreme Court and such, he doesn't have the time to do all of it. Eventually the other party will get back into power and promptly work to undo everything that was being prepared previously. So it goes in a nation where the people are so narrowly divided on their loyalties.
[/quote]History does not support your 'dream' that war can be avoided by placating or ignoring evil that wants to impose itself on others. It was the mistake that numerous countries made. Was Napoleon super-human? Was Hitler or Idi Amin? How many deaths are the bargin for your life? What use is your life if the payment is ignoring the suffering and death of others? Are 2,000 American lives and the 50 thousand Iraqi lives lost in trying to secure the opportunity to exercise their free will a poor bargin for 48,000 Iraqis killed by an oppressive dictatorship?
People don't want to answer those types of questions so they vote for the politician that best lies to them. We're in the war for oil, to find WMD, to secure our economy, to secure the world economy. We shouldn't be in the war because of US naivite, because of negative world opinion, because the US is equally as bad.
That's why the US hasn't been in Somalia or won't do 'profiling'. It is too hard for a politician to tell believable lies that justify a few lies for freedom to exercise free will.
We have free will to sin or not to sin. It's the human right to fail.
The worst choices are to choose defeat, apathy, or unrealistic optimism and effectively do nothing.

[goldenchild17]

okay... I see nothing that relates to me at all. But I'm starting to expect that from your posts to me.

[Paladin]

Look, complain about the media all you want, but when your "interrogation technique" is the same one used by Khmer Rouge, where you simulate drowning a person to get results that are quite often inaccurate and simply the screamings of a man being tortured, it's torture. I'm not even talking Geneva here, we're talking Catechism:[quote]Torture which uses [b]physical or moral violence to extract confessions[/b], punish the guilty,[b] frighten opponents[/b], or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.[/quote] The Church calls it torture, and it is intrinsically evil. Supporting torture is as wrong as supporting abortion.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Paladin

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087949' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:19 PM']
okay... I see nothing that relates to me at all. But I'm starting to expect that from your posts to me.
[/quote]I guess it's because you are a little s l o w.
I addressed your comment if Kerry would get the US in this 'mess' of a war.
I addressed your comment about why and what politicians lie about to get elected and the type of lies regarding Iraq.
I addressed the idea of being too negative or apathetic.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1087956' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:28 PM']
Look, complain about the media all you want, but when your "interrogation technique" is the same one used by Khmer Rouge, where you simulate drowning a person to get results that are quite often inaccurate and simply the screamings of a man being tortured, it's torture. I'm not even talking Geneva here, we're talking Catechism: The Church calls it torture, and it is intrinsically evil. Supporting torture is as wrong as supporting abortion.
[/quote]
The paragraph you quote is lead in by a statement on terrorists and terrorism. No, we are not the terrorists.

Taking the text on fact value, I don't see how the water drip technique is physical torture. It's mentally challenging, but does no physical harm.

I also don't see how it's "violent". Soldiers are driven to the point in exercises where they think their legs, arms, backs, etc. are going to fall off or give out. Is that violence? No, it's mental challenge brought on by physical fatigue.

You should also quote what the Vatican says about a country's right to defend itself. Given your stand, if we had a 9/11 terrorist in our possession, and we knew he was part of a plan to take the WTC down, we would NOT be allowed to punch him in the face to get an answer. It's better to have 3,000 people die rather than put a bruise on a known terrorist?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1087968' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:46 PM']
I guess it's because you are a little s l o w. [/quote]
Maybe that is it. Then again maybe you could make yourself more clear.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1087968' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:46 PM']I addressed your comment if Kerry would get the US in this 'mess' of a war.
I addressed your comment about why and what politicians lie about to get elected and the type of lies regarding Iraq.
I addressed the idea of being too negative or apathetic. [/quote]
Not sure how you addressed any of this. But then again, I'm just slow. Don't worry about me, it's just my mental illness .

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087980' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:06 PM']
Maybe that is it. Then again maybe you could make yourself more clear.
Not sure how you addressed any of this. But then again, I'm just slow. Don't worry about me, it's just my mental illness .
[/quote]
LOL. It's not a mental illness, it's an intellectual deficiency. Illness can be cured. A deficiency requires effort and time to overcome.

But seriously. Instead of assuming someone isn't addressing your points, assume you aren't undrestanding them and mull on it.

[Winchester]

I wasn't aware support of torture was part of the Republican platform. Which chapter is that in?

Neither side is stupid. If they were, they wouldn't be in power. They are foolish, and they have unintelligent people within the party. That's not the same as the parties being stupid. They are selfish and power hungry, but not stupid.

[kamiller42]

I just saw this pop up on the news: [url="http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=B3797E54-7716-497A-A44F-C0995CBA03A2"]Sheriff makes inmates wear pink jumpsuits and slippers[/url].
[quote]Three county inmates in the jail here lay on their bunks, not saying much.

They wore pink jumpsuits and pink slippers, and one was wrapped in pink sheets. They were surrounded by pink bars and pink walls.

[b]They were not comfortable.[/b][/quote]
Torture! :