Getting To Know Mccain

[ironmonk]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1524341' date='May 10 2008, 08:30 PM']He's not pro-life. He is still prochoice. But he is as voteable for Catholics as Bush was[/quote]

He doesn't appear to be proabortion at all my friend...

[url="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm"]http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...2028d71df58.htm[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1524243' date='May 10 2008, 06:49 PM']McCain is not fully prolife and based on the non-negotiables for Catholics we cannot vote for him.[/quote]
So I take it you are abstaining then? A vote for anybody else is a wasted vote and on a practical level that is wrong as well.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1524362' date='May 10 2008, 07:00 PM']So I take it you are abstaining then? A vote for anybody else is a wasted vote and on a practical level that is wrong as well.[/quote]

Not necessarily. The ends don't justify the means. This goes for bad actions but also good actions. So it would be bad to vote for Obama with the idea that he will introduce social programs that will result in less abortions. The intention and result (less abortions) is good, but that does not justify the immoral act of voting for Obama.

This goes for the reverse. Let's say someone votes for a third party because he believes that voting for McCain is simply supporting the Republican slide towards the pro-choice side and that such a vote will result in more abortions over a longer period of time. He understands that in a 2-party system it is likely that the Dem (and thus pro-choice) candidate is going to win. This is the end, a likely short-term spike in abortions. So he chooses to vote for someone outside the 2-party system in order to show his support for a truly pro-life candidate, which in turn (one may hope) to send the Repubs a message that their quiet slide towards the left is not to be tolerated. The result (possibly more abortions in the short-term) is a really bad end. However, the act (voting for someone you can fully support) as well as the intention (the hope to save more lives in the long-term), are both morally acceptable acts and intentions. As a result, the act of voting third party is morally justified. Whether or not such an act is logical or whether or not there is any real hope of it working is debatable. Yet it is still morally acceptable because the ends do not justify the means. What you do is what is judged, not what the outcome may or may not be (even if it be an evil one.)

[faithfulrock3r]

mccain is pro-life clinton and obama are 100% pro-choice. McCain is also not a say-whatever-it-takes-to-win candidate like Clinton, or a my-pastor-of-20-years-is-literally-insane obama.

The choice is simple.

[faithfulrock3r]

goldenchild17 -
McCain has a record of being pro-life. check it out on the link given in post #1. Thus you're entire argument that he is leading the party towards a pro-choice stance kind of falls apart.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1524366' date='May 10 2008, 09:11 PM']Not necessarily. The ends don't justify the means. This goes for bad actions but also good actions. So it would be bad to vote for Obama with the idea that he will introduce social programs that will result in less abortions. The intention and result (less abortions) is good, but that does not justify the immoral act of voting for Obama.

This goes for the reverse. Let's say someone votes for a third party because he believes that voting for McCain is simply supporting the Republican slide towards the pro-choice side and that such a vote will result in more abortions over a longer period of time. He understands that in a 2-party system it is likely that the Dem (and thus pro-choice) candidate is going to win. This is the end, a likely short-term spike in abortions. So he chooses to vote for someone outside the 2-party system in order to show his support for a truly pro-life candidate, which in turn (one may hope) to send the Repubs a message that their quiet slide towards the left is not to be tolerated. The result (possibly more abortions in the short-term) is a really bad end. However, the act (voting for someone you can fully support) as well as the intention (the hope to save more lives in the long-term), are both morally acceptable acts and intentions. As a result, the act of voting third party is morally justified. Whether or not such an act is logical or whether or not there is any real hope of it working is debatable. Yet it is still morally acceptable because the ends do not justify the means. What you do is what is judged, not what the outcome may or may not be (even if it be an evil one.)[/quote]
I can understand the logic of voting for a 3rd party pro-life candidate, I just think its stupid to waste your vote. Under no circumstances should any Catholic vote for Clinton or Obama.

[Jesus_lol]

Mcain seems pretty in line with the catholic values to me(im not catholic, so im not really sure).
whats the deal with the need for perfection?
we are talking about politicians here!
if i ever saw a perfect candidate i would be sure that he/she was lying.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1524379' date='May 10 2008, 06:26 PM']I can understand the logic of voting for a 3rd party pro-life candidate, I just think its stupid to waste your vote. Under no circumstances should any Catholic vote for Clinton or Obama.[/quote]
A person must vote according to his conscience. No vote is ever wasted.

[kujo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1524395' date='May 10 2008, 09:38 PM']A person must vote according to his conscience. No vote is ever wasted.[/quote]

Word.

A vote is our way of expressing our opinion. And, despite what the graphics on CNN will lead you to believe, we don't have a simplistic society where our opinions are color-coded. The 2-party system smells of elderberries and needs to be changed...and the only way to do that is for people like us to voice our opinion about it by not submitting to the dog and pony show that our election cycles have become. I think the wasted vote is the one that comes when we ignorantly tow the party line without thought (isn't that what the elephant of the Republican Party is supposed to mean???).

Vote Green!
Vote Purple!
Vote for whatever you like!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1524345' date='May 10 2008, 08:34 PM']
lame[/quote]


LOL... not lame at all.

He's a racist and in bed with terrorists... Bill Airs, connections to Farrakhan, and after hearing his "mentor" of twenty years, who he "couldn't disown as much as his own grandmother" speak about how offensive the word "Israel" should be... puts Wright on level with Hitler. He went to Bill Airs for Bill's blessing before he started campaigning... they live in the same neighborhood, they sit on the same board, he has called Bill a friend.... Bill Airs bombed the Pentagon in the 70's... he's not in prison because he got off on a techincallity because the FBI didn't get the recordings "legally".... Bill Airs says he wish he bombed more and killed more people... he is an unrepentent terrorist... It does not take much analysis on what these men put their time and money to in secret.

Obama is evil. Just check out [url="http://www.OnTheissues.org"]http://www.OnTheissues.org[/url]

I loathe Obama Been Lying.


God Bless!
ironmonk

Edited May 11, 2008 by ironmonk

[Alycin]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1524506' date='May 10 2008, 10:46 PM']LOL... not lame at all.

He's a racist and in bed with terrorists... Bill Airs, connections to Farrakhan, and after hearing his "mentor" of twenty years, who he "couldn't disown as much as his own grandmother" speak about how offensive the word "Israel" should be... puts Wright on level with Hitler. He went to Bill Airs for Bill's blessing before he started campaigning... they live in the same neighborhood, they sit on the same board, he has called Bill a friend.... Bill Airs bombed the Pentagon in the 70's... he's not in prison because he got off on a techincallity because the FBI didn't get the recordings "legally".... Bill Airs says he wish he bombed more and killed more people... he is an unrepentent terrorist... It does not take much analysis on what these men put their time and money to in secret.

Obama is evil. Just check out [url="http://www.OnTheissues.org"]http://www.OnTheissues.org[/url]

I loathe Obama Been Lying.
God Bless!
ironmonk[/quote]


I cannot even begin to express the pity I have for you right now.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1524379' date='May 10 2008, 07:26 PM']I can understand the logic of voting for a 3rd party pro-life candidate, I just think its stupid to waste your vote. Under no circumstances should any Catholic vote for Clinton or Obama.[/quote]

That's fine, I can understand that side of the argument too. I have no problem with someone voting for McCain if they truly believe it will do any good. Personally, I'm not one of those people and I do think it will do more harm in the long run, but voting for the lesser of two evils is a good act so the ends don't make it an immoral act. I just wanted to point out the reverse that voting for a 3rd party or indie which is a good act if it's someone you truly believe is the best overall candidate, is a good act also and does not become evil just because the result may or may not be disastrous.

[Justin86]

[quote name='kujo' post='1524405' date='May 11 2008, 10:45 AM']A vote is our way of expressing our opinion. And, despite what the graphics on CNN will lead you to believe, we don't have a simplistic society where our opinions are color-coded. The 2-party system smells of elderberries and needs to be changed...and the only way to do that is for people like us to voice our opinion about it by not submitting to the dog and pony show that our election cycles have become.[/quote]
Well, ok, but if that's what you want to do then the best way to about that would be to vote for your third party in your state and local elections. I think one very big reason why third parties are failing in America is because they aim too big to start off with. Like a third party is going to win the Presidency when they have no governers or state legislatures. Put your campaign money into something reachable so you can start small and work your way up.

[kujo]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1524861' date='May 11 2008, 01:21 PM']Well, ok, but if that's what you want to do then the best way to about that would be to vote for your third party in your state and local elections. I think one very big reason why third parties are failing in America is because they aim too big to start off with. Like a third party is going to win the Presidency when they have no governers or state legislatures. Put your campaign money into something reachable so you can start small and work your way up.[/quote]

Yeah man. I agree. First off, there's no "third party." There's a bunch of little parties that run candidates every cycle (Constitutionalist, fascists, communists, etc.). I tend to agree with the Constitutionalist party on most things because of my libertarian leanings, so that would probably be wear my vote goes here. But, overall, I think there needs to be more support for a [i]specific[/i] third or fourth party which comes from, as allude to, increased national exposure through gubernatorial and state senatorial races.

Still, despite the fact that the candidate may not end up being "electable" (I loathe that word, btw), the voter must voice his/her opinion on where the country should go.

[Justin86]

I know there's really no such thing as a "third party". The term is just used to refer to all the outcasted parties of American politics.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Justin86