FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Zmirak's take on voting and pro-life
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
This is pretty interesting from Zmirak.

I received my absentee ballot, and  can't find anyone on it worthy of a vote. Most there I'd vote against, and Zmiraks covers the states with one party systems like mine. This morning I was prepared to circular file it. I can see no good coming from my vote. I mean here we have dozens of elected judges and all are Democrats, none from any other party, none. I have Luis Gutierrez or Hector Concepcion for Congressman 10th. Concepcion is a republican, but he won't say if he is pro-life or not.

Here's Zmiraks humorous take.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/john-zmir...he-ground/

tim
From the article:
Quote:How manly it feels, refusing to “compromise.” How satisfying it is to flounce away from the playground with your marbles tight in your whitening hand: “That will show them. I won’t be fooled again by the party that holds out the carrot of Roe v. Wade to make us jackasses pull the cart. I’ll write in Ron Paul. Or Pope Pius IX. Or Eamon de Valera. I won’t compromise—I’m too much of a man for that.”

His argument rests on this passage, and it is little more than an anecdotal strawman that appeals to humor and not reason. Not voting for the lesser of two evils has nothing to do with proving our "manliness." I don't have anything to prove to anyone, except God. I cannot consent to give authority to someone who I am morally certain will unjustly spill blood. That blood would then be on my hands. I will not cooperate with evil. That is how I prove my fidelity to God. I could give a damn about others' perception of my "manliness."
I am tired of compromise. I, also, don't feel a need to prove my manliness. This game is a set up from the elites, and I'm not playing.
Well RB, that's where I was at this morning when I was going to throw it out. More I wasn't posting this as a sort of guide, just a funny take. On my ballot all four for POTUS  are not a moral choice. I've mentioned the congressman and the lack of info. about pro-life. I see none here worthy of a vote not even as the lesser of two evils.

tim
(10-11-2012, 12:37 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Well RB, that's where I was at this morning when I was going to throw it out. More I wasn't posting this as a sort of guide, just a funny take. On my ballot all four for POTUS  are not a moral choice. I've mentioned the congressman and the lack of info. about pro-life. I see none here worthy of a vote not even as the lesser of two evils.

tim

I didn't really think it was your opinion, Tim, as you did preface your post by calling Zmirak's article "humorous." My criticism was directed at Zmirak.

By the way, who are the other two options on your ballot (besides R and D)? Is the Constitution party even running a candidate this year? That's who I voted for last time (Chuck Baldwin).
I have the Libertarians, Gary Johnson, and James Gray, along with the Greens Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins.

I felt like it might be possible to vote for Concepcion especially over Gutierrez, as he can get my goat really well, but Concepcion wouldn't fill out the questionaire on life issues which mans he's hiding his position. I was hoping with a name like his, he might be okay. I had a representative that peered into the data, and found I'm not married, so he took a quantum leap of logic and bombarded me with all the "good" he does for gays. After three times I wrote him back and explained that an Irish Catholic that did that for gays was in danger of losing his immortal soul. No more letters !

At this point I'm probably going to round file it. I'm tired of searching and never finding someone not horribly immoral.

tim
(10-11-2012, 01:17 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]At this point I'm probably going to round file it. I'm tired of searching and never finding someone not horribly immoral.

Tim, read this article:  http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/cathol...voting.htm

You'll feel much better about not voting!

[Image: ballot_box125.jpg]
At least here in Iowa I had a couple of solid prolifers running for the state House and Senate and, since we have judicial retention elections I had the opportunity to vote to turf the State Supreme Court Justices who foisted same-sex 'marriage' on us, plus the pro-life Senate candidate is running against the man who prevented the people from voting on it after the court ramrodded it through.

All in all, I'm glad I had the opportunity to vote in these races, but I left the presidential ballot blank.

(10-11-2012, 01:17 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]I have the Libertarians, Gary Johnson, and James Gray, along with the Greens Jill Stein and Howie Hawkins.

I felt like it might be possible to vote for Concepcion especially over Gutierrez, as he can get my goat really well, but Concepcion wouldn't fill out the questionaire on life issues which mans he's hiding his position. I was hoping with a name like his, he might be okay. I had a representative that peered into the data, and found I'm not married, so he took a quantum leap of logic and bombarded me with all the "good" he does for gays. After three times I wrote him back and explained that an Irish Catholic that did that for gays was in danger of losing his immortal soul. No more letters !

At this point I'm probably going to round file it. I'm tired of searching and never finding someone not horribly immoral.

tim

"I had a representative that peered into the data, and found I'm not married, so he took a quantum leap of logic and bombarded me with all the "good" he does for gays. After three times I wrote him back and explained that an Irish Catholic that did that for gays was in danger of losing his immortal soul. No more letters !"


OK now, I told you not to buy that pink shirt, tim.  you can't say i didn't warn you.



so . . . now they think that you're

a)  a self-hating homosexual
b)  a homosexual still in the closet
c)  a homosexual in denial about your sexuality -- no doubt due to the famous 'Catholic guilt'
d)  all of the above!

i understand why they study demographics but why do they assume 'unmarried' =  homosexual?


there's no doubt, i think, that they profile people by age as well as marital status.  it's not just 'tim isn't married, send him some pro"gay" stuff'; it's 'aha! tim is unmarried and in his mid-sixties so he's homosexual, send him the pro-gay stuff. 


so what's the sell-by date?  35?  40?  45?

how late can you wait to marry without having data-crunchers identify you as homosexual?


isn't it obvious that unmarried people can be heterosexuals who are

a)  divorced -- very popular choice
b)  widowed -- not a popular choice
c)  celibates by choice, vowed or not
d)  not intentionally celibate

there are records of a person having been divorced or widowed, but they will never find records that prove a person is not celibate by choice or by fate. 


Dear God, so much of the time  today we don't know whether to  :LOL: or  :'(  help us, O Lord, help us.