Voting as a Catholic is CONFUSING!
#21
These are wicked times beset by a diabolical disorientation.  The smoke of Satan has entered even into the Church herself.

Yeah, that about sums it up.
Reply
#22
(10-11-2012, 10:42 PM)GottmitunsAlex Wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt...d=17442587

Catholics should not vote for either of the two.

This man is a Catholic?

Quote:"I'm proud of my record," Ryan said. "Mitt Romney is going to be president and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction."
Reply
#23
I am so confused and heart broken. I really do not understand how people can still follow Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. Especially now with instant access to information. No wonder why Obama and other political powers want the internet regulated.
Reply
#24
(10-11-2012, 10:49 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
Paul Ryan Wrote:"I'm proud of my record," Ryan said. "Mitt Romney is going to be president and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction."

He repeated this - paraphrased - tonight in the debate. It is weak. It would be better for him to say openly that he disagrees with Romney on this issue. But, it's not wrong. Because,

(1) Never has he said that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape or incest, or in any case whatsoever. He says that that would be his running mate's policy, and that it is better than nothing. So he passes the orthodoxy test.

(2) Whether Romney supports the rape-and-incest exception matters very little because there will not be a chance to criminalize abortion in the next four years.

(3) Compromise, when you are the one fighting for change, is a smart thing. Take Don't Ask Don't Tell: a compromise in 1993, a triumph in 2011 for the homosexual activists. And, 99 babies murdered is an advance over 100 babies murdered (and the drop would be more significant), jarring as that sounds.


(10-11-2012, 08:45 PM)Thomas58 Wrote: This economy is a mixed economy; half Socialist, half Capitalist. The trend is not towards more freedom, the trend is towards always more and more government control and intervention into people's lives.

Well, a functioning capitalist economy requires government intervention. The textbook example is antitrust law -  monopolies are a distortion of the market and they must be broken up.

The capitalism / socialism binary doesn't seem quite right.
Reply
#25
(10-11-2012, 11:29 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: I am so confused and heart broken. I really do not understand how people can still follow Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. Especially now with instant access to information. No wonder why Obama and other political powers want the internet regulated.

As an aside, I think everyone who has some reason to consider political, historical and social matters ought to read it. It's absolutely essential.

Reply
#26
The Prince is definitely an essential read. It still applies today. "Sure, tell them you're religious if they're religious...tell them you agree with it all, but don't hesitate to crush anyone and everyone that opposes you or costs you wealth!". The Prince is pretty short, so it's not very difficult to get through.
Reply
#27
(10-11-2012, 10:32 PM)MorganHiver Wrote: Well, if one votes Romney, just to slow down the train, don't you think that it will be a long, drawn out, agonizing explosion, hitting small towns, one by one until it finally reaches everyone? I do know that I will never be republican, and obviously I can not be democrat, as the views of the current party is in total opposition to my religious views.

If you let the train go on as it is it will go faster and faster,  the explosions will be more agonizing, the towns will be big cities, and many more pedestrians will be hit along the way, even before the crowd is reached.  If the train is slowed, fewer overall people will be killed, and there will be more hope for the future that the train may slow further and avoid the final devastation.

You can help the men who are trying just a little to slow down the train, or you can say on fisheaters "they aren't trying enough; I condemn their lack of trying, and not being Catholic" and just let the train go full speed ahead.

I don't see voting as always being an approval of someone who holds my religious views.  I see it as sometimes a practical selection of the least-evil man of those with a chance to fill a position that is most certainly going to be filled.  Someone is going to be the train engineer; one of two men.  Can we just stand by and watch?

You can't choose evil, not even a lesser evil.  But when you vote for a political candidate who is evil you don't chose the evil in him at all, but the help he can give you in fighting worse evil.

Reply
#28
What's more evil? Abortion or allowing those suffering to continue to suffer and eventually die?
Reply
#29
(10-12-2012, 02:57 AM)MorganHiver Wrote: What's more evil? Abortion or allowing those suffering to continue to suffer and eventually die?

I don't believe Obama is going to save anyone with his "healthcare" bill.  Quite the opposite.  There will only be more uninsured and unemployed -- some companies are already saying they will have to let people go if Obama wins a second term.  Because they can't pay the insurance.  Businesses aren't made of money -- and they need to turn a profit.  Or else they go out of business and all the people working for them are out of work.

As the wife of a man who works for a corporation -- growth helps us all.  Making it more expensive to do business hurts us all.

If anything, the overemphasis on preventitive care actually HURTS people in the case of something actually being wrong.  Paying a $20 co-pay for a physical isn't going to bankrupt you.  It's having to pay percentages of major treatments that will.  Guess what the number one cause of death for people in their 20s is?  Car wrecks.  Twenty percent of a massive ICU bill for a bad car crash is still a huge chunk of money.

To address your question directly:
Even if your premise is correct -- which I don't think it is -- it is more important to protect those who can do NOTHING to help themselves.  In other words, the unborn who are being murdered.  Grown adults without insurance have various options -- payment plans, going bankrupt, charity, etc.  An unborn child being murdered on the orders of his own mother has no recourse. 
Reply
#30
Romney is an opportunistic, hypocritical, watered-down liberal.

Obama is evil incarnate, whom history will rank with Nero, Caligula, Attila the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Idi Amin.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)