|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 1, 2008 9:49:06 GMT -5
Oh yes he does.  To my knowledge he has consistently voted pro-life. T brought up the stem cell research which I haven't heard of about either nomination on that one. Still the overriding factor for me is abortion. He has an excellent Pro-Life voting record. For me however, that doesn't erase his character in that he believes that it's ok to murder unborn babies under the right circumstances. And...as The Catholic Church states, we have to consider more than just abortion when voting. We could have a Pro-Life candidate that is also Pro-War, that is for benefitting the wealthy while allowing the poor to suffer, that associates himself with known Anti-Catholic Fundamentalists, that doesn't show up to vote for The G.I. Bill for our veterans, that has a history of immorality and that is known for using racial slurs. Also, I'm totally dissappointed with the tone of his campaign. He doesn't represent how an American President should act. His Pro-Life is definitely a Pro in his column. But it is the only "Pro" for him. Again, we have to consider the total package. He's not Presidential material. His record reflects that. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 1, 2008 16:39:56 GMT -5
I have a solution for America's problems: Vote for Pedro! He's the only choice that really makes sense.
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 1, 2008 17:25:59 GMT -5
Hi T---------------
Who is Pedro?
Much love-----------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Aug 3, 2008 20:00:55 GMT -5
To my knowledge he has consistently voted pro-life. T brought up the stem cell research which I haven't heard of about either nomination on that one. Still the overriding factor for me is abortion. He has an excellent Pro-Life voting record. For me however, that doesn't erase his character in that he believes that it's ok to murder unborn babies under the right circumstances. And...as The Catholic Church states, we have to consider more than just abortion when voting. We could have a Pro-Life candidate that is also Pro-War, that is for benefitting the wealthy while allowing the poor to suffer, that associates himself with known Anti-Catholic Fundamentalists, that doesn't show up to vote for The G.I. Bill for our veterans, that has a history of immorality and that is known for using racial slurs. Also, I'm totally dissappointed with the tone of his campaign. He doesn't represent how an American President should act. His Pro-Life is definitely a Pro in his column. But it is the only "Pro" for him. Again, we have to consider the total package. He's not Presidential material. His record reflects that. yeah but the other guy's record is worse. Add his pro-death stance, and subtract the deaths from iraq on all sides and abortion is still bigger by the millions in this country and worldwide.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 3, 2008 21:36:50 GMT -5
He has an excellent Pro-Life voting record. For me however, that doesn't erase his character in that he believes that it's ok to murder unborn babies under the right circumstances. And...as The Catholic Church states, we have to consider more than just abortion when voting. We could have a Pro-Life candidate that is also Pro-War, that is for benefitting the wealthy while allowing the poor to suffer, that associates himself with known Anti-Catholic Fundamentalists, that doesn't show up to vote for The G.I. Bill for our veterans, that has a history of immorality and that is known for using racial slurs. Also, I'm totally dissappointed with the tone of his campaign. He doesn't represent how an American President should act. His Pro-Life is definitely a Pro in his column. But it is the only "Pro" for him. Again, we have to consider the total package. He's not Presidential material. His record reflects that. yeah but the other guy's record is worse. Add his pro-death stance, and subtract the deaths from iraq on all sides and abortion is still bigger by the millions in this country and worldwide. A monk I knew used that manner to judge the lesser evil. I asked him what about the living victims of the candidates "other" choices? And, does the politician pay for the sin of the mother and the doctor who performs the abortion in God's eyes just for allowing it? Or is that sin placed solely on the persons who actually commit the sin? Has there ever been a guilt by association sin clause with God (in which case, we'd all be guilty)? I don't believe in the "lesser of two evils" theory. I believe in what The Church teaches. We are to vote with our conscience. If voting for a man because he is "more" anti-abortion than the next because you want to contribute to his good work and you get credit for that, then isn't voting for a man who wants war equally convicting of you? There is something that is way bigger than mere #'s. There's morality. And John McCain is simply an immoral man. Again, he throws around racial slurs, he has a record of political corruption, he's hired the same campaign team that accused him of having an illegitimate black daughter out of wedlock to attack Senator Obama and his own family, he sought the support of a known Anti-Catholic who lied about Jesus' Church and didn't renounce him until he was politically pressured to, he's known for verbally abusing his wife in public, he abandoned his first wife after she was disfigured in an automobile accident and prepared to marry his current (2nd) wife while he was still married to his first wife...I can't vote for a man like that. He had no moral compass. Barack Obama on the other hand has a way better history and record. He, having all the opportunity in the world to get a job on Wall Street or his pick of the most financially rewarding positions possible, he chose to do what? He chose to go serve the poor as a community activist and social worker. Don't be fooled by "1" seemingly moral thing that John McCain has going for him (which in reality, is more a matter of convenience because he still believes in murdering unborn children of rape/incest/medical choice). That one trait cannot erase all his faults. Obama is the opposite. He has one fault, but the rest of his traits are good traits. If you really want to balance things out, balance their fruits. Again, every abortion that happens after Obama becomes President will not be his fault. That law to be able to murder children was enacted by Republicans 30 years ago. Voting for him isn't voting for abortion. However, voting or McCain is voting for a "stay the course" mentality. Now, if The Catholic Church told me that I must vote or McCain without a doubt, I'd vote for him. But as it stands now, The Church Completely disagrees with McCain's stance on allowing abortions in certain intances. So I can't believe that The Church would tell us to vote for a man who feels how he feels. There has to be a balance of reason. Some Pro-Lifer Extremists bring their children to look at the bodies of deteriorating aborted children in caskets. That is just plain scary to me, to expose children to this so early. I've been hitting some sites reasearching this topic and there are some Pro-Life Extremists that are literally lieing about what The Church teaches. I think they've taken an unhealthy obsession with abortion and that too can be desctructive when they become unreasonable and when they begin to lie about what The Church teaches in order to further their agenda. The have this "Inquisition" mindset and are literally telling people that they'll be excommunicated if they vote for a Pro-Choice candidate. And the tone of their words are terrifying. The question is, do the other moral issues outweigh the one abortion issue? For you, I see not. For you, you would risk voting for a man who jokes about Beastiality making jokes about Gorillas raping a woman and her enjoying it. You'd vote for a man who jokes about bombing Iran and about our using cigarettes to kill Iranians. You'd vote or a man who befriended several (not just one) Anti-Catholic Extremists who spoke out against our Church. I can't. I have to take the whole package. To vote blindly (speaking of myself) is just not an option. Voting like this is what has our country in the condition it's in today. Technically speaking, a Catholic may vote for a candidate that is Pro-Choice provided that they are not voting for that candidate because of his Pro-Choice stance and especially if their moral stances on other issues outweigh their stance on abortion. I'm in no way writing this to say your wrong and I respect your choice. I won't think you're Pro-Racist/Corruption/War if you vote for McCain just like I'm sure you won't think I'm Pro-Abortion because I vote for Obama.  Cardinal Ratzinger wrote (before he became Pope): "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." Take the whole Bush/Kerry campaign fiasco... "Back in 2004, a Catholic group had a website that compared Bush's and Kerry's position on over 40 social issues along with the Catholic Church's stand on the same issues.
Bush was in agreement with the Catholic Church on about 10% of the issues - abortion, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research.
While Kerry was in disagreement with the Catholic Chgurch on the issue of abortion, he was in agreement with the Catholic Church on about 80% of the issues."This reminds me of Obama/McCain with Obama representing The Catholic Church's views on working with the poor, on the issues of a "just" war and an "unjust" war, on equitable distribution of wealth in our society, etc...while McCain is obviously contradictory to Church teachings as he seeks to continue to give the wealthy tax breaks, to wage "unjust" wars, to put the wants of the priviliaged over the needs of the poor. I hope a Catholic group does a study on these two candidates. God bless you RSF. I respect your "choice" (no pun intended! ;D ). |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Aug 5, 2008 22:30:55 GMT -5
And I hope God forgives you for yours! =P
Ok I know he will. pax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2008 8:19:43 GMT -5
There's no such thing as "guilt by association" according to Mother Church.
And thus, no reason for God to forgive me for voting for Obama because I'm not voting for him based on his stance on abortion, but on his positions on charitible works and human unity.
Besides, the only ones that carry the blame for abortion is the women and the doctors that engage in those acts (which have been going on long before they were law).
Are you implying that it's a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate or to vote against a lieing pro-life candidate?
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 11, 2008 10:10:26 GMT -5
I heard word that Hillary is going to try to still the nomination at the Demo convention...
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Aug 11, 2008 10:11:23 GMT -5
Would like to also add... those gas prices are dropping!
Cepha i know your opinion on this, so we shall see if your right...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2008 10:24:23 GMT -5
Just like I said, the closer we get to the election, the stronger Obama's polling remains, the more secure people feel and the more nervous the Big Oil Companies get at the thought of a President who wants to take away the multi-billion dollar tax breaks that the Republicans gave them and give that money back to the people who gave the Oil Companies their record breaking profits while everybody else suffers.
No more Oil Men in the White House, gas drops.
Once McCain changed 180 degrees on Drilling, he got 2 Million dollars in his coffers the next day from who? Big Oil Companies. (Mind you, Obama only got $400,000. in total over the past 19 months since his campaign began.)
Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2008 10:26:11 GMT -5
I heard word that Hillary is going to try to still the nomination at the Demo convention... I think she should get VP. She deserves that. However, it's going to be hard just to get an African American elected. Putting a woman on the ticket might just be the final nail in the coffin for the Dems. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2008 22:38:13 GMT -5
See how John McCain agrees with Bill ORielly on the "White Christian Male Power Structure" that they are a "part of".
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2008 22:45:54 GMT -5
Proof of McCain's lies:
He said that Barack Obama played the race card because he claimed that there would be fears spread about him because he (Obama) didn't look like a face on a dollar bill.
But here is a Republican Ad that proves that Obama was telling the truth (and that McCain lied about Obama). Notice all of the faces that Obama is replacing...their all white faces.
And, look for an actual image of Obama's face on a dollar bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 11, 2008 22:58:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2008 8:22:52 GMT -5
I think this Edwards Scandal was started by Democrats.
Why? To sabatoge Obama? Nope.
I think it was a back door entry into being able to talk about John McCain's affair with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. I said it months ago; They didn't jump on this story of McCain's own affair with the lobbyist because they were going to save it for the latter part of the race.
And here it is (among more things yet to be revealed on McCain). It seems that The Democrats have learned their lesson from the dirty politics of The Republicans of the last race when they swift-boated Kerry and now, their doing the same to McCain. The only difference is that McCain's attacks are actually based on facts.
My bet? Obama is going to slam him his weekend on his lack of experience on economic issues, on his missing every vote in The Senate for the last 4 months, McCain's confessed lack of knowledge on the GI Bill (The GI Bill! What he's supposed to be an expert on!).
For all McCain's "expertise" on Military issues, why didn't he know about The GI Bill enough to vote for it? Obama did...he took time to come off the campaign trail and to get back to Washington to vote "Yes" on the GI Bill that was to raise benefits for our Military. And with this, McCain and his campaign said that Obama doesn't support the Military. I ask you...who just proved who is the one who doesn't support the Military and who proved that the Military was more important than their campaigning? Obama.
The record speaks for itself as does McCain who literally said that he didn't know much about the GI Bill to vote on it while when Obama was asked, he quickly outlined the benefits and importance of this Bill getting passed and how important it was for it to be approved.
Fact is, Obama voted for The GI Bil. McCain "missed" the vote on purpose.
When Obama owns McCain at the debate, this is going to draw up a lot of anger among traditional Republicans who are going to go in a rage that Obama is daring to speak how he will to McCain as if McCain can't be confronted on actual issues. You're going to hear "That was a disgrace! John McCain is an American Hero! He shouldn't have been spoken to like that!" And why? Just because Obama is going to tag him on the issues and on his voting record (or lack thereof).
This Saturday, they will have their first face to face confrontation on CNN I believe most likely at about 8:00 or 9:00 PM.
I've been waiting for this for the longest. McCain's camp has been crying that Obama doesn't want to debate him, but what they don't mention is that McCain was trying to control "who" would be allowed into the debates as opposed to having an open audience. They wanted to pick and choose from a pool of McCain supporters with a "target" audience instead of just a 50/50 mix of Repub/Dems. Why? Because when there have been open audiences, people have gotten in that have asked McCain questions as to "why" he didn't vote on the new GI Bill, why he voted against other Bill for POW's and for other Veterans, what was his position and plan for the economy, etc...at these questions, he would get flustered and angry and go into rages (something I'm sure his campaign doesn't want to see before the elections).
So, Obama only agreed to 3rd Party Debates that would ensure the best possible chances of fairness for both Candidates (unless they had them at FoxNews of course! ;D ).
Can't wait until Saturday.
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 12, 2008 9:33:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 12, 2008 13:17:32 GMT -5
Love that video!
Good hearted jabbing is ok.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 14, 2008 19:43:03 GMT -5
Ok...so now, Obama is "The Anti-Christ".
That is, according to McCain's campaign...
Watch this video and watch the wording in between Obama's words...now, think of The Book of Revelation:
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Aug 15, 2008 8:21:25 GMT -5
Did you come away from that ad with negative feelings about Obama? I liked it.if it wasn't for the clip of Heston and the tag line about leadership I would have thought it a pro-Bama ad
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 16, 2008 10:05:44 GMT -5
Did you come away from that ad with negative feelings about Obama? I liked it.if it wasn't for the clip of Heston and the tag line about leadership I would have thought it a pro-Bama ad Just in case you don't know this, the term "the one" was a term used for slaves who were considered to be too rebellious. They were called "uppity". As soon as I saw the ad, I got the message right away. This ad (and McCain's campaign) is geared around making Obama sound as if he needs to learn his place, that for some reason, he in particular should "not" be on camera or should "not" be receiving so much attention despite the fact that he's a shining example of true the American spirit (came from nothing and built himself up as a man, putting himself through one of the best universities in the world). For persons who are "not" minorities or racists, they don't see the obviousness of the tone of the ad. For those of us who are (I being a minority) and for racists, it's devised to hit a nerve. It's designed to instill fear among people who still have a problem for voting for a man with a foreign sounding name. Of course, I could be "sensitive", but take a look at how a "non-minority" group of journalists see it: |
|
