The Five Non-negotiables

[Lounge Daddy]

Are you voting "the lesser of two evils;" or is the lesser of two evils still too evil in this election?

We cannot, in good conscience, support any candidate that supports the following [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/voterguide.htm"](with more detail at Priests for Life)[/url]:

1. Abortion

2. Euthanasia

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Human Cloning

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

The past few elections we very clearly had a candidate in George W Bush who delivered on these issues like no other president in recent history. But this election he have two terrible candidates. I agree with Rush Limbaugh's comment the other week: "over 300 million Americans and the best 2 candidates that we can come up with are McCain and Obama? Talk about Sophie's choice!"

We are discouraged from supporting candidates that go against any of those 5 points. Both Obama and McCain violate most of those non-negotiables.

McCain says that he doesn't support homosexual marriage, but he voted against the defense of marriage act. By supporting embryonic research, McCain also supports cloning---much of that legislation that McCain supports legalizes cloning to create the humans in a lab order to experiment on them. As for abortion, Sen Santorum grew frustrated at McCain because "no one worked harder" than McCain to block pro-life legislation from reaching a vote. And even then, McCain said in an interview with Don Imus that he only publicly voted in favor of much of that legislation (when he had to vote on it) because that is the only way to get many of his "otherwise intelligent" people to re-elect him.

Personally, I hoped that McCain would come around and try to support the party base. He appointed pro-life Palin
as his running mate and preaches that he would fight earmarks and "name names." But he reminded us of his utter lack of sincerity, and proved that we cannot take him at his word by helping to pass that earmark-laden socialist BOMB (Bush Obama McCain Bailout) and he is now shunning his own running mate now that the VP debate is over.

For me, the lesser of two evils is still too evil. The line has to be drawn somewhere; and giving in on over 3 of 5 non-negotiables is in fact negotiating with the culture of death.

The Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party both have wonderful and fitting candidates, both of whom stand with life. Both Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) and Bob Barr (Libertarian) can be supported in good conscience.

Thoughts?

[MissyP89]

Chuck Baldwin '08. It may have taken me a year and a half, but I needed to vote my conscience in such a way that I will be able to sleep on November 4th. I just wouldn't be able to do that with John McCain.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1672805' date='Oct 8 2008, 04:22 PM']Are you voting "the lesser of two evils;" or is the lesser of two evils still too evil in this election?

We cannot, in good conscience, support any candidate that supports the following [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/voterguide.htm"](with more detail at Priests for Life)[/url]:

1. Abortion

2. Euthanasia

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Human Cloning

5. Homosexual "Marriage"

The past few elections we very clearly had a candidate in George W Bush who delivered on these issues like no other president in recent history. But this election he have two terrible candidates. I agree with Rush Limbaugh's comment the other week: "over 300 million Americans and the best 2 candidates that we can come up with are McCain and Obama? Talk about Sophie's choice!"

We are discouraged from supporting candidates that go against any of those 5 points. Both Obama and McCain violate most of those non-negotiables.

McCain says that he doesn't support homosexual marriage, but he voted against the defense of marriage act. By supporting embryonic research, McCain also supports cloning---much of that legislation that McCain supports legalizes cloning to create the humans in a lab order to experiment on them. As for abortion, Sen Santorum grew frustrated at McCain because "no one worked harder" than McCain to block pro-life legislation from reaching a vote. And even then, McCain said in an interview with Don Imus that he only publicly voted in favor of much of that legislation (when he had to vote on it) because that is the only way to get many of his "otherwise intelligent" people to re-elect him.

Personally, I hoped that McCain would come around and try to support the party base. He appointed pro-life Palin
as his running mate and preaches that he would fight earmarks and "name names." But he reminded us of his utter lack of sincerity, and proved that we cannot take him at his word by helping to pass that earmark-laden socialist BOMB (Bush Obama McCain Bailout) and he is now shunning his own running mate now that the VP debate is over.

For me, the lesser of two evils is still too evil. The line has to be drawn somewhere; and giving in on over 3 of 5 non-negotiables is in fact negotiating with the culture of death.

The Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party both have wonderful and fitting candidates, both of whom stand with life. Both Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) and Bob Barr (Libertarian) can be supported in good conscience.

Thoughts?[/quote]
Thank you! This is what I've been saying, and have been accused of being a "closet-Obama" supporter. John McCain is lukewarm on "life" issues at best, and that's only if you squint. (Excuse the mixed metaphors.) I can't support the Constitution Party due to its stick-its-head-in-the-sand position on climate change, nor Bob Barr due to his vote for the PATRIOT Act. I believe that I shall write in Ron Paul.

[philothea]

I think that Republican voters need to be a lot more active in primaries, though I don't know how, given the weird way they're done. Lately the candidate who gets the nomination is whatever dude the party bigwigs have decided will go next, whether they're a decent candidate or not, whether they have a chance or not.

I mean, how is it that Ron Paul never had a chance? Everyone loved him. He got tons of donations. He wasn't even in the running by the time I got to vote.

[eagle_eye222001]

I looked at the presidential candidates and sighed and cried.

Then I looked at the VP candidates and saw one who I liked.

While I am not ga-ga over McCain, I am going to vote for him mostly because of Palin.

[b]My friends[/b], A vote for McCain is a vote for Palin.

Should we not try to get one person elected who really values human life as opposed to risking zero?

[Madame Vengier]

How they are going to deal with the threat if Islamic jihad is a major factor.

[rkwright]

Here is how I see it...

McCain may have some flaws in stem cell research and cloning. The ones about abortion are a stretch in my opinion. The best case scenario with McCain is that he actually does something to push forward the pro-life agenda. The worst case; he does nothing (which is what Bush has done). Theres no way hes going to push things backwards, and with everything else its more likely than not he won't really touch the issue.

Obama is dead wrong on all those issues. So, applying the same 'test'; the best case is that Obama doesn't do anything. Worst case is Obama puts laws in that help to entrench Roe v. Wade or push us away from the direction we're heading. I think there is a good chance of this and a higher chance of Obama hurting us rather than doing nothing at all.

Now where this really matters: Federal Judges. This is the front lines of the pro-life movement. There are something like 150 Federal Judges possibly up for appointment with 1 or 2 being Supreme Court justices. More than likely McCain will nominate conservatives, which more than likely will be pro-life. Obama will appoint Judges who will not be pro-life.

Do you realize that we are 1 vote away from overturning Roe?? There are 4 judges sitting there (all catholic by the way), 2 of which have voted to overturn Roe, the other 2 we don't know yet but based on their record indicate they would also. This is incredible. We are ONE justice away from turning a major page in History. If Obama gets elected, we will be stuck in the minority for another 20-25 years. With McCain - wow.

I see voting for McCain as preventing Obama from getting in office. If Obama wins, we aren't looking at 4-8 years of bad policy, we're looking at 20-25 years of judicial decisions that will effect us for 50-100 years.

This election is huge, not because of the policies these two will promote, but because of the change in the laws in the US.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1672924' date='Oct 8 2008, 07:54 PM']How they are going to deal with the threat if Islamic jihad is a major factor.[/quote]

Easy vote for McCain over the pansy.

[Ash Wednesday]

This is my first time voting from overseas. It will be interesting.

I've been contemplating voting third party for quite some time now. Not just because of moral issues but many other issues manifesting themselves with our current economic problems. I feel that both parties are failing us on so many levels, and that it is going to take radical change and more political options across the boards rather than just our current anemic two-party system.

I still haven't decided what I am going to do.

[flip]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1672805' date='Oct 8 2008, 04:22 PM']Are you voting "the lesser of two evils;" or is the lesser of two evils still too evil in this election?

We cannot, in good conscience, support any candidate that supports the following [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/voterguide.htm"](with more detail at Priests for Life)[/url]:

1. Abortion

2. Euthanasia

3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

4. Human Cloning

5. Homosexual "Marriage"[/quote]


I'm confused - these non-negotiables are not from the USCCB, they are from catholic answers right?

I don't remember seeing these any of the literature from the US Catholic bishops... I remember 4 things that the Bishops told us to consider: Human Life, Family Life, Social Justice & Global Solidarity. It seems to me that these non negotiables are leaving out the last two - "Social Justice" and "Global Solidarity".

why does catholic answers leave these out?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673010' date='Oct 8 2008, 09:28 PM']McCain may have some flaws in stem cell research and cloning. The ones about abortion are a stretch in my opinion. The best case scenario with McCain is that he actually does something to push forward the pro-life agenda. The worst case; he does nothing (which is what Bush has done).[/quote]

I'm sorry, but Bush hasn't not "done nothing."
[indent]Unborn Victims of Violence Act - signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - signed into law August 5, 2002 by President Bush

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban - signed into law by President Bush in 2003

June 20, 2007, President Bush veto of legislation (S. 5) that would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos

Pro-life judges appointed to supreme court by Bush[/indent]

Bush has championed all 5 of the issues that we recognize as being non-negotiables, from opposing abortion right through to defense of marriage.

McCain has failed on marriage, on cloning, and on embryonic fetal experimentation. That's already 3 out of the 5. And then on abortion makes 4 out of 5 non-negotiables for McCain... same as Obama.
[url="http://www.lifenews.com/nat3612.html"]McCain blocked pro-life legislation from reaching a vote[/url]. McCain publicly disparaged pro-life voters while on Don Imus radio program, stating that many "otherwise intelligent" people will only vote for actively pro-life candidates. This is about the same time that the NRLC Legislative Director stated that John McCain is[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20060926070641/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html"] a threat to the pro-life cause[/url].

McCain has a history of working closely with the Left. He has twice been endorsed [url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020605.html"]by a pro-choice organization[/url]. And Tom DeLay just last week warned that conservative Republicans will have to fight against a President McCain, should he be elected. This is because McCain will team up with the liberal Democrats in congress (again). [url="http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/tom_delay_mccain/2008/10/06/137791.html?s=al&promo_code=6C67-1"]DeLay stated[/url], "“I’ve known McCain for 23 years, and McCain’s hard to swallow. And if he becomes president, teaming up with the Democrats, we’re going to have a lot of work to do to stop them.”

And what kind of judges will McCain appoint? McCain is a champion of anti-free speech "campaign reform" legislation. We know this because that legislation has his name on it. McCain will appoint liberal judges to protect that legislation and other legislation like it (think "Fairness Doctrine").

Both Obama and McCain fails on 4 of the 5 non-negotiables. Sad but true.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='flip' post='1673112' date='Oct 9 2008, 12:10 AM']I'm confused - these non-negotiables are not from the USCCB, they are from catholic answers right?

I don't remember seeing these any of the literature from the US Catholic bishops... I remember 4 things that the Bishops told us to consider: Human Life, Family Life, Social Justice & Global Solidarity. It seems to me that these non negotiables are leaving out the last two - "Social Justice" and "Global Solidarity".

why does catholic answers leave these out?[/quote]

Human Life, Family Life, Social Justice & Global Solidarity. are in an order of hierarchy of goods. Human life is first. And the good of "global solidarity" is not at all equal to the good of human life.

In other words, if you are choosing between two candidates and they both meet the criteria of respecting the good of human life, then you look at if they both meet the good of family life. If they both meet that, then you look at social justice, and so forth.

That list of non-negotiables spells out the human life issue. Because if a candidate doesn't recognize that good, than all the others (family life, social justice) are empty matters and don't mean a thing.

[philothea]

You know, it just occurred to me (duh) that I'm absolutely not in a swing state. I can vote for a third party without worrying about causing a "worse" candidate to get elected.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='philothea' post='1673136' date='Oct 9 2008, 12:56 AM']You know, it just occurred to me (duh) that I'm absolutely not in a swing state. I can vote for a third party without worrying about causing a "worse" candidate to get elected.



[/quote]
Boo-ya! Sa-weet!
Who's it going to be? Bob Barr? Chuck Baldwin? Someone else? Or do you need to think on it?

[flip]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673124' date='Oct 9 2008, 12:37 AM']Human Life, Family Life, Social Justice & Global Solidarity. are in an order of hierarchy of goods. Human life is first. And the good of "global solidarity" is not at all equal to the good of human life.

In other words, if you are choosing between two candidates and they both meet the criteria of respecting the good of human life, then you look at if they both meet the good of family life. If they both meet that, then you look at social justice, and so forth.

That list of non-negotiables spells out the human life issue. Because if a candidate doesn't recognize that good, than all the others (family life, social justice) are empty matters and don't mean a thing.[/quote]

wait. hold on - does this mean that voting for McCain is just as much of a sin as voting for Obama?