Will You Anti-romney People Apologize?

[dUSt]

If Romney is elected, and repeals the HHS Mandate which forces employers to pay for abortion causing drugs, and reinstates the Mexico City Policy which will end overseas funding of abortion, will all of you get on here and apologize and admit you were wrong?

[Winchester]

If those were the only two issues, yes.

However, I've already said he might well repeal overt funding for overseas abortions. However, since he shows no signs of understanding funding is fungible, the effect could be nil.

The HHS mandate may well go away, but the option then is to have government fund it, anyway. He favors portions of teh Obamacares.

I'm not anti-Romney. I'm anti-: War, unlimited Federal Government, Market intervention, Fiat currency, Central banking, legal tender laws, NDAA, Unconstitutional Federal agencies such as: DEA, ATF, KMFDM, FDA..., TARP, Monopolies (including the Federal Reserve)...

It's not the man, it's his policies, his willful violation of the Constitution, and his commitment to violence.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Winchester

[Aloysius]

A simple rescinding of the HHS mandate will be a good thing that I will applaud IF it happens (I am not convinced that it will actually happen), but I will continue pay careful attention to what happens after he does that to be on the lookout for what exactly the hybrid Rombama-care monster that he's likely to end up creating (by trying to keep much of it in place while looking like he's rescinding it, since he's said both things) actually requires of employers in the mandated health insurance that will almost certainly still be in place. I hope everyone will do so, and not just allow certain gestures to give Romney a free pass throughout his administration if he wins.

If it comes down to it a year or two into his presidency and he's really done something significant to make things better (in a way that's not just a symbolic loophole no better than the Obama compromise, which is what he'll clearly be looking for in my estimation), then I will certainly concede the point. It's obviously not my only issue, but if he really does do something good I will acknowledge that the decision of folks who voted for the lesser of two evils paid off on that one issue.

Of course, I don't think I'll apologize; I have expressed informed opinions about what I believe Mitt Romney will do. If some of those turn out to be right and some of those turn out to be wrong that just proves I can't see the future, which I've never claimed I could . If he becomes a champion of pro-life causes in a substantial way, which again is extremely unlikely, then I will congratulate those who were right while I was wrong on the pro-life issue. But if he just does a couple of good things that I don't think he's going to do, just proves you can't be right about everything, but I'll still do my best to be fair and give credit where credit is due

Edited October 28, 2012 by Aloysius

[Jaime]

And if he does absolutely nothing for the pro-life movement, will Romney advocates admit they've been betrayed?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1351393761' post='2498934']
And if he does absolutely nothing for the pro-life movement, will Romney advocates admit they've been betrayed?
[/quote]Absolutely!

[BarbTherese]

Watching the election lead up in the USA with interest - and will be glued to the TV for the election results. My hope is that Obahma will be re-elected. There is something about Romney that I just dont like, not that I know much about politics in the USA. I am Australian and lived here all my life, never travelled except within Australia My son is quite extensively travelled including to the middle east. But it seems to me that the reason Saddam was not outsted earlier was because of the fear that it would destabilize the whole middle east - and look what's happened since he was ousted and executed. And by a president who was possibly overly religious and without a good grasp of theology. But then he wasn't Catholic and familiar and grasping in real hope of sound theology - to my mind. Neither is Romney. Obaham isn't Catholic either, but just strikes me as having the more balanced personality. The middle east is in chaos and if regimes are outsted and they should be if the people want it especially if regimes are brutal, unjust and corrupt, then probably secterian violence will take over completely - and then civil war. There is so much violence in a world supposedly at Peace or peace rather.
We have the problem too of our treaties. While we need them, there are pros and distinct cons and this latter can have devestating consequences. The domino principle. And I am watching Israel and Iran with bated breathe.
To my mind, the whole world is dependant on the USA for much including their foreign policies and diplomacy. While I certainly feel for the USA on the home front and internal matters, including this massive storm approaching and after so much human suffering in the USA from natural disasters - not to mention the costs to the country and the financial burden and on stretched coffers already.

I know there are issues about Obahma that are objectionable and it seems to me to be a question of weighing up what would be the lesser of the evils - all things taken into account. No easy decision to my mind. The middle east is in absolute chaos and while I detest war with a will, I thank God those that went off to WWII did so. Where would we be if they had not. Now we have terrorism to face and struggle against - and there are no uniforms with terrorism to identify them, no clearly marked theatres of war - and sometimes terrorists can be 'home grown'. Young people in many countries, including Australia, are restless (and confused to my mind too), unhappy, and this can be rich soil for cultivating dissent and radical terrorist recruitment.
The quite aged and frail - but mentally asbolutely amazing - nun who taught me "Always keep your eye on the middle east". I do.


Obahma has certainly aged and lost more weight I think since being elected President - and no wonder. What a weighty role, a terrible responsibility and accountably, to put it mildly, to undertake for any man or woman and he did inherit a country that was struggling and then the financial crisis hit. The next president will inherit even more terrible responsibilities and probably on all continents in the main in one way or another. Europe is struggling too and there could be a flow on to other countries. Russia is in a mess also - and I have never trusted Putin, never. With what is happening in the United Nations and the Security Council re Syria, we can be well assured who Putin/Russia will support in any conflict methinks, which way the Putin 'land falls'. And if the Russian people don't like it, the likely outcome with a man like Putin at the helm.

Prayer, Faith and Hope, Love. Trust in The Lord. "Work as if everything depended on work and pray as if all depended on prayer" - and it does.

In my prayers for the USA and the elections and her future........... and thus probably the whole world.

Edited October 28, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[kujo]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1351393761' post='2498934']
And if he does absolutely nothing for the pro-life movement, will Romney advocates admit they've been betrayed?
[/quote]

No, because the Pope told them who to vote for. And the Pope is infallible, dontchaknow?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351400409' post='2498991']

No, because the Pope told them who to vote for. And the Pope is infallible, dontchaknow?
[/quote]
Since the pope picks the bishops, the USCCB is infallible too. Ipso facto.
Transitive property and all that.

[dUSt]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1351393761' post='2498934']
And if he does absolutely nothing for the pro-life movement, will Romney advocates admit they've been betrayed?
[/quote]
Please don't answer a question with a question.

[beatitude]

Looking at some posts on Phatmass, I get the feeling that a lot of people supporting Romney genuinely like his other policies, and they're prepared to turn a blind eye to his see-sawing on life issues for the sake of the policies that they like. When I see somebody writing stuff like, "Catholics don't just believe in giving handouts, we actually help the poor to get on their own feet..." in support of Romney, I know that they are not seeing a difference between Catholic social teaching and Romney's economic policy. So to answer Jaime's question, if Romney did absolutely nothing to advance the pro-life cause, some of his supporters would still find a reason to justify him.

[Seven77]

I think that some "orthodox" Catholics are pompously ignorant and nonchalant when it comes to things like war, torture, healthcare, and immigration. Not all Romney supporters are that. Maybe it seems naive, but I will be voting for Romney because i believe that is the only way to limit non-negotiable evil--Obama's agenda and platform undermines the foundation of society.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351390471' post='2498916']
If Romney is elected, and repeals the HHS Mandate which forces employers to pay for abortion causing drugs, and reinstates the Mexico City Policy which will end overseas funding of abortion, will all of you get on here and apologize and admit you were wrong?
[/quote]

Just as soon as you guys apologize for implying that the only moral Catholic choice is a vote for Romney.

[eagle_eye222001]

I hope I'm wrong on Romney. And I will certainly admit if it happens.

Odds and evidence say I'm right though.

Hopefully the odds don't happen and the evidence was very misleading.

At the very least, even if Romney turns out to be amesome, I will still stand by the choice I made this election because I would have still considered it ridiculous to bank on Romney being amesome. Because of this, I will not apologize no matter the outcome as I believe I'm making the best decision.

But yes, I will certainly admit my well reasoned fears were wrong if they are.

[Adrestia]

I would love to be wrong about Romney.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1351492001' post='2499519']


Just as soon as you guys apologize for implying that the only moral Catholic choice is a vote for Romney.
[/quote]
For me, it is the only moral choice. I do not understand nor wish to understand how other people form their consciences. Too much thinking. No time. Must catch up on TV shows.

[kujo]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351639004' post='2500605']
For me, it is the only moral choice. I do not understand nor wish to understand how other people form their consciences. Too much thinking. No time. Must catch up on TV shows.
[/quote]

You should write apologetics

[Aloysius]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351639004' post='2500605']
For me, it is the only moral choice. I do not understand nor wish to understand how other people form their consciences. Too much thinking. No time. Must catch up on TV shows.
[/quote]
then you should probably refrain from stating your opinion on a Catholic debate board. it is actually dangerous to the salvation of souls, my friend.

if you were willing to think about the issue to the point of determining what the moral choice is and simply came to a different conclusion, that would be one thing. but if you are seriously unwilling to think about what the possible moral choices are then you have absolutely no business standing up in the public square on this website and indicating to fellow Catholics that your choice is the only moral choice from a Catholic perspective.

people do this so often with the idea that all they're doing is pressuring fellow Catholics who have come to different political conclusions to come on over to their own political conclusion, but what they fail to realize is that to a certain degree they may be pressuring fellow Catholics who have come to different conclusions on the basis of their conscience to reason that they're just not good Catholics and they must choose between their conscience/reason/stupid political ideology and their Catholic Faith, a choice that they shouldn't have to make. this is the absolute EVIL and POISON that is contained in the conflation of political ideology with Catholic identity. I'm not necessarily talking about people participating in these threads who already have strong opinions and strong Catholic faiths, but the lurking audiences of these debates.

Worst case scenario of the things I say is that people vote for a stupid candidate like Obama.
Worst case scenario of the things you say is that people think that holding to the political opinions they hold is somehow contrary to Catholic morality and therefore they must choose between their political opinions/reason/conscience and being Catholic, as if Catholicism were somehow synonymous with political voting blocks rather than mystical sacramental realities.

I'm far more interested in the salvation of souls than whether Romney wins this election. I don't think you realize how dangerous and, I dare say sacrilegious, it is when people conflate the vote for Romney as the [b]only moral Catholic vote[/b]. .

Edited October 31, 2012 by Aloysius

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1351639004' post='2500605']
[b]For me[/b], it is the only moral choice. I do not understand nor wish to understand how other people form their consciences. Too much thinking. No time. Must catch up on TV shows.
[/quote]

Look, I have absolutely no problem with Romney being the only moral position [i][b]for you. [/b][/i]You can even argue that it's the BEST choice. But objectively speaking, there are a couple of different ways a Catholic can morally vote. Go ahead and imply that I have a malformed conscience. I'll just go ahead and imply that you're causing scandal.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1351643770' post='2500683']I'm far more interested in the salvation of souls than whether Romney wins this election. I don't think you realize how dangerous and, I dare say sacrilegious, it is when people conflate the vote for Romney as the [b]only moral Catholic vote[/b]. .
[/quote]
To be fair, there is a legitimate argument to be made that he is in fact the only moral Catholic vote, just as I'm sure there's a legitimate argument to be made that he is not a moral Catholic vote at all.

Just as long as no one tries to argue that Obama is the only legitimate vote from a Catholic point of view I'm happy.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1351644134' post='2500691']
To be fair, there is a legitimate argument to be made that he is in fact the only moral Catholic vote, just as I'm sure there's a legitimate argument to be made that he is not a moral Catholic vote at all.

Just as long as no one tries to argue that Obama is the only legitimate vote from a Catholic point of view I'm happy.
[/quote]

Actually, there's a legitimate argument to be made that Romney is the MOST moral Catholic vote. But not the only. Never the only.

Lol, I don't think anyone on this forum would dare to try and say that Obama is a legitimate Catholic vote.