Bush Is Not Pro-life...

[qfnol31]

Good Friday, of the candidates who have a chance to win, who do you think we should vote for?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 8 2004, 08:13 PM'] Thanks, Anna, for not being one of those people who think I must vote for Bush or risk eternal damnation.

I just can't bring myself to vote for this "lesser of two evils" when he is, well, [b]so darn evil[/b]. Previously, I thought I was just not going to vote at all, but in light of what Judie Brown has to say (her and many others), I've decided to vote for Michael Peroutka. [/quote]
I hope you don't think that I feel you're going to be eternally punished for voting Bush, because I think otherwise. Right now it seems your conscience tells you not to vote for Bush, and that's what you should follow first, otherwise you'd be in more trouble.

Now for the second one, did you see what I said about the lesser of two evils earlier? I just said that at first glance it seems that all choice are equally evil (one potentially allows Kerry into office, one votes for him into office, and one votes for Bush into office, because we must face it, none of the third party candidates has a chance of getting elected right now). However, God wouldn't let us choose evil so one of these choices must be good. I'll let you discern which.

This is just based on how the election is going right now, and can change...

[qfnol31]

[quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 8 2004, 10:53 PM'] We can choose to vote for a limited evil? [/quote]
Name one choice that doesn't seem to be choosing an evil.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='CatholicAndFanatical' date='Aug 9 2004, 11:38 AM'] ok, please tell me Im not the only one thats never heard of Mr. Peroutka!!

And I find it disheartening that someone is defending Saddam on this forum.

Saddam killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of people. Gased women and children. Built huge homes and kept all the money while the people starved and was forced to live poorly.

  So go on and defend him. Say he didnt deserve to be forced out of office. But remember that there are millions of Iraqi's that can actually buy stuff and work and go to school without having a dictator telling them what to believe and what not to believe. They actually have TV's and radio's and internet and freedom. Who doesnt deserve this stuff??

  Of course some people cannot look at the bigger pictures in life, they only see 10 ft in front of them.

  The bigger picture of this whole thing? When the USA wasnt the USA and was split, it was hard for the people. Wars, racism, hatred filled our lands. Alot of blood was shed here in the great USA. But look at us now. We overcame and was United and became one. It wasnt easy and didnt come quickly.

  The same thing is going to happen in Iraq. It wont take 2 years, 5 years or maybe not even 50 years for it to become what we are. But at least they have a shot now. Where as before they couldnt even dream it without being shot or tortured.

  I dont know where you are from Morph, but It doesnt sound like you have a clue on whats going on what the big picture in all this is. Its a sad thing to see. Could be because you are young (not sure how old you are) or because you dont watch the news or you are watching the wrong news. [/quote]
I'm no fan of evil. Do you realize that with all this proof you give, you'd think someone born in Iraq, a father who served in the Iraqi military (by obligation, not volunteering), and a person with family there, would know abit more than you.

You diss the media when it says things you don't like, but when it's pleasing to your ear, you are quick to jump on it. Please, lets not forget common media tactics that are used.

-Strongly supporting one side, giving little or no time to any opposition.

-Exaggeration.

-Misquotes, misinformation.

For a good example, remember the sex scandels in the Church?

Saddam protected Christians. I wouldn't be here if he didn't like Christians. I'd be dead. Any murder that was committed was for politcal reasons, however that doesn't justify it. The death penalty ( a right of government ) however can be used for any reason. If politcal opposition is a breach to the laws of a dictatorship, then it is like that. Can you keep in mind, not everyone likes a democracy, and that the form of government our Lord left us would be more like dictatorship then democracy.

Your quick to jump the gun. I can only thank God that it was Saddam, and not some ulti-Muslim who hated anyone who didn't hold his beliefs about religion. Any dictator opposes political opposition. Few allow any freedom to their subjects.

God bless,

Mikey

P.S. Prior to the Gulf war, my family wasn't "poor". Thank you Mr.Trade embargo.
This stuff that Iraqi's have, however, is only temporary. Once some Muslim militiant grabs hold of the government again, by "stuff". Besides, the idea that people have a right to materialistic goods (note, not neccessaties), puts too much emphasis on stuff. Religious freedom is and always will be more than "stuff". Once the American's pull out, I am sure my family will not live to tell me of the conditions.

Edited August 10, 2004 by MichaelFilo

[Good Friday]

[quote name='qfnol31']Good Friday, of the candidates who have a chance to win, who do you think we should vote for?[/quote]
If you mean which of the two major party candidates do I think we should vote for, the answer is: neither. I think it's immoral to vote for either one of them, because they're both pro-abortion and because babies will die under both of their presidencies. On the other hand, I can acknowledge that there is more evil in voting for Sen. Kerry than there is in voting to re-elect President Bush, but I don't believe in the "lesser of two evils" mentality -- I think Catholics are called to vote for good, not lesser evil.

I think Catholics should vote for Michael Peroutka regardless of whether or not he can win. Why? Because, first of all, he is the only truly pro-life candidate and thus the only moral choice. Second of all, it will show the Democrats and Republicans that we mean business, and that we're not going to vote for either party as long as they're pro-abortion. This will be very distressing for them, because no one has won the White House without the Catholic vote in quite some time.

Finally, I think as American citizens, we should demand that our government allow more attention to be given to third party candidates. The reason they're never going to be elected is because they get absolutely no exposure, because unconstitutional laws are blocking their campaigning. For instance, because of unconstitutional federl law, it is extremely difficult for third parties to get on ballots while it's taken for granted that the Democrats and Republicans will just be there. Also, it's extremely difficult, in fact next to impossible, for third party candidates to be involved in the presidential debates? If this is truly a democratic republic, why are other candidates being silenced? Why has our government become a Republican/Democratic monarchy?

The true hypocrisy of this lies in the fact that the Republicans themselves were third party candidates. Prior to Abraham Lincoln's election, they were third party candidates, and they defeated and replaced the Whigs. Now, the Democrats and Republicans have made it impossible for any other party to ever be treated fairly in our political system. Why? Because they're afraid of eventually losing their power. We must demand that they relinquish their power and give the power back to us, so that we can govern our country again as it was intended.

There is no reason why we, as Catholics, should accept the tyrannical rule of these two grossly immoral parties. We should fight for their replacement and eventual extinction.

[musturde]

"Something some people don't mention when referring to the "tyrant" is the fact that he actually PROTECTED Christians. Indeed, during the Gulf War, thats the only houses he'd hide in. No new muslim ruler will do that. No one will stop the anti-Non-mulsim hatred. We saw that when the churches blew up. OF course, all this goes unsaid."

................. how'd he defend the Christians?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 9 2004, 09:28 PM'] [quote name='qfnol31']Good Friday, of the candidates who have a chance to win, who do you think we should vote for?[/quote]
If you mean which of the two major party candidates do I think we should vote for, the answer is: neither. I think it's immoral to vote for either one of them, because they're both pro-abortion and because babies will die under both of their presidencies. On the other hand, I can acknowledge that there is more evil in voting for Sen. Kerry than there is in voting to re-elect President Bush, but I don't believe in the "lesser of two evils" mentality -- I think Catholics are called to vote for good, not lesser evil. [/quote]
Well, if they're the only two that can win, I think it would be up to us to decide who. Now, in some states this isn't an issue, but this year I'm wondering how true that is. You yourself acknowledge that allowing Kerry into office is an evil, so would keeping him out be a good? I would say that it has to be by that logic. I don't know God, but I don't think he'd let us choose an evil. Less babies will die under Bush in my opinion, but I don't think that, even if Peroutka had a chance that abortion would stop under him. There's only so much the President can do in our modern, progressive government. There's too many checks and balances and limitations on the Presidency to allow this to happen. This is specifically why I want a monarchy run by a Catholic Theological king. (With a good Catholic philosopher as an advisor.

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 9 2004, 09:28 PM']I think Catholics should vote for Michael Peroutka regardless of whether or not he can win.  Why?  Because, first of all, he is the only truly pro-life candidate and thus the only moral choice.  Second of all, it will show the Democrats and Republicans that we mean business, and that we're not going to vote for either party as long as they're pro-abortion.  This will be very distressing for them, because no one has won the White House without the Catholic vote in quite some time.[/quote]

I think this depends on the state. If you are in a state that can easily go either way, and is leaning towards Kerry, then you voting for Peroutka would send a small message to Bush, mainly saying that you don't care about Kerry winning that much. I think that's the wrong message to send. I think this is true in a heavily Kerry state. It would seem that you may not directly support Kerry, but you're willing to let him win than Bush. Bush is doing at least some good. By not voting for him, it may seem that you support Kerry more, even though you don't support either as much as Peroutka. I know that's probably confusing (I'm not feeling well, sorry), but I think it may look like you're just throwing away a vote if you're not careful.

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 9 2004, 09:28 PM']Finally, I think as American citizens, we should demand that our government allow more attention to be given to third party candidates.  The reason they're never going to be elected is because they get absolutely no exposure, because unconstitutional laws are blocking their campaigning.  For instance, because of unconstitutional federl law, it is extremely difficult for third parties to get on ballots while it's taken for granted that the Democrats and Republicans will just be there.  Also, it's extremely difficult, in fact next to impossible, for third party candidates to be involved in the presidential debates?  If this is truly a democratic republic, why are other candidates being silenced?  Why has our government become a Republican/Democratic monarchy?[/quote]

I think so too, but to vote for the third party candidates is something we need to push a lot more than just at election time. Now we know that only two candidates can win, and it's our choice of who. I don't think that voting for them this election will get them enough exposure to make it in the next vote. Kerry and Bush have too much attention as it is. It would take something more radical to get the attention of the public where it would matter.

I personally hate the two-party majority thing that we have where third-party candidates don't have a chance. However, right now that's something I must deal with and work with. God works with even sinners remember. Believe me, after having a class on this at the University of Dallas, I hate how our government is run.

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 9 2004, 09:28 PM']The true hypocrisy of this lies in the fact that the Republicans themselves were third party candidates.  Prior to Abraham Lincoln's election, they were third party candidates, and they defeated and replaced the Whigs.  Now, the Democrats and Republicans have made it impossible for any other party to ever be treated fairly in our political system.  Why?  Because they're afraid of eventually losing their power.  We must demand that they relinquish their power and give the power back to us, so that we can govern our country again as it was intended.[/quote]

I can agree with this, and like I said above, I hate how much of the politics in our government are run today.

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Aug 9 2004, 09:28 PM']There is no reason why we, as Catholics, should accept the tyrannical rule of these two grossly immoral parties.  We should fight for their replacement and eventual extinction.[/quote]

We should find a replacement, but we don't have much of a choice outside of them this time around. What we need are solid Catholics to get involved in the Republican party and make it, or the Democratic party (please no), and live what they believe! I know that's a stretch, but I honestly think that we must do what we can with what we have now. It's a tough choice to be sure, but I do think that our first priority is to keep Kerry out of office. I think that's a great evil, and to stop it, we must do good. Well, I feel that good is voting for Bush because it's the only thing we can do.

Again, I'm sorry if this is confusing because I am sick.

Edited because I forgot quotes.

Edited August 10, 2004 by qfnol31

[qfnol31]

[quote name='musturde' date='Aug 9 2004, 09:48 PM'] "Something some people don't mention when referring to the "tyrant" is the fact that he actually PROTECTED Christians. Indeed, during the Gulf War, thats the only houses he'd hide in. No new muslim ruler will do that. No one will stop the anti-Non-mulsim hatred. We saw that when the churches blew up. OF course, all this goes unsaid."

................. how'd he defend the Christians? [/quote]
[quote]Something some people don't mention when referring to the "tyrant" is the fact that he actually PROTECTED Christians. Indeed, during the Gulf War, thats the only houses he'd hide in. No new muslim ruler will do that. No one will stop the anti-Non-mulsim hatred. We saw that when the churches blew up. OF course, all this goes unsaid.[/quote]

How do you know that he didn't do this knowing that those homes wouldn't be touched?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='M.SIGGA' date='Aug 6 2004, 01:25 AM'] Remaining a lukewarm moderate doesn't promote better Catholicism. This sounds almost like giving up the cause. That last post was meant to be really idealistic. It's my obligation to vote with the Church and that's what I'm going to do, and you can either join the bandwagon or join someone elses. I dunno positively who yet though. [/quote]
Who's lukewarm? The Church does not say who we should vote for, but rather who we shouldn't vote for.