Did He Plan It?

[M.SIGGA]

Folks,

It's not effective to keep quoting the Gospel of Life to support Bush. Bush is not 100% against abortion so therefore he is not pro-life and neither are any of the other candidates. You either believe it is a unique human being with a soul that is brutally murdered or you don't - there is no beating around the bush. If any of you own a copy of the Gospel of Life, you would understand that it is composed very differently than Humanae Vitae and that it is a very lengthy. Quoting from it like dissenters quote Scripture is distasteful.

[M.SIGGA]

I'm not against the current welfare system. Please don't twist my words here.

I'm against the lazy, good-for-nothings that abuse it. But I keep hearing about all these "cuts" being made. What precisely is being cut? I know MSigga is has given the example of the electricity assistance program, but what are the others? The welfare programs being cut in my state are due to the state government NOT the Federal Government. And in several cases the Feds are forcing our state to re-instate cuts that the state made. So be sure that the cuts you are talking about are Federal cuts.

And not to go all moderator on ya'll but this is WAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the topic of the thread.

Your governor in Texas (I think it's Perry) signs and vetos bills based on what his party tells him too. Bobby Jindal, a republican who originally worked for Bush, was appointed by our former Gov. Mike Foster (R.) to serve as a Health Care Commissioner in La. He was almost gauranteed the election because of his magnificent health care reform in our state, which saved tons of money. During the week of the election a report came out that his health care victories, which looked great on paper, came about because he took 60,000 people in Louisiana off medicaid, most of whom were above the retirement age and later died. Jindal's plan was modeled after Bush's medicaid reform. He lost the election and a Dem. won by a landslide. When your governor belongs to the same party as the President, the politics are all intertwined.

[jrndveritatis]

Vetoing pro-life bills and appointing pro-abortion judges means that you are doing something for abortion. All Democratic candidates would do this. That would mean they are adamant supporters of abortion.

Bush has proven that he will appoint a majority of pro-life judges and stand behind them.

Given, he is not 100% pro-life, it does not mean that he is not pro-life.

I do not see how quoting bishops' documents is acting like a dissenter. The bishops are pretty clear that Catholics should vote pro-life.

Even if I accepted the arguments that conservatives are hurting the poor, I would be obligated to vote for a conservative if he were the only pro-life option (or since you say Bush is not pro-life, the least pro-death option) available.

Again, since this is getting very bitter, I would like to calm things down a bit. I believe that it is objectively true that conservative policies help the poor more than liberal policies. If you want to debate this start another thread and I will happily debate. However, I recognize that the Church allows for both sides on these issues, which are matters of prudential judgment. Therefore, lets stop this endless bickering on taxes and government programs, at least on this thread. Let's stick to the point of voting pro-life or pro-choice, or if the moderator wishes, start another thread for this as well.

[megamattman1]

most of whom were above the retirement age and later died.

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[M.SIGGA]

I'm not feeling bitter at all, and everything I have stated has been totally honest, and I figured personal honesty would be appreciated. I can't be totally peachy when I believe someone who is dishonest and evil is being put on a throne. The truth gets ugly sometimes. There is a big problem on this board b/c many folks condemn anything and anyone that isn't pro-Bush/ pro-Republican. I've been fair and observed both sides of the arguments against him, but the bad is much greater than the good.

Dissenters pick and chose what they want to quote and accept from Scripture, and base an opinion totally on one aspect; I wanted to say "protestant" instead of dissenter but that would have been taken as some sort of attack.

A man so great and wonderful shouldn't be hated by everyone around the globe.

[M.SIGGA]

ha never mind, I agree, lets quit. I really want too, but I don't think I can talk about this anymore. Thanks everybody for the props.

Bush is going to win in the next election anyway because all the democratic candidates are stupid, except Sharpton

Peace.

[megamattman1]

Bush is going to win in the next election anyway because all the democratic candidates are stupid

props and dittos :lol:

[jrndveritatis]

Okay, so I was just asking around and was told, by sources who are pretty knowledgeable, that the Church has not infallibly declared voting for abortion to be a sin. So some of my previous posts may have been misleading.

However, the Church does obviously discourage voting for pro-abortion candidates, as above quotes demonstrate. The Church also places primary interest on the issue of abortion in elections.

It would be pretty hard to be a Catholic with a well formed conscience and to vote for a pro-abortion candidate when a more pro-life candidate is available. Why? Because abortion is objectively declared to be a mortal sin by the Church. It is a command not to do something. Whereas, helping the poor and building a just society is a positive command, a command to do something. Now, clearly, the only way to obey a negative command is to not do what it says not to do. Things are different with a positive command. Different legitimate means are available to accomplishing what it commands. People can disagree on these means, and, as long as they are working towards fulfilling the command, be faithful Catholics whichever means they choose. So, the only way to not promote abortion is to not vote for it, when the people you vote for would appoint pro-abortion judges and veto pro-life bills. There are multiple ways to help the poor, but only one way to not support abortion.

Or at least one question. Why not vote for an off candidate who is more anti abortion like I'll prolly do since that is techniceal even lesser evil still? Is it cuz it's like wasting the vote?

It could be considered wasting the vote by some, but it wouldn't be wrong. The reason you can vote for someone who is not exactly the most pro-life (such as voting for Bush over Buchanan) is because of this consideration of wasting your vote. But of course you could vote for Buchanan. At least that's the way I understand it.

Anyways, thanks guys for the debate it made me think and refine my views.

[Don John of Austria]

First any aid in getting some one an abortion is an automatic excommunication Now voting for someone who is going to make it easier to get abortions is definently aiding people in getting abortions . Now, knowingly voting for someone who intends to fund or in anyway make abortions easier to get is aiding in someone getting an abortion. Ergo voteing for someone who intends to make abortions easier to get( which is every major democrat) logicly incurs instant and automatic excommunication. Just because our Bishops are to wussy to come out and say that doesn't mean it isn't the truth. It isn't some strech of logic it just IS logic.

Now as for the Federal Government, it is there for very limited reasons ,to buy bullets aim them at people we don't like, to make suret hat the States don't aim them at each other, to make surethat the States have free trade with each other, and to make treaties with foriegn powers. That is really about it, every thing else the Federal Government does is a direct result of unconstitutional power grabs. I personally wish the federal Government would do there Job and nothing more or course I also wish It would GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK. The States should be worrying about their own citizens and perhaps if the average american wasn't paying 45% of his income in taxes to some government agentcy( State local as well as federal) then the qverage Catholic would give more than 1% of his income to the Church enabling her to be Charitable and take care of the Poor. The Federal govenment was never ment to do most of what it does, it needs to stop trying to be THE government and allow the States to run there own affairs.

[megamattman1]

Dittos on the refinements and learning stuff. I even see some idological purposes for the tax cut. I could even convert to all that with a good rationale. I admit I don't know it all! And in fact will probably surprise you with what I am going to say.

Considering that the democrats would veto any bills concerning abortion, I can't in good conscious vote for them. I did some research and saw how much Clinton vetoed stuff! I can't believe how ignorant I was of all that. I assumed things would change when the people changed.

If the courts find it unconstitutional for the presidents to have that veto power, I will probably stop basing my votes on abortion unless there's a more adament pro-lifer president or a clear forthcoming overhaul for the panel.

Even though I said I would never vote for him, the abortion issue sticks right out there, and I would feel obligated voting for Bush so as not to waste my vote on an off candidate.

I suppose I usually take the stance that reality triumps prinicple. Just like before I considered the veto power, I considered the reaity that nothing would be done. And now, to an extent, it's about having a pro-life president for the sake of a pro-life president, but I'd say it's just as much if not more about trying to NOT have a pro-choice. I know it's what we'll all do to justify voting for him, but I'm not sure it's technically right when there's a better candidate. Cuz isn't that like saying the end justifies the means? I've always had a hard time with that concept. I know as a general rule of thumb, it's right, but in practice it's hard for me to say always. At least until I see the bigger picture or something I'm missing. I know you seem to have decided it wouldn't be wrong, but in terms of what I just said, is there anything else?

Also, you came to the same conclsions about the commands and stuff that I have. EVEN IF, the poor were dying by voting pro-life (all in theory), that only means we need to save them. When something can be done to save the poor, we can't weight them against saving the babies.

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[megamattman1]

About that end justifies the means stuff. I think I'm just going to forget about that! I think I'm misapplying the concept. Or at any rate, i think I'm in way over my head!

[megamattman1]

Just to let you know that I'm well aware of my grammar, spelling, bias, and even the logic errors! (after I do them) (which is usually because of things being too generalized) I do proof, but obviously not enough. It's gotta be frustrating reading stuff like that!

I could call suspect what they meant by the statement. Did they mean that we shouldn't be altogether bitter about the opposing candidates simply because we're right in a separate issue? Which would in this case be directed to those who are opposed to secondary issues of a pro-choice candidate. If that's the intent of that quote, this same type of statement could be made towards anyone who votes solely pro-choice and becomes bittered to all opposing non pro-choice side choices. I'll deal with regarding the abortion issue interpretation as you presented as number one later since that is the direct concern of that quote.

should be:

I could call suspect what they meant by the statement. Did they mean that we shouldn't be altogether bitter about the opposing candidates simply because we're right in a separate issue? Which would in this case be directed to those who are opposed to secondary issues of a pro-life candidate. If that's the intent of that quote, this same type of statement could be made towards anyone who votes solely pro-choice and becomes bittered to all opposing non pro-life side choices. I'll deal with regarding the abortion issue of abortion presented as number one later since that is the direct concern of that quote.

I know it's what we'll all do to justify voting for him, but I'm not sure it's technically right when there's a better candidate. Cuz isn't that like saying the end justifies the means? I've always had a hard time with that concept. I know as a general rule of thumb, it's right, but in practice it's hard for me to say always.

should be more clearly:

I know it's what we'll all do to justify voting for Bush, but I'm not sure it's technically right when there's a better candidate who is more against abortion. Cuz isn't that like saying the end justifies the means? I've always had a hard time with that concept. I know as a general rule of thumb, it's right (that the end does not justify the means), but in practice it's hard for me to say always.

seemed clear at the time. this is a major source of problems that I need to work on.

I bet that conclusion you and I made about helping the poor versus abortion is the same discussion that the bishops had to ultimately prevail abortion, eh Bishop Jim?

Edited January 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[Winchester]

Yeah, and the Kennedy's are really scraping by giving all their fundage to the poor. Democrat leaders are rich. Why? Because at their level of income, the money being taken from their pockets ain't shinobi. It matters to my pocketbook and to those in my income bracket and below. It matters that I pay for a public school system that hates God (and which party did that, I wonder?) to the tune of 15K per student and a nice bill from Mr. Tax man that's due soon if not overdue now. Welfare is designed to keep people from working, and that's a fact. Work a little and you're worse off than not working at all.

The 300 I got helped my family. I'm union. Clinton 8 friggin years in office and he didn't protect me from a democrat scumbag mayor. I got nothing for rich jerks who shed crocodile tears over the poor while designing socialist systems that do nothing to actually alleviate the burden on those who work for a living. And don't vomit anything at me about the working poor: I see them every day where I work. I see people with Satellite television in government housing: that's big money every month. I see people with big screen TV's in government housing. I foot part of the bill for that house and they've got AV equipment that George Lucas would tip his hat to. Democrats and their pandering tripe have done nothing to address actual social ills. They are at least as vile as the likes of Geroge Bush.

Vote Cthulu. Why settle for the lesser of two evils.

[hyperdulia again]

I'm not voting for anyone. The people who are as far left as I am fiscally (Green Party) are pro-baby murder. Bush is pro-baby murder (if they've been born and speak arabic). Therefore I shan't be rockin' da vote.

[ironmonk]

I'm not voting for anyone. The people who are as far left as I am fiscally (Green Party) are pro-baby murder. Bush is pro-baby murder (if they've been born and speak arabic). Therefore I shan't be rockin' da vote.

What a creative way to twist things so that you can accept lack of action.

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited January 23, 2004 by ironmonk

[Winchester]

ding ding!

[jrndveritatis]

I'm not voting for anyone. The people who are as far left as I am fiscally (Green Party) are pro-baby murder. Bush is pro-baby murder (if they've been born and speak arabic). Therefore I shan't be rockin' da vote.

Murder is intentionally taking innocent human life.

Applied to the war:

1) Casualties of the war: terrorists or enemy soldiers, civilians, American soldiers.

2) Terrorists are not innocent.

3) Civilians are innocent.

4) Civilians are not being killed intentionally.

5) American soldiers are innocent human life.

6) We are not the ones killing our soldiers.

Therefore, Bush is not pro-murder.

[Winchester]

man, syllogisms cannot have six parts...

[hyperdulia again]

How dare you Ironmonk?

I find the entire thing disgusting and my conscience won't let me vote for any candidate who will be on the ballet in Alabama. I won't vote for a man who's prosecuting a war I don't believe in. I cannot vote for someone who thinks a baby is a glob of tissue. Therefore i won't vote. How dare you try to tell me what my motives for anything.

[Winchester]

my conscience won't let me vote for any candidate who will be on the ballet in Alabama.

Alabama politicians do ballet?