Who To Vote For?

[Norseman82]

I normally vote Republican on the moral issues.

But this year in Illinois there is no Senate contest, and the big thing is the gubernatorial contest. Aside from partial-birth abortion, and maybe a few 2nd amendment issues, there is little to distinguish between the Republican and Democrat candidates of the "bipartisan combine" , as John Kass puts it. I was considering voting for the Republican as "the lesser of two evils" because their Lt. Gov. candidate is pro-life, but when the gubernatorial candidate came out in favor of some expansion of gambling in Chicago, I knew that the major difference between the two candidates really boiled down to which one's cronies would be getting the pork.

Unless she convinces me otherwise, I'm probably going to write-in the Constitution party candidate.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087897' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:31 PM']
Sure but then again, is there any evidence that a Kerry-led administration would have taken us into this mess of a war? For me there's just too much guesswork. Politicians just say whatever their party-lines want them too so they can get into office. If we could ever have someone that actually did everything he said he would do then "maybe" we'd have a different situation. But as it is, I don't think I can vote for someone not knowing what they will support. My vote for Bush in the last election is my example of this. I voted for him because all the talk was that he was pro-life etc. But then we have this craziness overseas, resulting in many many deaths. Yes, I think if given enough time, his plans for implementing pro-life policies would work. But as it is, presidents only have 4-8 years to work their magic. That's just not enough time for these slow-moving issues. Even if he does all he can as far as putting the right people on the Supreme Court and such, he doesn't have the time to do all of it. Eventually the other party will get back into power and promptly work to undo everything that was being prepared previously. So it goes in a nation where the people are so narrowly divided on their loyalties.
[/quote]History does not support your 'dream' that war can be avoided by placating or ignoring evil that wants to impose itself on others. It was the mistake that numerous countries made. Was Napoleon super-human? Was Hitler or Idi Amin? How many deaths are the bargin for your life? What use is your life if the payment is ignoring the suffering and death of others? Are 2,000 American lives and the 50 thousand Iraqi lives lost in trying to secure the opportunity to exercise their free will a poor bargin for 48,000 Iraqis killed by an oppressive dictatorship?
People don't want to answer those types of questions so they vote for the politician that best lies to them. We're in the war for oil, to find WMD, to secure our economy, to secure the world economy. We shouldn't be in the war because of US naivite, because of negative world opinion, because the US is equally as bad.
That's why the US hasn't been in Somalia or won't do 'profiling'. It is too hard for a politician to tell believable lies that justify a few lies for freedom to exercise free will.
We have free will to sin or not to sin. It's the human right to fail.
The worst choices are to choose defeat, apathy, or unrealistic optimism and effectively do nothing.

[goldenchild17]

okay... I see nothing that relates to me at all. But I'm starting to expect that from your posts to me.

[Paladin]

Look, complain about the media all you want, but when your "interrogation technique" is the same one used by Khmer Rouge, where you simulate drowning a person to get results that are quite often inaccurate and simply the screamings of a man being tortured, it's torture. I'm not even talking Geneva here, we're talking Catechism:[quote]Torture which uses [b]physical or moral violence to extract confessions[/b], punish the guilty,[b] frighten opponents[/b], or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.[/quote] The Church calls it torture, and it is intrinsically evil. Supporting torture is as wrong as supporting abortion.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Paladin

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087949' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:19 PM']
okay... I see nothing that relates to me at all. But I'm starting to expect that from your posts to me.
[/quote]I guess it's because you are a little s l o w.
I addressed your comment if Kerry would get the US in this 'mess' of a war.
I addressed your comment about why and what politicians lie about to get elected and the type of lies regarding Iraq.
I addressed the idea of being too negative or apathetic.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Paladin' post='1087956' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:28 PM']
Look, complain about the media all you want, but when your "interrogation technique" is the same one used by Khmer Rouge, where you simulate drowning a person to get results that are quite often inaccurate and simply the screamings of a man being tortured, it's torture. I'm not even talking Geneva here, we're talking Catechism: The Church calls it torture, and it is intrinsically evil. Supporting torture is as wrong as supporting abortion.
[/quote]
The paragraph you quote is lead in by a statement on terrorists and terrorism. No, we are not the terrorists.

Taking the text on fact value, I don't see how the water drip technique is physical torture. It's mentally challenging, but does no physical harm.

I also don't see how it's "violent". Soldiers are driven to the point in exercises where they think their legs, arms, backs, etc. are going to fall off or give out. Is that violence? No, it's mental challenge brought on by physical fatigue.

You should also quote what the Vatican says about a country's right to defend itself. Given your stand, if we had a 9/11 terrorist in our possession, and we knew he was part of a plan to take the WTC down, we would NOT be allowed to punch him in the face to get an answer. It's better to have 3,000 people die rather than put a bruise on a known terrorist?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1087968' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:46 PM']
I guess it's because you are a little s l o w. [/quote]
Maybe that is it. Then again maybe you could make yourself more clear.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1087968' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:46 PM']I addressed your comment if Kerry would get the US in this 'mess' of a war.
I addressed your comment about why and what politicians lie about to get elected and the type of lies regarding Iraq.
I addressed the idea of being too negative or apathetic. [/quote]
Not sure how you addressed any of this. But then again, I'm just slow. Don't worry about me, it's just my mental illness .

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087980' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:06 PM']
Maybe that is it. Then again maybe you could make yourself more clear.
Not sure how you addressed any of this. But then again, I'm just slow. Don't worry about me, it's just my mental illness .
[/quote]
LOL. It's not a mental illness, it's an intellectual deficiency. Illness can be cured. A deficiency requires effort and time to overcome.

But seriously. Instead of assuming someone isn't addressing your points, assume you aren't undrestanding them and mull on it.

[Winchester]

I wasn't aware support of torture was part of the Republican platform. Which chapter is that in?

Neither side is stupid. If they were, they wouldn't be in power. They are foolish, and they have unintelligent people within the party. That's not the same as the parties being stupid. They are selfish and power hungry, but not stupid.

[kamiller42]

I just saw this pop up on the news: [url="http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=B3797E54-7716-497A-A44F-C0995CBA03A2"]Sheriff makes inmates wear pink jumpsuits and slippers[/url].
[quote]Three county inmates in the jail here lay on their bunks, not saying much.

They wore pink jumpsuits and pink slippers, and one was wrapped in pink sheets. They were surrounded by pink bars and pink walls.

[b]They were not comfortable.[/b][/quote]
Torture! :

[Anomaly]

What is torture?
Acts causing Intimidation?
Acts enforcing Control?
Acts establishing Dominance?
Acts causing Pain?
Acts removing Autonomy?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088082' date='Oct 10 2006, 08:10 AM']
LOL. It's not a mental illness, it's an intellectual deficiency. Illness can be cured. A deficiency requires effort and time to overcome.

But seriously. Instead of assuming someone isn't addressing your points, assume you aren't undrestanding them and mull on it.
[/quote]
I didn't say you didn't, I simply pointed out that I didn't see where the point was. Doesn't mean you weren't making one, just means it wasn't obvious enough to me. Whether I'm stupid or not doesn't really matter. If I do have a intellectual problem then you'll just need to accommodate and speak simpler for those of us who are simple minded.

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1087915' date='Oct 9 2006, 08:52 PM']
Yes, but who knows. Maybe he wouldn't have gone to war at all. There are indications both ways. Again comes in the guessing game.[/quote]
This makes no sense, because we were already at war in Iraq when Kerry ran for president (2004). And Kerry had voted to go to war before war was declared, so this whole speculation is bogus and nonsensical. And since Kerry was not elected president, this "guessing game" is pointless anyway. It sounds almost like you've become an apologist for John Kerry.

[quote]Of course, and I'm not (as I indicated already). I'm equating many abortions AND the war vs. many abortions vs. NO war.[/quote]
Exactly. You're deliberately ignoring important parts of the equation.
Such as restrictions against funding of abortion overseas and embryonic "research" vs. increased funding of abortion with your taxc dollars.
Laws against "partial-birth" abortion vs. continued legalization of this barbaric procedure.
Nomination of conservative judges who might be open to allowing Roe v. Wade to be overthrown vs. packing the court with 100% liberal pro-abortion judges, which would insure that abortion-on-demand will forever be enforced by the federal government as the law of the land. (Which, let's face it, is what would have happened under a Kerry presidency)

With regards to abortion, you seem unable, or unwilling, to look much past your own nose. You seem to regard the nomination of USSC justices as irrelevent, because it will not bring about an immediate change.

[quote]Until Roe V. Wade is overturned there is no real hope for abortions to decrease (even then I don't think they will, but at least they will be illegal). Note that I'm not saying that I think Roe V. Wade will never be overturned. I think there is a good chance that it will be. Plessy vs. Ferguson was in effect longer than Roe V. Wade has been. So I don't see any reason to assume that Roe will always exist as law. And no people who have the energy to do this should fight if they see it worthwhile. Maybe someday this will be turned around. But even if it is, it will only be a temporary thing. If abortions was outlawed before, and legal now, chances are it'll be outlawed again in the future and then again made legal again. It's just the nature of circulation within the government. No long-term stability.[/quote]
More contradictions.
While earlier you insinuated that the nomination of pro-life justices would not do any good, now you argue that it doesn't matter because you think there is a "good chance" Roe v. Wade will be overturned!

My friend, [b]Roe v. Wade will not be overturned unless enough pro-life justices are sworn into the Supreme Court!
Which will only happen if we elect pro-life presidents! (Not liberals like Kerry or Clinton!)[/b]

But then you turn around and say that would not do any good anyway because it will "only be temporary." (you know, just like the Dredd Scott ruling was reinstated.)

You swing from prophecies of pessimism to optimism and back to pessimism - anything it seems to justify your own apathy.

[b]Of course, all it takes fo r evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing![/b]

[Socrates]

[quote name='kdewolf2' post='1087793' date='Oct 9 2006, 06:48 PM']
The Republicans unashamedly endorse endless war, bloodshed, political violence, torture, and poverty, while the Democrats only endorse such things to a lesser degree, and perhaps more tactfully.
[/quote]
The Republicans "unashamedly endorse poverty"!?

A silly and moronic statement.
I have yet to hear a politician of any party endorsing "poverty"!
(I'd like to hear an example - sounds interesting!)

(Well, poverty is one of the three Evangelical Counsils - maybe more politicians should start endorsing it, maybe even living it!)

Or perhaps you really mean they are not doing as much as you would like to enforce more socialism on the country.
Christ said, "the poor you will always have with you." Any claim that poverty will be eliminated all together by government action is utopian moonshine.
Claiming Republicans are "endorsing poverty" when we live in the most prosperous nation in the world is a silly statement.

You need to start studying economics - beginning with the truism, "there is no free lunch." Any politician promising free lunch for all is simply blowing hot air.

And the fact is that domestic spending [b]increased much more under Bush, than under Clinton[/b]! (A huge strike vs. Bush imho)
Yet the liberals keep screaming he is not spending enough!

And the Dems unashamedly promote abortion - which certainly qualifies as bloodshed, violence, and torture on a much larger scale than anything going on in Iraq!

You bleeding hearts need to start [b]thinking[/b] and using [b]right reason[/b], rather than simply regurgitating every piece of tripe the media spoon-feeds you!

Sheesh!

Edited October 11, 2006 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1087978' date='Oct 9 2006, 09:59 PM']
You should also quote what the Vatican says about a country's right to defend itself. Given your stand, if we had a 9/11 terrorist in our possession, and we knew he was part of a plan to take the WTC down, we would NOT be allowed to punch him in the face to get an answer. It's better to have 3,000 people die rather than put a bruise on a known terrorist?
[/quote]
Right on!

I'm sick of bleeding hearts going on about how we need to mollycoddle every convicted mass-murderer and terrorist, and then equivocating such things with the mass-slaughter of the innocents which is abortion!

Sense of proportion and justice seems entirely lacking in some "Catholic" circles!

(And it seems to me this confusion is simply being spread by political liberals in order to get Catholics to vote for their candidates of choice.)

[Winchester]

Simple isolation will produce profound psychological effects. Is that torture?

Sadly, bullies don't show a tendency to be nice until someone whups bully butt.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1088605' date='Oct 10 2006, 08:42 PM']
This makes no sense, because we were already at war in Iraq when Kerry ran for president (2004). And Kerry had voted to go to war before war was declared, so this whole speculation is bogus and nonsensical. And since Kerry was not elected president, this "guessing game" is pointless anyway. It sounds almost like you've become an apologist for John Kerry.
Exactly. You're deliberately ignoring important parts of the equation.
Such as restrictions against funding of abortion overseas and embryonic "research" vs. increased funding of abortion with your taxc dollars.
Laws against "partial-birth" abortion vs. continued legalization of this barbaric procedure.
Nomination of conservative judges who might be open to allowing Roe v. Wade to be overthrown vs. packing the court with 100% liberal pro-abortion judges, which would insure that abortion-on-demand will forever be enforced by the federal government as the law of the land. (Which, let's face it, is what would have happened under a Kerry presidency)

With regards to abortion, you seem unable, or unwilling, to look much past your own nose. You seem to regard the nomination of USSC justices as irrelevent, because it will not bring about an immediate change.


More contradictions.
While earlier you insinuated that the nomination of pro-life justices would not do any good, now you argue that it doesn't matter because you think there is a "good chance" Roe v. Wade will be overturned!

My friend, [b]Roe v. Wade will not be overturned unless enough pro-life justices are sworn into the Supreme Court!
Which will only happen if we elect pro-life presidents! (Not liberals like Kerry or Clinton!)[/b]

But then you turn around and say that would not do any good anyway because it will "only be temporary." (you know, just like the Dredd Scott ruling was reinstated.)

You swing from prophecies of pessimism to optimism and back to pessimism - anything it seems to justify your own apathy.

[b]Of course, all it takes fo r evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing![/b]
[/quote]

All I'm saying is that there is a chance it will be overturned. It's happened with other evil laws, it's bound to happen with this one. But I'm simply saying I don't think it'll be a permanent situation, or even long-term. As long as there is variation in the overarching aims of leadership these things will always be in flux. If you think I disregard all the aspects of abortion, that's okay. Honestly I'm not so concerned anymore with what people think I do and do not know. All of these little things are extremely important. I believe I've actually acknowledged the importance of the sup. ct justices in overturning the law. But my only point is that these things are things that will take a long time. Too long to be in actuality, effective. One party only holds power for so long. The pendulum always swings in both directions. Maybe we will get the sup. ct. justices in our favor. By the time we do this, the other side will be working to do the same thing, and eventually it'll go back in that direction.

I am not saying it is not a good thing to work for whatever temporary alleviation of abortion that we can. I'm saying I don't think long-term the difference will outweigh other losses, such as Iraq etc. because it simply won't be a long-term fix. If what Bush was doing would put the pro-life people in place permanently, then it would all be completely worth it. But that just can't happen in a democratic society.

Edited October 11, 2006 by goldenchild17

[N/A Gone]

I have a problem with both parties. Republicans typically are pro-death, democrats are pro-abortion. Morally i can not vote for either party. I do not agree with the theopolitical system of our current gov't

[Socrates]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1089166' date='Oct 11 2006, 01:23 PM']
All I'm saying is that there is a chance it will be overturned. It's happened with other evil laws, it's bound to happen with this one. But I'm simply saying I don't think it'll be a permanent situation, or even long-term. As long as there is variation in the overarching aims of leadership these things will always be in flux. If you think I disregard all the aspects of abortion, that's okay. Honestly I'm not so concerned anymore with what people think I do and do not know. All of these little things are extremely important. I believe I've actually acknowledged the importance of the sup. ct justices in overturning the law. But my only point is that these things are things that will take a long time. Too long to be in actuality, effective. One party only holds power for so long. The pendulum always swings in both directions. Maybe we will get the sup. ct. justices in our favor. By the time we do this, the other side will be working to do the same thing, and eventually it'll go back in that direction.

I am not saying it is not a good thing to work for whatever temporary alleviation of abortion that we can. I'm saying I don't think long-term the difference will outweigh other losses, such as Iraq etc. because it simply won't be a long-term fix. If what Bush was doing would put the pro-life people in place permanently, then it would all be completely worth it. But that just can't happen in a democratic society.
[/quote]
All I'm seeing here is a (rather incoherent) apologia for apathy.

Your argument that nomination of good Supreme Court justices is of small importance because "these things are things that will take a long time" is nonsensical.
And Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. They do not retire with the change of administration.
If pro-life presidents are not elected, if pro-life justices are not appointed, then there never will a pro-life majority in the SCOTUS.

And if Roe v. Wade ever is overturned, it will be no thanks to people with attitudes like yours.

Simply blowing this off because the process will take time is short-sighted and childish.
Not everything worth doing can be done overnight.

You somehow argue that Roe v. Wade will inevitably be overturned, regardless of whether good justices are elected or not (which is likewise nonsensical), then say it isn't worth attempting, because you claim it will inevitably be re-instated.

That is just more defeatist fatalistic nonsense. Attitudes can change. Governments can change. The SCOTUS is only part of the battle, of course, but that does not mean it should be neglected.
The Supreme Court once ruled that black slaves were not persons. No longer. The Supreme Court has yet to declare blacks non-persons again and re-legalize slavery.
One can imagine a mid-19th century Goldenchild:
"All I'm saying is that there is a chance slavery will be outlawed. It's happened with other evil laws, it's bound to happen with this one. But I'm simply saying I don't think it'll be a permanent situation, or even long-term. As long as there is variation in the overarching aims of leadership these things will always be in flux."

In fact, one can use this fatalistic "state of flux" argument to justify inaction and apathy in virtually any area.

And why do you give greater weight to the Iraq war than abortion, based on this "impermanence" argument??
Indeed, one can more easily and accurately apply your arguments against acting to end the war:
"This war is bound to end sooner or later. We've been through a number of wars in the past, and all have ended. But once the Iraq war's over, we're bound to sooner or later get into an even bigger war. Peace is never permanent."

Our Holy Father has said there may be a diversity of opinion regarding the justness of a war, but not on abortion and euthanasia.

You need to start thinking, not just going with the politically-correct flow of the media.

Edited October 12, 2006 by Socrates

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1089559' date='Oct 11 2006, 08:55 PM']Not everything worth doing can be done overnight.
[/quote]
As you seem to misunderstand my position I won't bother addressing any more. But this was interesting. This is my exact point. Yes all of what you say is good and important. But it's a much longer process than what we have time for.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1089559' date='Oct 11 2006, 08:55 PM']You need to start thinking, not just going with the politically-correct flow of the media.[/quote]
okay... So someone who supports monarchy, distributism, geocentrism, and sedevacantism (among other things), is a person who is simply going with the politically correct view, or with whatever is popular with the media? Interesting, but describing me as someone who "goes with the flow" of whatever is popular is definitely one of the more innaccurate things I can think of.