Who Can Faithful Catholics Actually Vote For?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1463873' date='Feb 16 2008, 12:01 AM']Is pro-abortion near the top of Obama's or Clinton's list?

Isn't that good enough reason to prevent them from being able to do anything?

I'd rather put my faith in McCain than Clinton.
By the way, for all you people who say he'll do more to hurt the pro-life cause, what happens if someone worse than he gets nominated in four years? and four years after that? and four years after that?

We have no way of knowing how it'll affect 4 years from now, but we can change the next four years...it's why we vote every four years.[/quote]


Clinton and Obama and McCain:

* are endorsed by pro-choice groups
* support banning pro-life groups from promoting a pro-life candidate (thus, support restriction of the very free speech rights guaranteed by the US Constitution)
* have stated that they would not support overturning roe v wade
* have actively worked to prevent pro-life legislation from coming to a vote while in the senate
* support human fetal experimentation

How is one candidate that supports all that better than the other? They are pretty much identical in every other aspect as well. They are all socialists. They are all more interested in talking about government programs than anything else.

It's over the GOP and Dems... they have become more and more the same exact party to the point of giving us identical candidates.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[Jaime]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1463870' date='Feb 15 2008, 10:57 PM']McCain's job was simply to "vote up or down." That's it.
And no I don't believe him. He'll say a lot of things. He needs to have people vote for him, so he will talk about how he is an advocate for the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to property.

However, he's not even a good liar. He says he's conservative while some of the most liberal legislation to date is named after him. And McCain says he's an advocate for the pro-life movement; but even some in the pro-choice movement apparently see through him, because McCain carries their endorsement.

McCain will not appoint judges that would strike down the all liberal legislation that he crafted. He will appoint judges according to his constitutional philosophy as revealed through his legislative history. The Republicans for Choice know all this about McCain. That's why they endorsed him--twice. As they recently said, pro-life is just not at the top of McCain's agenda.

[url="http://www.lifenews.com/nat3612.html"]Rick Santorum agrees on that point[/url]:[/quote]

Yeah and he voted "up". That has to be taken into consideration.

And he's endorsed by NRLC

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1463861' date='Feb 15 2008, 11:45 PM']Why's that?[/quote]

I'm grateful that Bush appointed a pro-life judge, but I disagree with Bush on a lot of things. I'd rather vote for someone I would [b]love[/b] to see as president, and I would love to see Joe Schriner as president.

[BeenaBobba]

You know, I think we should all continue to vote for pro-life candidates, of course, but I honestly don't think we're going to see much of a difference until we see a change in our culture. Until then, things are pretty much going to stay as is, I think.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1463887' date='Feb 16 2008, 12:22 AM']And he's endorsed by NRLC[/quote]

I thought it was just Carolyn Gerster, a co-founder of NRLC.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1463924' date='Feb 15 2008, 11:44 PM']I thought it was just Carolyn Gerster, a co-founder of NRLC.[/quote]


You have no sense of humor

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1463886' date='Feb 15 2008, 11:21 PM']Clinton and Obama and McCain:

* are endorsed by pro-choice groups
* support banning pro-life groups from promoting a pro-life candidate (thus, support restriction of the very free speech rights guaranteed by the US Constitution)
* have stated that they would not support overturning roe v wade
* have actively worked to prevent pro-life legislation from coming to a vote while in the senate
* support human fetal experimentation

How is one candidate that supports all that better than the other? They are pretty much identical in every other aspect as well. They are all socialists. They are all more interested in talking about government programs than anything else.

It's over the GOP and Dems... they have become more and more the same exact party to the point of giving us identical candidates.[/quote]

Can you give proof for McCain and every one of these accusations (except the last one)?

[Justin86]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1463831' date='Feb 16 2008, 01:12 PM']I'm sorry but McCain-Feingold is not a pro-life issue. At best it indirectly impacts the pro-life movement. The way that NRLC makes it seem like its this diabolical piece of legislation for prochoice and its not.[/quote]
Absolutely. Political action committees are certainly not only limited to prolife Republicans, but include all political factions in their number. As a matter of fact in the 2004 and 2006 elections the vast majority of fines issued in the name of law this law were given to left wing/Democratic organizations.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_organization"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_organization[/url]

Furthermore, McCain-Feingold does not regulate the internet which is where the majority of Americans do their research in deciding how to vote. Instead of wasting time, money and personnel on regaining a median that nobody uses anymore it would instead be smarter for PACs to invest in internet advertising.

[quote]Yes McCain is more liberal than Bush on social issues. That's what is bothering me. If people would come out and say "You know what? I don't like his social views I'm not voting for him" then that's fine. But people are using the Church to defend not voting for him, when they used the Church to get people to vote for Bush.

And that is wrong.[/quote]
Well, McCain position on abortion is quite questionable. Take a look at this confusing statement he made in 1999:

[quote]“I’d love to see a point where Roe vs. Wade is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, [b]I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade[/b], which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”[/quote]
[url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm"]http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm[/url]

While it may be true that he has said that he wants to overturn Roe other times that still makes him nothing but a flip-flopper. At least with Bush he was always against Roe.

This is why I was really rooting for Fred Thompson. I have already showed how McCain-Feingold is largely irrelevant, and I certainly don't care how he only voted to impeach Billy-Bob on one charge instead of both of them. The man has never flipped-flopped on abortion, showed no tendencies to cut and run from Iraq, wanted to secure the border, wanted to return to states rights, and had a reasonable shot of winning. He was a better option than any of the other candidates, who were either for by far worse policies or never had a chance of winning. Sadly I think he never really wanted the White House to begin with, and may have just campaigned to please his wife, and we thus rejected him. My only question now is who are we going to choose in 2012 when we lose this election.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1463916' date='Feb 15 2008, 11:40 PM']You know, I think we should all continue to vote for pro-life candidates, of course, but I honestly don't think we're going to see much of a difference until we see a change in our culture. Until then, things are pretty much going to stay as is, I think.[/quote]

I think we should still work for the pro-life political movement it as much as we possibly can.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1463946' date='Feb 16 2008, 12:53 AM']I think we should still work for the pro-life political movement it as much as we possibly can.[/quote]

Yeah, of course. Being committed to the pro-life cause is one way we can help change our culture.

[qfnol31]

McCain has reversed his position (for the better) regarding Roe v. Wade and abortion since 1999.

Maybe it's because I wasn't really active back then, but nearly 9 years is a long time to hold someone to the same position and say he is questionable.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1463405' date='Feb 15 2008, 02:26 PM']Well?
Give me choices and good reasons please.[/quote]
Well to actually get to the original point of the topic...

I am likely voting Libertarian Party. The likely nominee is Wayne Allyn Root. Root was a big time Republican Party organizer and contributed to Republican candidates. As an incidental fun-fact, it was mentioned in a recent radio interview that Barak Obama was actually a college classmate of Root's. Root has gotten fed up with the GOP, because they have embraced the same things that he opposed the Democrats on.

As for life issues, he believes that Roe v Wade should be overturned and that life issues should be decided by the states—as they were pre-“Roe.” Root basically believes that the federal government should only be running the military and not much else; and the day-to-day stuff, including life-and-death matters, should be up to the states.

And along with other standard Libertarian Party standings on the various issues, he does support the war (although he does have his criticisms). He doesn’t believe that Bush detonated the buildings on 9-11, that it was an inside job, or that America was in any way responsible. In other words, he’s not a nut.

Root would support the FAIR Tax; although he would support pretty much anything that would eliminate the IRS and get the federal government out of our day-to-day lives.

Root supports school choice. He supports vouchers. He and his wife are home schoolers.

So far Root has won the Missouri Libertarian primary. In Arizona he got second and in California he got third. I hope he lands the nomination. He is ahead in campaign donations, but we know that the dollars do not equal votes.

I looked in to the Constitution Party and like them to a point. Generally speaking, I tend to agree with the Libertarian Party much more than I agree with the Constitution Party. The national chairman of the Constitution Party, Jim Clymer, was on Glenn Beck’s program a few days ago and many of the party organizers seem to be a bit too conspiracy prone for me. He seems inclined to believe that 9-11 was an inside job, for one thing. That kinda' turned me off.

This is not the first election that I have voted Libertarian Party, because I have voted for Libertarian Party candidates in local elections over the years. But this is the first election that I will vote for a Libertarian presidential candidate.

[b]Root's official campaign website[/b] The website has a recent radio interview that loads right away.

[b]Wayne Allyn Root wikipedia article[/b]

[b]Libertarian Party website[/b]

[Justin86]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1463955' date='Feb 16 2008, 02:56 PM']McCain has reversed his position (for the better) regarding Roe v. Wade and abortion since 1999.

Maybe it's because I wasn't really active back then, but nearly 9 years is a long time to hold someone to the same position and say he is questionable.[/quote]
There are politicians who were for overturning Roe nine years ago and still are for it today. Why then, should I trust John McCain on abortion? Face it. The man's a flip-flopper just like Romney and Kerry.

[qfnol31]

I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that whatsoever. In fact, he seems to be pretty sincere about this particular issue.

Are you sure you aren't just justifying not voting for him?

[Justin86]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1464007' date='Feb 16 2008, 03:35 PM']I haven't seen any evidence to indicate that whatsoever.[/quote]
I have already shown, and you have agreed, that McCain switched sides regarding abortion. That's flip-flopping.