Political Party in Re: to Catholicism - Page 12

SpiritMeadow · #**166** Jan 4, '08, 2:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

I recommend you read the report from the CCB regarding the election and the five non-negotiables. The war may or may not be unjust, I would never deny the Pope, but was is not one of the tenets of the church that in included in the non-negotiable issues in voting. When it is, I think many of us will take notice.

I believe the USCCB does not use the term non-negociables. I believe that is a CAF term. I do not deny they do not seem to find abortion an issue which one can dissent from, but I do not believe that they use the term non-negociable. I believe that term originated and is used by the folks who run CAF.

SpiritMeadow · #**167** Jan 4, '08, 2:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by marci

The Iowa caucus means nothing. Niether winner will be offered up in the general election. Iowa is one little part of the country and not a single winner in the last couple of elections went on to grab the presidency.
This was stated wrong. I got bad info. Sorry to all.

That was not the point. You may be sure who the candidates will not be, I'm sure not sure who they will be. My point had nothing to do with who the candidate was.

Watch NH.....people are expected to come out in record numbers. Iowa was supposed to field about 200,000 to the caucuses an all time high. It actually fielded nearly 350,000 amazing numbers for a non-election. There were polling places that were not large enough to hold the participants. Such has never happened before. People are extremely angry. The vote said, change and get the old guard out of here. We shall of course see how and if that changes in NH, but heck they are noted for their rebellious nature. I sure don't expect them to embrace the right.

SpiritMeadow · #**168** Jan 4, '08, 2:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that being pro-choice is not the same thing as being pro-abortion.

Note that the pro-choice people in Congress want to guarentee taxpayer-supported abortion. You can't hardly get more pro-abortion than to force other people to pay for it!

How did you get to be so much holier than everyone else?

I have told you privately that I was not interesting in discussion with you since you continually call me names. You said you would continue to do so because you can speak whenever you wished. Now go ahead and tell everyone that you consider my refusal to mean that I have no argument to make as you said you would do also. I will not respond to you. Clearly you have no intent to respect my wishes or me.

frankadams · #**169** Jan 4, '08, 3:03 pm

Where are the results? I am told on this thread that it is a sin to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. And yet, despite having the White House in alledgedly pro-life presidents for 19 of the last 27 years, the abortion rate has been fairly steady. Ironically, the only significant drop took place during the pro-abortion Clinton years.

**vern humphrey** · #**170** Jan 4, '08, 3:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

I have told you privately that I was not interesting in discussion with you since you continually call me names. You said you would continue to do so because you can speak whenever you wished. Now go ahead and tell everyone that you consider my refusal to mean that I have no argument to make as you said you would do also. I will not respond to you. Clearly you have no intent to respect my wishes or me.

Boy, there's a Napoleon complex for you.

**Ridgerunner** · #**171** Jan 4, '08, 3:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankadams

Where are the results? I am told on this thread that it is a sin to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. And yet, despite having the White House in alledgedly pro-life presidents for 19 of the last 27 years, the abortion rate has been fairly steady. Ironically, the only significant drop took place during the pro-abortion Clinton years.

And what prolife or anti-abortion measures did Clinton get accomplished? There were none at all. None. If, indeed, abortions went down during the Clinton years, it certainly wasn't because of anything Clinton did. No cause/effect relationship.

The whole issue is going to be decided by the next one or two appointments to the Supreme Court. Everyone knows that. One the ONLY prolife thing the Supremes have done is approve a ban on partial birth abortion. And that only happened because Anthony Kennedy joined Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, the last two being Bush appointees, in approving the ban.

Now, Ginsberg was appointed by Clinton and, of course, voted against any limitation on partial-birth abortion, which is infanticide, really. She also favors lowering the age of sexual consent (both hetero and homosexual) to 12.

So, when you cast your vote in November, don't kid yourself as to what you're voting for. I don't expect any of those on here who want a pro-abortion administration to admit that's their motivation, and I'm sure you won't. But you ought to at least admit it to yourself that you intend to cast your vote in favor of killing the unborn. You're going to live with that vote for a long time, so think it out.

mary bobo · #**172** Jan 4, '08, 5:23 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

didnt you just say something about losing any right to having a legitimate argument by casting aspersions? Does it apply to everyone or only some?

Good grief. Lighten up. Note the smiley.

mary bobo · #**173** Jan 4, '08, 5:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

My but one has been convicted already.....interesting way to attempt to negate an argument. About the caucuses, well we shall see.

Indeed. And how about the Clinton cronies in Arkansas who are in jail?

**rlg94086** · #**174** Jan 4, '08, 5:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

LOL...guess you missed how many independents came out for Democrats last night. Iowa is naturally a conservative state, yet the people out to caucus were 2 to 1 democrats and a lot of the "democrats" were actually independents who have had their belly full of "compassionate conservativism."

Interesting, but hardly conclusive. You are assuming the caucus turnout will match the general election turnout, and you are assuming that the one Democrat choice they have in the general election will attract the independents, but the one Republican choice won't. You are also assuming that Iowa is a good reflection of how the rest of the country will vote. Too many assumptions and too many variables. I prefer not to assume.

**vern humphrey** · #**175** Jan 4, '08, 5:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

Indeed. And how about the Clinton cronies in Arkansas who are in jail?

Oh, that doesn't count.

In fact, one of the convicted Clinton appointees, Webster Hubble, a lawyer who stole from his clients, was invited to address the annual convention of the American Bar Association in Atlanta.

**estesbob** · #**176** Jan 4, '08, 6:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Interesting, but hardly conclusive. You are assuming the caucus turnout will match the general election turnout, and you are assuming that the one Democrat choice they have in the general election will attract the independents, but the one Republican choice won't. You are also assuming that Iowa is a good reflection of how the rest of the country will vote. Too many assumptions and too many variables. I prefer not to assume.

It is sad that people dislike George Bush's so much they consider it a victory to put a Presiden in power who will do everything he can to keep the slaughter of the innocents legal in this country. We know from history that the very first thing a Democrat president will do is rescind the Mexico City policy thus allowing US taxpayers to help pay for killing children overseas. I guess that the Democratic Party considers dead children collateral damage.

**estesbob** · #**177** Jan 4, '08, 6:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vern humphrey

Oh, that doesn't count.

In fact, one of the convicted Clinton appointees, Webster Hubble, a lawyer who stole from his clients, was invited to address the annual convention of the American Bar Association in Atlanta.

And let's keep in mind how great a champion for women this President Clinton was.Especially women like Juanita Broderick, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Wiley and Paula Jones.

gkroeger · #**178** Jan 4, '08, 6:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow

That was not the point. You may be sure who the candidates will not be, I'm sure not sure who they will be. My point had nothing to do with who the candidate was.

Watch NH.....people are expected to come out in record numbers. Iowa was supposed to field about 200,000 to the caucuses an all time high. It actually fielded nearly 350,000 amazing numbers for a non-election. There were polling places that were not large enough to hold the participants. Such has never happened before. People are extremely angry. The vote said, change and get the old guard out of here. We shall of course see how and if that changes in NH, but heck they are noted for their rebellious nature. I sure don't expect them to embrace the right.

The old guard includes a Democratic majority.