Our Next President - Page 11

seekerz · #**151** Apr 2, '12, 11:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

No. Social justice is such an amorphous term that it can mean anything to anyone, thus rendering it impotent as a useful term in political dialog.

Oh, so if I say reproductive health is a term that can mean anything to anyone, would that mean we could stop talking about it?

bellasbane · #**152** Apr 2, '12, 11:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte408

Santorum 2012.

To be honest, I am quite impressed with the 60% of people on this forum who support either Santorum or Paul (i.e., "Other") for president. That shows what a real problem Romney is for a Republican-Catholic voter. Its the same problem Democratic-Catholic voters have with Obama.

I don't like everything Obama stands for, but I would never vote for Romney.

Scott_Lafrance · #**153** Apr 2, '12, 11:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerz

That would have been nice to know before you gave your definition of it.

I gave the colloquial interpretation of the Democrat meaning of it.

qui est ce · #**154** Apr 2, '12, 11:12 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

Yikes! Of whom are you speaking, Christine??? You use "we," yet I was addressing the subject, not any particular individuals or groups (you seem to think that I was referring to the GOP, which I was NOT.) There was no reason to personalize the subject.

I'm upset that the U.S. offers less overall in the way of health care to the poor and middle class than do so many more other countries. We ought to be at the top of the list, not #24.

That said, carry on beating me about the head and shoulders.

Sorry Rich. You were responding to Bellasbane's diatribe about us evil conservatives who don't care about the poor. I guess I misdirected my post.

Rich Olszewski · #**155** Apr 2, '12, 11:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bocephus

Rich, the poor and elderly have access to free healthcare. If they don't utilize it, there isn't much more you can do. There has to be some expectation of personal responsibility, moreso as income increases.

Oh? What about the sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills they can accumulate? Also, the amount of "free" is limited. Catholic hospitals in NYC, e.g., have gone out of business providing care to those without insurance. Personal responsibility goes just so far if you are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury and you have no insurance or no large amount of funds accumulated.

qui est ce · #**156** Apr 2, '12, 11:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerz

I will just deal with one point in your post: that of taxpayer funded elective abortions. I would assume that in exercising conscience with regard to choosing a political candidate, Catholics are supposed to look both at intent and actions, both direct and indirect, no? Please, if you will, point us to the presidential candidate who has acted to make taxpayer-funded elective abortions available in America?

Obama back Sibelius's mandate.

Quote:

There is much more that could be said about abortion, as regards Romney's religious beliefs, however it seems from your post that Pastor Wright spoke for Obama, while Mormon doctrine does not similarly speak for Romney. We get the different standards, no need to clarify.

I never mentioned Pastor Wright, I have never heard any of his sermons. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Rich Olszewski · #**157** Apr 2, '12, 11:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by qui est ce

Sorry Rich. You were responding to Bellasbane's diatribe about us evil conservatives who don't care about the poor. I guess I misdirected my post.

I should have known.

seekerz · #**158** Apr 2, '12, 11:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanne S

Social justice and socialism are not one in the same.The Catholic Church supports the former and rejects the latter.

I don't remember implying an equivalence between social justice and socialism.

After the '08 campaign I did find that socialism's meaning changed to one that could be applied to any policy which entailed mandatory contributions to the common good...Funny, I used to think it meant losing (to the government) the right to control one's personal possessions/livelihood; now I think it just means "you can't make me share unless I feel good and ready to do it for whom I choose, when I choose and as often or as rarely as I choose, because everything I own either came from the work of my hands or dropped ready-made out of the sky".

iamrefreshed · #**159** Apr 2, '12, 11:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

During George W Bush's presidency the abortion rate went down 8.1% from data from all 50 states:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2...tion_abor.html

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/05/c...administration

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/18/k...nship-abortion

George W Bush enacted many pro life laws that have been reversed by Barack Obama.

Please don't resort to proving your point with silly things like facts!

**Robert Bay** · #**160** Apr 2, '12, 11:18 am

Moderator Note

This thread will remain open even without a news link as long as the posts remain charitable.

seekerz · #**161** Apr 2, '12, 11:19 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamrefreshed

Please don't resort to proving your point with silly things like facts!

Does the occurrence of multiple facts at the same time, imply that one of those 'facts' caused the other?

I mean, if more babies were born in 2008-2012 than were born in Bush's first term, does that mean Obama is anti-contraception?

scipio337 · #**162** Apr 2, '12, 11:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerz

Does the occurrence of multiple facts at the same time, imply that one of those 'facts' caused the other?

I mean, if more babies were born in 2008-2012 than were born in Bush's first term, does that mean Obama is anti-contraception?

Are you denying that the Obama admin opposes any and all laws that restrict abortion?

You speak of both intent and actions. Under these terms, Pres. Obama has been the most pro-abortion President during my lifetime.

**GEddie** · #**163** Apr 2, '12, 11:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekerz

Oh, so if I say reproductive health is a term that can mean anything to anyone, would that mean we could stop talking about it?

Actually, yes, "Reproductive health" is somewhat meaningless.

It is used by one contingent as a cover for abortion and contraception, but to fight it, as stated, sounds like something negative. It is much better to drop the term and say what you mean.

ICXC NIKA

bellasbane · #**164** Apr 2, '12, 11:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by qui est ce

Sorry Rich. You were responding to Bellasbane's diatribe about us evil conservatives who don't care about the poor. I guess I misdirected my post.

Well, somebody has to do it!

Generally, the diatribes all come from the right, which makes this forum soooo boring.

Furthermore, I don't recall calling conservatives "evil" nor do I stoop to the level of questioning anybody's faithfulness as a Catholic simply because they do not agree with my political beliefs.

Bocephus · #**165** Apr 2, '12, 11:25 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

Oh? What about the sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills they can accumulate? Also, the amount of "free" is limited. Catholic hospitals in NYC, e.g., have gone out of business providing care to those without insurance. Personal responsibility goes just so far if you are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury and you have no insurance or no large amount of funds accumulated.

If anything catastrophic is the only thing that should be covered, yet with government bureaucratic waste and the determination to cover every scrape with a 10,000 dollar band aid we will end closing more than just the Catholic hospitals. When the government is going to force them to accept 500 bucks for something that cost the hospital 1,000 to provide they will be right behind them.

The easy answer is to get government involved, it will only lead to things getting much worse than they are now.