www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall How Limbaugh convinced me not to vote for Bush

Daniel,

Did you say that Kerry is an admitted war criminal? I cerainly must have misunderstood you! If you want to look at war criminals talk to the daddy's boy wino partying with his National Guard buddies in Alabama while real men were rescuing the lives of their compatriots in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

Thank goodness I'm two months away from turning 18; I think I'd have to vote for Bush and then throw up right there in the booth. :p

Logos Teen

Pani Rose- I agree, no Christian can vote for a proabortion candidate; Kerry is not an option.
However, my point is that for 30 years or more prolifers have voted for Republicans, even though that party in general is not in sympathy with Christian principles, as articulated most eloquently in Catholic social teaching. Yet what has been the result of this? Precious little.
And if you believe, as I do, that Bush [ie, Cheney] is capable of inaugurating nuclear war [which, let me remind you, kills unborn babies, born babies, and everyone else] how can I vote for him? When he won't even take an unequivocal stand on abortion in any way that might offend the Terminator [apt name, no?] and his crowd?
Even on the other social issues Bush is shaky; coming down "against gay marriage" but for civil unions [a change only in nomanclature] and allowing embryonic stem cell research while trying to have it both ways by limiting it on paper [and making sure his wife is sending the opposite message].
Some of us are sick of being duped. There is NO moral obligation to choose an evil; the idea that choosing the lesser of two evils is the moral path is called "proportionalism" and is condemned by the Church.
And Garrett- Kerry, in testimony before the Senate in 1972 stated that not only had American troops taken part in atrocities like rape, the burning of villages, and the slaughter of civilians, but that he himself had done such things. Many conservatives deny that such things were common in Vietnam, but I for one have firsthand anecdotal evidence that they were. And lest anyone think [as they say about Kerry] that my source was a soured anti-war protester, the guy I heard was bragging and laughing about it...
-Daniel, grieving for his country

Daniel,

I see you are opposed to the war in Iraq. That's ok. Actually it's more than ok, it is a constitutonal and God-given right.

I support the war. Why?

1. It Took S. Hussein out of power. He butchered the peoples of Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. He had chemical weapons, the technology to make more and the will to use them.

2. A free Iraq will cut down on terrorist training and capabilities world-wide.

3. Both of the above threaten the security read: PEOPLE of the US and our allies.

4 Despite what Kerry or anyone says, we do have a plan to exit Iraq. The provisional govt, a constutution, elections, training of an Iraqi military force, then we are out of there. I will be first in line to protest if that plan isn't realized.

This will take a few years, no one knows exacly how long. This rebuilding process is not a Hollywood movie. We can't save the Iraq in 2-hours and 20 minutes with the Terminator. We Americans don't know what patience is.

The casualty estimates you cited are not verifiable.

Bottom line:

I feel safer, both for myself and my family. I think Americans are safer from a terrorist attack since the wars in Afganistan and Iraq were initiated.

Lastly, A free Iraq will be a great nation because Iraqi's are a great people.

I'm done (no more election politics on the Forum).

I've stated my war and peace plan.

Paul

I agree with Mr. Limbaugh. These �insurgents� are not nice, peaceful civilians, living with their wives and children who mean us no harm. They are not civilians at all. They are Islamist terrorists. They have one goal: to destroy us. They must be destroyed. We can either fight this war there (where many of the terrorists are conveniently congregating to fight against us) or we can wait until they come here. I wish there never was such a thing as war but we did not start this. They did. This is why I firmly supported both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and continue to do so.

Regarding Mr. Limbaugh�s remarks, he was most likely referring to the fact that on most occasions our armed forces are prevented from doing their jobs (really cleaning house) because of the possibility of either civilian causalities or damaging Islamic holy sites. We could have had Al Sadar on several occasions but we kept giving him chances to surrender or turn over a new leaf (by joining the political process) rather then kill him. �Other than conventional� weapons does not (and has never) meant nuclear weapons. It means using all the weapons at our disposal (military tactics are weapons). Mr. Limbaugh was not advocating the killing of civilians. I have listened to him enough to know that.

Whatever one thinks about the war against terrorists we must remember that the Church has stated clearly that one may either support or disagree with the war and remain a good Catholic. What is not negotiable is that the respect for innocent human life must come first and that all our rights flow from respect for human life, from conception until natural death.

I think it�s great the President can get pro-abortion politicians to support him, knowing as they do that he is Pro-Life. djs does not seem to have problem with Pro-Lifers supporting a Pro-Abortion presidential candidate, so why should he have a problem with a Pro-Life presidential candidate getting Pro-Abortion politicians to support him and his cause? Bush is gently engaging in the exact tactics that djs has constantly been promoting.

I just read somewhere in the last day a recount of the exchange that President Bush had with Colin Powell before appointing him as secretary of state (Powell is pro-abortion). Bush told Powell that he would be expected to purge every vestige of Clinton�s state department programs promoting abortion worldwide. Powell agreed and took job knowing this goal and has largely, if not completely, accomplished it. That�s leadership and a major step in the right direction.

Erika Bachiochi (editor of and contributor to the book �The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion�). She does a good comparison of the two candidates on life issues in yesterdays Washington Times: The abortion debate: Election outcome will have likely impact. [washingtontimes.com]

Has President Bush done everything possible to promote a culture of life and push Pro-Life legislation that is free of loopholes? No, he has not. He has certainly made solid, concrete steps in the right direction (which is why the Left hates him with such a passion). Kerry, on the other hand, has described us Pro-Lifers as "the forces of intolerance" and has promised a pro-abortion litmus test for judges that excludes Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and all who stand for life.

Daniel,

We may well have a huge groud swell after the elections and develope the Constitutional Party that has been forming. However, this year it is not a possibilty, so every vote for the Green Party or a write in is one less vote for getting Pro-Life justices on the Supreme Court. Bush is our best option for now.

I think Paul is looking at it in the right way. And as our esteemed Administrator has said, he has moved our nation a lot further toward ending this atrocity, than anyone would have thought possible.

I love seeing the young people of today from my oldest son's generation back. They are angry because their brothers and sisters have been taken from them. Friends they would have had. Also, they have an unfair burden on them, it is not just social security, it is that those numbrs are missing that would have been productive in society.

Look at Russsia, I met a woman after the fall of Communism there. She had had 10 abortions, the choice of birth control, she was a total mess. Emotionaly she could barely stand to be around her children, they had two, because she could only think of those she killed. So sad! We have to reverse that action in this country.

I believe by the next presidentail election we will have another party, but for now if for no other reason, lets work on reversing Roe-v-Wade.
After all they faked her out too. She wasn't pregnant, she was used. So you think they want anything to happen to upset their apple cart?

Pani Rose

Logos,

You've been taken in by some big whoppers. Neither you nor I have served in any form of the military. Should that make people sick. Moreover, Kerry's war crimes, so far as we know, were readily confessed by Kerry in congressional testimony. It's not an accusation by anyone else. It is his own confession that condemns him. By his testimony and lies about soldiers who were in POW camps he is a traitor. He would have been and should have been shot.

On the other hand, regardless of what a 17 year old thinks of Mr. Bush's service he did fulfill it.

You might wish to ask "Why did Mr. Bush release his military record while Mr. Kerry has refused to?" I'd like to know.

Dan L

What "whoppers" has he been taken in by? Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard instead of Vietnam along with the sons of rich man and Dallas Cowboys. He was off in Alabama campaigning for a friend of his dad instead of training.

Dan, You speak as though you are familiar with the congressional testimony. Can you quote from this testimony where Kerry confesses to war crimes. I don't believe that you can. I believe that you are making these accusation with reckless disregard for the truth. Please prove me wrong.

Please quote testimony about soldiers in POW camps. You may like to think that "he would have been shot", but he in fact was not shot for being a traitor.

He did not fulfill his contractual committments. In the sense that he was able to obtain an honorable discharge, I suppose that you could argue that he fulfilled his service - or that he was a traitor, just as you like it.

It is only sickeneing when people who sought to and did avoid the service are so very quick to put others lives on the line. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz,..., it's the chickenhawks that are sickening.

I said no such thing.

In fact I have been quite clear that I do not expect candor. I do, however, expect that those who would like to offer advice on how to apply principles of the Catholic faith when voting, include some thought about the implications that this lack of candor has. When such implications are not considered, the value of the advice is strongly diminished.

Rose, Presumably you are aware that the quotes that you select, in particular the quote of Bishop Sheridan, give a false portrayal of Catholic teaching. They certainly incompatible with the message of Cardinal Ratzinger that has been discussed here. So what is your point?

Excuse me, a President who campaings for anti-life candidates over pro-life candidates, who has signed funding bills for more federal funding for international family planning and Planned Parenthood that even Clinton cannot conceivably be considered pro-life, no matter how much he attempts to deceive his constituents to the contrary. Actions speak much louder than words.

He is on record saying that "America is not ready" (his words) for overturning Roe v. Wade. Not pro-life even by the most basic reckoning.

Oh, and the bit in the second debate about his being the only president to authorize "the destruction of life" (again, his own words) by allowing, yes, you guessed it, Federal funding for this "research", which he admitted requires the destruction of a human life! Not one word of remorse or apology to the American people for perpetrating what he had just taken responsibility for.


The Church has stated nothing of the sort. What the Admin has written is merely an opinion.
The Holy Father has clearly stated rather that this war does not meet just war criteria.
As such, no right-believing Catholic could support it. Period.

I am not voting for either major party candidate. That being said, with Kerry, there is no deception regarding his stance on abortion.

With Bush, there is nothing but deception. Remember it was his campaigning in Pennsylvania for a pro-choice candidate (Specter) that dashed the campaign of the pro-life candidate.

Remember the silence when asked during the debates by both John Kerry and the debate moderator when challenged if he is for or against Roe v. Wade?

Remeber Bush was silent, saying only that he would have no litmus test for judges which means, of course, he would have no pro-life, anti-abortion litmus test.

Obviously for him the abortion issue is so unimportant that he would not, in any way, make it a qualification for any judges he would appoint.

It is absolute cowardice when the obvious, Christian thing is to come out and speak against an injustice, not just stand there silent like a dolt.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps his goal is to help convert Arnold. Perhaps that was what he and Santorum were doing with Specter. There is, however, a more obvious way of viewing the facts.

But if you like what Bush is doing with Arnold maybe you might like to apply the principles and avoid the Moonie polemic, with its wrenching twists and spins. Reality ought to count for something.

Great points, Jennifer. You certainly have the basic facts. At least Kerry showed up and took some gunfire. That much has been proven.

I'll leave all the allegations and counter- allegations, Swift boat crews pro and con to the pundits. I can't say the same for Bush, he certainly didn't take any gunfire, see his friends and crew members shot up, and I am still not convinced Bush even showed up.

And how has Bush moved us closer to the "end of atrocities"? With the farce called the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" which has not stopped one Federally-funded abortion?

Roe v. Wade was a court decision, not a law. The "Ban" signed by President Bush actually created the acceptance of certain types of abortion procedures as law by specifically exempting them from the "ban".

Very clever move which did nothing but play into the anti-life movement.

They now have certain abortion procedures recognized as normal by law. By law, and now not just a court decision.

Teen, and Daniel, you have made some good points. Always remember that a vote for your conscience is just that and not a popularity contest. Our Lord couldn't even win a popularity contest against Barabbas.