|
2 members (KostaC, 1 invisible),
544
guests, and
124
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,614
Members6,170
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576
OrthoDixieBoy Member
|
|
OrthoDixieBoy Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 576 |
I am told by Fr Maximos, Abbot of Holy Cross Monastery on Long Island, that McCain has a spotless voting record for pro life. According to the public record he has never once voted pro choice nor has he ever voted to raise taxes. My opinion of McCain has had to be readjusted to take this into account.
Jason
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
When it comes to picking candidates, I used to go by my heart; but I was disappointed. Then I went with my head; but I was frustrated. So, I decided that the Scripture is true: "Put not your trust in princes." And anymore, I try to figure out who will do the best job by asking who will mess things up the least. It is a cynical position, but I suspect it is more accurate.
-- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,724 Likes: 2 |
I have often said that I don't know which candidate will win a particular election. However, I do know who will lose - us! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 773 |
I wish there was a candidate who was progressively politically and anti-war, but pro-life. To me, that kind of candidate would reflect the patristic mindset. Tom Harens of the Christian Freedom party ran in 2004, and he had a platform like this. My only disagreement with him was on his view of gay rights. But he was only on the ballot in Minnesota.
my ideal candidate would
1) Be strongly pro-life on abortion, allowing it only for the life of the mother
2) Be against euthanasia
3) Be against the death penalty
4) Support traditional marraige, as between one man, one woman
5) seek to provide health care for all Americans
6) value education
7) help the poor and needy, especially severely mentally ill people, who I have worked with and feel get poor social support.
8) support a progressive tax system
9) Would seek to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and concensus building among nations, going to war only as a very last resort.
10) Seek to protect the environment, and invest in alternative sources of energy
11) Support fair living wages.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
I wish there was a candidate who was progressively politically and anti-war, but pro-life. To me, that kind of candidate would reflect the patristic mindset. Tom Harens of the Christian Freedom party ran in 2004, and he had a platform like this. My only disagreement with him was on his view of gay rights. But he was only on the ballot in Minnesota.
my ideal candidate would
1) Be strongly pro-life on abortion, allowing it only for the life of the mother
2) Be against euthanasia
3) Be against the death penalty
4) Support traditional marraige, as between one man, one woman
5) seek to provide health care for all Americans
6) value education
7) help the poor and needy, especially severely mentally ill people, who I have worked with and feel get poor social support.
8) support a progressive tax system
9) Would seek to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and concensus building among nations, going to war only as a very last resort.
10) Seek to protect the environment, and invest in alternative sources of energy
11) Support fair living wages. Lance, I think I'm going to vote for you for president 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
Well! Since I am a social conservative, I am a Republican. Now I find Newt Gingrich the most knowledgable of the bunch. I love to hear him speak because of the context of what he says. He would be my choice, but he doesn't seem to have the dominant personality required to either be elected, or if elected, to be able to enforce his policies. He tends to appeal to peoples intellect rather than their emotions.
John McCain's speeches are highly poetic and beautiful to listen to, especially with his soft voice, (I guess he must have Irish blood). He's highly talented, and my only problem with him is that he seems to lack a certain consistancy in his policy. I might be wrong, I certainly do not follow everything that's going on.
Guiliani would be a very strong leader, and certainly the world would fear and respect him. They know he would never buckle under pressure, which reminds me of something former Mayor Ed Koch said about him when he was mayor of NYC. When asked his opinion on other mayors, he stated that Mayor Dinkins was a wonderful person but a lousy mayor, and that Guiliani was not a very nice person, but a wonderful mayor.
He certainly changed NYC from a bankrupt city ladened with crime, and made it what it is today. So I guess in that sense, each candidate has his attributes.
God Bless,
Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 57 |
How about voting for the constitution party. It is the third largest party out there and definitively prolife. It is a nice viable alternative for the prochoice Republicans. I just can't vote for a Mormon. I can't and Guiliani is too prochoice and so is McCain. Newt has had too many divorces to allow me to trust his judgement. So that leaves Brownback, Huckabee or Fred but I doubt that they will be given enough press to get anywhere.
Holly
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 392
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 392 |
Just wondering something....has Guiliani's priest or bishop tendered any input to him regarding his decidedly anti-catholic stance on abortion?
I wish that we could get the Christians in this country to start a third party with all the points that Lance tendered (even though I am pro-death penalty, I would waive that to have a serious alternative often having to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum).
As for the Constitutional Party, yes, I voted for them last election, since I was not all that happey with the offerings given us.
Brother Ed
Last edited by Altar Boy; 03/18/07 05:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2,440 |
How about voting for the constitution party. It is the third largest party out there and definitively prolife. It is a nice viable alternative for the prochoice Republicans.
Voting for a third party, would be handing the Democrats the Presidency.
I know that Pres. Clinton vetoed the bill that was put forward on stopping late term abortions...which is basically infanticide. Now the reason that bill was not allowed to be passed by Pres. Clinton, was because it might be a first step in having Roe vs. Wade overturned.
I also know that our tax money was given to the U.N. for abortions in third world countries under Pres. Clinton, and that was one of the first things stopped when Bush became president.
God Bless,
Zenovia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
my ideal candidate would
1) Be strongly pro-life on abortion, allowing it only for the life of the mother
2) Be against euthanasia
3) Be against the death penalty
4) Support traditional marraige, as between one man, one woman
5) seek to provide health care for all Americans
6) value education
7) help the poor and needy, especially severely mentally ill people, who I have worked with and feel get poor social support.
8) support a progressive tax system
9) Would seek to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and concensus building among nations, going to war only as a very last resort.
10) Seek to protect the environment, and invest in alternative sources of energy
11) Support fair living wages. Wow ! That seems socially conservative and economically progressive . I agree with all points except #3. I think some crimes are so heinous that death is a just punishment. But, I too would waive that if I could find somebody who stood for the rest of those points, and who could get elected, and who could be an effective leader if elected. -- John
Last edited by harmon3110; 03/19/07 01:00 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
Voting for a third party, would be handing the Democrats the Presidency. Dear Zenovia, I honestly don't know if there would be a difference this time for social issues if a Democrat or a Republican was elected. Everybody who seems to be leading in the polls right now is pro-choice -- except, maybe, for John McCain. I honestly don't know, and this vexes me.  -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 57 |
That is exactly what the Republicans want you to think. Obviously, we will lose this Presidency in 2008 but in the long run it would force the Republicans to take back there Prolife stance. They can never win without the prolife base. If the prolife base leaves because we believe that the Republicans have abandoned all of their core values (taxes, balancing the budget, morally-really what have the Republicans done for us lately) then why stay. I figure it would only take one or 2 election cycles from the to get the message. But they obviously don't have it now because the 3 frontrunners are prochoice or prochoice or I used to be prochoice and progay but now that I am running for President I am not. John McCain is prochoice and his voting record shows that-he may not be as bad as Hillary or Obama but remember it was a prochoice Republican (Ford) who helped define the liberal Supreme Court with bad picks.
Holly
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful Member
|
|
Grateful Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528 |
I wish that we could get the Christians in this country to start a third party with all the points that Lance tendered (even though I am pro-death penalty, I would waive that to have a serious alternative often having to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum). Maybe you're right. Maybe it is time for a Christian Democratic party in America. But, how have these kinds of parties fared in other countries ? And, is it dangerous to combine a particular religion with a political party ? Maybe it's time for a Moderate Party: something that is socially conservative, ecnomically progressive, and basically everything Lance said, but without an explicit identification with one religion. Just an idea . . . -- John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,716 |
except for #4, that would be the ideal candidate for me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6 |
except for #4, that would be the ideal candidate for me Surely, you are not espousing polygamy or homosexual marriage? Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
