In an ideal world… who would you vote for?
Let’s close our eyes for a moment and dream of an ideal world in which all the three (two?) presidential candidates oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Everything else remaining the same as it stands today: who would you vote for and why?
I’m not particularly a fan of hypotheticals, but I would like to set the stage for discussing their respective positions on issues that concern us from a Catholic perspective. The truth of the matter is that one of them is going to win in November even if we choose to protest and vote third party. So, taking into account their positions on economic issues, policies, foreign affairs, healthcare, among others, who do you think could run this country the best and who would align the closest to Catholic teaching?
My pick: Obama. I’m not going to explain why as of yet, because I want to read your opinions rather than have you focusing on my reasons and argue against them ;)
(I’ll be moderating comments on this one, so I’ll be deleting comments that are not related to the question so we can keep a focused discussion. Thanks)
Update–Breakdown so far:
McCain: 41%
Obama: 23.5%
Other: 23.5%
Hillary/Obama: 6%
Undecided: 6%
Trackbacks
- It’s Not Always About Abortion « Vox Nova
- In a World Without War, For Whom Would You Vote? « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
Obama, by a mile. And by the way, your hypothetical shows exactly the reason why Republicans do not want the abortion issue taken off the table.
I realize this is a purely hypothetical–in fact, it is an exercise in fantasy–but if all three candidates were pro-life on abortion, ESCR and euthanasia, my pick is Obama. Hands down…holding the American flag on one side and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church on the other.
Tough call. McCain’s bellicose foreign policy views scare me, and I think a black President would potentially be quite good for America. On the other hand, I find many of Obama’s economic views to be borderline nutty, and as the recent food riots demonstrate, nutty economic views can have serious consequences. McCain also seems serious about dealing with the long term funding crisis with Medicare and Social Security, while I can’t say Obama is serious about much of anything (other than what a great President he thinks he would make).
Ultimately I’d probably pull the lever for Obama (in this ideal situation, mind you), but I could easily see going for McCain too, depending on what happened between now in the election.
“your hypothetical shows exactly the reason why Republicans do not want the abortion issue taken off the table.”
And why others are desperate to have it taken off the table.
I would still vote for McCain. I don’t believe that supporting limited government is incompatible with the Catholic faith.
I do agree with MM to a certain extent though. The issue of abortion is one of the primary reasons the dems continue to lose presidential election after presidential election. That’s why he and Gerald try with such determination to make abortion a non-issue.
That having been said, I would love for the abortion issue to be resolved. Ending the evil of abortion is far more important to me than preserving the electoral viability of the GOP.
McCain, with the same reservations I have about him now about his tendency to personalize disagreement. Given how much we don’t know when we vote – what will arise situations especially – experience, character, and judgement matter. McCain and Hillary pass that test okay, Obama is an unknown blank slate on which people project waaay too much.
Poli, MM,
Have you guys ever been accused of being theocrats?
i’m only 25% kidding
But seriously, I think that the massive expansion of governmental control is a big enough threat to human liberty and Catholic freedom to warrant voting for McCain even in this idealized (read: out of touch with reality, i.e. insane ) world.
With the following caveats –
I would second Blackadder’s comments about McCain’s foreign policy views and feddie’s comments about Catholicism and limited government and ending abortion rather than preserving the electoral viability of the GOP.
Have you guys ever been accused of being theocrats?
Actually, I’ve been accused mostly of being a Marxist around these parts! That would make me, I suppose, somewhat of an atheist committed to a materialist philosophy and an economic reductionism.
what will arise situations especially – experience, character, and judgement matter. McCain and Hillary pass that test okay,
There’s always a first time. McCain and Hillary were unknown at some point as well. I think both sides of the argument blow things out of proportion in regard to Obama. Some project way too much as you point out and the other just says that we don’t know anything about the man completely dismissing him and saying he is a Muslim or comes from a crazy church or doesn’t have experience. Out of all the three, he has definitely handled himself much better than McCain (who constantly forgets things) and Hillary (who is just plain desperate). I’m sorry, I don’t like Hillary at all :) as you can see… I don’t mind McCain too much if it weren’t for his stance on foreign policy and healthcare.
I would still vote for McCain. I don’t believe that supporting limited government is incompatible with the Catholic faith.
McCain is for limited government??? We talking about the same guy here?
In an Absolut world, I would be in New France,
In an ideal world, most likely Obama.
“McCain is for limited government??? We talking about the same guy here?”
Hahaha!
I would still vote for Alan Keyes.
Poli-
Heh. Good one.
I should say, “McCain is for limiting government more than Obama or Clinton.”
That’s not saying a heck of a lot though. I am certainly willing to concede that. ;)
I think if all three candidates were pro-life, I’d be more inclined _not_ to vote, because there would be less to choose between them all.
However, there are a couple issues that would tend me towards McCain:
1) I respect his position on torture — and think he has the history to successfully shame those who disagree with them.
2) Although he’s been accused of being belicose, I think he would actually be a bit more prudent in his foreign policy than the current administration, and I certainly would rather have him at that helm than Obama or Hillary.
3) Though McCain is far from being a straight-up economic conservative, I have to respect someone willing to pitch free trade in Youngstown, OH. That kind of willingness to be plain speaking about one’s principles is deeply refreshing in politics.
4) He seems to be one of the few people really serious about spending less.
5) Although he does not necessarily seem to have a lot of good answers on healthcare, he seems less likely than either of the Democrats to saddle us with a massive government centralized system which we will never be able to get rid of. Who knows, maybe he’ll even manage to do something about social security too.
Well, for all we know Obama could be the most level-headed person of sound judgement to obtain the presidency in our lifetime. But on what basis of evidence? McCain and Hillary have decades of experience of being in the public eye. Obama is a smart man with a short, flimsy, leftist record and occasionally uplifting rhetoric. “Unity and change!” :::: (“Leave behind your silly disagreements! Trust in my transformative personhood”!) It seems he is also working through some serious identity issues, writing an autobiography sub-titled “A Story of Race and Inheritence” at age 32 (I think).
No thanks. Seems risky to me, even if abortion were off the table.
Wait a second, are you people seriously defending John McCain on economic grounds?
John McCain who wants to pander on the gas tax? As Paul Krugman says, “The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.”
John McCain who wants to create a $5 trillion increase in the deficit?
John McCain who thinks the solution to the health care crisis to to warm up George Bush’s discredited plan? John McCain who wants to ease state regulations requiring insurers to cover certain conditions on the grounds that the market will take care of it?
And what has John McCain come up with to deal with the sustainability of Medicare? (there is no social security crisis– thouigh the idiotic Wright-obsessed talking heads still haevn’t figured that out yet).
In the name of God, how can you possibly argue that McCain wins on economics? I see a lot of ideology “small government blah blah” and not much common sense.
McCain has also steadfastly refused to pander to the agribusiness and ethanol lobby, the kings of corporate welfare. I also admire his (again, seemingly personal, which might have some upside) long-standing and rather public efforts against “pork,” even as that work means a lot of different things. But his Senate office, like Coburn’s, has a history of highlighting a lot of absurd spending.
Obama and Clinton flunk economics. Obama’s instinct is to punish people he doesn’t like , witness his words on capital gains. He would tank the economy.
God gives us free will. Government operates by coercively through taxes and jail. That we should care for the weak and innocent does not mean that government should do it. Big government preempts resources and freeze out more effective private action. It’s hard to tithe the church after we’ve paid all our taxes.
McCain is the closest of the three to being a small government guy. As for his military background and tough talk, I suspect he’s more likely to get us out of Iraq and keep us out of war than Obama who is idealistic, unrealistic and inexperienced.
McCain himself has admitted he doesn’t know much about economics :)
Morning’s Minion,
McCain wants to temporarily suspend the gas tax. Obama wants a windfall profits tax for the oil companies, and supported the ethanol mandate that according to Krugman has helped to drastically raise food prices throughout the world, leading to massive civil unrest. The one is a silly idea that won’t do any good, but won’t do much harm either. The latter two are seriously harmful.
As for Medicare, I had in mind McCain’s plan to reform the way the payment system operates (you are aware of this, right?)
I also admire his (again, seemingly personal, which might have some upside) long-standing and rather public efforts against “pork,” even as that work means a lot of different things. But his Senate office, like Coburn’s, has a history of highlighting a lot of absurd spending.
Guess they forgot the highlight the absurdity of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. At least the Dems are less deceptive on their record of absurd spending.
As for his military background and tough talk, I suspect he’s more likely to get us out of Iraq and keep us out of war than Obama who is idealistic, unrealistic and inexperienced.
There’s a correlation between military experience and fewer war initiatives? There’s a correlation between idealism and war iniatives? What are you saying here?
Wait a second, are you people seriously defending John McCain on economic grounds?
I don’t think he has a good grasp of economics, and some of his ideas come into the “well motivated but probably wouldn’t work as intended” category. (I’d file elements of his gas tax holiday, mortgage bail out and cap-and-trade thinking under that heading.)
However, because he has less of a desire to introduce top-down management of major sections of the economy by the federal government, I think his economic confusions would cause less actual damage than Obama and Clinton’s.
I suppose you could call that small government ideology, but then, one could just as well call your desire to centralize so many aspects of providing for the common good (despite our poor track record in that regard) a “big government ideology”. What it comes down to in the end is a difference in our analysis of how much running things through the state splinters society more into individuals — or perhaps whether society is already so fragmented into individuals we need to just give up on the question have focus on good state-to-individual relationships rather than trying to work back from the brink.
In that regard, although there is certainly an individualistic aspect to the Republican ethos, I think that its preference for not getting involved in more big programs is leaves room for society to remain intact in a way that the Democratic ethos of trying to fix everything does not.
(And on a side note, I’d just enjoy watching McCain go after idiotic agricultural subsidies and earmarks and other excessive pork.)
Katerina,
McCain’s understanding of economics is modest, to put it mildly. Fortunately, he doesn’t seem to care much either. :)
Seriously though, McCain may not know much about economics, but he’s obviously got some very knowledgeable people writing policy for him (unlike Obama, who also has a very knowledgeable economic team, but has distanced himself from them in order to pander to voters on things like NAFTA and ethanol).
Haha Poli!
“McCain is for limited government??? We talking about the same guy here?”
Touche.
Poli,
Yes, no doubt about that. Even so, there are two reasons for optimism on this front: he has backtracked somewhat, and says his mind is open to change, seemingly significant advances in the technology that would not require the destruction of life. Worth watching closely.
“Guess they forgot the highlight the absurdity of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.”
I’m going to call shenanigans on this one. The point of the post was that we leave aside the candidates positions on things like abortion and ESCR. If we want to compare the different candidates’ records on those issues, we can, but this thread isn’t the place for it.
On the economic side, there are issues all around. Something not examined so far is appointees. Personally I would rather have Obama than McCain placing people on the SEC. OIC and a number of other regulatory agencies have significant impacts. Personally, I’m more comfortable with Democratic cronies being on these commissions than Republican cronies. Over the past 8 years Republicans have shown little interest in good administration. Hurricane Andrew was pretty devastating, but Clinton had taken good care of FEMA, and they did a decent job. Admittedly it is an open question whether they would have been able to handle Katrina as well. There is no doubt however that the reforms of FEMA under Bush prior to Katrina were abysmal failures, even if you use disasters other than Katrina as your bench mark.
I see a lot of straw-men waving in the wind. Neither Obama nor Clinton for that matter seeks to ‘introduce top-down management of the economy”. What they do seek to do is to lay the solid macrofoundations for growth (fiscal discipline) and foster a more equal distribution of income, including through more progressive taxation, more willingness to use effective regulation (look at McCain’s dear-in-the-headlights response to the mortgage crisis), and support for the right to unionize.
And the most important issue of all– a key moral issue– is the health care crisis. Both Obama’s and Clinton’s are thougthtful (the latter’s is more radical, and better), whereas for McCain it is all ideology, no substance– no “socialism”, free markets, blah blah blah… while his proposals would do nothing to benefit the uninsured, the underinsured, and those rationed from health care on account of cost.
Remember, since the second world war, Democratic presidents have had a far superior economic record, controlling for a bevy of external factors. I’m tired of the old Reaganesque blather about “small governments and free markets”. As I’ve pointed out before, these “reforms” had no effect on productivity whatsoever. And what do you mean by small government anyway? Spending over GDP in the US is among the smallest in the world, at least among the advanced economies. And yes, I share your distaste for “pork” but this actually amounts to a small portion of total spending. If you want to reduce the size of government further, look to the bloated monster that is the defense department. I would support you on that one.
Oh yes, on ethanol– there I take your point. No justification at all. Shameless.
Also, with the economic debates, we are missing a key point here. The main reason why I would not support McCain is that he is a belligent war supporter. Quite frankily, I feel he is dangerous, very dangerous. His rhetoric is devoid of all nuance. Obama will bring badly-needed nuance to foriegn policy, end the disastrous occupation of Iraq, and take the US out of pariah status.
Would that include his nuanced promise to unilaterally renegotiate our trade deals, and refuse the trade deal with Columbia, or are we assuming he’s lying on that one in order to get elected?
To be fair, though, I do see the argument about McCain vs. Obama on foreign policy, it’s just that I don’t get the sense from reading McCain’s speeches that he’s dangerously beligerant. Indeed, I get the sense he understands the costs of war more clearly than his opponents. (It’s just that they need the radically anti-war netroots vote.)
It would be John McCain with those issues off the table. He actually does what some of the others proclaim as a new way of politics.
On the biggest Catholic Social Justice issue in years , immigration reform, McCain took the heat and the most politcal risk of all running. He did this knowing that his 08 hopes could be sunk
He is a voice out there asking tough questions about torture despite being critzized and taking political heat from people in his own party. It is never popular to be the one that has his role but he does it. THat shows me his character
As to reaching out I find the above plus doing such things as the Gang of 14(again at much cost to himself) is another principle I like. He can work and find compromise.
He did not sucomb to the xenophobia and Arab Bashing that were done on both sides of the aisle that we saw during the Dubai Port Deal. ANother political risk when he could have so easily gone the other way.
I think his views on trade and what the modern Economic order is like is in line with many Catholic principles. The fact that he stands by this and even procliams this in the towns of the rust belt is telling. THe Columbia Free Trade Agreement could be amn issue he could be against wiothout much fallout. It is now popular to be anti Free Trade. Thus taking advantage of Americans distrust of foreign folks and their lack of Economic knowledge. Pope Benedict on SHepard One( the press conference he had over the Atlantic) said that the US had the long term responsibility to help other countries SOuth of our BOrder develop. This is a part of that.
HE is more limited Govt and he is the closest we got to a Federalism guy in the race. Federalism is one area I would like to see exploited more within the realm of Subsidarity.
He will be far less hostile to efforts to undermine the traditional marriage and all that entails through legislation
THese are my initial thoughts
What worries me about McCain’s foreign policy is not Iraq (despite all the campaign rhetoric, I suspect that the actual differences in policy between the candidates on the issue would be fairly minor). I’m more worried about what other conflicts he might get us involved in. Iran, Darfur, North Korea, a new Cold War with Russia and/or China… none of these seem particularly far fetched to me.
As for his military background and tough talk, I suspect he’s more likely to get us out of Iraq and keep us out of war than Obama who is idealistic, unrealistic and inexperienced.
Except, of course, that he said the u.s. military should stay there for, what, thousands of years?
This conversation is sooo revealing. Especially of so many of our more “right” leaning commenters (and contributors) who defend their monstrous voting habits by saying “well, he’s the only one who is really pro-life.” Their voting habits would remain monstrous and self-centered.
In an ideal world, we would not be voting in a u.s. presidential election because the u.s. would not exist in the same form in which it exists today.
Abortion not an issue? That would just kill my appetite for voting.
I’d vote Libertarian as I usually do. If I had to vote for one of the three, I’d vote for the underdog whoever it is. I wouldn’t want any of the three to win with a mandate. In a tie, I’d vote Obama/Clinton (doesn’t matter which) based on foreign policy.
In an Absolute world:
Viva Juan Carlos!
Vive Luis XX!
Long Live Francis II!
MIchael I think thw whole Context of McCain’s comment has been explored a good bit
That being said I do think Mccain has been right on Iraq. His leadership among others was what gave the political will to try to see it through.
If Iraq goes in Anarchy and becomes something far worse that is a problem. If a future act against the United can be traced to such an Iraq there will not be an replay of the Iraqi invasion and reconstruction efforts. THe American people by in large will just urge destruction.
I’d be interested to know why those issues were chosen. There seems there might be an agenda behind the setup of this question. I would still probably vote for McCain since this “ideal” world still isn’t ideal. In addition to the pre-emptive/Iraq war and the death penalty, there are other life issues left on the table. Euthanasia is one. I might include samesex marriage, although I’m sure some would disagree. It is at least a grave moral issue. I think these issues will be hashed out in the courts and I would not want Democratic appointees to the courts. How about a post asking if in another partially ideal world, where all candidates opposed pre-emptive war and the death penalty how would everyone vote?
Only Obama can compel me to obtain an absentee ballot and vote in the general election of 2008 in the United States. I am leaving America, to spend the rest of my life as an expatriate, and, so, what concerns me the most is the USA’s devestatingly wrong foreign policy. Of the three, only Obama seems to have the capacity and the vision to free us from the domination of our foreign policy by Zionists and neo-conservatives. Hillary and McCain are both members of “Washington, Inc.,” and they intend to continue to expand neo-liberal, globalist economic policies and the empire-building that is the consequence of such a project.
The United States of America will never be a “social democracy”; I have accepted that–accepted, in other words, that the country will continue to cannabilize its underprivileged children in broken, ineffective school systems, and to deny complete, adequate health coverage to all but the “nice” people (i.e. white or affluent suburbanites). I’m going to live on a continent which, despite being “secularist,” is actually more deeply imbued with Catholic social justice concepts than “religious America” is.
I just want a President who can manage America’s decline from being a “superpower” and an economic force in such a way as not to undermine Christendom and eviscerate the Third World. Obama seems to be the closest to what I want.
None of the above.
I’d be interested to know why those issues were chosen
You mean the ones I mentioned in the post? They were the first I could think of given that I had a couple of minutes to write it. I left the floor open.
As a member of a skilled trade union, Obama would probably do the least to diminish the strength of organized labor. But who would be his spiritual director?
The problem with almost all politicians today is that they have a pragmatic approach to things, and a lot of them actually do try to gain power for power’s sake. Then there is this guy who is actually ideological and Democrats say to themselves, “Okay, there is this nice guy but he is ruining the way things are supposed to be.” Frankly, I think there hasn’t been a guy like Obama since Kennedy, someone who is rooted in some principles and not just pragmatic (although some of his principles are wrong).
I actually like Obama’s program about giving aid to college students if they do volunteer work or do something for their community. I do think the government has the responsibility to promote love.
So I would probably lean on Obama on this hypothetical
Are we sure this isn’t the ideal world? After all God made this world. He made it for a purpose. I don’t understand the purpose. I think it has something to do with being a learning and testing ground for each of us to Love Him and surrender to his will but I don’t see how that works. If we say this isn’t an ideal world are we saying God made a defective world? Will the world only be perfect when each one in it surrenders perfectly to his will?
I’m not sure of much but I am certain that government cannot impose perfection. Obama says he would try to and that is why he scares me.
“Are we sure this isn’t the ideal world?”
Pretty sure. To paraphrase Candide, if this is the ideal world, what must the other ones be like?!
Does that mean that God made a defective world? No. God didn’t make the world Fallen. We human beings did that.
Are we sure this isn’t the ideal world? After all God made this world.
To paraphrase Candide, if this is the ideal world, what must the other ones be like?!
Perhaps we can pull a little from Leibnitz here and just say that this is best of all possible worlds!
Alice – West Virginia is almost heaven, but other than that I think we can be sure this is not the ideal world.
Perhaps I’m closer to his generation and you all are closer to Obama’s. McCain with reservations.
Michael,
WV is almost heaven because its next the Virginia which is.
That is if we could get rid of the Northern part.
In an ideal world, I would offer my allegience to Aragorn, Son of Arathorn.
That choice being unavailable, I would face a dilemma.
I prefer the ecnomic tendencies of Obama and Clinton, but we must recall there will be a Democratic House and Senate, and generally, when one party controls both branches of government, spending isn’t controlled, and poor economic policies result. McCain is more likely to craft compromises with Democratic legislators that make moderate improvements to issues like global warming, the deficit, and entitlements.
That said, there is the possiblity he will be more intransigent than I anticipate on issues like making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and I’m worried he will be more bellicose regarding Russia, China, and Iran than is prudent.
I fear Obama may find himself over his head on foreign policy just as Bush and Clinton were. Democrats forget this, but Clinton’s foreign policy was horrible in his early years. Weak and inconsistent in Somalia, wavering on the Balkans, more concerned about promoting US capitalism than human rights, and more concerned about domestic politics than either strategic interest or moral imperative. I think Hillary’s ForPol could suffer from that last fault. I think Obama will struggle with the initial crises he faces, because he is not decisive enough, and I think he will also struggle to deal with the fact that his election wouldn’t improve America’s foreign relations as much as he thinks.
I’d actually prefer Richard Lugar for President, but since he isn’t running, I’d lean towards Obama, with major reservations.
Sorry for the late vote: Obama
enjoy Easter
peace to all
My vote would be for Obama. I like his ideas, his charisma, his ethics and his conduct. I am especially impressed by his plans to truly create opportunities for the poor and disenfranchised, here in the US and around the world. He would be aggressive in curbing big business and use tax cuts as they are meant to be used: to give a break to those people who need more of their income. There are more subtle reasons that I favor him, too. I think people discount the importance of a leader who can make decisions based on principles, instead of on politics or instinct. I feel Obama has true integrity and would lead this country with grace and honor.
If abortion, ESSR, the death penalty and other life issues were off the table and my choice was McCain or Clinton, I would vote McCain for the integrity reason listed above. I’m not thrilled about his social policies but I am not at all confident in Clinton’s judgment on foreign policy issues. I do not agree with conservative philosophies, so it would be a departure for me to support McCain. However, I see him as the most moderate of conservatives and I’m impressed with his record in Congress. He is well liked and able to work with his colleagues. I think that speaks volumes.
Great question, and I think this really makes me think how I may not totally fit in either party.
Hmmmm…Maybe we need more Pro Life / family value friendly Democrats, or more “Compassionate Conservative” Repubicans? :)
I was thinking of choosing “C – None of the above” this November, but may have to go for McCain. :(
McCain. The other two would still want to take my money in the name of “justice”.
Tim – Try Christianity. You might like it.
Michael – Last I checked, Christianity doesn’t mandate forced taxation for social programs…
Oh, I forgot. Mr. Obama is the “pope of hope”
Yes We Can!
I thought this forum would be moderated, thus free of Mike’s cruel tounge.
If you don’t think like Mike you are a heathen idiot.
Well, putting aside life issues for a moment, there is a huge differentiator between Obama and the other two: he’s the only one with a legal team that is working on cutting back the monstrous claims of presidential prerogative and privilege that began with the advent of the national security state under the Truman administration and mushroomed like a nuclear cloud in the current administration. Anyone who cares about excessive goverment must also keep that in mind. Clinton has a proven love of executive prerogative and privilege, and McCain shows hesistation in bucking broadly what has happened on this score.
I thought this forum would be moderated, thus free of Mike’s cruel tounge.
I’m in class.
Oh so cruel.
Tim – I said nothing about Obama. You don’t need a scapegoat… just try Christianity sometime.
Michael – I brought up Obama because he favors forced taxation through government.
Apparently since you replied the way you did, you agree with Obama and also equate forced taxation through government as a Christian “thing”.
You might want to evaluate that position.
How about another thought experiment. What if, in an ideal world, all three candidates were equally photogenic and good with a teleprompter. Even better, how about if all three were equally non-photogenic and bad at using the teleprompter. One final add on. What if all three equally didn’t make you “feel good.” Who would you vote for?
Phillip, none of these three make me feel good. I’m merely looking for the least damage.
My thought question is that since Catholics supposedly believe in subsidiarity (the principle that functions performed effectively locally should be decided locally), why do so many Catholics favor putting decision making at the highest level possible and out of the reach of those most affected? Examples: nationalized education, health care.
That may be so. But at least a number of comments above appear feelings based. Just expanding the thought experiment to eliminate feelings as well as abortion from the issue. Reducing the choice to one of what is purely reasoned as good for the country.
“Purely reasoned as good for the country” is Obama, hands-down. That’s because he’s the only one who promises a modicum of change away from the direction in which we’re presently going.
And the direction in which the United States of America is presently going is suicidal, economically and geo-politically: if the international trade, fiscal and military directions that the nationalists, Zionists and neo-conservatives are leading the sheep of the United States are persisted in for another four to eight years, the country will be a banana republic, unable to exert any beneficial influence on the world whatsoever, except for blowing parts of it up.
Tim – Assume what you will. I hope you are able to hold onto as much money as you can in life.
Dig,
Wow, no emotion there.
Phil – Digby’s point is no more “emotional” than TeutonicTim’s emotional attachment to his money. Rather, both express fundamental faith commitments which go beyond mere reason.
That may be. So perhaps we can move beyond both perspectives.
Move beyond faith commitments? Sorry; I’m not in favor of that.
Not beyond moving beyond the Faith either. But am not beyond moving beyond faith with a little “f” commitments. Sorry.
Tim – Assume what you will. I hope you are able to hold onto as much money as you can in life.
That’s quite an ASSumption right there Michael J.
I hope that I can hold onto as much money as I can from falling down into the bottomless pit known as the government tax coffers. That way, I can make better CATHOLIC charity contributions to the people that it matters to.
Phil – Digby’s point is no more “emotional” than TeutonicTim’s emotional attachment to his money. Rather, both express fundamental faith commitments which go beyond mere reason.
OK Dr. Freud, it seems to me that equating a loathing of taxation to a emotional attachment to money is a bit of a stretch.
I suppose that if you got angry that someone took away your food and threw half of it away, kept 3/8th’s of it for themselves, and gave 1/8th of to the needy that would mean you have an eating disorder?
My “faith” is that of the prophets–and also that of the Karmaic spiritual thinkers of Asia, among whom I lived for almost a decade–that EVIL persisted in has consequences.
On the morning of 9/11, after living as an NGO Volunteer and teacher for a decade among the downtrodden peoples of Asia (a large number of whom I WITNESSED being eviscerated by neo-liberal economic policies), I was standing next to a copy machine in my school when the Head came out of her office and said, “Bruce, foreign terrorists have just blown up the World Trade Centre.” I just continued my copying, and she said, “Did you hear me?…” And I just looked at her and replied, “The chickens are coming home to roost.”
digbydolben – you are disgusting.
Tim – That’s enough.
Oh that’s right, I’m out of line for chastising someone who cheers innocent people getting killed.
So much for your pacifism.
Michael, you really ought to take a step back and reexamine yourself and your attitude. Christianity – you might want to try it some time.
“And the direction in which the United States of America is presently going is suicidal, economically and geo-politically: if the international trade, fiscal and military directions that the nationalists, Zionists and neo-conservatives are leading the sheep of the United States are persisted in for another four to eight years, the country will be a banana republic, unable to exert any beneficial influence on the world whatsoever, except for blowing parts of it up.”
I’m disappointed that I missed this at first. It’s funny/ironic that banana republics hold the same policies that Obama wants us to “change” to!
“Teutonic Tim,” can you even READ? My saying that morning that “the chickens are coming home to roost” has NOTHING to do with the “cheering on” of the killing of innocent people. Of course they were “innocent.” So am I “innocent” of the depredations of American economic and foreign policies, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t be punished, when I live abroad, for what the American government has done in my name.
You’re really a political neandrathal.
My vote is for Obama.
Tim,you really should stop misrepresenting people. It’s foolish.
“You’re really a political neandrathal.”
Hahaha. You’re a wacko.
“Tim,you really should stop misrepresenting people. It’s foolish.”
Michael J. – You should really take your own advice. Read. Understand. Comprehend.
Maybe you’re right, Tim. Maybe you’re right.
I’d still vote for McCain. In an ideal world we should have to listen to hillary’s cackle or Obama’s moronic wife flapping her jaw for 8 years.
should be “shouldn’t have to listen”. Duh, pauli, you are a neandrathal duh.
Pauli – No, you’re not necessarily a Neanderthal, but you are perhaps chauvinistic if you would base your vote upon what seems to be an allergy to women who speak up.
Michael,
Maybe its just his faith. And you wouldn’t want him to deny it now.
I’m not a neanderthal, but my grandfather was from West Virginia.
A list of women I could vote for would include Margaret Thatcher, Liddy Dole, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Condoleezza Rice; I think all of these could go under the heading “spoke up” once or twice in their life.
Mr. Iafrate, are you married?
Well, you can vote for Jeane Kirkpatrick all you want, but she’s not been available since she died in December 2006.
Pauli – Quit the insults, and I’ll answer your questions. Otherwise, buzz off.
If Obama were pro-life, I would still not vote for him,. As someone with a chronic health condition, I do *not* want to live in Canada, where I’d be forced to wait for months and months to get life-saving surgery.
That is the honest assessment I’ve had from every person I’ve talked to online or in person who’s been in any country with socialized medicine.
Nor would I vote for someone who is totally absorbed by satanic New Age ideas and endorsed by Oprah Winfrey.