Obama most liberal candidate? Seems so.
- Thread starter MobBoss
- Start date
Didn't you know Paul was a Libertarian? That said, its not that surprising.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
No one is religiously obliged to do anything.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Religious attack? Nothing of the sort, just merely the truth. Is Obama for abortion? Yes. Catholic Church for abortion? No. Obama for homosexual marriages? Yes. Catholic Church? No. and on down the line.
Thats not an attack at all, just a statement of the facts.
I am not telling anyone what to believe. I am stating factual differences in between what Obama promotes vesus what the Catholic Church doesnt.
Why do you have such a problem with truth?
Is there an echo in here?
Nylan
Characters Welcome
This thread, as has been previously mentioned, is only polarizing people, which reiterates my anti-party ideals, however OT they might be
Vote according to your conscience, don't do it because of the (D) or the (R), and don't think "is he too liberal/conservative"? Just look at the persons' policies, decide if they match up with your own beliefs, take a moment to think "can this guy/girl run the country competently?", and then vote
Vote according to your conscience, don't do it because of the (D) or the (R), and don't think "is he too liberal/conservative"? Just look at the persons' policies, decide if they match up with your own beliefs, take a moment to think "can this guy/girl run the country competently?", and then vote
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
Indeed. Though the amount of lives involved in abortion are much, much greater.
Right.
Too bad there's many catholics which support abortions, homosexuality, and the like. American Catholics are infamous for being socially liberal - quite often moreso than the average protestant.
Compared to war?
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Have you took a closer look and asked a couple of questions? Is Obama for abortions strictly to save a woman's life if the pregnancy threatens her life or if the child is conceived through rape or incest?
His details are to vauge and narrow to formulate an opinion on this sector.
I am only against abortion if its used as a method of birth control and its not just religious reasons, its also biological reasons as well. Too many abortion procedures would eventually mess up the woman's uterus and would make her sternal for the rest of her life.
Obama only voted against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. However he believes that marriage is defined as being a religious bond between a man and a woman. Supporting civil unions for same-sex couples does not equate "Obama for homosexual marriages".
However your statements of the so called facts is essentially categorizing and generalizing that Catholics should do this and do that. I have a mind of my own. Yes I believe that abortions are wrong (to an extent) and yes I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But there is a reason why we have a separation of church and state. Since my view opposing abortion and same-gender marriages are rooted in religion, I feel that if I vote on the basis of that, that I am essentially pushing my morals down someone else's thought. The statement of the facts that you state do not fit exactly with Catholic believers because Catholics too have varying opinions on such issues.
And that has to do with my secular/civic opinions how? It's just more generalization to my ears on what all Catholics should follow. Were all not mindless robots. I (try) separate my religious opinions from my secular/civic opinions.
Why yes, were in Plato's caveIs there an echo in here?
.Anyway, the bottom line is that it is way to early to vote for someone at this point. Heck I don't know who I am planning to vote in the primaries let alone the 2008 Presidential Elections.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Kennedy was a catholic and look what happened they put a man on the damn moon. Freaky stuff.
Gogf
Indescribable
Well, Hillary's flip-flopping on the war right now. She said she would keep troops in Iraq if she were president, just in "non-combat roles." Yeah, so our troops are there why, exactly?
That's a good move for her, though. Every analysis says that the surge is working. The troops are energized, and the Iraqis realize that this is their last chance to get their country together before America's will breaks and we cut and run. Hillary's going to be in a much better position when the surge works than Obama who is "against the war forever."
But neither of them can win the general election.
I've never heard that before, but let's assume it's correct. Does that mean that you're against sterilization?
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
The National Journal is the same "respected institution" that rated Kerry the "#1 liberal in the Senate" back in 2004.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm
Nodoubt MobBoss or one of his interchangeable talking-points-spewing clones posted a thread on that exact same topic three years ago. A quick search should turn it up.
Whatever you think of John Kerry, calling him the #1 liberal in the same Senate as Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, etc. is ********.
I am inclined to call this same "analysis" - that Obama is the most liberal in a field that includes Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, Sharpton and may include Al Gore, equally ********.
Dude, you have publicly proclaimed your vote has been won by Mitt Romney!
How do you have the chutzpah to turn around and tell CG he's voting for a guy who doesn't share his religion OR his values?
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022704nj1.htm
Nodoubt MobBoss or one of his interchangeable talking-points-spewing clones posted a thread on that exact same topic three years ago. A quick search should turn it up.
Whatever you think of John Kerry, calling him the #1 liberal in the same Senate as Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, etc. is ********.
I am inclined to call this same "analysis" - that Obama is the most liberal in a field that includes Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, Sharpton and may include Al Gore, equally ********.
Dude, you have publicly proclaimed your vote has been won by Mitt Romney!
How do you have the chutzpah to turn around and tell CG he's voting for a guy who doesn't share his religion OR his values?Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
There is a risk of the side effects of abortion that it would make a woman steral
as well as other negative side effects. I'm not against sterilization, but I am against the negative side effects that would come out of it. Which is why I am against abortions as a method of birth control (Other than that it's murder of an unborn child) is that it would lead to complications that would lead to sterelity or worse. Especially if the woman constantly has an abortion just as a birth control in her young years but would want to have a child later in life.
However, if we are to continue this discussion, We can take this to a different thread to avoid threadjacking this one.
DBear
unbeliever
Gotta agree with augurey on that one. Kookoo Kucinich runs to make the other candidates look moderate. I will grant that Obama probably has a more liberal voting record than she-who-must-not-be-named.
The intelligent people of the forum are not partisan hacks who feel that liberals are inherintly evil.
And hence you live in Canada.I love Kucinich
And hence you live in Canada.
I can still (and will) vote for him though!
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
And they are pretty bad at practicing Catholicism then aren't they.
Compared to war?
What's to laugh at? Are you not familiar with the statistics involved? It only takes a couple of years worth of legal abortions to exceed all the casualties Americans have experienced in every war in our history. If you count those as real human lives lost, as pro-lifers would and you would not, then that's basically a Holocaust four times over and counting since Roe v Wade. The quantity of life lost would only be comparable, in terms of conflicts, to the most destructive war in history i.e. the Second World War, though it has admittedly taken many more years to exact the same toll.
Similar threads
