Sunday, September 23, 2012

It's time to let him go


9 comments:








bill bannon

said...

Romney however believes in ongoing revelation from God
....not unlike our last two Popes on capital punishment :)





Cynic

said...

Well, then, I suppose this means that voting for Romney would be the moral equivalent to carrying out your Catholic responsibility by voting for the Pope! :)





Cynic

said...

Some "Catholics" like Pelosi and Kerry are more postmodern pagan than Catholic, while some non-Catholics like Romney and Bush and Reagan are closer to Catholic positions by virtue of their general refusal to support positions that the Church judges to be "intrinsically evil," like abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, homosexual 'marriage', and socialism.





bill bannon

said...

Cynic,
Careful. Ryan accede to Romney's non Catholic position on abortion by running with him:

Aug.27, 2012


(CBS News) In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, Mitt Romney said his views on abortion rights are more lenient than those put forward in the Republican party platform.

"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."





I am not Spartacus

said...

Come this November I'll pull the trigger
For Romney and Ryan and not the Kenyan.





Cynic

said...

Bill,

Certainly that's true. But consider the alternative: a President who is on record promoting partial-birth abortion and infanticide, openly refusing to support DOMA, embracing same-sex "marriage," forcing Catholic institutions to pay for contraception, abortifacients and sterilizations, and embracing fiscal policies guaranteed to bankrupt the country in several years.

Romney supports abortion in the case of pregnancies resulting from incest or rape? Among the 4000 abortions performed each day, how many do you know of performed because of incest or rape?

The lesser of two evils can be seen as a relative good, it seems to me, in politics which is the art of the possible, not the art of ideals in the best of all possible worlds.





bill bannon

said...

Cynic,
I won't be voting for Obama any which way but I think Ryan's actual cuts from medicaid will cause more abortions than Obama's permissive laws. Ryan would cut $800 billion in ten years from the fed's side and medicaid pays for 37% of pre natal, delivery, and post partum care in the country. A ten week abortion is $400. Girls whose delivery is paid now by medicaid may well have abortions as their income level is gradually over medicaid guidelines. And medicaid pays for 60% of the elderly in nursing homes.
Medicaid is $400 billion a year. Charity is paultry by comparison. The Vatican has savings of one billion dollars. If they gave it all to medicaid, it would not cover one complete day out of 365 days. 17644 parishes gave $60 million to Haiti after the quake. That would pay a very small part of one day of medicaid bills out of 365 days. Meanwhile Bush's search for wmd in Iraq cost $4 triilion according to the Eisenhower Research Institute and may have been the largest waste of money in history but Ryan is worried about elderly and pregnant girls getting too much money.....now that Ryan married into the millions his wife inherited which means they can afford a nursing home without medicaid. If you've saved anything less than $ 500,000, you may need medicaid one day if you die slow in old age on a breathing machine in an old age home...Catholic or
secular. Romney is way above that need. Ryan just above that need. And I think both are capable of wasting extremely large amounts of money in an Iraq
type fiasco.





Cynic

said...

Bill,

I hear you. Medicate does cost a fortune, especially now that the baby boomers are coming of age and the younger generations that should be supporting them according to this "Ponzie Scheme" have been decimated by 4000 abortions/day.

I've heard the argument (from left-wing sources) that the Romney/Ryan economic plan would increase abortions, and I don't buy it.

But if the worry is that Medicare costs so blooming much (which, I agree, it does), isn't that the more reason for supporting politicians eager to cut federal spending wherever possible to keep the country solvent? How can the Obama policies, which are guaranteed to bankrupt the country within a given time frame, do anything in the long run but undermine the safety nets for those underprivileged groups they're ostensibly intended to assist?

Yes, I worry about "Iraq type fiascos" too. And I'm sure there are those living before WWII who preferred Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement to the hawkish types who wanted to "contain" Hitler by threat of military force. It's a double edged sword, is it not?





bill bannon

said...

Cynic,
I actually like the smaller, smarter military concept. Obama's choice of Panetta gave us an top men/ Al Qaeda kill rate by drones that is wonderful. And you watch. Panetta will drone this Libyan offshoot of Al Qaeda. Romney Ryan are gung ho in my perception the way Bush was....big budgets and wars by people who never served ( Bush avoided Vietnam thru the reserves which in that war rarely were called up ). I could see therefore Romney Ryan saving 800 billion in medicaid and wasting far more than that in a big war by two people who didn't serve. Bush had a 4 trillion dollar war while lowering taxes and adding tremendously to medicare....and Boehner slickly tried to blame Obama for it. Tonight...Romney's falling behind in swing states.
47% comment was way worse than people are
imagining. We all have elders receiving a gov check.
Only 4.1% of the country are on full welfare and a deserted girl with two tiny children should be rather than working at Wendy's if her parents won't take her in.