Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 18th 2012 new

(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: So as long as a candidate is "Pro-Life" they get a blank check? As a friendly remind...
(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: So as long as a candidate is "Pro-Life" they get a blank check?

As a friendly reminder, our last so-called pro-life administration was responsible for 2 pre-emptive wars (morally unjust), neglect of the poor via tax cuts for the rich (morally unjust), Bush was gov. of TX a state that executes it's criminals. PJII said appropriate use of capital punishment is "virtually non-existent"
--hide--

Criticism of the Bush administration is no longer applicable; Bush was not on the ballot in the last two elections.

Nov 18th 2012 new

(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: I stand by my numbers: 3,000/day out of 300 million. We should try to explain "pr...
(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said:

I stand by my numbers: 3,000/day out of 300 million.

We should try to explain "pro-life" to the children of Kabul, Iraq as they grow up without a limb, a parent or a sibling.

Even if abortion were to be outlawed tomorrow, women would obtain them in back alleys, Canada, Cuba or Europe.

Pro-life should encompass every meaning of the phrase, not just what is inline with conservative ideology
--hide--


Well, your numbers are for 1 day - which is awful unto itself! But it says nothing about a woman's reproductive lifetime. The numbers I quote are solid - you can look them up anywhere on the internet. 1 of every 3 women will have an abortion in her lifetime!

And, outlawing abortion (as you put it) would drastically cut down on the numbers - both initially and over time as women (and hopefully men) became more responsible.

Pro-life starts with the unborn child. If we cannot protect them - the most innocent - we cannot protect anyone.

This has nothing to do with conservative ideology. This has to do with the law of God and with natural law. Only man does something this evil.

Nov 18th 2012 new
(Quote) Florian-626971 said: Criticism of the Bush administration is no longer applicable; Bush was not on the ballot in t...
(Quote) Florian-626971 said:



Criticism of the Bush administration is no longer applicable; Bush was not on the ballot in the last two elections.

--hide--


His legacy of imperialistic war endures
Nov 18th 2012 new

(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: His legacy of imperialistic war endures
(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said:

His legacy of imperialistic war endures
--hide--

An interesting addition to the discussion.

A question: How Do You Kill Eleven Million People? (How do you kill 54 million in 40 years?)

youtu.be

Nov 18th 2012 new
(Quote) Patricia-29176 said: Well, your numbers are for 1 day - which is awful unto itself! But it says nothing about a woman'...
(Quote) Patricia-29176 said:



Well, your numbers are for 1 day - which is awful unto itself! But it says nothing about a woman's reproductive lifetime. The numbers I quote are solid - you can look them up anywhere on the internet. 1 of every 3 women will have an abortion in her lifetime!

And, outlawing abortion (as you put it) would drastically cut down on the numbers - both initially and over time as women (and hopefully men) became more responsible.

Pro-life starts with the unborn child. If we cannot protect them - the most innocent - we cannot protect anyone.

This has nothing to do with conservative

ideology. This has to do with the law of God and with natural law. Only man does something this evil.

--hide--


It has everything to do with a conservative ideology. "Pro-life" is anti-abortion. Anti-abortion is a conservative hallmark.

Being anti-abortion shouldn't be the only way to be pro-life.
Nov 18th 2012 new

(Quote) John-857142 said: I am new to this thread. I have not read I and II, and am currently within the first ...
(Quote) John-857142 said:


I am new to this thread. I have not read I and II, and am currently within the first 10 posts in this thread. So maybe this has already been brought up. Here is the link to the article: www.numbersusa.com

Below I copied and pasted the essential part of the article.

PRO-Enforcement Romney Had Better 'Spreads' Than NON-Enforcement McCain In Most High-Hispanic States

With so much attention being given to Hispanic voting in the states, we wanted to see how such a strong pro-enforcement candidate like Romney did in the 20 states with the highest percentage of Hispanic voters.

The question on positions is not really about how a position might affect a single demographic group but what might be the overall net effect among all voters of that state.

So, we compared Romney's overall voter performance in those 20 states with that of the Republican nominee in 2008. While Romney ran as a decided PRO-enforcement candidate pushing especially for interior enforcement to keep illegal aliens from jobs and benefits, John McCain ran as a NON-enforcement candidate. He didn't oppose enforcement (like Obama), but he didn't advocate it.

What we found was that PRO-enforcement Romney significantly improved his "spread" in those high-Hispanic states, over that of NON-enforcement McCain.

For example, Obama's spread over McCain in Nevada was 12%. That means his share of the vote was 12 percentage points higher than McCain's.

But Obama's Nevada spread over Romney was 6%. The PRO-enforcement Romney improved the spread by 6 points. For whatever reasons, Romney's heavy pro-enforcement positions did not end up causing him to do worse than McCain who didn't push enforcement.

In Arizona, native-son McCain's spread over Obama was 9%. Romney's spread was 12%. So, Romney improved the GOP's Arizona spread by 3 points.

In 16 of the top 20 Hispanic states, Romney improved on McCain's spread with Obama:

Utah by 19 points Illinois by 9 points Kansas by 7 points Nevada by 6 points Connecticut by 6 points Colorado by 5 points New Mexico by 5 points Washington by 5 points Texas by 5 points California by 3 points Arizona by 3 points Georgia by 3 points Hawaii by 3 points Florida by 2 points Maryland by 1 point

There was no change in the spread in New York and Rhode Island. Romney's spread was worse than McCain's by 2 points in New Jersey and by 3 points in Idaho.

You may have noticed that there aren't many swing states in that list. That's because Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire and other highly competitive states have very small Hispanic electorates.

It would be foolish to conclude that Romney's pro-enforcement positions were the primary cause of his improvement over McCain. But the open-borders journalists and pundits seem to be trying to say the opposite -- that maybe Romney lost some of these states because of his pro-enforcement positions even though he actually had some significant improvements over the non-enforcement GOP candidate in the last election.

POLL SHOWS HISPANICS SUPPORT THE E-VERIFY THAT CONGRESSIONAL GOP LEADERS CONTINUE TO BLOCK

--hide--


John, funny thing though is that, in-spite of all those improvements, Romney lost the popular vote to McCain by over 2 million votes. So McCain was a really better candidate for the re-pubs than Romney was. Point here is that GOP had the wrong guy. McCain was solid in some ways and we knew who he was. Romney is still a stranger to many, including the republicans. And by out-light lying and flip-flopping, he did not help himself!




Nov 19th 2012 new
(Quote) Karis-410918 said: John, funny thing though is that, in-spite of all those improvements, Romney lost the popular vote to M...
(Quote) Karis-410918 said:



John, funny thing though is that, in-spite of all those improvements, Romney lost the popular vote to McCain by over 2 million votes. So McCain was a really better candidate for the re-pubs than Romney was. Point here is that GOP had the wrong guy. McCain was solid in some ways and we knew who he was. Romney is still a stranger to many, including the republicans. And by out-light lying and flip-flopping, he did not help himself!




--hide--


A lot of Repubs had distrust issues w Romney-- Mormonism, gov. of a traditionally liberal state, health care in MA
Nov 19th 2012 new

(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: His legacy of imperialistic war endures
(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said:

His legacy of imperialistic war endures
--hide--

Again, this is irrelevant. Romney never said he was going to start a war. He supports nothing that's intrinsically evil (no, tax cuts are not intrinsically evil). So, there is no excuse for not voting for him in order to stop Obama, who is committed to defending and expanding "abortion rights," which is an intrinsically evil.

Nov 19th 2012 new

(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: So as long as a candidate is "Pro-Life" they get a blank check? As a friendly remind...
(Quote) Gustavo-764558 said: So as long as a candidate is "Pro-Life" they get a blank check?

As a friendly reminder, our last so-called pro-life administration was responsible for 2 pre-emptive wars (morally unjust), neglect of the poor via tax cuts for the rich (morally unjust), Bush was gov. of TX a state that executes it's criminals. PJII said appropriate use of capital punishment is "virtually non-existent"
--hide--

Why keep spouting Democrat talking points.

The morality of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has been argued among theologians since day one. The general consensus is that they probably qualified as just. I don't know about Afghanistan, but as far as Iraq is concerned, all Bush Jr. did was finish the job his father should have.

The Church laws allow Capital Punishment. So you are in no position to claim their are immoral. Even Pope JP II, who expressed as his personal opinion and not speaking as Pope that in modern society the need for Capital punishment is greatly diminished, DID NOT go so far as to say that it is immoral. Where do you get your authority to declare them as immoral acts. You are perfectly free to oppose execution but you have no basis to declare it to be immoral.

It drives me absolutely crazy when people say the Bush tax cuts only benefited the rich, because it is pure unadulterated rubbish. As a result of the Bush cuts millions of people in the lower income brackets were removed from the income tax rolls altogether. That is a 100% tax cut. Many oif them received even more than that because through other credits they are entitled to, they receive a rebate of the SS and Medicare taxes they pay. No one in their right mind can call that a neglect of the poor.

The majority of income earners had their taxes cut by an average of 33%. And the rich only received an average cut of 10%.

There is no doubt that if the rich had received only a 1% cut, the dollars they would save would be larger than for most taxable income earners. But the dollars they save mean a heck of a lot less to them than the dollars most people saved.

Even more telling. After the tax cuts the percentage of all personal income taxes collected that was paid by the rich has reached the highest level since before WWII. So even though they received a 10% cut, they paid more than ever before.

When, long before you were born, tax rates for the rich were as high as 92%, Government official data shows that on average the rich paid 33% of their income in Federal income tax. Since the Bush cuts the rate has dropped marginally, but the rich still pay an average of close to 1/3rd. of their income in tax.

Chances are that you like most people paid Uncle 10% or less of your income in Federal Income taxes.

Envy the rich all you want, but you cannot rationally argue that Bush's tax cuts neglected the poor and were immoral.

Somehow, I don't think facts will sway you in any way. But your distortion of reality cannot go unchallenged.

Nov 19th 2012 new

(Quote) John-857142 said: It mentions that in the article (in the part I copied) but also points out that the o...
(Quote) John-857142 said:


It mentions that in the article (in the part I copied) but also points out that the opponents cannot claim that Romney lost due to his anti amnesty position.

--hide--


The author of the article is confounding the data by asserting that one particular aspect of Romney's platform is what drove his receiving a greater percentage of votes.


One could just as easily claim any number of planks in Romney's platform or any other aspects about the candidate himself were responsible for the voting spread. In order for the PRO-enforcement claim to hold true, the author would have to demonstrate some third data statistic, in this case, polling data that unequivocally demonstrate that people voted for Romney specifically due to his immigration stance.


This is the substance of the ecological fallacy. The author is making inferences about the voting behavior of the populace--in this case, a specific reason why people voted--based on the aggregate data. It could have been that Romney won more votes in those states because of his economic policy, because of his opposition to the ACA, because of his stand on abortion, or for any number of reasons.


Yes, Romney was PRO-enforcement. Yes, he garnered more votes than NON-enforcement McCain in those states.


BUT, the author of the article does not present any further verification (no t-test; no correlation statistics; no other measures of association) that it was the PRO-enforcement position alone that definitely caused the greater spread.


Show me some polling data that clearly show the #1 reason individuals in those particular states voted for Romney was his PRO-enforcement stances, and I may start to give credence to the hypothesis advanced by the author of the article. Until then, it is wrong and unethical for the author to suggest the conclusions he advances.

Posts 111 - 120 of 198