2008 US Presidential Election - Page 63

On October 30 2008 11:22 MYM.Testie wrote:
I'm scared to watch it incase it really doesn't inspire - inform me and is just fluff.
Someone with more stones watch it >=[

On October 30 2008 11:22 MYM.Testie wrote:
I'm scared to watch it incase it really doesn't inspire - inform me and is just fluff.
Someone with more stones watch it >=[

On October 30 2008 11:34 Mindcrime wrote:


yes

To quote Karl Hess...

“Power, concentrated in few hands, is the dominant historic characteristic of what most people, in most times, have considered the political and economic right wing."

“The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands."

“The attitude on that farthest left toward law and order was summed up by an early French anarchist, Proudhon, who said that ‘order is the daughter of and not the mother of liberty.’ Let people be absolutely free, says this farthest of the far, far left (the left that Communism regularly denounces as too left; Lenin called it ‘infantile left’). "

Of course I already stated that this was my personal view rather than an independent fact so I don't have to defend it.

On October 30 2008 13:59 Savio wrote:
I don't know about this guy, but my own personal view of left vs. right is a comparison of the size and role of government.

Anything that makes the government larger or more powerful is left and anything that makes it small is right.

So communism, socialism, liberalism, naziism--they all have a powerful state (I'm talking reality rather than the "theoretical ideal" which we have never and will never see").

...

Now, this is not the definition that political scientists use, but this is how I view it.

I think Hitler was as far to the left as Stalin was and as far as Saddam was.

At the same time, the US bishops modified their election guidelines for 2008, presenting a moral framework but emphasizing individual responsibility for “prudent” decisionmaking. Calling abortion “an intrinsic evil” that must be opposed, they nevertheless left the door ajar to voting for a candidate who supports abortion rights. In “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the bishops write: “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” (They also highlighted fundamental concerns that include war and peace, poverty, healthcare, a living wage, and environmental stewardship.)

Despite this opening, the endorsement of Barack Obama by prominent Catholic Republican Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional law expert at Pepperdine University, came as a great surprise to Catholics. Professor Kmiec, a former legal adviser to Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, has written a controversial book – “Can a Catholic Support Him?” – detailing his rationale for Senator Obama based on the Catholic tradition.

While disagreeing with the Democrat’s abortion-rights position, he sees the candidate as sharing the broader worldview of Catholic social teaching. Kmiec once worked on briefs seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, but he argues that the commitment to programs that reduce abortions will be more effective than continuing to try to reverse Roe. Even if a reversal were achievable, it would only throw the decision back to the states and abortion would continue, he says.

“It’s an argument that will make sense to Catholics who are pragmatists,” says Father Reese.