WHY I'M VOTING FOR KERRY

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

****WHOPPERS OF MASS DISTORTION****

January 2003 - "America will not accept this serious and mounting threat to our country. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups." - George W. Bush

May 2003 - "Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." - George W. Bush

July 2003 - WASHINGTON (AP) US Secretary of State Colin Powell was reportedly under persistent pressure from the Pentagon and White House to include questionable intelligence in the report he delivered at the United Nations last February concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. US News & World Report has learned the draft of his UN speech contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, "I'm not reading this b---s--t."

September 2003 - WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush said yesterday that the US government has no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bush's statements came as criticism mounts that his administration was perpetuating an unfounded claim. Administration officials have said Hussein's links to terrorists - and the possibility that he could provide them with weapons of mass destruction - were central elements behind the US decision to invade Iraq.

January 2004 - (REUTERS) Former chief U.S. arms hunter David Kay has concluded Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, a potential embarrassment for President George W. Bush, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Kay told Reuters on Friday that he had concluded Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, as asserted in the lead-up to the US led invasion. "I don't think they existed." he said.

-- Don't Vote for Liars (DVFL@MYOB.com), April 21, 2004

Answers

bumping up to recent answers

-- bumpity (bump@bumping.com), April 21, 2004.

NONE of these reasons (or rumors for some may not be true) gives a Catholic the ability to vote for Kerry who tells us unashamedly that he wants to fund abortions and place judges on the bench who will keep abortion laws in place. Abortion is the murder of the innocent. Nothing you have posted takes that away. You cannot vote for such a man if you are a Catholic. Period.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.


If we do not vite for a Liar, then who shoudl we Vite for? Has not Kerry also been dishonest?

The real queatsion is who is the best to hold the job, if we only decided not to vote for liars, then wewoudl not vote.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.


But you can vote for a man who sends Americans off to die for a cause he made up in the first place? You can vote for a man who signs into law a bill allowing for aecret arrests and indefinite detentions without trial? You can vote for a man who's family fortune came from a financial alliance with the Nazis? Regardless of your opinion on abortion, Kerry is the lesser of two evils. And Bush is very, very evil. Here's an idea: Vote Kerry for President, and vote Republican for Congress. That way you could keep Kerry's pro-abortion policies in check.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.

Has not Kerry also been dishonest?

He is a politician isn't he :)

See:
www.wintersolder.com


-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.



make that www.wintersoldier.com



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.


But you can vote for a man who sends Americans off to die for a cause he made up in the first place?

{aCTUALLY i TAKE MY OWN ADVICE AND DON'T VOTE THIS YEAR.}-Zarove

You can vote for a man who signs into law a bill allowing for aecret arrests and indefinite detentions without trial?

{See above.}-Zarove

You can vote for a man who's family fortune came from a financial alliance with the Nazis?

{Irrelevant. Bush JR. Himself had no ties withhe Nazi's, and it doesn't matter wht his family did.}-Zarove

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, Kerry is the lesser of two evils.

{Not realy. Kerry also pushes for Govenrment controle of the market, and various other forms of Immorality.}-Zarove

And Bush is very, very evil.

{Aren't we all? This matters little, as he is actually less evil than Kerry, who is pro homosexual unions, pro abortion, and pro socialism.}-Zarove

Here's an idea: Vote Kerry for President, and vote Republican for Congress. That way you could keep Kerry's pro-abortion policies in check.

{Woudln't work, because Kerry woudl vit ein the Supreme court judges and overrule Congress, this is why the gay marriage sin San Fran was a real nightmare forfreedom.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.


But you can vote for a man who sends Americans off to die for a cause he made up in the first place?

I am not telling you who to vote for, just who not to vote for if you are a Catholic.

You will have to figure out if you can vote for Bush or not. Personally, I am voting for him because he is the best choice we have right now to lead us in the war with the Islamisists. I don't think Iraq was 'Bush's cause' (if anything he inherited it from Clinton, and it was passed to Clinton by Bush Sr.) and I don't think 9/11 was Bush's idea so the war with the Islamisists is not Bush's cause... it is all of our problem because we ignored their declaration of war on us in the 90s, and they just kept hitting us. They knew they were at war with us, even if we didn't. Now, maybe, we know. We can't "cut and run" now, or they will just take ground.... this is really getting simple.....

Don't get me wrong, no one in their right mind wants war, but this war was pretty much forced on us and we either take it, or surrender. If we surrender, at the bare miniumum all Western influence is out of the middle east (including the abandonment of the nation known as Israel). At worse, we will also have frequent bombings in the United States and much of Europe will fall to the Islamisists. You need to actually listen to what the Islamisists have been telling us these last 10 years. They aren't kidding you know.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 21, 2004.


-I am voting for Bush AND doing so unashamedly with a clear conscience.

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 21, 2004.


Heck, a few little white lies never killed anyone. Remember Clinton lied about Monica and that was really serious stuff. Just hold your nose and vote for Bush. Tell yourself it's what Jesus would do. ;)

-- Ziggy (ziggy@ziggy.com), April 21, 2004.


Anti-Bush (may I call you Anti?),

Are you old enough to vote? If you are, and you don't want to vote for Bush (hence your name), for the love of God, don't vote for Kerry, vote for Joe Schriner. That'll be just like voting for Kerry but with less guilt.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.


I am voting for Kerry AND doing so unashamedly with a clear conscience.

-- Mom (mmm@mmm.net), April 21, 2004.

Mom, are you catholic?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 21, 2004.

Mom is voting for abortion and for demagoguery. It's a free country; let her. If she figures her conscience is clear she must be crazy. Lots of crazy folks out there. Mainly Kerry followers. Ho-hum.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

Eugene is voting for war and for lies. It's a free country; let him. If he figures her conscience is clear he must be crazy. Lots of crazy folks out there. Mainly Bush followers. Ho-hum.

-- Reflection (lookinthe mirror@relections.net), April 21, 2004.


Looks liek soemone with no wit, and nothign intelegent to say, has decided ot cut and paste the other reponceds and change the names around a bit... this is why the Bush side is winning.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Looks liek soemone with no wit, and nothign intelegent to say, has decided ot cut and paste the other reponceds

TRANSLATION PLEASE!

-- Noah Webster (noahbaby@webster.com), April 21, 2004.


noah,

if you were patient, or compassionate (as a christian should be) you would not be so harsh with Mr. Zarove.

FYI, he has dislexia. maybe a compassionate christian would have said something like "zarove, why is your spelling a little off?" perhaps you need to work on your sense of charity?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 21, 2004.


I am voting for Kerry, too.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.


Paul H:

Zarove's post wasn't exactly dripping with Christian charity either. Or is that excused if one has dyslexia?

-- Renee (stevenspoint@home.com), April 21, 2004.


So am I, Elpidio. Maybe we can meet for lunch sometime in Hell ;)

Renee

-- Renee (stevenspoint@home.com), April 21, 2004.


We have a fine President. He will be re-elected in November, and you are being forewarned here. I dreamed you were wasting your vote, Elpidius. Down the drain with Kerry, the Dukkakis clone. Otro Chupacabra y para que lo soportan algunos Mexicanos? No se han cansado de Chupacabras ?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.

El chupacabras no existe , Eugene, and you know it.

I am trying to save some social programs like social security even though I will never collect from it. I belong to the STRS and PERS funds. These programs have stabilized the USA since the 1930s.

Yet at least more than 60 % will depend on its money after retirement.

Money that will dry up with Bush's continued insistence on War.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 21, 2004.


This country can't afford 4 more years of Bush. We need a fresh start in a new direction, stop spending money like fools, win back the respect from the world before this administration came to power. President Kerry will clean up the mess.

-- realist (markcarol85@juno.com), April 21, 2004.

You think I should call you noble? Because you want to ''save'' social programs? How many social programs have you ever saved?

Is it just money we have to worry about? What about survival; and saving lives? You have just an abstract idea of our war in Iraq. It means expenditure to you, or casualties. Was reaction after Pearl Harbor merely an expenditure?

You ought to just confess the truth: If we are able to defeat terrorism by way of a war, or at least defend & protect our citizens in the homeland;

Republicans like Bush, Rumsfeld, et al-- Will surely get credit for it. It will be strictly a Republican achievement devoid of any co-operation from your leftist masters. This you cannot tolerate.

If this happens, we might have a run of Republican election victories, and you will all eat crow on the left. --How can YOU support Bush today, if it means abandoning all hope of Democrat power in America, for the foreseeable future? It all means you would prefer defeat for America at the hands of extremist fanatics, to losing your silly socialist entitlements.

SELFISH and opportunistic motives for your defeatism in the face of Islamist challenges! You'd hang on to your socialist bone while western civilization crumbles. That is shameless; yet I'm not surprised. You may call yourself a Yahwist Christian, but you are Godless. You worship money. Other Peoples' Money.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 21, 2004.


deal with it,

Your recent post has been removed as it was considered rude and lacking in charity toward others. Please read our "About" section on the main page of the forum to learn what is expected of all posters.

You can read all about our "Rules of the Forum" here at:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/policy.tcl?topic=Catholic

Thank you.

Moderator

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 22, 2004.


Tell that to Jesus, Eugene. He was supported by women as Luke attsts.

Also the disciples shared things in common.

I have degrees in Math and economics,and religion, Eugene.

Most of my life I have not depended on the government.

But there are others not so lucky in life, Eugene.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 22, 2004.


Shhh! We don't want to anger our "Leftist masters"!

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 22, 2004.

Elpidio thinks Jesus was ''supported'' by women. There's a good one. It doesn't even deserve a reply. Our lord was poor by choice; and had no need of anyone's support. Government confiscation for social programs is intolerable in many aspects. Charity is holy and a virtue when the givers are the people; as in our Church. Not necessarily where a state assumes the role of benefactor. If the reverse were true, the Soviet Union & its satellite states would have been a force for good. Instead, their citizens voted with their feet; escaping whenever they could.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 22, 2004.

CHRIST FOR PRESIDENT

Let's have Christ our president. Let us have him for our king. Cast your vote for the carpenter that you call the Nazarene.

The only way we can ever beat these crooked politician men Is to run the money changers out of the temple And put the Carpenter in

O It's Jesus Christ our president God above our king With a job and a pension for young and old We will make hallelujah ring

Every year we waste enough to feed the ones who starve We build our civilization up and we shoot it down with wars

But with the Carpenter on the seat away up in the capital town The USA would be on the way prosperity bound!

Words: Woody Guthrie

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 22, 2004.


As always, Eugene is correct. The state has no place administering social programs. The needy should be cared strictly through the benevolence of others. Citizens should decide how much, if anything, to contribute to a charity of their choice rather than being forced to contribute through taxation. In the unlikely event an economic downturn should depress contributions while increasing the need for assistance, the poor will have to learn to work for a living like the rest of us. As we all know, most of them are alcoholics. No social safety net is necessary. A few nights out in the cold with an empty stomach would teach them to clean up their act fast.

-- Compassionate Conservative (generalissimo9@myopinion.com), April 22, 2004.

And what is a charity, my compassionate conservative, but also a handout to the needy people. Except that this one is by choice.

Will you contribute to a charity for AIDS patients knowing some of them are homosexual and porn stars?

I don't hink so.

That's is why for some the government is the only solution.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 22, 2004.


Do you read the Bible or only the Books of saints, Eugene?-

Unless Senor Lucas is a liar, then this passage is true:

Luke Chapter 8 (From Blue Bible)

Luk 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve [were] with him,

Luk 8:2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

Luk 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance

The Christian Yahwist The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 22, 2004.


Choice is everything. We live in the land of liberty. That means not being FORCED to contribute to the welfare of others if we so choose. We all have equal opportunity to sink or swim. I should not be forced to pay for the bad life style choices of others. It's unconstitutional and un-American!

-- Compassionate Conservative (generalissimo9@myopinion.com), April 22, 2004.

There was a time when there were no public schools.

The Church and other privated educators chose to educate only a certain group. The other couldn't pay.

I can imagine all of those poor people who advanced because they had an education. They bwere the ones promoting free choice.

Now conservatives have taken possession of it.

Public education has advanced the world.

I am neither a true conservative neither a true liberal. I am part Green too.

I am conservative when it comes to abortion, Euthanasia, ...

I am a centrist on fiscal issues. Spend only what you can handle. Believe in perfect competition.

I am a progressive when it comes to Parks, public Education,...

A green on the protection of animals, plants, rivers,...

A free enterpriser when it comes to creating new industries

A philantropist: contribute to charities, ...

The only liberal part of me is that I have compassion even on those who don't deserve it.

So the liberal and conservative labels don't apply to me.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yaho.com), April 22, 2004.


The Church and other privated educators chose to educate only a certain group. The other couldn't pay.

How about school vouchers? For or against?

Public education has advanced the world.

Now it's ruining the US. I don't know about the rest of the world.

I am conservative when it comes to abortion, Euthanasia, ...

Yet I am voting for a guy who favors abortion so much he devotes a full advertisement to highlight his stance

I am a centrist on fiscal issues. Spend only what you can handle. Believe in perfect competition

No you aren't and no you don't. Maybe you personally spend only what you can handle, but you certainly don't advocate that for government. California is in a fiscal crisis. Which social program do you propose they cut? You believe in perfect competition? What do you think about outsourcing?

A free enterpriser when it comes to creating new industries

As long as we're not too busy forcing them to protect animals, plants, rivers, parks, public education...

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 22, 2004.


"There was a time when there were no public schools." Public schools should be abolished in favor of home schooling. They are nothing more than an expensive disgrace.

"The Church and other privated educators chose to educate only a certain group. The other couldn't pay." I'll tell you why they couldn't pay. They were lazy. They sat around bars instead of working.

"I can imagine all of those poor people who advanced because they had an education. They bwere the ones promoting free choice." They were nothing more than lucky free loaders.

"Now conservatives have taken possession of it." Praise God!

"Public education has advanced the world." There is nothing wrong with a person getting an education IF it's the right kind of person with the right kind of money.

"I am neither a true conservative neither a true liberal. I am part Green too." Trust me. You're a liberal. Do the trees hug you back?

"I am conservative when it comes to abortion, Euthanasia, ..." That doesn't count. Where do you stand on tax cuts?

"I am a centrist on fiscal issues. Spend only what you can handle. Believe in perfect competition." I used to believe the claptrap about spending only what you can handle. Now I understand large deficits are actually very good for the economy. It's a complicated accounting principle that you probably coundn't comprehend so I won't waste my time explaining it to you.

"I am a progressive when it comes to Parks, public Education,..." Both are a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Only a liberal would mention "Parks". How foolish.

"A green on the protection of animals, plants, rivers,..." I suppose you don't even own a gun, do you Elpidio? Animals are provided to us by our Blessed Lord to do with as we will. They don't have souls. I prefer to kill them. Plants and rivers are provided by our Blessed Lord to trample and pollute, if we so choose. There is nothing in the Bible forbidding it. We live in the land of freedom and choice on a planet of plenty. It's ours to do with as we please.

"A free enterpriser when it comes to creating new industries" That will not be accomplished without more tax cuts.

"A philantropist: contribute to charities, ..." That's for people like Bill Gates. I have enough bills of my own to pay. Besides most charities have hidden overhead costs that are outrageous. I prefer to pray for the poor, it's cheaper.

"The only liberal part of me is that I have compassion even on those who don't deserve it." That's what I figured. A typical bleeding heart liberal.

"So the liberal and conservative labels don't apply to me." Elpidio, you are so far to the left it's sKerry!

-- Compassionate Conservative (generalissimo9@myopinion.com), April 22, 2004.


Dear "cc" very few of your beliefs match Catholic social justice doctrine, please read your catechism .

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 23, 2004.

I am amazed that liberals who are against the war in Iraq, have no problem voting for people who believe in abortion - killing innocent babies is okay with them. However, sending military troops to war is not okay. Our military is a volunteer military - most of those men fighting this war 'chose' to be in the military and, unfortunately, that is what our military is for - to fight wars. Innocent babies did not ask to be born and are murdered and discarded because they are an inconvenience.

How could anyone vote for someone who is pro-abortion? To some people, abortion is just a word but they have no idea what actually takes place when a baby is aborted.

Perhaps we should do away with our military altogether and settle any future attacks on America with peaceful talks - after all, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are 'reasonable' people.

Flip-flop Kerry will make a great President, says one thing one minute and changes it the next.

Terrorists do not care if you are a repulbican, democrat, Catholic or Protestant, rich or poor, do not care what you believe in - if you are American, they want to kill you - each and everyone. Terrorism is a threat to our way of life, to our country and 'all' of its people. They don't care where you live, how you live, how you vote, how you dress, how you think, - if you are American, or if you are not American, but live here and enjoy the privileges of living in this great country - and it is a privilege to live here, they want to kill you, your children, your spouses, your family, friends, co- workers - doesn't matter to them.

Kerry is not going to be able to stop the threat of terrorism. The threat of it is here to stay. Look who is supporting Kerry - Ted Kennedy - fine man, that Ted Kennedy - "Birds of a feather flock together."

Amazing, isn't it? Murder, adultrey, lying, cheating, is all okay with the liberals.

As far as Bush coming from a wealthy family, have you seen the homes Kerry has? Yeah, Kerry knows the 'heart of the working man,' understands the problems of the working man.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 23, 2004.


"There was a time when there were no public schools." Public schools should be abolished in favor of home schooling. They are nothing more than an expensive disgrace.

{I actually beleive in ublic education. I disagree wihtthe course it has taken, however.}-Zarove

"The Church and other privated educators chose to educate only a certain group. The other couldn't pay." I'll tell you why they couldn't pay. They were lazy. They sat around bars instead of working.

{Actually most Chruhc-owned schools in the 19th Century where open tot he Piublic.Itwas paued fr not by tuition, but by the donations tot he Chruhc, as well as proivate financers. }-Zarove

"I can imagine all of those poor people who advanced because they had an education. They bwere the ones promoting free choice." They were nothing more than lucky free loaders.

{They where enither. Most advanced because of skill until the middle 20th century.}-Zarove

"Now conservatives have taken possession of it." Praise God!

{Actually, the Liberals have controle of our education.}-Zarove

"Public education has advanced the world." There is nothing wrong with a person getting an education IF it's the right kind of person with the right kind of money.

{Money shoudl not be an issue for education.}-Zarove

"I am neither a true conservative neither a true liberal. I am part Green too." Trust me. You're a liberal. Do the trees hug you back?

{Actually, environemtal concenrs are valid.}-Zarove

"I am conservative when it comes to abortion, Euthanasia, ..." That doesn't count. Where do you stand on tax cuts?

{It does count, as does tax reductions.}-Zarove

"I am a centrist on fiscal issues. Spend only what you can handle. Believe in perfect competition." I used to believe the claptrap about spending only what you can handle. Now I understand large deficits are actually very good for the economy. It's a complicated accounting principle that you probably coundn't comprehend so I won't waste my time explaining it to you.

{Not very Charitable, this masked jab at his intellect. Howevef his veiws where once shared by you, then you shoudl nto be so harsh on him for them.}-Zarove

"I am a progressive when it comes to Parks, public Education,..." Both are a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Only a liberal would mention "Parks". How foolish.

{what's wrogn wiht Parks\?}-Zarove

"A green on the protection of animals, plants, rivers,..." I suppose you don't even own a gun, do you Elpidio?

{I don't know baout him, but I don't own a Gun.}-Zarove

Animals are provided to us by our Blessed Lord to do with as we will.

{This is false. No palce int he Bible said that Animals where cereated for humans, and Humans can do withthem as they will. Indeed, th Bible said Humans where created to care for the earth for God, t rule over it.It does not say that the Earht and all on it was made for humanity.}-Zarove

They don't have souls.

{This is false. Animals do have souls, as specified in the Bible. Even the others here have conceeded this, saying only thatthey do not have an immortal soiul. I disagree withthem on this as well, maintianign the belif that Animals persist after death. However, Animals have souls. This cannot be disputed unless you dispute the Bible.}-Zarove

I prefer to kill them.

{Assume you are correct, and htis si the only life they will live, why shoudl you be so cruel as to deny them their only chance of life, when tyou have so mcuh more than they?

If you belive animals act only on Instinct, and have no free will, and no mind that contemplates, feels, and imagines, then you have never seriosuly studied the matter. I know form personal experience that Animals CAN think, and ar eot limited to sheer instinct. I also knwo form scienticfic testign. Some of which was designed ot prove the opposite.

To kill is always a loss. Kill only what and when needed. }-Zarove

Plants and rivers are provided by our Blessed Lord to trample and pollute, if we so choose.

{No, they where not. We where suppose to care for the rivers and plants, they whre nto made soley for oyr convneience to do with as we please.}-Zarove

There is nothing in the Bible forbidding it.

{Actually, their is. Even the Genesis acocunt, used by soem to prove the reverse, shwos Adam and eve carin for ehte GArden. The story does not shwo them din as they pelase with it, but tendign and keeping it. Firther, the Psalsm, proverbs, and several other books declare the Earht to be the Lords,a nd speak of carign for the land.

The Jews had to let the land rest every seventh year. It was nto merely theirs to do with as they pleased.}-Zarove

We live in the land of freedom and choice on a planet of plenty. It's ours to do with as we please.

{This is arrogance. Humanity was made ot care for the Earht for God, the earth wa snto made for man. Likewise, God did nto give us the earht to do with as we please, this ort of self centred huamn arrogance is not really approved of in the Bible, where both Solomon speaks agaisnt it, and where Job is repremanded by it.}-Zarove

"A free enterpriser when it comes to creating new industries" That will not be accomplished without more tax cuts.

"A philantropist: contribute to charities, ..." That's for people like Bill Gates. I have enough bills of my own to pay. Besides most charities have hidden overhead costs that are outrageous. I prefer to pray for the poor, it's cheaper.

{Did our Lord not command us to take up thw cause of the poor? Does any man say "Be blessed" when another is starving?}-Zarove

"The only liberal part of me is that I have compassion even on those who don't deserve it." That's what I figured. A typical bleeding heart liberal.

{Jesus said to love even our enemies, do you disagree with Jesus then?}-Zarove

"So the liberal and conservative labels don't apply to me." Elpidio, you are so far to the left it's sKerry!

{Am I far left?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 23, 2004.


Just came across a bit of information regarding Kerry and his claim of the >Bush administration sending jobs abroad. Well, it seems that the Heinz >Corporation, owned by Kerry's wife, has 79 plants where it manufacturers >products and 57 of the 79 are located in countries outside of the US How >many US jobs are lost here? > > >Factories located at: >Taipei, Taiwan (makes Heinz baby foods) >Dublin,Ireland; >Paris,France; >Dovarmenez, France; >Lisbon,Portugal; >Madrid,Spain; >Milan,Italy; >Monguzzo,Italy; >Athens,Greece; >Warsaw,Poland; >Pudliszki,Poland; >Wodzislaw,Poland; >Miedzychod,Poland; >Moscow,Russia; >Georgievisk,Russia; >Cairo,Egypt; >Tel Aviv,Israel >Haifa,Israel; >Elst,The Netherlands and 6 other plants there; >Brussels,Belgium; >Dusseldorf,Germany; >Seesen,Germany; >Turnhout,Belgium; >Rovereto,Italy; >Chateaurenand,France; >North York,Ontario,Canada; >Wheatley,Ontario,Canada; >Caracas,Venezuela; >San Jose,Costa Rica; >Johannesburg,South Africa; >Gaborone,Botswana; >Harare,Zimbabwe; >Cheguta,Zimbabwe; >Wellington,South Africa; >Melbourne,Victoria,Australia; >Republic of Singapore; >Auckland,New Zealand; >Tokyo,Japan >Guangzhov,People's Republic of China (makes infant cereal); >Qingdao, People's Republic of China (makes infant foods, ketchup,mayonnaise >& puree); >Inchon, South Korea (makes Heinz products and StarKist); >Bangkok,Thailand; >Mumbai,India; >Jakarta,Indonesia; >Surabaya,Indonesia; >Manila, Philippines; >Wanchai,Hong Kong. > >Also recently purchased from Bordens these products: Classico Pasta Sauce; >Aunt Millies Pasta Sauce; Mrs. Grass Receipt Soups; Wylers Bouillons & >Soups. > >Think of the conflict of interest a President would have who's wife owns >business interests in all of these countries and others. Pass it on!!!! > > >

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 23, 2004.

Elpidio thinking he's ''sneaky fast''--

''Luke 8 :3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto Him (Christ) of their substance, etc.,''

What about it? These holy women were in the Church at infancy, Elpidio. Not the state. How much money was given Our Lord in subsistence by the state, say by Galilee, perhaps? Show us the welfare plan Herod fed Jesus from. The Church has always served Jesus.

We Catholics are probably the world's most generous contributors to all the needy, all over the world. Whether unwed mothers, AIDS patients, criminals in prison, the sick and the poor. That's what God commanded of all His people. Though the Church is charitable, we are not entitled to boast; God alone is praised, God alone, through His Son Jesus Christ.

Whereas, when the tax and spend party helps the needy, (from other people's production) it does it imposing an obligation to perpetuate them in office. And the Democrat party lavishes praise on--who? God? Hell, no! On Teddy Kennedy, Kerry and Hillary! On itself.

You, read the Bible, Elpidio. There is plenty of written word in it to show us Jesus is God. God the eternal Son; in every way equal in glory to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, ONE GOD. The Holy Trinity, to whom you are obstinately opposed, AKA Yawhist. The Bible clearly hasn't done you much good, My Friend.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 23, 2004.


This election is the last time I'll ever support a Democrat, but they are the lesser of two evils. Desperate times call for desperate measures. Normaly I like the Greens and Libertarians, although I think Nader has lost his mind this time around. He is so blinded by his fervor to beat Bush, he can't see the fact that he's tipping the election in Bush's favor.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 23, 2004.

It is good to find Catholic who still care about bothe the unborn and the livin, besides our planet.

Zarove may disagree with me on Dogmas and staging war, but on many other issues we agree.

So does Kiwi by pointing out Catholic justice as espoused by Popes like Leo XIII.

Marilou is fixed on Liberals. Get over it!!!

CC and Eugene just try to evade the issue by writing whatever comes to their mind.

I guarantee you CC will take me to court if I were to pollute "the grass of his lawn".

As for Eugene, he tries to evade the issue he raised of Jesus not being helped by women. I showed he did.

Because I have read the Bible, Eugene, and not some made believe stories like you have, I know where God Yahweh stands.

That is why he made provisions for foreigners, poor, widows, orphans, hungry people,.... (See Deuteronmy. Read Isaiah, Jeremiah,..).

That's what Jesus said that day when he opened the scroll of Isaiah 61 and read....."Yahweh has sent me to proclain good news....

Have you hugged your Bible lately, Eugene and CC?

Don't worry, it won't hug you back if you don't want to.

It doesn't burn either.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yaho.com), April 23, 2004.


Elpidio,

I'm hurt you left me off of your list. Sniff, Sniff. I wouldn't pay any attention to CC; he was over the top, trying to get a rise out of somebody. Zarove, unfortunately, fell right into his trap.

Elpidio, you're beautiful. I disagree with about everything you say but you make me smile. I think Eugene smiles too as he's rebutting you; at least that's how I picture it. And I'm pretty sure he has his Bible nearby Mr. Sola Scriptura.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.


The only reason I left you out, Brian, is because you left me no substance.

By that I mean a)Where do you stand on moral issues b)Where do you stand on social issues c)Where do you stand on dogmatic issues d)Where do you stand on War and Peace e) Where do stand on the Gospel of Jesus Christ (What does it mean to you).

As for Eugene refuting....well 2002, 2003, 2004.... He still can't....

He loves to pose as the devil's advocate everytime I post. They say in Spanish: mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Isn't that right, Eugene....

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.


Elpidio,

Mr. no substance here. Once again I'm hurt by your insensitivity. No substance? Ouch! Pero me gusto tu frase. LOL See, you always make me smile.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.


We discuss truth and love of God here, Elpidio. I have no use for political debates where Christ is brought in to sustain somebody's leftist pipe dream. I have too much love for Him to trivialize His poverty. No one has to be Democrat or Yawhist (?) to understand love for our neighbor.

It seems for some reason you've decided to preach brotherhood to me just to give yourself credence. When a man who for all his charm denies the Godhead of our Holy Redeemer, comes preaching; I smell the cloven hoof. La pezuna te entriega.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 23, 2004.


I don't usually get upset, Brian. Eugene knows that already. I have chatted with him even by e-mail.

At least I make you smile.

As for you Eugene,

I know you care about my salvation,

but the same thing I have told you many times before: you believe what others have said,...

Como sabes que la pezuna del diablo no entro con ellos tambien?

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.


let's see; you say:

you believe what others have said,... Como sabes que la pezuna del diablo no entro con ellos tambien?

The truth isn't in what ''others'' have said. We know how Christ provided for His church for all the ages. He sent us the Holy Spirit. Those you call the others are under his guidance and cannot fail. They may have human faults. But in the long run they remain secure in the Holy Spirit when faith and morals are in dispute.

Christ gave Peter charge of the Church. When we rely on the Pope (Peter) we always have the promise of Jesus Christ to keep out the devil. (Luke 22 : 31).

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 23, 2004.


Eugene said "I have no use for political debates where Christ is brought in to sustain somebody's leftist pipe dream."

Neither do I, mate. But be consistent; you have absolutely no hesitation (on other threads) in bringing Christ in to your own political tirades to sustain your right-wing pipe dreams.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 24, 2004.


Dear Peter:
I've allowed you to speak your mind. Maybe you never expected opposition. I'm sorry. You've railed at us, and not very sweetly.

My ''tirade'' as you call it, isn't a religious tract. There's no possible way you'll connect with Elpidio, is there? He doesn't believe Christ is divine. That's a far cry from what I say about a just cause for war. You want me to come to the center? I refuse. But we speak of world events, and politics, not faith. In matters of faith, I never depart from what's orthodox. And I do not bring Jesus Christ into secular or political debates. Elpidio was giving us as a model for socialism the life of Jesus Christ. To me it's absurd. Maybe you find it plausible; I can't. The Holy Gospel is not political science.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 24, 2004.


Dear Eugene,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Thank you for standing up for 'our' beliefs.

Peter K, in his first sentence, (last post), sid "Neither do I, mate." Americans do not use the word 'mate' - people from Australia use that word.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 24, 2004.


Since Peter is an Aussie, he can use the word mate, or bloke, or sheila or whatever. So can I for that matter. Are you going to tell Eugene not to write in Spanish too?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 24, 2004.

I enjoy reading the new postings of Peter K. He's clearly a fine person. He hasn't known me for long, so Peter isn't used to rough exchange. I'm by now notorious for that style. Call it serve and volley; an Australian will likely understand. It can be exciting. Discussions of ethics and religion shouldn't have to be dull. The only time this practice fails is when one party hasn't got the truth on his side, or distorts the truth. Peter hasn't distorted it. But I'd like to make him see it more clearly. We'll become friends.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 24, 2004.

I don't know what Bible you have been reading, Eugene.

Jesus cannot not Euene be separated from politics 100%.

Even in his days he criticized Herod as that fox, he criticized the religious leaders,....

Why was he killed, because he came to Jerusalem mounted on a donkey with royal aspirations.He kicked out every one selling by Yahweh's temple.

So the Saducees, Herodians, Romans, and Pharisees decided to get rid of him.

If he had just said be good to each other like all preachers do, they would never have crucified him.

After all the title wasn't : a common preacher,

but...Jesus the Nazorean, King of The Jews.

(Nazorean means either branch=descedant of King David or keeper of the faith)

So all of yours arguments lack basis, Eugene.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.


Why did they call him Son of David, Eugene?

Because he was...

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.


Elpidio:
Jesus is called Son of David as the Messianic heir. He is really God. You can see, once He asked the Pharisees why David had called Him Lord. They couldn't answer. (Matt 22 :41-45).

His work was not political; He even stated that had He wanted them His Father would send twelve legions of angels to help him against His enemies. So, obviously, He had no ''royal aspirations'' in Israel. He is King of all Creation; what is a royal post on earth to God? ''My kingdom is not of this world,'' Jesus said to Pilate.

Nevertheless, in order that the prophesies should be fulfilled, He made Himself the Messiah and Our Saviour.

I'd like to at least correct one mistake you keep making, Elpidio. You say 'my arguments lack basis?' I let you do the arguing. My response is just to give you a glimpse of the truth. Not argue.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 24, 2004.


Im trying to stay out of your political debates becuase Im not American, but I cant resist! Like Peter we have a different electoral system- "mixed member proportional" so our "two party" politcal days are thankfully behind us.

All this talk about Kerry, I dont think he has a show. Bush might not be an intellectual, but hes no imbecile nor puppet- even if he borders on a sociopath who lacks any sense of empathy. Hes wily, manipulative, aggressive and decisive. Many of his mannerisms, esp the contrived "good ol southern boy" act and the bumbling inarticulate speaking style all endear him with a folksy down to earth charm.

Kerry on the other hand is a complete bore, the democrats couldnt have found a worse candidate for this election. Talk about "night of the living dead". More dead than dull, no one is excited about him from what Ive read. Theres nothing to get excited about. Unless Kerry gets lucky and Iraq takes a turn for the worse, Bush by a texan mile.

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.


Thanks for "correcting" me MaryLu. It's attitudes like yours that give your country the admiration and respect it has won throughout the world. When you were combing so keenly through my vocabulary did you notice the "au" at the end of my address? Perhaps you were not aware that the Web is a world resource? An honourable (oops I mean "honorable") mention to "rod" as well for "correcting" my spelling when I offended him by saying "I apologise if I caused offence."

Eugene said "I've allowed you to speak your mind. Maybe you never expected opposition. I'm sorry. You've railed at us, and not very sweetly....Peter isn't used to rough exchange. I'm by now notorious for that style. Call it serve and volley; an Australian will likely understand. It can be exciting. Discussions of ethics and religion shouldn't have to be dull. "

I'm SO grateful that you've "allowed" me to to speak my mind. Gosh, I never even realised that I needed your permission. You can be civil without being dull. Yes I expected opposition, and insults wash off me. I've been called a lot worse things before and had my arguments misrepresented just as badly before. I was just a bit shocked at first to be so insulted in print and on a Catholic site from a fellow Catholic. (see "is anything worse than war?" thread) Perhaps the Moderators could correct me if I've totally misunderstood the "Rules of this Forum" but it appears that Eugene's "notorious" style is beyond the pale. I've looked carefully through my own posts and I can't see anywhere that I've "railed against" anyone "not very sweetly".

I don't want Eugene to come to to the centre, or even the "center". Take any political position you want. (Unless it's incompatible with Catholicism like Nazism or Communism). Though if you just want to discuss politics as such maybe you should do it on a political forum. All I'm saying is that it is just as wrong for Eugene to argue that Christians cannot be socialist, as it is for Elpidio to argue that it is essential for Christians to be socialists. (Or for Eugene to argue that it is morally essential for Catholics to support any particular war.)

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 25, 2004.


Peter K.

I wasn't being insulting when I said people from Australia use the word mate...I misunderstood Eugene's commments and thought he was implying that you may be someone else - I thought he was implying that Elpidio wrote the post.

I did not read your email address....I don't look at those things, just the messages. As I said, I come on here to learn. I leave the debating up to the intellectuals on here.

I do not get involved in any of these debates. I am not all that knowledgeable in my own Catholic faith to debate anything. My faith is simple. Once in a while, I make a comment, mostly I ask questions from the knowledgeable people on here.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 25, 2004.


Thanks for "correcting" me MaryLu. It's attitudes like yours that give your country the admiration and respect it has won throughout the world. When you were combing so keenly through my vocabulary did you notice the "au" at the end of my address? Perhaps you were not aware that the Web is a world resource? An honourable (oops I mean "honorable") mention to "rod" as well for "correcting" my spelling when I offended him by saying "I apologise if I caused offence."

I think, Peter you are overreacting to what I posted. To base a whole country's admiration and respect on something one person has said is absurd, to say the least - absolutely, absurd.

I was not correcting you, either - correcting you? Where was I correcting you? I just noted that you used the word 'mate' in your post, that's all - that is not correcting and it is not criticizing either..it was just a comment, that is all.

Perhaps you are judging a whole country rather harshly based on a comment. You are judging me, wrongly, sir - very wrongly and you are judging my country very wrongly, as well - based on things you read and hear in the media.

If you choose to judge my country and its people based on comments made on this forum, and in the media, that is very sad indeed...

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 25, 2004.


When I first saw this message board, I thought I accidentally stumbled onto FreeRepublic.com. Many of the frequent posters appear to be driven by political agenda/affiliation rather than by Catholicism per se. If the two dovetail (e.g. abortion) it's just ducky, but when they differ (e.g. war) the Catholic church's objections are rationalized away as having little or no merit. Opposing viewpoints are unwelcome and often met with outright contempt. As the saying goes, the only thing keeping me from becoming a Catholic is Catholics.

-- Chris (five4dinner@aol.com), April 25, 2004.

Chris,
We are driven by our love of our faith. Abortion is not only murder of the most innocent, but it involves the baby's mother in that murder. We Catholics believe this is the most horrendous of sin. No matter how 'noble' Kerry may appear to others, or how much they don't like Bush's policies, there is NO WAY a Catholic can vote for Kerry because of his stand on abortion. Period.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.


Dear Peter:
If I'd expected you to complain over everything, not excepting my style, I wouldn't have entered into this thread with you. In fact, I was previously speaking to Elpidio; and we brought up leftist ideology. Not politics, just the ideas.

You seem defensive about socialism. That's too bad; I would have preferred we become friends. Now that you've placed me beyond the pale, I regard you as the fugitive Aussie convert I never made. To capitalism, of course.

Look at the bright side, Peter. You have Elpidio to quote poetry to. Together you & he can lambast Geo W Bush and America, caught up in your mutual admiration. Sorry I disappointed you; Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 25, 2004.


Mary Lu, sorry my attempt at irony went right over your head. I'll try to be more direct in future. Actually I quite like Americans and have no interest in "lambasting" the USA or its president, who has some good points, even though Eugene and his mates seem to think that if you're not far-right, the only other possibility is far-left.

Chris PLEASE don't give up on Catholics because of this forum. Trust me, it is NOT representative of the Catholic Church.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 26, 2004.


Chris,

-either you accept and embrace Truth or you do not -it is your choice -- excuses that may play here in this mortal world will have no merit after...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 26, 2004.


Chris said: If the two dovetail (e.g. abortion) it's just ducky, but when they differ (e.g. war) the Catholic church's objections are rationalized away as having little or no merit.

For the umpteenth time: We, as catholics, are required to oppose abortion. We, as catholics, are not required to oppose the Iraq war. You and I may have differing opinions about it, but that is allowable in the eyes of the church. If I were to say confession the Holy Father himself, and confess that I disagreed with him about the Iraq war and his views on the UN, would he give me penance? I don't think so. It's not a sin.

As the saying goes, the only thing keeping me from becoming a Catholic is Catholics.

This is a very shallow attitude. Other catholics should matter not a whit. What matters is the truth. If you believe the Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE CHURCH, and the means of salvation, then what does it matter if you think some of its members are mean, or uncharitable. Jesus Christ chose Peter, The Rock (no not the wrestler), to build his church. Through the Bible, apostolic tradion, papal encyclicals and the like, we have the Catholic Faith. This faith is our rock. It will not move, even if we have heretics, or pedophile priests, or rampant sinners among us.

Many of the subjects here are debated heatedly. Maybe you don't enjoy that, but I usually do. I think it helps to spur critical thought. I'd rather have some passion than milquetoast. Some things are worth arguing for. BTW, I like FreeRepublic.com (big surprise eh.)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 26, 2004.


To Chris, et al--
Our faith is centered completely on love. Love of God and neighbor. Jesus Christ loves us all, whatever our personal traits or political attitudes. A Catholic can be completely mistaken about worldly matters, yet faithful to God.

Saint Francis of Assisi read a scriptural verse in one moment of ecstasy and it shaped his spiritual experience the remainder of his life. It was ''Go, behold I send you forth lambs in the midst of wolves, carry neither purse nor wallet, nor sandals . . . (Luke 10 :3,4.) After that Francis rejected all possessions and begged at peoples' doors for his daily bread.

Yet Catholics also regard the Archangel Gabriel as a model; waging war in the heavens against Satan and his angels, and casting them down to the abyss. There is no limit to the potential of our souls. It can cover all the spectrum of truth, as long as we adore and keep faith with Our Holy Redeemer.

I'm sorry a few visitors are appalled at my support for this interval of conflict we have in the middle east. If my words are too feisty about it, I hope at least the substance of what I say isn't passed over.

These are difficult times for western society. We have few choices, because an enemy has quite clearly declared war on us. I don't follow the logic that America must back down to global terrorism. Whatever the saintliness of a few who preach non- violence, it has no influence on fanatics. Peter K cites the good example of India vs. England. Worth contemplating. However, Britain held her empire as a possession; and we won't save Iraq from despotism and thereafter remain in possession. That would be despotism too. We are there temporarily.

In some aspects, America is actually acting in a non-violent manner toward the middle east. We haven't bombed indiscriminately, or starved the population. We've set up schools and hospitals in Afghanistan & Iraq. Every time force is used, it is tempered with great charity for the innocent. We weren't even allowed to raise an American or British flag! All these actions are pure love of our neighbor in essence.

Forgive us, but I say emphatically, to you and to Peter K: America and our coalition have set the world at large an example of how combat can be courageous, yet conscientious. In the recent past the USSR razed Afghanistan to the ground. We haven't razed Bagdad. But all the world knows we could have. Our President and his administration have conducted a prudent campaign against these rogue states. History will vindicate them, and the armed forces of our coalition. God love and bless all of them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 26, 2004.


For the umpteenth time, taking non-violent action to remove an evil fanatical and powerful enemy is not "backing down". It has worked many times in the past and there is no reason it would not have worked in Iraq. (see "is there anything worse than war" thread)

"We could have made the Iraqis suffer even more if we wanted to" is a pretty weak argument for waging a war. If you steal $100 it's no excuse to say "I could easily have stolen $1000 but I chose not to."

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 26, 2004.


Peter:
Since you have the answers, explain what the non- violent ''action'' open to us is, which you think would have been better. Names, decisions, leverage, strategy; just take your time. Remember --ACTION, a type of work we should be doing. I won't laugh; just let me see it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 26, 2004.

"In some aspects, America is actually acting in a non-violent manner toward the middle east."

Well, we haven't "killed their leaders and made them convert to Christianity", as Ann Coulter (you should know her, you've probably got a few of her books) suggested we do, so I guess that's about as non-violent as we get, eh?

"We haven't bombed indiscriminately, or starved the population."

Actualy we've done both of those things. One in four of our smart bombs hit a civilian target. The Pentagon views schools and hospitals as "primary targets". And the embargo on Iraq in the 90's did a very efficient job of "starving the population". Yeah, that's right, "Anti- Bush" is also anti-Clinton. I'm not just a one-sided Democratic hack. I hate the Democrats just as much (and for a lot of the same reasons as you do...but that's for another discussion).

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.


Actualy we've done both of those things. One in four of our smart bombs hit a civilian target.

That is 75% accuracy! Compaired to Vietnam, that's ... well awfully good! TAKE NOTE: we are trying to avoid killing civilians while our enemy is intentionally trying to kill them.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 26, 2004.


"In some aspects, America is actually acting in a non-violent manner toward the middle east."

Well, we haven't "killed their leaders and made them convert to Christianity", as Ann Coulter (you should know her, you've probably got a few of her books) suggested we do, so I guess that's about as non-violent as we get, eh?

{War is by nature Viplent. However, the US and british forces have been minimalistic in the use of force, I beelive his ws the point. And no, I do not care for Ann Coulter,a dn I have reservations myself abou the war.}-Zarove

"We haven't bombed indiscriminately, or starved the population."

Actualy we've done both of those things. One in four of our smart bombs hit a civilian target.

{This is accedental thouhg. Not diliberate. Civilian casualties as the result of a stirke are tradgic, but the coalition forced dod nto target tyhem.}-Zarove

The Pentagon views schools and hospitals as "primary targets".

{Not form what I heard.}-Zarove

And the embargo on Iraq in the 90's did a very efficient job of "starving the population". Yeah, that's right, "Anti- Bush" is also anti-Clinton.

{Clinton made many errors...}-Zarove

I'm not just a one-sided Democratic hack. I hate the Democrats just as much (and for a lot of the same reasons as you do...but that's for another discussion).

{Good, however, you shouldnt hate for reasons, and not for rhetoric.}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 26, 2004.


Eugene said "explain what the non- violent ''action'' open to us is, which you think would have been better."

I repeat my post of six days ago, ("is there anything worse than war") which you perhaps didn't read except to see if there was anything in it you could distort:

"Doing violence, "running away" and "negotiations" are not the only three alternatives. Non-violence embraces MANY alternatives for confronting evil. ONE possible avenue to overthrow Saddam non- violently would have been via a small number of vital technicians in the Iraqi oil industry. Iraqis are a proud people and wanted to free THEMSELVES from Saddam's tyranny. They feel humiliated that foreigners had to remove him for them, especially when the battle was so one-sided. Now they are taking out their humiliated feelings by turning on their liberators. When will we learn that instinctively reaching for our guns to solve every evil only creates more evils in the long run?"

Brian and I, and others, even though we have very different views, were having quite a civil and productive discussion, until your comments about "testicles", etc etc.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 26, 2004.


Peter--PETER!

''--Non- violently would have been via a small number of vital technicians in the Iraqi oil industry. Iraqis are a proud people--''

What are vital technicians? If you find some, how are you to motivate them, faced with demonic power levelled against them by a paranoid dictator just waiting for the merest sign of opposition? He is known to sentence a suspect summarily amidst the whole assembled government to immediate death? Upon whose cheery sign every delegate in the house demands death for the ''vital technician'' on the spot? We've seen the films of just such judgments! Are you nuts? A PROUD people? Haven't you seen the films of that gathering, grovelling; kissing Saddam's bloody hand? THIS WAS ACTION? Did you call that non-violent action, Peter?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.


"I won't laugh at you" then followed by "Are you nuts?" Hmm.

"demonic power" ?? Aren't you getting just a little carried away? If it's old Nick you're fighting, guns are useless.

There would have been no more than probably 20 or 30 key personnel in the oil industry (which is basically Iraq's entire economy) who were doing jobs that no-one else knew how to do. As I noted, similar tactics succeeded aganist the USSR and they also summarily executed dissidents. Why did Iraqis grovel to Saddam and some still do? Partly fear and partly because they had to rally around someone. And partly because the Iraqis are still very much a tribal people. And the US unwittingly gave them the message that they had to be loyal to Saddam or betray their country.

I told you that was one example. I never claimed to be an expert on the planning and execution of various non-violent methods of overthrowing governments. Perhaps I should ask you for various detailed plans you have for invading and overthrowing a nominated government by force? Then again perhaps you would know that. I can picture you getting excited reading "Jane's Fighting Ships".

I wouldn't sneer at the grovelling of Iraqis until I have been in the same situation they were in. Maybe you and I would do the same in that situation. In fact it's usually the people who like to boast about their power who are the first to grovel.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.


A person doesn't lie if he sincerely believes something is true and it's not. For example. If a policeman arrives at the scene of a crime, spots a man waving a pistol in a threatening manner and shoots him...only to find the gun was unloaded...he's not guilty of "gunning down an unarmed man".

When Bush was arguing in favor of war not ONE person Congress or the CIA OR in France, Germany, or Russia argued that Saddam did NOT have WMDs. Nor did Iraq offer the simple clear, easy as pie evidence of when, where, and how they destroyed their stockpile and by whom....

So what's the "lie" of Bush? We still don't know - no one, not you, not me, not Kiwi, nor anyone on this site, whether or not WMDs exist. We DO know that they had all the industrial materials and scientists to make the stuff and had an advanced and hitherto unsuspected IRBM program underway.

Did Bush "lie" on the aircraft carrier when he proclaimed an end to 'MAJOR MILITARY OPERATIONS'? No. Especially since at the time all pitched battled HAD CEASED! He did not proclaim an end to the war or a cesation of all hostilities! But people hell-bent on misreading him to find a "lie" don't quibble about words do they?

Time and again when some crack-pot claims Bush "lied" he has to literally twist the words and change the historical record to suit his a priori. And then they have the gaul to claim intellectual honesty and acumen?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.


I can't help it, Peter. Is your latest what you call explaining the ''action'' you advocate? Let's see some concrete examples, not just more of your clutter. You haven't explained the so-called non-violent ''action''.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.

Peter:
The fact seems to be, you have no idea WHAT action would be successful. You expect the UN to discover one; and how? Another 12 years of speeches? The Madeline Albright kinds of success?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.

This sort of thing (the pacification of Iraq) would not go to the General Assembly for action (they don't really act anyway), instead it would go to the Security Council. Currently you are asking the following countries to come to concensus in this matter if you go to the UN: Chile, China, France, Germany, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, Algeria, Angola, Benin, Brazil.

Are you sure this is the group you want determining the future of the security of the United States?



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.


Here is Peter K, in a moment of retrospection giving us a strategy: ''There would have been no more than probably 20 or 30 key personnel in the oil industry; basically Iraq's entire economy-- who were doing jobs that no-one else knew how to do. As I noted, similar tactics succeeded aganist the USSR.''

Peter seems to think the USSR is proof that Saddam had no choice but to comply with the sit-down strikes of a few technicians and scientists or else go broke? How come? Because, as we realise here, Peter has no use for the accumulated weaponry and superior production always present in the U.S., as Communism was falling behind. Therefore, he concludes it was mostly Solidarity, non-violence, that defeated Communism. Very self-serving hindsight, if it were only true.

Saddam, in fact, was prepared and VERY ABLE to kill any dissident who even HINTED at non-violent or armed resistance. He was happy to torture, maim, rape and decapitate Iraqi wives and children before the eyes of even the most powerful of his citizens. Since he would quickly do it to them, --Oil tech specialist, Republican Guard, educated or uneducated: You'd soon get the lead out of your @ss. You would produce oil, because without production you were dead. End of problem; end of Iraqi Solidarity.

I'm sure Peter K thinks world opinion could restrain even Saddam Hussein, theoretically. He might not concede these points. And so, for him, armed invasions would never have been necessary. After all, Australia has never been invaded. Isn't Iraq just another Australia?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.


Eugene said "for him, armed invasions would never have been necessary. After all, Australia has never been invaded."

If you had bothered reading my post on the war thread you would see that I am not a pacifist and I clearly do not believe that armed invasions are never necessary. For example I supported the UN- directed armed invasion of East Timor.

You perhaps are not aware that the then Australian territory of Papua New Guinea was invaded and occupied by the Japanese in WW2, and Australian mainland cities were bombed. So if a country has never been invaded its citizens are disqualified from expressing opinions on invasions? Well the USA hasn't been invaded, at least for the last 200 years, longer than almost any other country.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.u), April 27, 2004.


BTW I am still waiting for you, or anyone, to reply to the question I asked you in that post on the other thread.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.

What I mean is, to you there's seemingly no difference between Australia & Iraq.

I'll answer but please repeat the question, and tell us why you need the answer. What's it going to prove?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 27, 2004.


I can think of a lot of differences between Australia and Iraq, but I suppose basically Iraqis feel the same way about Iraq as I do about Australia or you do about the USA.

My question is still sitting there on the war thread, but here it is again for you. As I said, you claim that I have wrongly imputed to you beliefs which you do not have. Your answer to this question will prove whether or not I have done so, and let us all know what your real beliefs are. It is not a trick question. In fairness I should tell you that I myself would answer "Yes".

"Are all of the following statements true? Yes or no. 1. Christ gave us the apostles and their successors, the Pope and bishops, to teach, guide, and have authority over His Church. 2. Each of the Catholic faithful owes a duty of obedience to his bishop and the Pope in matters of morality. This is by no means restricted only to formal assent to Papal statements considered to be infallible, but includes obedience to all of the authoritative moral teaching of the bishop and Pope. 3. The Pope and the US Catholic bishops conferences (and virtually all other bishops and bishops’ conferences) have, both in formal and informal statements, expressed very grave doubts about the morality of war in general and the invasion of Iraq in particular, saying that it is at best extremely dubious that all of the necessary conditions for a just war have been met. The Pope and bishops have repeatedly and unequivocally called on nations to renounce war. 4. Unless ALL of the conditions for a just war have been met, that war is unjust, and any deliberate killing of a human being in that war is the sin of murder, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance. 5. When a Catholic finds that his opinion regarding a moral question differs from that of the Pope and his bishop, his duty is to very carefully study and reflect on the Pope’s and bishops’ teachings, and others supporting them on the matter, to try sincerely to bring his opinion into obedience to the Church’s teaching. 6. If he finds that despite strenuous effort to do so, he cannot in conscience agree with the Church’s teaching, he must refrain from public efforts to convince others that he is right and that the Pope and bishops are wrong. He must especially not publicly ridicule those who remain faithful to the Church’s teaching, nor dismiss their position as ignorant or immoral or the result of evil forces, nor claim publicly that his opinion is in fact the more correct, orthodox, moral or “true Catholic” position. 7. It is a basic principle of the natural moral law and Catholic moral teaching that it is never licit to do something wrong (such as an unjust war) in the hope that good (such as removal of a tyrant) may result. Even if good does in fact subsequently result, this does not retrospectively make the wrong action good. 8. Where there is some doubt whether an act is wrong, moral law obliges us to refrain from it. (eg if a deer-hunter is reasonably certain that an object in the distance is a deer, but there is 1 chance in 1000 it might be a man, he must not shoot). This is especially the case where, IF the act were in fact wrong, it would involve serious sin (eg unjust killing, especially of large numbers of people). 9. On moral questions a Catholic’s obedience to the Church’s teaching outweighs any requirement to obey civil authorities, and far outweighs any loyalty to the policies of a particular leader or political party. 10. The fact that one’s enemies are grossly immoral does not in any way justify one’s own immoral behaviour towards them. On the contrary, our Saviour commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. 11. The belief that some nations are “good guys” and others are “bad guys” is totally incompatible with the Church’s teaching on the nature of all men. No nation, no matter how powerful, democratically governed, or otherwise admirable, has a superior right to decide right and wrong among other nations and to make war on them to enforce such decisions. 12. The Just War doctrine calls for all possible non-violent options for remedying an evil to be investigated and tried or found to be impracticable, before contemplating the use of violence. 13. Holy Church has always recognised pacifism as a valid and valuable Christian option. In the light of the horrific power of modern weapons and the powerful means of resolving conflict afforded by modern technological and social developments, the moral argument against any use of war is almost overwhelming. 14. Catholics may in good faith vote for, support and participate in, socialist parties or governments, and indeed those of any party, except insofar as endorsing or facilitating policies which infringe God-given rights (such as the right to life or freedom of religion). This does not make them better or worse Catholics than any others who support other parties. In deciding which political candidates to support, Catholics must be mindful of the Church’s call for wealth to be shared fairly among all, both within and among nations, and for adequate provision for the poor, sick, old, ignorant, children, prisoners, foreigners and others needing particular care and support. 15. Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in Terris (on promotion of peace) and Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio (on economic justice, development and peace) share an equal status in the Church with Pope Paul’s encyclical of a few months later, Humanae Vitae (on the regulation of birth). 16. Our Lord blessed the “peacemakers”; not those who “love peace” (as any sane person does) but those who actively make peace (as distinct from those who make war, or do nothing). They are “sons of God”, that is they are doing God’s work. 17. The story in St John’s Apocalypse of Michael and the angels making war on the devil, is understood as a struggle between good and evil spirits, and provides no justification for human beings (all of whom contain within them both good and evil) making war on each other. 18. God man made the steward, not the owner, of all creation including all living things. It is immoral to destroy any of them wantonly or without just reason. "



-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), April 27, 2004.


I’ll answer some of your questions, but not all of them, because it is late:

 

"Are all of the following statements true? Yes or no.

 

1. Christ gave us the apostles and their successors, the Pope and bishops, to teach, guide, and have authority over His Church.

 

Sure, to Shepard his flock and hand down the teachings of the Gospels and the traditions of Christianity.

 

2. Each of the Catholic faithful owes a duty of obedience to his bishop and the Pope in matters of morality. This is by no means restricted only to formal assent to Papal statements considered to be infallible, but includes obedience to all of the authoritative moral teaching of the bishop and Pope.

 

No, only to authoritative moral teachings of the Magisterial (the bishops working as a whole) or in matters restricted to statements considered to be infallible by the Pope.  We are bound to take under serious consideration moral teachings as they are passed down by individual bishops, but they may be incorrect.

 

3. The Pope and the US Catholic bishops conferences (and virtually all other bishops and bishops’ conferences) have, both in formal and informal statements, expressed very grave doubts about the morality of war in general and the invasion of Iraq in particular, saying that it is at best extremely dubious that all of the necessary conditions for a just war have been met. The Pope and bishops have repeatedly and unequivocally called on nations to renounce war.

 

No, they didn’t know if all the necessary conditions of a just war had been met, and they were not in a position to know.  Only someone who was privy to the intelligence coming into the Whitehouse and Congress would have been privy to whether there was enough information to make a decision if the liberation of Iraq was just or not.  And that is what the Magisterial said at the time.  Individual bishops may have expressed doubts all the elements were there, but they simply did not know.  And we know now, going to the UN was a mistake (which many Bishops wanted us to do, including the Pope), because the UN was being bribed.

 

4. Unless ALL of the conditions for a just war have been met, that war is unjust, and any deliberate killing of a human being in that war is the sin of murder, a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance.

 

Yes, and it is the immortal souls of the President and Congress that is on the line on this, by Catholic teaching.

 

5. When a Catholic finds that his opinion regarding a moral question differs from that of the Pope and his bishop, his duty is to very carefully study and reflect on the Pope’s and bishops’ teachings, and others supporting them on the matter, to try sincerely to bring his opinion into obedience to the Church’s teaching.

 

True, and the Church’s teaching on just war, in this case is that the decision is up to the President and Congress.

 

6. If he finds that despite strenuous effort to do so, he cannot in conscience agree with the Church’s teaching, he must refrain from public efforts to convince others that he is right and that the Pope and bishops are wrong. He must especially not publicly ridicule those who remain faithful to the Church’s teaching, nor dismiss their position as ignorant or immoral or the result of evil forces, nor claim publicly that his opinion is in fact the more correct, orthodox, moral or “true Catholic” position.

 

True, and the Church’s teaching on just war, in this case is that the decision is up to the President and Congress.

 

7. It is a basic principle of the natural moral law and Catholic moral teaching that it is never licit to do something wrong (such as an unjust war) in the hope that good (such as removal of a tyrant) may result. Even if good does in fact subsequently result, this does not retrospectively make the wrong action good.

 

There is no evidence this was a unjust war.  In fact, just the opposite.

 

8. Where there is some doubt whether an act is wrong, moral law obliges us to refrain from it. (eg if a deer-hunter is reasonably certain that an object in the distance is a deer, but there is 1 chance in 1000 it might be a man, he must not shoot). This is especially the case where, IF the act were in fact wrong, it would involve serious sin (eg unjust killing, especially of large numbers of people).

 

No.  There is, usually, always doubt.

 

9. On moral questions a Catholic’s obedience to the Church’s teaching outweighs any requirement to obey civil authorities, and far outweighs any loyalty to the policies of a particular leader or political party.

 

True, and the Church’s teaching on just war, in this case is that the decision is up to the President and Congress. 

 

10. The fact that one’s enemies are grossly immoral does not in any way justify one’s own immoral behaviour towards them. On the contrary, our Saviour commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us.

 

The fact that one’s enemies are killing (or about to kill) others and the only way to prevent that you must kill them is at the heart of the just war doctrine.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 27, 2004.

The fact that one’s enemies are killing (or about to kill) others and the only way to prevent that you must kill them is at the heart of the just war doctrine.

Strange after 1 year we still can't locate the weapons they were supposedly "about to kill" us with. We've killed (and continue to kill) thousands of innocent civilians for no just reason, precisely why the pope called it "unjust".

-- Ben Clancy (12345@6789.10), April 28, 2004.


Thanks, bill, for fielding the ''ominous questions'' of Peter K. Getting back to them here.

First; to Ben Clancy: You've stated, ''We've killed (and continue to kill) thousands of innocent civilians for no just reason, precisely why the Pope called it "unjust".. . . '' Reply: can you prove that? Is that what the Pope said, that we'd kill thousands of innocent civilians? How did he know beforehand? DID the coalition really do it? WAS the reason not just? PROVE IT. How do you figure what's just? You aren't there.

It's 'strange'' we haven't found WMD's after a year? Why? Did the coalition have maps? Were these weapons to be found in the middle of town, Bagdad? Did our armed forces wear protective garb (in 120 degree heat) because we expected no weapons to be used, or ready to use?

President Bush clearly said to the world, ''We cannot wait until the danger is imminent; by then we'll be too late to protect our citizens from terrorists.'' He never pretended any such thing as you claim: They are "about to kill" us.

Your inflammatory words have no truth behind them, they are empty rhetoric.

Our President has done the just and proper thing: He has pursued terrorists to their hiding places. He has liberated a very dangerous state, with the support of the American people and has no unjust motivation to do it. Every motive is truly JUST. No one, not even our Pope, can call it an unjust war. Civilians haven't been killed in thousands. That's a lie. And we have respected the people of Iraq much more by far than their disgraced Saddam Hussein and his rotten sons ever did. .

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2004.


Thanks to Bill Nelson's level-headed and concise replies to the questions posed by Peter K from Australia, I will just say, DITTO, Amen! from my point of view. Peter lost this tennis match to superior skill.

We should concede the justice of his principles, they are irreproachable enough. But the liberation of Iraq from Saddam is in principle not unjustified according to Peter's criteria. I agree with what Bill said on each point. The Catholic faith has NOT been contradicted, by America, Bush, or by us in this forum.

On one of Peter's points, Point 10; ''The fact that one’s enemies are grossly immoral does not in any way justify one’s own immoral behaviour towards them. On the contrary, our Saviour commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us.'' Here is a non-sequitur on the part of the critics.

The fact that one's enemies are grossly immoral does not in any way justify ones own immoral behaviour towards them. Reply: A ''grossly immoral enemy'' is the same as a dangerous beast or snake in your garden. That's exactly why it IS an enemy. Why is it unjust to fight it? God knows we have to defeat those who are evil. That cannot be ''immoral behaviour'', Peter.

Then you state: ''Our Saviour commanded us to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us.'' Let me declare on the part of the American people and our President; We have definitely LOVED the Iraqi enemy. Many of our young citizens (and the others of this coalition,) laid down their lives ultimately for the good of Iraq. There is no greater love. Even as Saddam was being tracked and his thugs were being eliminated, Americans, Brits Australians Poles, Spanish, Japanese, etc., the whole expedition-- looked after the welfare of the innocent; bringing in water and medicines, food; and giving sanctuary to them. We liberated imprisoned Iraqis from undergound cell-blocks, prisons & and torture chambers by the score. THAT is loving your enemies, Peter. POINT TEN: They will know we are Christians by our love; and so should you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 28, 2004.


They know we are fools who pay lip service to Christianity. They know it by our killing of the innocent civilians we refer to as "collateral damage".

They will know we are Christians by our bombs, by our bombs. They will know we are Christians by our bombs.

-- The Real World (wearethechampions@att.net), April 28, 2004.


bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), April 28, 2004.

U.N. Iraq money may have ended up in accounts tied to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

It's looking more and more as if one of the best reasons to get rid of Saddam Hussein was that it was probably the only way to get rid of Oil-for-Food. The problem wasn't simply that this huge United Nations relief program for Iraq became a gala of graft, theft, fraud, palace-building and global influence-peddling--though all that was quite bad enough. The picture now emerging is that under U.N. management the Oil-for-Food program, which ran from 1996-2003, served as a cover not only for Saddam's regime to cheat the Iraqi people, but to set up a vast and intricate global network of illicit finance.

And though much debate has focused on the list published this past January in the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada--cataloguing some 270 individuals and entities world-wide alleged to have received illicit oil vouchers worth millions from Saddam--the Al Mada list may be the least of it (apart from the last name of the executive director of the Oil-for-Food program himself, Benon Sevan). Dwarfing the Al Mada list for size, scope and menace was the U.N.-piloted mothership, the entire $111 billion U.N. Oil-for-Food program. Supplied by Iraq's oil wells, the sums involved in Oil-for-Food's transactions were so enormous that even the routine rounding errors of a few hundred million here or there easily rivaled, for example, the $300 million or so in family money believed to have given Osama bin Laden his terrorist start.....

And although full information is hard to come by, partial lists leaked from the U.N. show that in 2000-2001 alone, Saddam's regime ordered up from Al Wasel and Babel more than $190 million in construction materials, trucks, cars and so on. Over Mr. Annan's and Mr. Sevan's protests, the U.S. and U.K. blocked some $45 million worth of those contracts; that still left the Saddam front company of Al Wasel & Babel with about $145 million of Oil-for-Food business for that two year period alone.

Basically, Oil-for-Food was Saddam--just slightly harder to spot, swaddled as he was in that blue U.N. flag.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 28, 2004.


Innocent civilians in Fallujah? Would YOU stay put in a besieged city and hang around gun-tottin rebels? Some people are just stubbornly insistent to be "innocent bystanders".

The whole Left's wilfull blindness is nowhere more manifest than when dealing with their inability to distinguish between a suicide bomber's INTENTIONAL targetting of unarmed civilians, and a US soldier or pilot's INTENTIONAL targetting of an ARMED combatant.

Of course how many Liberals even know the criteria needed before making a judgement of someone's moral culpability? (how ironic it is that they're the first one's to cry out "thou shalt not judge" when sexual ethics are raised, but are the first to condemn Bush for non- sexual ethics!)

Of course, intent, circumstances and the act are the 3 factors involved in assessing moral culpability: and this is why a suicide bomber who kills a child and an errant US bomb or bullet that kills a child are two morally different things: one is murder, the other is at most manslaughter.

Intent changes the moral quality of the event from a crime to a tragedy. But this requires intellectual sophistication - a trait most "sophisticates" and "elites" don't have.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 29, 2004.


I have put my final reply on the "is anything worse than war" thread where it more logically belongs.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 02, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ