In the new poll, taken Friday through Sunday, McCain leads Obama by 54%-44% among those seen as most likely to vote. The survey of 1,022 adults, including 959 registered voters, has a margin of error of +/— 3 points for both samples.
Wow. I am speechless. Except I feel like screaming…
We have definitely reached the end times… all the trees are dying…
Boohoohoo………hmmmm___ha___haha—hahahahahaha—–Hah Hah Hah!!!! Breathe, breathe. Ya gotta laugh eh! I think their medications needs upped. People these days got way too much time on their hands. Still – I watched it and then took the time to write this, so perhaps I fall into the same camp. I sure won’t drink the water though!
This has GOT to be comedy or at least satire. Unless Michael Savage is right and liberalism IS a mental disorder!
I understand your feelings at this moment. And I sympathize with you sincerely. Tell your father I am truly sorry for the time I broke the branch off of his pear tree. 😦 *sniff* The next time I go over, I’ll be sure to sit around the tree and mourn it’s loss…
Well, I’m speechless with this clip … and we’ll leave it at that!
As for the gallup polls … I suspect they’ll gallop up and down quite a bit from now until November. I did see some of an interesting clip done in 2006 when Palin was running for governor … she was very outspoken with her views on abortion and stem cell research. She was questioned with two other gentlemen also running who were radically liberal in their views. She seemed to be unfairly questioned at times and yet, clearly, she won the election and these men did not. Something I don’t know, though, is just how AL has been doing since she became governor. They apparently had a 40% highschool dropout rate beforehand … has that improved? That would be interesting to know.
I also think Mc Cain’s POW stories have brought him some respect. Honestly (and shamefully) I never knew any of this before.
I wonder if there is a novena that we could say … is there a patron saint of politicians? I’ll have to look this up.
Well, that wind storm the other night really did some damage to some trees out front … we might have to take a few down. Whattya think?
Where do you find these clips? I couldn’t watch more than 10 seconds. I thought I didn’t believe in Prozac until I saw that clip.
I NEED TO CRY TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I HAVE to say that… well… I’m nearly SPEECHLESS Fr. … which… … for someone who is half Irish… is quite an unusual thing!
I wonder how they choke down Broccoli while convulsing over its demise…
And who were you calling nuts? Okay! I got it now. Truth…. “Expelled, no intelligence allowed.” Great clip..right!.. Gives Glory to God? Hmmmmmm…. Have to think about that for a bit.
Michael Savage is right.
Couldn’t pass this one by without a comment on the “tree huggers”. Since I once traveled in those circles before the love and mercy of Jesus rescued me, I cannot mock them. They are searching and trying to fill the emptiness inside with nature. It could be worse. What they need is God and the light of truth. I have not found many people willing to evangelize the nature lover, new agers, etc. So they are rarely if ever exposed to the truth and beauty of the Catholic Church. Let’s pray that God will send laborers into the fields for the harvest.
The best place to find these tree huggers would be at liberal universities. Sr. Catherine, I’m with you. Let’s all go out there and evangelize them.
I have no love for the Democratic Party, in fact, I despise what it stands for.
That being said, we are lying to ourselves if we think the Republicans are going to give us anything other than Bush’s third term.
The Federal budget will grow beyond the 3 trillion dollars it presently is, and we will see more hefty increases for the Department of Education (let’s remember how much Mrs. Palin supports public schools ), as well as Planned Parenthood and the military industrial complex.
Let’s also remember that Sen. McCain supports civil unions for sodomy, as does Mrs. Palin.
We will finally see someone like Sen. Liebermann as Secretary of State, who will gladly carry out our committments to defend nations like Ukraine and Georgia by going to war with Russia, if necessary.
Don’t forget that Mr. McCain promised us more wars (“My friends, there will be more
wars, I’m sorry to tell you”) on the eve of the Florida primary. Mrs. Palin guaranteed as much the other night with Charlie Gibson.
So, while it’s one thing to despise the democratic platform (and I do), how could you possibly be enthusiastic about the Republican’s big government, global warfare agenda?
Are you in anyway thinking about what McCain/Palin will actually do??? Can you please separate and distinguish between rhetoric and reality?????
As I understand it Palin vetoed a bill that would ban benefits for same-sex couples because she did not believe it would pass constitutional muster.
I do not believe that same-sex couples should be given any of the benefits of marriage simply because they are not married and the rights, obligations and benefits of marriage are granted in view of the unique institution of marriage.
Nevertheless, Palin’s veto of a bill about benefits, that she believed would be struck down in the courts, is not the same thing as support of same-sex civil unions. But perhaps there is something Palin has said or done that I am not aware of?
So would have Thomas More have been justified in signing the anulment for Henry VIII because he thought it wouldn’t pass muster with Henry’s courts?
Whatever happened to “I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first?”
With all due respect, someone who believes something is immoral will go out and actually fight against it, and not enshrine it into law.
Her running mate, Sen. McCain, is on record supporting civil unions, and I would be astonished if she publicly goes against that policy, and let’s remember, you are willing to support a ticket whose head is willing to enshrine benefits for sodomy into law.
Finally, you may not realize the following about Sarah Palin, stated in the LA Times:
“In a radio interview in August 2006, Palin was asked whether programs that discuss condoms are included in “explicit” programs. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms “relatively benign.” She added, “I’m pro-contraception and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something I would support also.”
So, the top of the ticket is willing to enshrine benefits for sodomy into law, while the bottom of the ticket will do nothing to prevent it, and in addition is pro-contraception, and has no problem sex education that promotes condom use in the schools.
Based on all this, are you going to seriously tell me that I have no moral right to do everything in my power to support and build a viable third-party so we’re not faced with a such pathetic moral choice in the future between the Abortion Party of the Democrats and the Sodomite/Contraception/War Party of the Republicans?
If we can’t do better than that, what is the reason for our Christian hope?
Thank you Rob for your input,
St. Thomas Moore was asked to sign an oath which he would have signed had he been able to construe its meaning in a way that squared with his conscience. He couldn’t so construe it and therefore he refused to sign. It was essentially his unwillingness to sign the oath that led to his martyrdom.
A vote for a compromised candidate is not the equivalent of an oath in support of that candidate on all their positions through thick or thin. As I pointed out earlier, the democratic process is always a matter of political compromise. Even a papal election has this element. Until a two thirds majority is reached, ballots have to be repeated. Often the majority of cardinals have to vote for someone they would not have preferred to have as pope.
Furthermore, the political process is a forum of persuasion. I would be happy to vote for a third party candidate if I really thought that the movement had some hope of succeeding. At present I don’t see that a vote in that direction will do much more than see to it that Obama becomes our next president.
It is up to those who are politically minded and who have a vision for a different kind of political panorama to find viable candidates and backers so that the majority or at least a powerful minority of people are persuaded. Either people are persuaded or not. Don’t be upset that they are not persuaded.
I respectfully point out that it is significant that during this exchange you have not suggested one alternative. It is up to political activists to find persuasive arguments based on the viability of their agenda.
Lastly I think it is important to point out once again the difference between moral imperatives and prudential strategic issues. You invoke St. Thomas Moore as though my position is essentially a compromise in principle or a desire, at least implicit, to promote what is immoral. In fact my position is a prudential judgment about strategy which may or may not be correct. Good men may disagree about that.
In any case those of us who want to promote Catholic values and the culture of life in a democratic society better come up with persuasive arguments that can further our agenda.
Simply to say that if we did the right thing God would bless us for our fidelity begs the question. None of us disagree in principle regarding regarding Catholic faith and morals. The question is what is that right thing to do in a democratic election, the outcome of which depends on the exercise of the free will of millions of people, when none of your options are perfect and you are forced to weigh the value of what you perceive to be the possible–but not certain–short and long term consequences.
I don’t pretend to have it all figured out, but so far, I have not been persuaded to throw the Supreme Court to Barac Obama.
BTW, I have no love for the Republican party either.
Thank you for your kind reply.
I appreciate your prudential judgement on the best way to further the Catholic agenda in the social order.
It represents an approach that Christians have taken for the lastt 20 of the 28 years, by entrusting power to the Republicans in the name of their ‘pro-life’, ‘pro-family’ agenda.
How has it all worked out? Is government any smaller than it was in 1980? I think a 3 trillion dollar budget shows that it is not.
Do parents have any greater freedom to choose the education they want for their children through tuition tax credits? Hardly
Has the Federal Department of Education been dismantled as we were promised by Ronald Reagan? The hundreds of billions of dollars spent by them shows otherwise.
Has the funding for Planned Parenthood been eliminated? No, because in part our ‘pro-life’, ‘pro-family’ nominee votes to fund them year after year.
Is our nominee going to ‘defend marriage?’ How can he if he is on record as supporting civil unions?
So Father, according to your prudential judgement, we have to accept all these things in addition to a possible war with Russia (that would totally violate our just war teaching) because we want ‘our guys’ on the Supreme Court.
Maybe we’ll get one, I grant you. On the other hand Father, if your prudential judgement is that correct, then why didn’t we get the Supreme Court years ago?
Who gave us Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy?
Here’s my suggestion. Teach people the principles enunciated by the Popes in such encyclicals as Quas Primas, Quadragesimo Anno and Familiaris Consortio, and then let them make the decision as to how to:
a.See Christ proclaimed as King of society by making sure all laws reflect his teaching
b.See that the economy is so structured that Fa
Father’s of families recieive a ‘living wage’, so their wives aren’t forced to work outside the home.
c.See that government doesn’t take hundreds of billions of parental dollars for secularistic public schools, etc.
d.See that government doesn’t get involved in immoral wars that violate our just war teaching
One last suggestion. I think you are making a tremendous mistake in not telling people of the good things Ron Paul is doing to educate americans about the constitution. With all due respect, you claim that Paul is suspect because Alex Jones supports him. If we had listened to ‘loony’ Ron Paul Father, we wouldn’t have squandered 5 trillion dollars (total economic cost) and killed hundreds of thousands of people in a war condemned by the popes.
So tell me who is a little ‘off’. Ron Paul, because Alex Jones supports him, or John McCain, who gives pro-war, pro-partial birth abortion Joe Leibermann the keynote address at the convention?
God bless you always,
Well, Rob, I think you’re seeing what Father says and that is two good men can see things differently at times.
I will admit to having voted for Ron Paul at the primaries (my husband voted for Alan Keyes) … but the reality is that neither is an option now. So, it appears to be coming down to McCain and O’Bama unless I”m missing something.
I, too, have daughters and certainly PRAY that they will never be drafted into a war zone. I cannot even imagine. But, as a realist, it doesn’t appear that the choice is all that ideal for this next election. If we choose to NOT vote or to write in a name of someone who cannot win, then are we not indirectly giving our vote to O’Bama? As always, no matter for whom we vote, we vote for some level of evil. This year will be no different, unfortunately.
Again, as a realist, I cannot see the reality of anyone but either O’Bama or McCain sitting in office after this election therefore those are my choices. Am I incorrect? i’ll admit to not watching as much political debates as I should … I have a low BS tolerance so sometimes I miss key things.
I’m all ears in these sort of forums, though. 🙂
I hope you and those who feel the way you do, not only argue as eloquently as you do, but also make great sacrifices to financially support candidates like Ron Paul and become grass roots activists and persevere until your movement has lots and lots of money and the type of recognition that the media cannot ignore.
This agenda will not be furthered unless the majority are persuaded, and the majority will not be persuaded unless you succeed in the present political forum. I agree with Jen that a little realism is in order.
Rob, you don’t have to accept anything. I never suggested anyone was compelled to agree with me. In fact, my main effort here is not to argue for McCain and Palin, but to distinguish between the moral principles and the prudential ones in which our councils are not certain.
Apparently you are arguing that a vote for McCain has little hope of securing a Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Maybe. Maybe not. I am reasonably sure that McCain will do what he says he will, and under the circumstances I do not believe it is worth the risk to throw my vote to Ron Paul, when I know for certain that he will not be the next president.
The fact of the matter is that people like yourself will have to be more persuasive, not just in terms of your evidence and arguments for the candidates and parties you support, but in terms of the whole gambit of activity and resources that will make those candidacies viable. You are never going to do that by making people feel guilty for not voting for your man.
Again it begs the question to suggest that I am not teaching the social doctrine of the Church and not promoting the social reign of Christ the King because I do not agree with your prudential judgment to vote for a candidate that cannot win this election. If you were more familiar with our community and the formation that the laity receive from us you would not being saying that.
True, this post and several others on the matter of this election did not cite the social teaching of the Church, but you assume too much if you size me up by these posts. In any case, I knew these issues would come up and they have been duly discussed.
I would also agree with the lack of evangelization in the super liberal youth crowd. I was pretty close to be a tree hugger of this degree. I was an lacto vegetarian, who definitely hung out with the pagan crowd, and there was nothing but distain to obvious loathing coming from the devout Evangelical and Catholics that I was also exposed to. I was driven away from the prolife movement by the irritation and anger that I saw come from prolifers, whenever I opened my prolife but liberal mouth. I have honestly, only met one prolife and secular/pagan tree hugger that was excepted with open arms by the Christian/Catholic prolifers. But I have met quite a few pagan former prolifers who were rejected by the movement or Christians/Catholics in general, and have lost their prolife convictions through the rejection.
I would easily suggest that there are more tree hugging liberals who would embrace the truth if someone shared it with them or it they witnessed more Catholics who live what they preach. Many of these liberals are really just looking for something to die for -a real reason to live-which is more than I can say for the average American….if you are willing to sacrifice and die for a cause-then you will be willing to die and sacrifice for a better and more noble cause if you find it. However, if you are living for material comfort, like the majority of those in suburbia, those are the hardest to reach-then you don’t care about finding something worthy to die for becasue that removes you from material comfort. I ought to know because my faith began to reblossom both from the trials that G-d sent us with Joshua, but also from the witness of the first real Catholic couple that I had ever met, at the age of 28.
Pingback: Knights of the Patronage « Mary Victrix
“…when I’m feeling sad, I simply remember my fav-or-ite vid, and then I don’t fe-el so bad!”
This will never get old with me…just watched it for the thousanth time… Let me know if there is an update!
You’ll have to forgive me in advance for this one, but I saw it on another blog and thought it was fitting for this particular post:
Hail Barack, transcending race, the lawyers are with thee
Blessed are thou among candidates
And chosen is the fruit of thy loins, Griswold
Holy Barack, son of Barack
Pay for us, consumers
Now and at the hour of our debt
This cracks me up!