Apology - Catholics for Democracy

Iraq

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 15 Oct 2004 - 11:58 h

Have we have grown apathetic about the death of civilians in Iraq? We strategically bomb civilian targets, homes, restaurants, and mosques. Would we go after terrorist with the same tactics if the civilians were Christians or Jews? Are we apathetic about killing Muslims because we are God’s chosen people and they are not? With over 9000 civilian deaths is our silence like that of the Vatican when Hitler persecuted Jews. Many Muslims consider the United States a decadent society. They have legitimate reasons to not want to be like us.

reply to this comment

First of all

Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 15 Oct 2004 - 16:19 h

The Vatican was not silent regarding Hitler - strangely enough it was the US, Switzerland and other countries that were silent. We weren't the hero's that we seem to think we are. The U.S. stood by while millions of Jews were killed. And even sent some back.

Switzerland even made the Germans differentiate between Jewish and Non-Jewish passports so they could refuse entry to the Jewish people.

And I certainly don't think we are being apathetic about 9000 civilians. And a civilian target becomes a military target when used as such. I think it is a stretch to say the U.S. is randomly targeting civilian targets. Secondly, both in Muslim and Catholicism we believe there is portion goodness in each religion. Muslim's believe that we Christians messed up with our understanding of the prophet Jesus and gave us second class stature. Christians had to pay a tax if you will, there were some other limitations but otherwise Christians were left alone.

What is apathetic is watching Saddam kill at least 300,000 of his own people and maybe more. What is apathetic is watching Saddam steal from his own people. What is apathetic is watching Saddam give $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. What is apathetic is watching the genocide going on in Sudan. What is apathetic is watching the Genocide in Cambodia from 1975->1979. I can go on and on.

reply to this comment

Saddam apathy

Comment added by hugetim on Sun 17 Oct 2004 - 19:22 h

I think it is important to understand that Saddam killed the Kurds while we were good buddies (back when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with him), and we were indeed apathetic as a country--under Reagan! The mass graves and WMDs were all from the eighties, when we assisted and endorsed both.

It is apathetic to watch Sudan, but our lost credibility and overstretched forces from Iraq make it extremely difficult to do anything. Let us pray for a change in leadership...

Regarding the Iraqi civilians we have killed, there's the morally bankrupt decision to go to war in the first place, but there is also the insistence upon using weapons like cluster bombs (against the pleading of folks like Amnesty International) which tend to kill civilians by their very nature (leaving shiny unexploded parts lying around to be picked up by children). Then there is our failure to secure the country, which is our treaty-bound responsibility after conquering it (it's true that we secured the Oil Ministry during the first weeks but not the known weapons stashes and other obvious priorities, like working against looting and lawlessness--what does that tell the local people?).

reply to this comment

Actually that is not true

Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 18 Oct 2004 - 12:22 h

Not all the WMDs and Mass Graves are from the eighties.
So where are the protests? Where the righteous people like yourself in the streets protesting Sudan? Why aren't you protesting against France and Canada for their lack of support in giving humanitarian aid to Sudan? Why aren't you protesting the companies of China, Russia and France for abusing the Oil for Food program.

After looking over the bills that Kerry submitted (on his own website). It doesn't show me a person that is really wanting to change anything. None of the bills really show that he wants to stand up for the "little" people. I mean what kind of person would sponsor a bill for partial birth abortions up to 25 or 26 weeks. Six times he voted against the partial birth abortion ban. SIX TIMES. Sadly, even with partial birth abortion ban - there are other 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions that still take place.

Don't kid yourself - Kerry's top priority is restoring abortion rights. He even announced on TV his first order of business would be to reverse the Mexico City Policy.

So again I ask all the righteous people - where are your protests?

reply to this comment

Actually...

Comment added by hugetim on Mon 18 Oct 2004 - 16:48 h

There was a die-in protest in DC this summer, which members of my organization participated in (I was not yet in DC). I've also sent emails to my Congressional representatives. I do agree, however, that there should be more.

As for protesting other countries, I focus on our country because that is the only one that acts in my name, and the only one that I have any (tiny) control over. The sins of other nations do not justify our own. Indeed, because we have been given much, more is expected of us.

If Kerry were going to "restore abortion rights" and we were going to go from (around) 0 abortions per day to 4000 abortions per day, then I would certainly vote against him. However, as neither Bush nor Kerry will substantially affect the unbearable number of abortions in this country (remember, Republicans have controlled the entire federal government for 4 years--7 of 9 Supreme Court justices are Republican-appointed; this is not an issue anyone in power is making a priority--just enough to get the conservative Catholic vote, I can't help suspecting...), the issue weighs relatively little in my voting considerations, when I take into account the multitude of other life issues which literally hang in the balance this election (e.g. life-threatening poverty/hunger reduction; arrogant, reckless precedent-setting unjust war).

reply to this comment

Lest you forget

Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 19 Oct 2004 - 11:34 h

I have reviewed Kerry's web page and the bills he has sponsored. It doesn't strike me that Kerry in 19 years of the Senate has been championing the "fight for the little guy"

http://www.factcheck.org/article134.html

But he has made it abundantly clear his pro-abortion stance.
Only to select pro choice judges to the supreme court. First order of business to reverse the Mexico City Policy.

A few of Bush's accomplishments -
Unemployment is at 5.4% lower than 1996.
Economy has grown 4.8% in the last year.
Everyone including Tim received a tax cut.
Lowest 10% bracket no longer pays any income tax.
Eliminated the marriage penalty.
Created Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit - will go in effect 01/2006
Allowed Federal Funding for Faith Based Charities
Funding for the Department of Education up 58% more in George Bush's 4 years than Clinton's eight.
The Percentage Of Children Who Lack Health Insurance Is At The Lowest Level It Have Been Since These Statistics Began Being Compiled.
Home ownership at an all time high

reply to this comment

Where's my tax cut?

Comment added by hugetim on Tue 19 Oct 2004 - 19:59 h

No actually, I don't get a tax cut because I don't make enough to pay income taxes. I'm doing already with steady employment, benefits, and a loan forebearance, but most of the folks who didn't get a tax cut from Bush are unfortunately not doing alright. The few dollars or less that the poor got from Bush are a true slap in the face with a huge job deficit and falling wages, and the Republicans cutting the social programs that would otherwise help lift them out of poverty. That's right, tax cuts only help those who have a lot to begin with, and the ones who pay are those who need the food stamps and Medicaid that are cut to give the money to millionaires. Do you realize single mothers who work full-time at minimum wage jobs don't even earn enough to bring their families above the bare minimum poverty line?

John Kerry has co-sponsored a bill to increase the minimum wage. As President, he'll be able to actually secure a more just wage for these women (who, I remind you, are not hypothetical, but real people like you and I, slaving away only to remain below the federal poverty line, which equals dirt poor).

Yeah, the economy has grown at an incredible rate, but the Republicans have structured the economy so that the already wealthy are primarily benefitting from the growth and the people who need it are seeing no share of the larger pie. Poverty and inequality are increasing right along with the "economy."

reply to this comment

Important things

Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 19 Oct 2004 - 22:06 h

First - even those who didn't make enough to pay taxes still got money in the form of tax credits. Lets take your mother of two working full time - she would earn $10,000. She wouldn't pay any taxes but she would get $2,000 for the child tax credit plus additional money for child care. So even though she didn't pay taxes she did get $2000. Which is up from $1200.
She may also be entitled to food stamps, medicaid, etc. In addition, faith based charities now have federal dollars as well. So the local St. Vincent de Paul may be able to provide additional assistance.

Granted this isn't living in luxury by any means - but Tim as I know because I grew up poor (most of the time below the poverty line) - if you have a good family it is bearable.

Second - increasing the minimum wage too much may actually hurt people as companies and jobs that pay minimum wage will most likely not be able to hire as many people.

Third - what huge job deficit? Unemployment rate is at 5.4% that is low especially when you compare it to France, England and Germany.

Fourth - the falling income is partly based on an "inflated income base" caused by the tech bubble. As manager in the tech field during the bubble - I saw first hand how salaries were out of control.

If you wouldn't mind - can you provide a list of "the Republicans cutting the social programs that would otherwise help lift them out of poverty."

reply to this comment

child tax credit misunderstandings

Comment added by hugetim on Wed 20 Oct 2004 - 14:35 h

Actually, a mother making only $10,000 per year will get nothing from the child tax credit, because it is only partly refundable and only under certain conditions. (details available at Center for Budget and Policy Priorities) Actually, Democrats fought to increase the refundability of the credit so that low-income families could benefit, but House Republicans led by Tom Delay brushed them off.

I'm not talking about increasing the minimum wage "too much." It's at it's lowest since the 70's (adjusting for inflation) and an increase is long overdue, so hard-working people can keep up with the rising costs of health care and everything else.

As you may know, the unemployment is a poor measure of "labor slack." If you aren't familiar, I suggest this explanation.

As for wages, it's well understood in economics that decreases in wages lag behind decreases in jobs, which you seem to agree with (if you acknowledge that not only tech jobs have been affected). Whatever the reason, the point is that workers are struggling presently, and it's odd to pretend like they're not.

Finally, the list is a good idea. I hope to post one soon.

reply to this comment

You are right

Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 20 Oct 2004 - 16:50 h

For the Child Tax Credit I missed the part about "greater" than $10,750. I am not sure I agree with this. I will write my congressman.

At anyrate she would still qualify for the Earned Income Credit. So take out the $2000 and put in $4010.00

I agree that other than tech jobs have been affected - what I am saying is that the "tech bubble" caused all salaries (in a general sense) to be inflated.

I do believe the minimum wage should be increased - but I would be careful how much it was raised as it may back fire.

reply to this comment

EIC

Comment added by hugetim on Wed 20 Oct 2004 - 18:31 h

Of course, Bush can't claim credit for the EIC. :)

Your point about the minimum wage is well taken. But it is still inexscusable to wait so long to increase it as inflation devalues it.

reply to this comment

I have a complaint too

Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 18 Oct 2004 - 21:50 h

Why is it that you democrats talk freely about Republicans being in bed with big business, but you NEVER bring up Planned Parenthood as big business. Why is that? We do not control the Senate and that is where the final votes take place. If you look at the laws that have tried to get passed through Senate on abortion and what happened to them and who voted against them - I would have to say that the Democrats are the ones that have no intentions of helping to pass any legislation that is pro life. Here is what I mean:+
These are the issues of the 108th Congress US Senate
1 - Harkin Amendment to endorse Roe v. Wade
2 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Boxer Motion
3 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Feinstein Substitute
4 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: passage
5 - Abortion in military medical facilities
6 - Funding of overseas pro-abortion organizations ("Mexico City Policy")
7 - Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
8 - Medicare Modernization Act: critical procedural vote
9 - Medicare Modernization Act: passage
10 - Feinstein Substitute Amendment (single-victim substitute)
11 - Unborn Victims of Violence Act: passage

Here is the scorecard: http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=108&x=6&y=16

To break it down 35 voted 100 percent pro life. They were all Republicans, except for Zell Miller,Ben Nelson & John Breaux.
14 voted between 80 percent to 99 percent and they too were all Republicans. Under 80 percent were 27, of those 18 were democrats. Lastly, there were 23 that voted 0 percent pro life. They were all Democrats, one of them being John Kerry.

Therebye - your odds of getting anything done that is pro life is with the Republicans. You owe it to them to give them a chance to make changes. How can you live with yourself if you don't? If nothing gets done - then we will need to pick a 100 percent CAtholic candidate that supports our views. What do you say?

With regards to the Justices - here is a quote from the Washington Times "Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens are the most probable retirees. "
"Judicial philosophy explains nine-tenths of a justice's votes. Time and custom have come to accept three discrete brands as legitimate. The first searches for the original meaning of the Constitution. The second searches for a political compromise between contesting interpretations. The third searches for a construction that corresponds with contemporary standards of decency that flourish among intellectuals.
At present, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas espouse the first brand, Associate Justices O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy the second, and Associate Justices Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Breyer the third. Constitutionally incoherent rulings that sow more doubts than they resolve have been the result, with Justices O'Connor and Kennedy characteristically casting the tipping votes."

Here is the whole article: http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040913-101006-2227r.htm

This is from NARAL and the reason I am posting it is because they list ONLY 3 judges that they believe are Pro life, Kennedy, Thomas and Renquist. We need 3 votes!! Give the Republicans a chance to over turn this law. Elect those people that are 100 percent pro life if you can't vote Republican. I know that President Bush will make every effort to over turn Roe v Wade.

http://www.naral.org/facts/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=5299

reply to this comment