Recently, more than ever before, I have been hearing many positive and negative things about democrats and republicans as for as politics is concerned. It is obvious that voting is choosing the lesser of two evils. Because I am pro-life, I reject the democrat’s stand on abortion and several other issues. However, because I believe in the golden rule and care about people, I reject almost the complete republican philosophy.

Personally, I think the republicans are using moral issues with intentions on deceiving Christians. Yet, the democrats are pro-choice. A topic that the Catholic Church condemns.

Just curious. How do you guys think Catholic’s should vote? The republicans do not care about the well being of people. Thus, destroying the lives of many because after all, money is the root of all evil. Whereas, the Democrats kill babies.

Again, What do you guys think and What is the Catholic Churches Stance?

-- Jeremy Claiborne (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002

Answers

Generally, most politicians will be for the death penalty. Otherwise, they would not get elected. Have you ever heard of a politician that is soft on crime. However, you will probably find more democrats who are against the death penalty. If I am not mistaken, the majority of Christians will be against the death penalty.

Food for thought.............

-- J C (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

I have always been told that we must vote on moral issues first!! That is abortion, homesexuality, etc. All else comes after the moral law of God.

That being said, there are often times, especially in the run for President, other candidates that are not given any consideration at all from the media. Such as Pat Buchanan and others. I will often vote for these people (knowing they don't have much of a chance of winning) because that is who my conscience tells me is the best person to vote for. After all, if more people voted for Pat Buchanan instead of thinking, "No, I have to vote for this person, because Pat doesn't have a chance of winning, anyway" then maybe Pat would have had a chance.

Just my opinion.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

Interesting comment Jeremy,

What Republican philosopy do you reject?

What moral issues do you feel are being used to decieve you.

WHat is your golden rule? your belief's

It might be helpful to vote based on issues and the probable likelyhood your candidate represents your beliefs.

-- Michael A (mg_comm@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

Thank you for your response Isabel, you made a wonderful point that I can not help but agree with. The only problem is that when you vote for a candidate that is a member of a party, you are voting for that party’s ideologies. After all, who is funding the candidate. In the case of the republicans, big corporations are donating large sums of money with intensions on getting laws that benefit big businesses. Not to just pick on the republicans but the democrats do similar things.

The problem is if I vote for a republican. I am denying many people individual rights. For example, the republicans slipped a provision in the home land security bill that will deny thousands of individuals the rights that they naturally deserve. This provision just took away these peoples rights. Imagine if the government ordered you to pay 2 million dollars for no reason. You would think that was unfair and would want to do something. The same thing for the kids and their families that will develop autism due to the drug company. Personally, I would not want to give up my rights and as a Christian I have to live by the Golden Rule.

However, if I vote democrat, I am voting to put babies to death. Either way, we loose.

-- jeremy claiborne (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

I do believe in voting on the issues. However, if you vote for a candidate, you are basically voting for his/her party. As for as the republican philosophy, it is a bit lengthy to discuss. However, I will give you and example. I am from Louisiana and the republicans have removed punitive damages. Therefore, if a large cooperation hurts many people, we will not be able to punish the company when a suit is filed. This is bad because there are many cases where big companies risk the lives of individuals to make money. For example, the pipeline explosion in New Mexico and numerous other examples. The pipeline exploded burning alive 3 generations of a single family. During this time, the pipeline new that they were putting people at risk. However, the risk was worth it. The pipeline made around 20 billion dollars. It would be easier to pay off the one surviving member of the family then to repair their pipeline and let some other company supply California with power.

The point is republicans are attempting to put caps on lawsuits, which takes away rights of the individuals. (and NUMEROUS other things that hurt individuals.) Do you think when companies like this are pumping millions of dollars into the republican party the care about gun control and abortions? Again, as a Catholic, I condemn abortion and of course, the democrats are pro-choice.

Please see the email I wrote Isabell. Again, thank you for your responce.

-- jeremy (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 13, 2002.

Both these parties stink! I won't vote for either one. Fact is I am getting writers cramp, voting "write in's" for my candidates. Exception, Cong. Ron Paul, a medical doctor, who believes in the Constitution.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

Very well thought out, Jeremy. Here are some of my views.......call me an ultra-conservative.

*I am against abortion. *I am against homosexuality. *I am pro-death penalty. (I know many will disagree with me here. But I find it hard to justify spending 40,000 dollars a year of taxpayer's money to keep a serial killer in jail until the end of his life. Give him time to repent before death though, of course.) *I am against gun control. *I am against silly laws made for our 'safety', such as seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc. (Not because I don't think these things are good ideas (and, yes, my children are made to wear their seatbelts), but because they are taking away our natural rights to make these decisions on our own, and treating us as imbeciles.) *I am against laws that take away parents rights to make decisions for their children. *While I am for equal rights as far as individual liberties, I am against 'special rights', as this is what many equal rights laws turn into.

I could go on, but I am sure you get the drift of my 'right-wing' tendancies.

Now, while their is a long list of things I look for in a candidate, one usually does not 'get all the trimmings.' So, I look first for abortion and homosexuality (and any other moral) stances. If that means I am voting for someone that is pro-life, but anti-gun, then so be it. It is better for me to go without a gun, than for an innocent life to be lost. But I also think that if we can straighten up the moral decadence in our society, then that would put us back in good favor with God, and many of our other liberties would return. You see, to me, they go hand in hand. This country was founded on Christian principles, and because of that, we are a free country. But many of our freedoms are being lost, and I think it is because we have shut God out of our lives (as a country.)

The Homeland Security Bill........while some aspects of this bill may have the right intention, here is something interesting I read. Did you know when Hitler was building up his regime, he instituted something *very similar* to the Homeland Security Bill, for the 'safety of his people'? Why? Because it gave him much control over the liberties of his people, all for their 'own safety.' And they willingly gave up those liberties for 'their safety'. Kind of scary, huh? I do think the Homeland Security Bill has the potential to take away many of our individual liberties.

I am from Louisiana and the republicans have removed punitive damages......

This is an issue I cannot agree with you on. While I understand your reasoning, when you allow punitive damages for one case, then it opens the door for all the ridiculous cases, such as the woman suing McDonald's because it made her son fat. (Like, duh!) Or the families suing the gun companies because someone used a gun to kill a member of their family. Or the families suing the tobacco companies because a member of their family smoked, got lung cancer, and died. You see, most punitive damages cases toss all personal responsibility out of the window. True, not all do, such as in the cases of negligent doctors, etc. But in these cases, is suing for money going to undo the wrong done? To me, it's blood money. (I could not live with myself if I received millions of dollars over the death of my child. It's like benefitting from their death.) Now, I do kind of believe it is OK to 'sue' to try and have a negligent doctor's license revoked (or putting a hazardous company out of business, etc.) if it can be proven this is the case with factual evidence. But not for money. Or even 'suing' for the necessary means (monetary, if necessary) to care for one that is disabled because of a doctor's (or other's) negligence. (But we all know that the amount rewarded is usually far in excess of what is necessary.) But even there you are treading on a very thin line, because it is often hard to prove whether it was truly negligence, or an honest mistake. (We all make mistakes.) And if it was an honest mistake, then maybe it was God's will. (Something to think about.)

Please see the email I wrote Isabell

Email?

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.

Isabel,

I agree with you on most things you said in your last post. But, all of the cases you mentioned for punitive damages wern't intentional tort cases.

What I mean is as terrible as it is, the doctor didn't intentionally do it, and it wasn't done with malious at Mcdonalds either.

But what about the intentional, malious wrongdoings that happen. The intentional tort cases? Punitive damages are punishing damages. They are to punish the wrong doers. The compensatory damages are to compensate for lost wages, doctor bills, lawyer fees etc....

Example- If someone beat you with a bat(God forbid) and it cost 50 thouand dollars to put everything back in place and with your lost wages,doctors, hospital bills, lawyer fees, pain suffering etc... If this person had 10 houses that did this to you would you want a house or two? I would. You would be awarded comp.. damages, but shouldn't this persom be punished with punitive damages? Yes he would be criminally charged as well and probably get quite a few years. But if you are awarded punitive damages and able to collect it gets them where it hurts(The pocketbook)and punishes them.

Every example you gave is covered by insurance too. But most intentional wrongdoings arn't so it would not affect insurance premiums in the future.

I think punitive damages are appropiate in intentional tort cases. If you are for the death penalty than a punitive damage award can't be that bad. ;-)

God bless you

-- David (David@excite.com), December 14, 2002.

Very good, David, you got me between a rock and a hard place. I can totally see where you are coming from. Here is my beef. While I said the same thing about receiving monetary damages to cover the cost of disabilities, I failed to mention the other things you mentioned, such as hospital bills, lost wages, etc. Of course, I think that is OK, in fact, even necessary. (I know I couldn't afford to be off work for injuries and have all those bills on top of it.) But the problem is that the monetary damages awarded usually go far and above that which is truly necessary. "Here's 10 million dollars for slipping on the wet floor at work, breaking your leg and missing three weeks of work." (Exaggeration, I know.)

As far as cases like what you mentioned about being beat with a baseball bat, well.......hmmmm......those kind are tough. I can see your point about hitting them where it hurts, but I still think it opens the door to ridiculous abuses (such as the mother suing McDonalds - true story by the way.) I think what we need is stricter penalties for criminals and people who would do such things. Make them more responsible for their actions. When a rapist, murderer, child molester, child abuser, etc. can be out of jail in 20 years, maybe sooner with good behavior, then that is a slap in the face to the honest law abiding citizens. I know they can repent and be sorry, but they should still pay for their actions. (After all, we go to confession, repent and feel sorrowful for our sins, but we must still pay for them. That's why there is Purgatory.) I think that if someone knew that beating someone over the head would get them more than a few years in prison (with 3 square meals a day, cable television, a gym for basketball, a weight gym, etc.) then maybe they would think twice. And for those that don't, then make them suffer accordingly in jail, and a TV in their cell, soft mattress, etc. does not get across the seriousness of what they did.

One thing you mentioned was being compensated for pain suffering. Therein lies the problem. Why should we get paid for suffering? Did not Our Lord suffer much more? If you get paid because you suffer, then you are taking away all the chances you have of turning that suffering into a good, such as offering it up for the poor souls in purgatory. Because each one of us must suffer, if not on earth then in purgatory, before we are allowed to pass through the pearly gates, (with hope that I am worthy one day) to wipe out the stain of our sins. Why not offer up your suffering for the benefit of your soul or other's souls, instead of getting rich off of it?

God Bless!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.

Hello, Miss Isabel

How are you?

"As far as cases like you mentioned about being beat with a bat, well...hmmmm..... those kind are tough.

Yes, Isabel, but this act of violence would be done with malious, and with intent to harm. This is tough because it is a intentional tort.

What if a evil man that was worth 15 million dollars framed you for a crime, and had you taken away from your precious children and put in prison for 7 years? What if he maliously had you prosecuted and paid people to lie to set you up?

Imagine being framed and somebody else raising your children because of this? Imagine looking at your children while doing a life sentence while you are innocent. Imagine having to live with rats as long as five gallon buckets?

Punitive damages are different in intentional tort cases, Isabel. They are different than in a McDonald case or a case against a Doctor for malpractise because they are capped at 250,000 in my state. You can win 100,000,000 but it doesn't mean anything until you can collect the funds. If its a cap or a excessive verdict than it will be overturned by the trial Judge.

Just like that famous McDonald case with the spilled coffee that caused a serious burn on a 79 year old lady. The lady won millions but McDonalds ignored over 700 complaints about similiar coffee burns, and they refused to turn down the heat on coffee! A mediator recomended that McDonalds settle the case for 225,000 before it went to trial, because they had settled worse burn cases for 500,000 before. But the Lady settled for 160,something thousand dollars before the lawyers got paid and all expences were deducted. But this is still NOT a intentional tort case like I was refering to.

But it is almost impossible to have somebody put in jail that is worth millions and millions for lying in Court. The punishment doesn't carry that much of a prison sentence if any. But if you can collect a civil judgement with punitive damages than that would be great. You wouldn't have to live rich. You could use the evil money and defeat evil. :-) Buy a piece of property next to a abortion mill and have the Blessed Sacrament exposed as much as possible, hire a Nanny and give 10 starving orphans a chance, donate to Catholic charities, etc....

God bless you and your precious children

David S

-- David S (David@excite.com), December 15, 2002.

Jeremy, you're from Louisiana? I hope that you were not one of the complete idiots who helped re-elect pro-death Mary Landrieu. If so, you picked a fine time to come and ask your question. The time to ask was before the election. If you voted for Landrieu's opponent, you deserve a pat on the back.

NO Catholic can EVER vote for a pro-abortion/"pro-choice" candidate (of either party), if the opponent is pro-life or "less pro-abortion." I believe that the Church is telling us that it would be a mortal sin to vote for the pro-abort. That is a simple, clear-cut guide for you. We are talking about more than 1,000,000 babies being slaughtered every year. There is no other issue that even comes close to measuring up to that one.

No sane human being can vote for a "pro-choice" candidate just because everything else the candidate favors agrees with the voter's poltical philosophy -- IF the other candidate would save some (we hope all) babies' lives. This is true, even if the voter disagrees with everything else the more pro-life candidate favors. First and foremost, we MUST support the person who stands up for at least some of the innocent, defenseless babies.

The next thing that you need to do, Jeremy, is to get fully educated on what the more pro-life person REALLY believes in on other issues, even if that person belongs to a party that you have never supported. Many pro-life candidates will surprise you by agreeing with parts of your philosophy, sometimes in defiance of their party's platform.

Another thing is that you need to get very deeply educated on the real planks of each party's platform. I think that you have been fooled by anti-republican/pro-democrat propagandists. Your comments are like a liberal Democrat's caricature of what republicans espouse. You should avoid falling for what these pro-death liars tell you. If you get very deeply educated on the real planks in the platforms, you will discover two things --- first, that you will be disgusted with many things that the democrats stand for, and second, that you will be surprised at finding yourself agreeing with many things that the repulbicans stand for. Don't believe me? Try to prove me wrong. Read the details here (D) and here (R). Don't read just the outline. Read the details by clicking on the links. Don't fall for euphemisms (like "reproductive choice" and "women's health"), by which the unscrupulous try to fool you. If the Internet platforms don't cover something specific that is of concern to you, call the party's local headquarters and ask questions.

Thank you for promising to do what is right in the next election.

-- Standing (Up@For.Babies), December 15, 2002.

As a devout Catholic like yourself, I am pro-life or as you say it, up for babies. I condemn abortions under every circumstance. I never indicated that the democratic party was better than the republican party or vice versa because honestly, I am not sure. If I did not make myself clear, I apologize. You indicated in your writing that you BELIEVE voting for a pro- choice candidate is a mortal sin. Your belief is not enough, my question is do you know for a fact what the church teaches? If so, please refer me to a source. If our church does teach us to accept the republican philosophy and reject the democratic philosophy, I have no choice but to accept her teachings. However, I pray that the Pope and our religious leaders have looked at the whole picture because the republicans will be quick to give some of these same babies the death penalty. Somewhat of a hypocrisy if you ask myself. The only reason I am picking on the republican party is because it seems to me that you reject the democrat agenda completely, which is your right. I am attempting to prove to you that if voting for democratic agenda is a mortal sin, then voting for the republican should be a mortal sin. As for your right, it is important to realize that the republican party intends on taking these rights away from the people. By slipping a last minute provision in the home land security bill, the republicans possibly took the rights of millions. I do agree that someone should stand up for the innocent, defenseless babies. However, what about the once innocent now defenseless adults? Who will stand up for these individuals? Everyone talks about voting on the issues. However, it is imperative to realize that if a candidate identifies himself/herself as republican or democratic, then when you vote for the person you are voting for his/her party’s ideologies. After all, who is funding the candidates? Until money is removed from politics, the candidates will be held captive to their party’s ideologies. Generally, voting republican or democrat is like choosing the lesser of two evils. Personally, I do not believe that either party is moral. If one should vote strictly on the moral issue, how should one come to the conclusion to vote republican over democrat? After all, both parties are pro-death in a sense. Meanwhile, I thank you for the web links that you have provided. And again, if you know of any documentation or sources about how Catholics should vote, please advise.

-- j r c (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

Honestly, I reject the republican philosophy and still do not believe that they care about abortion. However, I have just read an excerpt from the Pope implying that abortion is a mortal sin. Individuals who vote democrat should be extremely careful about their candidate.

For the person who made me aware of this information, thank you for your guidance.

-- jc (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

While I have not read any church documents saying so, and I cannot point you to any, I have been told that voting for a candidate that supports any immoral stance (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) is a mortal sin. It makes sense. So, I try to vote for an individual, not a party. I have voted for candidates from many different parties.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 16, 2002.

Jeremy, it's not just "up@for.babies" but "standing up@for.babies".

I sure wish that you had read over those party platforms before responding to me, because you repeated most of the same things in your reply as what you said in your original message. I think that, if you had read the platforms first, you would not have written the reply in the way you did, because you would have seen how much better the republican party is than you have always thought -- and how much worse the democrat party is than you have always thought. (Neither one is perfect.)

In order to keep its tax-exempt status, the Church in the U.S. has chosen to avoid endorsing specific candidates or parties. That has been especially unfortunate in the past 30 years -- since abortion became decriminalized and the democrats became the party of abortion. The Church has been unable to give its people the needed EXPLICIT guidance to avoid voting for pro-abortion democrats BY NAME. What was one result of this? Slick Willy Clinton, (who once paid to have his own illegitimate baby by Gennifer Flowers aborted), was elected twice, with more than 50% of Catholics voting for him.

Prior to 1973, Catholics were heavily democrat, because so many of them were poor or middle-class and they thought that only the democrat party cared about them. Gradually, Catholics have been learning that various planks on the democrat platform are utterly rotten (e.g., pro-abortion, pro-homosexual-activity, pro-pork, etc.), and the "Catholic vote" is now nearly evenly split between the parties. The fact is that every single Catholic vote should go to a republican candidate who is pro-life when the opponent is not.

Jeremy, there is not (and never will be) anything official from the Church endorsing either party or either platform. Partly this is, as I said, for tax-related reasons. But it is also because the Catholic Church cannot endorse the platform of either party. Both platforms have bad things in them that none of us (pope, bishops, or laity) can support. You asked for some kind of official guidance on this. The best thing I can quote for you is an excerpt from the U.S. bishops' 1998 document called "Living the Gospel of Life," which is based on principles in Pope John Paul's encyclical "Evangelium vitae" (The Gospel of Life). Here is what the bishops wrote:

"34. We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue -- or lack thereof -- is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest."

Do you see the things in there that are critical guidance for you, Jeremy? You need to vote "according to principle, not party affiliation. And you need to vote "to defend life ... especially the unborn." This means that we must be willing to abandon the democrat party that we may have followed blindly in the past, voting only for those very rare democrats who are more pro-life than their opponents.

You have said a lot of things, Jeremy, about the republicans taking away rights and being no better than the democrats because of support of the death penalty. It's clear to me that you are not evaluating things correctly. The republicans NEVER take "rights" away from people. They may sometimes stand up for penalizing crimes that are left unpenalized. They may sometimes vote to curtail liberties in special circumstances (e.g., the homeland security issue). But the never take away "rights." (Rights are from God.) Only the democrats take away "rights," such as the "right to life."

Here are some things that U.S. bishops have written, that will help you to see that you need to vote for pro-life candidates (who are almost always republicans). You will see that one of the bishops even mentioned a subject that you raised -- the "lesser of two evils":
"Many Catholic leaders both clerical and lay have urged that citizens not vote for anyone who does not have a strong pro-life position. I do not see how a disciple of the Lord could ignore the fundamental importance of public policy protecting human life. To support candidates who would continue or even expand the possibilities for more people to die by human choice is seriously wrong." -- Bishop John Myers, Bishop of Peoria, October 17, 2000

"Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. The taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but also the entire electorate." -- Bishop James C. Timlin, D.D., Bishop of Scranton, "The Ballot and the Right to Life" Fall 2000

"I fail to understand how any Catholic can support a candidate who is outspokenly and unambiguously 'pro-choice,' who supports the idea that the child in the womb is the property of the mother to be disposed of at will, and will make appointments to the Supreme Court that will reinforce the tremendous error of Roe v. Wade." -- Bishop William Murphy, Auxiliary Bishop of Boston

"There is a multitude of serious issues facing voters this year. Many of those issues are described in a document from the U.S. Bishops entitled Faithful Citizenship… But there is one issue that rises above the others. When you vote on November 7, I hope and pray that you will not forget the most disenfranchised citizens in this land -- the unborn." -- Cardinal James Hickey, Archbishop of Washington, October 26, 2000

"Some may be discouraged by the particular candidates available; others feel that none adequately represents all of our concerns, especially our commitment to the right to life from the moment of conception until natural death. However, by not voting, we cede control of our nation to those who lack or oppose our moral commitments. Recall the traditional Catholic principle of choosing the lesser evil; when faced with two options, neither of which is entirely good, one may choose the lesser evil. This enables us to give morality a voice and to vote for whoever will best promote our Christian concerns." -- Bishop Vincent De Paul Breen, Bishop of Metuchen, October 18, 2000

"Catholic citizens especially should affirm a personal stance that respects and sustains human life and makes it unmistakably clear to all candidates and officials that this will be a determining factor in their choice of candidates." -- Bishop James T. McHugh, Bishop of Rockville Centre, NY ("Voting the Gospel of Life," Columbia Magazine, September 2000).

"We must support candidates who uphold the Gospel of Life. This presidential election and the related Senate elections are most crucial because the next president will probably appoint up to three justices to the Supreme Court." -- Bishop Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington, August 5, 2000

-- Standing (Up@For.Babies), December 17, 2002.

-- (xxx@yyy.zzz), December 17, 2002.

To reiterate, I have always been up for babies. I have reviewed the information that you have provided along with other information. My conclusion about the republican is still the same. I do not believe that they care about moral issues. I do not believe that these large corporations are pumping large quantities of money into the Republican Party because they care about abortions are gun control. It is obvious that large corporations are giving money to the Republican Party for big business interest. Bill Gates is an example of why Trickle Down Economics do not work. As we hear, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. However, I am Catholic. After reading what you wrote, I searched for information. I did find a document with the pope indicating Catholics to stay away from pro-choice candidates (in so many words). For this reason alone, I cannot really dispute you that Catholics should lean toward the Republican Party. However, it is important that you realize that the republicans do plan on taking our rights away as I mentioned and gave examples before. There are many other examples. Anyway, after reading everything that you wrote coupled with the USA Today, it is a scary time. I read in the USA Today that 97% of individuals are happy with the US government. The democrats are killing us morally and the republicans will take away our freedoms. The government is basically saying give us more rights and we will protect you. Regardless, the republicans will win in the long run. I am now under the impression that Catholics should not vote for a pro- choice candidate. However, I still do not accept the republican philosophy and I cannot understand how you can. If you have any other suggestions on readings, I would be open. If for some reason you are interested in reading something, there is a book by Gerry Spence titled “From Freedom To Slavery.” It is horrible the way corporations treat ordinary individuals. Anyway, I thank you again for all of your information.

-- jc (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 17, 2002.

JC writes:

"Bill Gates is an example of why Trickle Down Economics do not work."

I don't know why you are using Bill Gates and Microsoft as if they are strong allies of the Republican party. I have never seen Microsoft's fortune attributed to Ronald Reagan. I suppose there's a first time for everything. :-)

As far as I know, Bill Gates's actions, both personal and business-related, are quite liberal. Microsoft the anti-trust case was fought against Republicans like Orrin Hatch and others. Last I checked, Redmond (along with Washington state) was pretty left-leaning. Finally, you won't see too many Republican's supporting his "charity" efforts to neuter third world women.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 17, 2002.

When I used Bill Gates in reference to Trickle Down Economics, it was to illustrate that money tends to trickle up and become concentrated. Basically, you get a few people with most of the money, and many people with little money.

-- kristina (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 17, 2002.

Yeah, Bill Gates is a liberal democrat. He has given many millions from his foundation to pro-death population-control organizations. American Life League put together a multi-page site called "Educate Bill Gates." Everyone should take a look at the front page and then click on "Lessons" at this site.

Kristina/Jeremy -- man, they've really got you brainwashed all right, but at least there's a little crack in your shell at last. You won't want to put any more pro-abort democrats in office.

Please get off the conspiracy-theory bandwagon. I've been watching the republicans for decades, and they have never tried to take rights away from people. Don't let your imagination get the better of you. And they are not the "party of the rich" now, if they ever were. The reps are the party of Abraham Lincoln. They are for the rights declared by the founding fathers and founding documents of our nation. The reps are not perfect, though. Where there are politicians, there is greed and corruption and some bad policies. But they have far less of that stuff than the democrats, because the demos have become the godless party of political correctness, while the reps (at least people like GWB) want to be the godLY party of justice and fairness.

You are wrong about "trickle-down," which helped huge number of poor people get jobs and rise out of poverty. I understand that there is a large and growing "black middle-to-upper class," and many of them are becoming republicans. The times, they are a-changin'.

-- Standing (Up@For.Babies), December 18, 2002.

Please note the article that I have come across. Also, please ask those same black republicans what they think of Trent Lott?

Anyway, please review my article.

Moral Duties Concerning Voting We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue–or lack thereof–is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest. [Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics 34, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 1998] Our Duty to VoteWith the development of popular government comes the duty of citizens to participate in their own government for the sake of the common good. Not to do so is to abandon the political process to those who do not have the common good in mind. Given the nature of democracies this inevitably leads to unjust laws and an unjust society. These may come about anyway, but they should not come about through the negligence of Christians, who would then share in the guilt.This duty is chiefly exercised by voting, through which citizens elect their representatives and even determine by referendum the laws which will govern them. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.2240 Submission to authority and co- responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country [Rom 13:7]:Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. [Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it. [Ad Diognetum 5: 5, 10]The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." [1 Tim 2:2]In their November 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics the Bishops of the United States speak of a false pluralism which undermines the moral convictions of Catholics and their obligation to be "leaven in society" through participation in the democratic process.25. Today, Catholics risk cooperating in a false pluralism. Secular society will allow believers to have whatever moral convictions they please - as long as they keep them on the private preserves of their consciences, in their homes and in their churches, and out of the public arena. Democracy is not a substitute for morality. Its value stands - or falls - with the values which it embodies and promotes. Only tireless promotion of the truth about the human person can infuse democracy with the right values. This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to be a leaven in society. American Catholics have long sought to assimilate into U.S. cultural life. But in assimilating, we have too often been digested. We have been changed by our culture too much, and we have changed it not enough. If we are leaven, we must bring to our culture the whole Gospel, which is a Gospel of life and joy. That is our vocation as believers. And there is no better place to start than promoting the beauty and sanctity of human life. Those who would claim to promote the cause of life through violence or the threat of violence contradict this Gospel at its core. Who We May Not Vote ForThe question arises naturally, therefore, if among a slate of candidates there are those for whom we may not vote, without sinning gravely. Catholic moral theology recognizes, in the writings of approved authors who faithfully represent the theological tradition of the Church, sound guides for forming a Catholic conscience. Two such authors are Fathers Heribert Jone, OFM Cap. and Henry Davis, SJ. Speaking of the duty to vote and when it could be sinful not to, Fr. Jone writes: 205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)] Similarly, Fr. Davis writes,It is the duty of all citizens who have the right to vote, to exercise that right when the common good of the State or the good of religion and morals require their votes, and when their voting is useful. It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty... [Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, Chapter V, 4th Commandment, p. 90 (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1935, 1959)] Who, then, are the enemies of religion or liberty for whom it would be sinful to vote? Reasonably, it would be those who attack the most basic rights in a society, since all rights depend on those which are logically or actually prior. Among the enumerated inalienable rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. The right to life is both logically and actual prior to all other rights since liberty is meaningless to those who have been unjustly killed. The protection of innocent human life is thus the first obligation of society. This is why protection against foreign enemies is the first duty of the federal government and protection against domestic enemies (criminals) is the first obligation of local government.They are also enemies of religion and liberty who attack the most basic cell of society, marriage and family. A society that doesn't foster the life- long commitment of a man and a woman to each other and their children is self-destructing. Granting that we have already reaped the fruit of easy divorce laws, the most pernicious attacks against the family today are by those who favor homosexual unions and the granting of marital status to homosexual unions. It is also undermined by an unjust tax system which penalizes marriage in favor of fornication. What then of other important issues, such as social policy? If a party or a candidate has a better vision from the perspective of Catholic teaching, is it not possible to overlook his views on life and marriage? First of all, most political policies represent a multitude of choices, budgetary, practical, and as well as principled. The two major parties approach these issues differently, but it would be wrong to infer that one or the other is THE Catholic position. However, when a policy touches a principle itself, as it does in the abortion and homosexual debates, then a clear moral choice exists, devoid of the policy debate of how we accomplish the common good in a particular case. The common good can never involve killing the unborn or the approval of homosexuality. These issues touch directly on the most basic goods of all (life and family) - and thus are of unique and paramount importance. It is not possible, therefore, to claim an equal weigh between a candidate's position on these principles and policy positions on how to achieve certain good ends. Sadly, many have inverted the priority of principle over means. The Holy Father, speaking of the inversion of priorities with respect to life, has stated,All this is causing a profound change in the way in which life and relationships between people are considered. The fact that legislation in many countries, perhaps even departing from basic principles of their Constitutions, has determined not to punish these practices against life, and even to make them altogether legal, is both a disturbing symptom and a significant cause of grave moral decline. Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are graduallybecoming socially acceptable. ... The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life. [Gospel of Life 3] To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (John 8:34). [Gospel of Life 20]Those who are anti-life and anti-family manifest this darkening of conscience, a darkening which makes their other political decisions inherently untrustworthy. No Catholic can reasonable say "this candidate is anti-life and anti-family, but his social policies are in keeping with Catholic principles." Catholics should look carefully to discover what in his policy views manifests the same will to power over others manifested by his anti-life principles. More than one tyrant in history has used pani et circi (bread and circuses) to mollify the masses. The mere appearance of social justice is not the same as social justice, which can only occur when everything in society is properly ordered, beginning with the most basic realities - life and the family.Who We Must Vote ForAs noted by Fathers Jone and Davis, a Catholic can have an obligation to vote so as to prevent an unworthy candidate, an enemy of religion, liberty and morals, from coming into office.205. Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate. [Jone, Moral Theology (Dublin: Mercier Press, 1929, 1955)] Davis states it differently, but with the same implications, one may even vote for an enemy of religion or liberty in order to exclude an even greater enemy of religion, liberty and morals. Indeed, one can be obliged to in certain circumstances.It is sinful to vote for the enemies of religion or liberty, except to exclude a worse candidate, or unless compelled by fear of great personal harm, relatively greater than the public harm at stake. [Davis, Moral and Pastoral Theology, vol. 2, p. 90 ] Thus, both authors are suggesting the strong obligation (even until the pain of mortal sin) to vote so as to exclude the electing of the candidate who would injure religion, liberty and morals the most. For such a purpose one may vote even for someone who is an enemy of religion and liberty, as long as he is less of any enemy than the candidate one is voting to preclude being elected. The Holy Father enunciated this principle of the lesser evil with respect to legislation, which while not obtaining the goals which Catholic principles would demand, nonetheless, excludes even worse legislation, or corrects, in part, legislation already in force that is even more opposed to Catholic principles.A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73] This same principle has immediate bearing on choosing among candidates, some or even all of whom may be anti-life and anti-family. Voters should try to minimize the damage done to society by the outcome of an election, even if that outcome is not wholly satisfactory by Catholic principles. Formal versus Material Cooperation in EvilVoters are rightly concerned about the degree to which their vote represents cooperation in the evil which a candidate embraces. Obviously, voting for a candidate whose principles exactly coincide with Catholic teaching would eliminate that worry. However, that is a rare, if not non-existent, situation. Even those who embrace Catholic principles may not always apply them correctly. The fact is that most candidates will imperfectly embrace Catholic principles and voting for ANY candidate contains many unknowns about what that candidate believes and will do. The moral distinction between formal and material cooperation allows Catholics to choose imperfect candidates as the means of limiting evil or preventing the election of a worse candidate. The justification of doing that is described above. Formal cooperation is that degree of cooperation in which my will embraces the evil object of another 's will. Thus, to vote for a candidate because he favors abortion is formal cooperation in his evil political acts. However, to vote for someone in order to limit a greater evil, that is, to restrict in so far as possible the evil that another candidate might do if elected, is to have a good purpose in voting. The voter's will has as its object this limitation of evil and not the evil which the imperfect politician might do in his less than perfect adherence to Catholic moral principles. Such cooperation is called material, and is permitted for a serious reason, such as preventing the election of a worse candidate. [cf. Gospel of Life 74] The Conscience VoteMany Catholics are troubled by the idea of a lesser of two evils or material cooperation with evil. They conclude that they can only vote for a person whose position on the gravest issues, such as abortion, coincides exactly with Catholic teaching. To do otherwise is to betray their conscience and God. Sometimes this view is based on ignorance of Catholic teaching, a sincere doubt that it is morally permissible to vote for someone who would allow abortion in some circumstances, even if otherwise generally pro-life. It is also perhaps the confusing expression "lesser of two evils," which suggests the choice of evil. As I have explained above, the motive is really the choice of a good, the limitation of evil by a worse candidate. Sometimes this view is motivated by scrupulosity - bad judgment on moral matters as to what is sin or not sin. The resulting fear of moral complicity in the defective pro-life position of a politician makes voting for him morally impossible. This situation is different than ignorance, however, in that the person simply can't get past the fear of sinning, even when they know the truth. However, I think it is most frequently motivated by a sincere desire to elect someone whose views they believe coincide best with Church teaching. This is certainly praiseworthy. Yet, human judgments in order to be prudent must take into account all the circumstances. Voting, like politics, involves a practical judgment about how to achieve the desired ends - in this case the end of abortion as soon as possible, the end of partial-birth abortion immediately if possible, and other pro-life political objectives. A conscience vote of this type could be justified if the voter reasonably felt that it could achieve the ends of voting. The question must be asked and answered, however, whether it will bring about the opposite of the goal of voting (the common good) through the election of the worst candidate. That, too, is part of the prudential judgment. In the end every voter must weigh all the factors and vote according to their well-informed conscience, their knowledge of the candidates and the foreseeable consequences of the election of each.Colin B. Donovan, STL

-- jc (jclai@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

Here are some of my ramblings...

Kristina writes:

"When I used Bill Gates in reference to Trickle Down Economics, it was to illustrate that money tends to trickle up and become concentrated. Basically, you get a few people with most of the money, and many people with little money."

Well, Kristina, now I understand your point. Typically anti-"Trickle Down" advocates believe that a constant rate of taxation is unfair.

OK, so with an example of a flat tax (let's say 25%):

Mrs. Jones makes $400,000/year. She pays $100,000 per year in taxes.

Mrs. Smith makes $40,000/year. She pays $10,000 per year.

According to democrats, Mrs. Jones is taking advantage of the system by only paying 10 times the taxes that Mrs. Smith pays.

Because of exemptions, Mrs. Jones hires a great accountant, and all of a sudden, she's deducting everything and only paying $40,000 per year (still four times what Mrs. Smith pays). The deductions create a regressive tax structure. So....

So, we have progressive taxes. Mrs. Jones is in a 40% bracket, Mrs. Smith is in a 20% bracket.

Mrs. Jones makes $400,000/year. She pays $160,000 per year in taxes.

Mrs. Smith makes $40,000/year. She pays $8,000 per year.

Now, Mrs. Jones has to hire a better accountant to get down to an effective flat tax.

Everybody's confused about how to fairly impliment taxation. Rich people think that poor people are lazy. Poor people think that rich people are greedy.

But, Kristina, some people who agree with your view have already agressively went after the rich, as if financial success should be punished. Look at countries like France. They have a high, progressive tax to support their government. I would say that extreme anti-business taxation pushes business (and prosperity) out of countries. So, instead of "Trickle Down Economics," France and other socialist nations have "Trickle out economics," where businesses abandon high-tax countries altogether.

When progressive taxation is reasonable (relative to the benefits that the society provides such as rule of law, productivity), businesses will stay. Unfortunately, when it become unreasonable, businesses look to countries where there is lax enforcement of laws to defend workers' rights or no laws on the books to defend workers. As a result, the zealous "anti-corporation" punitive taxation advocate actually can make the world-wide problem worse.

Just my thoughts,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), December 18, 2002.

Please regard the following:

EDITORIAL: TERRELL CAMPAIGN MISUSED RELIGION, CATHOLIC CHURCH

Editors write that a "shameful" claim made in a recorded phone campaign

for Suzanne Terrell shows she misused her religion and the Catholic Church

and "took politics to an unprecedented low in this state." A recipient of

the message said it stated that Catholic bishops had denounced U.S. Sen.

Mary Landrieu and that she is a "lapsed Catholic." The message claimed to

have come from St. Mary's Catholic Church in Lafayette but caller I.D.

shows the origin as Worcester, Mass. Editors write, "The misuse of

(Terrell's) religion in that final-hour attack on Landrieu, however, raised

questions about the depth of her respect for the Catholic Church

and its tenets." Lafayette Daily Advertiser, 12/18/2002

-- jc (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.

Jeremy/JC, you just proved my point. The liberal media have you eating out of the palm of their hand.

Note that what you qouted is from an editorial. You can bet anything that this newspaper endorsed Landrieu and would do anything to justify its support of the pro-death cause. Another reason to ignore this item is that nowhere did it show that Terrell herself, or even her campaign people, had any knowledge that the phone campaign was being carried out.

-- Standing (Up@For.Babies), December 18, 2002.

Hi, Isabel

In a earlier post when speaking about punitive damages you said, " You see, most punitive damages cases toss all responsibility out of the window."

In "intentional tort" cases they put responsibility right on the malious ones lap. Its almost the oposite of what you said. Just in case you arn't aware, punitive damages are awarded on a person's net worth. A very wealthy Mrs. Jones making her big 400K a year would have to pay more than Mrs. Smith making her 40k a year. The jury would see all of the financial records and award what they thought was fair. Punitive damages are not set up to bankrupt anyone, unless the defendant[s] would not provide the finacial information that would be requested of them to show. Then that would be a different route...

"I could not live with myself if I received millions of dollars over the death of my child."

We'll your child wouldn't have to die for punitive damages to be awarded in a"intentional tort" case. What if someone rich set one of your children to prison for years like I descibed in a earlier post. If your son had to go to the state penitentiary at 16 years old because he was set up and spent 7 years in there as an innocent man. How could you not be for punitive damages for your son? The penitentary is a tough place for a 16 year old boy, I would imagine.

I am for the use of the death penalty only in the most extreme cases like it says in the Catechism. But, I noticed your reason was a little different than mine. Your reason that you gave was that it cost 40,000 a year.... which I see your points. I realy do.

But how come its a money issue with the death penalty, but if your son was sent to the pentitentiary by some rich freak you don't think he should be awarded punitive damages? This would be an intentional tort case for malious prosecution, false imprisonment, etc.... I even think in Louisiana punitive damages have been allowed in child rape cases.[Am I correct Jeremy?]

Oh well, just trying to show you that intenional torts are different with punitive damages.

Take Care, and may the Baby Jesus bless your family.

David S

-- David S (David@excite.com), December 19, 2002.

David,

While I am still reading a bit, I am refraining from posting until Advent is over. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't ignoring you. Plus, it will give me some time to think and pray over this issue, as you have provided some very good points. Talk to you after Christmas.

Isabel

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 19, 2002.

Dear Up for babies:

It excites me that you care about politics and have been willing to share your point of view with me. I am attempting not to offend because I notice that you get pretty emotional over political issues. I have come to the conclusion that human beings are emotional then rational. Meaning, we tend to make emotional decisions rather then rational decisions. I never said that I agreed with all of the democratic philosophy or even that I only vote for democrats. I have indicated that there are problems with both parties. Whereas, you are antidemocrat and seem to think the republicans do no wrong. Your conclusion leads me to the belief that you have been brained wash. If you can recall, I pointed out flaws in the Democratic Party so that term would not adequately apply towards myself. If I am not mistaken, I gave you 2 examples illustrating that the republican does try to take away our rights. Instead, you ignored the examples and write that the Republican Party does no such thing. I guess it is important to understand people when dealing with emotional issues. Every now and then people will make up their mind about certain issues and you can present large quantities of evidence and most individuals will not bend or change their thinking. It is my belief that it becomes a pride thing. Our beliefs become our pride and to change our mind does something with our pride that makes us feel uncomfortable. For instance, the subject of religion is a perfect example of how to change ones mind is to aggravate ones pride. I have had conversations with Protestants that condemned Catholic beliefs. After I present or show them something in the bible, they ignore what I have presented and attempt to give me opposing evidence. In practically every case, this does not get anywhere. Not because the person does not love God or does not have adequate evidence, but because the person has pride in what he believes. The pride issue holds true about much of the information we hold dear. Obviously, it holds true with politics. I have heard republicans and democrats make good points and people like Rush dismisses information as if he has never heard anything. Not to pick on Rush, but I have heard democrats do the same. Anyway, if for some reason I struck a nerve (which I doubt), I do apologize. All that I ask is that you please keep your mind open in order that you will not be bias when you come across information. To be honest, as I was reared, I developed certain bias and prejudices from my experiences. Knowing this, I try my hardest not to make an emotional decision. For this reason alone, I cannot help but forgive Trent Lott. Yet at the same time, I understand the people that he hurt and offended. I do disagree with issues in the Democratic Party, the biggest thing being abortions. However, I do believe that the Democratic Party cares more about the people. In order to help about the poor or whoever, you have to first care. I do not think that the Republican Philosophy bashes anyone. However, I think it just does not care about the average person. I am not saying to never vote republican. Because after all, their friend Big Business and Large Corporation are necessary evils. Anyway, I now have a clearer understanding on what the church teaches. If you get a chance, read the article that I posted. I am a Catholic and I do believe in the teaching authority of the church and the papacy. I will follow the guide lines when voting from here on out. Please note, I somewhat always have. Meanwhile, you take care and have a Merry Christmas. God Bless!

-- jc (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.

As for punitive damages, there are none in Louisiana. However, in some cases, which is a minority, you can recover punitive damages for child rape. If I am not mistaken, accidents with drunk drivers are the only other exception.

-- jc (jclai24@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.

Isabel, Have a blessed Advent season. I will pray for you and your family. God bless you.

-- David (David@excite.com), December 19, 2002.

Hi, Jeremy. I hope that you have a great Christmas too. But before you do, I need to tell you some more stuff!!!

You said, "I am attempting not to offend because I notice that you get pretty emotional over political issues." I don't think so. I just went back and read what I wrote to you earlier, and it is not really emotional. It is only strong and forceful, because I really believe in what I say.

You said, "I have come to the conclusion that human beings are [more] emotional then rational. Meaning, we tend to make emotional decisions rather then rational decisions." You may be right that many people have that problem, but that's not me. I intentionally do my best to avoid that kind of thing, because it only causes trouble. I believe in reason predominating over emotion.

You said, "I have indicated that there are problems with both parties. Whereas, you are antidemocrat and seem to think the republicans do no wrong." You are mistaken. Only a dyed-in-the-wool demo could say that. If you go back and read what I wrote earlier, you'll see that I criticized the republicans. No way did I hint that they "do no wrong"! I said the very opposite! Besides that, I am not a registered republican and I'd rather vote for democrats, but they have to be pro-life. See, you got me all wrong!

You said, "Your conclusion leads me to the belief that you have been brained wash." By now, you are regretting that you said this. You now know (and should have known earlier) that I am not brainwashed. I reject bad candidates, no matter which party they belong to.

"If I am not mistaken, I gave you 2 examples illustrating that the republican does try to take away our rights. Instead, you ignored the examples and write that the Republican Party does no such thing." I should have explained something to you when I said that. Before you claim that someone or some party tries to take away our rights, you have to know what a "right" is. A right is a privilege to which one is entitled by God and God alone (not the state). Knowing that definition, you can sit down and make a list of real, true "rights" that come from God. You'll find out that the list is quite short. Then compare that list to a list of the things you PREVIOUSLY thought were "rights," and you will realize that lots of things on your old list are really optional stuff to which no one is entitled by God himself. They are bonuses that our wealthy situation in life made possible, but they are things that we might lose or have to give up. We don't have a "right," for example, to cheap Middle East oil or to supermarkets with dozens of choices or to a university eductaion, etc., etc., etc..

Jeremy, you said that you gave "2 examples illustrating that the republican does try to take away our rights." You gave NO examples. Here is the only thing you said: "the republicans slipped a provision in the home land security bill that will deny thousands of individuals the rights that they naturally deserve. This provision just took away these peoples rights." But you didn't explain what you were talking about. I have no idea what "rights" you mean! If you now explain what you meant, I'll bet that it something that is not really a God-given "right" at all -- but some bonus privilege granted to us by the government, etc., that could be taken away from us without doing anyone an injustice. You criticized me for "ignoring" your examples, but now you see that you gave no examples! (Go back and look, if you think I'm kidding.)

You said, "Anyway, if for some reason I struck a nerve (which I doubt), I do apologize." No need to apologize. You didn't hurt me by saying anything. If I was troubled by anything, it was the fact that it seemed that I wasn't communicating successfully to you. You were still hanging on to wrong ideas about what I believed and recommended (for example, that I though reps can do no wrong).

You said, "All that I ask is that you please keep your mind open in order that you will not be bias when you come across information." My mind is always open, but not so open as to let my brain fall out. When a pro-abortion nut (demo or rep) says something wrong about any subject, it is not "bias" to reject it.

You said, "I do believe that the Democratic Party cares more about the people. In order to help about the poor or whoever, you have to first care." I think you believe this because someone (maybe your family, maybe the media, who are 90% dems) have been feeding you this line for your whole life. They have brainwashed you into thinking that the republican party cares less about the people. I used to believe that myself, because I was brainwashed. Thank God, I found out that it was not true. How can anyone even think that the dems "care more about the people" when they are out there pushing for abortion on demand. Those little babies are PEOPLE, and the stupid dems don't care about them. And there are various other ways in which the reps show themselves to be more caring about people than the dems. You will find out about these things as you go through life. (Please don't bring up capital punishment to offset abortion. There is simply no comparing the two things, in number or character. In the first place, the dem platform is not againt it, so this is not really a dividing issue. Many prominent dems are in favor of the death penalty. By the way, I am against it, just as I am against abortion.)

You said, "I think the Republican Philosophy just does not care about the average person." Again, you'll learn that you were mistaken, as you continue through life. For example, I am an "average person," and I consider myself very much "cared about" by the rep party.

You said, "I am not saying to never vote republican. Because after all, their friend Big Business and Large Corporation are necessary evils." Again, this is silliness. It is the pathetic stereotype that you have been hearing all your life -- the brainwashing junk. The reps are friends of everyone, small business and big alike! They are trying to make life better for all Americans. You just don't know enough details about them yet, because you have been "sheltered" from the truth by the liberal media. (You ought to know better, if you have read those platforms. Maybe you haven't read them yet?)

You said, "Meanwhile, you take care and have a Merry Christmas. God Bless!" All the same to you, jc.

-- Standing (Up@For.Babies), December 19, 2002.