Posted on 08/14/2010 10:39:35 AM PDT by markomalley
When talking about how the majority of a category of tens of millions vote, do you really think that naming individuals in meaningful?
Why not name Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Al Gore, or Jimmy Carter, they were Protestants and probably voted Democrat, the thing is that the majority of Protestants voted against those men, while the majority of Catholics voted for those men, why is that?
"Catholics vote majority pro-abortion left, and Protestants always vote pro-life right."
You're the one who built a strawman that can be dismantled with the citation of a singular exception...don't be upset when somebody does it. You could have just as easily said, "...many Catholics...most protestants..." and had a better argument, but I suspect that stating those qualifications and recognizing the exceptions would not have served your purposes as well.
“Catholics vote majority pro-abortion left, and Protestants always vote pro-life right.”
That is a fact, the majority of the Catholic vote has almost always been liberal, they have only voted Republican fives times and a disputed, possible 6th time in 1956. Obama, Al Gore, Bill Clinton twice, Jimmy Carter in 1976, all carried the Catholic vote.
The Protestants have only voted majority Democrat in 1932, 1936, and 1964.
You wrote:
“For the sake of America, you better hope that we can change the Catholic vote.”
There’s no “we” about it. You can’t even be able to change how Protestants vote - and they’re YOUR people!
You wrote:
“For the sake of America, you better hope that we can change the Catholic vote.”
There’s no “we” about it. You can’t even change how Protestants vote - and they’re YOUR people!
You wrote:
“Dumbass: read this, if you know how:”
I think the moderators frown on that sort of language.
“Catholics voted 54% for the big O and protestants 45%. Go pound stand, troll.”
Listen, I realize you probably struggle with these basic language concepts, but here we go again: 300 million Americans; 60 million Catholics. Thus, Protestants put Obama in the White House. Only one in 6 Americans could be a Catholic. Most of the rest are Protestants. They elected Obama. The percentages are meaningless because about 200,000,000 (or even more) people in this country are Protestants. They elected Obama.
Why are the majority of Catholics pro-abortion Obama voters?
You wrote:
“Why are the majority of Catholics pro-abortion Obama voters?”
Why did Protestants put Obama in the White House?
I am asking a serious question, what is it that Catholics are learning from the Roman Catholic church that leads the majority of them to be pro-abortion, liberal Democratic voters?
You wrote:
“I am asking a serious question, what is it that Catholics are learning from the Roman Catholic church that leads the majority of them to be pro-abortion, liberal Democratic voters?”
I am asking a serious question, what is it that Protestants are learning from their sects that leads them to produce a man like Obama and to put him in the White House.
If you’re still too dense to see reality, you can take things a step further in drawing an analogy with judaism. You, a catholic upset at protestants for “electing Obama” even though your demographic supported him as a higher percentage, are exactly like a Jew coming to free republic and getting angry at christians of all kinds for electing him—even though the Jew is from a demographic that supported him 80-90%.
While protestants may have elected Obama in sheer number (an utterly meaningless fact, as it merely reflects demographics of the U.S.) more than catholics, what is it about the principles of each that cause catholics to be more LIKELY to vote for him? If you aren’t a sophist you ought to be interested in that question. It is clear by the percentages that CATHOLICISM (i.e., the shared principles of members of the roman church) is more conducive to the Big O than PROTESTANTISM.
You wrote:
“If you’re still too dense to see reality, you can take things a step further in drawing an analogy with judaism. You, a catholic upset at protestants for “electing Obama” even though your demographic supported him as a higher percentage, are exactly like a Jew coming to free republic and getting angry at christians of all kinds for electing him—even though the Jew is from a demographic that supported him 80-90%.”
No. Jews are a tiny minority. It doesn’t matter how many of them supported Obama. Protestants were the beginning votes, middle votes and end votes for Obama. They are the majority of this nation.
“While protestants may have elected Obama in sheer number (an utterly meaningless fact, as it merely reflects demographics of the U.S.) more than catholics, what is it about the principles of each that cause catholics to be more LIKELY to vote for him?”
There are no Catholic principles that cause people to vote for Obama. That’s the whole point - Catholic principles OPPOSE Obama’s pro-abortion, socialist views. Those Catholics who voted for Obama are not Catholic, but CINOs. Protestant principles fully allow someone to vote for Obama since there are no guiding principles of morality in Protestantism to begin with. The Catholic Church is pro-life. Protestantism as a whole is not.
“If you aren’t a sophist you ought to be interested in that question.”
I am more interested in why Protestants put such rotten men in office year after year after year. And why is Protestantism as a whole pro-murder in regard to children?
“It is clear by the percentages that CATHOLICISM (i.e., the shared principles of members of the roman church) is more conducive to the Big O than PROTESTANTISM.”
False. Again, Catholics who followed their faith voted for others than Obama. CINOs voted for Obama. Protestants, however voted for him in the tens of millions and have no principles at all.
Sure. Well, maybe someday the roman church, which has principles, will convince its members to vote for conservatives with as high as a percentage of the vote as protestants, who have no principles, do. Till then you’re just a blowhard.
And by the way quit giving us, time after time, legislators like Ted Kennedy.
You wrote:
“Sure. Well, maybe someday the roman church, which has principles, will convince its members to vote for conservatives with as high as a percentage of the vote as protestants, who have no principles, do. Till then you’re just a blowhard.”
Catholics vote conservatively. CINOs don’t. I properly distinguish between the two. You would be wise to do so too.
“And by the way quit giving us, time after time, legislators like Ted Kennedy.”
I never gave him to you, nor was he welcome in my diocese or at my parish.
You wrote:
“How very...well...Protestant of you to proclaim yourself worthy to decide who is and isn’t truly roman catholic.”
Anyone can pick out a CINO. Even Protestants can pick out a CINO.
“Only the pope and his bishops can decide who is or isn’t part of your church.”
I neevr said they were not formal members of the Church. If you’re going to attack what I said I suggest you actually attack what I said and not make things up. Care to try again?
“The fact that they still accept Nancy Pelosi as a legitimate member of the roman church proves that your Catholic/CINO distinction is garbage.”
No, actually it proves my distinction is perfectly valid.
“Nice try at tautology though.”
No try involved. What I said is undeniably and irrefutably true. No Catholic believes in abortion. Pelosi does. Thus, Pelosi is not truly Catholic in thought or actions but CINO.
Pelosi is a roman catholic in the eyes of the pope, and his opinion outweighs yours.
You wrote:
“Pelosi is a roman catholic in the eyes of the pope, and his opinion outweighs yours.”
Pelosi is a CINO in the eyes of the pope, and his opinion outweighs yours.
You wrote:
“DING DING DING! That’s the point, genius. Guess what, Obama wasn’t welcome by my reformed denomination nor at my parish—I never gave him to you.”
I never said you did. I said Protestants put Obama in the White House. I never said you gave him to us.
“Except you’re too much of a fool to see your hypocrisy.”
I am in no way being hypocritical. Obama is a Protestant. Protestants voted for him in the tens of millions. Most of those who voted for him were Protestant. This is a mostly Protestant nation.
“If you want to blame me for Obama then you are equally blaming yourself for Pelosi.”
I don’t blame you. I think you should stop creating straw men. Where did I ever say “newguy357 gave us Obama”? I never said it. Don’t be dishonest and claim I did.
“If that is the case, then the pope is unprincipled.”
No. He is, in fact, principled.
“He has the power to have Pelosi called out as a non-Catholic but refuses to do so.”
Incorrect. That duty belongs to the ordinary. The pope is not the ordinary of Pelosi’s diocese. You seem to have no idea of what you’re talking about. And that is not much of a surprise.
“Either he believes Pelosi to be a roman catholic or he is unprincipled. Which is it?”
Your premise is false. Also, the Pope doesn’t use the false term “roman catholic” except in dealing with Protestants or the Orthodox since it is a Protestant invention. Check the Oxford English Dictionary for more information on that. Pelosi is a CINO. The pope has made that clear enough: http://www6.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/090220
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.