When you spend your time trashing Catholics who jettison the clear teachings of the Catechism for what they consider to be grave reasons, only to jettison the clear teachings of the Catechism for what you consider grave reasons. Case in point. Note well, Rush Limbaugh's insult against Sandra Fluke is called a "repellent screed." Now, second case in point. Having lambasted Limbaugh's 'repellent screed', we now see our intrepid host let fly with a similarly repellent screed against President Obama and Mitt Romney.
And when I step in and quote the Catechism's teachings on how we should deal with our fellow man? I'm called a bourgeois passive aggressive jack-ass who apparently doesn't care about children killed by drones since I mentioned, you know, the Catechism's teachings on how we should deal with our fellow man. Yeah. Read the comments in the second link. When you lambaste someone for pointing out that you might be doing what you lambasted someone else for doing, to quote Jeff Foxworthy, you might be a fundamentalist.
Oh, best point came from commenter Pancho. Watching me get tag-teamed on the thread, he pointed out that for folks all worried about the eternal damnation that could await us based on a single, simple vote, they don't seem at all worried about how the words we use affects us. Special kudos for picking up on the reference from James 3. Again, if you spend your time pointing out to other people the dangers of departing from a particular take on the Catechism and the Bishop's teaching about voting, while dismissing the possibility that you could be doing the same by departing from many takes on a teaching pointed out in Scripture, you might be a fundamentalist.
FWIW, I don't say this because I hate Mark or any of the commenters on that thread. On the contrary, I am very fond of them and owe them much. That's why I say it.