Obama loses the Catholic vote

Conservative said:
KingObama.jpg


Many high-profile Catholics who have vociferously supported and defended Obama and Obamacare are turning on him. There likely are enough votes in the Congress to overturn this ruling in some way—which would have to include a large enough number of Democrats in the Senate.

Even non-Catholic Democrats and liberals who are able to recognize a violation of conscience rights when they see one are turning on him.

Rick Santorum has surged, no doubt in part because of this mandate.

A healthy portion of independents would like to see Obamacare repealed, this didn’t hurt that portion.

To sum up, things are going very badly for the president. Very badly.

What’s he to do? Overturn his own decision? He’d suffer the full Komen treatment, rubber hoses and all. He’d lose the last bastion of support he’s got—women who seem to hate that they’ve got a womb.

If he presses on he loses the Catholic vote, more evangelicals, and a larger portion of the independent vote (recognizing that there is overlap in those groups), which means he loses Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, likely Michigan, Missouri… need I go on? That’s the election. It’s a landslide.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26376
Click to expand...

Virtually every western country has some form of "SOCIALIZED" medicine. One payer. Government supervised. Everyone covered.

It's on it's way. Even Romney said repealing ObamaCare would not be easy and that's because intelligent people know that government medical is the best option. That's why the citizens in dozens of countries fight to keep it. That's why there is not one politician in any major political party in any of those dozens of countries campaigning on eliminating their respective programs. That's why not one country has reverted to the barbaric "pay or suffer" system and every country started out with a "pay or suffer" system.

That's why the Repubs yelled and screamed and had a tantrum when ObamaCare passed. They knew that was the beginning of the end. That was the stake driven deep into the heart of those who would profit off the illness of others, those who would dangle the promise of life, like a carrot, in front of people until they had taken their last cent. And when the family had drained their resources, from empty bank accounts to an over-mortgaged family home, facing poverty while they mourned the loss of their loved one, they looked up from graveside in the cold drizzle to see a plane carrying the CEOs and VPs of medical companies and investors in medical assets (hospitals, equipment, etc) heading to exotic resorts, one congratulating themselves on having denied benefits while others touted the increase in the price of stock they held.

The days of outrageous injustice are finally coming to an end.
 
Rune said:
Can you read? I said torture and extraordinary rendition, both of which were conducted illegaly.
Click to expand...

Torture is subjective and rendition was started in the Clinton administration and admitted by Sandy Berger......whats your point?

Personally, I find listening to Obama torture.....
 
Rune said:
War crimes, to start with.
Click to expand...

What US authority accused him of war crimes, citing the US Constitution ?

Anyway, as long as your talking crazy, here is some of the list of US war criminals....
so there are some other fuckin' loonies around to keep you company.


1. McNamara, Sec. of Defense for Kennedy and Johnson- helped kill 2 to 3 million people

3. Bill Clinton, POTUS-bombing raids against Yugoslavia and Iraq, resulting in the deaths of thousands. Conducted punitive sanctions against Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Presided during Waco Massacre

4. George HW Bush. Former super spy, helped encourage the Iraq-Iran war, resulting in deaths of one million people, helped encourage US sponsored military dictators in Latin America, guilty of extermination of thousands of ordinary citizens, via US-trained "death squads." Conducted pre-emptive war with Panama, resulting in 1,000-4,000 deaths

5, Madeline Albright. Former US Secretary of State under Clinton. Condoned the punitive sanctions against Iraq that resulted in an estimated 500,000 deaths of children. Remarked that such sanctions were "worth it."

6. George W. Bush.
7. Dick Cheney.
8. Paul Wolfowitz.
9. Donald Rumsfeld.
 
bravo said:
What US authority accused him of war crimes, citing the US Constitution ?

Anyway, as long as your talking crazy, here is some of the list of US war criminals....


1. McNamara, Sec. of Defense for Kennedy and Johnson- helped kill 2 to 3 million people

3. Bill Clinton, POTUS-bombing raids against Yugoslavia and Iraq, resulting in the deaths of thousands. Conducted punitive sanctions against Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Presided during Waco Massacre

4. George HW Bush. Former super spy, helped encourage the Iraq-Iran war, resulting in deaths of one million people, helped encourage US sponsored military dictators in Latin America, guilty of extermination of thousands of ordinary citizens, via US-trained "death squads." Conducted pre-emptive war with Panama, resulting in 1,000-4,000 deaths

5, Madeline Albright. Former US Secretary of State under Clinton. Condoned the punitive sanctions against Iraq that resulted in an estimated 500,000 deaths of children. Remarked that such sanctions were "worth it."

6. George W. Bush.
7. Dick Cheney.
8. Paul Wolfowitz.
9. Donald Rumsfeld.
Click to expand...

O.K.
By the way, who are you and what have you done with Bravo?
 
christiefan915 said:
This is how much Catholics support restrictions on birth control.

CatholicsAndBirthControl.jpg
Click to expand...

I agree with you in the sense of 'availability' of bc and their use of it. However, phrase the question as, "Do you believe that the Catholic Church or any business that believes bc is immoral should be coerced into providing insurance coverage for it?"

The results might surprise. Seems that many are already making their thinking clear:

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-conten...endon-George-Snead-Levin-stmt-Feb-11-2012.pdf
 
Annie said:
I agree with you in the sense of 'availability' of bc and their use of it. However, phrase the question as, "Do you believe that the Catholic Church or any business that believes bc is immoral should be coerced into providing insurance coverage for it?"

The results might surprise. Seems that many are already making their thinking clear:

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-conten...endon-George-Snead-Levin-stmt-Feb-11-2012.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm already fed up with the Catholic Church's discrimination against women. If Catholic hospitals treated only Catholic patients, then they might have an argument. The mission statement of one of our Catholic hospitals includes "a commitment to being a transforming, healing presence within the communities we serve."

Also: From its inception in 1847, the hospital has welcomed and served all who are in need of its services regardless of race, nationality, age, gender or religion. UPMC Mercy continues to provide significant amounts of unreimbursed healthcare to the poor and uninsured in Pittsburgh and to the entire Western Pennsylvania region.

I don't see how they can say they're not going to discriminate, yet refuse to provide a service to someone who isn't Catholic and whose Church doesn't have the same teaching on contraception, etc.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm already fed up with the Catholic Church's discrimination against women. If Catholic hospitals treated only Catholic patients, then they might have an argument. The mission statement of one of our Catholic hospitals includes "a commitment to being a transforming, healing presence within the communities we serve."

Also: From its inception in 1847, the hospital has welcomed and served all who are in need of its services regardless of race, nationality, age, gender or religion. UPMC Mercy continues to provide significant amounts of unreimbursed healthcare to the poor and uninsured in Pittsburgh and to the entire Western Pennsylvania region.

I don't see how they can say they're not going to discriminate, yet refuse to provide a service to someone who isn't Catholic and whose Church doesn't have the same teaching on contraception, etc.
Click to expand...

They are providing services for all, without discrimination. The caveat though is within the limits of their faith. So no, they won't do abortions. However most will do a D & C or provide the 'morning after pill' in cases of rape. That is as far as one will find in most Catholic hospitals. War on women? Hardly.

What you are advocating is that they should have to provide the care to all women, according to each of their own personal standards, disregarding the font of their support. Idiocy.
 
Conservatives said Sunday the flap surrounding President Barack Obama’s birth control mandate was far from over, with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell saying he’ll push to overturn the requirement because it was another example of government meddling.

While a senior White House official shrugged off such remarks, declaring the issue resolved and new legislation unlikely, the heated rhetoric from Republicans suggested the GOP would try to keep the debate alive in an election year to rally conservatives and seize upon voter frustration with big government.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-...eligious-freedoms-catholic-health-association
 
bravo said:
You and many others are missing the entire point.....its irrelevant even if not one Catholic "buys Church dogma 100%.....irrelevant.....

The point is, the government should not be trying to FORCE its dogma on any Church......if the Catholic Church refuses to support contraception,
that is their RIGHT.....
that is their BELIEF.....
that is their article of FAITH
and it is against the Constitution to force any religion to support something against their beliefs....its like forcing a Quaker to go to war.....
Click to expand...


Justice Scalia disagrees with you.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm already fed up with the Catholic Church's discrimination against women. If Catholic hospitals treated only Catholic patients, then they might have an argument. The mission statement of one of our Catholic hospitals includes "a commitment to being a transforming, healing presence within the communities we serve."

Also: From its inception in 1847, the hospital has welcomed and served all who are in need of its services regardless of race, nationality, age, gender or religion. UPMC Mercy continues to provide significant amounts of unreimbursed healthcare to the poor and uninsured in Pittsburgh and to the entire Western Pennsylvania region.

I don't see how they can say they're not going to discriminate, yet refuse to provide a service to someone who isn't Catholic and whose Church doesn't have the same teaching on contraception, etc.
Click to expand...


No one is forced to enter a Catholic Hospital.....and its the fuckin law that they treat everybody....which they do no matter what you believe.....

Contraception isn't a fucking disease you pinhead.....neither is pregnancy....
they don't have an obligation to buy you crutches, a wheel chair or cough drops.........
and if they are forced to stop providing health insurance to their employees, blame that asswipe you voted for.
 
bravo said:
No one is forced to enter a Catholic Hospital.....and its the fuckin law that they treat everybody....which they do no matter what you believe.....

Contraception isn't a fucking disease you pinhead.....neither is pregnancy....
they don't have an obligation to buy you crutches, a wheel chair or cough drops.........
and if they are forced to stop providing health insurance to their employees, blame that asswipe you voted for.
Click to expand...

Note how the freedom of religion is such an easy right for liberals to trample on.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Note how the freedom of religion is such an easy right for liberals to trample on.
Click to expand...

Stupid bitch....like liberals aren't religious. It's not about religion anyways.. it's ultimately about a woman's right to govern her own body and its' contents, and to deal with the consequences of conscience, family and God, on her own. You want to deny her the judgment of God, which is not your damn right to begin with. Let me live my life as I see fit, and make my way to Hell in a goddamn gasoline handbasket, if I so choose. Whose goddamn sayso is it, if it isn't mine? It's called Freedom...isn't that what you conservatives say you value the most? But you talk out both sides of your mouth, when it's convenient. No wonder you get accused of being flip-floppers. Freedom of religion works both ways.....I should have the freedom to be free of your version of religion. It ain't religion to me...by any stretch of the imagination.
 
poet said:
Stupid bitch....like liberals aren't religious. It's not about religion anyways.. it's ultimately about a woman's right to govern her own body and its' contents, and to deal with the consequences of conscience, family and God, on her own. You want to deny her the judgment of God, which is not your damn right to begin with. Let me live my life as I see fit, and make my way to Hell in a goddamn gasoline handbasket, if I so choose. Whose goddamn sayso is it, if it isn't mine? It's called Freedom...isn't that what you conservatives say you value the most? But you talk out both sides of your mouth, when it's convenient. No wonder you get accused of being flip-floppers. Freedom of religion works both ways.....I should have the freedom to be free of your version of religion. It ain't religion to me...by any stretch of the imagination.
Click to expand...

You do understand though, that you aren't allowed to hit a woman; just because she wags her finger in your face
 
icedancer2theend said:
Note how the freedom of religion is such an easy right for liberals to trample on.
Click to expand...


You should read Justice Scalia's opinion in Oregon v. Smith. Here is a key quote that you should think about and then apply to the contraceptives kerfuffle:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
Click to expand...

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, "are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)." United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982) (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment); see Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, supra, 310 U.S. at 595 (collecting cases).
Click to expand...


Last I checked, Scalia ain't no liberal.


Full opinion here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html
 
bravo said:
No one is forced to enter a Catholic Hospital.....and its the fuckin law that they treat everybody....which they do no matter what you believe.....

Contraception isn't a fucking disease you pinhead.....neither is pregnancy....
they don't have an obligation to buy you crutches, a wheel chair or cough drops.........
and if they are forced to stop providing health insurance to their employees, blame that asswipe you voted for.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If a Catholic hospital's the only one in town and someone has an emergency, that's where they'll go. But that's beside the point, bonehead.

If you think all Catholic institutions toe the line drawn by Vatican officials, you have a lot to learn about the church. A lot of it depends on what the particular bishop decrees. There are conservative bishops, liberal bishops and those in between. Catholicism is no different from any other religion or school of thought, the man-made rules are interpreted differently by those in charge. Catholic hospitals have provided contraception and done sterilizations despite what you think. Furthermore, you and your conservative cronies just confirm my opinion that it's the woman who always has to carry the burden of bogus childbearing restrictions imposed by men. Much has been said about stupid women spreading their legs, using abortion as birth control, etc. Find me a comment by some Catholic kahuna who chastises men for using condoms or getting vasectomies. And then do some research on the Catholic Church and contraception through the ages, before you again open your piehole about issues you have precious little knowledge of.
 
christiefan915 said:
Not necessarily. If a Catholic hospital's the only one in town and someone has an emergency, that's where they'll go. But that's beside the point, bonehead.

If you think all Catholic institutions toe the line drawn by Vatican officials, you have a lot to learn about the church. A lot of it depends on what the particular bishop decrees. There are conservative bishops, liberal bishops and those in between. Catholicism is no different from any other religion or school of thought, the man-made rules are interpreted differently by those in charge. Catholic hospitals have provided contraception and done sterilizations despite what you think. Furthermore, you and your conservative cronies just confirm my opinion that it's the woman who always has to carry the burden of bogus childbearing restrictions imposed by men. Much has been said about stupid women spreading their legs, using abortion as birth control, etc. Find me a comment by some Catholic kahuna who chastises men for using condoms or getting vasectomies. And then do some research on the Catholic Church and contraception through the ages, before you again open your piehole about issues you have precious little knowledge of.
Click to expand...

Here! Here!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top