Is Obama Really this Stupid?

[Truthmatters]

They dont get to deside for others.

 

[Ravi]

As I mentioned previously, the Church has a less rigid view on certain forms of birth control, that prevent conception. The line in the sand, for the Church, is post conception. Abortion and the Morning After pill are the other side of that line.

The Church cannot fund or provide coverage that includes those.

The sad thing, to me, is that Obama has waivered shedloads of companies but refuses to do likewise for the Church. That's hypocritical - particularly given what the Church does for this country.

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

The Church received a waiver. Their institutions that serve a secular society did not.

The morning after pill works pre-conception, not post.

Do a little research.

lol the "rhythm method?"

holy shit, you must be a bit old? not an insult.

I feel ancient today but yeah, that's what my mom always called it and she had six kids. Doesn't work too well.

 

[G.T.]

Hummm dully you need to hit the grinding wheel.

Why maybe? Are you afraid to say one way or the other?

oh now it's why maybe? but saying maybe is not saying I wished obama's mother would have had an abortion. "but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless."

I'm asking you a question - to extend the hand of conversation: Why maybe? Why havent you decided one way or the other if Obama should have been aborted?> Most people are decent enough to say he shouldn't have been aborted. You?>

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I just read this, so if there is another thread on the topic, my apologies and would ask the mods to merge it. Also, if this is wrong, and any of the liberals / Dems want to refute it, please do so. Because, frankly, I find it stunning that this is true. I can't believe the Democrat party would do something this stupid. (Of course, the conservatives will replay "Why not?")

With gaffe-a-day-Romney and Barack Oncompetent the two candidates, it could be an interesting battle of two guys dueling to shoot themselves in the head faster than the other guy.

The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says that under ObamaCare, Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business.

In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore.

I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines.

Oh, gee....all-of-a-sudden religious orgs AREN'T selling fantasy?




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o]George Carlin - Religion is bullshit. - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Ravi]

As I mentioned previously, the Church has a less rigid view on certain forms of birth control, that prevent conception. The line in the sand, for the Church, is post conception. Abortion and the Morning After pill are the other side of that line.

The Church cannot fund or provide coverage that includes those.

The sad thing, to me, is that Obama has waivered shedloads of companies but refuses to do likewise for the Church. That's hypocritical - particularly given what the Church does for this country.

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

The Church received a waiver. Their institutions that serve a secular society did not.

The morning after pill works pre-conception, not post.

Do a little research.

I've been to the Catholic Church, as always. I didn't say the Church 'approves', I said they take a less rigid view of certain forms. But, hey, thanks for misreading my post to make some pointless point.

I find it sad that some people are so blinkered that they don't care about our secular work. The billions of dollars that the Catholic Church provides to support the poor - the ones that the left claim to care so much about.... There is no other organization in the country that does as much as we do... using our own financial resources (ie, my money) so that you are not burdened.

I suggest you also do some research.

There is currently a new push from the Church to speak out against birth control pills. If you read newspapers you might know that.

 

[California Girl]

As I mentioned previously, the Church has a less rigid view on certain forms of birth control, that prevent conception. The line in the sand, for the Church, is post conception. Abortion and the Morning After pill are the other side of that line.

The Church cannot fund or provide coverage that includes those.

The sad thing, to me, is that Obama has waivered shedloads of companies but refuses to do likewise for the Church. That's hypocritical - particularly given what the Church does for this country.

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

The Church received a waiver. Their institutions that serve a secular society did not.

The morning after pill works pre-conception, not post.

Do a little research.

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

La-La La-La-La...... I can't hear you.

Hint. ..... It's called Confession Ravi. Every Catholic Girls Escape Clause.

I could tell you a very funny story about Confession... but I won't post it on the board. I have no doubt that some of our more intellectually challenged posters would not get it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why maybe? Are you afraid to say one way or the other?

oh now it's why maybe? but saying maybe is not saying I wished obama's mother would have had an abortion. "but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless."

I'm asking you a question - to extend the hand of conversation: Why maybe? Why havent you decided one way or the other if Obama should have been aborted?> Most people are decent enough to say he shouldn't have been aborted. You?>

Why must I keep repeating myself?

"obama was just an example used about why women should not have an abortion, but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless."

 

[G.T.]

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

The Church received a waiver. Their institutions that serve a secular society did not.

The morning after pill works pre-conception, not post.

Do a little research.

lol the "rhythm method?"

holy shit, you must be a bit old? not an insult.

I feel ancient today but yeah, that's what my mom always called it and she had six kids. Doesn't work too well.

there's all kinds of new ways to say it now.

 

[G.T.]

oh now it's why maybe? but saying maybe is not saying I wished obama's mother would have had an abortion. "but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless."

I'm asking you a question - to extend the hand of conversation: Why maybe? Why havent you decided one way or the other if Obama should have been aborted?> Most people are decent enough to say he shouldn't have been aborted. You?>

Why must I keep repeating myself?

"obama was just an example used about why women should not have an abortion, but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless."

Ok, so I take that tpo mean Obama shouldn't have been aborted.

 

[Intense]

As I mentioned previously, the Church has a less rigid view on certain forms of birth control, that prevent conception. The line in the sand, for the Church, is post conception. Abortion and the Morning After pill are the other side of that line.

The Church cannot fund or provide coverage that includes those.

The sad thing, to me, is that Obama has waivered shedloads of companies but refuses to do likewise for the Church. That's hypocritical - particularly given what the Church does for this country.

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

The Church received a waiver. Their institutions that serve a secular society did not.

The morning after pill works pre-conception, not post.

Do a little research.

I've been to the Catholic Church, as always. I didn't say the Church 'approves', I said they take a less rigid view of certain forms. But, hey, thanks for misreading my post to make some pointless point.

I find it sad that some people are so blinkered that they don't care about our secular work. The billions of dollars that the Catholic Church provides to support the poor - the ones that the left claim to care so much about.... There is no other organization in the country that does as much as we do... using our own financial resources (ie, my money) so that you are not burdened.

I suggest you also do some research.

Agreed. 100%. We also utilize all available resources, Local, State, and Federal, working well in partnership with pretty much all willing participants. CG the Church does work with available funding, the key is that the involved Charities will work well with or without it, not being dependent on Government Funding.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm asking you a question - to extend the hand of conversation: Why maybe? Why havent you decided one way or the other if Obama should have been aborted?> Most people are decent enough to say he shouldn't have been aborted. You?>

Why must I keep repeating myself?

"obama was just an example used about why women should not have an abortion, but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless."

Ok, so I take that tpo mean Obama shouldn't have been aborted.

I cut and pasted part of that from an old response you made. I added the obama part.
However you are assuming incorrectly.

 

[G.T.]

Why must I keep repeating myself?

"obama was just an example used about why women should not have an abortion, but you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed to know wtf I'm actually talking abo0t, so g'day wreckless."

Ok, so I take that tpo mean Obama shouldn't have been aborted.

I cut and pasted part of that from an old response you made. I added the obama part.
However you are assuming incorrectly.

I'm assuming incorrectly that you DONT think he should be aborted?

Do you or do you not want him to have been aborted?

 

[Annie]

USA Today editorial gets it right:

Editorial: Contraception mandate violates religious freedom

Editorial: Contraception mandate violates religious freedom

Few Americans of any political stripe would disagree with the simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs. Certainly, it should never try to force a religiously affiliated institution to violate a central tenet of its faith.

Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform, the Obama administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

In the two weeks since the rule was finalized, setting off a predictable backlash from Catholic bishops and others, the administration has mounted three lines of defense for its decision, all of which sidestep the central issue.

The first is that churches and other houses of worship are exempt, which at least shows the administration weighed the issue. But then it whiffed. The exemption does not cover Catholic organizations that employ or serve large numbers of people of different faiths — the very definition of many Catholic colleges, hospitals and charities. Those organizations and the people who lead them would be put in the impossibly awkward position of facilitating contraception even though the church teaches that it is "intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence."

The administration's second line of reasoning is medical. It argues that nearly all women use contraception at some point in their lives (or want to), that it is expensive, and that the prestigious Institute of Medicine says birth control should be part of a comprehensive health care plan. We're sympathetic to the medical reasoning, but good intentions are not sufficient grounds to override religious freedom. The government is free to promote contraception in other ways. In fact, it already does.

The third rationale is that 28 states already have contraception mandates. But 15 of those states have broader exemptions. Only three states have exemptions as narrow as the new federal rule, and some of the eight states with no exemptions still give Catholic-run institutions ways to get around the mandate.

In an election-year hothouse, the issue has quickly become caricatured as the Obama administration's "war on Catholics" versus the Republicans' "war on contraception." It is neither. The administration tried to strike a balance and simply failed. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom deserves more weight than the administration allowed.

The administration's best option now is to reopen discussion with those affected and widen the exemption in a suitable way. The number of people affected will be relatively small — far too small to justify yet another court fight over the Affordable Care Act— and having freely chosen their employer, they'd have a dubious case for grievance against institutions that choose not to offer contraception coverage. As Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops put it, "When you go to a Jewish deli, you are not expecting pork chops."

The rules don't take effect until August 2013, so there's plenty of time to work out a compromise, perhaps building on the approach in Hawaii, where women at exempted institutions can buy inexpensive contraception coverage outside their workplace. And wouldn't that be a refreshing way to deal with the unavoidable conflicts required for overhauling the nation's health care system?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

i wonder how many Catholic women and men support their Church's stance on not using any birth control, not planning their children to be? no BC pills, no rubbers being used? There isn't a Catholic that I know, that supports the church's stance of ''no BC pills/no iud's, no diaphrams, no rubbers, no vasectomies, no tubes tied, no invitro fertilization etc''....just pregnancy, over and over and over and over and over and over again, no matter what.....

btw....it's my understanding that the health insurance policies offered by the insurance companies does not have a higher price with the birth control pill being covered vs not covered...... IS this true? Does anybody know?

The Church takes a much less rigid stance on some forms of birth control... those that stop conception. It is once conception has taken place that it is rigid.

The problem with the AHA is that it forces employers to cover things such as the morning after pill and abortion - both of which are absolutely against the beliefs of the Church.

Ah, yes.....that eternal War between belief & knowledge. That's what's needed, most.....in the 21st Century!!!
(I'm sure Santa Claus & The Easter Bunny support that message.)

It's working, so well, in the Middle East.

 

[Ernie S.]

The law is that catholic health care facilities with a majority of NON-catholic employees have to offer the option.

OR...the catholic healthcare facilities can do as they please - without any government funding.

So they have freedom of choice. They don't have to offer birth control.

But of course, you would claim 1st amendment rights if these institutions fired all non Catholic employees, wouldn't you? Just a tad hypocritical don't you think?

 

[Full-Auto]

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

The Church received a waiver. Their institutions that serve a secular society did not.

The morning after pill works pre-conception, not post.

Do a little research.

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

La-La La-La-La...... I can't hear you.

Hint. ..... It's called Confession Ravi. Every Catholic Girls Escape Clause.

I could tell you a very funny story about Confession... but I won't post it on the board. I have no doubt that some of our more intellectually challenged posters would not get it.

Remember this if you have major surgery and need a blood transfusion!!



Australian Medical Association researchers have found

that patients needing blood transfusions may benefit

from receiving chicken blood

rather than human blood.

It tends to make the men cocky and the women lay better....

Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Ravi]

lol the "rhythm method?"

holy shit, you must be a bit old? not an insult.

I feel ancient today but yeah, that's what my mom always called it and she had six kids. Doesn't work too well.

there's all kinds of new ways to say it now.

Really? What are they? I haven't heard a discussion on it in a long time.

 

[California Girl]

Not sure what church you've been to lately but the Catholic church only approves of "natural" birth control, i.e. the rhythm method or chastity.

The Church received a waiver. Their institutions that serve a secular society did not.

The morning after pill works pre-conception, not post.

Do a little research.

I've been to the Catholic Church, as always. I didn't say the Church 'approves', I said they take a less rigid view of certain forms. But, hey, thanks for misreading my post to make some pointless point.

I find it sad that some people are so blinkered that they don't care about our secular work. The billions of dollars that the Catholic Church provides to support the poor - the ones that the left claim to care so much about.... There is no other organization in the country that does as much as we do... using our own financial resources (ie, my money) so that you are not burdened.

I suggest you also do some research.

Agreed. 100%. We also utilize all available resources, Local, State, and Federal, working well in partnership with pretty much all willing participants. CG the Church does work with available funding, the key is that the involved Charities will work well with or without it, not being dependent on Government Funding.

Very true, certainly at my old Church in CA, we worked very closely with the Mormon Church.... mainly because their Church was very close to ours.... and when our Church got damaged in a fire.... it was local Mormons that pitched in to help us. I've never forgotten that.

 

[G.T.]

I feel ancient today but yeah, that's what my mom always called it and she had six kids. Doesn't work too well.

there's all kinds of new ways to say it now.

Really? What are they? I haven't heard a discussion on it in a long time.

pull out
hit it and bail
i dont feel like thinking right now
fml

 

[Ravi]

there's all kinds of new ways to say it now.

Really? What are they? I haven't heard a discussion on it in a long time.

pull out
hit it and bail
i dont feel like thinking right now
fml

Somehow I doubt those are Church sanctioned terms.