Is Obama Really this Stupid?

[California Girl]

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

Really? Newspapers?

I get my information from the Church, not from what a non Catholic says about my Church.

Then maybe you don't attend often enough. The Church has not changed its stance on birth control as you claimed up the thread.

I didn't claim it 'changed its stance'. I said it took a less rigid view. That is not 'changing it's stance', it is taking a less rigid view. Please stop telling me what I said. I know what I said - clearly you struggle with basic comprehension.

It has not - and is unlikely ever to - change it's official stance on birth control. What it does do is take a less inflexible approach towards some forms of birth control. But, that tolerance does not extend to abortion or the Morning After pill.

 

[Ravi]

Really? Newspapers?

I get my information from the Church, not from what a non Catholic says about my Church.

Then maybe you don't attend often enough. The Church has not changed its stance on birth control as you claimed up the thread.

I didn't claim it 'changed its stance'. I said it took a less rigid view. That is not 'changing it's stance', it is taking a less rigid view. Please stop telling me what I said. I know what I said - clearly you struggle with basic comprehension.

It has not - and is unlikely ever to - change it's official stance on birth control. What it does do is take a less inflexible approach towards some forms of birth control. But, that tolerance does not extend to abortion or the Morning After pill.

It hasn't taken a less rigid view. It still considers the artificial birth control evil. It still only approves chastity or the rhythm method as acceptable forms of birth control.

 

[blastoff]

Real Simple... Catholic based Hospitals don't want to take part in the AHA? Fine... No Federal funds...saves the taxpayers money, I guess.

Incorrect guess I'd bet. Funds not spent one place simply get funneled elsewhere other than saved or, God forbid, used to pay down debt.

 

[Steelplate]

I'm more worried about how many Ghandis, Jarviks and Einsteins were aborted.

Probability suggest that many more Dahmers were aborted than any of the above. People are generally a product of their environment...Being unwanted and unloved is not conducive to greatness.

Like I said earlier though... it's by no means an absolute, but generally speaking people who were born into bad environments tend to be a product of that environment. Some escape that environment and do well for themselves, but the vast majority of them don't.

People are generally a product of their environment

ok so obama growing up in a Muslim country would mean that his judgement calls will be for the benefit of Muslim nations. He was taught to hate America.

Go fuck yourself Bigot. Like I said earlier... If you can't win a debate, you attack Obama...This is twice in one thread you did this bullshit, so not only have you been beaten in a debate...you have been exposed as the ignorant, bigoted, hate filled douchbag you really are...

Congratulations.

 

[California Girl]

Real Simple... Catholic based Hospitals don't want to take part in the AHA? Fine... No Federal funds...saves the taxpayers money, I guess.

Incorrect guess I'd bet. Funds not spent one place simply get funneled elsewhere other than saved or, God forbid, used to pay down debt.

Not only was Steelplate's guess that it would 'save taxpayers money' completely wrong - it is, in fact, quite the opposite. Without the Catholic Church's support through it's hospitals, it would, in reality, cost the US taxpayer at least another $5.7 billion.

 

[Steelplate]

I'm more worried about how many Ghandis, Jarviks and Einsteins were aborted.

Probability suggest that many more Dahmers were aborted than any of the above. People are generally a product of their environment...Being unwanted and unloved is not conducive to greatness.

Like I said earlier though... it's by no means an absolute, but generally speaking people who were born into bad environments tend to be a product of that environment. Some escape that environment and do well for themselves, but the vast majority of them don't.

You may be right but I am unwilling to take that risk. The vast majority of people have at least some positive effect on those around them.
Most of us have someone back in their bloodline that was a monster the world would have been better off without.

True... very true... But that's not your choice to make, furthermore... the elimination of that choice is not something that a free society should be doing. Make no mistake. I do not condone abortion...I am just not one to force my opinions upon others and make them bend to it.

That's where you guys are wrong. Trying to legislate morality is what is happening in the Middle East with their Sharia Law bullshit. Is this really the direction we want to be heading?

 

[California Girl]

Then maybe you don't attend often enough. The Church has not changed its stance on birth control as you claimed up the thread.

I didn't claim it 'changed its stance'. I said it took a less rigid view. That is not 'changing it's stance', it is taking a less rigid view. Please stop telling me what I said. I know what I said - clearly you struggle with basic comprehension.

It has not - and is unlikely ever to - change it's official stance on birth control. What it does do is take a less inflexible approach towards some forms of birth control. But, that tolerance does not extend to abortion or the Morning After pill.

It hasn't taken a less rigid view. It still considers the artificial birth control evil. It still only approves chastity or the rhythm method as acceptable forms of birth control.

It absolutely has taken a less rigid view... you're talking about it's official policy - and I've already said that has not changed. What has changed is it's attitudes, not that the Church goes out of its way to publicize that... it is what it is Ravi.

 

[California Girl]

Probability suggest that many more Dahmers were aborted than any of the above. People are generally a product of their environment...Being unwanted and unloved is not conducive to greatness.

Like I said earlier though... it's by no means an absolute, but generally speaking people who were born into bad environments tend to be a product of that environment. Some escape that environment and do well for themselves, but the vast majority of them don't.

You may be right but I am unwilling to take that risk. The vast majority of people have at least some positive effect on those around them.
Most of us have someone back in their bloodline that was a monster the world would have been better off without.

True... very true... But that's not your choice to make, furthermore... the elimination of that choice is not something that a free society should be doing. Make no mistake. I do not condone abortion...I am just not one to force my opinions upon others and make them bend to it.

That's where you guys are wrong. Trying to legislate morality is what is happening in the Middle East with their Sharia Law bullshit. Is this really the direction we want to be heading?

Who exactly is 'trying to legislate morality'?

You make a lot of claims - none of which have any basis in reality - and ignore any attempt to get you to address those claims.

 

[Steelplate]

You may be right but I am unwilling to take that risk. The vast majority of people have at least some positive effect on those around them.
Most of us have someone back in their bloodline that was a monster the world would have been better off without.

True... very true... But that's not your choice to make, furthermore... the elimination of that choice is not something that a free society should be doing. Make no mistake. I do not condone abortion...I am just not one to force my opinions upon others and make them bend to it.

That's where you guys are wrong. Trying to legislate morality is what is happening in the Middle East with their Sharia Law bullshit. Is this really the direction we want to be heading?

Who exactly is 'trying to legislate morality'?

You make a lot of claims - none of which have any basis in reality - and ignore any attempt to get you to address those claims.

Do you want to ban abortion? Do you want Gay marriage banned? That is legislating morality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our government is the most powerful entity in the Universe why do you need a church?

 

[California Girl]

True... very true... But that's not your choice to make, furthermore... the elimination of that choice is not something that a free society should be doing. Make no mistake. I do not condone abortion...I am just not one to force my opinions upon others and make them bend to it.

That's where you guys are wrong. Trying to legislate morality is what is happening in the Middle East with their Sharia Law bullshit. Is this really the direction we want to be heading?

Who exactly is 'trying to legislate morality'?

You make a lot of claims - none of which have any basis in reality - and ignore any attempt to get you to address those claims.

Do you want to ban abortion? Do you want Gay marriage banned? That is legislating morality.

Do I want to? Personally, no. I would prefer that women make that choice for themselves. Having said that, I am pro life.

Do I want to ban gay marriage? That depends on your definition of marriage. Mine is not yours. My definition is based on my faith. I support the right of gay couples to have the same rights as everyone else. I don't 'hate' gays.

But this is about your claim that this policy - forcing the Church to provide coverage for abortions etc.... would 'save taxpayers' money. That's your claim. It is not true. It is quite the opposite. In healthcare alone - my Church spends $5.7 billion of its own funds to support our 625 hospitals. So you tell me, how exactly is destroying that work going to save taxpayers money? Who's going to take on that work if you force my Church to close its doors to non-Catholics?

 

[Truthseeker420]

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.

There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.

The conscience clause, which keeps the church itself from having to bow to such decisions, has always been assumed to cover the church's institutions.

Now the church is fighting back. Priests in an estimated 70% of parishes last Sunday came forward to read strongly worded protests from the church's bishops. The ruling asks the church to abandon Catholic principles and beliefs; it is an abridgment of the First Amendment; it is not acceptable. They say they will not bow to it. They should never bow to it, not only because they are Catholic and cannot be told to take actions that deny their faith, but because they are citizens of the United States.

If they stay strong and fight, they will win. This is in fact a potentially unifying moment for American Catholics, long split left, right and center. Catholic conservatives will immediately and fully oppose the administration's decision. But Catholic liberals, who feel embarrassed and undercut, have also come out in opposition.

The church is split on many things. But do Catholics in the pews want the government telling their church to contravene its beliefs? A president affronting the leadership of the church, and blithely threatening its great institutions? No, they don't want that. They will unite against that.

The smallest part of this story is political. There are 77.7 million Catholics in the United States. In 2008 they made up 27% of the electorate, about 35 million people. Mr. Obama carried the Catholic vote, 54% to 45%. They helped him win.

They won't this year. And guess where a lot of Catholics live? In the battleground states.

There was no reason to pick this fight. It reflects political incompetence on a scale so great as to make Mitt Romney's gaffes a little bitty thing.

There was nothing for the president to gain, except, perhaps, the pleasure of making a great church bow to him.

Enjoy it while you can. You have awakened a sleeping giant.

A Battle the President Can't Win - WSJ.com

do you have a more credible link than Fox News?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Probability suggest that many more Dahmers were aborted than any of the above. People are generally a product of their environment...Being unwanted and unloved is not conducive to greatness.

Like I said earlier though... it's by no means an absolute, but generally speaking people who were born into bad environments tend to be a product of that environment. Some escape that environment and do well for themselves, but the vast majority of them don't.

People are generally a product of their environment

ok so obama growing up in a Muslim country would mean that his judgement calls will be for the benefit of Muslim nations. He was taught to hate America.

Go fuck yourself Bigot. Like I said earlier... If you can't win a debate, you attack Obama...This is twice in one thread you did this bullshit, so not only have you been beaten in a debate...you have been exposed as the ignorant, bigoted, hate filled douchbag you really are...

Congratulations.

Using obama as an example is not attacking him. If his situation did not fit with the comments that both you and GT used yes it would be considered an attack. You don't like the examples don't make wild ass comments. Because as I see from your butt hurt feeling reaction you did not like hearing the truth.

Let's recap
Abortion
What if obama's mother would have had an abortion there would not be an obama to be president.

You said

People are generally a product of their environment

I said

ok so obama growing up in a Muslim country would mean that his judgement calls will be for the benefit of Muslim nations. He was taught to hate America.

After all according to you people are products of their environment and obama has lived in anti American countries. So hows that butt hurt feeling?

 

[G.T.]

ok so obama growing up in a Muslim country would mean that his judgement calls will be for the benefit of Muslim nations. He was taught to hate America.

Go fuck yourself Bigot. Like I said earlier... If you can't win a debate, you attack Obama...This is twice in one thread you did this bullshit, so not only have you been beaten in a debate...you have been exposed as the ignorant, bigoted, hate filled douchbag you really are...

Congratulations.

Using obama as an example is not attacking him. If his situation did not fit with the comments that both you and GT used yes it would be considered an attack. You don't like the examples don't make wild ass comments. Because as I see from your butt hurt feeling reaction you did not like hearing the truth.

Let's recap
Abortion
What if obama's mother would have had an abortion there would not be an obama to be president.

You said

People are generally a product of their environment

I said

ok so obama growing up in a Muslim country would mean that his judgement calls will be for the benefit of Muslim nations. He was taught to hate America.

After all according to you people are products of their environment and obama has lived in anti American countries. So hows that butt hurt feeling?

define "growing up" because most of his growing years were here in the US.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Go fuck yourself Bigot. Like I said earlier... If you can't win a debate, you attack Obama...This is twice in one thread you did this bullshit, so not only have you been beaten in a debate...you have been exposed as the ignorant, bigoted, hate filled douchbag you really are...

Congratulations.

Using obama as an example is not attacking him. If his situation did not fit with the comments that both you and GT used yes it would be considered an attack. You don't like the examples don't make wild ass comments. Because as I see from your butt hurt feeling reaction you did not like hearing the truth.

Let's recap
Abortion
What if obama's mother would have had an abortion there would not be an obama to be president.

You said


I said

ok so obama growing up in a Muslim country would mean that his judgement calls will be for the benefit of Muslim nations. He was taught to hate America.

After all according to you people are products of their environment and obama has lived in anti American countries. So hows that butt hurt feeling?

define "growing up" because most of his growing years were here in the US.

His important development years were the years he lived in other countries. The years that most children are easily influenced. I guess you'll disagree with that also.

 

[G.T.]

Using obama as an example is not attacking him. If his situation did not fit with the comments that both you and GT used yes it would be considered an attack. You don't like the examples don't make wild ass comments. Because as I see from your butt hurt feeling reaction you did not like hearing the truth.

Let's recap
Abortion
What if obama's mother would have had an abortion there would not be an obama to be president.

You said


I said


After all according to you people are products of their environment and obama has lived in anti American countries. So hows that butt hurt feeling?

define "growing up" because most of his growing years were here in the US.

His important development years were the years he lived in other countries. The years that most children are easily influenced. I guess you'll disagree with that also.

oh yea? which years just so we're clear....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

define "growing up" because most of his growing years were here in the US.

His important development years were the years he lived in other countries. The years that most children are easily influenced. I guess you'll disagree with that also.

oh yea? which years just so we're clear....

It wasn't his teens years if that is what you are hinting too. Lower than 10 and after 2

 

[G.T.]

His important development years were the years he lived in other countries. The years that most children are easily influenced. I guess you'll disagree with that also.

oh yea? which years just so we're clear....

It wasn't his teens years if that is what you are hinting too. Lower than 10 and after 2

lower than ten and after two is when you learned YOUR politics and when YOUR world view was shaped?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

oh yea? which years just so we're clear....

It wasn't his teens years if that is what you are hinting too. Lower than 10 and after 2

lower than ten and after two is when you learned YOUR politics and when YOUR world view was shaped?

A child is better influenced during those years.
However,
child development stages have nothing to do with politics.

 

[G.T.]

Yea, exactly. You self-refuted. Congratulations.