[www.usnews.com]

How will this affect the Latino vote in the general election?

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

I would expect only those who do not use birth control and needed something to get them off the fence will be influenced. In other words, a small, probably negligible number.

I don't know about the "latino vote," but it will not affect me whatsoever.

I say we all sue the Vatican for being such a social retard.

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Quote
swampy
[www.usnews.com]

How will this affect the Latino vote in the general election?

Considering the Latino voters were all just sitting there with no opinions of their own, waiting for some sort of direction from the Catholic church, I think this is going to be devastating.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Black

Quote
swampy
[www.usnews.com]

How will this affect the Latino vote in the general election?

Considering the Latino voters were all just sitting there with no opinions of their own, waiting for some sort of direction from the Catholic church, I think this is going to be devastating.

---

Quote
swampy
[www.usnews.com]

How will this affect the Latino vote in the general election?

I can't remember the last time i saw a Latino-led protest against Democrats in defense of Church politics. But i miss stuff all the time.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

according to Pew he;s lost 8% since he started being perceived as insulting bishops.
Likely calculated before hand.

[www.washingtonpost.com]

Of course it's not quiiiiiiiiiiite as black and white as some are portraying this...


The headlines this week were about lawsuits brought by 43 Catholic organizations, including 13 dioceses, to overturn regulations issued by the Obama administration that require insurance plans to cover contraception under the new health-care law. But the other side of this news was also significant: The vast majority of the nation’s 195 dioceses did not go to court.


[www.americamagazine.org]

Bishop Blaire believes discussions with the Obama administration toward a resolution of the dispute could be fruitful even as alternative remedies are explored. He worried that some groups “very far to the right” are trying to use the conflict as “an anti-Obama campaign.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2012 07:48PM by beagledave.

So, who are they going to vote for now, Romney? Really??? Unless they are rich, there is no valid reason for ANYONE to switch votes to Romney.

Swampy, without being negative, why should a middle class business owner vote for Romney? Why should ANYONE who is not rich vote GOP, ever?

Take all of the time you want to answer a simple question.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2012 07:50PM by john dough.

How they paying for all those lawyers ?

Doesn't sound like any of them are in favor of working pro @#$%&.

: -)

---

Quote
lafinfil
How they paying for all those lawyers ?

Doesn't sound like any of them are in favor of working pro @#$%&.

: -)

Isn't there a forum rule against rotten puns??

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Quote
Uncle Wig

Quote
lafinfil
How they paying for all those lawyers ?

Doesn't sound like any of them are in favor of working pro @#$%&.

: -)

Isn't there a forum rule against rotten puns??

no - but perhaps there should be.

---

Quote
john dough
So, who are they going to vote for now, Romney? Really??? Unless they are rich, there is no valid reason for ANYONE to switch votes to Romney.

Swampy, without being negative, why should a middle class business owner vote for Romney? Why should ANYONE who is not rich vote GOP, ever?

Take all of the time you want to answer a simple question.

Exactly what I've been saying for years but then there are the low and middle income folks that think the
Gov't can legislate morals into the American people, those are one's that don't get it.

funny how Catholics didn't sue Bush / White House for invading Iraq, which is also against Vatican policy, and created MASSIVE loss of human life.

our tax money was used for this purpose. how is it different from providing birth control? i'll tell you - it snuffs out lives that have already started OUTSIDE the womb. lives of mothers, children, and fathers. lives which are supposedly sacred to Catholics, but there was little hue and cry against war from the conservatives - mainly from the liberals.

weird, huh?

---

[www.giyf.com]

I suspect most main stream Catholics will regard this as they do prohibitions on birth control and demands about tithing10%.

Quote
decay
funny how Catholics didn't sue Bush / White House for invading Iraq, which is also against Vatican policy, and created MASSIVE loss of human life.

our tax money was used for this purpose. how is it different from providing birth control? i'll tell you - it snuffs out lives that have already started OUTSIDE the womb. lives of mothers, children, and fathers. lives which are supposedly sacred to Catholics, but there was little hue and cry against war from the conservatives - mainly from the liberals.

weird, huh?

Not weird, just that they are following what they are told to follow. They were silent on what Bush did because they were following politics, not their morals. If you took politics out of it, there would be no reason have supported Bush as he was the complete WORST person in that office in our lifetime, bar none.

I am 100% positive that the usual suspects (a.k.a., trolls) will come back with no answer to why a middle class voter should vote for Romney as all they can do is dish it out. I keep putting it out there to show how little the righties really have going in this election (attacking Obama and the just digging in your heels is NOT leadership).

---

The latest poll shows Latinos are overwhelmingly in Obama's corner [firstread.msnbc.msn.com]

it just strikes me that their emphasis on sanctity of life really focuses on fetuses, not those who have been born already.

[catholicism.about.com]

[catholicism.about.com]

The Four Conditions for Jus Ad Bellum:

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2309) defines the four conditions for determining the justice of a war as:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

there must be serious prospects of success;

the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

These are hard conditions to fulfill; the Church teaches that war should always be the last resort.

^^
based on that, the Iraq invasion spearheaded by Bush & Cheney was a failure and immoral.

---

[www.giyf.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2012 09:19AM by decay.

Quote
Pam
The latest poll shows Latinos are overwhelmingly in Obama's corner [firstread.msnbc.msn.com]

Funny when actual FACTS are presented to refute Swampy and others, they never come back to correct their assertion.

No one is consistently 100% right on the points they bring up, but some specific people are (at least in this forum) close to 100% wrong, every time.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2012 11:35AM by john dough.

28 states already ave laws requiring insurers to cover birth control to the same extent as other medications, yet the Bishops in those states never raised any strenuous objections like those now being carried out by the US Catholic Bishops.

I am ashamed for my Alma Mater and my faith.

Quote
john dough

Quote
Pam
The latest poll shows Latinos are overwhelmingly in Obama's corner [firstread.msnbc.msn.com]

Funny when actual FACTS are presented to refute Swampy and others, they never come back to correct their assertion.

No one is consistently 100% right on the points they bring up, but some specific people are (at least in this forum) close to 100% wrong, every time.

I have you ignored, but happened to read this post by accident.

What facts? the only FACT that I stated is that Catholics are suing POTUS. Are you saying I'm wrong? Why do you badger me regardless of what I say? My only comment was in the form of a question and you even seem to take offense from that. I bet you just can't wait until I post something here that you, in you infinite wisdom, take exception to. In all the years that I have been posting here I would think you'd give up trying to deter me by your bullying. Are you really so dense that you don't get it?

There is no rule in this forum that requires me to answer yours or anyone else's question especially when the question has absolutely no bearing on the posted topic.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

I am saying that your posts are not 100% honest and you are not innocent here. When asked to back up what you are saying with facts, you bail.

Every time.

Ok, some Catholics are suing Obama, there are many, many other Catholics that support him as he supports programs for the poor, women and elderly -- programs that the GOP (directly or indirectly) oppose. Where you you ever post that?

The other thing you posted was to imply somehow that this would affect a whole range of people, which Pam has shown to be false. This is similar to what Fox does, giving half of the story and presenting it as complete. You pick and chose your data to attack Obama, yet when I have asked you (and other Mitt supporters) why a middle class citizen whould vote for him, we get nothing positive. Yep, that is badgering.

You are right, you do not have to answer questions; you can just hit and run like you have been doing, it is a free forum. If asking you to back up what you post is bullying, you should re-think posting on forums.

---

Please tell me specifically what about this subject and my posting is false and what you expect me to "back up". I did not state any position or opinion. I asked a question regarding how this might affect votes in the coming election. I posted a link from US News, which I felt was a reliable source of information regarding the subject matter.

I don't know what you find to gripe about. Do you not find the subject news worthy? Are you not interested in a discussion on the subject? Or are you just predisposed to @#$%& about anything I post? Not that it makes any difference to me, I'm just curious.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

No more predisposed to "@#$%&" than you are (actually, I am a whole lot less predisposed).

The pretense that you are wanting to have a straight dialog about Catholics and Obama is fairly weak. I know you do not like him and his policies so, more often than not, you post news from opinion pieces or anything that puts him in a bad light. You are entitled to post what you believe, but in just about every thread, you get refuted with something contrary to what you post and either do not acknowledge that or double down. Calling anyone dense, ever, is the height of irony.

Straight up, I dislike just about everything about Romney, from his business dealings that put Americans out of work and wiped out their life savings (he may have been a "great" businessman but ruining lives is a unconscionable act), to his religious views (everyone has a right to believe in whatever God they want, I just do not believe how he does), to his handling of his dog (that was flat out inhumane, even you would agree, as a dog-friendly person). I think that this country would be better served to NOT have Mitt anywhere near Washington.

About curiosity, if you make less than $200K a year, why do you support a candidate that does not care about you? As a woman, why do you support the GOP? They constantly want to cut women's services and health care, something that you recently took advantage of (your medical care). If some people in the GOP had their way, you would be FAR worse off than you are, due to the lack of services that probably saved your life.

If you want to have dialog, let us know why you support a group that is working against your interests. The Democrats and Obama are nowhere near perfect, but they are not actively working against what I believe in.

---

Do you truly believe that Republicans want granny to eat dog food and little children to go hungry? I mean TRULY? You've been drinking the lefty Kool Aid if you do.

I think the biggest difference you and me is that I don't expect Romney (or anyone else) to "care" for me. I do expect a President to care about my tax dollar, my constitutional rights and liberties and the nation's safety.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

I think that some in the GOP have turned so far to the right*, that yes, I do not think that they care much about the fate of the majority of Americans; if they did, why do they side with groups that end up introducing such nonsense? Look at Paul Ryan; he wants to give a windfall to the richest citizens and at the same time, deeply cut programs for the poor and elderly - that is not drinking "kool aid", that is fact.

I care for my president to be thoughtful and actually make this country a better place for the majority of us. Economy, safety, rights, military, healthcare, infrastructure; all important to people like me as well, that is why I do not trust Romney to be in charge. Under Romney, the economy would be a casino, OSHA laws would be neutered, rights (unless you are a white male, bonus for being Mormon) would go by the wayside, military spending would be out of control, healthcare would another casino and infrastructure would be all privately owned. What part of ANY of those scenarios sounds like a good thing for you? Unless you are in the 1%, you are not going to benefit under Romney.

If you think that Romney would be a better president than Obama, please let us all know why (without mentioning Obama). Every day, Mitt looks more and more unfit for the job and as a supporter of his, please tell us why you believe this is not the case.

*When you have people in the GOP going after Orrin Hatch for being not conservative enough, your party is in BIG, BIG trouble.

---

Quote

My only comment was in the form of a question

I love that method!


"Do all democrats rape babies?"

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Whoa! Just asking questions!

Actually, I think the OP was a perfectly fine question.

Quote
swampy
Do you truly believe that Republicans want granny to eat dog food and little children to go hungry? I mean TRULY?

Of course not.

But I do believe that they don't want to help.

That is the job of charity, not the government.

And please note that I am talking about republicans as politicians and members of the government. Not as individuals.

Quote
Do you truly believe that Republicans want granny to eat dog food and little children to go hungry? I mean TRULY? You've been drinking the lefty Kool Aid if you do.

Actually I don't think they gives a rats ass about the elderly or poor. Show us anything in their agenda that refutes that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2012 02:41AM by RgrF.

IIRC, it should be "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Quote
Lux Interior

Quote

My only comment was in the form of a question

I love that method!


"Do all democrats rape babies?"

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Whoa! Just asking questions!

Quote
Dennis S
Actually, I think the OP was a perfectly fine question.

Thank you, Dennis.

The main reason I feel Obama has over reached on this is that many of the Catholic institutions involved in the suit are self insured and have set up their own guidelines for what would be covered according to their religious beliefs. They do not view this as a women's rights issue. The plaintiffs are not seeking to limit access to birth control, which is widely available and affordable. The plaintiffs simply don't want to be forced by government to do what they consider immoral. Under the HHS mandate, Catholic institutions serving the public are left with two options: abandon any belief the government does not sanction or uphold their beliefs and incur the fines that will be imposed.

An exception to the mandate was offered to religious institutions aimed at advancing their "religious values", but no exception was allowed for religious enterprises such as schools, hospitals and charities that employ and serve people of all faiths.

This could have a great effect on primarily Catholic Latinos and their voting decisions come November. It can also affect sympathetic but non Catholic voters like me who view this as yet another intrusion of big government into the private lives of all Americans.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Funny that when offering (as in purely optional) healthcare to women is an intrusion of big government yet telling women how to manage their own bodies (denying women choice of abortions), telling people who they cannot marry or spending money on wars and NOT PUTTING THE COSTS IN THE BUDGET is a perfectly acceptible level of government for some.

Yes, there are Catholic Latinos that will not support Obama on this, but do you really think that they will side with Mitt with this ONE thing? For some it is a large deal but not enough to vote against many other of their own interests in supporting a GOP candidate.

---

Other than Romney, what are their choices? This won't be the first time that many Americans will hold thir nose with one hand while pulling the lever with the other.

Of course I can hope that SCOTUS will overturn the health care bill and a new, more reasonable solution can be found on a bilateral basis. No more meetings behind locked doors or statements that we must "pass the bill to find out what's in it".

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

It does not suit you but Obama is a better choice for the majority of Americans, and people are not holding their nose at all.

Point out ONE way that Mitt would be a better president than Obama. You talk so poorly about Obama, let's hear something positive for once.

---

the last few elections have been "pick the lesser of two evils."

this Fall will be another one.

---

[www.giyf.com]

Quote
swampy

Quote
Dennis S
Actually, I think the OP was a perfectly fine question.

Thank you, Dennis.

The main reason I feel Obama has over reached on this is that many of the Catholic institutions involved in the suit are self insured and have set up their own guidelines for what would be covered according to their religious beliefs. They do not view this as a women's rights issue. The plaintiffs are not seeking to limit access to birth control, which is widely available and affordable. The plaintiffs simply don't want to be forced by government to do what they consider immoral. Under the HHS mandate, Catholic institutions serving the public are left with two options: abandon any belief the government does not sanction or uphold their beliefs and incur the fines that will be imposed.

An exception to the mandate was offered to religious institutions aimed at advancing their "religious values", but no exception was allowed for religious enterprises such as schools, hospitals and charities that employ and serve people of all faiths.

This could have a great effect on primarily Catholic Latinos and their voting decisions come November. It can also affect sympathetic but non Catholic voters like me who view this as yet another intrusion of big government into the private lives of all Americans.

In my opinion the religious institutions are the ones intruding, not the government. If religious enterprises want to act as a business they should be treated as one. The best any religious entity can do under any circumstances is hope that the flock follows their teachings. To foray into benefits to employees, especially health care, should be beyond their reach. This doesn't even get into the issue of birth control being prescribed for non-contraceptive uses. Or how each religion can eliminate coverage for other services like mental health care, transfusions, fertility treatments, etc. Health care is not and should not be related to religious beliefs.

As already said, this same political entity you support is all over women's reproductive rights and everyone's love life. Religion is not supposed to be part of government. Yet same thinking groups has put "In God We Trust" on our money ("E pluribus unum" is the only motto) , added the words "Under God" to the pledge (which we shouldn't have anyway), and established a national prayer breakfast. All in direct conflict with what the founding fathers established.

Another aspect of both parties but particularly the republicans is the kowtowing to big business, including pharma. Did you know they are less toxic, less expensive methods of treating cancer rather than chemo? Did you know studies demonstrating the effectiveness of this and other treatments, medications are infected by big pharma reps because pharma couldn't profit?

This whole austerity thing should also scare the pants off of you. It has never worked. You pay down your debts when times are good, not bad. You don't cut back on help for those that have the least and cut back elsewhere putting even more out of work.

All this talk about rights and constitution...phfftt, it's a red herring. The party you support does this more than the other party.

Something positive about Obama?

Keeping Guantanamo open is one. I applaud him for that. Same for continuing the drone attacks on the terrorists.

At one time I could say he did a good job getting Ben Lauden, but since his continuous use of that accomplishment as a campaign tool, I can't even applaud that any more. How many victory laps does he get? Interjecting partisan politics into that achievement is totally wrong.

After that there is nothing I can think of that he has done that I feel worthy of my vote. Instead of uniting this country as he promised, he's done nothing but drive wedges between races, sexes and those of various economic strata. On one hand he bashes businesses, corporate heads and Wall Street movers and shakers while on the other he gladly accepts their campaign contributions. He expresses understanding of the economic plight of middle Americans while spending money like it grows on trees. While excoriating Bain Capital, he spreads millions around to his chronies and failing enterprises like Solyndra. What happened to his line item veto of departments and beauracracies that were duplications or out dated? Where are all the jobs he said the stimulus package would create? If GM is doing so great, when will the preferred stock holders that were robbed of their "safe" investments get repaid? When will he quit pandering to the environmentalists and allow Keystone to proceed? Why can't he even get "his people" to approve his budget? Even strong Democrats are expressing their disappointment in Obama. Since he doesn't seem to be able to run on his record, all he does is assinate Romney or any one that opposes his track record. I think the American people are tired of being drug through the mud. Stop the name calling and speak to the issues. It reduces the debate to which is worse, transporting your dog on the roof of your car or eating dogs.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

There is no help for people like you.

---

Quote
swampy
Something positive about Obama?

Keeping Guantanamo open is one. I applaud him for that. Same for continuing the drone attacks on the terrorists.

At one time I could say he did a good job getting Ben Lauden, but since his continuous use of that accomplishment as a campaign tool, I can't even applaud that any more. How many victory laps does he get? Interjecting partisan politics into that achievement is totally wrong.

After that there is nothing I can think of that he has done that I feel worthy of my vote. Instead of uniting this country as he promised, he's done nothing but drive wedges between races, sexes and those of various economic strata. On one hand he bashes businesses, corporate heads and Wall Street movers and shakers while on the other he gladly accepts their campaign contributions. He expresses understanding of the economic plight of middle Americans while spending money like it grows on trees. While excoriating Bain Capital, he spreads millions around to his chronies and failing enterprises like Solyndra. What happened to his line item veto of departments and beauracracies that were duplications or out dated? Where are all the jobs he said the stimulus package would create? If GM is doing so great, when will the preferred stock holders that were robbed of their "safe" investments get repaid? When will he quit pandering to the environmentalists and allow Keystone to proceed? Why can't he even get "his people" to approve his budget? Even strong Democrats are expressing their disappointment in Obama. Since he doesn't seem to be able to run on his record, all he does is assinate Romney or any one that opposes his track record. I think the American people are tired of being drug through the mud. Stop the name calling and speak to the issues. It reduces the debate to which is worse, transporting your dog on the roof of your car or eating dogs.

I'm headed out of town and don't have time to respond until next week. But I will and I at least appreciate you laying more cards on the table.

OK, so it is a valid position to not offer health care if they object to being forced (self-insured) to provide services in conflict with their teachings?

Quote
Pam
To foray into benefits to employees, especially health care, should be beyond their reach.

Quote
john dough
There is no help for people like you.

What makes you think I need help?

People like me? Now there's a generalization based on an judgment that you are right and I am wrong. We disagree, John. Simple as that. I'm willing to let you have your opinion but you often fail to let me have mine. You ask me a question and when I respond you feel some need to "fix" me. I'm glad you are passionate about your beliefs and though we disagree I respect your right to express them here, but I'm not holding my breath or expecting you to offer me the same courtesy without all the snide comments.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

The title of this thread is misleading in that it implies that this is some action by the catholic church or by a majority of catholics. It should be more like "Small minority of catholic bishops sue Obama".

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

I think that when Notre Dame sues the President it is news worthy.

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Notre Dame is all washed up.

---

When the overwhelming majority of Americans did not agree with Bush, I guess that you did not find that newsworthy. Picking and choosing the stories that put Obama in a bad light does not make him look bad, it makes you look like a troll.

The comment about I made about help is that people that are constantly negative without offering a solution are beyond help. Yes, we disagree about what this country better, yet I have hasked you, repeatedly, to let us know reasons why Romney would be a better person for the job (you take these as chances to only beat up Obama, nothing else). No one can fix someone who is determined to be a complainer.

Nothing I say will change your opinion and really, I could not care less about you; I just wanted an answer to why a middle class person should vote for Mitt instead or Obama and you have nothing.

PS: You are not one to talk about others comments being snide.

---

I'm a troll because I oppose Obama? What is this, the MacResourceForObama forum?

I'm for Romney because I want Hope and Change.. Fair enough? He may not be perfect, but it won't be a vote for another four years of Obamanomics.

I cherry pick topics that make Obama look bad? You bet I do. That's what " the opposition" does, John. Obama's supporters are certainly not going to point out his foibles. You do understand that in America you don't have to agree with the "majority" (unless you are working for an America where we are not allowed to disagree).

Oh, John, you must care about me or you wouldn't be so concerned about trying to " fix" me. You must be very frustrated after all these years of trying. LOL

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Nope, you are a troll because you are a cynic and more often than not, a liar.

I never watned to "fix" you (your words); I wanted to get an answer to why a woman and who is probably middle class would vote against their interests with the GOP. They do not give a @#$%& about the middle class and they give less than a @#$%& about you as a woman. It must suck to realize that and STILL feel the need to support them.

The fact that you would double down and more on the GOP proves that there is no hope for people like you.

---

the economy has been on a gradual rebuild since Obama was sworn in.

slowly but surely.

i don't want to see Romney-rama wreck all that. more middle class being squashed, more super-wealthy being supported by corporate welfare.

no thanks.

---

[www.giyf.com]