Catholics sue Obama

[RgrF]

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. wrote:

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

[Bill in NC]

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

Lux Interior wrote:

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!

[swampy]

Dennis S wrote:
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.

[john dough]

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.

[swampy]

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".

[john dough]

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.

[decay]

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

this Fall will be another one.

[Pam]

swampy wrote:
[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.

[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.

[john dough]

There is no help for people like you.