Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tampa_Dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
Classic. The fact that any Catholic can still support Obama…is mind boggling! Has everyone seen the movie, “For Greater Glory?”
Click to expand...
How can anyone given the gift of faith support Obama? :confused:
How can anyone given the gift of reason support Obama? :confused:
How can anyone given the gift of life support Obama? :confused:
 
Trader said:
How can anyone given the gift of faith support Obama? :confused:
How can anyone given the gift of reason support Obama? :confused:
How can anyone given the gift of life support Obama? :confused:
Click to expand...
You could ask the same questions about Hitler and substitute German Catholic for “anyone.” Some did, you know.
 
AlaskaMan said:
Barring a complete miracle, Romney is going to lose this election’s electoral college. I am a scientist and have done statistics and modeling my entire career. I am a math geek and watch the polls intently and follow the best modeling and modelers out there. Romney really has no path to 270. He has NEVER polled ahead of Obama in Nevada. He won’t win it. He has also polled behind Obama in Ohio and Iowa about 90% of the time. He is not winning either.

Rasmussen polls (which tend to be most of Romney’s favorable polls) are notorious for over sampling older people, who tend to vote GOP. This is because Rass uses robocalling and calls only hard line phones (no cell-phone only phones). He also does a fair amount of polling Friday and Saturday evenings – again, when young democratic leaning folks tend to be out. These work good during midterm elections (where Rass tends to poll really accurately), when younger and less motivated people stay home, but he tends to do poorly in Presidential elections. Gallup’s polls have gone the way of John Zogby, and I no longer consider them a reputable organization.

Look to Quinnipiac U. for the most consistently accurate polling (as noted by Reuters, Washington Post, and others) over time.
Click to expand...
Romney is going to win and win big
 
AlaskaMan said:
Barring a complete miracle, Romney is going to lose this election’s electoral college. I am a scientist and have done statistics and modeling my entire career. I am a math geek and watch the polls intently and follow the best modeling and modelers out there. Romney really has no path to 270. He has NEVER polled ahead of Obama in Nevada. He won’t win it. He has also polled behind Obama in Ohio and Iowa about 90% of the time. He is not winning either.

Rasmussen polls (which tend to be most of Romney’s favorable polls) are notorious for over sampling older people, who tend to vote GOP. This is because Rass uses robocalling and calls only hard line phones (no cell-phone only phones). He also does a fair amount of polling Friday and Saturday evenings – again, when young democratic leaning folks tend to be out. These work good during midterm elections (where Rass tends to poll really accurately), when younger and less motivated people stay home, but he tends to do poorly in Presidential elections. Gallup’s polls have gone the way of John Zogby, and I no longer consider them a reputable organization.

Look to Quinnipiac U. for the most consistently accurate polling (as noted by Reuters, Washington Post, and others) over time.
Click to expand...
Well we soon shall see. With all due deference to statistics, probabilities, predictions and gut feelings … I’m a baseball geek and I could never have imagined a World Series between a team tied for the fourth best record in the NL playing the team with the seventh best record in the AL. Talk about miracles - wouldn’t I have liked to have predicted THAT and had some Vegas odds on it. 🙂

In some ways the scoreboard is really 0 - 0. I am bracing myself for another Bush-Gore marathon election that is close and disputed.

There are many factors such as turnout, enthusiasm (abstaining, lethargy) that can change things as much as the intangibles in a baseball game. Many so-called blue states have Republican Senators or Governors … which makes one wonder if it can’t happen in the Presidential race too.

If Mitt Romney goes to the White House after a surprise win … he will then pose with the visiting San Francisco Giants later in the year. Which was probably an even more unlikely pick to go to the White House.
 
estesbob said:
Romney is going to win and win big
Click to expand...
Yes. Your very optimistic attitude is one that I relied upon to say that it wouldn’t make any difference if a fence-sitting Catholic were to vote for Obama. He’s going to lose so voting for him is no different from voting for a 3rd party candidate. :).
 
AlaskaMan said:
Barring a complete miracle, Romney is going to lose this election’s electoral college. I am a scientist and have done statistics and modeling my entire career. I am a math geek and watch the polls intently and follow the best modeling and modelers out there. Romney really has no path to 270. He has NEVER polled ahead of Obama in Nevada. He won’t win it. He has also polled behind Obama in Ohio and Iowa about 90% of the time. He is not winning either.

Rasmussen polls (which tend to be most of Romney’s favorable polls) are notorious for over sampling older people, who tend to vote GOP. This is because Rass uses robocalling and calls only hard line phones (no cell-phone only phones). He also does a fair amount of polling Friday and Saturday evenings – again, when young democratic leaning folks tend to be out. These work good during midterm elections (where Rass tends to poll really accurately), when younger and less motivated people stay home, but he tends to do poorly in Presidential elections. Gallup’s polls have gone the way of John Zogby, and I no longer consider them a reputable organization.

Look to Quinnipiac U. for the most consistently accurate polling (as noted by Reuters, Washington Post, and others) over time.
Click to expand...
Re your final note, please go to Hugh Hewitt’s site and see the interview with the Quinnipiac Polling head. He admitted to grossly oversampling Democrats on a 2008 model for his current polling. There is no way the turnout for Dems will be as high as 2008. Whatever you might say about Rasmussen, he has been accurate in recent election.

Polling was incorrect in the recent Scott Walker recount. He received more votes than in his initial election although polling indicated it was a squeaker.

Michael Medved had a column that indicated it will be difficult for Obama to win because no sitting President has won without receiving MORE, not less of his earlier support groups. Obama has lost Independents, his youth vote has evaporated, even some of the conservative (socially ) black vote is questionable. Who is enthusiastic about Obama this time? Dyed in the wool Dems will slog on and vote for him but the fainting females, razzle dazzle, Greek columns are no longer in evidence.

While I have no clue what would make ANYONE vote for Obama at this point (four more years of stagnent economy, Middle East debacles, over regulations and business strangling philosophy, Obamacare, not to mention life issues…the list is long) an incumbent always has a bit of an edge. But I think there are many who might outwardly pretend they are supporters but in the privacy of the voting booth are going to pull the lever for Romney…I bet Bill and Hil are two of them. This man has been a huge disappointment to his supporters but every criticism is taken as racism. Better to pretend to be among the elite who are among the few smart enough to appreciate Obama while secretly hoping he loses.

I certainly do.

Lisa
 
God Bless Bishop Jenky. He has incredible integrity in his role as Bishop and Priest.

I am not voting for President Obama, who I frankly admire in many respects and for the good he has done, out of obedience to the teaching offered by our American Bishops. Life and religious liberty trumps social justice.

**I am also not voting for Romney in order to be in compliance with the social teaching of the magisterium. I definitely do not admire his or Ryan’s actions in the campaign and cannot vote for someone who subscribes to the Ayn Rand philosophy of Objectivism. Therefore, I abstain. **This is the first time in my adult life that I have not voted for President I think. And it is really difficult for me. When I think of the terrible suffering of women whose actions enabled me and other women to vote, something about this feels really wrong.

Below replied by NIMZOVIK

Bolding mine:

Oh yes? Could you elaborate?

Is not the ridding ourselves of the evil of Obama’s rabid abortion funding the Prime Directive?

Well, this was difficult to recover!

Read Benedict XVl’s encyclicals for current Catholic Social teaching. Very clear that and economic system that does not distribute wealth, good and services is not Christian.
Read also Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, or google Rand’s Objectivism. Both are very seductive in terms of touting excellence, until you look beyond the trapping to see thatthis is a culture of elite achievers who owe nothing to other, non acheivers, or persons who occupy less than high economic status.
Oh, I think there are token nurses, or teachers given short shrift in the last chapters. It is a philosophy of economic self-interest and, without saying so, exploitation. It is 180 degrees from Catholic Social teaching.

So I decline to vote for one out of obedience and decline to vote for the other out of conscience. Never thought to see the day.
 
estesbob said:
Romney is going to win and win big
Click to expand...
I think it was Nathan Hale who said,
I only regret that I have but one vote to cast for Mr Romney.

It is too late for me to move back to Illinois and vote more often.
 
pnewton said:
I normally do not like to speak for another, but I had the same dilemna. Abortion exists because of the philosophy that morality is a matter of self-interest. Jesus told us that if we hate our brother, we commit murder in our heart. That is because our attitude of murder is a sin equal unto murder. Even in law, attempted murder carries a penalty, in some cases, as murder.

So, if we keep the philosphy of utilitarian self-interest, abortion will never be elimitated, or even reduced. We have two wars, one for the culture and then the political/legal war. It is hard to say which will be most effective in stopping abortion, but I lean toward winning the culture first.
Click to expand...
Thanks pnewton: you put it better than I could.
 
I think it shows a real lack of concern for the impoverished to read something like this. It is dangerously militant and undermines the free will of people in the congregation.
 
Et_Cetera said:
I think it shows a real lack of concern for the impoverished to read something like this. It is dangerously militant and undermines the free will of people in the congregation.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The bishop’s letter?
 
LisaA said:
Re your final note, please go to Hugh Hewitt’s site and see the interview with the Quinnipiac Polling head. He admitted to grossly oversampling Democrats on a 2008 model for his current polling.
Click to expand...
That is not correct and you should not put such conjecture out there. Please note that Quinnipiac does **NOT **and NEVER has “adjusted” their polls for demographics. They have always simply reported the data as collected. He admitted that he did not believe the numbers from the Florida poll in September (i.e. an outlier), but that he reported them anyway.

Just a note, statistically speaking, at a p-value of .05 (statistically significant) one in every 20 polls is an outlier. Crazy that everyone went cuckoo bananas on the pollster over this result.

However, note that it was one poll for Florida taken one time, and herein lies the issue with pollsters. I evaluate trend lines, since looking at a poll in a vacuum is an exercise in futility. This is why I am quite confident Romney is toast. He MUST win Ohio. He is not going to do it. He will not win PA, WI, or MN. That would be GOP Nirvana, but it is not happening this cycle.
.
Click to expand...
Michael Medved had a column that indicated it will be difficult for Obama to win because no sitting President has won without receiving MORE, not less of his earlier support groups.
Click to expand...
Michael Medved is a radio talk show host. He has a law degree. He is not a scientist (though his dad was), nor is he a statistician.
Obama has lost Independents, his youth vote has evaporated, even some of the conservative (socially ) black vote is questionable. Who is enthusiastic about Obama this time? Dyed in the wool Dems will slog on and vote for him but the fainting females, razzle dazzle, Greek columns are no longer in evidence.
Click to expand...
Recent polling does not support this. The latest Ohio polling shows Obama winning independents by over 10%.
I bet Bill and Hil are two of them
Click to expand...
I would think not, and such statements just show the lack of empirical thinking clouded by partisan yearnings.
Better to pretend to be among the elite who are among the few smart enough to appreciate Obama while secretly hoping he loses.
Click to expand...
I certainly do.
Click to expand...
Lisa
Click to expand...
That last statement really does not make sense. I am not sure what you are trying to say. However, the point is, it is statistically likely that Romney loses the electoral college. That facts are what they are. I could be surprised. It happens. People win the lottery sometimes.

And on edit, while I understand the anti-Obama sentiment, I do not understand the Romney approval here. Mormons are most definitely NOT Christians despite what they claim. One only has to look at their core beliefs to understand that they do not worship the God of Abraham.
 
seekerz said:
I respect the bishop’s decision. It would be instructive if he might likewise enlighten us on the implications to our faith from voting for Romney, since Obamacare is based to a large extent on his model of health care. I understand that task might be a tad more difficult given that it is so difficult to hold the gentleman in question to a specific position…but maybe his tenure in Massachusetts could be a starting point?
Click to expand...
Now now,no need to be snarky.This isn’t a dem or rep issue.Faith first.Obama is decidedly anti Catholic/Christian,in every way.I believe this is why the Bishops,priests are speaking up.They are responsible for guiding their flock.With so many gone astray,either intentionally or through lack of understanding the faith,it is of the upmost importance that there be clarity re what is at stake in voting for Obama and his destructive policies.God Bless America
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top