- Status
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
[BIBLEDRB]Mark 14:66-68[/BIBLEDRB]
Catholics betraying one of their own. This is just sad. Shows you how many Catholics in the state of Ohio are poorly catechized.
Catholics betraying one of their own. This is just sad. Shows you how many Catholics in the state of Ohio are poorly catechized.
I
ishii
Guest
Did it ever occur to you that maybe those catholics are voting for Romney because they think Romney has the best chance of beating Obama? I would have voted for Romney over Santorum for that very reason - had I not been late for my state’s caucus last Saturday.
Ishii
H
Havard
Guest
I’m supporting Romney’s bid for the nomination… please elaborate how I’m a poorly catechized betrayer.
M
mini_me640
Guest
Catholics are not obligated to vote for Catholics only. Especially when the other candidate likely had a better shot at defeating the incumbent who is so clearly in opposition of our views. I probably would have voted for Santorum, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong for Catholics not to.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Just because he seems to be a good CAtholic has no bearing on whether he would be a good President.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
My reply to all of you has already been made: Mitt Romney forced the Catholic Church to provide abortifacient morning after pills.
When asked this question in a debate, of whether he forced Catholics to provide contraception in Massachusetts, Romney said: “No, absolutely not, of course not”. A week later every media organization that did a fact check on it all said that that statement was a lie. From as far right as Rush Limbaugh and the Weekly Standard, to the middle ground in the Boston Globe, all the way to the Huffington Post.
Here, want me to spam the links I have sitting on my desktop: Here you go:
1.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1951/20/5120905
2.bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/did-romney-lie-about-cardinal-omalley-to-the-nation-during-the-wednesday-debate/
3.weeklystandard.com/blogs/were-catholic-hospitals-massachusetts-forced-provide-morning-after-pills_631848.html
4.spectator.org/blog/2012/02/23/romney-lied-about-forcing-cath
5.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/08/2005_romney_flip_flopped_forced_catholic_hospitals_to_distribute_morning_after_pill
6.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/03/mitt_romney_caught_in_inconsistency_in_blast_at_barack_obama_for_forcing_catholic_institutions_to_provide_insured_birth_control/
7.westernprogressive.com/2012/02/romneys-contraception-position-as-governor-more-liberal-than-obamas.html
I made this case on the Republican thread, and no one responded to it, here’s the link to my post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9045818&postcount=851
There, hope that’s enough of a response to the 4 people who asked me to respond. Because of Mitt Romney’s actions I will not vote for him. And the overarching reason is because he denied doing it, and everyone else… all his rivals, all the media, all the people in Massachusetts said that he did do it.
So, I might’ve voted for him if he said he had a change of heart and regretted it. But, NO. In the year 2005 Mitt Romney attacked the Catholic Church, and now he’s lying about it. And, all of those links corraborate that he’s lying about it according to their fact checkers.
No, none of y’all are obligated to vote for Santorum. But, because of his egregious assault on the Catholic Church as governor of Massachusetts, I will campaign against Mitt Romney if he is our nominee. And I will vote for someone who is principled.
If the Democrats and Republicans BOTH nominate people who forced the Catholic Church to provide contraception, my message to them with my vote is: I don’t vote for people that have had Bishops denounce their policies (U.S. Bishops rarely do that) The Bishop is mentioned in that Lifesite news article… he was assured that there would be a religious exemption, and then one day later he learned that Romneycare actually had overridden the religious exemption… which was past law. IE: It wasn’t something Romney put into law, but Romneycare sure as anything made it obsolete.
When asked this question in a debate, of whether he forced Catholics to provide contraception in Massachusetts, Romney said: “No, absolutely not, of course not”. A week later every media organization that did a fact check on it all said that that statement was a lie. From as far right as Rush Limbaugh and the Weekly Standard, to the middle ground in the Boston Globe, all the way to the Huffington Post.
Here, want me to spam the links I have sitting on my desktop: Here you go:
1.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1951/20/5120905
2.bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/did-romney-lie-about-cardinal-omalley-to-the-nation-during-the-wednesday-debate/
3.weeklystandard.com/blogs/were-catholic-hospitals-massachusetts-forced-provide-morning-after-pills_631848.html
4.spectator.org/blog/2012/02/23/romney-lied-about-forcing-cath
5.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/08/2005_romney_flip_flopped_forced_catholic_hospitals_to_distribute_morning_after_pill
6.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/02/03/mitt_romney_caught_in_inconsistency_in_blast_at_barack_obama_for_forcing_catholic_institutions_to_provide_insured_birth_control/
7.westernprogressive.com/2012/02/romneys-contraception-position-as-governor-more-liberal-than-obamas.html
I made this case on the Republican thread, and no one responded to it, here’s the link to my post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9045818&postcount=851
There, hope that’s enough of a response to the 4 people who asked me to respond. Because of Mitt Romney’s actions I will not vote for him. And the overarching reason is because he denied doing it, and everyone else… all his rivals, all the media, all the people in Massachusetts said that he did do it.
So, I might’ve voted for him if he said he had a change of heart and regretted it. But, NO. In the year 2005 Mitt Romney attacked the Catholic Church, and now he’s lying about it. And, all of those links corraborate that he’s lying about it according to their fact checkers.
No, none of y’all are obligated to vote for Santorum. But, because of his egregious assault on the Catholic Church as governor of Massachusetts, I will campaign against Mitt Romney if he is our nominee. And I will vote for someone who is principled.
If the Democrats and Republicans BOTH nominate people who forced the Catholic Church to provide contraception, my message to them with my vote is: I don’t vote for people that have had Bishops denounce their policies (U.S. Bishops rarely do that) The Bishop is mentioned in that Lifesite news article… he was assured that there would be a religious exemption, and then one day later he learned that Romneycare actually had overridden the religious exemption… which was past law. IE: It wasn’t something Romney put into law, but Romneycare sure as anything made it obsolete.
Y
Yerusalyim
Guest
Rick Santorum has absolutely no chance of defeating Obama in the General Election. Ergo, I’m going with Romney.
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Yeah, and I’m voting for Angela Merkel !!! AHHAHAHAH
L
L_piperatus
Guest
Wow!
This should have been a separate thread in its own right. It’s a pity the mods don’t allow separate threads on important issues - thus I missed your post #851 in the other thread.
As far as I’m concerned, this disqualifies Romney. He is not eligible for my vote.
I
ishii
Guest
Getting beyond the hyperbole, SemperZalere, it needs to be pointed out that the contraception mandate in Massachusetts was passed before Romney became governor and that he is guilty, at worst, of not getting rid of that mandate, even while trying to get rid of other mandates. The truth is always a little more complicated than the picture you paint. Romney seemed to have as his goal that of saving money first and foremost - to the neglect of paying any attention to getting rid of the mandate. Am I disappointed that he didn’t abolish the mandate in Massachusetts while governor? Am I disappointed in Romney-care? You bet. That, however,does not rise anywhere near to the level of truly secular leftist anti-catholic ideological bent of the kind that Obama represents, and it is wrong to conflate what Romney did (or didn’t do) with what Obama is doing right now. Would Romney sign a bill passed by a GOP congress repealing the HHS mandate? Of course he would. Would he sign a bill that repealed Obama care? Of course he would. Would he nominate justices in the mold of Scalia or Alito? I believe he would.
Yay! three cheers for fiery rhetoric and hyperbole. That is all it is.
Ishii
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
Yeah, this is not some madeup smear attack. This really seems to be legitimate.Wow!
This should have been a separate thread in its own right. It’s a pity the mods don’t allow separate threads on important issues - thus I missed your post #851 in the other thread.
As far as I’m concerned, this disqualifies Romney. He is not eligible for my vote.
And, it’s gotten me so angry and upset with politics, that when I mentioned it once before than in the Republican thread everyone said I was “in the tank” for Newt Gingrich, and that I just had it out to get Romney.
Well… I provided all the evidence. And if y’all look at it, you’ll all be as upset as I am. And, it is a surprise. I mean, even if you’re a moderate Republican we expect that this wouldn’t happen from ANY Republican. If you want to take my emotion out of it, just read the facts. The facts are there.
I don’t have anything against moderate Republicans. John McCain was my 2nd choice last time around, and I enthusiastically supported him in the general. Mitt Romney on the other hand, I simply cannot vote for him. We must pick Rick Santorum. Because if Mitt is the nominee… plenty of people will simply be unable to vote for him. Because of this, and because of other things like this.
Yeah, well it’s based in truth. In truth Mitt Romney did the same thing Obama did. Why can’t you believe that evil can affect a Republican just as much as a Democrat? Everythings so 2 party with you.
Well, I’m not going to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. And I don’t want to hear the copy and paste responses that Mitt Romney is using about this.
He lied to a Bishop according to LIFESITE NEWS. That’s as Catholic as you can get in the media. That’s all I need to hear. And corroborated by that other Catholic blog… if you find a CATHOLIC source which denies this, then I MIGHT respond to your case.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I’m assuming he lost the Catholic women’s vote too. I believe he did women across the board. Maybe if there hadn’t been so much talk of contraception leading up to Ohio, he’d have held onto his earlier lead there in the polls, and despite the Romney machine’s onslaught of spending, Santorum may have held on for the win. But we’ll never know now. This from someone who was hoping for a Santorum win there.
I
ishii
Guest
You really should point out to anyone who might not know, that you were hoping for a Santorum win so that Obama - who is your candidate - would have an easy re-election. Otherwise you are being very misleading.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
As are my comments, if you read them.
No, he didn’t. Obama initiated his mandate. Romney, at the worst, was neglegent in not getting rid of the mandate.
Cut it out - I didn’t get personal with you.
The evil of Obama’s premeditated, secular/leftist ideology-driven attack on the Catholic church will be allowed to continue if you sit out the general election in a fit of self-righteous anger.
You’re right - you haven’t really responded to my case.
Ishii
C
CMatt25
Guest
Actually Ishii I’d like to see an Obama - Santorum race so the country finally has a chance to settle once and for all where it really stands between center- left and far right. True I think the far right would take a bath. And I know you might think Romney gives us a similar choice. But I think there would be an even clearer choice if Santorum were the nominee. But for those who didn’t know, thanks for clearing up between the 2, who I am likely going to vote for now. Or more clearly, who I am likely to be voting against.
I
ishii
Guest
I agree that sometimes it would be nice to just have it out once and for all - far left liberal vs. far right conservative. The thing is - we’ve had elections between liberals and conservative - and the consevative almost always wins - in 1980 and 1984 and Reagan won both by landslides. Bush was more of a moderate but ran as a conservative to Dukakis’ liberalism and also won by a landslide. Ross Perot helped ensure that Bush lost his re-election bid to the moderate Clinton (but also Bush hurt himself because he had raised taxes - a very unconservative thing to do). Clinton won during a time of peace and prosperity - while announcing that “the era of big government is over.” Bush II ran as a moderate conservative to Gore’s liberalism - a draw, decided by the supreme court. Then won again against the liberal Kerry. And so on. McCain lost to Bush/GOP fatigue, the recession, Obama’s hope and change, history, and a lousy campaign. The country is basically center right. In most situations, everything else being equal, the more conservative candidate will win.
I think Santorum would lose too - party because Obama and the mainstream media has been successful in making the HHS mandate not about religious freedom (which is the real issue) but about contraceptives. Santorum’s views have to seems to most Americans as quaint at best, self-righteous moralizing at worst. Santorum also sometimes hurts himself by being less than presidential on the stump. Obama has a billion dollars to smear his opponent - Santorum would give him many opportunities.
Ishii
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
No, Rick Santorum does not have a women problem:
campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/no-rick-santorum-doesnt-have-woman-problem/415621
L
L_piperatus
Guest
If the infanticide-supporting Obama is center-left, I wonder what should we expect from the far-left of Obama’s party?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Communism. Just look at the Occupy Wall Street crowd.If the infanticide-supporting Obama is center-left, I wonder what should we expect from the far-left of Obama’s party?
- Status