Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Your snide remark about democrats talking Hitler out of WWII, has nothing to do with the real issue being presented here.

Jim
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with pointing out history - its not snide at all. The ones who wanted to "talk Hitler out of WW2 were the appeasers - led by Neville Chamberlain. The liberals of that time (FDR) knew he had to be dealt with militarily. But appeasement found a home in the modern Democrat party during the 60’s and still survives to this day. The most striking examples were the foreign policies proposed by Democrats during the 70’s and 80’s. They thought peace would come from disarmament and agreements signed by Soviet thug dictators. John Kerry is an example of a Democrat who is still around who was a part of that mentality. The Democrat party has never been fully called to task for their reckless weak foreign policy - except at the ballot box.

Ishii
 
Mitt Romney HAS flipped flopped on abortion, among other things. But he’s slightly more
conservative than Obama, making him the lessor of two evils. :crying::
 
iloveangels said:
The HHS mandate requires virtually all employers to buy insurance that covers abortion, birth control and reproductive services of various kinds including the morning-after pill.

The ONLY religious exemptions are very clearly laid out:
  1. The organization must hold a nonprofit tax status,
  2. have as its primary focus the “inculcation of religious values” (i.e., teaching or preaching doctrine),
  3. employ individuals who share its core religious beliefs, and
  4. primarily serve co-religionists or people who share the same beliefs.
Only formal houses of worship can claim these things are true, and even they will have to be very careful about their contacts with non-Catholics.

Most religious orders will not qualify for exemption if they have any outreach activity or they run any sort of school, hospital, food bank, public kitchen, college etc. etc. They will all effectively be cloistered (or quarantined, depending on how you think about it.). Religious apostolates will be a thing of the past.
Click to expand...
As I have said before, there is a very simple compromise. People who object to covering any of the reproductive issues based on well-known religious grounds do not have to provide that coverage.
However, their employees must be allowed the option to purchase that coverage as an addition to the policy.

Seems fair…the religious groups have no involvement with anything they find objectionable, and those who want the coverage can get it.

John
 
Do you think that CAF will pay the fines (taxes) or contract to buy the insurance for their employees??

They employ people who don’t make the definition of Church employees. They serve the general population. This is an apostolate.
 
oldcelt said:
As I have said before, there is a very simple compromise. People who object to covering any of the reproductive issues based on well-known religious grounds do not have to provide that coverage.
However, their employees must be allowed the option to purchase that coverage as an addition to the policy.

Seems fair…the religious groups have no involvement with anything they find objectionable, and those who want the coverage can get it.

John
Click to expand...
Okay, let’s get concrete. Because I don’t think you understand this at all.

Do you think that the local OFM will buy the insurance and continue his apostolate OR do you think he will go to the friary and stay there for the exemption?
 
iloveangels said:
Okay, let’s get concrete. Because I don’t think you understand this at all.

Do you think that the local OFM will buy the insurance and continue his apostolate OR do you think he will go to the friary and stay there for the exemption?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you read my post. I would eliminate the HHS mandate in favor of a buy-in system.

The basic coverage for religious groups, I’d even go as far as everyone, would not include any coverage for contraception, or abortion. Those desiring that coverage would be able to add that to their coverage at their own cost.

Who can object to that?

John
 
oldcelt said:
I don’t think you read my post. I would eliminate the HHS mandate in favor of a buy-in system.

The basic coverage for religious groups, I’d even go as far as everyone, would not include any coverage for contraception, or abortion. Those desiring that coverage would be able to add that to their coverage at their own cost.

Who can object to that?

John
Click to expand...
YOU don’t have that option. The law is what it is. Have you even read what it REQUIRES??? What do you think the Pope and the American Cardinals have been talking about for the entire past year???

heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/obamacares-preventive-services-mandate-and-religious-liberty

There are plenty of links to this information. This is just one. Look it up. Read the details. Be aware: THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE DEMOCRATS DID THIS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Now you may be one of those many who were already paying for some of this coverage already because you don’t work for the Church, and you may think that it’s not going to affect you. But that’s not the case for most of the Catholic Church’s employees. It’s simply not. It’s going to be very costly.
 
iloveangels said:
YOU don’t have that option. The law is what it is. Have you even read what it REQUIRES??? What do you think the Pope and the American Cardinals have been talking about for the entire past year???

heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/obamacares-preventive-services-mandate-and-religious-liberty

There are plenty of links to this information. This is just one. Look it up. Read the details. Be aware: THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE DEMOCRATS DID THIS TO CATHOLICS. It’s timed to bite and bite hard AFTER the election. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Click to expand...
I guess I still one who believes that compromise is always possible, if, the parties are willing to be reasonable.

John
 
oldcelt said:
I guess I still one who believes that compromise is always possible, if, the parties are willing to be reasonable.

John
Click to expand...
There has been nothing reasonable about any of this.

I’m shocked how many Catholics are democrats first.
 
So in response to my question about the OFM, you think that the law isn’t serious and he (or his order) won’t have to pay any IRS-collectable tax if he goes out on the streets after refusing to buy insurance, right?

Not to mention the fact that he’s going to lose his health insurance in the bargain.

Or do you think he’d ought to just look the other way and buy abortion coverage?
 
oldcelt said:
I guess I still one who believes that compromise is always possible, if, the parties are willing to be reasonable.

John
Click to expand...
PS. You mean, the kind of reasonable that this country has been about that other Supreme Court decision? The one in 1973–the Roe vs. Wade one?
 
iloveangels said:
So in response to my question about the OFM, you think that the law isn’t serious and he (or his order) won’t have to pay any IRS-collectable tax if he goes out on the streets after refusing to buy insurance, right?

Not to mention the fact that he’s going to lose his health insurance in the bargain.

Or do you think he’d ought to just look the other way and buy abortion coverage?
Click to expand...
If he chooses to go on the streets when a plan is available that does not cover abortion…remember my suggested compromise…then that would be his choice.

You are talking past the compromise…nothing is carved in stone and the Democrats may be many things, but they are not stupid. If they can see a political advantage in changing the coverage options…it will happen.

John
 
oldcelt said:
If he chooses to go on the streets when a plan is available that does not cover abortion…remember my suggested compromise…then that would be his choice.

You are talking past the compromise…nothing is carved in stone and the Democrats may be many things, but they are not stupid. If they can see a political advantage in changing the coverage options…it will happen.

John
Click to expand...
John, you don’t seem to be in the same universe as the law. The law HAS BEEN PASSED. It is effective US law. There is NO COMPROMISE. This is what we have to work with. Now, you can dwell in the land of daisies and butterflies if you want but the law is going to take effect anyway, with you or without you.

BTW, I beg to differ about the prospects of the law. The democrats think this law is to their benefit in the same way they think Roe vs. Wade is to their benefit and the same way they think Sandra Fluke is to their benefit. That’s why they do what they do.

They have been rewarded for all this stuff by the population. This issue is no different. The dream of a universal health bill was nirvana for these people. They are not going to dismantle it. It keeps the slaves on the plantation because it enables them to give things away for “free,” and that’s their bread and butter.
 
iloveangels said:
John, you don’t seem to be in the same universe as the law. The law HAS BEEN PASSED. It is effective US law. There is NO COMPROMISE. This is what we have to work with. Now, you can dwell in the land of daisies and butterflies if you want but the law is going to take effect anyway, with you or without you.

BTW, I beg to differ about the prospects of the law. The democrats think this law is to their benefit in the same way they think Roe vs. Wade is to their benefit and the same way they think Sandra Fluke is to their benefit. That’s why they do what they do.

They have been rewarded for all this stuff by the population. This issue is no different. The dream of a universal health bill was nirvana for these people. They are not going to dismantle it. It keeps the slaves on the plantation because it enables them to give things away for “free,” and that’s their bread and butter.
Click to expand...
Have any of these dire provisions been implemented? No…there is still plenty of time to amend the act or the President would not have offered the compromises that he did.

If you are objecting to any form of national health plan, then I’m afraid you are out of luck. If you are only objecting to the provisions that the Church objects to, there is plenty of hope and time.

By the way, in all this conversation I have never accused you of having your head in the clouds or anything of the type.

Please extend me the same courtesy.

John
 
John, I just don’t see where you get the idea that this isn’t going to go into effect, any more than I think that Roe vs. Wade is going to be defeated anytime soon. It’s law.

I think Catholics who think that this can’t happen are fooling themselves totally.

Maybe a lot of them don’t care, no matter what they say. I’m thinking this is likely, and that perception is increasing rapidly. In which case, the institutional church is going to get a long overdue jolt of reality, which won’t hurt them in the long run. It’ll clear the air.

There’s only one paltry good thing about all this, and that’s that it’s going to make a lot of things a lot clearer, I think. It’ll be interesting to see what really happens, I think.
 
The Democrats aren’t weakening the “official Church” they are doing an end-run around it like the Communist Chinese, establishing a house church, with elements within the LCWR ready to descend to their priestesshood, provide deathscorts to abortion clinics, and enable sin, especially sexual sin, in a vote-getting popularity race to Hell; all on our tax dollar, tithes, and the mortgaged future of the dumbed-down children who survive. God, chastise us Yourself if needs be, and deliver us from our enemies and Yours. Thanks. AMEN
 
nordskoven said:
The Democrats aren’t weakening the “official Church” they are doing an end-run around it like the Communist Chinese, establishing a house church, with elements within the LCWR ready to descend to their priestesshood, provide deathscorts to abortion clinics, and enable sin, especially sexual sin, in a vote-getting popularity race to Hell; all on our tax dollar, tithes, and the mortgaged future of the dumbed-down children who survive. God, chastise us Yourself if needs be, and deliver us from our enemies and Yours. Thanks. AMEN
Click to expand...
I’m not sure whether it’s that ideological or not. I dont’ think that many Americans care that much in that way. Some Catholics do. And in that sense, I think the Democrats are manipulating what they’ve found to their own ends, yes. Their own ends are much more political and crass and involve sex, money and power.

The Catholic church will always exist in the USA. I’m not sure what happens next. I hope John is right, but I personally don’t think he is.
 
iloveangels said:
You have to remember that the Catholic population in the US is about 22% by self-identification, which is telling. The actual number of Catholics who ever really frequent the Church on any regular basis in the US is in the single digits. the second largest religious group in the US, about 10.1%, is ex-Catholics. This is well-documented although many Catholics don’t really want to admit it.

The official church is a very handy target for anyone wanting to point and sneer at anyone who has standards of any sort. Cardinals and bishops dress funny. We have a recent scandal involving children. We aren’t supposed to believe in birth control although most Catholics take it anyway, and we aren’t supposed to believe in abortion, although our abortion rates are almost identical to those in the general population anyway. We talk negatively about divorce but we have our own version of getting around all this and everyone knows it (they’re dealing with our craziness on this very topic in Rome this year). The commitment of vast numbers of Catholics to the Church is weak for a huge number of reasons. We are the best target anyone could ask for.

The Democrats aren’t stupid, if what you mean is that they aren’t a group of people with low IQs. They have a strategy and it’s a good one from a gaming point of view. Beat up on somebody and use them as a scapegoat and you can get what you want. Oldest trick in the book.
Click to expand...
I really think you are reading too much into this. The President is attempting to implement something that has been talked about for decades. There are going to be bumps.

I also think that you underestimate the American people. They have a history of not sitting idly by while others are being persecuted.

One final point, I believe there are some within the Church who will accept nothing less than this law reflecting their view of Catholic teaching. That is not likely to happen, but so long as Catholics are not forced to support something that they view as evil, that should be enough.

Remember, all of us, as US citizens, occasionally see tax dollars being spent on things we do not support. I understand that abortion holds a special place in these issues, but if a compromise can be reached whereby a Catholic is not directly or indirectly funding abortion, that should do it.

I remain optimistic.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top