Three Positive Signs for Obama's Re-Election Chances

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
Perhaps you could post something, anything from any Church leader to back up your opinions on Church teaching
Click to expand...
Does Sinead O’Connor count? She is a priest, isn’t she? I think she goes by the name Mother Bernadette Mary.
 
CMatt25 said:
If the sick do not have adequate, affordable healthcare, they could die. If the hungry do not have food, they could die. If the homeless do not have shelter, they might die. If the marginalized or less fortunate are faced with choosing between food on the table for their children or taking their prescription medication, they could die. If the environment is not protected, God’s creation could die. As George W Bush convinced us that Iraq had WMD, I recall watching the bombs beginning to drop. And people were killed. Peace.
Click to expand...
It is more expensive now than it was before Obama to buy health coverage. Obama has shifted reimbursement from the chronically ill to “well care”. He has mandated chemical abortion coverage for Catholic institutions. Even Obama admitted that Obamacare would still leave about the same number uninsured as before. And Obama didn’t want Obamacare anyway. That’s a strike out. But hey, let us know how many people Obamacare has saved from death for the calculations.

Please provide the statistics on the number of people in the U.S. who starve to death each year. Until you reach 1.2 million starvation deaths, you have not balanced out the annual murders in the abortuaries which Obama supports.

Might just as well provide the stats on the number of people who die because they buy food instead of medication. You can add that to the ones who starve to death and see if it comes to 1.2 million.

Well, and you can add the number of people in Iraq who were killed by Americans and who were not combatants. You will divide that by 9 of course to get the annual figure

Are you at 1.2 million yet? As soon as you provide credible sources for your numbers, the comparisons can be made.

And, just so we’ll know, provide the number of people (and the NEW programs by which he did it) to whom Obama provided food over the number to whom Bush provided it. Also, of course, except for abortifacients, what has Obama added to Bush’s prescription drug plan? And you might as well deduct from the total killed in Iraq the number Obama has killed in Afghanistan.

Well, and you might want to add the Obama deaths in Libya to his column.
 
ringil said:
I knew the quote came from Burke. Burke and Chaput. Burke and Chaput. Burke and Chaput. . . . . .
Click to expand...
Well, let’s make this fair. Quote the bishop of your choice who endorses Obama. If you can’t find one, quote the one who says it’s okay to support an abortion-promoting candidate when opposed by one who isn’t.

Name them, of course.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Business leaders are saying they over regulated, leading to deferring of job creation. You take some of the over regulations away, more jobs will be created.

Republicans have listened to the business owners, they are the ones creating jobs. They should not be ignored.
Click to expand...
Precisely, they have listened to them to the exclusion of all others and will likely do so in perpetuity. If they say they’re over regulated Republicans bend over backwards with promises to lift them. If they say they’re over taxed Republicans cry with them into their beer and set to work lowering those taxes. It’s the same windup toy nonsense they spout every election season, demanding to be let loose again unfettered. And then when someone actually gets wise and points out the obvious, how absolutely none of this is true, they have the unmitigated gall to cry “class warfare”. And somehow people are lining up to give the keys back to the people who saw fit to run us off the road.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It is more expensive now than it was before Obama to buy health coverage. Obama has shifted reimbursement from the chronically ill to “well care”. He has mandated chemical abortion coverage for Catholic institutions. Even Obama admitted that Obamacare would still leave about the same number uninsured as before. And Obama didn’t want Obamacare anyway. That’s a strike out. But hey, let us know how many people Obamacare has saved from death for the calculations.

Please provide the statistics on the number of people in the U.S. who starve to death each year. Until you reach 1.2 million starvation deaths, you have not balanced out the annual murders in the abortuaries which Obama supports.

Might just as well provide the stats on the number of people who die because they buy food instead of medication. You can add that to the ones who starve to death and see if it comes to 1.2 million.

Well, and you can add the number of people in Iraq who were killed by Americans and who were not combatants. You will divide that by 9 of course to get the annual figure

Are you at 1.2 million yet? As soon as you provide credible sources for your numbers, the comparisons can be made.

And, just so we’ll know, provide the number of people (and the NEW programs by which he did it) to whom Obama provided food over the number to whom Bush provided it. Also, of course, except for abortifacients, what has Obama added to Bush’s prescription drug plan? And you might as well deduct from the total killed in Iraq the number Obama has killed in Afghanistan.

Well, and you might want to add the Obama deaths in Libya to his column.
Click to expand...
Yes, abortion can’t be cast as a single issue opposed by a number of less important issues, which are more in number, span a broader area of subjects but do not begin to approach the same death count. Where babies are killed in their mother’s wombs, the safest place there should be for a human being prior to heaven, it doesn’t matter who’s the nicer person. Tax does not matter either. Or more limited government or less limited government. Those issues are just not as important. When voting for a pro-life candidate, the voter is not forced to agree with him on everything, nor to start disagreeing with the option he’d normally prefer. Life issues simply take precedence before less important issues. (And more significant life issues before less significant ones.)

Nor can a Catholic justify himself being in favour of legalising abortion, for that matter.
 
ConcernedApathy said:
Precisely, they have listened to them to the exclusion of all others and will likely do so in perpetuity. If they say they’re over regulated Republicans bend over backwards with promises to lift them. If they say they’re over taxed Republicans cry with them into their beer and set to work lowering those taxes. It’s the same windup toy nonsense they spout every election season, demanding to be let loose again unfettered. And then when someone actually gets wise and points out the obvious, how absolutely none of this is true, they have the unmitigated gall to cry “class warfare”. And somehow people are lining up to give the keys back to the people who saw fit to run us off the road.
Click to expand...
Does supporting higher taxes on the “rich” mitigate a candidates support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand?
 
ConcernedApathy said:
Precisely, they have listened to them to the exclusion of all others and will likely do so in perpetuity. If they say they’re over regulated Republicans bend over backwards with promises to lift them. If they say they’re over taxed Republicans cry with them into their beer and set to work lowering those taxes. It’s the same windup toy nonsense they spout every election season, demanding to be let loose again unfettered. And then when someone actually gets wise and points out the obvious, how absolutely none of this is true, they have the unmitigated gall to cry “class warfare”. And somehow people are lining up to give the keys back to the people who saw fit to run us off the road.
Click to expand...
We DON’T want to give the keys back to the Democrats. They are the reason our society is faltering…morally.
 
seekerz said:
Access to emergency care = absence of a health care issue? I would laugh out loud at this logic except that health and life/death issues are not laughing matters, so I’ll pull my hair out instead!

Are you aware that people can die of lack of health care without ever developing a life-threatening emergency until they are in extremis? So if cancer patients can’t get chemo and they waste away in misery for a few months or a year, you would consider that placing them in ICU when they can no longer maintain basic bodily functions = no health care issue?!

Of course, if some mythical death panel with no fear of God proceeds to pull the plug on such a patient then, we’d have a health care issue…I get it. The more familiar I become with this ideological goobledegook, the more I remember why I cannot in good conscience identify with it…
Click to expand...
Funny same clientele is being treated in oncology and hematology in fact that is how we ended up in PICU the SCT went bad with neuro problems. So yea I,ve seen all classes getting treatment here in every clinic we worked with for the past 15 years. You can pedal that BS about folks dieing for the lack of access to treatment but, it just that BS and it don’t justify the power grab. By the way the death panel isn’t mythical.
 
estesbob said:
Does supporting higher taxes on the rich mitigate a candidates support of unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand?
Click to expand...
There are restrictions, plenty of them, as a matter of fact 2011 saw that 68% (92 in 24 states) of reproductive health and rights-related provisions enacted restricted abortion services.

And taxes don’t pay for abortions as has been stated and proven over and over and over again.

Finally the Democrats issue against the Republicans is far bigger than wanting to ‘steal from the beleaguered rich and spread the wealth’ as the Right likes to condense it.
 
ConcernedApathy said:
There are restrictions, plenty of them, as a matter of fact 2011 saw that 68% (92 in 24 states) of reproductive health and rights-related provisions enacted restricted abortion services.

And taxes don’t pay for abortions as has been stated and proven over and over and over again.

Finally the Democrats issue against the Republicans is far bigger than wanting to ‘steal from the beleaguered rich and spread the wealth’ as the Right likes to condense it.
Click to expand...
Does supporting higher taxes on the rich mitigate a candidates support of abortion?
 
ConcernedApathy said:
There are restrictions, plenty of them, as a matter of fact 2011 saw that 68% (92 in 24 states) of reproductive health and rights-related provisions enacted restricted abortion services.

And taxes don’t pay for abortions as has been stated and proven over and over and over again.

Finally the Democrats issue against the Republicans is far bigger than wanting to ‘steal from the beleaguered rich and spread the wealth’ as the Right likes to condense it.
Click to expand...
Our tax money is given to planned parenthood for so called “family planning” under Title X. Contraceptives can cause chemical abortions. And yes, tax payers DO pay for abortions!
 
irishpatrick said:

gallup.com/fvideo.aspx?i=H5WWIzp90Mw-Sm2xw5NZkgaa​

Worth considering. I think with all the fighting we have going on in the GOP primary process, Obama remains the favorite to win next November.

He has a 47% approval rating, which really shocks me…and Bush had similar approval ratings at this time in the process and he obviously won re-election.

We will see how things look after the GOP gets a firm candidate, but right now it does not look very good. Sadly.

Further complicating this is the fact that Romney looks like the likely candidate and I am guessing he will not poll any higher than McCain, so the election will be tighter, but will more than likely end with the same outcome as the last election.

With the pain this nation has suffered, Obama’s approval should be in the 30s, the fact that it is so high really tells the tale for the next election since so many people just do not blame Obama for the nation’s troubles.
Click to expand...
We need to remember to be DILIGENT in prayer for all leaders of this country and the Church.
mlz
 
Ridgerunner said:
Well, let’s make this fair. Quote the bishop of your choice who endorses Obama. If you can’t find one, quote the one who says it’s okay to support an abortion-promoting candidate when opposed by one who isn’t.

Name them, of course.
Click to expand...
The dynamics of the situation would prevent any bishop from saying who to vote for or not.

Indeed no Bishop has stated who we can or cannot vote for.
 
CMatt25 said:
Code: 
Ishii, why did you quote Ringil and then ask Seekerz?
Click to expand...
Nice catch, Cmatt. I guess if you cut Obama slack for supporting abortion then you certainly can cut me some slack for that relatively minor mistake. Won’t happen again.
CMatt25 said:
Yes I consider myself pro life.
Click to expand...
Which, if you vote for Obama is about on par with the guy who considers himself to be a tomato.
CMatt25 said:
I do not compare the President of the United States and his party to Nazis.
Click to expand...
Cmatt, I was using a metaphor. Get ready, here goes again:

On this thread, a Democrat catholic said, in defense of his party’s efforts to keep the slaughter of the unborn legal, “nobody’s perfect.” To which I responded, "that is like a member of the Nazi party saying in defense of Hitler, “nobody’s perfect.” Or to put it in a way that you might identify with better, If you said, “Bush lied and started the Iraq war to give Halliburton lots of government contracts and line the pockets of his rich friends back in Texas and thousands of innocent people died as a result.” And I answered, “yes Bush did those things, but nobody’s perfect” You would call me on it, wouldn’t you?

Ishii
 
seekerz said:
I have already stated - and repeated that at least once today - that my support of the Democrats is not because of their stance on abortion. On the rest, I see no need to repeat myself. Enjoy your illusions of superiority…
Click to expand...
at least
 
ishii said:
Cmatt, I was using a metaphor. Get ready, here goes again:

On this thread, a Democrat catholic said, in defense of his party’s efforts to keep the slaughter of the unborn legal, “nobody’s perfect.” To which I responded, "that is like a member of the Nazi party saying in defense of Hitler, “nobody’s perfect.” Or to put it in a way that you might identify with better, If you said, “Bush lied and started the Iraq war to give Halliburton lots of government contracts and line the pockets of his rich friends back in Texas and thousands of innocent people died as a result.” And I answered, “yes Bush did those things, but nobody’s perfect” You would call me on it, wouldn’t you?

Ishii
Click to expand...
Right Ishii. The Nazis and Hitler were far from perfect. Bush was not perfect. Obama is not perfect. The Republicans are not perfect. The Democrats are not perfect. “Obamacare” is not perfect. The thing hasn’t even been fully implemeted yet for us to know how close to perfection it will be. But I reject comparing the imperfection of the Nazis to the imperfections of Bush or Obama or those of the Republicans and the Democrats. So I reject your metaphor.
 
CMatt25 said:
Right Ishii. The Nazis and Hitler were far from perfect. Bush was not perfect. Obama is not perfect. The Republicans are not perfect. The Democrats are not perfect. “Obamacare” is not perfect. The thing hasn’t even been fully implemeted yet for us to know how close to perfection it will be. But I reject comparing the imperfection of the Nazis to the imperfections of Bush or Obama or those of the Republicans and the Democrats. So I reject your metaphor.
Click to expand...
Metaphors or not dismissing the slaughter of 1.2 million children a year as " well were not perfect" is sad
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top