Obama Steps In It with Catholics

US Catholics wrote:

According to a new 2011 study by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, "The US Catholic population is currently 77.7 million."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_...
That's one BIG voting bloc that he just pissed off.

Judged:

1

Jill wrote:

<quoted text>
Catholics are not a monolithic voting bloc. There are older conservatives within the church that have been vocal about supporting Romney, but it's just one faction. And remember, the vast majority of American Catholics support contraception. Another point to keep in mind is the growing Latino population within the Church. White Catholics may lean Republican, but Hispanic Catholics lean Democrat.

Inquiring Mind wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what the Tea Party has to do with this, bozo, but you just can't help embarrassing yourself, can you? Punctuation and grammar aside, your illiteracy is on proud display:
Totaly? Fore fathers? dissagree? You could at least have someone else proof your posts before you hit the send key.
BTW, when you pass a bill into law that you havent' read and then try to impose one of its unconstitutional provisions on a group of 44 million voters, only to be forced to walk it back - that's not a compromise. That's political expediency, and that's how Obama makes all his "compromises." First, it's "my way or the highway" (elections have consequences) and then when he backs off, he takes credit for the compromise. Sorry for using big words, maybe someone can explain it to you during story time.

Jill wrote:

<quoted text>
Catholics are not a monolithic voting bloc. There are older conservatives within the church that have been vocal about supporting Romney, but it's just one faction. And remember, the vast majority of American Catholics support contraception. Another point to keep in mind is the growing Latino population within the Church. White Catholics may lean Republican, but Hispanic Catholics lean Democrat.

notoorangeman wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the English lesson douchbag-did i spell that correctly?
Saying something is unconstitutional means it has been ruled so by the Supreme Court, it has not. Matter of fact Einstein, that part is not even up for discussion in the Supreme Court. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. The Health Care Reform Act was accessable for all to see and read for a YEAR before the vote. Just because you people are too lazy to look it up and read it and would rather have faux/fox feed you sound bites doesn't mean it wasn't there for all to see! Maybe now the children running the House of Representatives will see how a Government gets things done and grows up! OBAMA 2012

notoorangeman wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the English lesson douchbag-did i spell that correctly?
Saying something is unconstitutional means it has been ruled so by the Supreme Court, it has not. Matter of fact Einstein, that part is not even up for discussion in the Supreme Court. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. The Health Care Reform Act was accessable for all to see and read for a YEAR before the vote. Just because you people are too lazy to look it up and read it and would rather have faux/fox feed you sound bites doesn't mean it wasn't there for all to see! Maybe now the children running the House of Representatives will see how a Government gets things done and grows up! OBAMA 2012

notoorangeman wrote:

<quoted text>Thanks for the English lesson douchbag-did i spell that correctly?
Saying something is unconstitutional means it has been ruled so by the Supreme Court, it has not. Matter of fact Einstein, that part is not even up for discussion in the Supreme Court. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. The Health Care Reform Act was accessable for all to see and read for a YEAR before the vote. Just because you people are too lazy to look it up and read it and would rather have faux/fox feed you sound bites doesn't mean it wasn't there for all to see! Maybe now the children running the House of Representatives will see how a Government gets things done and grows up! OBAMA 2012

Lambchop wrote:

There is less than a year until the election, an election that will decide the next President of the United States. The person elected will be the president of all Americans, not just the Democrats or the Republicans.

To show our solidarity as Americans, let's all get together and show each other our support for the candidate of our choice. It's time that we come together, Democrats and Republicans alike.

If you support the policies and character of the Republican party, please drive with your headlights on during the day. If you support Obama, please drive with your headlights off at night.

Inquiring Mind wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm impressed! Who helped you write this? FYI, I don't have to consult with the Supreme Court to have an opinion or say something is unconstitutional, or maybe you'd like to restrict my right to free speech also. Challenges to the constitutionality of Obamacare, however, are scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court. Did you read Obamacare in its entirety? NOBODY did! Nazi Pelosi said to pass it without reading it, remember?
Yes, there are children running Congress - they're running roughshod over our community organizer president, who doesn't know the first thing about leadership or care about the will of the people, especially when it conflicts with his new-world-order vision.
As for your atrocious spelling and grammar, I'll be glad to overlook it when you stop insulting people just for the sake of sounding clever. Otherwise, cheap shots deserve cheap shots. I have no problem hearing and responding to your or anyone else's opinions.

Changed my mind wrote:

<quoted text>This is in response to Orangeman's point that the healthcare bill was out there for a year for people to read. Partially true, but not completely. I know I wrote to (at the time) Rep. Murphy to express my concerns about the long-term financial impact of the act prior to its passing. Never a response. Later, I tried to find out if he was having any town hall meetings. None open to the public on this topic - only party faithful got in to the few venues he offered.

The party that was in control of the House, Senate and White House for two years put this burden on the American people and business. During this two years, the economy continued to sink and languish, while a trillion dollars of 'stimulus' was meted out to the friends and backers of the party in control. Solera company for example.

In 2010, the American people went back to the polls. They spoke, rather loudly and clearly.

Its the fervent hope and prayer of many that in 2013 President Romney, along with a R-controlled House and D-controlled Senate, will act with the greater interest of the people, the country, Contstitution and long term health of the USA in mind.

Judged:

1

Paladinhgwt wrote:

<quoted text>I've read the 2311 pages that makeup Obamacare, not because I wanted to, it is part of my job. Takes several weeks to read, cross reference and understand the Bill.
The total impact on the American people and our economy is still
coming. You will see it, and pay for it, over the next three year period.

Judged:

1

Paladinhgwt wrote:

<quoted text>
I've read the 2311 pages that makeup Obamacare, not because I wanted to, it is part of my job. Takes several weeks to read, cross reference and understand the Bill.
The total impact on the American people and our economy is still
coming. You will see it, and pay for it, over the next three year period.

Judged:

2

1

OppoResearchDude wrote:

<quoted text>
And the current patchwork system leaving millions without healthcare is better right now? Thankfully in 2014 we take a step forward, but we should still keep pushing for a single-payer system. Every Western Democracy recognizes healthcare as a human right, not something that should be measured by costs. But in reality a healthier society is a more productive society.

OppoResearchDude wrote:

And yes, as a Roman Catholic I applaud the White House for protecting the health of women in conjunction with respecting religious doctrines.

notoorangeman wrote:

While i don't totaly agree with the Presidents compromise, i think it is a good thing. Maybe the republican/teabaggers will look at this and say "wow that is the way our fore fathers set up this government, to talk and come up with a compromise when the two sides dissagree". OBAMA 2012!

Judged:

1

OppoResearchDude wrote:

And yes, as a Roman Catholic I applaud the White House for protecting the health of women in conjunction with respecting religious doctrines.