No takers on my Reagan question?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
No takers on my Reagan question?
Mufasa[/quote]
Well, I did give you one quote. Other than that, I don’t really care. Reagan wasn’t running for President when the incumbent was trying to force faith organizations to provide contraception.
By the way, does Obama’s doctrinal overriding of the Catholic Church, for example, trouble you as much as Santorum simply speaking about sexual attitudes, the health of the family, and the connection to long term prosperity?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, does Obama’s doctrinal overriding of the Catholic Church, for example, trouble you as much as Santorum simply speaking about sexual attitudes, the health of the family, and the connection to long term prosperity?[/quote]That is an unbelievably relevant question.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
And I’m not at all surprised at the reaction.
Let’s face it, I predicted it.
[/quote]
Mitz, if you expressed the sky was green but yet “predicted” other folks would find fault with it claiming the darn thing might just be blue how does that help you?
[/quote]
Nice try. But the sky is blue in my world.
I’m pretty sure that you have poaka dots dancing above you.
Really, this isn’t going to go anywhere. I’m not even a little bit upset either.
Continue on with your bashing if you all must. [/quote]
I did NOT bash. I refrained.[/quote]
That was you refraining? Okay.
Honestly, I have not at any time tried to hide my views. My views in this particular forum are way outside of that of most of the other posters here.
Which, in reality, the reason I come here. Is to hear what the voices on the other side of the spectrum are saying.
I expect to be mocked here. Wouldn’t have it any other way.[/quote]
Christine:
I’ve often posted on “PWI” one of my favorite quotes.
It’s by Frank Clark:
“…We find comfort among those who agree with us; growth among those who don’t…”
I often find myself on the “negative end” of comments on “PWI”, not so much because I’m “liberal” (I’m actually, with most things, more “Right of Center”)…but that makes me freakin’ Barney Frank when compared to most posters on “PWI”!
But in the end (I hope!)…we “agree to disagree” and move on…
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
No takers on my Reagan question?
Mufasa[/quote]
Well, I did give you one quote. Other than that, I don’t really care. Reagan wasn’t running for President when the incumbent was trying to force faith organizations to provide contraception.
[/quote]
So…the answer is “no…”
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
No takers on my Reagan question?
Mufasa[/quote]
Well, I did give you one quote. Other than that, I don’t really care. Reagan wasn’t running for President when the incumbent was trying to force faith organizations to provide contraception.
[/quote]
And if we’re staying out the bedroom, keep your damn bedrooms out of my wallet, out of the treasury (social programs), and out of my Chruch’s institutions. How the heck sexual attitudes aren’t public policy, when some ditzy female student is actually invited to congress, distraught that her Catholic University isn’t forced by Pope Obama to subsidize her sex life…Not worthy of public discussion?! Then pay your own welfare support. Buy your own damn contraception. Pay for your own child’s future prison sentence. Pay for his own high-cost, highly ineffective education. Pay for all those negative socio-economic correlations, that come out of broken homes, out your own wallet. IF the left ever gives up on the welfare state, and let’s people live or die based on their own lifestyle choices, only finding comfort through private, voluntary, charitable giving, we’ll talk about not ‘preaching.’
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
No takers on my Reagan question?
Mufasa[/quote]
Well, I did give you one quote. Other than that, I don’t really care. Reagan wasn’t running for President when the incumbent was trying to force faith organizations to provide contraception.
[/quote]
So…the answer is “no…”
Mufasa
[/quote]
No what? Was he running against any real possibility of Gay Marriage back then? Or, against an incumbent actually, actually, trying to force religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
Not sure what you are trying to get at here?
[/quote]
SURELY you never mock on T-Nation? Right?
[/quote]
Did I make any claims that I did not mock others at times?
Part of the reason I expect it.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
No takers on my Reagan question?
Mufasa[/quote]
Well, I did give you one quote. Other than that, I don’t really care. Reagan wasn’t running for President when the incumbent was trying to force faith organizations to provide contraception.
[/quote]
So…the answer is “no…”
Mufasa
[/quote]
By the way, how outraged are you by Obama trying to force religious associations to provide contraceptive-abortifacient coverage in direct violation of their own doctrines. Any feelings on that, Mufasa? I mean if ‘preaching’ is troublesome, action must really chap your hide.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, does Obama’s doctrinal overriding of the Catholic Church, for example, trouble you as much as Santorum simply speaking about sexual attitudes, the health of the family, and the connection to long term prosperity?[/quote]
This REALLY needs to stop…really.
How is the President going to “overide” Church Doctrine exactly?
Are he and Joe going to be at the Pharmacy “forcing” Catholics to buy Birth Control?
Do you think that for ONE INSTANT that he is going to have a Catholic Institution prosecuted that doesn’t sell and/or offer Birth Control?
I think that this is all “Pseudo-Persecution” wrapped in demogoguery.
That’s what I think.
Mufasa
Santorum has an opinion on contraception, yet flat out states it wouldn’t be the role of government to act on it. Obama has an opinion on contraception, and is prepared to use the force of government against institutions of faith to make it reality…And you show up to talk about Santorum?! Are you kidding me?! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
[quote]Christine wrote:<<< I’m not even a little bit upset either. >>>[/quote]"so there… naaah. (sticks out her tongue) Girlz izza silliest people. LOL![quote]Christine wrote:<<< Continue on with your bashing if you all must.[/quote]I was not bashing you. That was a truly braindead statement. I was actually coming to expect a bit more from you.
BOTH parties have turned sharp left in the last 50 years. We have blissfully growing government from the GOP and rank Marxism from the Dems. It was not like this even in my lifetime of 48 years. A snow white Barack Obama named John Smith could not have gotten near ANY public office a generation and a half ago to say nothing of the whitehouse. Your powers of analysis or maybe simply your knowledge limited by age, have a long way to go if you do not recognize that. JFK would likely be moderate Republican overall today.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyone watching the GOP prez candidate discussion forum in Ohio right now?
[/quote]
Who are the possibilities, Push…and does it vary with who gets the nomination?
Mufasa[/quote]
What?[/quote]
Who and What are they discussing in the GOP Vice Presidential Forum?
Mufasa
I’m going crazy, Push…
It was a PRESIDENTIAL (not VP) Forum!
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< And if we’re staying out the bedroom, keep your damn bedrooms out of my wallet, out of the treasury (social programs), and out of my Chruch’s institutions. How the heck sexual attitudes aren’t public policy, when some ditzy female student is actually invited to congress, distraught that her Catholic University isn’t forced by Pope Obama to subsidize her sex life…Not worthy of public discussion?! Then pay your own welfare support. Buy your own damn contraception. Pay for your own child’s future prison sentence. Pay for his own high-cost, highly ineffective education. Pay for all those negative socio-economic correlations, that come out of broken homes, out your own wallet. IF the left ever gives up on the welfare state, and let’s people live or die based on their own lifestyle choices, only finding comfort through private, voluntary, charitable giving, we’ll talk about not ‘preaching.’
[/quote]WOOOHOO!! Great Post!!!
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, does Obama’s doctrinal overriding of the Catholic Church, for example, trouble you as much as Santorum simply speaking about sexual attitudes, the health of the family, and the connection to long term prosperity?[/quote]
This REALLY needs to stop…really.
How is the President going to “overide” Church Doctrine exactly?
Are he and Joe going to be at the Pharmacy “forcing” Catholics to buy Birth Control?
Do you think that for ONE INSTANT that he is going to have a Catholic Institution prosecuted that doesn’t sell and/or offer Birth Control?
I think that this is all “Pseudo-Persecution” wrapped in demogoguery.
That’s what I think.
Mufasa[/quote]
Obama is prepared to mandate that the Catholic (and other) associations must violate their own religious conscience because Obama decided he’s not only a Christian that’s ok with Reverend Wright’s church doing it, but that the Catholics must also be forced to do it. What happened to the 1st amendment, Mufasa? What happened to keeping your bedrooms out of associations and wallets? But Santorum can’t even talk about sexual attitudes and the traditional family, though they have public repercussions (see above)? “Pseudo-Persecution?” How dare you.