Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 02/14/2012 1:33:58 PM PST by NYer
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Rush didn’t much play up the other part of Dick Moriss’ quote... wherein he called Georgie Snuffleupagus a paid-for Democrat hack...
ooops... hitman not hack...
ya know...we are missin sumpthin..... you do not do that this close to election....-PJI think it's preemptive. He's laying the foundation now so that he can refer back to it during the general election. Here's how.
If Santorum is the candidate, he has a direct weapon to use against him, using Santorum's position as the most religious of the candidates against him. Even if Santorum has not made this an issue, Obama will in order to put Santorum on the defensive and throw him off-message.
If Romney is the candidate, Obama will use RomneyCare to twist Romney into a pretzel because of this. Stephanopoulis was the first fein; Romney, to his credit, wisely deflected this. Also, Romney's Mormon background, and Mormons' traditionally large families, can also be fodder for demagoguery.
If Gingrich is the candidate, Obama will use Gingrich's voter gap with women as a wedge to demonize him.
As Sun-Tzu said, lead the enemy to grounds favorable to you, and then wage the battle there. That's why this is an issue now.
This is retarded.
The law does not apply just to Catholics. It applies to all except Muzzies. (Their “charity” does have a religious purpose, making them exempt)
You have divided us on this issue now. Since I am not a Catholic this “attack on the Catholic Church” must not concern me. Apparently the mandate applies to everyone but Muzzies though.
Somewhere along the way someone got confused.
When you look at this from the Cosmic Battle standpoint,
that of
The Truth vs Lies
you’ll see that with every value that God has, you can take the exact inverse of it, and get a value that the world has.
In this case,
“children are a gift from God, they are his reward”
vs
“I don’t want them to be punished with a baby”
It’s not just contraception. They frame every spending issue the same.
If you don’t pay for a woman’s birth control pills that is EXACTLY the same as taking them away from her.
If you don’t pay for every school child’s lunch that is EXACTLY the same as taking food out of their mouths.
If you don’t bail out GM that is EXACTLY the same as forcing thousands into the poor house.
The trap has been sprung. We can’t cut government spending because that is EXACTLY the same as killing people.
It’s not just contraception. They frame every spending issue the same.
If you don’t pay for a woman’s birth control pills that is EXACTLY the same as taking them away from her.
If you don’t pay for every school child’s lunch that is EXACTLY the same as taking food out of their mouths.
If you don’t bail out GM that is EXACTLY the same as forcing thousands into the poor house.
The trap has been sprung. We can’t cut government spending because that is EXACTLY the same as killing people.
It’s a total diversion as to what’s really going on in our country. We need to get rid of these people. Be it Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.
Rush raised a very interesting question: "why free birth control?" Why not free toothpaste or mouthwash? Why birth control? What happens if a woman does not take her birth control? She risks pregnancy. Think about that and the resulting ramifications.
Remember that Santorum was involved in the effort to have Terri given over to her family who loved her, rather than her husband, who I think killed her.
But that's not the way they will portray it. They will portray it as a right-to-die issue.
They will try to make Santorum look like an "extremist" who is against a person's right to die.
They will try to paste the "extremist" label on Santorum, against Birth Control, against, "right-to-die, etc..
Democrats will do this. Romney will do this. So will Ann Coulter.
Rush hit this one out of the park today. I hope somebody at the RNC listens occasionally.
The Democrat media is trivializing itself.
“Rush hit this one out of the park today. I hope somebody at the RNC listens occasionally.”
_______________
You’re missing the point; the RNC will be perfectly happy to have Santorum trashed over a non-issue; as they were w/Newt. As long as something helps Romney that’s all they care about.
Morris claimed that the George Stephanopoulos question in that January GOP primary debate of Mitt Romney was deliberately planted as a favor to the Obama campaign. Recall he asked, “Do states have the right to ban contraception – or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” Romney was baffled. He asked Stephanopoulos why he would even ask. No state was contemplating such a ban. He said, “George, that’s a silly question!”
Then recall the back story of this ruling to require health insurance policies to cover contraceptives: it’s been under consideration since at least last summer by HHS. There have been meetings with Catholic bishops, feminists, etc.
There was no reason for the HHS to make this ruling at this particular time. They could have waited. So this supports Morris’s idea that it was a deliberate campaign tactic. It would get the R candidates off the economy and off Obama’s record, which both are likely to be losers for Obama. Social issues are also tricky, unless you can find one that are popular with most voters.
They hoped that the media would help them paint the R candidates, think Rick Santorum, a devout Catholic, also Newt Gingrich has converted to Catholicism, as blocking women getting contraceptives paid for by their insurance policies.
I told my wife this very thing last night.
Yes, it applies to all but only Catholics now take a principled stand against contraception. So you and others think, if the law is framed in terms of “contraception,” that it doesn’t apply to them. I pointed this out when this first surfaced two weeks ago on an FR thread.
They want to divide non-Catholic opponents of abortion from Catholic opponents of abortion. Their method is to call most abortions “contraception” (using the theory that until implantation it’s not an abortion because there’s no pregnancy; pregnancy only begins with implantation. Abortion terminates pregnancy only, so anything before implatation is contraception.
That’s how they can with a straight face say that requiring the Ella pill (chemical abortifacient similar to RU-486) is merely “contraception” and thus required to be provided free of charge.
They kill two birds with one stone, since so many Catholics have long defied the Church on contraception. So unthinking Catholics think these regs only require contraception and the bishops are overreacting (Commonweal editors said as much), when in fact the regs require abortion.
They want to split the Church and create a Patriotic American Catholic pro-contraception but anti-abortion church and leave the old stick-in-the-mud “extremist” bishops and their “pathetic, bedraggled followers” in the dust.
They want to create a “German-Christians Catholic Church” led by Sister Keehan and their ilk (nun in charge of Catholic Hospital Association who said the “accommodation” was acceptable) that will back the government on abortion (contraception) as “caring for women’s health”; next will be euthanasia, gay rights etc.
It also prepares the way to portray Santorum as a Taliban-extremist Catholic unlike those other “reasonable Commonweal Catholics.”
Moreover, it’s not being reported, but the USCCB website today points out that the “accommodation” that was hyped so much Friday was quietly dropped later Friday night. The regs that actually are in force are the original regs, not the so-called “accommodated” regs. Obama is a total, brazen Liar, spawn of the Father of Lies.
The whole “accommodation” was a total head feint. And the MSM ignores the fraud.
You make a very good point and even Mike Savage is calling Santorum "sanctimonious".
But here's the thing; Santorum believes what he believes not because its good positioning but rather because he believes it to be true.
And I think because of that he can answer these attacks honestly and effectively.
His answer on women in combat is a case in point. They tried to blind side him w/ that and his answer was not rehearsed in any way but reflected a core understanding of the differences between men and women.
Naturally it pissed off the feminists, but then what doesn't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.