PDA

View Full Version : "Boy The Vatican Sure Is Putting It To Omama Boy These Days ."



megimoo
01-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Vatican accuses Obama of 'arrogance'

"Many people Have Noticed Obama's Hardheaded Arrogance and Lack Of Openness !"

ROME: A senior Vatican official on Saturday attacked US President Barack Obama for "arrogance" for overturning a ban on state funding for family-planning groups that carry out or facilitate abortions overseas. It is "the arrogance of someone who believes they are right, in signing a decree which will open the door to abortion and thus to the destruction of human life," Archbishop Rino Fisichella was quoted as saying by the Corriere della Sera daily.

Fisichella is president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, one of a number of so-called pontifical academies which are formed by or under the direction of the Holy See. "What is important is to know how to listen... without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death," he added.

Obama signed the executive order cancelling the eight-year-old restrictions on Friday, the third full day of his presidency. The so-called "global gag rule" cut off US funding to overseas family planning clinics which provide any abortion services whatsoever, from the operation itself to counselling, referrals or post-abortion services.

"If this is one of the first acts of President Obama, with all due respect, it seems to me that the path towards disappointment will have been very short," Fisichella said. "I do not believe that those who voted for him took into consideration ethical themes, which were astutely left aside during the election debate. The majority of the American population does not take the same position as the president and his team," he added.

The order won Obama praise from Democratic lawmakers, family planning and women's rights groups but drew angry condemnation from pro-life organisations and Republicans. More than 250 health and human rights organisations from around the world sent Obama a letter, thanking him for ending a policy "which has contributed to the deaths and injuries of countless women and girls."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Vatican_accuses_Obama_of_arrogance/articleshow/4027443.cms

tacitus
01-24-2009, 03:28 PM
What is important is to know how to listen... without locking oneself into ideological visions with the arrogance of a person who, having the power, thinks they can decide on life and death," he added.

It is obvious that the Holy See doesn't know that they are talking about the messiah! He has the power to destroy this country and a few others and that is probably what he will do.


"If this is one of the first acts of President Obama, with all due respect, it seems to me that the path towards disappointment will have been very short,"

I never respected him or his policies so I can't be disappointed.


The majority of the American population does not take the same position as the president and his team," he added.


Makes no difference whether the the plebeians agree or disagree with the messiah, well until around election time then it will matter. American voters have short attention spans and from the number that voted for the messiah, they are also morons.

linda22003
01-24-2009, 04:58 PM
People remember that Clinton also did this in 1993, right? This isn't new to Obama. The Mexico City policy has been a high-profile, low-impact football tossed back and forth with each administration.

Why should we be following the orders of the Vatican, or even particularly care about their stance on issues?

tacitus
01-24-2009, 08:03 PM
People remember that Clinton also did this in 1993, right? This isn't new to Obama. The Mexico City policy has been a high-profile, low-impact football tossed back and forth with each administration.

Why should we be following the orders of the Vatican, or even particularly care about their stance on issues?

Where did you read that the Vatican was issuing orders to anyone?

FlaGator
01-24-2009, 08:04 PM
People remember that Clinton also did this in 1993, right? This isn't new to Obama. The Mexico City policy has been a high-profile, low-impact football tossed back and forth with each administration.

Why should we be following the orders of the Vatican, or even particularly care about their stance on issues?

Because a goodly portion of this country is Catholic and put lots of stock in what the Pope says. Enough pepole to influence an election should the unit and vote as a block.

megimoo
01-24-2009, 08:51 PM
Because a goodly portion of this country is Catholic and put lots of stock in what the Pope says. Enough pepole to influence an election should the unit and vote as a block.Catholics come in many 'shades' and most are very stubborn people .They keep their faith , as they understand it ,as their parents did, to varying degrees but many disregard anyone, including their bishops,when they try telling them how they should vote .Politics and religion have become somewhat merged to some in this days Catholic church .

Some who profess to be Catholics are in reality 'Palms and Ashes' Catholics who attend church just thrice a year and receive the body of Christ just once a year to fulfill their Easter Duty's .Some remain lifelong Democrats just because their parents voted that way and hated some past Republician leader who is long dead but not forgotten.They seem to see the abortion issue as less important than always voting against the Wealthy Conservative Republicans their daddy's worked for and hated.

They,most Catholics,understand church teachings that abortion is murder most foul that exiles the sinner spiritually from the body of the Christ but within their family's an out of matrimony pregnancy of one of their children will be aborted to hide it from their parents. If their parents discover it there will be much shame and the loss of trust but eventual forgiveness .

FlaGator
01-24-2009, 09:32 PM
Catholics come in many 'shades' and most are very stubborn people .They keep their faith , as they understand it ,as their parents did, to varying degrees but many disregard anyone, including their bishops,when they try telling them how they should vote .Politics and religion have become somewhat merged to some in this days Catholic church .

Some who profess to be Catholics are in reality 'Palms and Ashes' Catholics who attend church just thrice a year and receive the body of Christ just once a year to fulfill their Easter Duty's .Some remain lifelong Democrats just because their parents voted that way and hated some past Republician leader who is long dead but not forgotten.They seem to see the abortion issue as less important than always voting against the Wealthy Conservative Republicans their daddy's worked for and hated.

They,most Catholics,understand church teachings that abortion is murder most foul that exiles the sinner spiritually from the body of the Christ but within their family's an out of matrimony pregnancy of one of their children will be aborted to hide it from their parents. If their parents discover it there will be much shame and the loss of trust but eventual forgiveness .

I know all that, that is why I say "should they vote as a block".

megimoo
01-24-2009, 09:44 PM
I know all that, that is why I say "should they vote as a block".
Do most Jews vote as a block,do Episcopalians vote as a block,do Baptists vote as a block,why ?If you "know That' why do you say they should vote together ?Catholics are split in their politics how can they vote in a block ?

Goldwater
01-24-2009, 09:53 PM
Because a goodly portion of this country is Catholic and put lots of stock in what the Pope says. Enough pepole to influence an election should the unit and vote as a block.

Sadly they don't vote on order from him though, so it's a moot point.

megimoo
01-24-2009, 10:23 PM
People remember that Clinton also did this in 1993, right? This isn't new to Obama. The Mexico City policy has been a high-profile, low-impact football tossed back and forth with each administration.

Why should we be following the orders of the Vatican, or even particularly care about their stance on issues?Ever the liberal/Progressive apologist ."Low-impast football" sounds like an Obama/DNC talking point. Obama's on a mission to destroy all that was decent in the past administration to appease his masters and his bankers in California .

Those weren't orders but simple observations and condemnations by a Catholic prelate of standing following his faith and the church's teachings and condemning Obama's policy of governmental Foreign aid sponsoring world wide infanticide .From your response You among many on the lefts quasi progressives having little regard for new human life and view it as inconvenient excess tissue to be removed with impunity .

FlaGator
01-25-2009, 06:05 AM
Do most Jews vote as a block,do Episcopalians vote as a block,do Baptists vote as a block,why ?If you "know That' why do you say they should vote together ?Catholics are split in their politics how can they vote in a block ?


I didn't say they did, I said should they, as in if they could all get together, then they would be an election changing voting bloc. Most Jews do vote in a block, democrat. Baptists can be split down racial lines. Black Baptist tend to vote dem and white Baptists tend to vote republican. My point was not that they did vote as a block but if they could manage it they would be a force to be reckoned with.

FlaGator
01-25-2009, 06:06 AM
Sadly they don't vote on order from him though, so it's a moot point.

Many of them do.

linda22003
01-25-2009, 06:54 AM
So was everyone equally indignant (including the Vatican) when Clinton did the same thing in 1993? Did all of you and the Vatican cheer when Reagan enacted it and Bush reversed the Clinton policy? That's what I mean by a football, it just gets tossed back and forth. By "low impact" (not "low-impast", Megi), I mean - can any person on this board name one specific thing that happened when either policy was in place?

Without looking it up. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
01-25-2009, 08:13 AM
So was everyone equally indignant (including the Vatican) when Clinton did the same thing in 1993? Did all of you and the Vatican cheer when Reagan enacted it and Bush reversed the Clinton policy? That's what I mean by a football, it just gets tossed back and forth. By "low impact" (not "low-impast", Megi), I mean - can any person on this board name one specific thing that happened when either policy was in place?

Without looking it up. :rolleyes:

Back then I was a pagan and pro-abortion since then I have come to learn the truth on a lot of things.

megimoo
01-25-2009, 01:33 PM
So was everyone equally indignant (including the Vatican) when Clinton did the same thing in 1993? Did all of you and the Vatican cheer when Reagan enacted it and Bush reversed the Clinton policy? That's what I mean by a football, it just gets tossed back and forth. By "low impact" (not "low-impast", Megi), I mean - can any person on this board name one specific thing that happened when either policy was in place?

Without looking it up. :rolleyes:
Boy you are a ragged piece of work .With sharp eyes like that you should be an inspector in a pickle factory ."name one specific thing that happened when either policy was in place?" Yes when it was forbidden a lot of babies escaped death by abortion payed for by American tax payers !

FlaGator
01-25-2009, 02:03 PM
Boy you are a ragged piece of work .With sharp eyes like that you should be an inspector in a pickle factory ."name one specific thing that happened when either policy was in place?" Yes when it was forbidden a lot of babies escaped death by abortion payed for by American tax payers !

You took the words right out of my mouth.:D

lacarnut
01-25-2009, 06:26 PM
[SIZE="3"]Boy you are a ragged piece of work .With sharp eyes like that you should be an inspector in a pickle factory

That is a classic line, Megimoo. A classic I tell you.:)

noonwitch
01-26-2009, 09:21 AM
He said he was going to do so during the campaign, so it's not like it's a surprise or anything. And, yeah, Clinton did the same thing. It's just one of those things that a president can do right away to make a certain part of his base happy-Bush probably signed the opposite bill shortly after taking office.

linda22003
01-26-2009, 09:29 AM
He said he was going to do so during the campaign, so it's not like it's a surprise or anything. And, yeah, Clinton did the same thing. It's just one of those things that a president can do right away to make a certain part of his base happy-Bush probably signed the opposite bill shortly after taking office.

Bush did, of course, on the symbolic January 22nd.

megimoo
01-26-2009, 11:19 AM
He said he was going to do so during the campaign, so it's not like it's a surprise or anything. And, yeah, Clinton did the same thing. It's just one of those things that a president can do right away to make a certain part of his base happy-Bush probably signed the opposite bill shortly after taking office.
Like "'I voted for it Before I voted against It ? RINO Politicians are such whores !

lacarnut
01-26-2009, 11:45 AM
Like "'I voted for it Before I voted against It ? "ALL" Politicians are such whores !

FIXED.....

megimoo
01-26-2009, 11:54 AM
FIXED.....That was my first line !