US Ambassador killed in Libya

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is comical....I guess the buck stops over there

let's see

unaffiliated "independent" mystery embassy statement-

“[B]The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” So declared the Obama State Department in a statement issued on the website of its Egyptian embassy

Obama statement-

"While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants," Obama said.

this seems a bit backward to me, Obama has, and many of his most ardent supporters routinely denigrate the religious beliefs of others, it's practically a sport with many on the "intellectual left"....I don't recall any opposition or apologies.....

the second part of the statement is what should have been first.... senselessly murdering someone or burning buildings because someone on the other side of the planet offended your sensibilities would seem to be the logical object of your scorn...wouldn't it? I don't think the first and the second deserve equal treatment...not even close

Damn right.

(1) I have never heard Obama chastise his fellow liberals for bashing Christianity. These people hate Catholics, and they make no secret about it. But since Catholics have not been anointed with "victim" status by liberals, it is therefore acceptable to attack Catholics at every available moment. SInce Muslims have been anointed with "victim" status by the left, they are a protected species.

(2) as for Obama's statement...the only reference to the youtube video should have been a statement that Muslims, like everyone else, need to accept the unfortunate reality that there are jerks out there, and even jerks have the right to free speech.

I cannot wait to hear Spence's "response" to this...

[scottw]

and it doesn't appear as though the initial "independent" statement nor the reworded statement were very effective

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Damn right.

(1) I have never heard Obama chastise his fellow liberals for bashing Christianity. These people hate Catholics, and they make no secret about it.

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

"See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. "

No, the bill isn't hate...it's religious intolerance. The reaction to the Catholic Church's stance on the bill was what was hateful.

RIROCKHOUND, can you honestly say that, after the Catholic Church resisted paying for contraception, that liberals weren't bashing Catholicism? All this nonsense about a war on women? That's not hate-mongering and fear-mongering?

ROCKHOUND, liberals constantly refer to the 'war on women'. either (1) you believe that there is literally a war on women, or (2) liberals are misleading the public to cast Catholics in a negative light.

Which is it? You tell me, which is it?

As to the bill, you are wrong. The Catholic Church believes contraception is immoral. "Separation of church and state" has been interpreted to mean that the federal government not appear to either endorse nor reject the beliefs of any religion. Telling the Catholic Church thatthey must provide what they teach is immoral, can easily be construed as a rejection of Catholic cathechism. We;ll see how it plays out in court.

as to your over-simplified suggestion that increased availability of contraception will reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies? That sounds very logical...but the facts don't support it. During the sexual revolution of the 1960's, those in favor of contraception availability used that same argument...that if birth control was available everywhere, we'd have fewer abortions and unwanted pregnancies. And what happened, was the exact opposite. we now have more abortions and unwanted pregnanices. Many sociologists say it's because liberals have created a public perception that sex is a casual thing. I don't know what caused it. All I know is that after contraception became widely available, we see more abortions, more infidelity, more STD's, more kids born out of wedlock. Not less, but more. Way more. Way, way more.

Try making that wrong.

That's liberalism, ROCKHOUND. Something that sounds like common sense, and makes a great bumper sticker, but blows up in your face when you implement it. What I will never understand (maybe you can explain it), is why folks continue to say things like "widespread availability of contraception results in fewer abortions", when we have 30 years of data tells us it just ain't so.

[Jim in CT]

For those who don't know, Kirsten Powers is a regular on Foxnews, MSNBC, and CNN. She is a commited liberal, but unlike most liberal newsies, she's thoughtful, articlualte, respectful, never throws any bombs. She loves Obama. Here's an interesting piece she wrote...

President Obama, stop blaming the victim for Mideast violence | Fox News

[JohnR]

FYI - getting close to locking this thread down

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by JohnR

FYI - getting close to locking this thread down

Great...how long can they beat a dead horse...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Great...how long can they beat a dead horse...

I'm just trying to provide clarity to a confusing situation. People should be grateful I'm not charging my usual fee

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm just trying to provide clarity to a confusing situation. People should be grateful I'm not charging my usual fee

-spence

you constantly move the goal posts(little Pats reference) and flip reality on it's head...that's not clarity..it's sophistry

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you constantly move the goal posts(little Pats reference) and flip reality on it's head...that's not clarity..it's sophistry

I'll take that as a compliment, but please be more specific.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

This business of the federal government demanding that a third party pay for contraceptives befuddles me. If buying something as cheap as contraceptives should be povided for all women, not just very poor ones who government could provide with all the other stuff they get, then what else should not be provided by third parties? If contraceptives should be provided by insurance then cars and houses and clothing and college education . . . and . . . and . . . etc., which are much more expensive, should be provided by some form of insurance other than the insurance you provide for yourself by earning the money to buy them.

And tying contraception to health care is also befuddling. Every thing you do or buy can be tied to health care as much or more. The primary purpose of contraCEPTIVES is to prevent pregnancy. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease? Some forms of contraception, condoms, can also prevent venereal diseases, but their main function was to prevent pregnancey, and they are cheap.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The primary purpose of contraCEPTIVES is to prevent pregnancy. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease? Some forms of contraception, condoms, can also prevent venereal diseases, but their main function was to prevent pregnancey, and they are cheap.

Contraceptives cover a range of products many of which have valid medicinal uses outside of prevention of pregnancy. This was one of the core arguments for their coverage.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease?

yes, a disease, and also according to our president it can be a punishment, it can also be unwanted which may be slightly different than unplanned but won't likely end well for either the unwanted or unplanned and which sort of flies in the face of the whole "it's for the children", "I'm my brother's keeper" and "caring for the least among us" routine I guess you only count if you are lucky enough to be planned and wanted and can collect some kind of government benefit

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

Bryan....this is rhetoric and hyperbole

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

Bryan....this is rhetoric and hyperbole

Actually, that quote, I would say is my interpretation, vs. the way Jim interprets it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Actually, that quote, I would say is my interpretation, vs. the way Jim interprets it.

Here's what you said...

"I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs..."

OK, maybe it doesn't violate the beliefs of the individuals. But how can you say it doesn't violate the belief of the employer, for example the Catholic Church? Obama is telling the Cathlic Church that it must pay for, and provide, that which it teaches is immoral. Nothing could be a more obvious violation of Catholic Catechism than telling the Church it must provide contraception on demand, for the explicit purposes of recreational sex (the Church does provide contraception for legitimate medical need, but not for recreational sex)