RSS Feed MenuLatest data point: Bart Stupak’s complaint’s in today’s Politico. Here is a chance for the anti-abortion politician to stand up and fight for his declared beliefs, possibly altering the course of history. In many times and places, men have braved death in situations like these. In the United States in 2010, happily nobody suffers such a fate – but your office may have to take a lot of phone calls at odd hours of the day. About which Stupak says, “It’s been a living hell.”
The ideal outcome, Stupak said, might be for the House Democratic leadership to get the votes they need without him and for the bill to pass.
“You know, maybe for me that’s the best: I stay true to my principles and beliefs,” he said, and “vote no on this bill and then it passes anyways. Maybe for me is the best thing to do.”
Profile in courage! And one more reminder that the stiff upper lip is not an American quality….
balconesfault // Mar 18, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Just like the Kennedy family and the Cuomo family and the Pelosi family, they are Catholic in name only.
By extrapolation, does this suggest nobody should vote for a Catholic politician unless that voter believes in the doctrine of Papal infallability?
Independent // Mar 18, 2010 at 4:23 pm
B’fault… let’s recap for a second here… your fingers are writing sentences the truth simply can’t back up.
You said, 1st post no less, that Stupak was “I’m pretty sure that it’s not up to our elected officials to stand as an arbiter between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (and other Catholic groups, but that seems to be where he’s placed himself.”
Which of course, was not even close to the truth. Stupak for last 4 months, as I pointed out to you 3 times now, has been negotiating with House Democrat leaders, White House Democrat leaders and other fellow Democrats.
You’ve tried to disingenuously spin it to an issue of Stupak taking marching orders from religious authorities.
Nope, he’s been working with Democrats. Democrat leaders. To get them to replace permissive pro-abortion language in the Seante HC bill. For the last 4 months, plus a tad. You want to spin it to a conventional, farLeft religious bigot’s paradise of yet another politician following Christianist orders.
But now that his Party and the House Democrats and the WH Democrats got his vote to move the tin can a few more feet down the gutter back in Nov, they no longer need ol’ Bart and the Blue Dawgs. Tough luck for Bart… politics makes some real strange bedfellows.
You contended it was Stupak’s ego and his need to follow those Christianist marching orders that are the problem here… neither is true. You lied and then tried to spin it into more familiar territory for the farLeft: a little game of religious bigotry.
Finally, in post #4, you raised the issue of nuns… not mpolitio. Nice try at being even more disingenuous than before –you won in that rush to dishonesty.
At end of all your restating of the restatements, you ask: “So you believe that the Catholic Nuns support “pro-abortion language”? As I pointed out to in post #5, I’ve known lots of nuns who push a liberal social justice agenda over pro-life sentiments on both abortion rights and assisted suicide. Yes, nuns and Catholic organizations do have pro-abortion supporters in their midst… the ones I know voted for a pro-abortion candidate in Nov –Obama.
Not to be too personal, but I am always amazed at how disingenuously you argue these points, B’fault. It’s almost like being intellectually dishonest completes you, somehow. I get the religious bigot thing –that’s a given for most farLeft Democrats who sneer at religion with contempt.
But even with your effort to inject your religious bigotry into these threads, the simple truth is that Bart Stupak has been negotiating these last 4 months with Democrat leaders in the House, in the Senate, at the White House and elsewhere. He just wanted to make certain that the ruling Party’s pro-abortion activists weren’t successful in advancing abortion another few steps down the way. And Stupak had loads of examples of acceptable language that Democrats approved in other statutes over the last 4 yrs… any of that would have been ok with him –as he told Greta on Fox News last week.
I regret that you’ve returned to your old, proven ways of spinning like some whirling Dervish deep in a dancing trance.
Independent // Mar 18, 2010 at 4:25 pm
B’fault: “I await any day your apology to all those who you claimed were off base when noting that Independent = MI-GOPer = GOProud.”
Umm, my recollection is it was you and another troll.
Citation please? I’ll listen to the crickets chirp while you look for it.
balconesfault // Mar 18, 2010 at 4:35 pm
You said, 1st post no less, that Stupak was “I’m pretty sure that it’s not up to our elected officials to stand as an arbiter between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (and other Catholic groups, but that seems to be where he’s placed himself.”
Which of course, was not even close to the truth. Stupak for last 4 months, as I pointed out to you 3 times now, has been negotiating with House Democrat leaders, White House Democrat leaders and other fellow Democrats.
Yes, but his current stand is more splitting the difference between the positions of those different Catholic groups.
You do recall the whole point of this post, right? It was to cast aspersions on Stupak for not having courage, in the words of Mr. Frum.
It is the position of the Catholic Health Association and the Catholic Leadership Conference of Women Religious that the bill should pass as written. It is the position of the Catholic Bishops that it should not pass without Stupak’s original language.
He is splitting those positions by claiming to want the bill to pass (thus allying with the Catholic Health Association and the Catholic Leadership Conference of Women Religious ) while indicating that he himself will need to vote against it (thus being faithful to the dictates of the Bishops).
Nope, he’s been working with Democrats. Democrat leaders. To get them to replace permissive pro-abortion language in the Seante HC bill.
With language that was approved by the Bishops. You are using an awful lot of words to try to disguise this simple fact.
But now that his Party and the House Democrats and the WH Democrats got his vote to move the tin can a few more feet down the gutter back in Nov, they no longer need ol’ Bart and the Blue Dawgs. Tough luck for Bart… politics makes some real strange bedfellows.
So why does Bart say that he wants the legislation to pass?
Finally, in post #4, you raised the issue of nuns… not mpolitio.
Yes, and mpolito correctly noted that the nuns are not granted the authority to actually rule on dogma in the Catholic Church. But you keep suggesting … or actually insisting … that support for the current language is tantamount not only to a pro-abortion stance, but in post #1 to be support for infanticide.
You have yet to answer whether you believe the nuns who support the current bill to be in favor of infanticide. I think whatever you have to say on this subject is pretty irrelevant until you explain your position.
balconesfault // Mar 18, 2010 at 4:37 pm
http://www.frumforum.com/why-republicans-must-pray-obamacare-passes#comments
21 OK, MI-GOPer – how about you tell us how someone can favor government mandating that insurance companies pick up anyone without a pre-existing condition … and also reject the idea of government mandating that everyone buy into the insurance pool?
25 Independent // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:42 pm
B’fault please note, that was Independent, not Minnesota GOPer. This isn’t the Italian Job and I’m not asking you to call me the Napster, dewd.
Thanks for playing … dewd.
balconesfault // Mar 18, 2010 at 4:40 pm
But you keep suggesting … or actually insisting … that support for the current language is tantamount not only to a pro-abortion stance, but in post #1 to be support for infanticide.
Actually, you being willing to embrace a childish literalism when it suits your purposes in order to avoid dealing with intent, I will note that this should have been #2.
Independent // Mar 18, 2010 at 5:06 pm
B’fault at #31… so now you’re retreating from your claim of “all those who claimed” is now just a single troll, you? Just B’fault? Hmmm, kind of silly how far into the darkened corner you retreat when pressed.
As for Stupak spending the last 4 months negotiating with fellow Democrats and you contending it was “religious authorities” he was pimping for… I’m glad to see you admit your error and embrace a little more truthfulness –even if fading.
The House version language wasn’t “instructions” from religious authorities as you claimed. The language, as Stupak has readily noted, can be found expressed in a variety of other passed and proposed statutes –all with Democrat support and approval.
Nuns, as we’ve made abundantly clear to even you, B’fault, do embrace pro-abortion rights positions that are at odds with Catholic teaching. Some of them, including Sister Carol Keehan’s order, even have senior nuns who say the Mass in direct disobedience of the Pope and local bishops. Why you keep pressing the query even after it’s been well answered, is puzzling even granting your inclination toward religious bigotry.
You’ve got the antiquated notion that nuns are somehow the perfect subordinate religious entity for the Church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Ignorance seems to be your constant companion this day. Hey, that’s better than religious bigot, right? It’s progress.
balconesfault // Mar 18, 2010 at 6:06 pm
B’fault at #31… so now you’re retreating from your claim of “all those who claimed” is now just … B’fault?
First, others also made the claim. But I guess what you’re resting your case on here is that directly trying to mislead me is somehow acting nobly. Clearly you had no intent to mislead anyone else.
As for Stupak spending the last 4 months negotiating with fellow Democrats and you contending it was “religious authorities” he was pimping for…
Wow – you refer to someone acting in a way they believe their faith dictates they act to be “pimping”? And you call others religious bigots?
The House version language wasn’t “instructions” from religious authorities as you claimed.
I believe that it was. He clearly met with representatives of the Catholic Bishops a number of times to resolve which language would be acceptable to them.
Nuns, as we’ve made abundantly clear to even you, B’fault, do embrace pro-abortion rights positions that are at odds with Catholic teaching.
Do you contend that nuns embrace “infanticide”. You’re the one who likes to throw volatile words on the fire. You put them out. Not my job.
You’ve got the antiquated notion that nuns are somehow the perfect subordinate religious entity for the Church.
On matters of theology, nuns and lay members of the church are subordinate to the Bishops. The Bishops are subordinate to the Pope. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
Although maybe Independent isn’t a Catholic, the way MI-GOPer is.
Independent // Mar 18, 2010 at 10:59 pm
B’fault, you started this thread with some silly notions of what animated Bart Stupak –among which was the farLeft RachelMadCow by way of Daily Kos talking point #1 that Stupak was all “ego” and he “painted himself into a corner”. She was still using that lame game this evening, btw– you guys have to update your talking points.
Then you obligingly parroted talking point #2 with the let’s smear and discredit Stupak by claiming he’s following the marching orders of Catholic bishops.
Of course, he isn’t. He was negotiating with Democrat leaders –not the Church– since the House passed his language in their version in Nov.
He had lots of specific language choices available to insert –not limited to just the language the Democrat House approved last Nov. Language that had already passed in several bills on other topics and was contained in several proposed pieces of legslation, not related to the current HC bill.
Of course, that doesn’t help you discredit a pro-universal coverage democrat like Stupak who is representing his constituents.
Because he’s a pro-Life Democrat and his issue targets the potential of abortionists to secure funding and support for abortion, you’re hell bent on tarring him like all good farLeft goons… Rachel MadCow and Daily Kos included.
I’m still wondering what drives your contempt for religion so much that you take great aim, with blanks, to fire off a couple of rounds at Stupak even tho’ he’s a D and in solid support of universal health care… and a good public servant.
The hate toward religion you and so many Democrats harbor must be corrosive on your tarnished soul. It’s a shame the power of pray can’t heal your infirmity.
Independent // Mar 18, 2010 at 11:08 pm
B’fault: “On matters of theology, nuns and lay members of the church are subordinate to the Bishops. The Bishops are subordinate to the Pope. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.”
Umm, not correct on that one, either. Senior nuns in Sister Carol Keenan’s order, Daughters of Charity (an order that predates America’s founding, btw), are actively saying the Mass on a regular basis. It’s the core practice of our Catholic theology, B’fault.
And yes, we’ve answered it 4 times now, abortion is infanticide because life begins at conception for Catholics. Nuns who support abortion rights –as well as assisted suicide– are operating contrary to the teachings of the Church. But it doesn’t matter to them… for them, they’re operating off the “higher moral code” of their sense of liberal activist social justice.
Frankly, it’s why so many nuns would find Obama an attractive politician… he shares their sense that the ends justify the means… and it’s why, in Michigan, we had so many nuns in the By Any Means Necessary movement.
Independent // Mar 18, 2010 at 11:14 pm
By the way, you’ve been wiggling a lot on this notion that you claimed Stupak was actively engaged in negotiating language with Catholic authorities.
You said here: “I’m bothered by a Congressman who is engaged in direct negotiations with religious authorities…”
Stupak wasn’t. He was enaged in negotiations with fellow Democrats in House Leadership, the Senate and the White House –but that didn’t stop you from suggesting he is –disinguenuous and intellectually dishonest. The Democrat bi-fecta.
balconesfault // Mar 18, 2010 at 11:25 pm
B’fault: “On matters of theology, nuns and lay members of the church are subordinate to the Bishops. The Bishops are subordinate to the Pope. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.”
Umm, not correct on that one, either. Senior nuns in Sister Carol Keenan’s order, Daughters of Charity (an order that predates America’s founding, btw), are actively saying the Mass on a regular basis. It’s the core practice of our Catholic theology, B’fault.
Nonetheless, they are subordinate to the Bishops, who are subordinate to the Pope – or they are not members of the Roman Catholic Church.
And yes, we’ve answered it 4 times now, abortion is infanticide because life begins at conception for Catholics.
Thank you. You have clearly now stated your position that you believe a substantial number of the women who have dedicated their lives to God’s service as nuns support infanticide. That is all I asked for.
Stupak wasn’t. He was enaged in negotiations with fellow Democrats in House Leadership, the Senate and the White House
And before that, in order to settle the language which would be acceptable, with the Bishops. I’m sorry that fact disturbs you enough that you keep denying it.
balconesfault // Mar 18, 2010 at 11:28 pm
The hate toward religion you and so many Democrats harbor must be corrosive on your tarnished soul. It’s a shame the power of pray can’t heal your infirmity.
I am at peace with the highest teachings of my religion.
Meanwhile, the current Pope has said:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”
athensboy // Mar 19, 2010 at 7:16 am
Stupak probably does believe strongly in his views, but I sense he like to be the center of attention too. From what I’ve read the Senate bill is actually more restrictive on using federal funds for abortion than the House version.I also get tired of conservatives blathering how their more godlike than Democrats or liberals.And am I to believe that attending church makes one more faithful than a non-attending person? Thats bunk. I’m tired of conservatives thinking their the smartest people in the room, and that their the only ones that “get it”.Stupak might prevent 30 million Americans from getting healthcare, how Christian is that?
Independent // Mar 19, 2010 at 10:37 am
B’fault, I am always amazed at how farLeft trolls at FF can badger endlessly until they’ve reduced the argument to a narrow, infantile point and then declare victory –you are probably the worst offender of that practice here. Next to TeaBagged or TerryF99 or whatever name of the week he’s gotten past the editors’ ban.
Over and over and over again; thread after thread.
Simple facts: some nuns, including the Daughters of Charity order, do things in the political arena that are contrary to the Church’s teachings. It’s not that hard to fathom unless you’re a debater trying hard to squeeze out a gotcha moment where none exists –as you’ve been trying here.
When, in 81, Pope John Paul II famously told priests to get out of politics and political office and tend to the spiritual being of their flocks, he did not include nuns in his blanket directive because nuns and brothers within orders have always been treated differently than priests, msgrs, bishops and cardinals. Of course, JPII was probably the most political prelate the Catholic Church has had in the 20thC, too… so go figure.
We’ve often discussed here that liberals –and farLeft liberals in particularly– seem to share a deep-seated, visceral, pathological animus toward organized religion. We see it in the approach of the Democrat Party toward public policy. We see it in traditional or conventional Democrat Party constitutencies –which lead the fight to secularize American culture and remove religious references from our public square, our history books, our children’s lips. We see it in the way that leading Democrats and ditch digging Democrats defend anti-religious bigots -and even cheerlead their bigotry as you’ve done for Bill Maher and others.
You played the religious bigot card in this thread on Bart Stupak and even a pro-B’fault and normally supportive peer like Sinz54 called you to task for it.
Now, in your desperate comment at #38, we see you play the religious bigot and gay bigot cards –all at once. Stunning for a disciple of the farLeft who routinely rails against the intolerance of the Right by acting like a bigot.
It’s a shame that prayer isn’t within your province. It might heal whatever deep wounds were inflicted on you by religion in your earlier life. You may think you’re at peace with the highest teachings of your religion –is atheism a religion on the farLeft now– but your animus toward religion and the Catholic Church says otherwise.
The point you raised about Stupak being engaged for the last 4 months with Catholic authorities on the language that was already approved by House Democrats and leaders is patently false. Stupak was engaged in negotiations with Democrats –not the Catholic Church for the last 4 months.
That you continue to deny it says the pathological addiction you have to lying about religion and practicing your bigotry has spread to other aspects of your life, like political discourse. As Obama learned in his Democrat Party Pep Rally on Health Care before the joint session of Congress, when you keep lying over and over, people in the room will be forced to out you as a Liar.
We’ve done that here. It gives us no comfort. You’ll probably do it in the next thread as well.
Independent // Mar 19, 2010 at 10:52 am
athensboy: “Stupak probably does believe strongly in his views, but I sense he like to be the center of attention too.”
Well, that’s the point that B’fault led with in this thread and he was proven wrong –I know and have worked with Stupak. He is one of the few humble men serving in Congress… democrat or GOPer.
Center of attention? LOL –he’s a wall flower. It’s tough to get him at distict events to speak. It’s tough to get him to talk about the public’s business… he’s rather talk about your family, how the fish are hitting, if the deer are feeding on the meadow flowers in bloom or the remaining thickness of the ice on a neighborhood lake –it seems there’s always ice on the lakes in the UP.
I’ve riden in countless elevators with him, walked the halls of Congress with him and he doesn’t inject himself into conversation like almost every other Congressman I know. He’s not the Rotarian-styled Congressman… he’s a true public servant.
Short story: we were coming up from the new visitor’s center in the Capitol one day after lunch and there were a bunch of 25-30 people from Montana we joined in walking down the hall for maybe 3-4 minutes. A husband & wife next to us asked a couple of questions… Stupak and I gave them the answers and some tips… then a couple more… etc. When we wer breaking off, the wife asked if Stupak was a tour guide. He didn’t bat an eye at what would have royally ticked off a demi-god like Jack Murtha, he said “Yes… it’s the best job in the world. My name is Bart Stupak.” I chuckled when they were out of hearing and he pointed out that he was, indeed, “a tour guide. Every Congressman should think of themselves that way”.
Center of attention? Ego backed him into a corner?
Nope. He isn’t Jack Murtha or NancyBoTox or Harry gReid or John Kerry.
FYI
balconesfault // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:10 am
Simple facts: some nuns, including the Daughters of Charity order, do things in the political arena that are contrary to the Church’s teachings.
I understand that. I also contend that you are acting badly when you claim that anyone who is pro-choice is “promoting infanticide”. You are the one who has to deal with that accusation being leveled by you against nuns, thanks to the logical chain you’ve established.
We’ve often discussed here that liberals –and farLeft liberals in particularly– seem to share a deep-seated, visceral, pathological animus toward organized religion.
You and other conservatives make that charge, largely because you seem fundamentally incapable of understanding the liberal argument – that organized religion is actually most healthy when it remains something that is not intertwined with politics.
You played the religious bigot card in this thread on Bart Stupak and even a pro-B’fault and normally supportive peer like Sinz54 called you to task for it.
Just because Sinz doesn’t echo your irrational hatred of people who don’t accept your screeds doesn’t make him “normally supportive”. Sinz and I have honest arguments on most points, but usually they are honest disagreements.
That was not a religious bigot card. Pointing out that Stupak had put himself into a position of representing the position of the Catholic Bishops is not being a religious bigot.
Now, in your desperate comment at #38, we see you play the religious bigot and gay bigot cards –all at once. Stunning for a disciple of the farLeft who routinely rails against the intolerance of the Right by acting like a bigot.
It is remarkable that you find it acceptable to label nuns as being supportive of infanticide on a basis of Church doctrine … and yet call someone a bigot for quoting the words of the Pope.
In other words, you have the right to make moral judgements that may not line up with the teachings of the church heirarchy … but the nuns don’t.
balconesfault // Mar 19, 2010 at 11:12 am
NancyBoTox
Meow!