Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Best Saved Nickel Ever


Bill Donohue, the high strung head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (a group that has no official recognition from the Catholic Church) issued a press release (a regular activity of his) demanding that Barack Obama dissolve his Catholic Advisory Council. It seems that either it is wrong for Senator Obama to seek advice from Catholics or it is wrong for Catholics to advise Obama.

Members of the Catholic Advisory Council responded to Donohue, maybe giving him more attention than he deserved (though giving him what he most lusts for).

Donohue wasn't satisfied and had his staff place haranguing telephone calls to the Obama campaign demanding to know if Obama had conformed to the instructions made by this conservative political operative.

Guess what? The Obama campaign didn't return his calls. (best saved nickel ever).

Now, and this gets rich, Donohue, not recognizing a snub when he sees it, has decided that since no one called him back, it must mean that the campaign dissolved the Catholic Advisory Council.

We tested this practice by placing a call to the Pope asking him if the College of Cardinals still exists. The Pope has one more day to call us back or we assume that there no longer is a College of Cardinals.

43 comments:

Rustler45 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rustler45 said...

I believe Obama should choose Jesse Jackson for a running mate. That way he'll have "some" credibility.

Katherine said...

Well Ruster, you are at 50/50 for using language a Catholic blog can permit.

Anonymous said...

heh. But I thought Obama was raking in the cash. Doesn't Catholic League have a 1-800 number?

Rustler45 said...

Oh really Katherine?? You didn't like The Lone Ranger's Post? It proved you wrong.

It also proves that you're a liar. I will post the whole thing over at Closed Cafeteria. They'll get a laugh.

I have informed them of your tactics. I have also let them know that you and Batty Betty are one and the same.

I will also post it in Lubyanka. We know what's going on with you there as well.

Rustler45 said...

"We tested this practice by placing a call to the Pope asking him if the College of Cardinals still exists. The Pope has one more day to call us back or we assume that there no longer is a College of Cardinals."

I place a call to Obama's headquarters and told them I was from Planned Parenthood. They returned MY call withing thirty minutes.

I asked them if they had a legislative solution to the problem of girls being forced into unwanted abortions. They asked me if this was mostly black girls. I said yes. They said they think about it and basically hung up on me.

The fact that you people don't like Bill Donohue tells us all we need to know about what kind of Catholics you people in here really are. You don't the slighest thing about your faith or what it requires of you and you don't want to know.

If any of you were unBaptized and wanting to become Catholic you couldn't pass the test of beliefs required.

You all might as well go down to the local Baptist Church and register there.

Rustler45 said...

Here ya go Katherine and anyone else who wants to read what the post said.

Closed Cafeteria

Sean said...

Katherine, you are almost saintly in your tolerance.

Rustler45 said...

Closed Cafeteria and Obama's left his church.

hahahaha He's left alright. About two clicks left of Mao Tse Dung.

Rustler45 said...

Sean, You can come post over in Lubyanka. I will tolerate you there.

Or like Mat, do pictures of guns scare you too?

Put your money where your mouth is you little whiner.

Bob said...

saintly tolerance? My left shoe. Katherine, the only reason you are for Obama is you got a "mandingo" thing going. Get over it!

Marie-Elsie said...

Rustler45 said: "I believe Obama should choose Jesse Jackson for a running mate. That way he'll have "some" credibility."

Credibility as what? As a human being, as a brilliant politician, as someone who has faith in Jesus Christ. As someone who cares about the poor or the forgotten? As what. As an African American?

Why don't you say exactly what you mean Rustler.

Marie-Elsie said...

Bob said:"Katherine, the only reason you are for Obama is you got a "mandingo" thing going. Get over it!"

Feeling inadequate much Bob?

Anonymous said...

Obama's Abortion Bombshell: Unrestricted Abortion Over Wishes of Individual States a Priority for Presidency

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barack Obama, the presumptive pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him topple Hillary Clinton from her throne by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president.

In light of Obama's recently achieved status as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink has decided to remind its supporters that almost one year has passed since Obama made his vows to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion would be the first priority of his administration.

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript: http://lauraetch.googlepages.com/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction)

"I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."

Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc.

Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act.

"Thirty-five years after Roe, abortion supporters, like Senator Obama, are dismayed that abortion remains a divisive issue and that their radical agenda has not been submissively accepted by the American public," states Denise M. Burke, vice president of Americans United for Life.

"Rather than confronting legitimate issues concerning the availability and safety of abortion, they choose to blatantly ignore the concerns and interests of everyday Americans, as well as the growing evidence that abortion hurts women."

Hillary Clinton, once the longtime Democratic front-runner and anticipated abortion president, conceded defeat last Saturday to Obama, who captured the nomination from her after a long and bitter campaign.

Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, who broke from the ranks of other radical feminist leaders earlier this year to endorse Obama, saying Obama, not Clinton, would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion.

URL:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/printerfriendly.html?articleid=08061010

Kurt said...

LMAO!!!!!

marie-elsie --

your response to Bob/Rustler was a hoot! thanks for posting.

Rustler45 said...

MARIE INTELLIGENTLY ASKS: "Why don't you say exactly what you mean Rustler."

RUSTLER REPLIES: I did. Are you too stupid to understand a direct insult? Is this clear enough for you?

Don't you think they'd make a great pair????

Rustler45 said...

KURT SAID: your response to Bob/Rustler was a hoot!

Kurt, you're just a hoot too. Hoot hoot hoot!!!

I hope you and Marie don't run out of hot air too soon. I can just picture two limp hooters.

betty said...

I can just picture two limp hooters.

Every time you look at your wife.

Rustler45 said...

BATTY BETTY/KATHERINE: Every time you look at your wife.

Is that why 15 husbands have left you?

Rustler45 said...

Hey Katherine/Batty Betty

There's a new Country and Western song out with you in mind.

"I'd Take Her to a Dogfight But I'm Scared She'd Win"

bob said...

M-E,

That's all you women for Obama think about. You're hoping for Mandingo too. Why would a white woman be so crazy about Barack Hussein Obama?

Marie-Elsie said...

I am sorry Rustler, I must be slow for I do not get your insult. Explain it to me like I am 5 years old. Come on make it sting or is that all you got.

Rustler45 said...

MARIE ELSIE WHINES: I am sorry Rustler, I must be slow for I do not get your insult.

RUSTLER: M.E., It won't do any good. I have tried in the past to explain things to dissenters on a 5th grade level.

You're slow Marie, deal with it.

Mattheus Mei said...

hey I thought we established that I like guns Rustler... oh well.

catholicsfordemocracy said...

"The fact that you people don't like Bill Donohue tells us all we need to know about what kind of Catholics you people in here really are. You don't the slighest thing about your faith or what it requires of you and you don't want to know."

Rustler45, show me anywhere in the Catechism, the Bible, Canon Law, say, or any writings of the Fathers, the Saints, the Popes or any Ecumenical Council that says I have to like or agree wit Bill Donohue.

The fact remains the Bill Donohue is not a bishop, nor does he represent the college of bishops an any official capacity. His claim to speak for Catholics is a nominal claim on his part alone, and on the part of the Board of Directors of Catholic League and anyone who signs on as the League's supporters.

Bill Donohue is nothing more than a loud, foul-mouth attention-whore who tries to bully people into embracing his personal politics under the pretense of "defending" Catholicism. Truth is that his fifteen minutes of fame have exhausted a long time ago; and now Donohue is exhausting the rest of us.

The fact, sir, that you would question what kind of Catholic someone is because he or she feels that way, or that Catholics who feel that way, are some how not knowledgeable in their faith, raises the questions, "What kind of Catholic are you?" and "What is the depth of your own knowledge of your faith.

You may have canonized Donohue, but the rest of us just wish he would shut up already. But we know that's difficult for an attention-whore to do.

Rustler45 said...

Hey DemocraticCatholic (what an oxymoron that is).

That title in itself tells me that you don't know your neck from your elbow about Catholicism and I am supposed to take seriously anything else you have to say?

Let me explain to you since you are ignorant of the fact that democracy is intrinsically evil.

Here you go, educate yourself:

1. It is the rule of the majority in their own self interest. Any ruler who rules in his own self interest is evil whether it is a one person rule, rule by a minority, or rule by majority.

2. Democracy believes that all authority comes from the people. Fact is, all authority comes from God. Democracy is the first system in the history of the world where authority comes from below rather than from above.

3. The third, but not the least reason Democracy is intrinsically evil is because it contains the belief that morality is subject to the ballot box. Again, God determines morality not the vote of the majority. The Declaration of Independence makes that clear with the statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Aristotle defined the forms of government:

1. Rule by one person in his own self interest ......................--Tyranny
2. Rule by one person in the interest of the common good...--Monarchy
3. Rule by a minority in their own self interest......................--Oligarchy
4. Rule by a minority in the interest of the common good.....--Aristocracy
5. Rule by a majority in their own self interest......................--Democracy
6. Rule by a majority in the interest of the common good.....--Polity

Aristotle's final word on democracy.

"A democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property, and vulgar employments."

Rustler45 said...

Mattheus Mei said...
hey I thought we established that I like guns Rustler... oh well.

I don't recall seeing anything about that Mat. If so what the hell are you doing here promoting Obama? He's going to take them all away.

catholicsfordemocracy said...

rustler45,

What psyche ward did you escape from? Just checkin'.

You said: "[Democracy} is the rule of the majority in their own self interest. Any ruler who rules in his own self interest is evil whether it is a one person rule, rule by a minority, or rule by majority."

Good one, but wrong. The danger is that what could occur is what d'Tocqueville had referred to as the "Tyranny of the majority." The warning is correct, but that is not what is being pursued here nor in the Obama campaign.

You said: "Democracy believes that all authority comes from the people. Fact is, all authority comes from God. Democracy is the first system in the history of the world where authority comes from below rather than from above."

My answer. Democracy understands that, within the context of humanity trying to exercise authority, democracy ensures best that the interests of the broadest of society be achieved; because the "individual ruler" does not get to trump the will of the masses. The Democratic principle does not ask the transcendent question of where authority originates; it only asks from what source will authority presume to dominate within the particular political context of our society. The "will of the people" neither trumps nor negates the "will of the Creator."

You said: "The third, but not the least reason Democracy is intrinsically evil is because it contains the belief that morality is subject to the ballot box."

I respond: Democracy does not assume morality is subject to the ballot box. Democracy assumes the nation's laws are subject to the ballot box. Morality and ethics are extrinsic to the will of the people or the rule of the governors.

Honestly, rustler45, if you want to pretend to be a philosopher, go to a juvenile website. Don't try to do it in sites where you just might run into people with philosophy backgrounds.

And, oh, by the way, take your meds. You're overdue.

Marie-Elsie said...

"Democracy is intrinsically evil" hmmm.... I guess all that spreading democracy in the world is BS. Going to Iraq to topple a dictator then is evil.

First thing you said that made sense Rustler.

Mattheus Mei said...

Hey, he'll let me keep my huntin' rifle and as I remember, last time we were invaded that's how we beat the enemy, at least in South Carolina it was - with a hunting rifle, not an ak-47, not a machine gun, not an assault rifle, but hunting rifles and the gentleman's pistol.

Rustler45 said...

Hey demoCatholic, you're far more ignorant and indoctrinated than I ever imagined.

You're a real piece of work.

Did you never hear of Aristotle before?

Rustler45 said...

DEMOCATHOLIC SAID: I respond: Democracy does not assume morality is subject to the ballot box.

RUSTLER SAYS: Hey dummy, did you never hear, "You can't legislate morality?" Now who came up with that one? A liberal who wants to legislate immorality. You really do need to get out more.

DEMOCATHOLIC SAID: Democracy assumes the nation's laws are subject to the ballot box.

RUSTLER: WOW what a concept you come up with!!! Do you not understand that America is not a democracy?

DEMOCATHOLIC SAID: Morality and ethics are extrinsic to the will of the people or the rule of the governors.

Is that not what I am telling you?

You're all mixed up here Demo.

You need to back that juvenile website you've been on and stick to it instead of telling me about it. Tell me? You're a Political Science major? Right?

Rustler45 said...

"Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination, and under the sting of a just flagellation whiningly accuses Catholics of (107) lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking."

Notice the bold. Y'all are more than tainted with it. You're dipped, blued, and tattooed with it.

Here's the link from SacredCowpunchers on LIBERALISM IS A SIN

God hates a liberal.

Marie-Elsie said...

Jesus was a liberal.

Rustler45 said...

MARIE SAID: "Jesus was a liberal."

DemoCatholic told me I should go to a juvenile website.

After that comment I realize I am in one.

Marie, Jesus is Truth. Liberalism is a lie.

I guess I should have listened when you said you needed an explanation on the 4th grade level.

Rustler45 said...

Let's try this one more time Marie. Read slowly.

"Liberalism never gives battle on solid ground; it knows too well that in a discussion of principles it must meet with irretrievable defeat. It prefers tactics of recrimination, and under the sting of a just flagellation whiningly accuses Catholics of (107) lack of charity in their polemics. This is also the ground which certain Catholics, tainted with Liberalism, are in the habit of taking."

catholicsfordemocracy said...

Rustler45 said: "Is that not what I am telling you?.. You're all mixed up here Demo."

No. You're just not paying attention.

Rustler45 said: "Tell me? You're a Political Science major? Right?"

No. I was a philosophy major... way back in college.

But listen, Rustler, the only thing I enjoy about debating you is that, when replying to other people's comments, you make it very clear you didn't even bother to read them before jumping in to demonstrate how offensive you're capable of being. Then, in the process, you make lunatic statements that make one wonder whether you're even taking the time to think... or whether you're fingers are just typing on automatic.

You see. I like that because it really paints a visual in my mind, and I'm assuming in the minds of others, just what kind of Catholic is actually supporting John McCain. So thank you for the visual.

But, having said that, I did not come into this blog out of a desire to spar with someone who just wants to be disruptive. I came here to interact with other Obama supporters. So we'll just leave it at that.

catholicsfordemocracy said...

I can't believe I'm doing this. But, ok. The question has been raised about the origins of human law. So I thought we would let St. Thomas Aquinas help us answer that question. Our help will come from "Summa Theologica," a compendium of Catholic doctrine produced by Aquinas filtered through the Aristotelian school of philosophy.

For those not accustomed to reading Aquinas, let me briefly point out his style, so his writing doesn't become so confusing. Aquinas addresses matters by 1) stating the question; 2) pointing out all the objections to the point in the question; 3) pointing out positions contrary to the objections; 4) stating his own position; and 5) replying to the objections and/or contrary positions.

So, without further adue, from "Summa Theologica," question 95 (Human Law) Article 2:

"Article 2. Whether every human law is derived from the natural law?

Objection 1. It would seem that not every human law is derived from the natural law. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that "the legal just is that which originally was a matter of indifference." But those things which arise from the natural law are not matters of indifference. Therefore the enactments of human laws are not derived from the natural law.

Objection 2. Further, positive law is contrasted with natural law, as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4) and the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 7). But those things which flow as conclusions from the general principles of the natural law belong to the natural law, as stated above (Question 94, Article 4). Therefore that which is established by human law does not belong to the natural law.

Objection 3. Further, the law of nature is the same for all; since the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that "the natural just is that which is equally valid everywhere." If therefore human laws were derived from the natural law, it would follow that they too are the same for all: which is clearly false.

Objection 4. Further, it is possible to give a reason for things which are derived from the natural law. But "it is not possible to give the reason for all the legal enactments of the lawgivers," as the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff, tit. iii, v; De Leg. et Senat.]. Therefore not all human laws are derived from the natural law.

On the contrary, Tully says (Rhet. ii): "Things which emanated from nature and were approved by custom, were sanctioned by fear and reverence for the laws."

I answer that, As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (91, 2, ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.

But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g. that "one must not kill" may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that "one should do harm to no man": while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.

Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law.

Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher is speaking of those enactments which are by way of determination or specification of the precepts of the natural law.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument avails for those things that are derived from the natural law, by way of conclusions.

Reply to Objection 3. The general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on account of the great variety of human affairs: and hence arises the diversity of positive laws among various people.

Reply to Objection 4. These words of the Jurist are to be understood as referring to decisions of rulers in determining particular points of the natural law: on which determinations the judgment of expert and prudent men is based as on its principles; in so far, to wit, as they see at once what is the best thing to decide.

Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 11) that in such matters, "we ought to pay as much attention to the undemonstrated sayings and opinions of persons who surpass us in experience, age and prudence, as to their demonstrations."

Anonymous said...

"LIBERALISM IS A SIN"

Written by a Spanish priest who had some very interesting things to say about the Jews. Yeah, a great, authoritative source.

Rustler45 said...

DEMOCATHOLIC DEMOS HIS INTELLIGENCE, WHINNING HE SAID: "I came here to interact with other Obama supporters. So we'll just leave it at that."

Hey nitwit, why are you responding to me then? If you don't like what I say, ignore it.

I tried to carry on an intelligent conversation, but no one in here has the ability.

Now if you want to carry on a discussion please answer the question I have been asking from the start that no one seems to have an answer for. And quit trying to prove how intelligent and knowledgable you are because you just keep sticking your foot in your bigaxe mouth.

DUMOCATHOLIC SAID: Then, in the process, you make lunatic statements that make one wonder whether you're even taking the time to think... or whether you're fingers are just typing on automatic.

RUSTLER: Well Dumo, I mostly type in automatic. I don't need time to think about the idiot volumns of nonsense I read in here.

QUESTION IS: What Catholic values does Obama embody?

Or tell me how you can actually justify voting for Obama over McCain?

I want to hear an answer that utilizes Catholic thought, not some liberal nonsense.

Can you do it?

Anonymous said...

I tried to carry on an intelligent conversation

BAWAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

Rustler45 said...

Anonymous, you're unable to participate and so all you can do is be an axxbiting chihuahua.

shiloh said...

As I mentioned in a prevous post, Donohue is certifiable!

& hey rustler45 you're also rock solid certifiable! your own self! w/your 20
nonsensical posts in this thread ...

take care