Obama to speak at Kennedy's "Catholic" Funeral.
#11
(08-27-2009, 12:34 PM)timjp77 Wrote: It really irritates me when so called "Catholic" funerals have eulogies.  A euology is perfectly acceptable before or after Mass but not during.

You're right! Although exceptions are usually made for VIPs.
Reply
#12
Our president is a disgrace to America and a scandel to the church. Not to mention a lying, treasonous, totalitarian.

Anyone remember what used to be done to traitors? Sorry, I'm not being very charitable. Of course, he's only stealing my country and making a laughing stock out of Catholics.

Reply
#13
My dad was just saying a few minutes ago that this is one of the main reasons that he's no longer Catholic--that people who do not deserve a Catholic funeral due to their actions in life still receive one. I'd no idea what to say to that, because it's true. From Chappaquiddick to buying an annullment from his 30-year marriage, Kennedy should not receive this funeral Mass, but it's still happening just because the man happened to have a few dollars in his pocket.

Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis!  :pray2:
Reply
#14
Gee Whiz, gang do ya think out beneficent, exalted, and extremely good looking President will take this opportunity to further divide the Church, and ask them to follow the one true messiah, namely him?  
tim
Reply
#15
(08-27-2009, 11:36 AM)SanctiDominici Wrote: Actually the health reform has a cut off age of 59. Once your that age or older your basically on your own with your health. They are basically saying " once youve reached that age you had a good run at life and your not worth putting money into !"

I'm wondering where in the world that that "fact" comes from, as the House has not yet sent a bill out of committee, and the Senate has yet to even write one, I believe. 

I would presume that IF a health plan is devised to provide coverage for peopel who don't receive health insurance from work, and can't afford to purchase private insurance for themselves, or their families, it will be designed to cover individuals until they become eligible for Medicare, and their children until they enter the workforce and apply for insurance on their own.

There is an interesting irony in that it has been the conservative and Republican (and I presume the majority FE community opnion, since the majority opnion here seems to be in opositon to ANY publicly funded or administered health insurance plan, which Medicare is) that, once you reach retirement age (or, become disabled), and no longer receive insurance coverage from your employment (if you were lucky to receive that), you are then basically on your own with your health.  It should be noted that the conservative movement fought "tooth and nail" against Medicare when Lyndon Johnson proposed it in 1964, and they have, with equal vigor, opposed any effort to improve it, such as providing a prescription drug benefit.  The previous Republican administration even went so far as to threaten legal action against senior citizens who were obtaining prescripton drugs in Canada, because they couldn't afford to purchase them in the US.

Facts are facts.
Reply
#16
Obama will be playing the part of the voice of God, no doubt wearing his new robes from Notre Dame while assisting Father with the Consecration.
Reply
#17
WOW!  A pro-abortion, pro-homosexual President speaking at a Catholic funeral of a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual senator.  Now that's something one wouldn't have seen 60 years ago!
Reply
#18
(08-27-2009, 06:56 PM)mattman1970 Wrote: WOW!  A pro-abortion, pro-homosexual President speaking at a Catholic funeral of a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual senator.  Now that's something one wouldn't have seen 60 years ago!

Not without a stake and a large pile of wood surrounding it. Ah, the good old days of yore.
Reply
#19
(08-27-2009, 05:49 PM)moneil Wrote:
(08-27-2009, 11:36 AM)SanctiDominici Wrote: Actually the health reform has a cut off age of 59. Once your that age or older your basically on your own with your health. They are basically saying " once youve reached that age you had a good run at life and your not worth putting money into !"

I'm wondering where in the world that that "fact" comes from, as the House has not yet sent a bill out of committee, and the Senate has yet to even write one, I believe. 

I would presume that IF a health plan is devised to provide coverage for peopel who don't receive health insurance from work, and can't afford to purchase private insurance for themselves, or their families, it will be designed to cover individuals until they become eligible for Medicare, and their children until they enter the workforce and apply for insurance on their own.

There is an interesting irony in that it has been the conservative and Republican (and I presume the majority FE community opnion, since the majority opnion here seems to be in opositon to ANY publicly funded or administered health insurance plan, which Medicare is) that, once you reach retirement age (or, become disabled), and no longer receive insurance coverage from your employment (if you were lucky to receive that), you are then basically on your own with your health.  It should be noted that the conservative movement fought "tooth and nail" against Medicare when Lyndon Johnson proposed it in 1964, and they have, with equal vigor, opposed any effort to improve it, such as providing a prescription drug benefit.  The previous Republican administration even went so far as to threaten legal action against senior citizens who were obtaining prescripton drugs in Canada, because they couldn't afford to purchase them in the US.

Facts are facts.

That fact I listened to on the news, its one of the stipulations and its the same in europe. I know that for a fact with family in europe. There is a cut off age there and america wants to use european health care as its model.
Reply
#20
(08-27-2009, 02:43 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(08-27-2009, 02:30 PM)SanctiDominici Wrote: I saw on the news that Obama was telling other countries that America is NOT a Christian country and shouldnt be considered one. He has some damn nerve! Dont get me started!

Article 11 of the Treat of Tripoli, unanimously advised and consented to by the US Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.(edited to correct dates)

Except the main reason this country was started was so persecuted christians could have a new land to practice in and the fact that 3/4 of the nation is christian. By my standards, thats a christian country
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)