Polls split on Catholic view of Obama

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 17, 2012 10:59 a.m.

    @m.g. scott
    first lets discuss your little short cuts through ht e facts in 1993 the results where Clinton 43.0%Bush 37.5% the 1996 results where CLinton 49.2%v Dole 40.7%. Now to me that would indicate he had the majority of the vote unless you want to hold the standard to that someone must win over 50% of the vote in which case you would need to void current election laws and disqualify a lot of past elections other then just clintons including Bush's "win" n 2000 where he actually really did not get the majority of the votes by either standard.
    Secondly by US voter laws clinton was elected to office not appointed and Hitler has by german law was not elected he was later much later appointed not the same thing but nice try. History and the truth just are really not your friend s.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 17, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    @m.g. scott

    in 1992 the popular vote was Clinton 44,909,806 Bush 39,104,550 with Perot and other third party candidates trailing far behind. In 1996 the popular vote count was clinton 47,401,185 Dole 39,197,469 with Perot and other third party candidates trailing far behind.. I am not sure why you feel the need to continue to spread lies that are so easily refuted.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 17, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    Re: Hitler elected.

    Kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton. He lost the majority vote of the people by 7% the first time and by 1% the 2nd. Still he served as an elected president. You see, sometimes democracy isn't as simple as it seems. Also, since you seem to be about countering my point that dictators are not elected that still leaves us with the example of good old Hugo down in Venezuela.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 16, 2012 10:26 p.m.

    @mg scott

    the german people voted against hitler by over 70% in the first vote and by over 65% in the run off vote. He did not reach power until he was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg its all right there in the history books.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 16, 2012 10:17 p.m.

    "the administration argues that the separation of church and state doesn't allow religious groups operating in the public marketplace to discriminate against employees." Why in all these debates and all these committee hearings has the religious groups failed to address Obama's actual stated concern. Why is it alright for a religious organization acting outside its ecclesiastical duties and in the public sphere to discriminate against its employees religious freedoms. Do organizations now trump the rights of individuals?

    Feb. 16, 2012 10:15 p.m.

    @mg scott

    go back and do your history lessons again Hitler was not elected he was appointed. when you cannot even get simple historical facts right how do you expect to be taken seriously?

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 16, 2012 5:26 p.m.

    Mick:: Just one thing: The Affordable healthcare act was passed in the house of representatives, by a majority, and in the senate by a super majority 60-40 The GOP is attacking workers rights in several states, and now want to include womens rights on their agenda. The GOP will lose nationally in a landslide. They are so out of touch.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 16, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    History has shown that the only polls that really matter are the ones that have "likely voters" as the sample. Otherwise it is just a public opinion poll, not an election poll.

    And by the way Pagan, You ask how can someone be a dictator when they were elected? Well Hitler was elected, and so was Hugo Chavez of Venesuela who now wants to be President(dictator) for life. It can happen.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Feb. 15, 2012 6:14 p.m.


    I guess we will wait and see what the courts decide about the states opting out of obamacare. It will be found unconstitutional.

    This issue isn't about taking away an individuals free choice to use BCP no matter how many statistics you use about how many catholics use contraception. I don't even think it is about religion. It is about the federal government forcing private companies to provide free BCP's. The government should't tell any private company how to run their business, ie Solyndra.

    The hypocrisy of the argument is using the "we care about women" statements. I love the attempt of the left to power grab and use minorities to do so.

  • stan chaz BROOKLYN, NY
    Feb. 15, 2012 12:58 a.m.

    One of the legitimate functions of government is to promote equality and fairness for ALL, to have everyone play by the same rules. No one is coming into our Churches and trying to tell parishioners what to believe. BUT If the Bishops want to start businesses that employ millions of people of varying faiths -or no "faith" at all- THEN they must play by the rules...ESPECIALLY if they use our tax dollars in the process.  Just because a religious group in America claims to believe something, we cannot excuse them from obeying the law in the PUBLIC arena, based on that belief. They can legally attempt to change the law, not to deny it outright. And if they want to plunge overtly into politics from the pulpit, then they should give up their tax-exempt status. Did I miss something, or when it comes to the "sanctity of life", is every single righteous Catholic still a card carrying conscientious objector, still refusing to take up arms,  still totally against the death penalty, and still against contraception and birth-control in all its forms? Oh well, hypocrisy is at the heart of politics, and politics masquerading as religion even more so. This country is an invigorating mixture of all the diversity that life has to offer, drawing its strength FROM that diversity. We need to work together to preserve, enrich, and strengthen this unique experiment - NOT to tear it down with poisonous, paralyzing, and un-Christian demonization of each other.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2012 8:43 p.m.

    2. Pagan points out that several states have mandatory birth control laws, BTW pagan it is not just Mass.(although we get why you would bring up Mass.)' - Mick | 8:31 p.m. Feb. 14, 2012

    Because it's EXACTLY the same bill?

    More examples of Repubicans...who cannot support their own parties actions.

    Let's look at your claims:

    1) The constitution protects the people from the federal government.

    And yet the constitution, is on the FEDERAL level.

    2) State rights do NOT supersede federal law. Otherwise, marriages would NOT be federally recognized.

    3) Obamacare PASSED the House and, the Senate. To claim they did 'not' go before congress is false.

    4) How can someone be a 'dictator'...

    when he was elected?

    'Obama hates the constitution' is a great talking point, but nothing you can prove, quote, or support.

    So stop lying!

    Or claiming Obama is a 'Muslim'...

    ...while claiming Obama is a racist due to Jerimiah Wright, at a Judeo-christian church!

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Feb. 14, 2012 8:31 p.m.

    A few things-

    1. This issue is not about birth control or catholics. It is about the POTUS dictating that a private company has to provide a product for free. Are they going to provide all medications for free. Why birth control? Why not Viagra? If the issue is about Women's health then what about men's health? If is is about pregnancy prevention than the issue is about recreational sex and I again ask, why not free viagra? Why can't women who want to be protected while having recreational sex pay the 20 dollars a month for their own BCP's? Does anyone else feel this is a form of population control?

    2. Pagan points out that several states have mandatory birth control laws, BTW pagan it is not just Mass.(although we get why you would bring up Mass.) The constitution of the US protects the people from the federal government. It doesn't prevent state mandates although there are some things it does say, like the state can't take away your guns or religion. Therefore the state can mandate such things if passed in state congress and allowed by state constitution. What is good for one states may not be good for every state.

    President Obama is mandating things that haven't passed or even gone before congress all under the Obamacare banner. Scary! He doesn't want to be the POTUS he wants to be the Dictator of the United States. He has hate and distain for the constitution and we need to vote him out!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 14, 2012 6:17 p.m.

    Obama is doing a good job. He listened and responded when people spoke on the issue.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2012 6:11 p.m.

    'Polls split on Catholic view of Obama' - Title

    That's pretty good, actually.

    Considering that, not x12 months ago...

    people kept lying, and said Obama was a Muslim.

    **'Trump on Obama's Birth Certificate: 'Maybe It Says He's a Muslim' - Fox Nation - 03/30/11

    **'Nearly 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim, Survey Shows' - By Lauren Green - 08/19/10 - Fox News

    But there is 'not' a religious requirement for President. (Sarcasm) Right Mitt Romney? (Nod, nod, wink, wink)

    Few things about the claim that Obama would rather people be 'fighting in the streets' claim.

    1) Over 80% of Catholic women use birth control. So this number, in comparison with 2008, is so even, it is a wash.

    2) Mitt Romney signed a state mandate making it MANDATORY for religion on Massachusets to provide all forms of birth control in 2002.

    and 3) In December America added over 200,000 jobs.

    In comparison, other GOP candidates are using Romney's job 'creation' numbers at Bain...

    against him.

    i.e. why would you vote for someone...who is only going to fire you to raise corporate profit?

    Your choice.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2012 5:50 p.m.

    "Of greatest interest in the Pew survey though is the conflict between the female and Catholic response. 55 percent of Catholics favor the exemption, against 39 percent opposed."

    Those numbers are fairly close to what Obama got in terms of the Catholic vote which would suggest no harm. Remember, Obama is pro-choice... Catholics who are willing to vote for a pro-choice candidate despite church views are probably also going to overlook this contraception thing, and Catholics who were unwilling to vote for a pro-choice candidate are probably also going to be outraged about this contraception thing.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 14, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    With three hundred million people in this country, why can't we find one honest president with character?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 14, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    Doesn't matter. BO wants controversy and fighting in the streets - it distracts from the miserable economy. Expect some sort of new controversial thing to pop up around summer time...something similar to his union funded occupy wallstreet fiasco. Reminds me of the Wizard of Oz... pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..... Yes Barack is the master of distraction and deception and his lap dog media is always ready to play along. BO is trying hard to create the lie that the GOP doesn't want ANY contraception... which again is a flat out lie. That's the thing with this character Obama - the man can't do ANYTHING that isn't shady and deceptive. People have come to expect this every time a new bill is proposed or a so-called compromise pops it's ugly head up. You know with 100% certainty that BO is hosing you. You know the man is spinning and propagandizing the issue. There is simply ZERO trust in the man.