merits an apology. You really dont' want to back off your condescending statements in #23, #50, #143?


You really want to double down on Kim Davis's version of the story by adding a vatican conspiracy and cover-up rather than admit their might be some truth to the Vatican's more practical explanation that she was invited to a meet and greet by a US official and the pope greeted her without really knowing who she was?

It just seems to me very american-centric to think the pope would know who Kim Davis was an request an audience with her.




>i assume the pope/Vatican is aware of the hurt felt by those
>who saw his meeting w/Davis as a slap in the face. if so, i
>assume that the Vatican issued a statement clarifying his
>position - he didn't mean to show Davis support and may not
>have been aware of the potential ramifications of meeting
>w/her - b/c the pope and/or the Vat wanted to assuage some of
>that hurt. some are interpreting the statement to mean that
>the pope did indeed intend to stay out of the fray surrounding
>the states' issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples. and
>he didn't necessarily mean to include Davis's act when he
>spoke of conscientious objection as an important right.
>
>if this is true i'm glad the pope is so aware and concerned
>about the ppl w/whom he seems to want to curry good will. none
>of that was clear before the most recent statement. so i
>won't 'apologize' for expressing what i thought in the wake of
>the previous climate. i stand by everything i said.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

Movies I need y'all bastids to see so we can discuss:

Five Star - https://goo.gl/jBHbVv
Appropriate Behavior - http://goo.gl/isCzTM
Ma