patrick.net

Obama, for all of his faults, at least isn't crazy.

At first glance Romney isn't crazy, but he said that corporations are people.

I'll probably just vote for Obama.

This thread is just so typical of politics in this country - virtually no critical thinking, laziness, name calling, etc.

I'm not a republican.

I did not vote for Obama.

There's really no credible candidate, IMO. I will be voting for "None of the above".

Just because someone says Obama it better, Romney is better, etc. It's up to you to use your brain and vet that information.

Having said that, it's quite acceptable to vote for Obama because he's of a particular skin pigmentation, at least that's what some Hollywood actor says. I guess that sums it up.

www

I am voting for Jeb Bush in 2016.

This way we complete Nostradamus' anagram MABUS (obaMA BUSh) and bring upon a cataclysmic event.

Seriously, I will probably refuse to participate because I can't support anyone. I am not picking the better of two jackasses.

As a Libertarian there is only one choice which might not even make it to the finals.

It is very unfortunate that is looking less and less likely that Ron Paul has any chance. I had a glimmer of hope for a couple of weeks, but that was about it. There is no point in voting. None at all. Obama won't lose. It's probably better that he doesn't. This way I can at least hold out hope that a viable alternative emerges in 4 years. Obama, Newt, Rmoney (sic).... all the same. Santorum, you've got to be kidding me!

Even more unfortunately, I have this sinking feeling that Sarah Palin, knowing Obama won't lose, has calculated her position in 2016. I think I'll vomit now.

Jeremy,

I don't think Sarah Palin has a chance. Her only support would be in the South, and that's not enough to win a national election.

The GOP says

Really mandated inflated insurance premiums are "universal healthcare"?

Hey now, don't be suprised. This is America, where we take the WORST ideas of the Left and Right and combine them into the WORST possible legislation.

Can you pass me the can of Chocolate Corn?

EightBall says

I'm not completely opposed to universal healthcare. I'm opposed to the contraception mandate.

Couldn't you look at this as a matter of choice? Having an option to cover contraception doesn't require employees who to use it, doesn't require policy holders to use it. It would only require that employees who disagree have the choice to use it, n'est-ce pas? Even at Catholic institutions, there are countless non-Catholic employees, for example.

CL says

Couldn't you look at this as a matter of choice? Having an option to cover contraception doesn't require employees who to use it, doesn't require policy holders to use it. It would only require that employees who disagree have the choice to use it, n'est-ce pas? Even at Catholic institutions, there are countless non-Catholic employees, for example.

They have a choice - I listed them above. Pregnancy is not a disease and not having contraception covered (and paid for) by a Catholic institution isn't going prevent anyone from going out and buying the pill. It's a ridiculous argument driven by ideology and a precursor to ugliness yet to be delivered. If you can't give a conscience out for Catholics on something this trivial, what's next? You've gotta draw the line somewhere.

Can Jehovah's witness businesses deny blood transfusion coverage for their employees? Or can Christian Scientists deny surgery or drug coverage?

Believers can still refuse treatment, right? But employees aren't forced to believe what their employers believe.

I'd say THAT infringes upon the employee's rights, and would result in a scarier outcome than offering, but not requiring, condoms for Catholic employees.

Remember that this affects employees only, not religious institutions.

uomo_senza_nome says

It is funny, they don't want Obama. But they'll bring in potential candidates who'll do much worse than Obama in reality. They just don't want to accept the reality.

I don't think it is so funny that they don't want Obama. I don't want Obama, for numerous reasons he has been a disappointment as a president.

But, yes, they don't realize that every -- yes, I am including Ron Paul -- GOP option would drive this country further and faster into the ground than Obama. My hope is that in 4 years we are not yet past the tipping point in our problems, and that the 2016 pres. will affect positive change.

I would love to vote against Obama, but a write in for Spongebob is a more useful vote than voting for any of the GOP options.

You don't think it's not insulting to be told that an inflated health insurance by more than 40% since the health care bill was passed, to have it be called "Universal Health Care"?

Or to be asked who are you voting for, then to be told you're in favor of a litany of crap that has nothing to do with the outcome of who I vote for. Nor does it establish that those accomplishments were indeed merit of any accolades or anything to attribute to Obama?

Or the selective lucidity, they are good at deducing what you said when you didn't, but can't seem to grasp your other points?

...Didn't vote.

American in Japan says

How will the candidate of your choice be an improvement over Obama? What policies will be implemented...? Please be specific. I have my criticisms of Obama , incidentally, but I want to know who is better and why.

Crickets?

Romney would be a fine president. He has had executive experience on the highest level below president (governor). He has also had *successful* business experience in the private sector.
However, it's not rocket science how to try to improve the economy.
Romney is so far the only candidate who says he supports E-verify. This would make it difficult for employers to hire illegal aliens.
Romney does not have a sweeping tax reform plan, so he may be unsatisfactory for some conservatives.
Romney also does not spout sweeping "moral issues" like Santorum.However, most people do not want to hear any nonsense from elected people about "values" unless they are talking about American values.
I doubt we'll see Romney traveling the world to apologize for the USA and he surely won't be bowing and kowtowing to his foreign lessers either. We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes.
Rewarding failure and sloth is not a way to get Americans working again. Punishing success, capital and investment is not either.
Making worthless wasteful (mal)investments in solar schemes, electric cars and windmill boondoggles is not going to be repeated.

Not attacking here, but much of what you've said is rhetoric.

To summarize:

1) Governors are good. (All Governors have the requisite experience?)

2) Promises to be tough on undocumented workers (Obama has deported more than Bush). Do Romney's promises mean anything?

3) Romney is not palatable to conservatives

4) Romney is distrusted by the evangelicals, a large part of the GOP coalition

5) Saudi what? Bandar Bush? This is almost so inconsequential as to not warrant a response. But, again, because you doubt something doesn't make it so. Political promises are often broken, but with Romney you are guaranteed of it, since he's been on both sides of every issue!

6) Rewarding failure and punishing success was what happened PRIOR to the bubble bursting. Unless we believe that Wall street brigandage is "success"?

7) How is pioneering new technology less preferable to subsidizing old energy sources? Take battery technology--as batteries become stronger, lighter, more durable and contain more capacity, all of the devices that depend on them benefit.

This is an endorsement of Romney? He made his money through brigandage!

CL says

Can Jehovah's witness businesses deny blood transfusion coverage for their employees? Or can Christian Scientists deny surgery or drug coverage?

Believers can still refuse treatment, right? But employees aren't forced to believe what their employers believe.

I'd say THAT infringes upon the employee's rights, and would result in a scarier outcome than offering, but not requiring, condoms for Catholic employees.

Remember that this affects employees only, not religious institutions.

Pregnancy is not a disease and not covering the pill on an insurance policy doesn't prevent anyone access to the pill. You're comparison isn't fair and is disingenuous.

Let's put this awful law in the hands of the other side - suddenly HHS Secretary Palin decides that insurers must cover abstinence education as a benefit. Who would be crying foul then? If Sebelius can giveth, it can (and much more) be taken away. Why would we let what is covered and what is not covered be politicized like this? It's ridiculous. This is why the "death panel" argument is so plausible in many people's minds. This is why the law needs to be fully repealed or thrown out by the SCOTUS. We waited until it was passed to see what was in it - and now we know it is a turkey.

So, one of the main arguments for this albatross was that people were going bankrupt on medical bills - and one of the solutions is to mandate the pill be covered by a religious institution that preaches against contraception? Really? A little overreaching don't you think? The Democrats had their chance to do this right and they blew it from my perspective.

Cloud,

You're beating a dead horse. Obama has banksters in the administration. We get it. So will Romney if he becomes President.

The democrats are the only ones that even think of taxing the rich to help prevent an aristocracy. Guess who blocked any tax increases for the super rich? Oh yeah, that's right. The republicans.

If you don't want Obama in the White House, who do you want in there? It's not enough to just be against something. Suggest a positive alternative.

wthrfrk80 says

The democrats are the only ones that even think of taxing the rich to help prevent an aristocracy. Guess who blocked any tax increases for the super rich? Oh yeah, that's right. The republicans.

That whole thought is as backwards as the Reagan era "Trickle Down economics". Taxing the Rich more doesn't explain how that will create more jobs and imporove the plight of the middle class. If it's just about creating a better "Poor on the dole" system. Then I say no thanks.

Teach a man to fish and all that. I'd much rather have the fish comeback, so I can catch them myself, that to be feed Long John Silvers on Donald Trump's dime.

cl I am not saying rhetoric. I am saying facts.
The one standing candidate who said he would enforce E-verify to try to prevent illegal aliens from working here was Romney. He said it often in debates.
The other candidates have no executive experience compared to Romney. Governor is an executive office.
Poor people will always live shorter lives than rich. On the average, richer people are smarter and do not become obese, drunks, and they do healthy activities rather than be obese couch potatoes.
I am in the minority that Romney care doesn't bother me because this was an attempt in Mass. to get more people insured who could afford to buy insurance, and an attempt to not let them leech off everyone else.
I personally know illegal aliens here who have tens of thousands of dollars stashed at home, have built houses back in mexico, and they pay not one thin dime for their health care.

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease and not covering the pill on an insurance policy doesn't prevent anyone access to the pill. You're comparison isn't fair and is disingenuous.

Surgery, drug coverage and pregnancy planning are not always life threatening or "necessary", but access to medical care improves health and increases the likelihood of a positive outcome.

Not covering surgeries or drugs does not prevent access to them either. However, for low income people the financial hurdle can effectively prevent access to any medical care including family planning.

Anyway, the point is whether or not a religious belief can be used to restrict health care options to an employee -- who may not share the same beliefs.

I find CL's comparison to be both fair and ingenuous.

EightBall says

Let's put this awful law in the hands of the other side - suddenly HHS Secretary Palin decides that insurers must cover abstinence education as a benefit. Who would be crying foul then?

Oh, this is an easy question; I am surprised that you don't know the answer...

-- NO ONE --

Yes, no one would be crying foul if insurers were required to cover abstinence education. I don't think that there is anyone -- anyone sane that is -- would would not agree that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. The problem arises when people want to teach abstinence exclusively at the expense of sex-ed. This is a foolish position, and we currently know that abstinence only education leads to equal if not higher levels of STDs and teen pregnancy just in the kids who "accept" the pledge. This says nothing to the other kids who are denied a comprehensive sex-ed.

The GOP says

Teach a man to fish and all that. I'd much rather have the fish comeback, so I can catch them myself, that to be feed Long John Silvers on Donald Trump's dime.

Yeah, but Trump already owns the lake with the fish, and all the game in the King's wood.

If he is feeling generous he may let you do a little hunting and fishing, and you only have to give him 90% of your catch.

I hope the lunch your eating right now meets federal nutritional guidelines cloud. Because you don't want to make the govternment angry, now do you???

Clambo said: We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes...
Making worthless wasteful (mal)investments in solar schemes, electric cars and windmill boondoggles is not going to be repeated.
Well, its either one or the other. We currently get almost 10% of our oil imports from the Saudis (exceeded only by Canada & Mexico, with some African nations rising quickly). I'd rather keep that money in house than send it overseas like you want to do.

"We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes..."

No, Romney just thinks that this guy, is a "prophet, seer, and revelator" of god's will on earth. i.e. - if this guy tells Romney to take a second wife, Romney does it. In fact if this guy tells Romney, "God wants me to marry your wife." Romney starts shopping for wedding gifts.

Oh, yeah... and Romney thinks that his underpants have magical powers.

leoj707 says

Anyway, the point is whether or not a religious belief can be used to restrict health care options to an employee -- who may not share the same beliefs.

Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is the direct result of a decision to have sex not something you get from sitting on a dirty toilet or eating a rotten cheeseburger or the result of falling off a cliff. Not paying for insurance that covers the pill or the "morning after abortion inducing pill" is not restricting healthcare options. Hell, you can buy the morning after pill from a freaking vending machine now.

http://www.americablog.com/2012/02/how-mormons-and-scalia-prove-that-obama.html

"In United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing unconstitutional in requiring an Amish employer to withhold and pay Social Security taxes for his workers even though “the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs.”

Here’s how they put it:

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease.

Right, I thought we covered this. Neither is a broken bone, sprained ankle or tape worms, but they are all health issues.

EightBall says

Pregnancy is the direct result of a decision to have sex not something you get from sitting on a dirty toilet or eating a rotten cheeseburger or the result of falling off a cliff.

If it abstinence only education programs have taught us anything it is that people have sex. Regardless of whether or not you feel that your god(s) don't want them to. You might not want to admit it but we are born addicted to sex. It is a basic human drive much stronger than people want to admit. It is entirely unrealistic to expect people to not engage in sexual activity, and that without proper precautions, pregnancy is a result.

EightBall says

Not paying for insurance that covers the pill or the "morning after abortion inducing pill" is not restricting healthcare options.

Yes, it is. Birth control is a health care option, and while it may be difficult for those in an ivory tower to understand, the price of the pill will effect the health care choices of poor people.

EightBall says

Hell, you can buy the morning after pill from a freaking vending machine now.

So you are suggesting the solution to expensive birth control like the pill is to provide cheap abortion pills in vending machines?

Yes, yes... it is funny how people so opposed to abortion don't actually want to do anything to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that will result in abortions.

Newt in 2012, with the option to vote for Mitt Romney.

Anything but Obama, frankly will do.. even Ron Paul.

leoj707 says

If it abstinence only education programs have taught us anything it is that people have sex. Regardless of whether or not you feel that your god(s) don't want them to. You might not want to admit it but we are born addicted to sex. It is a basic human drive much stronger than people want to admit. It is entirely unrealistic to expect people to not engage in sexual activity, and that without proper precautions, pregnancy is a result.

A kick in the nuts usually will fix this natural attraction or addiction to sex. And yes it becomes a male health issue.

thomas.wong1986 says

A kick in the nuts usually will fix this natural attraction or addiction to sex. And yes it becomes a male health issue.

While it might fix the "natural" attraction of an individual it does not fix the addiction to sex. That overwhelming drive just gets redirected...

Frankly, the whole thing smacks of Clinton-era cries, where despite getting all they wanted, the Right despised him.

Perhaps this is why there is a lack of specificity to the responses here for AIJ. It's hard to rail against your own policies, hopes and dreams.

leoj707 says

That overwhelming drive

shock therepy.. does wonders.

thomas.wong1986 says

shock therepy.. does wonders.

*ah-hem*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_electrostimulation

Remember the SNL episode where Chris Farley is on a Japanese game show?

EightBall says

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with allowing a conscience exemption.

Because then we would be allowing a religious institution to, on their own free will, enter the commercial sector, and then impose their faith on their employees.

Perhaps you missed CLs post concerning how the supreme court has ruled on this.
CL says

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

EightBall says

The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

In that context "of" and "from" are the same. You can not have freedom of religion without being free from the dictates of other religions.

By your reasoning it would be OK for an islamic mosque to purchase a business and then require all employees to pray to allah 5 times a day. The employees are "free" to practice any religion they want, but on company time they are not free from the dictates of their islamic employers.

EightBall says

Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month.

Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs.

Hmmm... you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care -- as every other industrialized country does -- then religious employers would never have to worry about any conflicts if interest when providing health coverage.

leoj707 says

you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care

What does "Single Payer" even mean? It's not National healthcare. We need a not for profit, federal controlled, from top to bottom Health Care. Even if it means we paid considerably more in taxes to pay for it. A system where your publicly traded 401K sweet hearts can't participate in. The hospitals would be Government owned, the pupils would be Government trained(a perk for paying the higher taxes) Doctors would be educated on the governments dime, and then have to work in the Federal system for a set amount of years before they can practice in the Private practice. Which there would still and always be a private healthcare, as people that have money are NUTZ and think that unless they pay ungodly thousands for a nose bleed they are somehow getting ripped off or the medical care is inferior somehow.

Like for some stupid reason, India's health care we would call ridiculously inadequate, but yet we fawn all over the Indian Doctors, and pay them more than everyone else, when they come to practice in this country, like they are somehow smarter than everyone else.

We're so full of SHIT I don't even know where to begin sometimes.

I'm not don't subscribe to either party, but my vote would be Ron Paul.

Fiscal policy in this country is the real problem we face, and he has always resisted the road this nation has gone down financially.

Sadly, nothing is going to change no matter who is elected.

George Bush and Barack Obama are both guilty of spending vast amounts of money on wars and bailouts. I voted for Obama, and I'm frankly disappointed that he has continued the fiscal nonsense that had gone on for years before him.

No doubt Mitt Romney will do the same if he's elected.

Nothing will change in this country until people are pushed to the brink and violent revolution occurs.

It's time we stop blaming the 1% or the 99% for our troubles, and realize that the government is the problem.