| Author | Message | ||
     Reindog |
I hope Drkside is reading this thread. I continue to be puzzled why anyone other than someone hanging on the government teet, would even think of voting for Obama. I still am reminded of President Nixon who had some of the most ardent supporters. At some point, Nixon's misdeeds became so public and apparent, that even his most enthusiastic supporters stopped supporting him. I am optimistic that many Obama supporters will finally reach that same state before November and vote for Romney. Romney has appeal as he is close to the Center. | ||
| Cataract2 |
Sorry Rein, I won't go any farther than just stating what I did. | ||
| Macbuell |
I'm not pushing any agenda and I won't tell anyone how to vote beyond a silly discussion as is happening in this thread. BUT, if you look at things rationally, despite your dislike for Romney, I don't see how you can look at Obama and the way things are now and conclude anything other than Obama has to be removed from office. And that any Republican that has half a chance to win the Presidential election should be supported with your vote. And when I say half a chance in winning the election I say that because Santorum has NO chance at winning the election. He is too much of a radical and has no chance of winning moderates, independents and will probably lose most female votes outside of Evangelicals. In short, if you want Obama out of office, Romney is the best chance of making that happen. And by the way, I would be very surprised if Romney did not pick a really strong conservative as his running mate to get the Republican party squarely behind him. I would be very happy with Rubio or Ryan whose names I here most often. Rubio would be smart because of his ideology and the fact that he could get some of the Latino vote. | ||
| Reindog |
Not an accurate statement. BUT, I agree with everything you wrote after your first sentence. Thank you for your insightful contribution to this "silly" thread. Voters will do what voters do but it is important to know that it is entirely OK to vote for Romney. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The issue is that the Federal government has spilled WAY beyond its banks. You a Presidential candidate and a "good friend" of "mega-corporations"? Great! If the government isn't involved on the free market except for the very limited roles prescribed by the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8, then your friendship to "mega-corporations" is irrelevant. I don't know whether Romney will drastically shrink government or not. I do know that Romney will grow the government at a rate significantly slower that the rocket ride toward central planning and government control we've been on for the last 4 years. We need one simple Amendment to the Constitution: "The government of the United States possesses no power except those expressly enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 or granted via Constitutional Amendment." If the "vast majority" of the population believes the Federal government should have a particular power, pass an Amendment. If you can't get enough votes nationally to grant a power to the Federal government but you CAN get enough votes from the citizens of your state to enact a policy, do it locally. If it turns out to be a good idea, other states can replicate that policy. If it turns out to be a bad idea, you only affect one state. It's not that difficult. | ||
| Crusty |
BUT, if you look at things rationally, despite your dislike for Romney, I don't see how you can look at Obama and the way things are now and conclude anything other than Obama has to be removed from office. And that any Republican that has half a chance to win the Presidential election should be supported with your vote. Please define rationally. I don't like Obama, and I won't be voting for him. However, Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts, and I know what he is; he's a Politician. How can you tell if he's lying? His lips are moving. For the first time in my life, I'm going to see what the obscure parties have to offer. | ||
| Julie |
As a woman and a health care professional, I could never vote for any Republican. I'll be voting for Obama because I'm not dumb enough to believe that universal health care is unconstitutional big government while religious regulation of my uterus is constitutional small government. | ||
| Glitch |
Difference is, you don't have to follow religious dogma, you do have to follow government under fear of being locked up or worse | ||
| Aesquire |
while I urge people to support the "alternative" parties, when November comes around, I strongly suggest 2 things. 1. Vote whoever is in, out. Odds are excellent they are now corrupt and verging on evil. If they are new, consider giving them 2 terms, if they have been there forever, consider their record on voting for things that steal your freedoms and violate the Constitution. IF they have an excellent record trying to keep you free... vote for them to stay. Tell us who this paragon is, we should urge him or her to run for higher office. You have a rare one. Cherish that. ( My Senator's record is so bad that only a deal with Satan or His Party keeps him in power. ) 2. Vote for anyone even slightly likely to defeat Barry, who, again, has chosen to take bribes from Quatar, the Saudi's and probably Putin. If any of you Know Sen. John McCain, or Fiengold, tell them they suck for setting up the current bribery system. Vote against them. ( see # 1 above ) I often vote wild card in primaries and for State and local office. I've even voted for Grandpa Munster for Governor.. He's a Commie. I didn't want him to win, but the alternative seemed to me to suck more than an insane ex-actor. History shows I was right. I've also voted for (blank) reform candidates, because without a certain number of votes, their party would no longer be allowed to run. ( New York id the Imperial State, and getting into politics is hard. The old guys are really jealous of new blood not under their thumb ) But in November, hold your nose and vote. Please. Unemployment, the real thing, not the "announced" figures has been rising steadily since Obama was nominated. Some of that, heck, from 2008 though fall 2010, we can just go ahead and Blame Bush. However, the economy was predicted to come back in 18 months, ( just as it did with Regan, Clinton, and Bush after they took office ) based on the idea that the Prez would be either ineffectual of at least not actively bad for your life. Barack Obama has been actively bad for the economy. More people are unemployed now than since the Great Depression. Jimmie Carter is now the second ( or third, if you really hate GWB ) worst Prez. in the 20th Century. ( or 4th , depending on where you put Woodrow Wilson and LBJ. ) Vote them out. It's the only way to be sure. ( since we can't nuke the site from orbit ) | ||
| Davegess |
I'm with Julie. I don't think O is the greatest pres ever, far from it but the Republicans are all talking crazy stuff. This whole not paying for birth control thinks is insane. If you can get exempted from covering something that goes against your religious beliefs any one working for a Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness or any of the many slightly whacky groups out there is screwed. The Reps are way too far to the right for me. The Dems would have to have Joe Stalin on offer to get me to vote for them (and I know some of you think O is worse than that but...) | ||
| Aesquire |
Julie, Perhaps government run medicine is better than the alternative. I doubt it, but other than the Canadians, I'd be dead under most such systems. I also support your right to do as you darn well please with your own body, and will support your right to contraception, etc. If you want ME to pay for your Contraception, I insist you pay for my Viagra ( when/if I need it ). Fair? Or if you are willing to take personal responsibility for your own actions, I'm good with that too. I think, that will rare exception, most R' types could give a darn about controlling your Uterus. The ones that do... tell them to kiss your Butt. History shows the ones most likely to succeed in making forced Sterilization law are D's. Or to jail you for "risking" your future baby by not obeying Federal Guidelines. But, hey, Barack doesn't want his kids to be punished by being responsible for their own actions, and if you wish to surrender your will to that kind of person, go ahead. Freedom requires responsibility. It's harsh, but it's true. Probably best you not vote, though. That's an Adult thing not a ward of the State. ( and, btw I'm a serious Libber, submitting to the will of the President does not seem like freedom to me ) | ||
| Glitch |
If you can get exempted from covering something that goes against your religious beliefs any one working for a Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witness or any of the many slightly whacky groups out there is screwed. WTF?  If you think they're slightly whacky why would you work for them? If they're against birth control why would you expect them to provide it? Why force someone to do what they feel is immoral? If you want birth control, buy some, don't try to force someone to go against their beliefs and provide you with anything. This is such craziness, what happened to religious freedom? What's happening to freedom period? Man alive I hope someone stops this downward spiral. All politics aside, there's no way the government can afford the health care bill, even if it is found to be Constitutional. We can tax the top 10% at 100% and still not be able to afford it without outside borrowing. Don't y'all think we're in enough debt? | ||
| Aesquire |
This whole not paying for birth control thinks is insane. As I've stated before, I disagree with the Catholic Church on contraception. I do understand their reasoning, do you? But what Obamacare does, by Presidential decree, is force Catholic Charities to pay for abortificants. Now, again, I'm all for you having them if you and your doctor want. But I can also understand the Church's not wanting to be responsible for what they consider to be murder. It's not as clear cut as the papers make it seem. Give me an example where the Catholics are wrong to deny HEALTHCARE, and I will probably be on your side. Give me an example where you want the President of the United States to tell you you are not in an acceptable religion to qualify for the Freedoms everyone else has. I do admit that making Barack Obama's violation of the first amendment into his political enemies fault is brilliant. Dishonest, but Brilliant. If, say Bachman becomes President, Is it ok for her to force Muslim charities to serve bacon, or go to jail? | ||
| Reindog |
Julie and Professor Gess: Thank you for posting your views and it is a good thing that you are "stirring up the pot" with new ideas. I'll post more in the near future but I am stuck working right now as I lost the mega-millions lottery last week. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I luckily just got health insurance from my part-time job, good thing because I had some major health issues going on and was able to get some of the best care on the east coast. BUT.. during my unemployment (2 yrs) I tried to get the free health care (medicaid) but could not because I made too much money on unemployment. I had to go to a clinic and for any testing you need they send you to hospital, where they have this thing called "Charity Care". They base all bills on you income, a sliding scale. Come to find out, ALL hospitals have this including the hospital I ended up going to. So... even though I did not have health care... I really did. (probably would have cost me alot more thru charity care) but still... it is not like I didn't have any. I was (and everyone else) is covered already. This has been around for years. Some seniors that I know, said to me... they have supplemental insurance along with medicare and are on fixed income and will not be able to afford the same care they get now once Obama care takes effect. And, alot of their senior friend's will not vote for Obama. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nfp-big-miss-120k-ex pectations-205k-unemployment-82 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Why is the example of a someone who is completely against anything religious having their healthcare choices limited by a their religious organization EMPLOYER being Used? Please Julie and Dave, explain how government mandated healthcare that forces practices that are against religious beliefs not an infringement of the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;" | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Which Amendments to the Constitution are free to be disregarded at Will? First Amendment? Second Amendment? Tenth Amendment? | ||
| Julie |
If we had a single-payer national health care system, then religious organizations wouldn't have to worry about their gods smiting them for providing health care to their employees. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Julie I see you and Dave prefer serfdom to freedom your welcome to it. Obama care isnt about healthcare its about control and power over the people. Ill never have gov paid for health services I ll pay my own way and decide for myself what services I get or do not get. I wont kiss the ring or the any thing else to get any thing I may die refusing gov drs but I ll die a free man not a serf or slave somethings are more important Medical tourism will be the new growth industry since I design and build medical facilties I ll be just fine Remember your post when you or your family are denied a procedure because its too expensive or your not with in the guide lines. The services you will get are to be provided for by the same brain trust that runs the post office. I have 2 doctors and 3 nurses and a paramedic in the family so I get both sides of the arguement. | ||
| Glitch |
If we had a single-payer national health care system, then religious organizations wouldn't have to worry about their gods smiting them for providing health care to their employees. I would rather them offer healthcare to their employees as they feel fit. If the employee feels slighted because the Church they're working for won't provide them with something they feel is immoral then get a job that feels differently about the coverage they offer. The Government of the United States is not nor it should be in the healthcare business. As screwed up as Washington is, and on that I think we all can agree, you think they can run something as personal and individual as healthcare? Hell these idiots can't come up with a freaking budget for Pete's sake! We can't pay for what Washington has got going on RIGHT NOW, and you think they're able to take on healthcare in a cost effective and timely fashion? What have they done in the past, say 20 years, that has been done in a cost effective and timely fashion? You'd trust government to take care of you better than you can take care of yourself? | ||
| Blake |
My objection is paying taxes in support of what i hold is immoral behavior. Not that I'm concerned G-d will smite me. The lack of concern for religious freedom is astounding, chilling. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Somehow, the idea has shifted that non-belief is protected and religious belief is not. Are you REALLY advocating religious persecution? Forcing someone to abdicate their beliefs under penalty of law is equal to forcing someone to adopt another's beliefs under penalty of law. It's the Spanish Inquisition without the snappy robes. | ||
| Alfau |
Blake. “Taxes are what we all pay for a civilized society, and health care for the poor is a part of that.” Whether the taxes are reasonable or not, and regardless of how a government might spend this money,imoral or not,notice that even Jesus paid taxes. Read Mt 22:15-21 You could say, He willingly paid His own immoral murderers wages with the tax. But definitely, He did not pay taxes in support of them. Happy Easter. | ||
| Aesquire |
So it's Ok for Obama to tell the Muslim charities to provide ham sandwiches? | ||
| Davegess |
I don't much care about the birth control issue but I do care about blood transfusions. This is part of what makes me think the Republicans have lost their minds. The Prez says" Catholic church has to pay for BC under my paln" and within a few days republican legislators are saying that NOONE who pays for health insurance of any type should be required to over ANY coverage they have religious objections to. Not just under the Obamacare but ANY insurance. So if the owners of my company are Christian Scientists they can make it very difficult for me to have surgery of any sort? Thatmakes no sense. And some one said I shouldn't work for someone whose religion I disagree withe? Come on, get real. My company has been owned by 4 different Venture Capital firms in 5 years. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I works for a company largely run by Mormons. The only issue I've seen so far is that they require shirts and ties for dress code. They prefer white shirts. I haven't seen any bicycles though. RARELY does an employer make medical choices in health care based upon the religious convictions of the owners. I've NEVER encountered it. I SOLD healthcare plans for 16 years. The question of what was and wasn't covered, from a religious standpoint, was never covered. The largest objection to Obamacare is over BC and is from the Catholic church. If that's your biggest complaint, don't work for the catholic church. | ||
| Sifo |
The largest objection to Obamacare is over BC and is from the Catholic church. If that's your biggest complaint, don't work for the catholic church. Or simply pay for your own BC. It's really not that expensive. Same with the blood transfusions argument. Or you could shop for specific riders on your health care coverage to add coverage. This is commonplace for those on Medicare. Isn't BO care being claimed to ultimately be nothing more than expansion of Medicare to cover everyone? So we are pushing for government healthcare, that we already see a need to supplement because we don't want to deal with the potential of having to supplement employer paid healthcare. Does anyone really see this as sound reasoning? | ||
| Reindog |
Julie, At one time in my life, I thought that even knowing and befriending a Republican was a reprehensible act. I was a lifelong Democrat, and have voted for McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton, so I have "street cred". What I would like for you to take away from this screed is that there is not just one kind of Republican just like there is not one kind of Democrat so making a statement that you would "never vote for a Republican" kind of backs you into a philosophical corner. I am actually quite socially Liberal which springs from the belief that people are responsible and should be held accountable for their actions. It is not the job nor the charter of the Federal government to intrude into our lives. That is why I am a Republican. I am not happy with some Republicans just like I bet you are not enthralled by some Democrats. I am not sure where your philosophical roots hail from but single-payer systems lead to a dead end over time. If you think you have no redress for you grievances with an insurance carrier, then wait until you have a problem with Federal government health care. I firmly believe in health care reform but what Obama and the Pelosi-Reed Congress did was exactly the wrong thing. They have wasted years of America's time and now we have to start afresh. What they have given us is nothing short of Tyranny. And I mean this up to and including my life. I'm sure your uterus is lovely but Obama has played you and you don't even know it. The BC issue is a First Amendment issue and is not an attack on women. It is preposterous to think otherwise but the spin doctors are like the Great Oz. | ||
| Blake |
Dave, >>> So if the owners of my company are Christian Scientists they can make it very difficult for me to have surgery of any sort? That makes no sense. Is there a single case of them doing that? So isn't that just an argument based upon on fiction? It is, and even more so when you consider that you've been misled about the requirements of Christian Science adherents. Direct from the Christian Science web site: It’s up to each person who practices Christian Science to choose the form of health care he or she wants.And even from wikipedia of all places: The Christian Science Church does not generally or formally forbid the use of medicine by its members. |
