Lakoff and Wehling write: "Do you believe in freedom of religion? President Obama does, and he is defending Americans' freedom of religion against Mitt Romney and Fox News."
Portrait, George Lakoff. (photo: Bart Nagel)
Be Not Afraid of Mitt Romney
23 September 12
o you believe in freedom of religion? President Obama does, and he is defending Americans' freedom of religion against Mitt Romney and Fox News in the administration of his health care bill.
In difficult cases, he has extended freedom of religion even further, beyond people to churches and houses of worship. Insurance companies are required to cover contraception with no co-pays for the women whose health care they are covering. This guarantees freedom of religion for the women covered, and does not affect insurance companies, which are neither people nor religious institutions.
What about hospitals, charities with a religious affiliation, and religious employers who have a moral objection to contraception? Women getting health care paid through these institutions will be able to obtain contraception from the insurance companies, not the religious institutions. Thus the president has found a way to extend freedom of religion not only to all women, but even beyond people to churches and religious employers.
This makes President Obama a remarkable champion of freedom of religion in contemporary American history.
Moreover, President Obama is very much in touch with the values of Americans. A recent Gallup Poll has shown that, in the US, 82 per cent of Catholics think that birth control is "morally acceptable." 90 per cent of non-Catholics believe the same. Overall, 89 per cent of Americans agree on this. In the May 2012 poll, Gallup tested beliefs about the moral acceptability of 18 issues total, including divorce, gambling, stem cell research, the death penalty, gay relationships, and so on. Contraception had by far the greatest approval rating. Divorce, the next on the list, had only 67 per cent approval compared to 89 per cent for contraception.
Mitt Romney and Fox News, on the other hand, are proposing a huge backward step on freedom of religion. Romney has said he would support a bill that would allow employers and insurers to deny their female employees insurance coverage for birth control and other health services, based on the religious beliefs of the employers and insurers. As far as employers are concerned, this fits with President Obama's policy. But the extension to insurance companies violates the freedom of religion that the President guaranteed to women.
In addition, Romney has said he would "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, an organization that allows women freedom of religion by supplying contraception if they choose to ask for it. This would be another major blow to freedom of religion.
In short, Romney is advocating, and would take, a big backward step to deny freedom of religion to women.
Given that 89 per cent of the American people support contraception, we have no reason to be afraid of Romney - unless we let him get away with his attempt to frame the President as being against religion. The President's advance in promoting freedom of religion should be shouted from the rooftops.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
|
23 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I have just bookmarked J.H. home page at UVA and will certainly read his stuff. Here is a summation of his message:
"At the same time we are both selfish and groupish – as he puts it, nine parts chimpanzee for every one part bee. But we are not fundamentally selfish creatures, despite what we have been told for the past half century. We just need to encourage the bee to take flight, working a little harder at establishing trust and commonality with each other. "We're all stuck here for a while," he concludes. "So let's try to work it out."
I'll be interested in reading deeper. Thanks for the pointer, as this is an issue I've struggled with in many lands, not just the US, have formed and re-formed my own "Conclusions" and am always seeking other works on the subject.
Just keepin' an open mind folks and am always ready to learn. Don't necessarily agree with the post -nor do I march in lockstep with anybody in particular -try it sometime.
I personally think most Republicans are either crazy or stupid or really mean greedy bastards. tThey do however, have a lot of votes- somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of them. Probably more like 45%- most voter fraud is perpetrated by the right- but that's a different rant.
So, like 'em or not, ya gotta work with them. And to wok with them, ya gotta understand them. Haidt's Book will help you with that.
If employers wish to impose their religious beliefs on employees, that should be specifically stated in the hiring process. Oops... isn't that against the law (unless religion is directly related to the job duties of the potential employee)? Well, then, doing so indirectly by refusing medical coverage is also.
And don't forget that as an employer, I can deduct health care expenses from my tax bill, so this is not really "my money".
8^) (Probably)
Just because I work for a religious INSTITUTION, does not require me to abide by their beliefs. It is not for them to dictate what I can or cannot have, unless they only serve Kosher, or vegan food in their kitchen. Their religious dogma does not extend that deep into my personal life.
I DON'T think it is that difficult to understand. "Health" got mixed up with with politics, because the politicians who scream the loudest are religious fanatics.
They are sexually repressed and immature. They hate, that women can have a healthy sex life. They feel that sex is for men to enjoy and for women to endure.
"Nice" women are not supposed to be interested in " those things" and if they do not want a baby, but choose an abortion , they MUST be punished and they HAVE to have the baby.
Politicians are condemning that child to an unhappy life. An unwanted, unloved child too often becomes an unhappy sometimes mean and criminal person.
Another way you can tell it is a matter of punishment. They don't WANT women to use contraception either. It is simply NO SEX.
Now here is the interesting thing: the very RED SOUTH. Look at the map! it is BLOOD RED AND THE BIGGEST CUSTOMER OF PORNOGRAPHY. They are religious, fanatical HYPOCRITES
Another possibility is the fear of being vulnerable. When we care about others, we open ourselves to being vulnerable. Those who havne't learned how to deal with their vulnerability, usually like to blame others for their fear, which means they believe it gives them the right to try to change others, as compared to the one person they CAN change, which is themselves.
Most patriarchal cultures socialize men to believe they need to be "tough" rather than caring. I think Romney is someone like that.
I see in "born-again" people in many organized religions, the attitude of blaming others for how they feel. If it's good, it's god, or someone they think is connected to god. Bad, it's the devil or the devil in others.
Blaming others allows them to rationalize their desire to exclude everyone not like them, and include everyone like them.
They make it an "us vs. them" relationship, and believe it's their "moral" right to change anyone who doesn't believe as they do. In the end, what they want is to restrict the rights and options of others, rather than extend freedoms to others.
They are a natural fit for the Republicans to co-opt to their agenda of exclusion of others.
Well crap, that's what I was gonna say.
I imagine those who don't believe in God get a little tired of having God shoved down their throats. I know how sick I am of having people knocking on my door asking if I'd like them to come in and bring the blessing of Jesus on my house. I can imagine the firestorm of condemnation I'd get if I asked if Jesus could do something about the termites? If so, come right in, otherwise forget it.
My main issue with the growing influence of the Christian Theocrats is how much they harp on war, even if they dress it up as Holy War. Is there anything more dangerous than a group of persons absolutely convinced that God wants them to point their weapons another group?
The Founding Fathers placed a firewall between Church and State because they saw firsthand where the unchecked power would lead. Hint: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
You are right on the mark, but let us call them what they REALLY are the THE AMERICAN TALIBAN.
And speaking of religious fanatics with weapons, I give the whole Middle East from India west to Mauritania.
Further above, one after another: high IQ low wisdom or just too plain lazy to actually RESEARCH their chosen comment line. Judeo-Christian scripture is the best documented, with the longest unbroken chain of custody of any world literature. The American Constitutional Convention was a group of about 55 educated men, over 50 of the group claiming belief in the God & Christ of Judeo-Christian scripture.
Time after time someone comes along with the intellect and initiative to actually do the research to disprove the verity of scripture... Invariably, they are convinced, based on archeology, secular accounts, science, and prophecy fulfilled; persons of intellectual honesty must accept the Word of God as written in the 66 books.
In fact, the Bible is probably the best example to be had of forensic and corroborative witness methodology to prove a case. Here, the case is to establish a land (Israel), a discipline (the law): orders of ethics, morality and human interaction, and a pathway to communion with Creator God (Jesus of Nazareth).
When the spasms subside, note the subject of Biblical prophecy, (100% fulfilled up to now) -fair warning- we are entering the Main Event in the Middle East. Hint: see George Grant's "The Blood Of The Moon"...
Folks like Pat Robertson and the late and (at least by me) unlamented Jerry Falwell make an explicit point of stating that the First Amendment guarantees only freedonm of religion, not freedom from religion (though of course hey dopn't really mean ACTUAL freedom of religion for EVERYONE). They prefe to ignore Article Six of the Constitution, which states in part that "no religious test shall ever be imposed for any office or public trust under the United States." NO religious test, even whether one has a religion or not.
ProLifer - you are just another talking head from False News.
Most employers are not in the business of creating jobs. They are in the business of making money.
Creating a job is the consequence of having more work than can be kept up with, so help is required. Having qualified employees allows the employer to prosper and expand. The expansion is the result of increased demand coupled with an ability to meet that demand.
The employer is not the benefactor, he is the recipient of the benefits. None of this has anything to do with magical thinking and imaginary friends. None of this gives the employer any right to control the medical decisions of the people who make his business possible.
No one is demanding that they give up their religious beliefs--just to please quit demanding that the rest of us give up ours.
Which is why compromise worked out by Obama has the insurance companies covering contraception *for free* - at no extra cost to the employer - which is embraced by the insurance companies because it's a lot cheaper than paying for pregnancy and birth.
But I understand why that part wouldn't have made it into The Bubble.
Sorry, I should have done a better job with proof reading. In the above comment, I meant to say "employers", instead of "employees". Sorry about the confusion.
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012
The alternative is unbearable.
I suggest that we vote for the other parties or independents on the ballot. This won't make much of a dent in the corruption, but it is a start. If enough of us avoid the corporate duo we may reach a tipping point when it will be known that limiting us to only two bad choices is not wise.
Real democracy would just get in the way.
Either Romney or Obama will win the presidency in November.
Everyone else will lose.
I'll ask you again: WHO ARE YOU VOTING FOR AND WHY?
It's not a trick question. But your inability to give a straightforward answer is pretty revealing about your true intentions.
Do that, but do it the way ALL lasting change is built: from the local level up. There's too much at stake to use a single precious vote as a "protest vote." We did that in 2000, and got a "close election" in which Nader split the Dem vote, Gore won the popular vote... and Bush took (literally) the presidency. "Close" isn't close enough, when elections can be stolen. The next president will almost certainly make at least two Supreme Court nominations... the last GOP president to do that gave us Roberts and Alito, both young men. Those are appointments for life. I completely agree that deep, systemic change is needed. I'm realistic enough, after some 45 years of political activism, to acknowledge that the choice we have is one I'd prefer not to have, but... it's the choice I have. So I campaign HARD for local progressives, and sometimes they win and go even further. And I don't allow myself to indulge in the my-vote-doesn't -matter narrative. Because of that, half our electorate stays at home, and the ones who DO go to the polls matter all the more. Say what you will about the Tea Party and their corporate paymasters - they get their vote out. And it matters to EVERYONE. So - build the change you want to see from a strong foundation, but for all our sakes, use your vote wisely!
This has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. I just wanted to tell you how much I admire nurses.
15 years ago my husband had a triple heart bypass, and a valve replacement. When I saw my him right after the operation he had a myriad of tubes with little valves coming out of his body, and a rather young nurse was adjusting things on a monitor.
That she knew EXACTLY what to do and what to adjust blew my mind, for this was his life if she made a mistake.
He lived fifteen years after that, but my admiration for nurses lives on, and I wanted to let you know how much I admire what you do. I am not sure you get enough appreciation for all your hard work. THANK YOU
You say: " yes the democrats are better for the working people of the nation---but are they and Obama good enough for the people.......Wh at the devil do you mean?
Are the working people NOT PEOPLE????
You really NEED to EXPLAIN yourself, for what you wrote is STUPID and certainly denigrating to working people.
They are a very IMPORTANT part of our country
If we had Single Payer Health Insurance, insurance would cost a great deal less. It is the insurance companies as the root problem.
As a nurse I have to agree with you, and have long supported a single-payer system for the US. Probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I still campaign for it as part of working for the change I want to see. I do recognize that the ACA requirement for the Insurance Industry to spend (gasp!) 80% of its receipts on actual patient care was revolutionary (!), and resulted in refunds to quite a few subscribers.
The insurance company is an employer to its own employees, of course, but if you read the article carefully, you can see that the authors were referring to the role an insurance company plays in the relationship between another employer (the insurance company's customer) and its employees.
When an employer provides health insurance, that means that the employer is specifying that a portion of the income the employee earns is devoted to the employee's health care. This is something that the employee works for and earns, just like the cash in her paycheck.
Once an employee has her money in hand, she is free to spend it as she chooses. The employer can't dictate what kind of car she should buy, what kind of groceries she should get, or which shoes look better on her. She alone decides what to do with her own income.
In the same way, her decisions about her health care -- one of the most important decisions anyone makes -- are her business and no one else's, not even the insurance company's.
As the writers so aptly pointed out, the insurance companies "are neither people nor religious institutions." Their job is to provide payment for health care, not to make moral decisions for adults.
Did you really need this explained to you, or were you just going for a sound bite?
50 to a 100 hundred thumbs up for the explanation, and the final question.
When did an "insurance company" become a person with tender religious feelings? Funny how those corporate "persons" feelings end up counting for so much more than the one-person-one- vote that individuals abide by and with. I don't believe individuals who are employers are really the focus of this article, although even if they are, the idea that "ownership" trumps all else, including the religious, moral, philosophical, and yes, contraceptive decisions of employees is an odious one. Example: the factory owner who fired employees who had bumper stickers on their cars in the parking lot supporting candidates other than the one the owner supported. (The current Supreme Court upheld that decision as being completely within the rights of the employer.)
Let's think a second before we swing the ax at others who favor democracy, OK?
Re the headline subject: Personally, I am not a bit scared of Mitt Romney. But I AM scared to death of anybody or anything that will vote for him.
I'm scared of the consequences of having him as president, with all the power of the office in the hands of the corporatocracy that the GOP has become. I don't think "scared" is overstating it. I'm a health care worker and long-time social servant; I've studied social policy for years. Not overstating it at all.
I refuse to trust anyone who tells me to be afraid of anything. As Marie Curie said, it all just needs to be understood.
In place of the word "fear," might I suggest the word "concerned." To a person who is afraid, when fear advances, rational thinking backs up or disappears. I don't see you as stopping your rational thinking processes, so I see you as being more concerned than afraid.
If that is the case, I certainly agree with you. I am extremely concerned, not only the whole political process, but the whole climate change situation as well. However, it doesn't do me, or anyone else I deal with, any good to retreat into fear. And, it only feeds into the Republican's tactics.
That's how the Nazi's won in Germany. In order to control people, one must first make them afraid.
It's been said that courage is the fleeing forward. The more we, the people, can flee forward, the more we become examples for others to do the same.
I'm confused, why the thumbs down. The poster was apparently agreeing with someone who has gotten a number of thumbs up? Sometimes this place seems a bit weird.
This isn't what trolls set out to do however. Trolls are people whose intention is to distract and undermine the conversation.
They are also frequently people with a secret agenda they don't reveal openly but use any tactic at their disposal to further their agenda without actually owning up to it.
Troll are also people who don't try to argue, but just turn serious debate into shallow name calling and one-upmanship.
They can also be (as in the case of this article) people who attack a site en masse to change the dynamic of opinion without revealing themselves.
Does that answer your question?
If you're against contraception, don't use it.
If you're against abortion, don't have one.
Or in politics in general or any discussion of public policy, for that matter.
Sheesh...
Good luck with that one, my sister's been saying it for years. (I agree, BTW.)
The sad part is, the people who are screaming the loudest about "family values" and ethics don't seem to have any.
I totally agree, and I want to add, that any of these religious groups with Family in their name, should make you run like crazy in the opposite direction.
For they are hypocritical religious fanatics and suppressors of women. Ralph Reed's group, is one...I forgot the name, but Family is definitely in it.
He is a terrible character, who was working closely with the guys who ripped off the Indian casino owners, and former speaker of the house, Tom De Lay Some went to jail. He SHOULD be there too.
How he avoided it, is a mystery to me.
Thia is a case of the devil takes care of his own
You are right. I meant and thought most realized, that I referred to the religious fanatic groups. I think a majority of them originate from the South
One could take that a little further: if you're against gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.
I never cease to be astonished and dismayed by the depth of the hypocrisy of those who decry the reach of government, then turn around and want to use it to limit individual freedoms this way! My brother puts it nicely when he distinguishes between "Christians" and "HypoChristians ," although I doubt that the latter have a monopoly on this kind of dissonant thinking.
Beliefs are NOT a very high mental exercise. They are actually a very low method of using your mind. Yes, I know: I've just said believers are stupid, but it isn't that: they seem to remain rooted in belief, instead of exploring more of the mental treasure available. There's quite a bit of the Cosmos and Universe that seems to validate God more than mere belief does.
Any day now....
Heh. Sure....
Do you believe in the 4th Amendment? President Obama Does Not.
Do you believe in Endless War, deceptively 'based' on 'National Security? President Obama Does.
Do you believe in 'Too Big To Fail' Banks? President Obama Does...to the tune of giving them YOUR Treasury.
Is Romney Better? Likely Not. Same Banksta Bosses (um 'contributors'.
BOTTOM LINE: NO SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES
You may argue 'Minor Policy variations'.
'The Vote', is FOR THE BANKSTAS, either way......
Which makes this Presidential election, so far, a huge charade.
Do Obama supporters/two party system trolls believe that downrating you makes your comment invisible or something?
Or maybe it hasn't occurred to them yet that hiding from and refusing to discuss issues is the cause of their problems and insecurities?
And only makes their candidate look worse than he already does...
Insulting the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you isn't earning you as many thumbs up as you'd like. Insulting the intelligence of Obama's voters won't make them vote for your candidate either.
Who IS your candidate, by the way?
The thumbs down means we dont agree with your comment, so we are letting you know. The rest of your comment is all your own assumption.
Now you can deal with the issues James raised... or run away from them again.
Now you can deal with the question I asked... or run away from it again.
WHO WILL YOU BE VOTING FOR AND WHY?
The fact that it's suddenly a "secret" after attacking the stupidity of everyone voting for Obama, tells me you just don't want to openly admit you're voting for Romney.
Your agenda was pretty transparent the whole time.
1. You don't want to get specific. Your purpose wasn't to debate specifics but to muddle any attempt at meaningful debate.
2. If you admit you're voting for a conservative we'll know what your agenda was all along, so that would undermine your purpose.
3. If you admit to a specific left-wing 3rd party candidate, you'd then have to defend that as well, rather than just focusing on your agenda of making sure not enough people vote for President Obama.
In short, you MADE it our business as soon as you started insulting the intelligence of Obama's supporters.
While I am a Democrat and support our platform, I totally think that you should form a third party. A third party would make it more difficult and expensive to control the politicians.
If "freedom" means anything, it means freedom to not have your children blown up by "drones". (And I'm not referring to the drones reading this page.)
If freedom means anything, it means having a right to habeas corpus and due process.
If freedom means anything, it means not having the fruits of you hard-earned labor turned over to criminals.
If freedom means.... well, I could go on, but I have other things to do this week.
The idea that BO is a "defender of freedom" is ridiculous on its face. He is a murderer, warmonger, pimp, and probably a sadist and narcissist. Etc, etc. None of this is hard to see--just open your eyes (and hearts, and minds).
So Romney is also a S**T?! So what else is new?
Unlike Romney, Obama knows how to throw bones to the dogs. And he does it to preserve the only freedom he understands--th e freedom to keep serving his masters for another 4 years.
He shows both a good side and bad side? Sure, it's all part of the act. He'd just as soon kill you as look at you.
I would never vote for Romney; I would never ever ever (again) vote for BO. It's time to get off the merry-go-round and think about how to shut it down.
Let's get real here--ordinary people have no one running who represents their interests of these two candidates, and many of our pressing problems such as climate change, peak oil, the economic problems we are facing as the result of resource depletion are not even being talked about. Meanwhile both groups of partisans root for the candidate who they feel is the "lesser of two evils." If you vote for the lesser of two evils you STILL get evil. Neither candidate will do what needs to be done.
You're probably right, in some regards. I, too, am deeply disappointed and disillusioned. However, you get considerably less evil with one candidate. One of the two will win. What are you going to do? I've never missed voting since I was 18 during the Vietnam era, campaigning for the right to vote for those who were old enough to be drafted. Plenty of opportunity to be disillusioned. But I still vote for the candidate ON THE BALLOT whom I believe to be the better choice. And yes, even when the better choice is the lesser of two evils.
As a woman, I certainly realize that Romney could make matters even worse for women. Statistics show that women are suffering disproportionat ely from the post-recession (as if) phase. With that being said, I can no longer cast a vote for a machine that keeps the MIC deep into the War Business; and I cannot vote for a system that makes Global warming (THE threat of our times) invisible.
I'd rather see American women practice Lysastrada then sign on FOR the make-war machine. Karmic blowback is going to be a bitch, and that boomerang is already in its beginning stages.
I live in Oregon, and since it's almost certain that there's no contest this November, I'll be voting for either Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson.
I'm lucky; if i lived in a "swing state", I'd have to choose between voting against the Dem/Repub plutocracy or risking the election of RahMoney and ryAYN.
On the other hand, it may be that the left (including me) is so entrenched in "their guy"-Obombya-th at NOTHING that man does can sway them. I was speaking with an officer in the local Democratic Party yesterday, and he is willing to overlook Obomya's attack on the Bill of Rights, and his extrajudicial execution of whomever he feels like, because "there are things we don't know; we have not walked a mile in his (Obombya's) shoes."
I find this frightening, and quite reminiscent of the "reds and greens, rah rah" of Player Piano fame.
I am begging once again, all of you who think that your state is safe, do not throw your votes away on "strategic" or protest voting. That is exactly what Romney and company (and I use the word company advisedly)are praying you will do. Enough progressive voters sitting out the election in disgust or registering protest votes coupled with voter suppression will most assuredly result in a swing to the right.
We are playing for time here, people. Time build new alternatives, time to build pressure for change, time to avoid a generations-eff ecting change in the balance of the Supreme court, time to confront people to the actually consequences of their actions, choices and decisions. It may take the rest of our lives, but it can be done.
If the so-called "conservatives" - so called because they do not wish to conserve anything, they wish to restore something that never existed - take control you will have change that will most likely lead to eventual rebellion.
The trouble with rebellion is that you never know who will win and what the end result will be.
Yes, I am afraid. I am very afraid.
Republicans are good at fearmongering. It's what they do.
Why emulate them?
When a salesman tries to tell you that you should buy his product and the best reason he can give you is that the other guys product is crap, he may be right about the other guys product, but it also means that salesman is deluding himself and hasn’t got anything to sell you that’s worth you buying from him.
One would hope that emulating republicans and their fearmongering is not the best that Obama and his supporters have to offer now... but it appears that is ALL they have to offer now.
Either Romney or Obama will win the presidency in November.
Everyone else will lose.
If you're right, and we somehow change the results of the election, that's a risk worth taking. We've been voting for the lesser of two evils for so long, it's way past time to take an honest stand.
Are you seriously comfortable with voting for someone who murders innocents around the world? Do you believe he's not violating our constitution, violating international treaties, sending drones into sovereign nations without regard to the desires of their citizens or governments? Can you accept voting for someone who signed a law that destroys our precious Bill of Rights? Or do you not believe Obama has done this? If the latter, please read this: (continued)
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/02/final-curtain-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-of-citizens-into-law-as-final-act-of-2011/
It's by Jonathan Turley, outspoken leftie, world renowned expert on civil liberties and Constitutional law professor. He titles this
"Final Curtain: Obama Signs Indefinite Detention of Citizens Into Law As Final Act of 2011"
I recommend anyone who's not terminally stuck to some predetermined meme to read it. Otherwise, just give me a thumbs down, and all will be well. Right?
"Constitution be damned, we're dealing with republicans badmouthing him in public all over town every chance they get like they think he's their boyfriend" said Press Secretary Carney Barker.
Obama has been whispering sweet nothings and been publicly Dick-less since he was elected, but no longer.
Obama's chief complaint had been that the goddamn piece of paper might continue to handcuff him as badly as another goddamn piece of paper so far has, keeping him as weak and powerless as he has been the past three years since his inauguration, but his handlers have finally convinced him that you just can't go putting restrictions on the unitary executive, after all, or republicans might continue to bipartisanly call him "weak on national security".
Asked by reporters for his thoughts on this new manly "unitary executive" theory that Obama is now embracing, Big Dick former Vice-President Cheney responded saying "I was asked about this when it was revealed in 2005 that the Bush administration had been spying on Americans, and my answer remains now what it was then - the president can do whatever the hell he wants to, whenever the hell he wants to, to whomever the hell he wants to."
antemedius.com/content/obama-wins-2012-erection-hands-down
So, if you're looking for the lesser of two evils, while Obama may have his bad things, most of which are Bush policies he didn't end and would be continued under Romney's "Bush on Steroids" (Romney's words, not mine) policies, there is absolutely no reason to suppose Romney has anything to offer better than Obama and Obama has a myriad of better things to offer than Romney.
To those who disapprove of the drtones killing innocents, I feel bad for them, but if we didn't do it, all the terrorists would have to do is surround themselves with innocents and stop our self defense against them, and you best believe the Republicans who are now hammering him on the issue would put that talking point front and center and call him a terrorist appeaser.
Acting just like them isn't helping you or your candidate.
Yes, one of the two major candidates WILL be President. Why are you trying to divert votes away from the better one?
You've got Obama all the way up to what, about 50% approval or so, from his all time low of nearly 75% three and a half years ago?
Choosing your candidate out of fear got you where you are today. So you must be doing something, "right"?
I, on the other hand, define a "viable candidate" to mean a candidate who is not bought off and who will work for the American people rather than for corporate and wall street financial backers.
Why don't you let us know when you are willing to work, not against the interests of the American people, but for a real viable candidate.
WHO WILL YOU BE VOTING FOR, AND WHY?
Heh. Ok. I give up. You win. I see now why you have trouble with complex ideas.
Hope you got your season tickets cheap, Billy Bob.
I'll try to keep concepts very simple for you in any future interactions we might have, and I'll go discuss politics with more roomy minds.
Us simple folk dun't undermastand all thes big fancy talk about pol-ticks frum someone who can't jus' be honest wif us.
If you'd like to engage in a discussion that "isn't binary", I'd like an honest discussion of who YOU plan to vote for. It's not much to ask. I'm asking you to bring more to the table than your insults.
I'm still open for that discussion whenever you're willing to start it. Until you're willing to stick your own neck out and tell us who you'll be voting for, the empty insults about my lack of intellect don't really add anything to the conversation.
I don't think your goal ever was to add to the conversation however.
Until you're willing to have an honest discussion where you actually admit who you plan to vote for and why, I'll leave you to your "roomier" minds. Maybe they'll let you insult their opinions without bothering to ask you to defend your own.
When you think about it, IT IS BINARY. Either you're going to vote or you're not. If you're going to vote, then you're going to vote FOR SOMEONE, right?
Cum ta thank of it, 'tain't rocket science afterall, is it?
Spend the money building schools and hospitals and feeding people around the world.
And drop the crap about "They kill us over cartoons and accidental burning of books" - you're not stupid enough to believe that anyone else is stupid enough to think that statement makes any sense, are you?
.......
"3000 major operations, and 10,000 minor operations... bloody and gory beyond comprehension.. . we have organized death squads in countries around the world... operation in Afghanistan - biggest single operation in the history of the CIA secret wars... we produced the golden crescent - the largest source of heroin in the world... we count at least - minimum figure - six million people who've been killed [by CIA ops] in this long 40 year war that we've waged against the people of the third world"
-- Former CIA Station Chief John Stockwell
Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3ioJGMCr-Y
And 'President' is so far away. I deem that 'Spectacle' politics, and I made up my mind who to vote for, BUT! far more important to me is who is my state representative, who represents me and the people in my neighborhood... or precinct. and what THEY stand for. THOSE campaigns and candidates are far more important to me than the President and the Senators...any of you guys even KNOW who's running for the school board in your neighborhood, and what that person intends to do? WAKE UP, you dummies. I mean, my beloved fellow Americans...ale rt yourselves to the truth of your situations...we need each other.
DUMMIES? Helloooo? Yes, school boards are important, but last I heard not even a schoolboard CHAIRMAN can, with the help of our "Representative s", strip the U.S. Constitution of its Bill of Rights. It's interesting to me that so many people I talk to don't believe this happened, thanks to 93 Senators and a large majority of Congresswimps. When I tell them about NDAA 2012, I mostly get one of two responses: "Oh, really?" or "Uh uh! He (Obombya) WOULDN'T DO THAT!"
So who are the dummies?
Read the comment again that you just replied to.
QUOTE: "I live in Oregon, and since it's almost certain that there's no contest this November, I'll be voting for either Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson."
1. NO state is a safe state.
2. repugs plan to disenfranchise as many votes as possible.
3. No President can accomplish anything without a clear mandate from the voters. "Strategic" voting is a good way to make sure Obama only wins by a squeaker. Don't expect him to be able to fight repug attacks with that kind of a mandate.
4. YOU STILL HAVEN'T TOLD US WHO YOU WILL VOTE FOR AND WHY.
And give up trying to sell the two party system. It's not working for you.
And give up trying to help romney win. It's not working for you.
You're afraid of your own shadow....
By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News
24 September 12
And she has more compassion and integrity than anyone I've ever spoken to in politics before.
NO employee should have to depend on his / her employer for health coverage. It places the company in an undue position of power to impose miserable working conditions on its workers, most of whom don't dare quit because they can't afford their own insurance. This is known as "job lock" and shows how this "fringe benefit" has become a mockery of its original purpose.
But it just occurred to me to ask those who so strongly want us all to vote for Obama, three questions:
1. Are you happy with the way the government is being "steered" (mabye "corrupted" is a better word)?
2. Are you content with the status quo? That is, are you comfortable with the only possible winner in any presidential election being either a dem or a rethug?
3. If you answered "no" to either question, do you have a plan (you've read mine) to break us free of the corporatocracy that has taken over our democracy?
I am asking this not because I want to convince you to see things my way. I'm seriously interested in hearing others' thoughts on this matter.
Writing words is an action, of sorts, and depending on the person, it can be an act of courage, and an act of concern.
There is, perhaps, some personal good that comes out of making comments, but how many comments really cause great CHANGE, both in behavior and point of view?
I think Antemedius and others have asked important questions. Perhaps we are bothered by the fact that we don't have READY answers to those questions.
I don't know why Obama made some of the choices he's made. I've read that he's faced the possibility of assassination everyday since he took office. I don't know if that's true, and I don't know how I would handle it if it were me.
My problem is that so many people make assumptions without knowing ALL the facts, and we have to make decisions based on what facts, or assumptions, we have. I don't want to assume that Obama is as bad as some people want to make us believe he is, when I don't know what he is dealing with.
However, the more I learn about Romney, and abased on the knowledge I have about dysfunctional and addictive systems, the more I believe that Romney would be the worst of all possible people we could elect to the presidency.
I think we all get into difficulty when we confuse opinion with fact. Yes, he did all these so-called negative things, but WHY?
If I assume I know why, without proof, then I am prematurely judging him. I really am curious as to what might happen if he had support from both houses of congress, AND, a nation of people who were involved and connected to the process.
Republicans don't want us, the 47%, connecte3d to the process. They want to restrict rights, rather than extend them to others.
Thomas Friedman wrote "We don't need better government - we need better citizens." I think Obama as much as said the same thing when he talked about citizenship.
I had a citizendship skills class in college that I wish I'd had in high school. But schoolls have now become, in many cases, feeder programs for businesses.
As I mentioned in a different article, the forefathers original intent was to create a country where everyone, eventually, had acces to a real "quality" of life. that's been co-opted to where the focus has been learned to think in terms of the quantity of life. How much different would our country be, if we were focused on the quality of life for everyone? This is history very people have learned.
So many people who have learned to think in terms of having more than the Joneses, whoever they might be, will buy into the Republicans message.
Paul Wellstone said: "We all do better when we all do better." I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to make a profit, but Romney and those like him don't want to make a profit, they want to make a killing. And all that is based the idea that they are better and more important people, because they've learned how to manipulate capatalism to make them filthy rich.
Is that what this campaign should be about? If not, then we, the people, need to frame it better.
I heard a soundbyte where Romeny said he would never apologize for being being rich. Nor should he. What he needs to apologize for is HOW he got rich. He got rich by creating misery and misfortune for those with less money, less opportunities, less power, and less greed than he has.
Should we frame the arguments around the Gordon Gekko idea the greed is good?
It's been written that to a wise person, enough is as good as a feast. To the dysfunctional in our culture, there will never be enough, be it money, control, power, status, what have you. I think we need to recognize that these people are dysfunctional, and we need to stop rewarding that behavior.
The rich don't believe in a quality of life for everyone, and will never be happy with that being posed as the only possible option that would save the planet, and everyone on it, including themselves, in the long run.
How does one get that kind of sane message to someone who is afraid of never having enough? How do we change the social dialogue with those who are afraid.
It's been written that zealots believe that communication means you agree with them. Then, because their self-image is connected to their belief system, they take everything personally that doesn't agree with their zealous beliefs. A zealot is a zealot, be it Christian, Muslim,Jew, or whatever. Their agenda is the same.
A reasoned word can curb a crusade in life, if one can hear that reasoned word. How does one change those who are not deaf, but are afraid to hear; not blind, but afraid to see?
Same for extrajudicial killing. That kind of action leads to mayhem.
Are you asking me that weird question about quantity vs. quality because you think I'm some kind of Rahmoneyesque capitalist dog?
I'm very disappointed that you would write such a long comment without answering my one, tripart question.
RSS feed for comments to this post