U.S. 2012 Election

[Redeye]

I'll leave you to read the Let them Fail thread, or not. The issues are addressed there.

By your cut and paste jobs from blog sources that are of little credibility as  they're simply partisan tripe.

So, we'll go with "not addressed". Thanks.

 

[Redeye]

We were on the topic of supposed voter fraud a while ago, here's a link that shows why James O'Keefe's antics are pretty ridiculous. In fact, it's a pretty solid takedown of his claims about voter fraud, and his "investigations". Have a read: http://www.mediaite.com/online/james-okeefes-fake-tim-tebow-voter-fraud-investigation-doesnt-have-a-prayer/

 

[vonGarvin]

Levity, with a bit of seriousness (perhaps):

 

[cupper]

Interesting note from the latest Gallop Poll on Congress' approval rating. It is now at an historic all time low of 10%. Gallop has never recorded a number this low in the 100+ years of it's existence.

But it appears that they may be starting to get the message. Both the House and Senate have passed the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) bill. So now they won't be able to cash in on the insider knowledge like they have been, something which no other American is legally able to do.

AND

The house has passed a bill allowing the President the line item veto which every president has asked for since at least Carter, if not further back. No idea at this point what the success of the measure will be in the Senate.

 

[Haletown]

Well he does give good speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oJGp5pjgT30

Too bad he didn't give good economy, or good policy.

 

[a_majoor]

He says he admires President Lincoln. Perhaps this is how he is managing to "alienate all of the people, all of the time":

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/charles-krauthammer-the-obama-creed-of-contradictory-theologies/

Charles Krauthammer: The Obama creed of contradictory theologies
Charles Krauthammer  Feb 10, 2012 – 9:15 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 10, 2012 1:56 PM ET
   
At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, seeking theological underpinning for his drive to raise taxes on the rich, President Obama invoked the highest possible authority. His policy, he testified “as a Christian,” “coincides with Jesus’ teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’

Now, I’m no theologian, but I’m fairly certain that neither Jesus nor his rabbinic forebears, when speaking of giving, meant some obligation to the state. You tithe the priest, not the tax man. The Judeo-Christian tradition commands personal generosity.

But no matter. Let’s assume that Obama has biblical authority for hiking the marginal tax rate exactly 4.6 points for couples making more than $250,000 (depending, of course, on the prevailing shekel-to-dollar exchange rate). Let’s stipulate that Obama’s prayer-breakfast invocation of religion as vindicating his politics was not, God forbid, crass, hypocritical, self-serving electioneering, but a sincere expression of a social-gospel Christianity that sees good works as central to the very concept of religiosity.

Fine. But this Gospel according to Obama has a rival — the newly revealed Gospel according to Sebelius, over which has erupted quite a contretemps. By some peculiar logic, it falls to the health and human services secretary to promulgate the definition of “religious” — for the purposes, for example, of exempting religious institutions from certain regulatory dictates.

Such exemptions are granted in grudging recognition that, whereas the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the state’s regulators, our quaint Constitution grants special autonomy to religious institutions.

Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such “health care services” (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization and pharmacological abortion — to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.

Ah. But there would be no such Free Exercise violation if the institutions so mandated are deemed, by regulatory fiat, not religious.

And thus, the word came forth from Sebelius decreeing the exact criteria required (a) to meet her definition of “religious” and thus (b) to qualify for a modicum of independence from newly enacted state control of American health care, under which the aforementioned Sebelius and her phalanx of experts determine everything — from who is to be covered, to which treatments are to be guaranteed free-of-charge.

Criterion 1: A “religious institution” must have “the inculcation of religious values as its purpose.” But that’s not the purpose of Catholic charities; it’s to give succor to the poor. That’s not the purpose of Catholic hospitals; it’s to give succor to the sick. Therefore, they don’t qualify as “religious” — and therefore can be required, among other things, to provide free morning-after abortifacients.

Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that “primarily employs” and “primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.” Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals — even Catholic schools — do not turn away Hindu or Jew.

Their vocation is universal, precisely the kind of universal love-thy-neighbor vocation that is the very definition of religiosity as celebrated by the Gospel of Obama. Yet according to the Gospel of Sebelius, these very same Catholic institutions are not religious at all — under the secularist assumption that religion is what happens on Sunday under some Gothic spire, while good works are “social services” that are properly rendered up unto Caesar.

This all would be merely the story of contradictory theologies, except for this: Sebelius is Obama’s appointee. She works for him. These regulations were his call. Obama authored both gospels.

Therefore: To flatter his faith-breakfast guests and justify his tax policies, Obama declares good works to be the essence of religiosity. Yet he turns around and, through Sebelius, tells the faithful who engage in good works that what they’re doing is not religion at all. You want to do religion? Get thee to a nunnery. You want shelter from the power of the state? Get out of your soup kitchen and back to your pews. Outside, Leviathan rules.

The contradiction is glaring, the hypocrisy breathtaking. But that’s not why Obama offered a hasty compromise on Friday. It’s because the firestorm of protest was becoming a threat to his re-election. Sure, health care, good works and religion are important. But re-election is divine.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

and:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/11/rex-murphy-on-obamas-war-against-christianity-when-the-church-struck-back/

Rex Murphy on Obama’s war against Christianity: When the Church struck back
Rex Murphy  Feb 11, 2012 – 5:55 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 10, 2012 4:45 PM ET

The American administration is headed by a man who, when he wishes, makes a good deal of his Christianity. Churches, one in particular, used to matter very much to Barack Obama indeed. He made his first real move as a politician by choosing an appropriate church in Chicago — Obama walked into politics through its front door.

Nonetheless, we have just seen the most vivid example in some time how little regard the progressive Obama has for the rights of churches and religion, and the associated imperatives of conscience and worship.

There has been a raging storm in the U.S. for several weeks over a provision of Obamacare that compels the nation’s many Catholic hospitals, universities and other institutions to fund sterilizations, contraceptives and morning-after pills for their employees, despite each of these being fully athwart fundamental Catholic doctrine on sexuality, abortion and life.

It is rather difficult to understand how a White House, facing re-election while burdened with an ailing economy, could have made so egregious a blunder as to deeply offend the moral and religious sensibilities of so many. Why would they risk opening a new and significant front — freedom of religion and conscience — for the Republicans to mount fresh attacks upon?

The administration achieved something astonishing with this blundering intrusion: They awakened the moral fervour and courage of the institutional Catholic Church and its bishops. The bishops almost instantly (and they say the age of miracles is past!) hit back. As opposed to the usual euphemistic blather and fuzzy words that issue from the Catholic hierarchy in times of tension, on this issue they were clear and defiant: “[Obama] is denying to Catholics our nation’s first and most fundamental freedom — that of religious liberty. We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” No equivocation there. Not this time.

How did such a thing happen? How did the White House decide that it was a good idea to force Catholic institutions to pay for contraception and reproductive health-care services that the Church abhors? Perhaps America’s current Caesar sees no wisdom beyond his own. Anything that might impede the full implementation of Obamacare is to be dismissed, full stop.

He should have thought better of dismissing this criticism. His progressivism has finally collided with something that it cannot easily ignore, belittle or evade. Nothing less that the great guarantee of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees the free exercise of religion, now stands in his way.

Still, for an entire week, the White House stuck to its guns. Few things are as precious to the progressive mind as their dogma concerning sexuality and birth control. I suspect within the White House they may initially have seen the mounting backlash from the Church as confirmation of how right they really were. After all, if men in church pulpits, and those who “cling” to religion were against them – well, then, this had to be right.

Finally, though, the volume of the angry shouts seems to have gotten through to them. When even noted Obama-worshipper (and MSNBC host) Chris Matthews began to fume about this measure, warning it could provoke “civil disobedience,” the White House must have known it had pushed too far. And so on Friday, there was the beginning of a comedown — responsibility for payment for the birth control and other services will now fall on the insurance companies directly, and not the Catholic institutions themselves.

It remains to be seen if that will be enough to extinguish this controversy — it certainly won’t be enough to undo the damage already done. All in all, the controversy has been an instructive one — as a glimpse into the smooth, untroubled complacencies of the caring and superior secular mind, it is without many parallels.

National Post

Rex Murphy offers commentary weekly on CBC TV’s The National, and is host of CBC Radio’s Cross Country Checkup.

 

[Redeye]

Guess Krauthammer missed the whole "render unto Caesar" bit of the bible.

It's great, as I said, that the GOP is choosing this particular hill to die on (birth control - which the overwhelming majority of Americans use and seem to support access to). I suspect President Obama's campaign team is laughing their arses off. Even as the GOP clutches at straws to frame it differently, it seems they're going to have a lot of trouble with this. It's even helping Santorum surge (pardon the horrific imagery) within the GOP Primaries, and that's even better.

He says he admires President Lincoln. Perhaps this is how he is managing to "alienate all of the people, all of the time":

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/10/charles-krauthammer-the-obama-creed-of-contradictory-theologies/

and:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/11/rex-murphy-on-obamas-war-against-christianity-when-the-church-struck-back/

 

[vonGarvin]

Guess Krauthammer missed the whole "render unto Caesar" bit of the bible.

It's great, as I said, that the GOP is choosing this particular hill to die on (birth control - which the overwhelming majority of Americans use and seem to support access to). I suspect President Obama's campaign team is laughing their arses off. Even as the GOP clutches at straws to frame it differently, it seems they're going to have a lot of trouble with this. It's even helping Santorum surge (pardon the horrific imagery) within the GOP Primaries, and that's even better.

The point isn't whether or not people use or don't use contraceptives, or their views on abortion.  The point is forcing those who oppose these things to pay for them.  The analogy would be to force all butcher shops in a town to sell pork.  Even the butcher shop owned by that Jewish fella around the corner.

As for "laughing their arses off", the image of contempt for others is rather fitting, because I too can imagine them doing so.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Guess Krauthammer missed the whole "render unto Caesar" bit of the bible.

It's great, as I said, that the GOP is choosing this particular hill to die on (birth control - which the overwhelming majority of Americans use and seem to support access to).

Yes, it is great that Obama and his crew seem to believe that they dont have to respect the constitution and religious rights.  Hilarious.  Awesome. 

The original point is as Technoviking stated- they shouldn't have to pay for that which they dont believe.  If they dont want abortions or to pay for them, or birth control, who cares? As a citizen that's their right.

So I guess the GOP arguing for individual rights, in your mind, is not great. 

Now, if this were the opposite, and it was that Obama was forcing everyone to pay for religious schools and hospitals, I assume you would be against it, since you apparently have a blinding hatred towards religion

 

[vonGarvin]

[tangent]
"Render unto Caesar" as a call for people of wealth to pay high taxes.  Indeed.  Let us look at the passage in question:

Next they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to catch him out in what he said.
14 These came and said to him, 'Master, we know that you are an honest man, that you are not afraid of anyone, because human rank means nothing to you, and that you teach the way of God in all honesty. Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or not?'
15 Recognising their hypocrisy he said to them, 'Why are you putting me to the test? Hand me a denarius and let me see it.'
16 They handed him one and he said to them, 'Whose portrait is this? Whose title?' They said to him, 'Caesar's.'
17 Jesus said to them, 'Pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar -- and God what belongs to God.' And they were amazed at him.

This is from the Gospel according to Mark, Chapter 12.  In this chapter we see some religious opponents of Jesus trying to trick him.  They opposed him because he was preaching what they considered heresy.  You know, such things as equality for all, an end to racism, etc.  So, they tried to get him to say that people should oppose the Roman occupiers of Israel.  As had been stated many times, Jesus wasn't there to save Israel from occupation, but from eternal damnation. 

So, by separating Church and State, as Jesus is advocating, he is essentially stating that paying taxes back to the government from whom your bank notes are issued is fine.  But your moral code is yours, and never the twain shall mix.  They are separate issues.

Interestingly enough, a few verses later, Jesus says:

29 Jesus replied, 'This is the first: Listen, Israel, the Lord our God is the one, only Lord,
30 and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength.
31 The second is this: You must love your neighbour as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.

The "Golden Rule".

Now, I wonder if the anti-theists would care to comment on this:

Obama said he wakes up every morning and says a “brief prayer” and spends “a little time in scripture and devotion.” He said pastors sometimes come to the Oval Office to pray with him, for his family and for the country.
“But I don’t stop there, I’d be remiss if i stopped there,” Obama said. “If my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends — so instead I must try, imperfectly, but I must try to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.”

(Source)

 

[Redeye]

Yes, it is great that Obama and his crew seem to believe that they dont have to respect the constitution and religious rights.  Hilarious.  Awesome. 

The original point is as Technoviking stated- they shouldn't have to pay for that which they dont believe.  If they dont want abortions or to pay for them, or birth control, who cares? As a citizen that's their right.

So I guess the GOP arguing for individual rights, in your mind, is not great. 

Now, if this were the opposite, and it was that Obama was forcing everyone to pay for religious schools and hospitals, I assume you would be against it, since you apparently have a blinding hatred towards religion

The reason it seems so silly is that I can't really figure out, other than some bishops, who really has an issue with this. Numerous Catholic universities and hospitals have been including contraceptives in their health plans for years. Something like 98% of sexually active Americans use some form of contraception, suggesting that most American Catholics also ignore church doctrine on the matter. Most of them seem to have no issue with the law/order in question. The point is simple: why should the religious bent of an employer be allowed to determine the health choices of its employees? Granted, I don't know why someone who wasn't Catholic would work for them, but obviously it does happen. This isn't an individual freedom issue as far as I can tell, unless you really, really stretch it. And that seems to be how most Americans are looking at it, no matter how desperately the GOP is trying to reframe it.

Obama forcing people to pay for religious schools and hospitals would be rather simply dealt with by the Establishment Clause of Constitution of the United States of America. Google it if you're not familiar with it.

What I find particularly rich, especially for the vehemently antichoice conservative set in the US, is that improving access to contraception would actually reduce demand for abortion, whereas making it harder to obtain such services and products increases the demand. So I'm finding it hard to see where they're coming from, and it seems to be more about control of women than anything else. That's nothing new, though.

My brilliant, much more polemic friend Ian Boudreau offers some better ones, first some humourous ones.

Employers shouldn't be required to violate their religious beliefs by providing coverage for contraception, or serving black people.

Employers shouldn't be required to violate their religious beliefs by being forced to allow menstruating women in their places of business.

You must respect the religious beliefs of your employer, whatever those might be. This may involve wearing a special hat.

Employers shouldn't have to violate their religious beliefs by being forced to pay employees who might use their wages for alcohol or ham.

He actually goes into the whole thing a lot more deeply here: http://www.angryblacklady.com/2012/02/05/more-thoughts-on-catholicism-and-contraception/#more-67359 - specifically tackling the special pleading that it takes to actually make an issue of this. It's well written (as is most of his stuff) and worth the time.

 

[Redeye]

I'll be happy to see religion die a natural death, but it won't happen in my lifetime. Most religious people I know I haven't a shred of an issue with. Most of them are decent people. I don't understand their need of religion, but I accept they similarly don't understand my lack of need for it. Lots of them will engage in interesting discussions over it. I don't pull punches on people who use it as an excuse for their own ignorance, bigotry, etc. And sadly, that happens. It's kind of ironic, especially in the case of Christians.

I defer to Gandhi, who observed that Christ sounded like a pretty good guy, but his followers were nothing like him. In fact, one of the most humourous but apt descriptions of him, paraphrased, comes from the prologue to The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, which sets the timeline for the story up this way:

And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change...

Ultimately, that was the real message, wasn't it? Love one another as I have loved you, and so on? He didn't put conditions on it as I recall.

Gandhi noticed that too many Christians were not like Christ, a man who would probably be described in modern times as something of a liberal. See, what he preached - what you mentioned there - the "good stuff" is suddenly opposed by so many who claim to be his followers. That's never made any sense to me. It's those people that have so perverted the concept that have turned me so solidly against it.

 

[vonGarvin]

The reason it seems so silly is that I can't really figure out, blah blah blah

If you think opposition to this is restricted to guys who are named after pieces on a chess set, then you're mistaken.

(The rest of your post is so asinine, I care not to comment)

 

[vonGarvin]

I'll be happy to see religion die a natural death, but it won't happen in my lifetime. Blah Blah Blah

You, sir, are illogical and full of bigotry.  You hate Christians, you just fear saying it.  Atheists are one thing.  Anti-theists are another.

 

[Redeye]

If you think opposition to this is restricted to guys who are named after pieces on a chess set, then you're mistaken.

Actually, it's being pushed, it seems, more by evangelicals. And "rank-and-file" Catholics generally don't seem to support the church leaders. Something like 2/3s of them don't take issue with the policy

(The rest of your post is so asinine, I care not to comment)

No shock there.

 

[Redeye]

You, sir, are illogical and full of bigotry.  You hate Christians, you just fear saying it.  Atheists are one thing.  Anti-theists are another.

No. I don't hate anyone solely on that basis. That'd be silly.

I'm both an atheist and an antitheist. I make no secret of that. Both are positions on institutions, not individuals.

 

[vonGarvin]

Something like 2/3s of them don't take issue with the policy

Based on what????  Numbers from your ass?

Read this:

And I quote

3* The requirement to provide contraceptives for women violates deeply held beliefs of some churches and religious organizations. If providing such coverage violates the beliefs of a church or religious organization, should the government still require them to provide coverage for contraceptives?
39% Yes
50% No
10% Not sure

They didn't ask Catholics this question. 

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm both an atheist and an antitheist. I make no secret of that. Both are positions on institutions, not individuals.

Bullshit.  You are a bigot.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Redeye,

I would like to just point out that this whole death spiral got started because of your "render unto caesar" comment,  which Technoviking pretty convincingly used to prove that you need to do lot more research before you spout off on Christianity.

Why do you feel the need to get the last word, all of the time?

 

[Jed]

I'm no religious expert Redeye, but Jesus wasn't always a wimp. If I recall he booted a bunch of money grubbing, holier than thou folks, out of the temple. He demanded respect and he got it.

I respect your right to be an atheist or whatever your beliefs are; I don't understand it or agree with it but I tolerate it and don't mock you for your non belief.

Your blind belief in President Obama defies all logic to me.