Obama General Discussion, vol. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Um....

womenwhere1.png
 
they're just discussing "religious freedom."

women don't need to be a part of that. a man's "religious freedom" enables him to trample over what women can and cannot have covered as part of their health care, and what they can and cannot do with their uterus.



it did just occur to me -- it's all very simple. denying medication that could only ever be used by women on "religious freedom" grounds is simply gender discrimination.
 
i think we can safely color Michigan blue. from a political standpoint, how do you argue with this?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsmU2aM8ez8


i wish it would display more than just the link. it's the first ad Obama is running in Michigan and it looks like he's trying to kill Romney there before the general election can even begin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You need to remove this part of the URL:

feature=player_embedded&
 
Mich is safely in Obama's column, and Romney is the GOP that could give him the best contest in that state.

I know it is too early to call the Nov elections, there could be some big surprise, game changer. But, at this point I fully expect Obama to win, GOP will surely get the Senate, it is only a question of a range somewhere between 52- 56. And with that Obama will have to work deals, ( be a lot more flexible) on all of his appointments. Probably do some horse trading, a 1 for 1 would not be fair. Of course the GOP will want a larger pound of flesh than that.
 
GOP will lose some seats, which is kind of surprising, because after the redistricting (and voter suppression laws enacted) they have even more advantage.
The Dems are talking a good game about taking the House back, picking up 25-26 seats??
but I just don't see it.
 
*snicker*

Auto Recovery? Is it run by windows? If it is, we're all screwed. Sounds like the automatic update 'feature' on windows, that's for sure.

I've got a friend that is a mad mad mad mad Obama supporter. She and I are at it all the time, considering I've really got no political views, well none that count, considering I'm not eligible to vote in this country and all that :reject:
 
(AP)WASHINGTON — It's looking like President Barack Obama may be back in the good graces of women.

His support dropped among this critical constituency just before the new year began and the presidential campaign got under way in earnest. But his standing with female voters is strengthening, polls show, as the economy improves and social issues, including birth control, become a bigger part of the nation's political discourse.

"Republicans are making a big mistake with this contraception talk, and I'm pretty sure that they are giving (the election) to Obama," says Patricia Speyerer, 87, of McComb, Miss., a GOP-leaning independent. "It's a stupid thing."

The recent furor over whether religious employers should be forced to pay for their workers' contraception is certainly a factor but hardly the only reason for women warming up to Obama again after turning away from him late last year.

An Associated Press-GfK poll suggests women also are giving the president more credit than men are for the country's economic turnaround.

Among women, his approval ratings on handling the economy and unemployment have jumped by 10 percentage points since December. Back then, a wide swath of Americans expressed anxiety over the nation's slow climb out of recession and anger at a government that couldn't agree on steps to speed things up.

Since then, the unemployment rate has kept declining, and Obama hasn't been shy about trumpeting it, and analysts say that drop may have resonated particularly with women.

For Obama, there is no more crucial constituency than women. They make up a majority of voters in presidential elections, and a bit more of them identify with his party. He would not be president today without topping Republican John McCain in that group in 2008. And Republicans would need to win a sizable share – more than about 40 percent – of female voters to beat him.

Though the economy remains the top concern among both women and men, an array of social issues – gay marriage, access to birth control and whether cancer research should be kept separate from the issue of abortion_ have returned to the nation's political conversation since December. And both parties have snapped up those issues to awaken their staunchest supporters.

Republicans from Capitol Hill to the presidential campaign trail focused particularly on a requirement in Obama's health care law for some religious employers to pay for birth control. Obama then adjusted that policy by instead directing insurance companies to pay for birth control – and Democrats are running with a message that Republicans want to upend long-established rights for women.

"Women are used to making decisions and running their lives," said Linda Young, president of the National Women's Political Caucus, which favors abortion rights. "To hear their right to contraception questioned in 2012 is shocking, and it's gotten a lot of people's attention."

Republicans say the economy will again overtake that discussion and it will be clear the GOP offers families more once Republicans choose a nominee, turn their fire from each other to Obama and make their case on issues such as gas prices and the deficit.

"The economic indicators, we have to admit, are very slowly improving, and that is something that has always affected the female vote," said Rae Lynne Chornenky, president of the National Federation of Republican Women. "Until we get a candidate I don't think the full story can be told."

"People in both political parties are keeping this (cultural narrative) alive because they're trying to excite their bases," said Republican Brian Flaherty, who served as a Connecticut legislator for 15 years. "You can afford to have this attention in February on" reproductive issues.

An AP-GfK poll conducted Feb. 16-20 showed that on overall approval Obama has gained 10 percentage points among women since December, from 43 percent to 53 percent, even though his administration seemed to stumble over whether religious employers should be forced to pay for contraception.

Women also are the reason behind Obama's lead over Republican hopefuls Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum: In one-on-one matchups, Obama beats Romney 54 percent to 41 percent and tops Santorum 56 percent to 40 percent among women, but virtually ties each Republican among men. Women are Obama's to lose: They are more apt to identify with Democrats and give that party higher favorability than are men.

Over time, there hasn't been much shift in women's views of the Democratic Party, but views of the GOP have become more polarized since the AP last asked about the issue in January 2011. Thirty-nine percent of Republican women hold a "very favorable" view of the party, compared with 27 percent a year ago. At the same time, 57 percent of Democratic women now give the GOP a deeply unfavorable rating, the first time that figure has topped 50 percent.

Republicans insist their objections to Obama's policy on birth control coverage are about government infringing on the freedom of religion, not about contraception, which is supported by a broad majority of Americans.

But Santorum also says, as he has for years, that contraception conflicts with his Roman Catholic beliefs.

"Well, I'm a Roman Catholic, too," said Speyerer. She recalls that in 1940s New Orleans, where she was born and married, it was illegal to publish anything about birth control, "and I don't want to see that happen again."

Democrats already have sought to capitalize on that sentiment, holding a faux hearing last week with a single woman denied the chance to testify about contraception to a Republican-controlled House committee.

There will be more of that this week. Senate Democrats have agreed to debate a measure by Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri that would allow health plans to deny coverage for any service that violates the sponsor's beliefs. And on Thursday, a coalition of women's groups called HERvotes is holding a news conference in Washington to protest the renewed questioning of long-established rights for women.

The AP-GfK poll was conducted Feb. 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs and Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cellphone interviews with 1,000 adults, including 485 women. Results from the full sample have a margin of sampling error of 4 percentage points. Among women, the margin of error is 6 points.
 
"Republicans are making a big mistake with this contraception talk, and I'm pretty sure that they are giving (the election) to Obama," says Patricia Speyerer, 87, of McComb, Miss., a GOP-leaning independent. "It's a stupid thing."

Uh-huh. Crazy thing about us women, we don't really like being insulted and treated like idiots who would run around all wanton the moment we got birth control. And we don't really like men discussing an issue that affects us and not even bothering to have women be a part of the discussion.

Sanity is a valued trait.
 
The Dems got a bit of a break.

Do I need to revise to 51 -55.

I am interested in your numbers - how do you get to 55? I don't see that being realistic. I actually don't think it's a given that they re-take the Senate but in the event that they do I just don't see the math that gets them past 51 or 52.
 
By a vote of 51-48, the Senate agreed to table a Republican amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would have empowered employers to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections. The measure represented the GOP’s response to President Obama’s rule requiring employers to provide contraception and other preventive health services as part of their health insurance plans. Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME) — who announced her retirement earlier this week — was the only Republican to join Democrats in “tabling” the amendment, while three Democrats, Sens. Ben Nelson (NE), Joe Manchin (WV), and Bob Casey (PA) voted to preserve it.
 
that is pathetic, how broad was the exemption?

could an employer refuse to provide medical insurance for people living in sin?
or harlots that get pregnant, without a god-ordained one man, one woman marriage?
 
just to lighten things up, here's a joke

"A MOM'S MEMORY."

"A little boy said to his mother; 'Mommy, how come I'm black and you're white?' " the e-mail joke reads. "His mother replied, 'Don't even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you're lucky you don't bark!' "
 
The idea of women who'll spread their legs for anything is such an endless source of hilarity, isn't it? Thank goodness it doesn't create any real-world obstacles to women being taken seriously in a debate.
 
He also then followed it with the classic "I'm sorry to anyone I offended" non-apologies.

Why not just add "If you weren't offended, it's still really effing funny, right????" Ugh.

What an asshole.
 
By a vote of 51-48, the Senate agreed to table a Republican amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would have empowered employers to deny coverage of health services to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections.

Am I completely and totally missing something here? What exactly is "immoral" about providing health services to employees to begin with? How do people look at their religion and find something about "providing health care goes against God's word" or whatever?

And I too would like to know just how far this exemption goes.

Seriously. I don't get this.
 
I thought it would allow them to NOT cover one specific part of health coverage. Like, "we'll offer you health care but we're not going to cover birth control / blood transfusions / breast reconstruction / brain surgery because we're morally against it."

Not "we think health care is morally objectionable, so we're not going to offer it."

I mean, employers could start taking away health coverage altogether, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. If the health care reform goes into play like it's supposed to, theoretically people can get their coverage elsewhere through the various exchanges, and based on cost to the employer, they could decide their bottom line isn't worth the cost of providing health coverage to their employees. The next few years are going to be interesting.

But I think the Blunt amendment was intended to expand upon the contraceptive piece. "Well, if THEY can opt out of covering birth control, what can WE opt out of because we think it's wrong?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
 
The Atlantic, March 5
President Obama's pledge that the United States "will always have Israel's back" and will attack Iran if it develops a nuclear weapon reverberated across the world Monday. His first remarks occurred during a Sunday conference hosted by the pro-Israel group American Israel Public Affairs Committee and his second remarks took place during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Here are the bits of commentary coming from countries around the world:

Israel
The president's strong pledge of support understandably garnered wide praise in Israel. "A masterpiece of political work," wrote Nadev Eyal in the daily Ma’ariv. Ben-Dror Yeminin, a conservative columnist who writes for the same newspaper said Obama sounded like a member of Israel's hard-right Likud party. ”He didn’t say he would vote for the Likud. But aside from that, one should pay attention, he sounded almost like the Likud leader," he said. In the country's largest paid daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, Sima Kadmon said "We heard in it everything we wanted to hear—and heard that we have someone to rely upon.”

Iran
While the country's nascent blogosphere is a little more difficult to tap into, Iran's state media organs followed the address closely. Citing Obama's assurance that the US "at every crucial juncture, at every fork in the road" supported Israel, Press TV reports that "the US defended Israel against the Goldstone report, which accused Tel Aviv of war crimes against Gazans"—actions the article calls "atrocities." The website's opinion section features an interview with Mark Dankoff "a political commentator in San Antonio Texas" who says Obama "is a captive of the Israeli lobby." “The bad news is that so are the leading contenders of the Republican Party,” Dankoff said. "The real bad news is that if Barack Obama does not do what Israel wants in this particular situation [possible use of military force against Iran]….he can be easily replaced with a Republican in the fall elections.”

Dubai
Writing in the Dubai-based newspaper Gulf News, Linda Heard admonishes President Obama and Israel for exaggerating the risk Iran poses to the international community. "In the first place, there’s no proof that Tehran seeks a nuclear bomb. Secondly, US National Intelligence estimates tell us that Iran binned its nuclear weapons ambitions in 2003," she writes. "Thirdly even if Iran had a bomb, it would be used only as a deterrent. The clerics would have to be deranged to nuke Tel Aviv in the knowledge that repercussions would be swift and merciless."

Thailand
In Thailand's Asia Times, Pepe Escobar gives a somewhat poetically ominous depiction of what goes on at AIPAC. "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) get-together in Washington takes place in an intimidating, cavernous Colosseum where the wealthy crowd ululates in unison for Iranian blood." Ululates, eh? Escobar laments the state of US foreign policy saying "the graphic proof that Israel exercises virtual complete control of US foreign policy was the sight of an American president defensively addressing the AIPAC Colosseum."

Britain
In the UK, The Independent's Avi Shlaim says it's time for Obama to stand up to Israel. "Benjamin Netanyahu is a bellicose, right-wing Israeli nationalist, a rejectionist on the subject of Palestinian national rights, and a reactionary who is deeply wedded to the status quo," he writes. "If Obama cannot stand up to Bibi Netanyahu in defence of vital American interests, who will he stand up to? His own credibility as the leader of the free world is on the line."
The speech wasn't quite as lopsided as this article's focus perhaps suggests, and in fact there was lots of conservative handwringing about Obama's warnings against irresponsibly "loose talk of war" and frankness that a strike at this time wouldn't serve the best interests of either the US or Israel. Nonetheless, he made it clear that the Administration's policy is not containment.

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, probably the US media's most prominent centrist on Israel (that's centrist in the American spectrum), interviewed Obama last week on the Israel-Iran standoff and the US' role in it. Well worth reading if you're following the topic: Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff' - Jeffrey Goldberg - International - The Atlantic
 
Am I completely and totally missing something here? What exactly is "immoral" about providing health services to employees to begin with? How do people look at their religion and find something about "providing health care goes against God's word" or whatever?

And I too would like to know just how far this exemption goes.

Seriously. I don't get this.

Unfortunately Mrs Springsteen never gives the sources of her articles but I'm sure you'd find this one was written by someone partial to Obamacare. Let me rewrite it and see if that helps.

By a vote of 51-48, the Senate agreed to table a Republican amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that would have allowed employers to deny coverage of contraception to their employees on the basis of personal moral objections.

Now somehow, prior to this whole debate, 99 percent of women have used birth control at some point. So the argument isn't about restricting birth control or denying women "health services," the argument is about whether employers can be mandated by the federal government to provide (and all American's made to pay for) contraception at no cost to the woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom