Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 62 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-28-2012, 05:45 PM   #916
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
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, the GOP will surely get the Senate, it is only a question of a range somewhere between 52- 56. .

Olympia Snowe: Maine senator won't seek reelection - chicagotribune.com

The Dems got a bit of a break.

Do I need to revise to 51 -55.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-28-2012, 06:26 PM   #917
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 10:08 PM
Quote:
"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.
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 02-28-2012, 06:28 PM   #918
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post

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.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-29-2012, 03:47 PM   #919
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:08 PM
to be honest, it was a little bit (lazy) just going on my gut feeling
usually I take the time to do a little research from a few sources to reach a conclusion
whatever the projections are, the Dems are two up now from when I posted that, with Snowe out and Bob Kerrey in.

Kerrey makes Senate run official – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 12:27 PM   #920
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 11:08 PM
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.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 02:44 PM   #921
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:08 PM
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?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:51 PM   #922
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:08 PM
just to lighten things up, here's a joke

Quote:
"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!' "
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 03:59 PM   #923
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:08 AM
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 04:03 PM   #924
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:08 PM
or expecting impariality in our judicial system?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 04:39 PM   #925
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,700
Local Time: 08:08 PM
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.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 04:46 PM   #926
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:08 PM
I do not believe he is fit to be on the beanch, any half way decent attorney should request a change of venue
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-01-2012, 11:13 PM   #927
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
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.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-01-2012, 11:43 PM   #928
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,700
Local Time: 08:08 PM
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.
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 03-05-2012, 07:50 PM   #929
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 05:08 AM
The Atlantic, March 5
Quote:
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
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-05-2012, 08:55 PM   #930
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com