Hello:

It wasn't long ago that I was looking at a resounding defeat for Obama and the Democrats. It looks like the right wingers agreed with me, too, and thought even dufuses could beat him... Plus, that was BEFORE it became known what Republicans actually DO when they take over, as in the states where they have BIG majorities.

So, I think Obama WILL survive, the Dems will recapture the House, and those radical right wing states will be brought back to the center.

No?

excon

They are certainly shooting themselves in the foot with their in-fighting and "interesting" quotes from the campaigns.

Too early to predict . Neither side has done anything to help their cause.

There is tremendous advantages in the power of incumbency . But in my opinion the President is still very weak.

I am not that concerned about the Republic circular firing squad unless Newt or Paul is the nominee. Romney running the gauntlet is making him a stronger candidate .

Not only will the Dems not retake the House ;but they will lose the Senate .

As a side note /// Peyton Manning to the Seahawks?? Sounds like a perfect match .

Manning would have a nice corps of receivers with the Cowboys. Yeah, I'm about ready to dump Romo.

Hello tom:

The firing squad will continue.. Either Newt OR Paul will run as a third party candidate, and keep on firing... Newt and Romney really DO hate each other.

excon

PS> Just what we need - a quarterback who can't feel his fingers.. We already got one of them.. Although Jackson tore it up the last few games.

You know that isn't going to happen ;even though it should be obvious that with the skill players they have ;the Cowboys should rock the league .

P.S. Obama is doing his best job of alienating Catholics and other people of faith by compelling religious health care entities to provide insurance coverage for sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients against their beliefs. Damn shame this president has no respect for the constitution and our religious rights.

Damn shame this president has no respect for the constitution and our religious rights.Hello again, Steve:

What about the rights of the employees? If the Catholic church doesn't want to behave like an ordinary American employer (which they ARE), they can certainly give up their tax exemption.

excon

And so they should because it is outrageous that Obama would place such conditions .

it is outrageous that Obama would place such conditions .Hello again, tom:

Outrageous?? Can the church REFUSE to hire a black person?? A woman? What's outrageous is that the Catholic church thinks it can pick which employment law it should obey.

excon

Are they refusing to hire women and Blacks ? No .They are objecting to being forced to provide in their medical coverage things ,devices ,procedures they consider morally objectionable .

Very easy solution . Give them a waiver like Obama gives to all his cronies .

They are objecting to being forced to provide in their medical coverage things ,devices ,procedures they consider morally objectionable .If there was a demand for such particular style of service shouldn't the free market come up with an HMO to cater to that market?

Yes... and the Catholics in a free market would have the choice if the insurance they provide has that option.

The problem with this government control is that they are forcing people into coverage they don't want .

So such an HMO already exists? What company is that?

Hello again, Steve:

What about the rights of the employees? If the Catholic church doesn't want to behave like an ordinary American employer (which they ARE), they can certainly give up their tax exemption.

Dude, they don't have to work there. They know going in it is a non-profit religious organization. You do know that historically, hospitals were typically founded and funded by religious groups. You'd apparently rather have the unfeeling, unsympathetic corporate types running the health care industry than allow the church to continue exercising its first amendment rights and do what it has done for ages in caring for the health of people, often the poorest among us.

So such an HMO already exists? What company is that?

Clearly this is so because the Catholic Church was able to get acceptable coverage for their employees before Obamacare.

So an HMO exists that they were using that met their moral requirements and they are being forced to switch from that? Or is the HMO being forced to offer "new" services?
Do you have a link that describes this forcing of the issue?

Obama Administration Approves Rule That Guarantees Near-Universal Contraceptive Coverage | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/20/407994/obama-administration-approves-rule-that-guarantees-near-universal-contraceptive-coverage/?mobile=nc)

Obama Administration Approves Rule That Guarantees Near-Universal Contraceptive Coverage | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/20/407994/obama-administration-approves-rule-that-guarantees-near-universal-contraceptive-coverage/?mobile=nc)

"houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt"

Any Catholic in a job with another employer doesn't have to use those services. In the same way that I don't use a whole bunch of services available to me in my health plan.

"that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith."

How many hospitals do you know that serve only patients of the same religion?

In another Orwellian twist, Obama claims he pushed Obamacare because of Christ.

Obama: I Pushed Dodd-Frank And Health Care Reform Because Of Christ (http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-i-pushed-dodd-frank-and-health-care-reform)

Apparently Obama thinks Christ was pro-abortion.

It's a no brainer.. it violates the actual and historical definition of the 'free exercise clause' of the 1st amendment .

Apparently Obama thinks Christ was pro-abortion.
He was pro-choice.

Its my understanding and from what is being reported the churches get a pass on this but the hospitals do not. So those of religious origin will now have to perform abortions and give out contreception as the law reads. They MUST now offer these services that they had not before offered.

Churches cannot/do not accept federal/state funding. Do hospitals associated with religious bodies receive such funding?

In another Orwellian twist, Obama claims he pushed Obamacare because of Christ. Nope, he, like myself, is a fan of the Golden rule:

"I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato," Obama added.

Churches cannot/do not accept federal/state funding. Do hospitals associated with religious bodies receive such funding?

Im not sure types of funding they get. I am also not sure if that includes or not monies paid for services rendered to the poor or those on Medicaid as being government funding.

Here is an article from 2010. Just to give you an idea of what is going on.

Obama continues his project of dismantling Catholic health care CatholicVoteAction.org (http://www.catholicvoteaction.org/americanpapist/index.php?p=7815)

If a hospital or church accepts any government funding, it should pay taxes.

He was pro-choice.

Not in the sense it's used today.

Nope, he, like myself, is a fan of the Golden rule:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

Babies want to be torn apart and ripped from their mother's womb?

If they were babies that'd be bad... but they are not.
Quit interfering in people's lives, let them make their own choices.

Bet you're glad you weren't snuffed that way .

Babies want to be torn apart and ripped from their mother's womb?
No, of course not. Let's prevent them from coming into existence in the first place (i.e. abstinence). And if they exist, let's make sure they grow up and are fed and clothed and have health care and a comfortable old age.

Hello Carol:

WG, you're so - so, uhhh, European...

excon

Carol,

I'm OK with that. But I still will not stop fighting for the unborn child's right to life either.

Mark Steyn had a nice suggestion (http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/steyn-rips-obamas-brother%e2%80%99s-keeper-remark-his-brother-is-back-in-kenya-living-on-12-a-year/#ixzz1lMQE0l8J)for the president for something he said during his speech claiming Jesus made him do it.


On Thursday, President Barack Obama delivered remarks to the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton and said, “Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper, caring for the poor and those in need.”

But according to National Review columnist Mark Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” Obama’s comments leave much to be desired, particularly when it comes to the president’s own brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives on $12 a year in Kenya.

“Oh give me a break,” Steyn said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Thursday night. “For a start, when he says, ‘I am my brother’s keeper,’ his brother is back in Kenya living on $12 a year. That’s what he was living on at the time of the 2008 election. So all the president has to do in terms of shared responsibility is put a $10 bill in an envelope and mail it to Nairobi or Mombasa or wherever and he will double his brother’s salary.”

But of course that's not at all what Obama means by being your brother's keeper, he means the government should be your brother's keeper... on my dime.


At issue is the Obama administration’s effort to require Catholic institutions to provide contraception. Steyn explained this is part of “big government” trying to supplant the church as a source of “moral authority.”

“This version of shared responsibility means the state should be your ‘brother’s keeper,’” he said. “And this is the point for the Catholic Church. Separation of church and state is one thing, but big government means the state as church, the sole legitimate source of moral authority whether it’s on contraception or gay marriage or abortion or any of the rest. And that’s what you see in Europe. Big government drives out other sources of moral authority.”

... for the president for something he said during his speech claiming Jesus made him do it..
He never said that.


but big government means the state as churchA very stupid person wrote that.

I'm ok with that
I thought you are Republican.

I asked my very conservative Republican husband if there should be good union pensions for teachers and government help for families with autistic kids, and he said, "Heck, no!" Then I asked him, if I had continued as a teacher in Chicago, joined the union, and now got a nice pension, and we got government help for our autistic son, would he be okay with that?" and he said, "Heck, yes!"

Guess it depends on whose pocket the money goes into...

No, of course not. Let's prevent them from coming into existence in the first place (i.e., abstinence). And if they exist, let's make sure they grow up and are fed and clothed and have health care and a comfortable old age.

Well those ideas run contrary to some in this place. You mean you don't want people to be thrown on the scrapheap of capitalism and heddonism, how unamerican

Mark Steyn [URL="http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/03/steyn-rips-obamas-brother%e2%80%99s-keeper-remark-his-brother-is-back-in-kenya-living-on-12-a-year/#ixzz1lMQE0l8J"][U]had a nice suggestion
I have a terrific idea!! Steyn should send $100 (! ) to George and put Obama to shame. That would put Steyn's money where his mouth is and be a good example for us all.

No, no switcherooski here. Steyn's integrity isn't the one in question here, Obama's is. Is he taking care of his brother or not?

No, no switcherooski here. Steyn's integrity isn't the one in question here, Obama's is. Is he taking care of his brother or not?Does his half-brother want any money from Obama?

Hello again,

Wow. When things start to go south, they REALLY go south. Poor Republicans..

The recent overreach by the Komen foundation, while surely intended to QUIETLY strike another blow on the side of antiabortion activism, succeeded instead in waking a powerful constituency. The response it generated was UNIFIED and THUNDEROUS.

Recent attacks on collective bargaining by Republican governors have produced mass mobilization in those states, the likes of which we haven't seen in decades. Public service workers - cops, firefighters, nurses, teachers, paramedics, sanitation workers – once were the proud backbone of the middle class. Now they find themselves derided by the GOP as the new welfare queens who are taking more than their fair share.

The Trump endorsement was just icing on the cake. All I got to say is, the worm has turned... I'm looking at a landslide!

excon

No, no switcherooski here. Steyn's integrity isn't the one in question here, Obama's is. Is he taking care of his brother or not?
Is it important to know that he is? Will that cause you to like/respect him more? Or will you say, "Is that ALL he's sending him?"

The Trump endorsement was just icing on the cake. All I got to say is, the worm has turned... I'm looking at a landslide!
Trump should have endorsed Newt. Trump and Callista could have shared hair care secrets.

Does his half-brother want any money from Obama?

Do I want Obamacare? Since when does what we want matter to a liberal?

Is it important to know that he is? Will that cause you to like/respect him more? Or will you say, "Is that ALL he's sending him?"

Why yes, seeing him lead by example in this would help me respect him more.

Do I want Obamacare? Since when does what we want matter to a liberal?
Well there's your all-encompassing problem. Your fanaticism clouds your judgement.

Why yes, seeing him lead by example in this would help me respect him more.
So if he gives him xx amount, it won't be enough, and why is he bragging AGAIN? If he doesn't give him anything, shame, shame, shame.

Do I want Obamacare? Since when does what we want matter to a liberal?
Let's say you can't afford health insurance. What would you do if you got sick?

What a strange question, I live in a place where you never have to ask that question

WG there are already safetynet provisions for those who can't afford health care. That is just a canard to force the whole country into a universal government command and control system.

Ex the recall in Wisconsin will fail and fail badly . That's because Governor Walker's reforms have already saved the state. Last year's $3 billion deficit is now a $300 million surplus.It was accomplished without the new taxes that unions favored.Seems the only solution libs have is to tax tax tax .
Rank and file will eventually get around to asking why union bosses are wasting their hard earned money that they've handed over the union in the form of dues. The next recall will be ousting the union bosses.

Hello again,

Wow. When things start to go south, they REALLY go south. Poor Republicans..

The recent overreach by the Komen foundation, while surely intended to QUIETLY strike another blow on the side of antiabortion activism, succeeded instead in waking a powerful constituency. The response it generated was UNIFIED and THUNDEROUS.

What overreach? Komen took the initiative to follow their own rules, in response donations to both groups were up 100 percent... and then they caved. The fallout will be measured for some time. I can promise you a lot of people - regardless of political bent are going to drop support for Komen. I will never support PP and I'm far from alone.

Let's say you can't afford health insurance. What would you do if you got sick?

Still trying to change the subject from Obama's hypocrisy.

Still trying to change the subject from Obama's hypocrisy.
Actually YOU changed the subject way back on post 21: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/switcherooski-632642-3.html#post3018255

Hypocrite.

What overreach? Komen took the initiative to follow their own rules,Hello again, Steve:

It was in response to a right wing congressmen SAYING they used federal funds for abortion... PP SAID they didn't, and provided supporting documents... They've done this COUNTLESS times, because this ISN'T the first attack..

ANY dufus could see the partisan investigation for what it was... To STOP funding PP because of this PHONEY investigation looks to be political...

Besides, they just changed the rules in order TO exclude PP.

Plus, if you want to look at the backlash as just more liberal noise, you absolutely may.. But, the left is making itself FELT for the first time in a long time, and I'd be worried if I was a right winger.

excon

WG there are already safetynet provisions for those who can't afford health care.
And those are?

The safety net Tom speaks of is the business practice of passing on costs to other tax payers, or raising the rates of insurance premiums, or billing the government (US) through grants for county hospitals that work with the poor or uninsured. What a con job the right pushes, as any mandate to have insurance ONLY will affect those 50 million that don't have it, nor wish to get it.

Of course you can put the heat on the prez, without lifting a finger or doing anything by which to be judged, or compared to. That's why we get all this rhetoric from the right about how bad everything else is because they have no solutions, just loyalty to a system that screws them too.

What safetynet ? Why programs like Medicaid for one. I understand it is not perfect ;but no system designed by humans is .
I would add that if we stopped trying to expand the safety net for those who can provide for themselves then it would be easier to strengthen the net for those that really need it.

safety net for those who can provide for themselves
Who is going to (and how are we going to) determine who those people are and then sort out the rest of them as to who needs job counseling or mental health counseling or family counseling or marital counseling in order to have a better chance at life? Who will offer the counseling? Who will pay for it? Who will ascertain the success or failure of the counseling? Who will provide remedial help after assessing that it's needed?

Who will pay for all of that?

Its usually the governor and state legislature that is responsible for allocation of federal funds for medicaid.

Be afraid, be very afraid of republican govenors, and legislatures. Look it up for yourself.

Don't bog us down in details . The determination is wealth obviously . Eligibility is economically based .