At 4:45 from Letterman "What more do we want this man ( Obama) to do for us?

How about Jobs, Jobs jobs Jobs and less debt

@bobknight33: http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

Hah, like bobknight cares about facts.

Hey, @bobknight33 why don't you create some jobs. What's stopping you?

>> ^NetRunner:

@bobknight33: http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

Bob did not say anything about his track record, Bob was stating what he wants.

More jobs and less debt. you two would be stupid not to want the same thing.

Fun Fact: My avatar is the original, untouched picture from the situation room that day.

i get this feeling that Obama is going to turn left (whatever left is in american politics) after the reelection.

He was just waiting for the second term, and not risking not be reelected to make bigger social and economical changes.


Even if he doesn't turn left... the other candidate is Mitt Romney, so.... yeah. Not a hard choice there.

>> ^EMPIRE:

i get this feeling that Obama is going to turn left (whatever left is in american politics) after the reelection.
He was just waiting for the second term, and not risking not be reelected to make bigger social and economical changes.

Even if he doesn't turn left... the other candidate is Mitt Romney, so.... yeah. Not a hard choice there.


Political spectrum:

Left.................................................................Central.................................................................Right

American political spectrum:

....................................................................................................................................Left.Central.Right

The purpose of the question wasn't an invitation for people to deliver a wish list, but instead a rhetorical questioning of what more he'd have to do in order to get certain people to say he's doing a good job as President.

On that score, bobknight didn't say "more" jobs, he just said jobs three times, as if Obama has delivered none, which is obviously wrong. As for less debt, I find this request amusing. Bush inherited a huge surplus and a booming economy from Clinton, and turned it into trillion dollar deficits and the worst economic expansion since WW2. Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit and the biggest recession since the Great Depression and has already reversed the trend (deficit is shrinking, and employment is increasing).

So what more do people want before they admit he's doing a good job? The answer given, as always, is "fix all the messes created by Republicans in one term despite lockstep opposition from Republicans."

The real answer, however, is nothing.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Bob did not say anything about his track record, Bob was stating what he wants.
More jobs and less debt. you two would be stupid not to want the same thing.

I want to be the sole winner of the lottery when it's up around 500 million, can Obama arrange that?

I want Obama to do what he says he was going to do. Also I want him to stop murdering people with drones.

Nice graph. I'd would not call it a MILESTONE. But it does not do enough. What about all those who stopped looking? Those people are not counted and unemployed. They still need jobs.

You must live in a glass bubble. There are less and less jobs to be had.

I drive all around the western half of North Carolina - Every month I see another shop close here and there. It has not stopped. It is sad to see.


I feel for you that you don't understand reality but just what the Party puts out as "truth"




>> ^NetRunner:

@bobknight33: http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

You're right, he hasn't been a good jobs president. He's substantially reduced government employment. Unless you had some other suggestion for how he could create jobs?

>> ^bobknight33:

Nice graph. I'd would not call it a MILESTONE. But it does not do enough. What about all those who stopped looking? Those people are not counted and unemployed. They still need jobs.
You must live in a glass bubble. There are less and less jobs to be had.
I drive all around the western half of North Carolina - Every month I see another shop close here and there. It has not stopped. It is sad to see.

I feel for you that you don't understand reality but just what the Party puts out as "truth"


>> ^NetRunner:
@bobknight33: http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

'Grabbing all that oil...'


that didn't work out too well, did it?

I cannot help myself. Time for a rambling rant...

Why would a society that is so capitalistic in nature look to the government for job creation? What happened to the invisible hand of the market? (These are sarcastic and rhetorical questions btw)

There are fewer jobs for so many reasons that have nothing to do with government inaction.
eg: HP to layoff up to 30,000 staff

These layoffs are proposed because the company profit to employee ratio is less than Apple or Google. This is a crazy reason to layoff people. Wouldn't it be better to try and drive up revenue rather than cut jobs? What would you like the government to do about something like this?

Personally I think that exporting of raw materials and outsourcing of manufacturing and services should be made illegal! However that would mean that we would be paying a lot more for those goods and services that we enjoy at child labour prices today. That would turn that little WalMart smile upside down.

It is certainly true that through civil projects the government could create jobs but that would increase either taxes or the deficit (or both). Alternatively they could reduce taxes for all, giving people and businesses more to spend (oooh, probably not a good idea with that multi trillion dollar deficit sitting there and that massive military machine that needs constant feeding).

I agree with GenjiKilpatrick, if you want to spur the economy and see an increase in the number of jobs look to yourself; inovate, create, sell, expand, hire. Don't sit back waiting for someone to open a door for you.


>> ^bobknight33:

Nice graph. I'd would not call it a MILESTONE. But it does not do enough. What about all those who stopped looking? Those people are not counted and unemployed. They still need jobs.
You must live in a glass bubble. There are less and less jobs to be had.
I drive all around the western half of North Carolina - Every month I see another shop close here and there. It has not stopped. It is sad to see.

I feel for you that you don't understand reality but just what the Party puts out as "truth"


>> ^NetRunner:
@bobknight33: http://www.barackobama.com/jobsrecord

>> ^bobknight33:

How about Jobs, Jobs jobs Jobs and less debt


In a recession, the two are mutually exclusive. Go read up on your Keynes.

Congress refuses to enact a real stimulus package because of the huge deficit--one that they created--and offers no suggestions other than tax cuts, which do little to stimulate demand and increase the deficit. Back in 2000, we should've been increasing marginal rates rather than cutting them. If that'd been done, we'd have lots of breathing room for real stimulus. Know-nothing simplistic people like you are the problem, and have nothing to do with the solution.

I'd like him to be more polite

SERIOUSLY?!

Obama needs to be more polite?!

*OBAMA*?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro

Not to mention a significant faction of the GOP accuse him of not being an American citizen. And that's persisting after he provided his birth certificate!

I'm not a leftwinger, or a Democrat for that matter, but you have to be out of your damn mind if you think that politics isn't civil enough because of Obama.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'd like him to be more polite

>> ^heropsycho:

SERIOUSLY?!
Obama needs to be more polite?!
OBAMA ?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro
Not to mention a significant faction of the GOP accuse him of not being an American citizen. And that's persisting after he provided his birth certificate!
I'm not a leftwinger, or a Democrat for that matter, but you have to be out of your damn mind if you think that politics isn't civil enough because of Obama.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite




Obama is the most divisive president this country has ever seen. Even top democrats complain that he is a terrible leader:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/top-congressional-democrats-complain-obama-not-leader

As far as where he was born is concerned, it's not as if the birthers have no reason to be skeptical:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii



As for me, I accept whomever God has appointed. I pray for Obama, although I hope this will be his only term.

The Republicans made it their goal to be absolutely uncooperative, but somehow I am expected to believe that it's the President who is being divisive. Someone is living in a propaganda bubble.

Well said. I couldn't have added anything better.

>> ^NetRunner:

The purpose of the question wasn't an invitation for people to deliver a wish list, but instead a rhetorical questioning of what more he'd have to do in order to get certain people to say he's doing a good job as President.
On that score, bobknight didn't say "more" jobs, he just said jobs three times, as if Obama has delivered none, which is obviously wrong. As for less debt, I find this request amusing. Bush inherited a huge surplus and a booming economy from Clinton, and turned it into trillion dollar deficits and the worst economic expansion since WW2. Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit and the biggest recession since the Great Depression and has already reversed the trend (deficit is shrinking, and employment is increasing).
So what more do people want before they admit he's doing a good job? The answer given, as always, is "fix all the messes created by Republicans in one term despite lockstep opposition from Republicans."
The real answer, however, is nothing.
>> ^BoneRemake:
Bob did not say anything about his track record, Bob was stating what he wants.
More jobs and less debt. you two would be stupid not to want the same thing.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Turning to the left in US politics is still to the right of most Western democracies. I hope he does.>> ^EMPIRE:

i get this feeling that Obama is going to turn left (whatever left is in american politics) after the reelection.
He was just waiting for the second term, and not risking not be reelected to make bigger social and economical changes.

Even if he doesn't turn left... the other candidate is Mitt Romney, so.... yeah. Not a hard choice there.

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^heropsycho:
SERIOUSLY?!
Obama needs to be more polite?!
OBAMA ?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro
Not to mention a significant faction of the GOP accuse him of not being an American citizen. And that's persisting after he provided his birth certificate!
I'm not a leftwinger, or a Democrat for that matter, but you have to be out of your damn mind if you think that politics isn't civil enough because of Obama.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite



Obama is the most divisive president this country has ever seen. Even top democrats complain that he is a terrible leader:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/top-congressional-democrats-compl
ain-obama-not-leader
As far as where he was born is concerned, it's not as if the birthers have no reason to be skeptical:
http://ww
w.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

As for me, I accept whomever God has appointed. I pray for Obama, although I hope this will be his only term.

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

I'm not really arguing in the first place, heropsycho. The fact that you feel you need to passionately defend president Obama, even against the benign implication that he is impolite (the video I provided has many valid examples of this(I bet you didn't watch it)) is proof of the cloud of divisiveness that permeates his presidency.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

If Obama is moderate, why are all of his appointees extreme left? The far left should be pleased with his presidency, but the portrait they are painting is of a disinterested narcissist who couldn't lead a dog on a leash. Everyone drank the Obama kool-aid in 2008; they even controlled congress for two years. They should be celebrating Obama, yet there is a definite schism.

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

Do you know where the spiking the football quote came from? President Obama. He used the anniversary of bin ladens death to score some cheap political points against Romney, and so he opened himself to the criticism. If he had handled it presidentially, as a strong leader instead of using it as a partisan political play, Romney would have had to eat crow that whole week.

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

So explain why the two examples I gave you wouldn't cause a reasonable person, let alone a paranoid one, to be skeptical?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

I'm not playing a card, I'm telling you what I believe. Last time I checked, I didn't need your permission to do that. Neither am I much into politics, personally. I follow it, but generally the choices are "bad" and "worse". I don't think the republicans are any better than the democrats, in many ways. The fact is, this nation has fallen far away from God, farther every day, and so I expect judgment will be coming fairly soon. Prophetically, 9-11 was a warning:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Isaiah-Judgment-Foretells-Americas/dp/1936488191

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

No problem. When you can think of any besides Bin Laden, let me know. I don't consider Obamacare to be a plus; my mother is going to lose her current health coverage and end up paying much higher premiums because of it.

>> ^heropsycho:

Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:

I'd like him to be more polite {video}

>> ^messenger:

Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}



Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.

For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.

Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...

Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.

It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.

I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!

Here's the difference:

If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.

I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!

I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.

>> ^heropsycho:

For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.
Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...
Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.
It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.
I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!
Here's the difference:
If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.
I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!
I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.



You responded to the wrong post. You can find the one where I replied to you here:

http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Want-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1458730

I am aware. Did you notice I responded to some of your points in it like accusing me of not watching the right wing hitjob video?

The rest I didn't bother responding to. But after second thought, I'll respond to the question of whether Obama is extreme to the left or not. And this is a really easy one...

Name a single thing Obama has done that's honestly extreme to the left. An actual policy. I'm not talking a moderate-left policy. Raising taxes on the top income earners from 35-38% wouldn't be an extreme left idea. It's moving the dial a notch or two to the left. If he proposed raising it to 50%, that would be a hard left move.

See, I don't really care if *some* of Obama's appointments are far to the left. I care about policies proposed or enacted.

Yet another thing I get irritated about - characterizing someone you don't like as a political caricature to the extreme side of that political direction. Don't like George W. Bush? Paint him as a Nazi because he's more to the right than you. Don't like Obama? Paint him as a godless communist because he's to the left of you. Of course the extremes in the parties complain their own guys aren't conservative/liberal enough. This way, nobody is happy, and everyone complains about how crappy our gov't is!

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^heropsycho:
For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.
Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...
Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.
It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.
I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!
Here's the difference:
If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.
I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!
I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.


You responded to the wrong post. You can find the one where I replied to you here:
http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Wan
t-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1458730

This is fascinating. Is the fundamental religious critique of presidents focussed on their interpersonal behaviour because God is deciding on their policies and those aren't up for debate?

Maybe God is making Obama 'rude' to people too - should you be judging that?

I am aware. Did you notice I responded to some of your points in it like accusing me of not watching the right wing hitjob video?

The rest I didn't bother responding to. But after second thought, I'll respond to the question of whether Obama is extreme to the left or not. And this is a really easy one...

Name a single thing Obama has done that's honestly extreme to the left. An actual policy. I'm not talking a moderate-left policy. Raising taxes on the top income earners from 35-38% wouldn't be an extreme left idea. It's moving the dial a notch or two to the left. If he proposed raising it to 50%, that would be a hard left move.

See, I don't really care if *some* of Obama's appointments are far to the left. I care about policies proposed or enacted.

Not *some*, *most*. Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.

Yet another thing I get irritated about - characterizing someone you don't like as a political caricature to the extreme side of that political direction. Don't like George W. Bush? Paint him as a Nazi because he's more to the right than you. Don't like Obama? Paint him as a godless communist because he's to the left of you. Of course the extremes in the parties complain their own guys aren't conservative/liberal enough. This way, nobody is happy, and everyone complains about how crappy our gov't is!

I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly. I think this film may provide some insight:



>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^kymbos:

This is fascinating. Is the fundamental religious critique of presidents focussed on their interpersonal behaviour because God is deciding on their policies and those aren't up for debate?
Maybe God is making Obama 'rude' to people too - should you be judging that?


The policies are up to debate, especially those which contradict Gods word, however the man himself should be respected. I don't have to agree with him, but I respect him because God put him there (and also because he is a human being made in the image of God). There is a good example of that from scripture regarding Daniels friends..you can see that even though they did not agree with the Kings policy, and were sentenced to death, they still treated him with honor and humility (because his authority was ordained by God):

Daniel 3:14-30

Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good.c But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.d But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated. And he ordered some of the mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics,e their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. Because the king’s order was urgent and the furnace overheated, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set asidef the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:
http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secre
tary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate
All of this is far left.
Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.
They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.
He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/ob
amas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/
The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.
When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.
Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.
>> ^heropsycho:

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

? The video was congressional hearing where Kathleen Selibus gave testimony concerning the contraceptive mandate. How is that "hard right extremists?" Did someone program her answers for her?

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Not according to this poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Repealing DOMA has been on the far left agenda since it was enacted. Whatever Obama says his position is, which has switched three times, is irrelevant to the point.

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.

That's just scratching the surface.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.

>> ^heropsycho:

Anytime people describe Obama as a Muslim or a socialist, there is really no reason left to hear what they say.

As for the scare mongering, the "we haven't seen the real him yet" - on what is that based?

Whereas we know exactly what Romney and his pals will do once they're in the drivers seat again: continue to rape the country as before.

So if Obama getting elected is god's will. If democrats continue to have a streak and elect democrat after democrat into Office for the next few decades are so, how long before it's no longer God's will and America supposedly becomes "god forsaken?"

I'm just curious, since Republicans have claimed god as their own. When exactly did god become a card carrying Republican after all? And when did god become an American?

In the future, you may want to leave the subject of the supposed will of imaginary deities out of the grownup talk. If you want anyone to take you seriously that is.

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.
That's just scratching the surface.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.
>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

She didn't draft the bill. Period. She cannot speak for everyone who drafted it. And guess what? You didn't prove the law doesn't pass the balancing test anyway. Show me how it doesn't pass that test. I don't care what she said.

HOLY CRAP! You admitted you were wrong! MIRACLE!!!

Now, free exercise clause. Show me how the law stops religious people from exercising their religion. Can orthodox Catholics continue to not use birth control? Yes. Are YOU familiar with the free exercise clause?

If you go down the road that money from the church can't go to things that violate their religious beliefs, then it's unconstitutional to federally subsidize farms. Since farms slaughter cows, this would violate the religious rights of a Hindu. Slaughtering pigs for consumption would violate the rights of orthodox Jews and Muslims. Defense spending would be unconstitutional because of pacifist religions like Jehovah's Witnesses. Affirmative action programs would be unconstitutional because of racist religious groups. Federal aid to any religious organizations, including tax favored statuses to churches, would be unconstitutional because of atheists' beliefs. I could go on and on and on. That kind of insane rule would basically halt government from doing what it must do.

We all pay for things we disagree with. To quote Jon Stewart on this, "Welcome to the fu***** club!"

I don't care what someone said. The US Supreme Court isn't going to look at what she said in that one clip and decide the case. YOU prove it doesn't pass the balancing test. You're not even attempting to prove it doesn't.

The article about Obama supporting "a repeal of DOMA" by favoring the Respect for Marriage Act. Do you even know what that act does? Let me help you:

"For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State."

BTW, notice I actually quoted the law. I didn't link you to an article from a left wing or right wing organization. THAT is the law, word for word.

Is that not EXACTLY what I just said Obama favored in respect to DOMA? He believes states should decide if gay marriage is legal. If it's considered legal by the state, then it's considered legal by the federal gov't. Respect for Marriage Act does NOT legalize gay marriage nationwide in any stretch of the imagination. All it does is change that if a gay couple are married legally in New York, then they're legally married according to federal law as well. That doesn't mean a gay couple in the state of Mississippi can get married. Do you not even read the articles you're posting? You just proved EXACTLY what I just said. This is a moderate/left position.

As for the your link for FOCA, you linked to a webpage that is an organization created to fight abortion rights. I pasted a direct quote from the law. They took small quotes and then completely injected their own BS into it.

The bill has language that is clearly put into the bill to NOT legalize partial birth abortions unless there's a threat to the health of the mother. Show me where it says, "A woman can get a partial birth abortion." Doesn't say it. Don't quote me some right wing nut job site. Find the passage that says partial birth abortions are completely legal in all cases. It's not there, is it?

Show me where any of the things you said against FOCA are in the bill's language. It's not there.

>> ^shinyblurry:


The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".
What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.
If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.
By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.
Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-american
s-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

You're misinformed:
"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.
White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."
http://www.washingto
npost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html
He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:
"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."
In 2008 he said
"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”
Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html
>> ^heropsycho:

If you're going to keep cherry picking your responses, I don't see much reason to waste my time writing a reply. The actual point of what we've been talking about, that Obama takes far left positions, is beyond dispute. You can quibble about details all that you like, but when it comes down to it, endorsing gay marriage, supporting FOCA, appointing so many extreme left people to various positions including his own cabinet, etc, is far left. However, I never said Obama is the typical liberal. I don't think he is necessarily extreme left or a socialist. I think he is probably somewhere inbetween the two positions. He is somewhat of an enigma and I don't think we have seen the real Obama yet.

>> ^heropsycho:>

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

>> ^shinyblurry:


If you're going to keep cherry picking your responses, I don't see much reason to waste my time writing a reply.

I think someone's realizing they got their butt handed to them. If you're not gonna quote the actual law to prove what you're saying about said law, then it is a waste of time. Personally, it is a waste of time to argue this because what I wrote is stone cold fact.

Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.

Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.

Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.

For the record, I honestly don't really care much about the issues of gay marriage, abortion laws, and the birth control requirement in Obamacare. I'd much rather focus on issues like the economy, foreign policy, that kind of thing. Of those three issues, the contraception thing is the one I care about the most because it's one of like 5 things the general population knows about the law, and it's completely insignificant in the big scheme of things. I'm completely in favor of just making a compromise about birth control for religious institutions, and move on if that's what it takes to actually have an honest debate about the bill. Such institutions are so small in number, who gives a crap? It doesn't systemically make Obamacare not work economically or socially speaking. But the simple truth is if it's not the birth control issue, it's protecting the small number of idiots to be allowed to not buy health insurance if they don't want to, even though that helps break the current health care system when society has absolutely no problem legally forcing people to buy car insurance for basically the same reason - not buying car insurance if you have a car is stupid and hurts society.

I'm not particularly interested in the social issues either. This country is degenerating at an exponential rate and I doubt anything will change that.

BTW, for the record, I'm not 100% on board with Obamacare. I just think vehemently opposing it for those two reasons is ideological inflexibility at its worst. There are very legitimate reasons to oppose it.

I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.

What I get pissed about is factual misrepresentation, such as partisan hack assessments about how Obama is far left on abortion and gay marriage laws when he clearly isn't. You cannot prove Obama favors legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states via federal legislation or a constitutional amendment. THAT is far left. You can't prove Obama wants anyone to be able to get an abortion anywhere at any time without any regulations whatsoever. THAT is far left. Your entire argument that Obama is far left on those issues, and "religious freedoms" because of the whole birth control thing is completely ridiculous. When I think extreme left on religious freedom issues, I think it's passing a law that businesses can't put up a Merry Christmas sign, or not allowing an academic class in school that studies religion, or something like that. If the worse alleged religious persecution is large religious institutions who provide health insurance to their employees must offer plans that must include coverage of a lot things that are generally beneficial to society, such as the pill, so employees can afford them IF they want them in a day and age where health insurance is the de facto and often only way to get affordable health insurance, I think you need to go spend some time in a country with real religious persecution by the government.

What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.

>> ^heropsycho:

So even though the law specifically states partial birth abortions won't be allowed unless to protect the life of the mother, which btw, the average American you keep sighting would agree should be allowed, it's going to effectively let virtually every partial birth abortion to occur. That's right wing paranoia. The law specifically states otherwise, period. So even when it says that, you're saying otherwise.

Past that btw, are you saying that if a woman didn't abort the baby she would die, they should be legally required to have the baby anyway? Here's the problem; even if what you said is true that the floodgates for partial birth abortions would open, all you're proving is the impossibility to enforce the law. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against partial birth abortion bans that don't allow exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

There are plenty of laws where it's just impractical to enforce properly. I think if the entire US would abide by Prohibition, our society would be much better off without alcohol in the end, considering rates of alcoholism, etc. But it was impossible to enforce, so it was a bad law. I don't personally drink, and both my parents are recovering alcoholics, but I'd never be in favor of Prohibition.

Regardless, FOCA is not far left. It's not. This isn't intellectual dishonesty. I don't even care honestly if it passes or not. But it's not far left. Far left would not contain provisions at all to limit partial birth abortions. It would outright say parental consent laws are superceded and invalid. Etc. FOCA hasn't a single one of those things. It's center-left. But you're calling it far left because it's in any degree more left than where we are now. Same thing with what you're saying about moving any direction to the left on gay marriage. That's ridiculous. This is why we can't make any progress anymore legislatively or politically. Everyone thinks giving up an inch, even when it's a reasonable concession, is a slippery slope, the flood gates will open, Armageddon is coming, blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is while we're split on abortion, probably 70% of Americans would agree that we should limit partial birth abortions, but we should have exceptions for rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. FOCA is a reasonable compromise to move a tick to the left. Instead, it's tared and feathered as hard left, with many allegations that are outright lies, not just bending of the truth. Your point about the parental involvement requirements as a case in point. That's utter horsecrap, and you know it.

Prove provisions of the Obamacare is causing your mother's current health insurance coverage to be eliminated, and her premiums to go up. Prove it, explain what's going on, and show me where in Obamacare it's causing this. Until you can prove that, I'm calling BS.

I'm not saying companies don't end certain insurance policies because of Obamacare. I have a friend who works for Microsoft, and they're ending their health insurance plan in favor of another because the current plan falls under the category of a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, and will be penalized via a tax. So he'll go from super-awesome health insurance better than virtually any plan you could hope to find to a darn good one. He's pissed as hell because of this, but when I asked him did he look at this from the perspective of if this is good policy for society as a whole, he looked dumbfounded, as if why should he even consider that. If society as a whole is better off, I don't really care he has health insurance coverage a little closer to what the rest of us have. That should be the debate, not people deciding based on their own selfish interests.

The simple fact of the matter is health insurance premiums were already going up well before Obamacare was ever passed, but a lot of people now blame current premium increases conveniently on Obamacare when they don't know that was the reason why. Forget facts, it's that dang communist Obama!

I have a warped view of what's center-left vs hard left? If the only thing concerning gay marriage that Obama is advocating changing is that the federal gov't will begin recognizing the marriage legal IF and ONLY IF the couple's state considers it legal, explain how that's far left. If the only change to abortion laws is ensuring exceptions to partial birth abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother, explain how that's hard left. Explain how Obamacare, which largely keeps the same health care system we already have in place, is hard left. By definition, if we still have employee sponsored health insurance, no public option, no single payer, that's not a hard move to the left. It's not. The conservative right paints them all as these extreme measures, but every single one are compromises. Every single one of them, period.

And here's the result - Conservatives are urging the Supreme Court to dismantle the most significant health care reform since the invention of Medicaid to go back to a system everybody knows is broken, with no plan ready to fix it. We haven't even let Obamacare take effect quite honestly, but it's not stopping the GOP from claiming it's killing the economy. Ridiculous.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.
Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.
Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.
I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.
What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.
>> ^heropsycho:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.

So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.
Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
>> ^heropsycho:

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/contraception-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873

@KnivesOut too

>> ^heropsycho:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

And what exactly are you calling me out for?

I'm specifically attempting to leave you alone, you psycho.>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too

Because you upvoted his comment..I'm trying to help you stay better informed

>> ^KnivesOut:

And what exactly are you calling me out for?
I'm specifically attempting to leave you alone, you psycho.>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too

Keep on trolling brother. I've got all the information I need about you.>> ^shinyblurry:

Because you upvoted his comment..I didn't want you to continue on uninformed

You honestly don't think I'm being sincere? It's mind-boggling that you'd actually believe that.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Keep on trolling brother. I've got all the information I need about you.>> ^shinyblurry:
Because you upvoted his comment..I didn't want you to continue on uninformed

Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?

LOL, dude, it's over.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? It's not the same case. This case today was about the constitutionality of Obamacare as a whole, and was not about the contraceptive mandate.

>> ^heropsycho:

Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?
LOL, dude, it's over.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Dude, they're not gonna hear repeated challenges to the same law. It's over. Go cry yourself to sleep if you have to, but it's time to accept reality.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? It's not the same case. This case today was about the constitutionality of Obamacare as a whole, and was not about the contraceptive mandate.
>> ^heropsycho:
Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?
LOL, dude, it's over.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

You're being pretty immature, heropsycho. You specifically called up this old thread so you could gloat over the Obamacare decision, mistakenly believing that it was what I was referring to when I mentioned that the unconstitutional contraceptive mandate will be thrown out in court. In actuality, if you look back to this comment:

http://videosift.com/video/What-More-Do-We-Want-This-Man-To-Do-For-Us?loadcomm=1#comment-1459002

You will see that I said:

"There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/"

You had conflated the two things in your mind, yet you had the temerity to say that I didn't know what I was talking about. Now, instead of doing the grown-up thing and admitting you screwed up, you are still on the attack, now saying that they aren't going to hear another case on Obamacare. Based on what? It's not a challenge a direct challenge to Obamacare in any case, it is challenge to a specific piece of Obamacare. I will also note that 6 of the justices are catholics, and this has primarily been a catholic issue.

>> ^heropsycho