Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike

Obama Faces Challenging Re-Election Climate

Recommended Posts

For the Romney stance, this was all over the news because the guy commits to one stance during an interview and 3 hours later he will change his mind to the complete opposite. This week, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart had a news clip with regards to Romney's stance. The last show that had this was from news editorialist Rachel Maddow (Friday's show).

Blog with video clip from the Jon Stewart show:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/02/jon-stewart-takes-on-the-blunt-amendment/

Blog with article about the Rachel Maddow Show:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/rachel-maddow-tears-into-_n_1023694.html

NPR webpage editorial/essay regarding Rick Santorum's vomitous comment about the separation of church and state:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/29/147649007/is-santorum-missing-jfks-point-on-religion

Every day, it seems, we are bombarded with 24 hours of news video of Republican candidates saying the dumbest s**t around. Hell, I woulda voted for Romney on ideas behind fiscal responsibility, less government, less taxes for everyone, etc. Once this guy opens his trap, though, I cannot in good faith discuss a person who is essentially a real-life caricature of Thurston Howell, III. Basically, the only thing I know about this person is that he knows how to game the system to make himself and his rich friends incredibly wealthier.

Rick Santorum is an even more frightening character: an anti-intellectual, religious fanatic, who derived most of his wealth in the past few years peddling influence in govt. for rich people. When I heard him attempt to rebutt the President on higher education, the man sounded as if he were a new high official of the Khmer Rouge by referring to aspirations and encouragement for higher education as "elitist." At the very least, the man is downright stupid. At worst, he is dangeous if given any sort of power.

This Republic was built upon the protection of rights and the protection of minority groups against the mob. This is how black people, women, Chinese, Latins and other immigrants were integrated into this society, and their [human/civil] rights were enacted and protected. In this case, I see women have the right to fight back against the Christian Taliban, who, right now, are threatening to take away their medical care :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Diversity is great (love "euro-centric" btw, good description of our attitudes)

Not trying to compare but just thinking it would be a funny scene! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Romney stance, this was all over the news because the guy commits to one stance during an interview and 3 hours later he will change his mind to the complete opposite. This week, Comedy Central's Jon Stewart had a news clip with regards to Romney's stance. The last show that had this was from news editorialist Rachel Maddow (Friday's show).

Blog with video clip from the Jon Stewart show:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/02/jon-stewart-takes-on-the-blunt-amendment/

Blog with article about the Rachel Maddow Show:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/21/rachel-maddow-tears-into-_n_1023694.html

NPR webpage editorial/essay regarding Rick Santorum's vomitous comment about the separation of church and state:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/29/147649007/is-santorum-missing-jfks-point-on-religion

Looked at your last two citations but found no evidence of your original assertions that the two primary Republican candidates said they would, if elected, deny women the use of contraception. I did read in one blog you cited as to what the writer perceived Santorum meant, which is about the best any blogger can claim, when not including quoted source material. As for Jon Stewart; I try to get information from the candidates (I love the debates) and have never tried to formulate a voting card by what Rush Limbaugh, Bill Marher, Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart, Sean Hannity, et al. have to say. They are entertainers, paid to create buzz, get a laugh, be absurd, foment disrespect and appeal to ignorance as a means of building ratings. But then, you knew that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence is there. It doesn't matter whether bloggers and other common people have something to say about it because their opinions are based on actual events/comments from the candidates. Again, supporting the personhood mandate would criminalise most forms of contraception; this is a fact. Both candidates have gone on the record as supporting the personhood mandate. All candidates consider the notion that a religious institution has the right to deny medical care coverage based on "moral objections." This is tantamount to denying women medical care based on religious superstitions. I don't know what else you require other than getting personal telephone calls from the candidates themselves letting you know they support the personhood amendment and view contraception as a bad thing :beatnik:

It's a cop out to say Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, et al. are merely "entertainers." Everyone knows they have to be loud, colourful, and flamboyant teevee personalities in order to make money. However, they also wield a lot of influence within their respective constituencies. The candidates didn't repudiate Limbaugh's "slut" and "whore" comment about the student slated to talk in front of elected govt. officials because they agree with him. Pure and simple. They are ignorant, stupid, religious fanatics who see birth control as too empowering for women - Santorum himself believes it is the reason for the decay of society (also based on his religious superstitions). If you are looking for direct quotes, then good luck. Politicians rarely give straight answers, so all we have are nebulous, nuanced responses, and we have to draw conclusions from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I don't necessarily put a religion adherence requirement on the defense of life beginning at conception. Hasn't science already proven that once a viable human sperm penetrates the wall of a fertile human egg (with the odd exception, of course) that cell mitosis shall proceed; producing within a couple of weeks, a heartbeat, pulse and nervous system identical to those found in human beings? I understand absolutely nothing religious about that science.

Contraception science, on the other hand, has been proven to prevent a sperm from fertilizing an egg. So I likewise cannot see where acknowledgement of one fact supersedes permission to apply the other.

To imply that a candidate will find it impossible to accept both issues coexisting, in my mind, is being tentatively superstitious that bad luck will follow reality of the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're preaching to the choir when you state how birth control works. We should tell this to Santorum, who has gone on the record as saying contraception is a reason for the decay of society, or to Romney, who said he'd have used "different words" than Limbaugh with respect to lambasting the Georgetown student :beatnik:

http://tahlequahdailypress.com/local/x952192182/-Personhood-bill-sparks-local-debate

Wilson pointed out a number of legal issues passage of the bill would create: “Can you buy life insurance on a zygote? If you get divorced when the mom’s pregnant, will child support be paid? If the mom dies, do you probate the will to include the zygote?â€

Wilson also said the personhood bill could potentially outlaw intrauterine devices and Plan B forms of birth control, as well as performing surgery to remove an ectopic pregnancy or a molar pregnancy. He also believes physicians who perform in-vitro fertilization could be held culpable.

Hm. Interesting. Personally, I'd support a "personhood" bill that would extend to unjust wars and the death penalty :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope Sandra Fluke sues Lush Rimjob. In many states it's against the law, either through libel or slander, to state that a woman is unchaste. Calling her a slut is an attack on her chastity. Also, he called her a prostitute, and prostitution is still illegal in nearly every part of this country, so he also called her a criminal.

She's got a hell of a libel case in front of her if she so desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she'd have to prove in court that there were actual damages from Limbaugh's comments in order for it to be bona fide slander (i.e., a potential employer or school would have to deny her a job or services based on what he said). You can pretty much talk all kinds of trash on people here in the U.S. :beatnik:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think she'd have to prove in court that there were actual damages from Limbaugh's comments in order for it to be bona fide slander (i.e., a potential employer or school would have to deny her a job or services based on what he said). You can pretty much talk all kinds of trash on people here in the U.S. :beatnik:

Actually, not so much. People have always thought that slander was spoken, libel was written, but in terms of the law, libel is anything that's permanent. One can make the argument that comments made on the radio are part of the permanent record. Also, since testifying before Congress doesn't inherently make you a public figure (according to legal precedent), she has even MORE rights to sue him for libel than if she was a public figure he was going after.

She doesn't need to prove damages to prove libel, though if she wants to take a few more chunks out of his personal fortune, she can if she wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Santorum said that Rush's statement was "absurd" but that Rush is an entertainer and "entertainers say absurd things" and Romney said that it was "not the language I would have used". Not the strongest repudiation, but you can't expect either of those two to have any balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then you have Newt who says that Limbaugh was right to apologize before instantly launching into a polemic against President Obama using a very tangential seque: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/newt-gingrich-rush-limbaugh-was-right-to-apologize-to-sandra-fluke/2012/03/04/gIQANGrhqR_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And although I disagree with the vast majority of Ron Paul's domestic policies, at least you can count on him to say stuff like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57390236/paul-limbaugh-apologized-for-personal-gain/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so I don't notice much of these pre-elections (I even never really understood the concept until I found a really cool blog explaining it and the reasons behind the system)

But I recently read a commentary about how Romney is making one blooper after the other (making casual $10k bets, mentioning that his wife has "several" Cadillacs) which all lead to the impression of the epitome of "the 1%" who also doesn't think before he speaks. Still he will eventually make it to the republican candidate because the others are "even worse".

Basically this commentary came to the conclusion that Obama, as the great speaker and motivator that he is, won't have any problems clearly beating him in the 1-on-1 election debates.

Would you agree with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. While Obama has not been as great as I think he could have been, I don't think he can lose. Romney might be the only candidate running for the GOP who can make it close, but that would be it. If Obama ran against Gingrich or Santorum, it would be an absolute slaughter.

The problem the GOP is facing right now is that they're alienating a very large part of the voting bloc. They hate gays, they hate minorities, they hate the poor....but women are half the population. They've basically taken the stand that women are nothing more than walking incubators that have no right to reproductive freedom, not limited to but including, abortions and birth control. There are a lot of women in this country, even Republican women, who use birth control, and I don't think they're taking kindly to being called sluts for it.

Romney's got not just his own baggage to worry about, but the baggage being added on by everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me a catholic who doesn't use contraception and I'll show you a liar. And yes, that means priests, too.

My brother-in-law supports Santorum through all of this. Yes, the same brother-in-law who's had a vasectomy. Sheesh! Catholics!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×