Obama supporters

[CatfishSooner]

When I learn that someone that I respect and like supports Obama, I begin to re-evaluate my thoughts for that person. I guess I just don't understand

[Turd_Ferguson]

When I learn that someone that I respect and like supports Obama, I begin to re-evaluate my thoughts for that person. I guess I just don't understand

Same here. My FIL is an Obama supporter. We argue about it all the time. However, I don't think he really supports Barack...I think he's just mad that I'm boink'n his daughter.

[StoopTroup]

When I learn that someone that I respect and like supports Obama, I begin to re-evaluate my thoughts for that person. I guess I just don't understand

If Obama wins a 2nd term...do you think that Person you are re-elauating will re-evaluate your ability to choose a Nominee to beat the supposedly WORST POTUS IN AMERICAN HISTORY?

[Turd_Ferguson]

If Obama wins a 2nd term...do you think that Person you are re-elauating will re-evaluate your ability to choose a Nominee to beat the supposedly WORST POTUS IN AMERICAN HISTORY?

He sucks as POTUS, but he's black, so...

[Chuck Bao]

I get the same thing: friends and family do not understand why I support President Obama. They don't listen to my reasons because their mind is already set. I don't think it really matters in terms of the economy. But then again, I've been predicting the relocation of jobs and discounting of labor since the Asian economic crisis starting in '97. Romney just makes me laugh when he talks about getting tough on China.

The real difference between the candidates is on social policy. One party wants to distract voters with interfering into other people's lives. That scares the hell out of me.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I get the same thing: friends and family do not understand why I support President Obama. They don't listen to my reasons because their mind is already set. I don't think it really matters in terms of the economy. But then again, I've been predicting the relocation of jobs and discounting of labor since the Asian economic crisis starting in '97. Romney just makes me laugh when he talks about getting tough on China.

The real difference between the candidates is on social policy. One party wants to distract voters with interfering into other people's lives. That scares the hell out of me.Are your friends and family racist?

[Chuck Bao]

Are your friends and family racist?

Not overtly, well at least most aren't.

[sappstuf]

I get the same thing: friends and family do not understand why I support President Obama. They don't listen to my reasons because their mind is already set. I don't think it really matters in terms of the economy. But then again, I've been predicting the relocation of jobs and discounting of labor since the Asian economic crisis starting in '97. Romney just makes me laugh when he talks about getting tough on China.

The real difference between the candidates is on social policy. One party wants to distract voters with interfering into other people's lives. That scares the hell out of me.

Me too. Forcing religious people to pay for abortions against their will is pretty scary.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Not overtly, well at least most aren't.

I was in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago and met Blake Shelton at the Loves...He's a pretty nice guy.

[Chuck Bao]

Me too. Forcing religious people to pay for abortions against their will is pretty scary.

And this is important new news given that abortions have steadily declined in this country over the last 10 years?

Who is paying for what? Insurance companies actually prefer to pay for an abortion rather than a live birth and, at the end of the day, we all are all paying insurance for our health care. Very sad and unfortunate, but true.

Religious people can’t take the moral high ground here if they simultaneously restrict access to contraceptives, decrease funding for sex education and then try to qualify rape, as some Republican candidates have recently advocated.

I would have thought that the fiscal hawks would be the last to be in favor of de-funding Planned Parenthood, stopping unplanned pregnancies and the growth of welfare dependents.

Overall, this issue seems like a campaign winner and a policy loser. It is another reason why the strong rhetoric from the Republicans scares me.

[Chuck Bao]

I was in your neck of the woods a few weeks ago and met Blake Shelton at the Loves...He's a pretty nice guy.

I'm not a country music fan, but that is pretty cool. For myself, I'd more likely run into a Randy Travis type of situation.

[sappstuf]

And this is important new news given that abortions have steadily declined in this country over the last 10 years?

Who is paying for what? Insurance companies actually prefer to pay for an abortion rather than a live birth and, at the end of the day, we all are all paying insurance for our health care. Very sad and unfortunate, but true.

Religious people can’t take the moral high ground here if they simultaneously restrict access to contraceptives, decrease funding for sex education and then try to qualify rape, as some Republican candidates have recently advocated.

I would have thought that the fiscal hawks would be the last to be in favor of de-funding Planned Parenthood, stopping unplanned pregnancies and the growth of welfare dependents.

Overall, this issue seems like a campaign winner and a policy loser. It is another reason why the strong rhetoric from the Republicans scares me.

You are all over the map here and confusing issues.

Obama is trying to force Catholic institutions to pay for abortions and birth control even when it is against their religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if it makes fiscal sense or not, it is against their beliefs. Health care reform could have been written a different way to keep this from happening, but that isn't what the Dems chose to do. Instead they went right after the first amendment.

I don't think it will take long for the lawsuit to reach the SCOTUS. Obama already tried to tell the Catholic church how to define its religious personnel and got a 9-0 smackdown from the SCOTUS for his troubles. I suspect something similar will happen when this reaches the SCOTUS if Obama is reelected.

[Midtowner]

I don't think it will take long for the lawsuit to reach the SCOTUS.

[quote]Obama already tried to tell the Catholic church how to define its religious personnel and got a 9-0 smackdown from the SCOTUS for his troubles. I suspect something similar will happen when this reaches the SCOTUS if Obama is reelected.

That particular issue began its journey to the courts at the beginning of Bush's second term. The EEOC position was consistent from administration to administration. The new "ministerial exception" rule allowed a parochial school to fire a teacher who had been diagnosed (but was being treated for) narcolepsy. It had nothing to do with her ministry, it was just the school wanting to be able to discriminate against a disabled teacher. That's some might high ground you're operatin' from there.

The administration isn't forcing all Catholic institutions to do this, just the ones which participate in and compete in the marketplace with non-religious institutions.

[yermom]

did i mishear the part where Romney said everyone should have access to birth control regardless of their employer?

when did abortions get lumped into the mix?

[FaninAma]

If Obama wins a 2nd term...do you think that Person you are re-elauating will re-evaluate your ability to choose a Nominee to beat the supposedly WORST POTUS IN AMERICAN HISTORY?

Since they are progressives and operate on the lowest, basest emotional level they will probably just call him a derogatory name or suggest he perform some lewd act on them ....ala Stephen Cobert.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When I learn that someone that I respect and like supports Obama, I begin to re-evaluate my thoughts for that person. I guess I just don't understandat best, it is one of life's great mysteries.

[FaninAma]

did i mishear the part where Romney said everyone should have access to birth control regardless of their employer?

when did abortions get lumped into the mix?

Romney has said everybody can get birth control if they want it but he doesn't think employers should have to pay for it. And how did it ever pass Constitutional muster that employers can be forced to provide health insurance to employees?

I eventually think we will see a 2-tiered health care system like Great Britain has.

[LiveLaughLove]

The real difference between the candidates is on social policy. One party wants to distract voters with interfering into other people's lives. That scares the hell out of me.
Think it scares you, you ought to try being the baby right before the blender tool begins chopping him in to pieces. Or right before the saline begins to burn you to death.

Or try making it out of the womb and ready to begin life only to be stabbed in the base of the spine with a pair of scissors. That's a hoot.

Or the one your POTUS supports, which is to take a live baby and stick it a cloak room and let it starve and die from hypothermia. Try being that kid and see if it scares you a little.

[KantoSooner]

I eventually think we will see a 2-tiered health care system like Great Britain has.

I think, you're right. Some kind of basic/catastrophic coverage that will end up being government administered and then a bunch of different 'supplemental' private packages.

If we can pair that basic general coverage with a restructuring of Social Security so that it truly does become a pension program and make the benefits independent from employers (ie, the employers will have to contribute in current year to an individual pension account, as will the employee), then we will have accomplished something.

We'd have a far more flexible workforce than even exists today and the US today is already one of the most flexible workforces around. Those two simple changes could be extremely beneficial to our economy in an age of increasing global competition.

That we spend time on the social issue piffles when we face economic stagnation is nothing short of insane.

[Sooner98]

The real difference between the candidates is on social policy. One party wants to distract voters with interfering into other people's lives. That scares the hell out of me.

Theocracy is just around the corner if Romney wins.

[okie52]

The real difference between the candidates is on social policy. One party wants to distract voters with interfering into other people's lives. That scares the hell out of me.


Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. Energy, energy, energy. Immigration, immigration, immigration.

[okie52]

Theocracy is just around the corner if Romney wins.

It is? Which Romney policy proposals would advance that cause?

[KantoSooner]

Romney has policy proposals!!!???

Who knew? (I know he holds one hand horizontally, about shoulder high and says, 'blah, blah, blah' and then holds the same hand about belly button high and says the anti-blahblah. But policy? Not so much. Mind you, Obamalama is vying hard with him in attempting to explain what the last four years were about and what on earth he has in mind for the next four.)

[okie52]

Romney has policy proposals!!!???

Who knew? (I know he holds one hand horizontally, about shoulder high and says, 'blah, blah, blah' and then holds the same hand about belly button high and says the anti-blahblah. But policy? Not so much. Mind you, Obamalama is vying hard with him in attempting to explain what the last four years were about and what on earth he has in mind for the next four.)

Some truth to that which is why I wonder about any claims for a theocracy. I'll vote for Romney more on a basis of what he is not proposing or has attempted to do like Obama.

[BermudaSooner]

When I learn that someone that I respect and like supports Obama, I begin to re-evaluate my thoughts for that person. I guess I just don't understand

I agree, I immediately assume the person is much less intelligent that I originally assessed. Occassionally I will discuss with someone who has certain views that I generally disagree with, but OK, he/she has them. I don't understand why someone's major issue is gay marriage or something like that, but if they value that issue above most then who I am to judge?

It is the person that has no grasp of even the most simple issues or like that video at the Dem Convention where everyone agreed to cap corporate profits. These people really have no understanding of what they are saying.

Chuck Bao, you mention Repubs restricing people rights--I generally tend to agree with you anytime someone is restricting rights--but the most rights restricters are the Dems. Depriving the successful of an inordinately high portion of their income while taking nothing from half of the population is just wrong. My property is being taken from me in the name of the greater good, while this greater good has little to nothing taken from them....and yet they get the same vote as I do. And now I'm being told I don't pay enough. Obama's "a little bit more" is actually quite a bit more than "a little bit more."

[yermom]

all this "taking property" and "inordinately high portion of their income" always sounds so overblown. that higher tax bracket must really suck.

it's apparently hard being Bruce.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It is? Which Romney policy proposals would advance that cause?The religious fervor of authoritarian rule has religion and capitalism as their prime enemies. IOW socialism views religious practices, even if not imposed on anyone, as the enemy. They say they fear some sort of theocracy, but seldom speak badly about Islam, the one religion that should scare the bejeebers out of everyone.

[LiveLaughLove]

Theocracy is just around the corner if Romney wins.

Why yes, yes it is. We have a pope-in-waiting as part of our evil plan to theocratize the country.

We have the country divided in to regional archdiocese with each major Christian religion represented. It has to be Christian because all other religions are pretty cool.

Our plan (at least as told to me by my Pastor) is to make each church of the recognized Christian denominations as the new schools of indoctrination and the hubs for life in general.

Excellent!

[KantoSooner]

Damn, I knew it. Once the Baptists around here stopped worrying about the pace at which their daughters were getting knocked up, it should have been a dead give away that something was afoot.

[ouwasp]

My FIL is an Obama supporter. I know this, yet we've never discussed the election. But he's one of those throwback Union stalwarts; a yellow-dog Democrat. 20+ yrs ago when I bothered trying to discuss politics with him, he'd always go back to Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression.

So it was pointless trying to engage him in modern-day issues. So be it. Still love the guy... and his daughter and grandkids vote the right way. :)

The mormon talk reminds me of a joke:

An aide rushes into the pope's bedroom and wakes his holiness up. "Your Eminence, we've just heard... Jesus has returned to Earth!!"

"My goodness, this is terrific! Is He downstairs waiting on me?!"

"Well... no... that's the problem... He's in Salt Lake City..."

[BermudaSooner]

all this "taking property" and "inordinately high portion of their income" always sounds so overblown. that higher tax bracket must really suck.

it's apparently hard being Bruce.

Well, try not paying your taxes and then see if someone, carrying guns, comes from the government to take it.

Or said another way, does it really make sense that the harder you work, the more money you make the less of it you get to keep?

Does it also make sense that the guy paying millions in taxes gets the same vote as the guy paying nothing?

[8timechamps]

If you have a relationship (assuming a good one) with someone that supports a candidate other than the one you support, it shouldn't change the way you feel about that person. You don't walk in their shoes. You have no idea what leads them to make the choices they make. Personally, I'm a Romney guy, but I respect everyone's choice to select the candidate they think will help their cause.

The old saying that the two things you never bring up in conversation is politics and religion still holds true. Those are two personal issues, and all the arguing in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind.

[yermom]

Well, try not paying your taxes and then see if someone, carrying guns, comes from the government to take it.

Or said another way, does it really make sense that the harder you work, the more money you make the less of it you get to keep?

Does it also make sense that the guy paying millions in taxes gets the same vote as the guy paying nothing?

so now you don't want to pay taxes at all?

i'll bet there are people working harder than you that make way less.

and lastly, yeah, i think that's how it works. the days of the white landholders making all the decisions are over.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Why yes, yes it is. We have a pope-in-waiting as part of our evil plan to theocratize the country.

We have the country divided in to regional archdiocese with each major Christian religion represented. It has to be Christian because all other religions are pretty cool.

Our plan (at least as told to me by my Pastor) is to make each church of the recognized Christian denominations as the new schools of indoctrination and the hubs for life in general.

Excellent!
Hmmm...this looks familiar. Aha! Its the opposite side of the slippery slope 'pubs like to through around about Obama handing over the country to Lenin and whatnot. Both equally ridiculous

[FaninAma]

so now you don't want to pay taxes at all?

i'll bet there are people working harder than you that make way less.

and lastly, yeah, i think that's how it works. the days of the white landholders making all the decisions are over.

And if the electorat keeps selling their votes to the highest bidder we will soon be joining Europe in the toilet.

[KABOOKIE]

all this "taking property" and "inordinately high portion of their income" always sounds so overblown. that higher tax bracket must really suck.

it's apparently hard being Bruce.

Heh. Kind of like hearing the teeth gnashing and cries from the "poor" of this country how they get nothing. Yeah, overblown is right. A flat screen, two cars, 2 packs-a-day, cell phone, computer, internet and a home are apparently "poor"?

[Sooner98]

It is? Which Romney policy proposals would advance that cause?

http://www.orangepower.com/attachments/sarcasm-meter-jpg.8323/

[soonercruiser]

I get the same thing: friends and family do not understand why I support President Obama. They don't listen to my reasons because their mind is already set. I don't think it really matters in terms of the economy. But then again, I've been predicting the relocation of jobs and discounting of labor since the Asian economic crisis starting in '97. Romney just makes me laugh when he talks about getting tough on China.

The real difference between the candidates is on social policy. One party wants to distract voters with interfering into other people's lives. That scares the hell out of me.

Chuck,
You mean that Obama wants to force me to pay for some slut's birth control or abortion when she's too high on drugs to remember to take her pills?
Or, Obama wants me to help pay for sex chance operations for psychologically damage people?
Or, Obama wants me help pay off the unions-GM, in giving the UAW retirement funds a 45% ownership in the GM?
I could go on...
:stupid:

[MamaMia]

And this is important new news given that abortions have steadily declined in this country over the last 10 years?

Who is paying for what? Insurance companies actually prefer to pay for an abortion rather than a live birth and, at the end of the day, we all are all paying insurance for our health care. Very sad and unfortunate, but true.

Religious people can’t take the moral high ground here if they simultaneously restrict access to contraceptives, decrease funding for sex education and then try to qualify rape, as some Republican candidates have recently advocated.

I would have thought that the fiscal hawks would be the last to be in favor of de-funding Planned Parenthood, stopping unplanned pregnancies and the growth of welfare dependents.

Overall, this issue seems like a campaign winner and a policy loser. It is another reason why the strong rhetoric from the Republicans scares me.

I think we all know what causes someone to get pregnant. Its not complicated. Parents are the ones who should teach their children about the birds and bees and the moral responsibilty that goes along with having sex. Why do we need to involve the government and other peoples money?

[StoopTroup]

I think we all know what causes someone to get pregnant. Its not complicated. Parents are the ones who should teach their children about the birds and bees and the moral responsibilty that goes along with having sex. Why do we need to involve the government and other peoples money?

Mama, we already do indirectly anyways and Romney or any other POTUS before Obama hasn't ever taken any steps in making any real changes to our broken system. Till now. This current POTUS seems to have a vision that the others do not and change scares the hell out of people who are making decent incomes that don't want change and would rather see everyone else starve before they would change a thing in their own life.

There are so many non-violent crimes that land people in jail and ruin their lives. Their Children are left to live in a broken home, The State and Government end up paying for a War on Drugs that isn't ever going to be won.

I think it's unfortunate that people turn to drugs but we had a prohibition on Booze and put people in prison.
All that happened was, we made it legal and then taxed the crap out of it. Why not put an end to this silly War that costs us billions and just start spending the money on catching real crooks and thieves and Murders/Serial Killers. Maybe continue to concentrate on re-building our Nations Infrastructure. Maybe push to get the new cost affordable Battery Technology that MIT's Material Sciences Department used Obama Money to create a new liquid metal battery that can be run in parallel and store so much energy that it might be possible to reduce our dependency on oil. It supposedly might reduce it that it might drive the cost of a barrel of oil to $20.

Things like that might just allow our Country to advance as much and as fast as it did when our Government was pouring dough into NASA for a Space Race to nowhere that helped us win the Cold War.

[buck]

Shut up you farting dust beeotch. Stooptroup you may as well. Hey olevet? Wish they'd have taken you out instead of Barack paying for you. You don't mind when it's your pitiful ***. Do you?

[buck]

Hey MamaMia? Take your turkey-necked neck and suck on it!!! I'm sure it will reach your piehole! BOOMER!!

[olevetonahill]

Shut up you farting dust beeotch. Stooptroup you may as well. Hey olevet? Wish they'd have taken you out instead of Barack paying for you. You don't mind when it's your pitiful ***. Do you?

CK is that YOU ?

[FirstandGoal]

Who the **** is buck and why the hell has he not been given time out (I won't even address the fact that the nimrod is still green)

Whose troll is this? Fess up

[BermudaSooner]

And if the electorat keeps selling their votes to the highest bidder we will soon be joining Europe in the toilet.

Exactly. I'm sure many of you have read the bar stool economics before, but always a good read.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should

pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, " but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half

of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[olevetonahill]

:victorious:^

[KABOOKIE]

Exactly. I'm sure many of you have read the bar stool economics before, but always a good read.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should

pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, " but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half

of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, or attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[LIBERAL FROTHING] But, but, but that evil rich guy republican earned all of his money from his daddy or STOLE it from the hard working factory workers with 3 sometimes 4 jobs!!!!!! [/LIBERAL FROTHING]