Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well, and not to pick on your state specifically, but the state of Alabama does have two professional football teams. One at Auburn and the other at Tuscaloosa.

One of my pet peeves-too much money in college football. I like the baseball model better and would prefer that the current top teams go pro and pay the players. Right now , football is big business but the players are not paid( not openly at least). I haven't made any progress on this front . Still have question on whether or not the universities are businesses.

Originally Posted by Weave

You could also argue the reverse, Romney could win the electoral college with Obama running up large advantages in California, New York Illinois etc.

Possible but not likely. President Obama has likely maxed out the possible Democratic vote in California, Illinois, and New York. For that scenario to happen the Republicans would have to win every state that President Obama won by less than 9% (basically, Colorado would have to go for Romney and some of the states that President Obama lost by huge percentages would have to vote to shrink those margins. That is unlikely.

Its amazing though that we are talking about a 290 electoral college win for Obama which would mean the House stays Repub and they probably would pick the Senate as well.

The 290 is for (1) states that are outside the margin of error (4%) in the most recent poll -- and that now includes Ohio in which Obama leads Santorum by 6% and Romney by 7%, and (2) states that usually look close until the unions step in and get a blowout -- I would have put Michigan in that category, and I so place Pennsylvania and Iowa. I would not have shown 290 except for a recent poll that suggested that Romney would lose New Hampshire by 10%. He was projected to win the state slightly against President Obama while the state was full of Republicans denouncing President Obama -- which was until the New Hampshire primary. That is over, and the cheap shots no longer echo in the Granite State.

The states in white are still trouble for all Republicans. Until I saw President Obama with a 6% margin in Ohio against Santorum I thought Indiana a likely R pickup. Indiana is much more R than Ohio, but not that much more. Missouri and North Carolina show virtual ties as in the 2008 election. Florida was close to a tie. 290 is a minimum, and 400 is a maximum for the President. Obliged to take chances just to avoid defeat a Republican nominee will be obliged to take high-risk chances that put even more states at risk of an Obama victory.

>This is worth remembering: no President has won between 57.1% (Truman, 1948) and 66.7% (Taft, 1908) of all electoral votes I would predict based on that counter-intuitive rule President Obama will get under 307 electoral votes or over 357 electoral votes. You might expect the 'average' proportion of electoral votes for a winner to be about 62%, but you see no such results since at least 1900.

A weak victory of an incumbent and frankly I could live with that result as Obama could do no further damage....

Well, that's an improvement over statements that the President is the Antichrist or something to that effect... Here's how I see the House:

The generic ballot for the House (R vs. D) now favors the Democrats. I recently saw one poll asking how strong support was for "your Congressional Representative". It was 41%. To be sure, some Reps are quite safe because they are in ultra-safe seats, so they won't get voted out. On the average some non-appointed incumbent has about a 50% chance of being re-elected if at the start of the campaign season with an approval rating of 44%. This time there are relatively few vulnerable Democrats in districts that lean Republican, but there are lots of Republicans in the predicament of being in districts that normally lean Democratic. The Republicans who won in 2010 list far to the Right; few RINOs got elected. The Tea Party has not been winning over more voters -- and the Hard Right representatives of some slightly-Republican districts are also vulnerable.

Americans are mostly moderates. They generally dislike extremists, whether anyone who reeks of a Marxist agenda or someone who believes that the common exists only to serve the upper 5% of income-grabbers. They dislike those who would advocate regulating every aspect of sexuality and those who would 'liberalize' laws against child molestation. The Tea Party agenda is extreme -- a return to ideas largely discredited. If People thought that the Obama Administration was pushing America too far and too fast in 2010 and voted for Republicans as a brake, they instead got new drivers who took a violent U-turn and sped off in the opposite direction.

As for the Senate -- the Democrats won just about every Senate seat that they could imaginably have won in 2006 and have little room for gain but plenty for loss. Of course that is how things were in 2006, too.

We are 4T. The Hard Right, which depends upon a coalition of xenophobic nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and economic elites of ownership and management, peaked in attractiveness in the 3T. People are becoming less bigoted; the Religious Right is having a hard time keeping its kids in the fold; Corporate America is being trusted less every month.

Originally Posted by James50

These "service companies" are a product of the church's belief system:


It is a mistake to ignore the unity of belief that is the motivating force behind these institutions.

James50

But is there a difference between motivating belief or faith, and outdated doctrines imposed on the faithful by corrupt power structures (e.g. The Vatican)?

Helping the poor and sick, implies not giving them birth control pills? I don't quite get that either.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

What an enlightened, unbigoted, and tolerant comment!

She's a troll, ignore her.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Any thoughts on who Romney's VP might be or what his Cabinet might look like? Personally I think Mike Huckabee would be an excellent balance to the ticket (or Marco Rubio but he has constantly declined any ideas of running for VP) and I'd like to see Jon Huntsman be Secretary of State.

No thanks; I'd just as soon not imagine such a horrible scenario as a Romney presidency.

The only real question is whether the Democrats can kick out the Tea Party congress.

I imagine Obama might have to back off of his contraceptive rules for Catholic hospitals. I don't agree, but politics might have to rule. Catholics are important to the Democrats, and so are Jews. We'll see how it plays out though. After all, we can't have a president who has broken promises..... or do we really have a choice about that??.... Obama hasn't broken any other promises, has he???

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But is there a difference between motivating belief or faith, and outdated doctrines imposed on the faithful by corrupt power structures (e.g. The Vatican)?

Helping the poor and sick, implies not giving them birth control pills? I don't quite get that either.

If your referring to my comment about the sisters coming here from other countries to help the sick and the poor, I didn't imply that it was just or fair to refuse coverage of birth control. I personally think it's a travesty to restrict that coverage. What I was trying to convey was a response to someone saying Catholics need to get out of the healthcare business.

Without non-for-profit hospitals that give a lot of healthcare to people who don't have insurance, we'er left with for profit corporate institutions that are beholding to shareholders. At least that's the way it is in our state.

The birth control issue is most likely more of a Vatican issue, than an actual hospital's major concern. And when Catholic leaders were invited to the White House to be convinced to support the health care reform to get it passed, they believed what they were told. Now that Obama broke his word to them, they will now pay the price from the powers that be in Rome. And those Catholics who do support the doctrines of the church, will see Obama as infringing on their faith.

The bottom line is that no one, including those of us who don't buy into institutional religion, want a president interfering in our belief system. Heck, China insists that their people take birth control.

Originally Posted by Deb C

If your referring to my comment about the sisters coming here from other countries to help the sick and the poor, I didn't imply that it was just or fair to refuse coverage of birth control. I personally think it's a travesty to restrict that coverage. What I was trying to convey was a response to someone saying Catholics need to get out of the healthcare business.

I was responding to James' comment.

The bottom line is that no one, including those of us who don't buy into institutional religion, want a president interfering in our belief system. Heck, China insists that their people take birth control.

Personally, I could care less if the president interferes with the pronouncements of the Vatican, and I don't think that interferes with anyone else's "faith." However, if Obama broke his word, then I understand that may be a concern to some people.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I was responding to James' comment.


Personally, I could care less if the president interferes with the pronouncements of the Vatican, and I don't think that interferes with anyone else's "faith." However, if Obama broke his word, then I understand that may be a concern to some people.

Considering our current laws, I have reached view that it would be better for the Catholic Church to just get out of the hospital business. I don't see the Catholic church changing its policies and based on the reports I have seen, the Catholics seem to be digging in.

Catholics plan counterattack on new contraception coverage - latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-0204-contraception-20120204,0,7288220.story

..."Religious institutions can qualify for an exemption if the services violate their beliefs, but not if they employ large numbers of people who do not share those beliefs. Thus, a Catholic hospital or university that employs largely non-Catholic workers must provide free contraception in its employees' health insurance, even though birth control violates Catholic doctrine.

The announcement of the rule change provoked outrage from evangelical Christians, Orthodox Jews and other religious denominations. No voice was louder than that of the Catholic bishops, whose president, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolanof New York, called the rules "un-American" and a "violation of conscience." "...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No thanks; I'd just as soon not imagine such a horrible scenario as a Romney presidency.

The only real question is whether the Democrats can kick out the Tea Party congress.

I imagine Obama might have to back off of his contraceptive rules for Catholic hospitals. I don't agree, but politics might have to rule. Catholics are important to the Democrats, and so are Jews. We'll see how it plays out though. After all, we can't have a president who has broken promises..... or do we really have a choice about that??.... Obama hasn't broken any other promises, has he???

If a Romney presidency is too horrible to even imagine, how about a Gingrich presidency? Eric, by turning away, shuddering, and refusing to look, you are setting yourself up to be blindsided.

Originally Posted by radind

Considering our current laws, I have reached view that it would be better for the Catholic Church to just get out of the hospital business. I don't see the Catholic church changing its policies and based on the reports I have seen, the Catholics seem to be digging in.

As others have said, this is a battle Obama cannot win. For people outside the faith community, this may appear like just another kerfuffle, but it will bring down his presidency and perhaps the Democratic party as we know it with it.

As for Catholics getting out of the social service business, let me just say you have no idea what you are talking about. If you made me choose between the the government getting out of health care or the Catholic church, I would say its time for the government to get out of health care.

Others have said that if liberalism was a church, abortion is the blood sacrifice at its altar. Now it appears, contraception has entered the temple as well and every speck of tolerance, respect, and understanding for the beliefs of others must be offered up to this totem. And for something that is a trivial monetary cost.

This is a big mistake.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

As others have said, this is a battle Obama cannot win. For people outside the faith community, this may appear like just another kerfuffle, but it will bring down his presidency and perhaps the Democratic party as we know it with it.

As for Catholics getting out of the social service business, let me just say you have no idea what you are talking about. If you made me choose between the the government getting out of health care or the Catholic church, I would say its time for the government to get out of health care.

Others have said that if liberalism was a church, abortion is the blood sacrifice at its altar. Now it appears, contraception has entered the temple as well and every speck of tolerance, respect, and understanding for the beliefs of others must be offered up to this totem. And for something that is a trivial monetary cost.

This is a big mistake.

James50

But , you have to remember that the voters (including a majority of Catholics, Jews, & Christians) actually voted for Obama. I don't like this use Federal rules either, but we are still a nation of laws and they must( should) be enforced. The voters will decide if this a mistake or not.

Originally Posted by James50

That is nothing in violation compare to this. Nothing.

James50

Sure there is. Using my tax dollars to attack Iraq. And torture people.

Originally Posted by James50

It is a mistake to ignore the unity of belief that is the motivating force behind these institutions.

James50

It is a mistake to ignore the history of the Catholic Church and its general unfriendliness to women over the centuries. I understand the rationalization behind their opposition to birth control, but as a practical matter, it is ridiculous. All women should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to have children. Many Protestant churches recognize this, and most Catholics accept it, even if their hierarchy is still stuck in the past.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yep. Viagra for old geezers that can't get their thingy up? A-OK. The Pill for women who don't want to get pregnant? THE HORROR!!!

The double standard is pathetic, I don't give a damn if you think it's the will of your made-up skyy-daddy.

Good question. Are their insurance policies required to accommodate Viagra and Cialis?

Originally Posted by radind

But , you have to remember that the voters (including a majority of Catholics, Jews, & Christians) actually voted for Obama. I don't like this use Federal rules either, but we are still a nation of laws and they must( should) be enforced. The voters will decide if this a mistake or not.

For *some* Catholics, the government telling them what to do regarding their belief system is like telling the millions of fundamentalists that they now have to let gays get married in their church.

Originally Posted by James50

As others have said, this is a battle Obama cannot win. For people outside the faith community, this may appear like just another kerfuffle, but it will bring down his presidency and perhaps the Democratic party as we know it with it.

As for Catholics getting out of the social service business, let me just say you have no idea what you are talking about. If you made me choose between the the government getting out of health care or the Catholic church, I would say its time for the government to get out of health care.

Others have said that if liberalism was a church, abortion is the blood sacrifice at its altar. Now it appears, contraception has entered the temple as well and every speck of tolerance, respect, and understanding for the beliefs of others must be offered up to this totem. And for something that is a trivial monetary cost.

This is a big mistake.

James50

What you are saying convinces me more than ever that no single church should have this much power over politics.

Originally Posted by Deb C

For *some* Catholics, the government telling them what to do regarding their belief system is like telling the millions of fundamentalists that they now have to let gays get married in their church.

While I don't support the whole no birth control baloney, my guess is that many of us would see it as an infringement on our belief system if the government came in and dictated what we had to do. Including those of us who don't profess to belonging to an organized religion.

So before we go picking on any particular religion for it's belief system, I suggest that we put ourselves in their shoes. EVERY religion has its own set of beliefs. The job of the government is not to dictate what is right or wrong in our belief system.

Originally Posted by Deb C

For *some* Catholics, the government telling them what to do regarding their belief system is like telling the millions of fundamentalists that they now have to let gays get married in their church.

I understand this, but John's earlier point is a good one. Why do large religious organizations get listened to, while the secular majority gets ignored? And is there some point where accommodating certain religious beliefs does harm to the greater society?

Originally Posted by Deb C

While I don't support the whole no birth control baloney, my guess is that many of us would see it as an infringement on our belief system if the government came in and dictated what we had to do. Including those of us who don't profess to belonging to an organized religion.

So before we go picking on any particular religion for it's belief system, I suggest that we put ourselves in their shoes. EVERY religion has its own set of beliefs. The job of the government is not to dictate what is right or wrong in our belief system.

The government accommodates the Christian majority by making Christmas a federal holiday.

Originally Posted by radind

Considering our current laws, I have reached view that it would be better for the Catholic Church to just get out of the hospital business. I don't see the Catholic church changing its policies and based on the reports I have seen, the Catholics seem to be digging in.

Obama has just stirred up a hornets nest with going back on his word to the Catholic leadership. We are talking about a powerful system that has been in place for hundreds of years. No institutionalized religion is going to stand by and let the government dictate their belief system. None.

The Catholic Church reacted strongly Friday to a

White House

defense of new rules that will force many religious employers to provide

contraception

to their workers in government-mandated health insurance plans.

"The White House information about this is a combination of misleading and wrong," said Anthony Picarello, general counsel of the

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

. He said the bishops would "pursue every legal mandate available to them to bring an end to this mandate. That means legislation, litigation and public advocacy. All options are on the table."

If Obama has decided to get a backbone and confront what he thinks is wrong, then let him start with something that really matters to this country, like reigning in Wall Street. Birth control pills are the least of our problems.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I understand this, but John's earlier point is a good one. Why do large religious organizations get listened to, while the secular majority gets ignored? And is there some point where accommodating certain religious beliefs does harm to the greater society?

Government needs to stay out of the religion business. I'm not sure what you mean by accommodating a religious belief. If it's the matter of birth control, which many Catholics practice in spite of the rules, there are many bigger fish to fry than if a Catholic institution won't pay for those pills.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Government needs to stay out of the religion business. I'm not sure what you mean by accommodating a religious belief. If it's the matter of birth control, which many Catholics practice in spite of the rules, there are many bigger fish to fry than if a Catholic institution won't pay for those pills.

So should we have special rules for religious businesses that don't like basic health insurance standards? And what about those Christian Scientists? I could see a lot of business owners converting very quickly if it got them out of health insurance altogether.

Originally Posted by James50

As others have said, this is a battle Obama cannot win.

True. He can either piss off the Catholic leaders or the womens' groups. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

So should we have special rules for religious businesses that don't like basic health insurance standards? And what about those Christian Scientists? I could see a lot of business owners converting very quickly if it got them out of health insurance altogether.

I understand what you are saying. But this *what if* scenerio is not a reality. And most likely won't be. What we are dealing with is a president who basically lied to church leaders. That in and of itself is huge! Church leaders are now going to defend their belief system with gusto. It didn't have to be this way.

I have indicated before that I am not big on organized religion and never will be. However, I do know many Catholics who are enraged about the deceit of this president who they see as basically using some in the church leadership to get support for his health care reform, then stabbed them in the back. That's a big deal to some people. I do see this affecting Obama in November. He should know how to pick his battles. And as I said before, that needs to be with those who actually impact society in a most negative way, Wall Street and the health care industry.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Sure there is. Using my tax dollars to attack Iraq. And torture people.

How does using tax dollars for the war in Iraq violate the first amendment? That was the topic.

James50