Originally Posted by Weave

Your point????
The argument isnt about contraception or sin, its about the government telling a religion it has to violate its beliefs.
It will be challenged if Obamacare isnt already overturned by the Supreme Court this summer because of other unconstitutional measures it demands.

May I suggest one of the most powerful collections of Lieder ever composed -- Des Knaben Wunderhorn of the great Gustav Mahler?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieder_..._Wunderhorn%22

One of the most striking of the songs shows an anthropomorphic treatment of human moral frailty and the futility of moral preaching, the song Des Antonius von Padua Fischpredigt that depicts a saintly preacher captivating the aquatic wildlife (including crabs and turtles which are definitely not fish) to praise his sermons for their eminent merit only to revert to their old ways once the sermon is over:

Antonius zur Predigt
Die Kirche findt ledig.
Er geht zu den Flüssen
und predigt den Fischen;

Sie schlagen mit den Schwänzen,
Im Sonnenschein glänzen.

Die Karpfen mit Rogen
Sind [allhier gezogen]1,
Haben d'Mäuler aufrissen,
Sich Zuhörens beflissen;

Kein Predigt niemalen
Den Karpfen so g'fallen.

Spitzgoschete Hechte,
Die immerzu fechten,
Sind eilend herschwommen,
Zu hören den Frommen;

[ Kein Predigt niemalen
Den Hechten so g'fallen.]2

Auch jene Phantasten,
Die immerzu fasten;
Die Stockfisch ich meine,
Zur Predigt erscheinen;

Kein Predigt niemalen
Den Stockfisch so g'fallen.

Gut Aale und Hausen,
Die vornehme schmausen,
Die selbst sich bequemen,
Die Predigt vernehmen:

[Kein Predigt niemalen
den Aalen so g'fallen.]2

Auch Krebse, Schildkroten,
Sonst langsame Boten,
Steigen eilig vom Grund,
Zu hören diesen Mund:

Kein Predigt niemalen
den Krebsen so g'fallen.

Fisch große, Fisch kleine,
Vornehm und gemeine,
Erheben die Köpfe
Wie verständge Geschöpfe:

Auf Gottes Begehren
Die Predigt anhören.

Die Predigt geendet,
Ein jeder sich wendet,
Die Hechte bleiben Diebe,
Die Aale viel lieben.

Die Predigt hat g'fallen.
Sie bleiben wie alle.

Die Krebs gehn zurücke,
Die Stockfisch bleiben dicke,
Die Karpfen viel fressen,
die Predigt vergessen.

Die Predigt hat g'fallen.
Sie bleiben wie alle.

1 another version: "all' hierher zogen"
2 not set by Mahler

Translation here: http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/get_t...ml?TextId=4462

Superb performance here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdhY0s3GOtw (Janet Baker)

Men can sing it, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yslr6...eature=related (Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau)

.................................................. ..

Hypocrisy is the norm of human existence. We all adjust or we become fanatics or failures.

Yep, that religion thingee is really hurting Obama

President Obama’s political standing is rising along with voters’ optimism that the economy is getting better, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, a shift that coincides with continued Republican disquiet over the field of candidates seeking to replace him.
.
.
Showing steady improvement since early December, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has reached the 50 percent mark in The Times/CBS News poll — an important baseline in presidential politics and his highest approval rating since May 2010 (excepting the brief bump he received after Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011).

For the first time since the election season began in earnest in the late summer, as many Democrats as Republicans say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the 2012 presidential election. That would appear to wipe out the so-called enthusiasm gap that promised to help Republicans greatly next fall.

- Obama's standing is better than not only GWB but Ray-gun at the same point in their Presidencies.

Hmm, I getting a whiff of something, here. Smells like, like, like toasted Republicans.

Great comment here on Romney's renewed attack on the auto bailout, which was a piece of pure Republican propaganda garbage. I honestly don't think he'll be nominated. It will be Santorum or a dark horse.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Great comment here on Romney's renewed attack on the auto bailout, which was a piece of pure Republican propaganda garbage. I honestly don't think he'll be nominated. It will be Santorum or a dark horse.

Obama just needs to repeat that Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive. Keep it short and simple, sounding wonky turns people off.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I guess if Weave relies on Rasmussen, that explains it. They are always the outlier, if there is one. And usually on the right. It's interesting too that they are the one that is more likely to show Santorum or Gingrich doing better than Romney. That shows just HOW FAR to the right they are.

They're not asking random Catholic voters, they're asking "likely" Catholic voters... so they can apply as much demographic manipulation as they like with their participant list.

Likely voter polls are often push polls, especially when they're attached to polling companies with obvious biases.

Originally Posted by Odin

Obama just needs to repeat that Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive. Keep it short and simple, sounding wonky turns people off.

That's not bad at all.

Two thumbs up!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Great comment here on Romney's renewed attack on the auto bailout, which was a piece of pure Republican propaganda garbage. I honestly don't think he'll be nominated. It will be Santorum or a dark horse.

wow, recent polling tonight shows Romney leading only in Oakland Co., the richest county in Michigan. I think bringing up his huge misstep on the auto bailout is a nail in his coffin. If he losses Michigan where his father was a pretty well-liked governor, its going to be like a bomb going off inside the GOP. Santorum is toxic to 2/3rds of the women in this country; Gingrich to 2/3's of everyone; and Paul, well, I'll be nice.

One can almost pity the GOP, but then one remembers what we are talking about.

Now it's just a question of how the Dems can screw this up.

The other thing I wondering is how desperate the GOP will get particularly if the Supreme Court holds up Obamacare as constitutional in whole or in part. If they find the individual mandate as unconstitutional but sever-able, then the question for the next Congress is just how to prevent the "free riders." That's pretty easy (and I believed at the time much more preferable) by just requiring that those choosing not to take the govt up on the insurance option have a waiting period of 2 years before they qualify again (no more heartless than what they have now with today's insurance that the Right is all giddy to keep) - I call this the Darwin Award approach for its ability to improve the human gene pool.

Here's the issue for the GOP - we go into another 4 years with Obama and Obamacare generally remaining viable. Not only do all the real benefits kick in by 2014, but it will become increasingly apparent that the world is not coming to an end and the evil socialist pinkos are not deciding who lives and dies. The GOP is going to look increasingly silly and out-of-touch with reality. Not a good foundation for 2016.

Wow, Obama gets it all -

Under the outlines of the emerging agreement, a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax would be extended through the end of the year. Jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed would be renewed as well, and doctors would be saved from a big cut in their Medicare payments.

The deal would not only be a win for Obama but would take the payroll tax fight -- which had Republicans on the defensive -- off the table for the fall election campaign.

- so he'll get a growing economy and shrinking unemployment this summer (barring craziness from China, Europe or Iran).

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about this because we remain in what will later be seen as a decades-long economic contraction. Things will likely start flattening-out around this time next year, maybe a few months later, and grow progressively worse to a full-fledged recession in 2014. The only way to avoid this is substantial federal deficit spending. If Obama 1 shows up for Obama 2, we will fare not much better than if it was Romney and risk the Dem brand being discredited for a long time. However, a real progressive showing up for Obama 2 is the only hope; Obama represents the only hope no matter how slim.

CBS poll contradicts Weave's numbers tonight; 61% approve Obama's contraceptives policy, including 61% of Catholics. So who opposes it? Probably the usual suspects, who disapprove anything Obama does.

Meanwhile California's credit rating is moved upward to positive. People like James will be running out of options when it comes to putting down blue states like CA!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Since I don't have the disease, of course I'm more concerned with staying healthy and not having the disease. However, if I do get sick, since I'll already be sick, I certainly will be concerned about paying for it.

I think this is common sense and would apply to anyone. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

You aren't wrong. People can do everything right and still get screwed. You don't have control over your genetics. You also don't have control over that drunk guy who slams into you with his car. It's called "insurance" for a reason.

Now maybe someone can explain why this sequence is so sad to watch...



Best...

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hmm, I getting a whiff of something, here. Smells like, like, like toasted Republicans.

Boy, what a delicious smell. yummy yummy!

Originally Posted by Weave

I could be wrong on this but I vaguely recall your crystal ball predicting the Dems holding the House in 2010.....

I've never made an official prediction about that. It may have been Brian Rush who said that. I've not made a prediction on that for 2012 either. I have no basis for predicting that race now, and so I sure didn't have one in 2010.

And as far as Iran is concerned, if Obama had embraced the Green Revolution or been more aggressive in 2009, Iran may have not gotten as far as it had on nuke development. His weakness encouraged them.....

Maybe. But what should Obama have done that would have defeated the regime?

Funny, you libs had no problem voting for a foreign policy neophyte in 2008. In fact you voted for an empty suit for which we have paid a huge price not only here at home but with respects with Iran and other aggressive nations.

It's true, we didn't. But this is 2012, so too bad for you guys, Obama is not a neophyte anymore, but a successful, seasoned leader with great assistance from other experienced folks like Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta, while you guys have nobody. And we have paid a huge price at home for YOUR policies and YOUR House of Representatives, whom Obama has just forced back into line for the first time in a year.

As far as Bin Laden is concerned, it was through the efforts of our CIA using rendition and waterboarding that we got the knowledge to find him...something you guys conveniently leave out.....

We leave it out because it isn't true.

Originally Posted by Odin

Obama just needs to repeat that Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive. Keep it short and simple, sounding wonky turns people off.

Do you really think all the folks who are out there driving foreign cars really care about the life of GM?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Religious freedom includes the ability to disobey the preaching of one's church. Some large Protestant denominations (Methodists and Baptists) oppose drinking -- but such doesn't stop drinking. So it is with Catholics on contraception. Alcohol and sex are both strong temptations. Sex with contraception in a monogamous relationship is easy to rationalize -- "at least it isn't abortion". People who could never rationalize embezzling from an employer can easily rationalize having a latte instead of contributing to an international child welfare fund.

Practically all Christian denominations (that includes Mormonism) have the concept of Sin which encompasses imperfect behavior from minor indulgences to such a horror as Holocaust perpetration. Smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, flirting with a person not one's spouse, failing to make an 'adequate' tithe, or uttering the F-word are as much Sin -- human failure to achieve the "godly" ideal of behavior -- as is waging a war of aggression, commissioning or performing a gangland hit, committing a rape or armed robbery, trafficking in heroin, setting a pack of dogs against a randomly-selected prisoner, or casting live children into a raging furnace. In mainstream Christian doctrine, Sin is the reality of human existence. Churches would fold were it not for sinners in the pews.

Most of us in practice recognize the difference between minor indulgence and major crime. So do clergy. I can assure you that most Catholic clergy know enough to not ask whether parishioners have watched adult entertainment, performed birth control, voted for a politician who supported abortion rights, or used the Name of God in vain and then cast out anyone who did so from Mass. Maybe Opus Dei types might do differently -- but that is practically a cult anyway.

So, you believe that it's OK for the government to order Baptists and Methodists to provide alcohol for those who want to drink it? I must say that you guys do a wunderful job of missing the point.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

CBS poll contradicts Weave's numbers tonight; 61% approve Obama's contraceptives policy, including 61% of Catholics. So who opposes it? Probably the usual suspects, who disapprove anything Obama does.

Meanwhile California's credit rating is moved upward to positive. People like James will be running out of options when it comes to putting down blue states like CA!

Do really think Obama is going to be able to force someone like Trump to purchase healthcare? Is California triming down it's budget or is California raising taxes and spending it?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

This is exactly my beef with libertarian and any ideology that refers to the "free market" as the Solution to Everything.

My beef is with Democrats/progressives like yourself who work for the federal government and an ideology that refers to the "government" as the Solution to Everything.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Do really think Obama is going to be able to force someone like Trump to purchase healthcare?

That's a different question. Why should anyone care what Trump wants to do? If you want a health care system that works, everyone needs to contribute and pay in. That's the way it works, and that's why government is a good thing on that and other issues. It does not mean liberals think government is the answer to everything, silly. We still need an innovative and vibrant private sector. But the latter works better in partnership, not unleashed without guidance or support for new industries.

Is California triming down it's budget or is California raising taxes and spending it?

We aren't raising taxes yet, but we have resisted the Republican nuts from cutting further than we ought to, like folks in Republican states are doing. We will probably have to pass a tax increase by initiative this November. The Obama landslide should help that along.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There's no doubt that health care costs would come down if people did healthy things to care of themselves. There is an epidemic of not doing that in the USA, partly because of all the past conditioning like Grey mentioned.

The problem for a libertarian is that libertarian thinking is only thinking about yourself, e.g. "for those interested.." As if everything is about you, your life, and your own choices, and as if we were just individuals.

But a conscious citizen of the USA is also interested in how different options affect everyone and the country at large, not just yourself; knowing that we are not isolated individuals, but interdependent parts of a community, a nation and a world. Medicare for all is the best option in that perspective, along with the preventive and holistic approaches. One team definitely has better answers than the other, in every respect.

I'm more than ever convinced that this notion that we can forget both teams and go some third way, is mostly merely escaping from the choice that confronts this nation at this time-- even if you acknowledge the inadequacy of the better Team. There is absolutely no doubt about the total bankruptcy of the worst Team.

Are you saying that your individual interests and your beliefs are not used or taken into account when you choose the team or canidate that you support or are going to support with your vote. Are you saying the team or candidate doesn't have to have your interest in mind or your interests at heart? Aren't you basically saying that your individual interests don't matter, individual beliefs don't matter and all that matters to you as an individual is the state or society?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

Are you saying that your individual interests and your beliefs are not used or taken into account when you choose the team or candidate that you support or are going to support with your vote. Are you saying the team or candidate doesn't have to have your interest in mind or your interests at heart? Aren't you basically saying that your individual interests don't matter, individual beliefs don't matter and all that matters to you as an individual is the state or society?

The condition of our society is what most affects my individual interests. I am not an isolated individual. I don't look to my candidate to support my business. I want him or her to create a progressive climate where I feel a part of something moving, growing and alive.

But I also want a candidate who will support the right policies that I know will contribute to my economic well-being. A trickle-down Republican free-market philosophy will not benefit me and my friends; only the rich bosses and plutocrats. It's important for all of us to realize that voting your social values will not necessarily improve your economic condition. The bosses are only using these hot button right-wing social issues to gain power so they can use it to benefit themselves. A society designed to benefit everyone will create a much better climate for my business and the economic condition of my friends and community.

You need to vote based on your educated knowledge of which policies work, and which policies don't, for the economic and social class you are in. If you are part of labor or a small farmer, voting for big capital (voting Republican) is not voting your interests. Libertarian, trickle-down economics does not work, unless you are in the top 1% economically. It does not benefit you economically or in any other way.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

So, you believe that it's OK for the government to order Baptists and Methodists to provide alcohol for those who want to drink it? I must say that you guys do a wunderful job of missing the point.

I have more question about either your reading comprehension, your inability to understand the difference between providing something normally considered a normal fringe benefit and what someone purchases legally with pay that is ultimately one's own, or rights of an employee off the job, or even the authority of the Catholic Church. Your employer might prefer that your "news" source be FoX Propaganda Channel, but your employer has no control over what you watch on cable unless that employer pays for your access to cable as a term of employment. If you live in an employer's dormitory in a company town, then maybe the employer has the right to determine whether one gets HBO (pay cable) or not, or whether one gets CBS and not ABC.

The only power that the Roman Catholic Church has over membership is moral suasion. The Catholic Church has no Gestapo/KGB/Mukhabarat/Inquisition to control the personal behavior of Catholics. The most that the Catholic Church can do against an egregious violator of Church teachings is to either deny the sacraments (more likely for what one writes than for having a drunken debauch) or to deny membership through excommunication. Denying any part of the Trinity or questioning the nominal authority of the Pope might have gotten some high-profile writer like Bertrand Russell excommunicated (if he were a Catholic), but being a very flawed person (let us say a convicted murderer) would not get one excommunicated. Mass-murderer Timothy McVeigh, who was apparently a Catholic, could have gotten Last Rites. Is that hypocrisy of the Catholic Church? At the end of his life, Timothy McVeigh probably saw more need for such comforts as the Catholic Church could offer through the Sacraments than did Bertrand Russell -- or Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

Actually, there's a simpler answer to that question, although it requires some twisting, since the government makes no attempt to force anyone to sell alcohol. But let's pretend for the moment that it did; that there was a local ordinance somewhere that required certain types of restaurants to serve wine. And let's suppose that a Baptist church (or for that matter a mosque) wanted to open a restaurant of the type required to serve wine. The answer in that case would be yes. The government cannot require the church or the mosque to serve wine as part of its religious service (the Baptist church of course does not), but there's a distinction between the church itself and a restaurant owned by the church.

Same reasoning applies with the Catholic Church and contraceptive coverage. Within the Church proper itself, no -- First Amendment says the government can't say boo about that. But a hospital or school that is merely owned by the Church? Different story.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...
The other thing I wondering is how desperate the GOP will get particularly if the Supreme Court holds up Obamacare as constitutional in whole or in part. If they find the individual mandate as unconstitutional but sever-able, then the question for the next Congress is just how to prevent the "free riders." That's pretty easy (and I believed at the time much more preferable) by just requiring that those choosing not to take the govt up on the insurance option have a waiting period of 2 years before they qualify again (no more heartless than what they have now with today's insurance that the Right is all giddy to keep) - I call this the Darwin Award approach for its ability to improve the human gene pool.

Here's the issue for the GOP - we go into another 4 years with Obama and Obamacare generally remaining viable. Not only do all the real benefits kick in by 2014, but it will become increasingly apparent that the world is not coming to an end and the evil socialist pinkos are not deciding who lives and dies. The GOP is going to look increasingly silly and out-of-touch with reality. Not a good foundation for 2016.

As a follow-up to the above concerning the longer-term consequences of a solid Dem win in November and Obamacare surviving, more or less (with or without the mandate), the SCOTUS decision this summer, here is a graph that the Wash. Post put up on the impact of Obamacare by county -


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rss=ezra-klein



Basically, it is those counties where a high percentage of the population that either will get subsidies to buy their health insurance (annual income less than $44K) or become eligible for Medicaid (annual income less than $15K). These people will become voters that will go just as crazy when their health coverage is politically threatened as any retirement home does today when Social Security or Medicare is threatened. Politicians from these counties will need to tread very very carefully.

Anyone notice where these counties are in relation to where a certain political party has its core strength?

And people wonder why there has been so much desperate lying about Obamacare from that certain political party. Any doubt its going to get even more desperate?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Basically, it is those counties where a high percentage of the population that either will get subsidies to buy their health insurance (annual income less than $44K) or become eligible for Medicaid (annual income less than $15K).

I decided to go check out the subsidy calculator they're using... and surprise, surprise! While a family of four can get $10k in subsidies at a 40k income, a single person at the same income is supposed to pay 10% of their gross wage on insurance, and up to another 10% on out of pocket costs. Add that to a 25-30% total tax rate ... ugh.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Actually, there's a simpler answer to that question, although it requires some twisting, since the government makes no attempt to force anyone to sell alcohol. But let's pretend for the moment that it did; that there was a local ordinance somewhere that required certain types of restaurants to serve wine. And let's suppose that a Baptist church (or for that matter a mosque) wanted to open a restaurant of the type required to serve wine. The answer in that case would be yes. The government cannot require the church or the mosque to serve wine as part of its religious service (the Baptist church of course does not), but there's a distinction between the church itself and a restaurant owned by the church.

Same reasoning applies with the Catholic Church and contraceptive coverage. Within the Church proper itself, no -- First Amendment says the government can't say boo about that. But a hospital or school that is merely owned by the Church? Different story.

Senior Digambar monks (one of the main sects of Janism) wear no clothes, following the practice of Lord Mahavira. They do not consider themselves to be nude — they are wearing the environment. Digambaras believe that this practice represents a refusal to give in to the body’s demands for comfort and private property.

I wonder how Exile would feel about taking the wife and kids down to the local Applebees owned by a practicing Senior Digambar monk?

Or what if your only pub in town was owned by a Maasai warrior? On the menu would be their bringing to your table a cow for some fresh blood-letting. I think you don't have to drink the blood straight-up, you can mix it with a little vodka and Vermouth.

And then, there's that whole weird thing in China about using human fetuses, .. well, never mind. Let's just say I'm not sure you would want to go to a McDonalds owned by one of those guys and not have some government requirements for what's on the menu.

Then there's that Hindu sect in India where they throw near-borns off the roof; yea, of course, they're caught from below in sheets. However, my wife was freaked out enough giving birth in a typical US hospital; I can't imagine how it would have gone at a hospital owned by this particular sect and she saw newborns flying by her window every couple of hours.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I decided to go check out the subsidy calculator they're using... and surprise, surprise! While a family of four can get $10k in subsidies at a 40k income, a single person at the same income is supposed to pay 10% of their gross wage on insurance, and up to another 10% on out of pocket costs. Add that to a 25-30% total tax rate ... ugh.

I'm not feeling your pain here. It seems reasonable.