Obama's Candidacy


by Pythagorean
Tags: candidacy, obama
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#235
Feb23-12, 08:04 AM
P: 2,163
I don't know if I'm allowed to post this. It is the prohibition against killing people that is being cited. This is a universal principle and should satisfy Obama's criterion. The argument is over who is and isn't a person. This argument has occured in the past and didn't end well
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#236
Feb23-12, 01:05 PM
P: 1,123
With the Supreme Court decision on PPACA approaching, I think court appointments will become more of an issue - here's a recent article on the subject as related to an Obama second term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1255688.html
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#237
Feb23-12, 02:01 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
I don't know if I'm allowed to post this. It is the prohibition against killing people that is being cited. This is a universal principle and should satisfy Obama's criterion. The argument is over who is and isn't a person. This argument has occured in the past and didn't end well
You're exactly right Jimmy and this is what irritates me so much about Obama (and his fans, for falling for it). If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!

It is certainly true that separation of Church and State requires that laws not have strictly religious motivation. And therefore, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Pro Life side to frame their agument according to principles even the non-religious can agree on. But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument. Obama doesn't say this, though, he just tricks his followers into generating it themselves. Trouble is, it's nowhere close to true. The truth of the matter is that the principle that the pro life side is discussing is simply "Thou shalt not murder" (irony intended) - a principle that essentially everyone agrees on.

At best, this is a strawman/red herring piece of propaganda by Obama. At worst, it's an implied lie.

And yes, Jimmy, we don't need to dig into the nitty-gritty of when/how you decide if a fetus has a right to life that is violated by aborting it (resulting in murder). The point isn't in that discussion, its that Obama doesn't even acknowledge that's what the issue is.
AlephZero
AlephZero is offline
#238
Feb23-12, 02:08 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 6,344
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
The argument is over who is and isn't a person.
So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.
Jimmy Snyder
Jimmy Snyder is offline
#239
Feb23-12, 02:12 PM
P: 2,163
Quote Quote by AlephZero View Post
So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.
On this one point we agree. My side espouses reason, while the other side espouses dogma.
mheslep
mheslep is online now
#240
Feb23-12, 04:20 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
... If Gingrich says something pompous or Santorum says something from the religious fringe, people think - 'well, that figures', he's ________ - but Obama is able to hold on to his squeaky clean image by being a propaganda master. In this case, he got people to believe a falsehood without even having to say it!

It is certainly true that separation of Church and State requires that laws not have strictly religious motivation. And therefore, it is also true that it is incumbent upon the Pro Life side to frame their agument according to principles even the non-religious can agree on. But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument. Obama doesn't say this, though, he just tricks his followers into generating it themselves. Trouble is, it's nowhere close to true. The truth of the matter is that the principle that the pro life side is discussing is simply "Thou shalt not murder" (irony intended) - a principle that essentially everyone agrees on.

At best, this is a strawman/red herring piece of propaganda by Obama. At worst, it's an implied lie. ...
Exactly, and the abortion/birth control funding issue turned to religious nut issue is just one example of the general method. Argue against against the the size of the deficit and the racist card or the 'rube' card is played, etc.
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#241
Feb23-12, 07:53 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
But the implication of explaining this to us is that the Pro Life side is not properly framing their argument
So you don't identify with "40 days for life" or prolife.com or any of the other leading acitivists that rally outside of abortion clinics, tell people they're going to hell, and commonly cite Jeremiah 1:5?

These are clearly the most vocal people about pro-life... and these people exist... so Obama's words are obviously targeted at them. It seems "disingenuous" to not acknowledge these people exist and that they vocally represent the pro-life movement.

There's actually three major religions that represent pro-life in the US: Christian, Islam, and Judaism. Obama obviously isn't referring to secular pro-life groups (whom hardly represent the demographics of pro-lifers).
Drotzer
Drotzer is offline
#242
Feb23-12, 09:20 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Pengwuino View Post
Heh, my parents are pure middle class and had nothing but higher taxes and higher medical bills because of him. I'm sometimes curious as to which middle class people are talking about when they say Obama is a man of the middle class. You can appeal all you want to people, but when they see your actions concerning them, appealing to voters isn't going to be worth much.
That is totally false. Higher medical Bills would be due to insurance companies. Taxes? If your parents are middle class, their taxes were lowered.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#243
Feb23-12, 09:43 PM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by Drotzer View Post
That is totally false. Higher medical Bills would be due to insurance companies. Taxes? If your parents are middle class, their taxes were lowered.
We really don't know which taxes he's referring to or their specific income level or filing classification - do we? They might be small business owners facing cost increases - we don't know. The payroll tax cut (the one that reduces your contribution to social security at a time when social security is facing insolvency) might not be enough to offset a lost deduction of some type?

As for medical, we really don't know the medical history or reasons for increases - do we? For instance, are you certain that healthcare mandates (PPACA/Obamacre) aren't causing insurance premiums to rise? Also, are you certain that changes to the Medicare reimbursement rates haven't somehow impacted the specific health care costs of these particular people?

If Pengwuino decides to share more details - then perhaps a definitive response can be given - until then - we just don't know enough about their particular situation to render a conclusion - IMO of course.
SixNein
SixNein is offline
#244
Feb24-12, 12:06 AM
PF Gold
SixNein's Avatar
P: 183
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post

when social security is facing insolvency
Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-project...1#.T0co13mY7x4
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#245
Feb24-12, 12:16 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by SixNein View Post
Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-project...1#.T0co13mY7x4
My mistake - Social Security will be solvent for another 25 years (approx). Do those projections factor in a shrinking workforce, reductions in contributions, increases in SSDI, annual cost of living increases, expanded LIS program,or other variables?
turbo
turbo is offline
#246
Feb24-12, 12:21 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,367
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#247
Feb24-12, 12:55 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
If we start taxing the wealthy on just a bit more of of their income, SS can be solvent forever. I think that we all know this. There are politicians that want to resist this and claim that SS is in crisis, and clamor for "privitazation" instead of considering reasonable reforms. I hit the maximum contribution limit for years and years. It wouldn't have hurt me a bit to pay just a bit more, when I was making those wages.
What makes you think the increased revenues won't be used elsewhere - again?
SixNein
SixNein is offline
#248
Feb24-12, 01:06 AM
PF Gold
SixNein's Avatar
P: 183
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
My mistake - Social Security will be solvent for another 25 years (approx). Do those projections factor in a shrinking workforce, reductions in contributions, increases in SSDI, annual cost of living increases, expanded LIS program,or other variables?
Why not just look up the CBO report?

I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.

A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program. So social security coffers are something we want to keep an eye on, but it's not currently a crisis of any kind.
WhoWee
WhoWee is offline
#249
Feb24-12, 01:12 AM
P: 1,123
Quote Quote by SixNein View Post
Why not just look up the CBO report?

I don't think it's possible to state how long social security will remain solvent with any kind of certainty. All we can say is that social security is now on a decline, and if the trend continues at its present rate, it will be insolvent in 2037. But next year, the trend could dissipate, accelerate, or remain the same. There is simply too many variables to predict social security so far out into the future. For example, there will be 6 presidential elections between now and then. One might as well ask the 8 ball.

A more accurate argument would be that social security coffers are currently declining; however, there is no immediate risk of insolvency of the program.
I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.
SixNein
SixNein is offline
#250
Feb24-12, 01:34 AM
PF Gold
SixNein's Avatar
P: 183
Quote Quote by WhoWee View Post
I'd like to see the Social Security funds managed with the same level of accountability private pension funds and their managers/administrators are held.
Social security is the one program that doesn't concern me too much. By and large, social security has been doing its job.

Medicare, military, and energy are my largest concerns. I have quite a few concerns about our legal system....
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#251
Feb24-12, 05:41 AM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
So you don't identify with "40 days for life" or prolife.com or any of the other leading acitivists that rally outside of abortion clinics, tell people they're going to hell, and commonly cite Jeremiah 1:5?

These are clearly the most vocal people about pro-life... and these people exist... so Obama's words are obviously targeted at them. It seems "disingenuous" to not acknowledge these people exist and that they vocally represent the pro-life movement.
Do these people ever explain anything or is the only thing they every say that bible verse? Perhaps they figure it is too obvious to explain what "pro life" means? I've never heard of them and I find it hard to believe a group that is only 8 years old is the most vocal group on abortion. Around where I live, I see billboards and bumper stickers that say:

-Abortion stops a beating heart
-Choose life
-Abortion is murder

These go right to the heart of the matter. The very name of the movement should evoke thoughts about the issue of a right to life. Are you saying you had no idea that the pro life movement was about a right to life for fetuses?

By the way: I'm mostly pro choice. I don't identify with them at all.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#252
Feb24-12, 05:46 AM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Quote Quote by SixNein View Post
Last time I checked, social security was projected to be solvent through 2037. And quite frankly, projections aren't that great so far out.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cbo-project...1#.T0co13mY7x4
The link to the citation is dead.

I've been hearing 2037 for a while now - has that number been updated to account for the recession and cuts in the payroll tax rate?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Rick Santorum's candidacy ... Current Events 492
Jon Huntsman's Candidacy Current Events 47
Evo's candidacy... Current Events 23