Obama's Candidacy

WhoWee

I just heard on the radio President Obama wants an additional $800,000,000 for countries of the "Arab Spring" - label IMO until I find a source please.

mheslep

Doesn't matter wrt to the deficit. $0.8B is in the noise, a little more than 2 hours of current federal spending. He has to reform Medicare. Right now the fix can be w/ no change at all to, say, people over 55 as per a Ryan plan or something like it. Soon, the situation will require changes to benefits already in the system.

WhoWee

I have a problem with ANY requests for additional spending when they haven't passed a budget in the past 1,000+ days.

mheslep

To be specific, 'they' is Harry Reid in the Senate. The House or course passed a budget.

WhoWee

I wonder if President Obama will respond to Newt Gingrich's remarks in OK? Newt said (Obama) is the most dangerous President of all time - very critical on his (Obama's)reluctance to identify terrorists as Islamic extremists, and said we should take Iran at their word when they say they want to wipe Israel from the map. Newt also said we could lose an American city in our lifetimes.
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingr...erican-history

Pythagorean

I think his best bet would to be ignore Newt directly, maybe implicate or insinuate a response elsewhere.

aquitaine

Newt's already faded, soon enough this will become a total non-issue.

Pythagorean

exactly.

lisab

Newt who?

turbo

Good response. Newt is a non-issue. He would like to stay in the public eye, but he is not a player. He has a ton of baggage and no plurality of women would vote to put Callista in the WH as first lady.

Pythagorean

I like these words

russ_watters

I don't think they are all that useful - even a little disingenuous - since the "principle" at issue is clearly accessible to people of all/no faith.

Alfi

I also like them. They speak to me as a vision farther than a single country's.
They also make it clear that Obama thinks democratic governments, in the making of laws, should not be guided solely by religious dogma.

I agree

Jimmy Snyder

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

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

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

So far as I can tell, the dogma is about when a collectiion of molecules becomes a person, which is a different argument.