1st Term Obama Approval

[Boogalou]

And the unemployment rate hasn't been below 8% since Obama has been in office. Also, that rate is deceptive because it does not count those who stopped looking for jobs and it also includes temporary jobs.

True. You could make the argument though that it could be a lot worse, like in the great depression when unemployment broke 20%. The president only does so much though. I would say the state of the economy right now is more due to with capitalism than either Bush or Obama. These things happen.

[Shina]

It comes down to this, if you're going to be a selfish dickwad, go for it. But don't try to cloak your selfishness and judgmental douche-behavior in religion, especially when the founder of your religion would have told you where to shove your callous attitudes toward the less fortunate.

[Witsec7]

Then by extension neither is the right to life! Since a lack of healthcare usually results in death...

Abortion party at my place! :dance:

I'll bring the cake, Strawberry Shortcake Cake is a tradition at my tribes abortion parties.

[Visionoyahweh]

That cake is great!

Notice how quiet it got when the right to life card was played? :)

[lilah]

I don't want the government giving me rights. If they give them, they can take them away. The only rights the government should be involved with is defending our Unalienable Rights. The right to Health care is not an Unalienable Right.

Except that initially the only people who were guaranteed their unalienable rights were white, male and owned property. Initially the government was not protecting the rights of slaves, women and other minorities.We've had to periodically redefine who gets rights and what those rights are.

The US health care system needs to be reformed. It's currently very very broken and because we have so many people who can't afford health care they can't afford to treat small problems so often have to wait until a big problem and that ultimately drives the price up for people who do have insurance.

In general the idea of for profit health insurance system is motivated to get healthy people making payments while screwing people over and nickle and diming them when they get sick. Doctors have lots of reasons to make healthcare more expensive so that they can get paid. In fact The idea of a job paying for health insurance of its employees was designed originally for school teachers, with the assumption a) they stayed at their job their whole lives b) led a pretty healthy life so that insurance companies could profit over the regular payments. This system was never meant to be national system, especially now with so many people unemployed and one medical emergency could force them into bankruptcy. Ultimately universal healthcare will save us money in the long term as health care costs hemorrhage from the for profit insurance industry.

I think regulations are needed. Look at the meatpacking industry before the FDA was approved. Hell look at what's happened in China with the melamine scandal. Corporations are almost inherently unethical in their pursuant of profit over ethics, environment, individual rights, individual safety. We've seen time and again that legal sanctions are one of the few measures that minimize the hurt they cause individuals and the environment. R

[jericho]

It comes down to this, if you're going to be a selfish dickwad, go for it. But don't try to cloak your selfishness and judgmental douche-behavior in religion, especially when the founder of your religion would have told you where to shove your callous attitudes toward the less fortunate.

I'm not shoving my religion anywhere. Jesus was brought up by someone on this forum as a Socialist. I was defending the idea that he wasn't a Socialist. I'm all for giving to the poor. I wish every so called "Christian" did. I just don't want the government telling me where and when and how much I have to.

[jericho]

Then by extension neither is the right to life! Since a lack of healthcare usually results in death...

Abortion party at my place! :dance:

You can't be serious? Using that logic, every technological advance is an Unalienable Right. Every person should have a right to an Iphone because it can provide security to our lives.

Unalienable Rights are not given by the government. Giving congress the power to create and define inalienable rights is a completely overreaching power trip. Government was created to protect our Unalienable Rights.

[Shina]

Well Jesus said we have to give everything we have, to everyone in need, all the time.

Somehow I doubt the government wants that much from you (even in evil socialist land).

BTW, the "you" of my previous statement was meant in a general sense, directed towards Christians as a group. Upon rereading, I realize it comes across as if I'm calling jericho names, which wasn't my intention. I apologize.

[Boogalou]

I just want to apologize to everyone that I will no longer be posting on FJ. You see, I don't have an iPhone so I am going to die soon. Buh bye.*

*This is a joke. iPhone =/= chemotherapy. I know that that is a wildly difficult concept, but please try to understand.

[jericho]

I just want to apologize to everyone that I will no longer be posting on FJ. You see, I don't have an iPhone so I am going to die soon. Buh bye.*

*This is a joke. iPhone =/= chemotherapy. I know that that is a wildly difficult concept, but please try to understand.

There are more Unalienable Rights than life.

[Boogalou]

There are more Unalienable Rights than life.

And which one does an iPhone fall under? I'm not American so the only ones I am aware of are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I don't see iPhones being included in any one of those. You also put the iPhone comment right under this:

Then by extension neither is the right to life! Since a lack of healthcare usually results in death...

Abortion party at my place!

so please forgive me that my mind went there.

[0KidsAndHappy]

There are more Unalienable Rights than life.

So my health is an Unalienable Right then?

[jericho]

Let me make a better comparison. Heath care is to life as I-phone is to the pursuit of happiness. Heath care can save my life and and Iphone can bring me happiness, but neither is actually an Unalienable Right. Heck, if something didn't even exist when the Declaration of Independence was written, how can it be an Unalienable Right?

[jericho]

FYI, I'm gonna have to leave for a while. Be back later.

[Visionoyahweh]

You can't be serious? Using that logic, every technological advance is an Unalienable Right. Every person should have a right to an Iphone because it can provide security to our lives.

So, if I'm dying from an infection, and antibiotics would save me, doesn't my INALIENABLE right to life trump your right to property? don't recall God every saying you have a right to property or money. Shouldn't the government be able to force you to redistribute a small part of your wealth so that I would live?

Oh and everybody has something that provides security - the police and military. Which were paid for by your stolen, redistributed wealth,

I would like to see every schoolchild given an iPad, for free. Preferably one that's made by workers who are treated quite well.

ETA:

Heck, if something didn't even exist when the Declaration of Independence was written, how can it be an Unalienable Right?

Medicine existed in the 18th century.

Go ask Dougie what to post about next and get back to us.

[Boogalou]

Let me make a better comparison. Heath care is to life as I-phone is to the pursuit of happiness. Heath care can save my life and and Iphone can bring me happiness, but neither is actually an Unalienable Right. Heck, if something didn't even exist when the Declaration of Independence was written, how can it be an Unalienable Right?

Again, you will have to forgive my rather weak knowledge of American law. But the right to life and the pursuit of happiness don't seem like the same thing to me. You have a right to pursue happiness (and an iPhone) but you don't actually have a right to happiness. On the other hand it is not just the right to pursue life, but the right to life itself. I just don`t read that the same way.

[SpeakNow]

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

I get so flipping annoyed when people blame Obama for our economy being down. Do these people not remember all the stupid shit Bush did that brought our economy down? We were overseas for so many years, for what again? The economy isn't going to bounce back with a drop of a hat.

Besides, compared to the other nut jobs who are running for presidency, Obama has better views than Santorum/Romney/Santorum combined.

Thank you!!!! I love that website. Also--

[Visionoyahweh]

Again, you will have to forgive my rather weak knowledge of American law. But the right to life and the pursuit of happiness don't seem like the same thing to me.

I will point out life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence. The declaration has NO bearing on US law, the Constitution is the law of the land and the only thing that matters.

[emmiedahl]

(I don't blame Bush entirely for the economic disaster, although I think he could have made more of an effort to stop it rather than succombing to the worst case of senioritis I have ever seen. Neither here nor there.)

At some point this crash was going to happen. When it happened, Bush was all, "Wow, too bad about that guys! Good luck, I'm outie!" Obama took action to mitigate it. I don't approve of *all* of his actions, but I think he was the new guy and no one was willing to play nicely. Everyone was throwing stupid shit into the Economic Recovery Act, on both sides, and signing off on it was the only way Obama could do something, anything, to stop the bleeding economy.

I blame Obama for allowing conservatives to remove a badly needed public option from the health care bill. Again, freshman mistake. I don't approve of certain overseas actions. I dislike that we are not taxing the ultra-wealthy at a rate that will give the government the funds it needs to survive. In short, I don't think Obama is quite liberal enough. So *why* oh why would I vote for someone more conservative who wants to turn our country into Christian Saudi Arabia?

I refuse to entertain the thought of voting for someone who looks at this giant mess of a country and still thinks that private matters like who someone marries or what a woman does with the contents of her organs is any kind of issue.

[debrand]

Jesus would never be for forcing you to do anything.

Really? Have you not read the gospels

Mathew 25

:“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.â€

Not feeding the poor or clothing the hungry earns you a trip to eternal torture.

[Boogalou]

I will point out life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence. The declaration has NO bearing on US law, the Constitution is the law of the land and the only thing that matters.

Oh, really? I didn't know that. I guess that means people have a right to healthcare because they have a right to life has no legal standing then? Then the whole iPhone thing is a moot point. Thanks for explaining that. My knowledge of the Declaration of Independence comes mainly from National Treasure, so there you go.

[Visionoyahweh]

Oh, really? I didn't know that. I guess that means people have a right to healthcare because they have a right to life has no legal standing then? Then the whole iPhone thing is a moot point. Thanks for explaining that. My knowledge of the Declaration of Independence comes mainly from National Treasure, so there you go.

Yup. People act like the declaration is the law of the land when it isn't. It's an inspirational document to be sure, but it isn't US law. Don't even get me started on 'a more perfect union'. Most Americans have no idea that the Articles of Confederation even existed.

[breaker]

You missed my point. IF you follow Jesus you are commanded to give. IF. Not a mandate, you have a choice. Obama doesn't want to give us a choice, he wants wealth distribution to be law of the land. As you said, you can give to the poor and not be a follower of Christ, but that is why Christianity is based on grace, not works.

Hang on. If the choice is between following Jesus or going to hell... don't you also have the choice to pay your taxes or go to jail? Either way there's a choice to be made, even if you personally dislike both options. One might think going to hell was a more severe punishment than jail, actually.

[Visionoyahweh]

Hang on. If the choice is between following Jesus or going to hell... don't you also have the choice to pay your taxes or go to jail? Either way there's a choice to be made, even if you personally dislike both options. One might think going to hell was a more severe punishment than jail, actually.

I was using a false dichotomy there, but so do followers of Jesus, so I thought it was ok. :|

[emmiedahl]

So you think that explicit Biblical laws are optional, and that extra-Biblical interpretations like abortion bans are mandatory?

eta: aimed at jericho, of course.