Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mannahnin wrote:
After that gak you spewed in the thread from your brother, why do you expect people to engage you in polite discussion right now?

I thought it was funny... ya know, levity?

It's too serious here sometimes.

Shoot... when the Eastwooding was all the rage, OBAMA tweeted his chair at the WH saying "this seat is taken". That. Was. Awesome! Show Obama has a good sense of humor .

Let's not lose our sense of humor folks.

 whembly wrote:
No seb, you're wrong. I personally know that these catholic instituions do NOT cover them.

Usually, my ex would say she works for the Diocese and her OB doc would just hand her crap ton of samples.

No, I am not wrong. Read what I am saying.

There was a general exemption applied for for all Catholic owned organisations. This was denied, because it was felt that while schools and hospitals might be owned by the Catholic Church, they are not actually religious operations, in that their members are not required to be of that faith, nor are they specifically carrying out religious activity.

In addition to that, even those organisations, while required to provide contraceptive healthcare, are not actually required to pay for it. The insurance companies are required to cover that, but not pass that cost onto the churches.

What I have written above is not an opinion. It is a matter of policy.

No one's going to attack him for being a Mormon. They're just going to hope that Evangelicals are less enthused by him and come out in lower numbers than they would for one of their own.

 Jihadin wrote:
Think that be a major mistake if the attacks ads start hammering Romney about being a Mormon.

I don't think they will...

I don't think I've ever seen an attack ad on the candidate's religion.

Did it happen with Kennedy? I vaguely remember that it happened and the backlash was immense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No seb, you're wrong. I personally know that these catholic instituions do NOT cover them.

Usually, my ex would say she works for the Diocese and her OB doc would just hand her crap ton of samples.

No, I am not wrong. Read what I am saying.

Okay... reading...

There was a general exemption applied for for all Catholic owned organisations. This was denied, because it was felt that while schools and hospitals might be owned by the Catholic Church, they are not actually religious operations, in that their members are not required to be of that faith, nor are they specifically carrying out religious activity.

They're still religious organizations Seb... otherwise, why the tax exemption? (different issue, I know, but point stands)

In addition to that, even those organisations, while required to provide contraceptive healthcare, are not actually required to pay for it. The insurance companies are required to cover that, but not pass that cost onto the churches.

Not sure I follow? Are the plans themselve suppose to say "yeah, we cover 'em", but they won't pay for it? How does that work? Not being snarky here, just trying to get this thru my cave-man skull.

When there are so many other things to dislike about Romney, why even touch his religion?

"I heard, or from the excerpts that are put out, I hear that the president is going to report on the promises he made and how he has performed in those promises; I'd love to watch it. But if it's another series of new promises that he's not going to keep, I have no interest in seeing him because I saw the promises last time. Those are promises he did not keep, and the American people deserve to know why he did not keep his promises."

PWOMISES GUIZ

 whembly wrote:
I’m sitting here listening to Biden: “One thing I knew of Barack is the enormity of his heart”.

Did I hear that right?

From Webster: “Definition of ENORMITY. 1. : an outrageous, improper, vicious, or immoral act “

??

Also, my brother sent me this... this is one of the possible swags you can get at the DNC:

Do they not care?

It is a photoshop from a conservative satire blog. Pro-tip: The Onion also is not a real newspaper.

Right... I knew that...

Should've used "sarcasm" tag or something... sorry.

Calling Sandra Fluke a whore is only funny to sexist donkey-caves. Seriously. Women's healthcare and reproductive rights are worth standing up for. Guys trying to bully them into silence by dismissing them as sluts or whores are cowardly pieces of gak. A good litmus test for whether your standard of discourse is worthy of respect and doesn't make you look like a waste of skin in a world of burn victims, is to not follow Rush Limbaugh's lead on this crap.

FWIW Fluke's main issue is domestic violence. This is kind of a sideline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, how did folks feel about the speeches tonight? I heard Kerry was good, but I missed him.

I liked Biden. He's got a real warmth and folksiness and sincerity to him.

Obama was darn good, but not quite as compelling as Clinton. Of course Clinton had free reign, and Obama was deliberately keeping his tone more moderate, and talking more about compromise and respect across the aisle. Cooler disposition, a little less exciting to watch. Still a damn fine speaker though. Blew Romney's doors off.

Replaced my 2008 sticker today, with an updated Obama/Biden, and an I <3 Obamacare. Hoping in this partisan environment that my car doesn't get keyed.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Calling Sandra Fluke a whore is only funny to sexist donkey-caves. Seriously. Women's healthcare and reproductive rights are worth standing up for. Guys trying to bully them into silence by dismissing them as sluts or whores are cowardly pieces of gak. A good litmus test for whether your standard of discourse is worthy of respect and doesn't make you look like a waste of skin in a world of burn victims, is to not follow Rush Limbaugh's lead on this crap.

FWIW Fluke's main issue is domestic violence. This is kind of a sideline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, how did folks feel about the speeches tonight? I heard Kerry was good, but I missed him.

I liked Biden. He's got a real warmth and folksiness and sincerity to him.

Obama was darn good, but not quite as compelling as Clinton. Of course Clinton had free reign, and Obama was deliberately keeping his tone more moderate, and talking more about compromise and respect across the aisle. Cooler disposition, a little less exciting to watch. Still a damn fine speaker though. Blew Romney's doors off.

Replaced my 2008 sticker today, with an updated Obama/Biden, and an I <3 Obamacare. Hoping in this partisan environment that my car doesn't get keyed.

I thought Kerry was "okay".

Biden was fun...

Clinton rocked the house...

I was kinda meh on Obama's speech... seems like it the same speech at his SOTU address. Spice it up bro!

And keying a car 'cuz a bumper sticker is lame... hope no one does that.

I am very vocal about politics, but other than my Pirate Party sticker I don't put any campaign stickers on my car and no campaign signs in my yard.

And the main reason I even fly my Pirate Party flag is to remind people that they cannot vote for any third party in Oklahoma.

You can't?

No Green Party? Libetarians? US Communist?

Didn't know that....

Is that the state with "None of the Above" voting option...or was D-USA?

 whembly wrote:
You can't?

No Green Party? Libetarians? US Communist?

Didn't know that....

Republicans or Democrats are the only two political parties recognized in Oklahoma that never have to petition for ballot access. You can run as "indepentend" on the ballot which basically groups all us third party members into the "other" category. I don't think that independents can run for Governor or President though, although don't quote me on that.

No write-in votes allowed. Any ballots with writing are declared invalid.

To qualify as a political party (other than D or R which are automatic) a party has to collect signatures that equal 5% of the votes cast in the last general election. This year that means around 52,000 signatures but to survive the challenges to indivual signatures you have to collect closer to 65,000. The number will go back up to 80,000 after the presidential election. The only party in the last 12 years that has accomplished that has been the American Elect Party.

If you do make it on the ballot then you have to get 10% of the vote for Governor of President or you loose your official status and have to start from scratch.

It used to take 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Then in the 1970's a third party got 20% of the vote in the state so the big two freaked out and changed it to this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Is that the state with "None of the Above" voting option...or was D-USA?

Nope, just R or D. Americans Elect didn't nominate a president at their national convention, so the actual Oklahoma State Americans Elect Party submitted their own name which was rejected by the state because "national didn't select anybody" even though there is no such thing as a national political party in Oklahoma. Still hoping the lawsuit goes through and puts a third option on the ballot though.

Now a democrat delegate is under investigation by the Secret Service for saying she would like to kill Romney if she ever met him. Whew there's some hate going on here lol

 whembly wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen an attack ad on the candidate's religion.

It tends to be more subtle than that. People questioning Obama's place of birth wasn't an outright attack on the colour of his skin, but it's hard to see how anyone could have taken it seriously if he'd been white.

Did it happen with Kennedy? I vaguely remember that it happened and the backlash was immense.

I have no idea how much stuff the other campaign ran with, but it was an issue.

When Kerry ran people commented how good it was that his Catholicism was now a dead issue. Maybe now with Romney running we're at a point where most people don't even think to notice that it's a dead issue?

They're still religious organizations Seb... otherwise, why the tax exemption? (different issue, I know, but point stands)

Actually hospitals don't receive a tax exemption just for being owned by a church. Generally they don't pay tax anyway because they're not for profit (and so there's no profit to tax), but to get the exemption for being a religious organisation you actually have to be dedicated entirely to worship and charity, not merely owned by such an organisation.

Not sure I follow? Are the plans themselve suppose to say "yeah, we cover 'em", but they won't pay for it? How does that work? Not being snarky here, just trying to get this thru my cave-man skull.

Fair enough, it's a pretty weird set up. But basically the insurance provider is required to provide contraception as part of their healthcare coverage for all employees, but cannot pass this on to the hospital/school. Instead it comes out of the profit the insurer would make out of the deal, and the religious organisation doesn't have to pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No one's going to attack him for being a Mormon. They're just going to hope that Evangelicals are less enthused by him and come out in lower numbers than they would for one of their own.

There wouldn't ever be an open attack, more a chance that they'd run with certain lines of attack that hint at it. Like Romney saying 'they never ask for my birth certificate'.

I haven't seen anything to date, which has been excellent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Republicans or Democrats are the only two political parties recognized in Oklahoma that never have to petition for ballot access. You can run as "indepentend" on the ballot which basically groups all us third party members into the "other" category. I don't think that independents can run for Governor or President though, although don't quote me on that.

Wow. That's terrible.

 Jihadin wrote:
Now a democrat delegate is under investigation by the Secret Service for saying she would like to kill Romney if she ever met him. Whew there's some hate going on here lol

Dumb. Everything like this, no matter where it comes from, is dumb.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
Dumb. Everything like this, no matter where it comes from, is dumb.

I read a piece recently that explained one thing never mentioned in coverage of both conventions is that a really large portion of the attendees are really drunk. This is there big get together piss up before the serious work of campaigning starts.

Suddenly all those odd people standing red faced in the background of interviews made sense, as did all the offensive stuff called out during speaches.

That doesn't excuse what the idiot Democratic attendee did, but maybe it explains it.

Alcohol has a long and proud tradition in politics, ours included.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No conservative I know cares.

Odds are you don't know the right conservatives. I hope his Mormonism much of an issue, and I really hope the Democrats don't play on the issue, but I'd be a fool to pretend that evangelical voters see Romney in the same they'd see one of their own.

I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life.
I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.

Man, must be how these Muslims feel when they read the comment sections on news sites...

Relapse wrote:
I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life. I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.

You didn't get any of that Big Love money? All anyone needs to know about LDS they can learn from HBO.

 Jihadin wrote:
Think that be a major mistake if the attacks ads start hammering Romney about being a Mormon.

No the MsM just does what its doing now- "informative" stories on Mormonism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No conservative I know cares.

Odds are you don't know the right conservatives. I hope his Mormonism much of an issue, and I really hope the Democrats don't play on the issue, but I'd be a fool to pretend that evangelical voters see Romney in the same they'd see one of their own.

I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life.
I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.

Yes, exactly.

It's almost like American politics is a bloodsport where nothing's sacred.

 Mannahnin wrote:
But that Jerusalem thing is some serious bs.

Indeed it is, and nothing more than that.

Apropo of all this Oklahoma talk. 538 has Oklahoma as 100% for Romney. Most other red states in the South are like 96.5% or 99.5%, but not Oklahoma. 100% sure it is a Romeny state.

For some reason, I found that humorous.

 Melissia wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
But that Jerusalem thing is some serious bs.

Indeed it is, and nothing more than that.

Kal Penn talks about the Republican's invisible man in a chair, but the Democrats, not to be outdone, produce several hundred apparently invisible and silent delegates or some seriously deaf and blind people up on the stand counting votes on that issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I've seen more and more stuff coming out on MSNBC that really puts Mormons in the spotlight, usually unfavorably in a passive agressive way. A quick stroll through the comments section of news articles about Mormons shows how ignorant a lot of people are about the LDS religion. For example, I never knew I practiced shunning or had three other wives and sixteen children that work day and night to keep me in my exalted station in life. I found out from these articles that Mormon men are the richest in the country, making me wish I caught the memo when the cash was being handed out.

You didn't get any of that Big Love money? All anyone needs to know about LDS they can learn from HBO.

Yeah, it would have been nice to have another few million to keep all those other millions I have stashed in a vault company while I laugh at the starving children in the street!

In a vault company overseas right?

There just happens to be an island all us rich Mormons know about...

Hey....off my island. I let you all bank here but not visit here. Its....My....Island.

We have reserves...Federal reserves.