Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:18 PM EDT

- slomag
- Posts: 3605
- First: 8/31/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
BS.
The big compromise is Catholic hospital employees are provided free contraception from their insurers and who pays for it?
It's against the tenets of the church.
Well, if they're endorsing candidates, the law says they're not really churches at all.
Go to hell you pagan.
And take your baby killer cult leader with you.
Yikes! I don't get the reference - is that Obama? I knew he was a secret Muslim and an Arab, but a baby killer cult leader?
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:30 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
BS.
The big compromise is Catholic hospital employees are provided free contraception from their insurers and who pays for it?
It's against the tenets of the church.
Well, if they're endorsing candidates, the law says they're not really churches at all.
Go to hell you pagan.
And take your baby killer cult leader with you.
Yikes! I don't get the reference - is that Obama? I knew he was a secret Muslim and an Arab, but a baby killer cult leader?
Anyone who subscribes to killing a baby that survives an abortion is despicable.
Think about it.
The baby has been born is out of the womb alive and breathing.
Your President is one of the very few politicians I know of who supports killing the baby.
There must be a couple somewhere who would adopt a healthy newborn don't you think?
Has the press ever asked him why he took this stand? No.
My brother and sister in law flew to Russia and then took a 12 hour train ride to an orphanage in Murmank where they found and adopted my nephew 20 years ago.
This is murder.
Obama In '03: Voted No On Banning Late Term Abortions ... www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obama_in_03_voted_no_on_banning_l... Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo Aug 22, 2012 â State Sen. Barack Obama tells Illinois Channel that he voted no on banning late term abortions (November 6, 2003).
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:31 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 9:15 AM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 9:22 AM EDT

- newman09
- Posts: 1100
- First: 2/14/2009
- Last: 4/22/2013
Not enough economists in the country to help him this time around.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 11:35 AM EDT
In response to MattyScornD's comment:
What's best for the Brits isn't necessarily best for US; we kind of said that in 1776.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 12:44 PM EDT

- DamainAllen
- Posts: 3163
- First: 1/6/2009
- Last: 5/17/2013
It isn't a question of what is best for the Brits. If the perception of England were so unimportant then Romney would have had no reason to go there earlier this summer and proceed to insult and fumble his way through his visit. But maybe his lack of international tact is a reflection of a belief that our critical and long time allies don't matter.
Its funny because once upon a time, conservatives attacked Obama for giving the queen an ipod. Romney goes into country and insults London's preparation for the Olympics and you guys want to pretend that didn't happen. The Economist, a magazine with no horse in this race endorses Obama and all of a sudden its "so what, who cares what those brits think"
Another day and another instance of intellectual dishonestly on display.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 1:49 PM EDT

- macnh1
- Posts: 4468
- First: 4/15/2005
- Last: 5/17/2013
$16 trillion in debt...projected to be $21 trillion with four more years of Obama.....unconscionable how anyone could support that.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 1:57 PM EDT

- DamainAllen
- Posts: 3163
- First: 1/6/2009
- Last: 5/17/2013
Its a good thing 8 years of GOP leadership left Obama with debt at all and no financial crisis from which to recover. I don't even know HOW HE SPENT TRILLION DOLLARS IN 4 YEARS!
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 2:09 PM EDT
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.
Takes one to know one.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 2:42 PM EDT
In response to MattyScornD's comment:
The Economist knows the economy and Obama is their choice:)..... it's just getting better and better for President Obama.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 4:26 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to Thesemenarecowards's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.
Takes one to know one.
You don't have a problem with her because she's socialist like you.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 4:48 PM EDT
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to Thesemenarecowards's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.
Takes one to know one.
You don't have a problem with her because she's socialist like you.
I don't know who she is but I do know tha right wing nut jobs like you don't know what 'socialist' means.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 5:06 PM EDT

- MattyScornD
- Posts: 8416
- First: 11/29/2010
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
What's best for the Brits isn't necessarily best for US; we kind of said that in 1776.
Which is where your mentality remains, sadly, in the 18th century.
But yeah, the Brits couldn't know a thing or two about economics or finance, could they...??
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 5:06 PM EDT

- GreginMeffa
- Posts: 12707
- First: 10/7/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
'His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler"
------------------------------
Bush did all of that. Thanks
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/2/2012 5:42 PM EDT

- skeeter20
- Posts: 15420
- First: 12/28/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to MattyScornD's comment:
The economist is right of center? Surely you jest. The economist has been supporting the liberal progressive movement for at least thirty years.