ever see a debate between a religious zealot and someone like Hitchens or Dawkins? you know in advance who's going to win. just like you can personally have full confidence that you are in the right when debating a true believer. assuming you are well informed, it's a forgone conclusion that you will destroy any argument that your religious opponent can offer, because it's all hogwash, right?
i see the same parallel between President Obama and Mitt Romney. i have yet to hear a strong, cogent argument for why Romney should be elected. i hear about the dour state of the economy, but any reasonable person knows that it was an inherited calamity. any reasonable person can see that we're slowly working out of it. furthermore, any reasonable person would know that raising revenues is paramount to helping get out of this mess. so positions that Romney hold, such as cutting taxes further do not hold up to scrutiny.
just like religion, the ideas of Romney and his party are built on a false premise. they share an orthodoxy against raising taxes, they promote individual liberty while trying to eliminate it for women and homosexuals, they espouse bootsrtrapping individual responsibility while ignoring that far too many Americans don't even own boots. what's worse, they talk about new wars like Democrats talk about rights. yet their parties Presidential ticket has no foreign policy experience, so they turn to the same neo-cons who got us into 2 long wars, one of which we are still mired in.
all of this makes me confident heading into the debates. first off, debates are often won on personality and there it's a no contest. Obama is undisputably likeable, whereas Romney is not. second, just like an Atheist vs. a Believer, all the best arguments are on Obama's side. it's easy to lose a debate when you're arguing an unwinnable case, but when the best speaker with the best ideas goes up against a poor speaker with a losing hand, it's a slam dunk as to who will emerge the victor.
i now that Politics and Atheism do not go hand in hand, but since the GOP has become the Grand Theocratic Party, a defacto Faith Based organization (as Howard Fineman put it) it should concern all Atheists that are opposed to a Theocracy. for that reason alone i will proudly scream OBAMA/BIDEN 2012! i can't wait for the debates!!
For that reason I scream TJ O'Hara of the Modern Whig Party. There are more choices than the Republicrats, though they would have you believe otherwise.
A coalition is indeed calling for more candidates to be represented in the presidential debates.
nationalized healthcare plan
What is nationiized about it?
the free pills, doctor's visits,and operations
Where are you getting this?
And socialists want Utopia here on Earth.
And you have no idea what socialism is if you think Obama is one.
if Obama is a socialist, he's doing it wrong. businesses are thriving, the stock market has nearly doubled, and wages are at historic lows.
as for healthcare reform, it is less socialized than Medicare and Medicaid. and even if it wasn't, that would put us on par with socialist countries such as Canada, Great Britain, Spain, France, Israel, etc.
i fail to see even one area where Romney is superior to Obama. and the polls reflect that. when asked 17 different areas of "who would do better on ______?", Obama leads in all but one, which is reducing the debt, and he's down by only one point there. seems the American people are waking up, even if it's just about half of us.
Socialised medical care does not include "insurance," whether mandated or not.
Socialised medical care is the model of the UK's NHS, or Canada's provincial system, or the Veterans Administration in the USA (for veterans, anyway). Of note, though in the past the VA was called "a vet's second chance to give his life for his country," that is no more. Business Week even consistently lists the VA as the best hospital care system in the USA, and Business Week is hardly "socialist."
As for the Affordable Care Act, if I were not a disabled veteran, neither my wife nor I could get private insurance at any price (me for epilepsy, her for an automobile accident that left her in a long coma some years ago). We can't get life insurance either. Without CHAMPUS (the military's health insurance from the Department of Defense, a benefit for my dependents), my wife would be "uninsurable," without the VA, I would be too.
If Obama is a socialist, I am a vulture capitalist like Romney. (Except I have no capital.)
Warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq (we are not at war in Iraq any more, and as I recall, those wars started under the Bush watch), the Medicare prescription drug plan was also started under the Bush watch, the sub-prime mortgage crisis started under the Bush watch, and if each of the plans advanced under the Obama Administration (bailing out GM, salvaging the financial industry, &c) had been advanced by a Republican they would be cheering just as loudly as they obstruct everything in Congress now (that is even their stated goal).
One more thing: were Romney to be elected in November, that would place the Dominionist Paul Ryan only one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Would the Dominionists kill to gain it? They already believe God's Law trumps man's laws (presumably therefore that would include assassination).
Whilst I am not advancing the idea that Rep. Ryan actually has that in his plans, it sure would be convenient for the Dominionists.
I haven't seen any claims Ryan is a Dominionist. Could you provide some links for that, please.
Well, of course Dominionists do not say they are, as they generally consider the word a slur. However:
Paul Ryan's stance on God from ABC:
ADEL, Iowa–Paul Ryan weighed in Wednesday on the Democrats’ 2012 platform, which makes no reference to “God,” calling the omission “rather peculiar.”
“It’s not in keeping with our founding documents, our founding vision, but I guess you would have to ask the Obama administration why they purged all this language from their platform,” Ryan said on Fox News.
The word God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The word “Nature’s God” appears once in the Declaration of Independence, alongside mention of the word “Creator.” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/paul-ryan-says-god-omi...
A legal opinion on Engle v. Vitale (Supreme Court ruling on school prayer, 1962 - 50 years ago) with at which Ryan is at odds - http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/prayer-puzzlement-after-...
Ryan attended the "Voters' Values Summit" a veritable who's who of Dominionists. From Rachal Maddow:
Rachel Maddow let Mitt Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan have it for showing up in the middle of all of the turmoil going on right now in the Middle East and Africa and just after the death of our ambassador in Libya, at the Values Voter Summit 2012. As she noted, if anyone wanted to know why Hillary Clinton was being attacked along with her aid Huma Abedin, look no further than the wingnuts appearing at this event.
Here's more with a rundown of that from Right Wing Watch: Who's Who at the Values Voter Summit 2012:
This weekend Republican and conservative leaders, including GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, are set to address the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. Last year, nearly every single Republican candidate for President addressed the conference, where speakers denounced gay rights, secular government, legal abortion and the Mormon faith.
This year, Ryan will be speaking at a conference that is playing host to some of the most extreme activists in the Religious Right who have made careers demonizing gays and lesbians, attacking the freedoms of Muslim-Americans and promoting wild conspiracies about President Obama. [...]
A Dominionist (such as Bachmann and Ryan) is not that they claim to be them (as none do claim that), it is the values they hold (God's laws trump man's laws, &c) that make them so.