[scottwww]

Originally Posted by e90im

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama is viciously pro-abortion. He denies the most basic human right given to us by our creator. In fact, he even goes beyond the pro-abortion position of some fellow Democrats by supporting of the brutal act of partial birth abortion.

What creator?

When did Obama support partial birth abortion?

Facts, please.

These links are from the website linked by clicking on the first abortion illustration.

Obama voted against outlawing Partial Birth Abortion(In 1997, Obama voted “present” an Illinois ban)
Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. (In 2002, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.)
Obama voted in support of homosexual unions. (06/07/2006, Same Sex Marriage Resolution)

[e90im]

I’ve researched it a bit. It seems like “pro-life” agenda trying to get the foot in the door against abortion.

I agree that it is a very controversial issue when it comes to decision making to abort.

It is so controversial that aviation industry had to change maneuver name from “aborted takeoff” to “rejected takeoff” (RTO).

The point is who gets to decide. Parents or Government? Law can only cover handful of scenarios.

I am puzzled by your thinking process. You seem very fact oriented, fact providing debater, except when it comes to religion. The granddaddy of all questions.!!!

How come there is no scrutiny there? What gives?

As far as BHO voting for it, it was a political vote against pro-lifers. That’s all. He is not going to sneak into delivery room and kill your Christian baby...


How come there is no scrutiny there? What gives?

As far as BHO voting for it, it was a political vote against pro-lifers. Thats all. He is not going to sneak into delivery room and kill your Christian baby...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by e90im

As far as BHO voting for it, it was a political vote against pro-lifers. Thats all. He is not going to sneak into delivery room and kill your Christian baby...

You can try to waive it off as just "a political vote" "Thats all."

Votes mean something. Where has Barack H. Obama ever voted against abortion?

[e90im]

Originally Posted by scottwww

You can try to waive it off as just "a political vote" "Thats all."

Votes mean something. Where has Barack H. Obama ever voted against abortion?

He never voted against abortion.

Think of it as a vote for woman's right to decide.

If you are so pro-life, would you mind me asking what's your take on death penalty?

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by e90im

He never voted against abortion.

Think of it as a vote for woman's right to decide.

If you are so pro-life, would you mind me asking what's your take on death penalty?

I would apply the same standard as for abortion:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by e90im

The point is who gets to decide. Parents or Government? Law can only cover handful of scenarios.

Government outlaws all other murder, why not this variety? What really pisses me off is that it's illegal for someone else to kill an unborn fetus but the mother can do what she pleases? WTF?

Originally Posted by e90im

If you are so pro-life, would you mind me asking what's your take on death penalty?

What did the innocent child do to deserve death? Exist? I myself am morally opposed to the death penalty, but I believe it's a necessary evil. There are too many sick bastards out there who don't fear anything but death.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

Government outlaws all other murder, why not this variety? What really pisses me off is that it's illegal for someone else to kill an unborn fetus but the mother can do what she pleases? WTF?

What did the innocent child do to deserve death? Exist? I myself am morally opposed to the death penalty, but I believe it's a necessary evil. There are too many sick bastards out there who don't fear anything but death.

If you look at it that way, then ask your leader why isn't colleteral damage (which also included unborn babies and just born innocent babies) outlawed??? You don't give a shit about that because it is not on your turf...

Anyway, are you also telling us that if a woman was raped she should be forced to carry that baby and get reminded of the event every time she looks at it???

Or a 15-year old that screwed up should be forced to quit her school and carry the baby she cannot take care of...

It should definitely be up to parents and not to this police country...

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by dr325i

If you look at it that way, then ask your leader why isn't colleteral damage (which also included unborn babies and just born innocent babies) outlawed??? You don't give a shit about that because it is not on your turf...

Anyway, are you also telling us that if a woman was raped she should be forced to carry that baby and get reminded of the event every time she looks at it???

Or a 15-year old that screwed up should be forced to quit her school and carry the baby she cannot take care of...

It should definitely be up to parents and not to this police country...

Refer to Article 5 - Amendment. It is only because of your line of thinking that was shared by a few justices in 1973 that we now need an amendment to state essentially the same thing that is in Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by dr325i

If you look at it that way, then ask your leader why isn't colleteral damage (which also included unborn babies and just born innocent babies) outlawed??? You don't give a shit about that because it is not on your turf...

Collateral damage is not comparable to abortion. One is purposeful the other is not.

Originally Posted by dr325i

Anyway, are you also telling us that if a woman was raped she should be forced to carry that baby and get reminded of the event every time she looks at it???

Or a 15-year old that screwed up should be forced to quit her school and carry the baby she cannot take care of...

Exceptions should be made for rape and the health of the mother. The 15 year old should carry to term. You don't get pregnant by accident; if she didn't want a baby she shouldn't have had sex. Simple causality. You don't have to quit school to have a baby, nor does it necessarily ruin the rest of your life.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

Collateral damage is not comparable to abortion. One is purposeful the other is not.

Exceptions should be made for rape and the health of the mother. The 15 year old should carry to term. You don't get pregnant by accident; if she didn't want a baby she shouldn't have had sex. Simple causality. You don't have to quit school to have a baby, nor does it necessarily ruin the rest of your life.

One is purposeful only in your childish, spoiled mind, but not in the minds of those who lost their loved ones... And somehow, it applies only one way... The other way we either call it insurgency or ethnic cleansing...

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by dr325i

One is purposeful only in your childish, spoiled mind, but not in the minds of those who lost their loved ones... And somehow, it applies only one way... The other way we either call it insurgency or ethnic cleansing...

Soldiers intentionally shoot civilians on the street going about their business? Put down the Kool-Aid please. No (very few, same as a murderer domestically) soldiers go out and purposefully kill civilians. The main targets of insurgents/terrorists are civilians and the military when they get the rare chance. They kill innocents on purpose, soldiers do not.

Also, I'm sad to see you've had to resort to personal insults and strayed from facts and logic.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

Soldiers intentionally shoot civilians on the street going about their business? Put down the Kool-Aid please. No (very few, same as a murderer domestically) soldiers go out and purposefully kill civilians. The main targets of insurgents/terrorists are civilians and the military when they get the rare chance. They kill innocents on purpose, soldiers do not.

Also, I'm sad to see you've had to resort to personal insults and strayed from facts and logic.

Again, you're talking shit that makes no sense...
Dropping a bomb on a sovereign country with no UN approval in the middle of the city is equal to a plain murder and the leaders should be prosecuted (I can give you plenty of examples of direct bombs in the city downtowns with no regart to people there).
Yes, those that dropped the bombs or launched tomahawks did that ON PURPOSE...

EDIT: Calling you childish and spoiled is for the reason in my prev post. You do not know what I am talking about since you have not experienced something like that but you, yet, try to argue on that subject...

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Dropping a bomb on a sovereign country with no UN approval in the middle of the city is equal to a plain murder and the leaders should be prosecuted (I can give you plenty of examples of direct bombs in the city downtowns with no regart to people there).

Funny, last time I checked the Iraqi government/military is working hand-in-hand with our forces and they want us to be there. Additionally, UN approval has absolutely nothing to do with it. They aren't a world government and have no authority whatsoever aside from prestige and the authority of the member nations.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

Funny, last time I checked the Iraqi government/military is working hand-in-hand with our forces and they want us to be there. Additionally, UN approval has absolutely nothing to do with it. They aren't a world government and have no authority whatsoever aside from prestige and the authority of the member nations.

Actually, last time I checked -- Iraqi government at the time of attack was not working hand-in-hand with us. Of course, the government we "democratically" installed there will work with us...
Unfortunately, the people of Iraq are not the government...

Also, yes, the UN has EVERYTHING to do with it and you will find that out once the US is not the super power any more...hopefully soon as a major balance is needed....

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Of course, the government we "democratically" installed there will work with us...
Unfortunately, the people of Iraq are not the government...

How much more democratic does it get than a general election? The people elected the government, they have to go with it. Same there as it is here.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

How much more democratic does it get than a general election? The people elected the government, they have to go with it. Same there as it is here.

you're so naive...do you really think if the Gov't out of Saddam's former party and buddies would have been (democratically) elected, the US would allow that... You need some serious growing up to do and some real-life experience with the politics...

Anyway, this is a wrong thread for this topic...

[e90im]

Gooing back to OP...

[e90im]

One more...

[scottwww]

Would Obama run if Hillary were on top?

Obama dismisses joint ticket with Clinton
Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:24pm EDT

Clinton, who would be the first woman U.S. president, has raised the idea of a joint ticket with Obama several times since she saved her campaign with big wins in three of four contests last week, including the states of Ohio and Texas.

Obama took note of Clinton's repeated attacks and said the vice president's primary role would be to take over if the president died or was incapacitated. "If I'm not ready, how is it that you think I would be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?" he asked.

Asked about the contradiction of touting Obama as a vice presidential candidate while condemning his ability to lead, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson implied there was still time for Obama to prove himself before the August Democratic Partyconvention in Denver.

"We do not believe Senator Obama has passed the commander in chief test. But there is a long way to go between now and Denver," Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

[scottwww]

This came from a Clinton Supporter:

Ann B
Member Since: Feb. 1, 2008
Party: Democrat
Last Visited: Mar. 10, 2008 - 10:03 PM EST

#162
Mar. 10, 2008 - 9:43 PM EST
Sen. Obama Offers 5th Explanation of NAFTA-Gate

You are such a passionate advocate for your flawed candidate. Interested....what's the party line on this?
Sen. Obama Offers 5th Explanation of NAFTA-Gate

After days of misleading denials, Sen. Obama has finally acknowledged that a meeting took place between his senior economic advisor and Canadian officials regarding NAFTA. But Sen. Obama now claims that the detailed memo obtained by the AP describing the meeting - and Goolsbee's downplaying of Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric - is inaccurate. This is at least the fifth different explanation offered by Sen. Obama and his campaign.

1. 2/27/08 - 'No conversations have taken place' with the Canadian government on NAFTA. "Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue." [CTV, 2/29/08]

2. 2/27/08 - Obama advisor just said 'hello.' "Goolsbee: Canada's consul general in Chicago contacted him ‘at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner." [ABC, 2/29/08]

3. 2/28/08 - Rice: 'There had been no contact.' "The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word...period." [MSNBC, Susan Rice, 2/28/08]

4. 2/29/08: Sen. Obama: 'It did not happen.' Anchor: "So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion." Sen. Obama: "It did not happen." [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

5. 3/10/08 - Sen. Obama: The meeting did happen, they did discuss NAFTA, but advisor just said Obama wanted to make NAFTA 'stronger for U.S. workers.' "So here’s what happens. You’ve got one of my economic advisors goes and visits a Canadian embassy and they’re asking him questions and he says, 'Well, Senator Obama isn’t planning to repeal NAFTA, but he wants to amend it to make it stronger for U.S. workers.' The Canadian embassy writes it up as, 'Well, maybe Obama is not as tough on NAFTA as you might think.' And the Clintons start waving this and saying, 'See? Actually, he’s the one.'" [Mississippi Rally, 3/10/08]
BO for Hypocrite in Chief

[scottwww]

This comes from another Hillary supporter:

dudeforclinton
Member Since: Feb. 6, 2008
Party: Democrat
Last Visited: Mar. 10, 2008 - 10:18 PM EST

#182 Mar. 10, 2008 - 9:59 PM EST

DES MOINES, Iowa - An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.

Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said in an interview with the Daily Reporter in Spencer.

King said his comments were not meant to demean Obama but to warn how an Obama presidency would look to the world.

"His middle name does matter," King said. "It matters because they read a meaning into that."

The Illinois senator, born in Hawaii to a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan man, is a Christian and has said he has little connection to the Islamic religion, though he acknowledges he spent part of his childhood in largely Muslim Indonesia.

In criticizing King, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "These comments have no place in our politics." He called on John McCain, the apparent Republican nominee, to "repudiate them like he has previous offensive comments from his supporters."

Last month, McCain denounced an introduction from Cincinnati talk-show host Bill Cunningham, who referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama."

[scottwww]

What does BHO intend to do with babies? He needs to speak up before November.

Posted on Thu, Feb. 28, 2008
The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image
By Rick Santorum

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.

One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.

John McCain's campaign and conservative pundits have listed the numerous times in Obama's short Senate career where he sided with the extremes in his party against broadly supported compromises on issues such as immigration, ethics reform, terrorist surveillance and war funding. Fighting on the fringe with a handful of liberals is one thing, but consider his position on an issue that passed both houses of Congress unanimously in 2002.

That bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. During the partial-birth abortion debate, Congress heard testimony about babies that had survived attempted late-term abortions. Nurses testified that these preterm living, breathing babies were being thrown into medical waste bins to die or being "terminated" outside the womb. With the baby now completely separated from the mother, it was impossible to argue that the health or life of the mother was in jeopardy by giving her baby appropriate medical treatment.

The act simply prohibited the killing of a baby born alive. To address the concerns of pro-choice lawmakers, the bill included language that said nothing "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right" of the baby. In other words, the bill wasn't intruding on Roe v. Wade.

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."

How could someone possibly justify such a vote? In March 2001, Obama was the sole speaker in opposition to the bill on the floor of the Illinois Senate. He said: "We're saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month child delivered to term. I mean, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal-protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child." So according to Obama, "they," babies who survive abortions or any other preterm newborns, should be permitted to be killed because giving legal protection to preterm newborns would have the effect of banning all abortions.

Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling, but just as striking is his rigid adherence to doctrinaire liberalism. Apparently, the "audacity of hope" is limited only to those babies born at full term and beyond. Worse, given his support for late-term partial-birth abortions that supporters argued were necessary to end the life of genetically imperfect children, it may be more accurate to say the audacity of hope applies only to those babies born healthy at full term.

Obama's supporters say his rhetoric makes them believe again.

Is this the kind of change and leader you believe in?