"As to the question when human life begins, the answer to which is above Mr. Obama's pay grade, oh, let's go on a little tear. You know why they call it birth control? Because it's meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins." Declarations - WSJ.com
Bwa ha ha

George, so full of hatred.

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/prope...1080526_lr.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/...49ce775c_o.jpg

George, it began with the twinkle in your mother's eye. Rick Warren, a preacher, asked a metaphysical question in effect about the abortion issue. How smart is Obama? Obama's smart enough, or at least campaign savvy enough, to not lose the pro-choice base. Personally I'm pro-life with the exception being if a women is raped, or if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy.

The question was not when life begins Warren asked when a child should have its God given rights protected, This was not some metaphsical question but a legal one ;one that a so called legal expert... editor of the Harvard Law Review (unpublished as far as I can determine),and "law professor "should have no probllem answering .

Whose pay grade is above the President of the United States anyway ? I can understand perhaps a difference over when life begins even on theological or "metaphysical" grounds .But there should be no debate that a baby outside the womb should have full constitutional protection.Once a baby is born, even prematurely, even if an abortion was attempted and botched ,there is an almost universal agreement that a new human life exists. There is no longer any threat to the health of the mother. Abortion is no longer an option, as there is no longer a pregnancy to terminate. It is so universally accepted that even the most radical members of the United States Congress voted to protect those babies.The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed unanimously by both the House and Senate in 2002 BAIPA contained explicit language that it would not infringe on any abortion right.

Obama by his past legislative action disagrees. In March of 2001, Obama's Illinois Judiciary Committee considered a law identical to the BAIPA. It passed the Committee, with Obama voting against. Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any preterm babies could jeopardize abortion rights. He voted "present," essentially a "no" vote. In March of 2002, Obama's Committee passed the Induced Birth Liability Act, requiring medical care for babies who survive induced labor abortions .Obama voted "present,"(no) arguing that the Act would "create one more burden on women, and I can't support that."
In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee . A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the same language in Illinois's proposed BAIPA that was in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill in Committee.

So a truthful answer to Warren would've been that he does not think a baby has the legal God Given right to life unless the mother approves .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

George, so full of hatred.

---

Seems you are correct on that...
Nice graphics !

:)

Why is it that anyone who opposes "liberalism" is portrayed as an ignoramus? Of course, all of those who vote for the party that PROMISES the most freebies then must be highly intellectual! Do you expect New Orleans to go for Obama in a big way? What kind of nuts are you, anyway?

By the way, NK, your post speaks volumes about those who hate GWB doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Why is it that anyone who opposes "liberalism" is portrayed as an ignoramus?

---

Hello Gal:

I don't know. Why is it that anybody who opposes conservatism is portrayed as a communist, marxist, fascist (see George's avatar)?

I DO think you point out the divide, though. It's bigger than ever.

excon

No! You whiffed, Tom. Preacher "Warren" made it a metaphysical question when he prefaced it using abortion. He even say's so. Here's the exact transcript...

Warren: Let's deal with abortion. Forty million abortions since Roe v. Wade. You know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

This is a cute one...

Bobby ;even the most radical "pro-choice" advocate draws a line when a baby is outside the womb. His answer was a dodge and you know it . He dodged it because it is one of the few issues he has a record on ;and that record is brutally wrong. He tried to nuance and walk a thin middle ground in his response but his record says a different story.

The late great Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan called partial birth abortion infanticide . Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial birth ban. Barbara Boxer had been the most extreme pro-abortionist in the Senate until Obama. She shares his view that a post birth baby does not enjoy the right to live. She actually said that a baby deserve legal protection only "when you bring your baby home." But even she voted for BAIPA .

Obama has a record of ACTIVELY opposing any effort to make it law when he was a State Senator. He even went so far as to say he did not want his daughter "punished" by having a baby.

On the campaign trail he has continued to spout his radical view.He said that the 1st thing he'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.FOCA is legislation Obama has co-sponsored that would reverse every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion. FOCA would nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods,even health safety regulations for abortion clinics.Imagine that ! The biggest argument for abortion was that the alternative was unregulated abortions in an unheathy environment ;yet he would reverse legislation that would force abortion clinics to have a minimum standard of safety .Under his law ,doctors who refused to conduct abortions would not have legal protection.
His opinion on this issue is unconscionable .Even if I supported him on everything else I could not support him because of his radical infantacide views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Why is it that anybody who opposes conservatism is portrayed as a communist, marxist, fascist (see George's avatar)?

---

:D :D :D :D :D

Apparently Tom, you prefer now that the moderator's question to read "outside the womb." Well guess what? It doesn't. That's why I posted the transcript. It remains a metaphysical, open ended question.

Sorry Bobby . The question was clearly a legal one.

The problem was that he heard the word "abortion" and quickly ,without listening to the rest of the question ,scanned the rollodex in his mind for the appropriate talking point .

That's why I posted the transcript. It doesn't lie. Your futile argument is as much with Pastor Rick Warren, as it is Barack Obama. You whiffed, "Tom."

Whoops! "The Obama campaign knows it is in trouble in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Public opinion polls show that many practicing Catholics who voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries as the lesser of two evils are now leaning toward the pro-life, pro-gun John McCain." Newsmax.com – Biden Pro-abortion Stance Will Cost Obama Election

I'll counter your Newsmax story with this: Daily Kos: Here's the story that wins Obama Ohio and the election [Digg Update # 2]

"Every last voter in Ohio should hear over and over and over, day after day after day, that a vote for McSame is a vote for Murder By Spreadsheet. It is a vote to condemn yourself and your loved ones to death by insurance."


I guess I might be pretty new to politics, but I do not see why seniors vote republican... It seems to me that privatizing social security, scaling down medicare, taxing seniors income, lack of accountability in the medical insurance industry, and many many other issues key to seniors are anti seniors and the GOP should be feeling that.

Instead it seems the seniors don't vote their issues, rather they vote for the old tired politics of the GOP. I just don't get it. Please someone fill me in on why the GOP has the 65 + voting block.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I'll counter your Newsmax story with this: Daily Kos: Here's the story that wins Obama Ohio and the election [Digg Update # 2]

"Every last voter in Ohio should hear over and over and over, day after day after day, that a vote for McSame is a vote for Murder By Spreadsheet. It is a vote to condemn yourself and your loved ones to death by insurance."


I guess I might be pretty new to politics, but I do not see why seniors vote republican...It seems to me that privatizing social security, scaling down medicare, taxing seniors income, lack of accountability in the medical insurance industry, and many many other issues key to seniors are anti seniors and the GOP should be feeling that.

Instead it seems the seniors don't vote their issues, rather they vote for the old tired politics of the GOP. I just don't get it. Please someone fill me in on why the GOP has the 65 + voting block.

---

I'll tell you why, at least from my standpoint. Most of us seniors were raised in a time when we considered it shameful to have to accept help, and only did so as a last resort. We hold to the work ethic that we learned at school and at CHURCH. We don't think it is fair to lay heavy taxes on our children and grandchildren to support us, and we are smart enough to realize that this policy HAS to stop, the sooner the better. We do realize that you just can't drop us cold, but if the govt. had placed some plan in place whereby we could have had more input into our own retirements, we would now be moving in the right direction. Instead, we had to pay 14% of our earnings into SS, which for many wage earners, meant there was nothing else to set aside after meeting living expenses. Later, some retirement programs have been set up, and that is a step in the righ direction, but needs to go further. In summation, we don't believe that socialism is a good policy, and we see the Democrat party as thouroughtly socialistic. Does this answer your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

I'll tell you why, at least from my standpoint. Most of us seniors were raised in a time when we considered it shameful to have to accept help, and only did so as a last resort. We hold to the work ethic that we learned at school and at CHURCH. We don't think it is fair to lay heavy taxes on our children and grandchildren to support us, and we are smart enough to realize that this policy HAS to stop, the sooner the better. We do realize that you just can't drop us cold, but if the govt. had placed some plan in place whereby we could have had more input into our own retirements, we would now be moving in the right direction. Instead, we had to pay 14% of our earnings into SS, which for many wage earners, meant there was nothing else to set aside after meeting living expenses. Later, some retirement programs have been set up, and that is a step in the righ direction, but needs to go further. In summation, we don't believe that socialism is a good policy, and we see the Democrat party as thouroughtly socialistic. Does this answer your question?

---

I agree with much of this answer, with some things to add as well.

When "most" seniors were kids, there was no welfare, no food stamps, and no wic programs. People went out of their way to avoid unplanned pregnancy because they knew that THEY would have to provide for the child. There was no "nanny" government then.

There were just as many poor people then, and just as many needed help. The difference in then and now is that the community, the churches, the neighbors all pitched in to help those that needed it, often without ever being asked to help.

Since the "nanny" socialist government became so prevalent, the helping hand that used to be there, has been replaced by huge taxes on the workers, to give to the people who won't work.

To "ask" or "expect" someone else to help with food or money would have been seen as an insult. Most of us have conservative values. We believe that an individual should work for what they want, not that the government should exist to take care of us. We have more pride than that, and we believe in the government getting out of our way so we can take care of ourselves and our loved ones.

The socialistic policies over the past 40 years have done little to help the average American, in fact, they have done just the opposite in the creation of a huge block of society who believes the government exists only to give them what they want or need.
These policies have removed the pride that comes with personal achievement and success. No wonder folks on the left are so bitter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

These policies have removed the pride that comes with personal achievement and success. No wonder folks on the left are so bitter.

---

You couldn't be more wrong. Pride that comes with personal achievement is an individual trait not a party trait. I know you like to demonize entire groups of people but it doesn't apply here. The only one I see being bitter is yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You couldn't be more wrong. Pride that comes with personal achievement is an individual trait not a party trait. I know you like to demonize entire groups of people but it doesn't apply here. The only one I see being bitter is yourself.

---

Excuse me but doesn't it take a number of "individuals" to constitute a "party".

And if those "individuals" share the same beliefs... let the chips fall where they may.

I'm not bitter, I've worked for my success, never taken a government hand out, and never plan to.