There's a special place in hell

[2centsworth]

for Obama if this is true. For the love of God, this can't be true.

http://www.bornalivetruth.com/jillstory.aspx

[ChumpDumper]

He's also an Arab.

[2centsworth]

He's also an Arab.

there's no record of that.

[Bartleby]

It has to be true. They couldn't say it on the internets if it wasn't.

Don't worry. As soon as the republicans finally gain control over all three branches of government they'll overturn Roe v. Wade.

[TheMadHatter]

He's also a dirty ###### with Anti-American views, Muslim, an Arab, and a Marxist. How stupid are you?

[Findog]

for Obama if this is true. For the love of God, this can't be true.


What the fuck do you think?

[Ginofan]

Didn't they talk about this in the debate on Wednesday? He voted no because there was already a law in place?

[Findog]

McCain's gotta be desperate if they're going with this smear. W. never had to resort to these kinds of attacks against Kerry.

Also, it should be noted, "partial-birth abortion" is not a medically recognized term by the American Medical Association. This is just fucking stupid. How fucking gullible are people to believe this garbage?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808210078

[Findog]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/how-extreme-is.html


The pro-life movement's darling - and Obama's nemesis - just published a new piece. It's title:

Michael J. Fox Is A Cannibal.


Just so you know where she's coming from.

[Kori Ellis]

Didn't they talk about this in the debate on Wednesday? He voted no because there was already a law in place?

Correct. But don't confuse people with the facts :lol

[2centsworth]

Correct. But don't confuse people with the facts :lol

so what are the facts Kori?

these are the facts according to the website:



As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html). The legislation defined any infant born alive as a "person” who deserves full legal protection.
The Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act was modeled after the federal version (http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/106/h4292rh.txt.pdf), with the identical definition of “born alive.” The World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indunder5mortality/en/) created this definition in 1950. The United Nations adopted it in 1955.
Obama actively opposed the legislation in the Illinois State Senate. In 2001, he voted no in committee (http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_32701.pdf), spoke against it on the Senate floor (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf), and voted present on the floor (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1095_03302001_030000T.PDF). In 2002, he voted no in committee (http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_3502.pdf), spoke against it on the Senate floor (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf), and voted no on the floor (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920SB1662_04042002_014000T.pdf). Obama was the sole senator to ever speak against it on the Senate floor.
The U.S. Senate passed the federal bill unanimously, with Senators Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy speaking in support of it.
The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the federal bill. On August 5, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law.
For four years Obama has said he would have supported the federal version, but that simply isn’t true. In 2003, as chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, Obama voted yes (http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm) on an amendment (http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/SenateAmdt1toSB1082.pdf) that made the Illinois version (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1082&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=3910&SessionID=3&GA=93) identical to the federal one (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2175). However, he then voted no on the amended bill (http://nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm).
(Note the first vote under “DP#1” or “Do Pass Amendment #1” was to allow the amendment to be added, making this bill identical to the federal Born Alive bill. The second vote under “DPA” or “Do Pass as Amended” was on the bill as amended. Obama voted to amend the bill and then voted against the amended bill.)
View the Republican State Senate Staff analysis here (http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/SenRepubStaffAnalysisSB1082.html).
Click here (http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/2003AmendedILBAIPAandFedBAIPA.html) to see a comparison of the final federal version of Born Alive and the 2003 IL version Obama opposed.

please correct them Kori since you obviously know all about this situation.

1...2...3...

[2centsworth]

McCain's gotta be desperate if they're going with this smear. W. never had to resort to these kinds of attacks against Kerry.

Also, it should be noted, "partial-birth abortion" is not a medically recognized term by the American Medical Association. This is just fucking stupid. How fucking gullible are people to believe this garbage?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200808210078

so trash Jill what's her name is the defense. Should my defense be to then trash Media Matters.

[Findog]

so what are the facts Kori?

these are the facts according to the website:



please correct them Kori since you obviously know all about this situation.

Yes, this person is certainly an unbiased source of information. A doctor can't refuse to treat a fetus that survives a D@E. You do know that "Partial Birth Abortion" isn't a medically-recognized term, right? You do realize that a woman whose water breaks can't throw up her hands and say "Fuck this, I'm not having this baby?" Why do you think a D&E is performed? Under what circumstances do you think a D%E is performed?

[Findog]

so trash Jill what's her name is the defense. Should my defense be to then trash Media Matters.

Her allegations are about as truthful as the ones that say Obama is a secret terrorist Muslim. It's amazing the garbage people fall for.

Do you even know what a fucking D@E is and WHY they are performed? Do you honestly fucking think a woman can get a doctor to sign off on an abortion after her water breaks because she doesn't want to raise a child? Use your fucking brain.

[Kori Ellis]

so what are the facts Kori?

these are the facts according to the website:



please correct them Kori since you obviously know all about this situation.

1...2...3...

There was a law in place in Illinois covering the same thing already.
Doctors are already bound by the AMA to treat a fetus that survives the procedure.

And for the record, I'm pro-life - one of the reasons I'm not voting for Obama. Just to throw that out there.

[2centsworth]

Her allegations are about as truthful as the ones that say Obama is a secret terrorist Muslim. It's amazing the garbage people fall for.

Do you even know what a fucking D@E is and WHY they are performed? Do you honestly fucking think a woman can get a doctor to sign off on an abortion after her water breaks because she doesn't want to raise a child? Use your fucking brain.

why was there a federal and state act? what was Obama's voting record? You're right that my only source of his voting record is this site. Please set the record straight on his voting record or is trashing and deflecting enough for you.

[Findog]

why was there a federal and state act?

Because people essentially think this procedure is "icky."



what was Obama's voting record?

Kori already answered your ? but I'll reiterate her point: There was already a law on the books covering this, and under the fucking Hippocratic Oath, a doctor can't refuse treatment for a fetus that survives it.


You're right that my only source of his voting record is this site.

I suggest you do some more research.

[George Gervin's Afro]

why was there a federal and state act? what was Obama's voting record? You're right that my only source of his voting record is this site. Please set the record straight on his voting record or is trashing and deflecting enough for you.

Talk radio is where you can get the REAL news..

[2centsworth]

Because people essentially think this procedure is "icky."



Kori already answered your ? but I'll reiterate her point: There was already a law on the books covering this, and under the fucking Hippocratic Oath, a doctor can't refuse treatment for a fetus that survives it.


I suggest you do some more research.

so a bill to clarify that a fetus that survives an abortion is classified as a person with equal protection is somehow not necessary? Why vote against the bill? Why are two laws saying the same thing a bad thing? That doesn't pass the common sense test.

[2centsworth]

Talk radio is where you can get the REAL news..

It would make life so much better to get rid of those hate mongers.

[Findog]

Why are two laws saying the same thing a bad thing?

They're not saying the same thing...there'd be no need to introduce legislation that duplicates the exact language of previously enacted language, which is the only way they would "say the same thing." I've worked for the Texas Legislative Council in Austin, which is basically the Texas House of Representative's law firm. I can assure you that a single word can vastly change the meaning of a law or statute. You really don't seem to understand the legislative process at all.



That doesn't pass the common sense test

Nothing that woman wrote passes the common sense test.

[Shastafarian]

Obviously he voted against it so he could harvest the newborn babies and drink their blood. He wants to put it on matzah...wait....that's jews. Maybe he wants to sacrifice them to his gods. Wait, Islam only has one god right?

[Findog]

Obviously he voted against it so he could harvest the newborn babies and drink their blood. He wants to put it on matzah...wait....that's jews. Maybe he wants to sacrifice them to his gods. Wait, Islam only has one god right?

I just get real upset by these smears. On the one hand, it's got to be a mark of desperation that the McCain camp is resorting to abortion smears. GWB never had to stoop to this against Kerry, since that election was basically a referendum on the Iraq War and it was a slightly winning issue for him. On the other hand, I am scared that this kind of garbage could work. There's too much at stake for low-information voters to be swayed by lowest common denominator crap.

[Warlord23]

This is too low/desperate/idiotic, even for dead-in-the-water Republicans

[2centsworth]

They're not saying the same thing...there'd be no need to introduce legislation that duplicates the exact language of previously enacted language, which is the only way they would "say the same thing." I've worked for the Texas Legislative Council in Austin, which is basically the Texas House of Representative's law firm. I can assure you that a single word can vastly change the meaning of a law or statute. You really don't seem to understand the legislative process at all.

so how did the new bill change the meaning of the law or statute? Plus, did he vote against ammending the existing law?




Nothing that woman wrote passes the common sense test. your first instinct was to trash her, so your test holds no water.


What is this dude's stance on abortion?

[Findog]

What is this dude's stance on abortion?

He supports Roe v. Wade, and he has no problem with a ban on D@E if there are provisions in place to protect the health of the mother. If you had watched wednesday's debate, you could have heard it straight from the horse's mouth.

[Findog]

This is too low/desperate/idiotic, even for dead-in-the-water Republicans

Well, it apparently worked with 2CentsWorth, a wavering McCain supporter who has previously expressed am ambivalence with voting for him. This is a strategy to get out the base, which is obviously going to be demoralized if they think McCain is going to lose.

[2centsworth]

Obviously he voted against it so he could harvest the newborn babies and drink their blood. He wants to put it on matzah...wait....that's jews. Maybe he wants to sacrifice them to his gods. Wait, Islam only has one god right?

he's already on record as saying a baby is punishment for those who don't want them. maybe a women's right to terminate a child supersedes everything else. Her intent was to end the pregnancy, so why not grant her wish.

It makes sense if you're pro-choice.

[2centsworth]

Well, it apparently worked with 2CentsWorth, a wavering McCain supporter who has previously expressed am ambivalence with voting for him. This is a strategy to get out the base, which is obviously going to be demoralized if they think McCain is going to lose.

you see, you think we're on different teams and you treat it as if we have rooting interests. I'm more concerned with the direction of my country and this is a serious accusation that warrants discussion.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama wants to extend abortion rights into the 60th trimester.

It's true, I read it on the internets.

[Findog]

you see, you think we're on different teams and you treat it as if we have rooting interests.

Yes, Obama is the Mavericks and McCain is the Spurs :rolleyes I won't call you names, but that is just an incredibly insulting and fucking stupid thing to say.


I'm more concerned with the direction of my country

I'm voting for Obama because I TOO am concerned with the direction of my country. I don't want my government starting any more dumb fucking wars. I don't want my president appointing a fucking horse jockey to FEMA and doing nothing while New Orleans drowns. I don't want my government to torture terrorism suspects and run a gulag down at Guantanamo. I don't want my government putting the regulatory agencies in the very hands of the people it's supposed to regulate. I don't want my government enacting economic policies that squeeze the middle class and widen the gap between the haves and haves not.

The Republicans have failed. They have failed in economic management, they have failed in foreign affairs, they have even failed in the basic maintenance of things like bridges and levees. They have FAILED. And you want to pull some self-righteous bullshit about how this is nothing more than the NBA transferred to politics for me. That's just so very insulting and stupid.


this is a serious accusation that warrants discussion.

A cursory google search would give you all the answers you need.

[spurster]

You would think someone worrying about hell would also worry about spreading false rumors, or maybe that doesn't fall under the ten commandments because of some technicality.

[Findog]

You would think someone worrying about hell would also worry about spreading false rumors, or maybe that doesn't fall under the ten commandments because of some technicality.

Bearing False Witness is apparently not a sin.

[Findog]

McCain is now using the same Robocall firm that Bush/Rove used to smear him and his family in 2000. I'd rather talk about that.

[ChumpDumper]

he's already on record as saying a baby is punishment for those who don't want them. maybe a women's right to terminate a child supersedes everything else.Too bad he was talking about sex education and contraception -- not abortion.

[Melmart1]

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/21/jill-stanek-admits-mistake-chicago-tribune-obama-abortion-record

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune deserves a Pulitzer Prize for this: Jill Stanek told him she was mistaken in her blog posts this earlier year about what Sen. Obama did in the Illinois Legislature on the "Born-Alive Infant Protection Act."

[2centsworth]

Too bad he was talking about sex education and contraception -- not abortion.

so a baby is punishment when you don't use contraception. no comprende.

[ChumpDumper]

so a baby is punishment when you don't use contraception. no comprende.Of course you don't understand.

You don't want to.

[2centsworth]

In fairness, here's Obama's stated position on the matter. I'll check the record later. appreciate everyone chiming in.



The Truth Behind False, Outrageous Lies about Obama and ''Born Alive'' Legislation

August 19, 2008

STATEMENT
"Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions. But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama -- the proud father of two little girls -- and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign. What Senator Obama’s attackers don’t tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions. They will not tell you that Obama voted against these laws in Illinois because they were clear attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade. They will not tell you that these laws were also opposed by pro-choice Republicans and the Illinois Medical Society -- a leading association of doctors in the state. And they will not tell you that Obama has always maintained that he would have voted for the federal version of this bill, which did not pose such a threat. The bills Senator Obama voted against in Illinois were crafted to undermine Roe v. Wade or pre-existing Illinois state law regulating reproductive healthcare and medical practice, which is why Senator Obama objected to them."


2001 and 2002: OBAMA JOINED MORE THAN 40% OF THE ILLINOIS SENATE—INCLUDING NUMEROUS REPUBLICANS—IN OPPOSING “BORN ALIVE” BILLS


Obama Voted Against Two Born Alive Bills, With Almost a Quarter of the Senate, Saying They Would Be Struck Down. In 2002, Obama voted against a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act to provide that if a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or other abortion, a parent or public guardian of the child may recover damages for costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, and costs and attorney’s fees against a hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after it is born. Obama voted against a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Further defines “born alive” to mean “the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.” Obama predicted the bills would be struck down by a federal court were they to become law. Obama said, “Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, we’re saying they are persons entitled to the kinds of protections provided to a child, a 9-month-old child delivered to term…That determination then essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place.” [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N); 92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N); Sun-Times, 3/31/01]
• 21 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1661. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill 1661. [92nd GA, SB 1661, 4/4/02, 3R P; 31-11-10 (BO: N)]
• 22 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1662. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Shaw, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1662. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Klemm (Republican), Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Smith voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1662, 4/4/02, 3R P; 30-12-10 (BO: N)]
• Six Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Kathleen Parker voted no Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Christine Radogno voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Adeline Geo-Karis voted present on Senate Bills 1661 and 1662. Republican Senator Dick Klemm voted no on Senate Bill 1662. [92nd GA, SB 1093, SB 1094, SB 1095, SB 1661, SB 1662]
Obama Voted Present On “Born Alive” Bills. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, providing that no abortion procedure that, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall address the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child and provides that a physician inducing an abortion that results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practicable attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child’s viability and provide medical care for the child. Also provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and that all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Statute on Statutes, to define “born-alive infant” to include “every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” Obama voted present on a bill to create the Induced Birth Infant Liability Act states that it is the intent of the General Assembly to protect the life of a child born alive as the result of an induced labor abortion, provides that a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which a child was born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion has a cause of action against any hospital, health care facility or health care provider that fails to provide medical care for the child after birth. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]
• 17 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1093. Senators Bowles, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid and Viverito voted present on Senate Bill 1093. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen, Silverstein and Welch voted no on Senate Bill 1093. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12]
• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1094. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Myers (Republican), Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito, Weaver (Republican) and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1094. Senators Del Valle, Link, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1094. [92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13]
• 18 Senators Opposed Senate Bill 1095. Senators Bowles, Clayborne, Del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Obama, Radogno (Republican), Shadid, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1095. Senators Link, Madigan, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Silverstein voted no on Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-5-13]
• Four Republican Senators Opposed One Or All Born Alive Bills. Republican Senator Radogno voted present and Republican Parker voted no on Senate Bill 1093. Republican Senators Myers, Radogno, and Weaver voted present on Senate Bill 1094 and Republican Senator Parker voted against. Radogno voted present and Parker voted against Senate Bill 1095. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]
OBAMA SUPPORTED AND NARAL DIDN’T OPPOSE 2002’s FEDERAL BAIPA

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
• NARAL Didn’t Oppose Federal BAIPA For Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That’s Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, “We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them.” [CNN, 8/5/02]
• NARAL Statement: “In the statement, NARAL says, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [NARAL release, 6/13/01 (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=5334)]


2003 BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION OBAMA OPPOSED IN COMMITTEE DID NOT HAVE THE SAME IMPACT AS FEDERAL LEGISLATION


Planned Parenthood: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law.” Planned Parenthood wrote in a fact sheet, “SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-called “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U. S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.” [Planned Parenthood Fact Sheet, 2/28/03]
Illinois State Medical Society Opposed SB 1082. Robert Kane, legal counsel to the Illinois State Medical Society, filed a committee witness slip stating the Medical Society opposition to Senate Bill 1082. [Committee Witness Slip, SB 1082]


2005 BILL THAT PASSED AFTER OBAMA LEFT THE SENATE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE THAT OBAMA DEALT WITH IN HIS COMMITTEE IN 2003, WASN’T OPPOSED BY PRO-CHOICE GROUPS


2005 Bill: “Unlike Earlier Versions That Failed, This Bill Does Not Spell Out What Medical Care Doctors Must Provide When An Abortion Procedure Ends In A Live Birth. The Legislation Also Specifically Says It Has No Impact On Illinois Abortion Laws.” “Activists on both sides of the abortion debate found a rare patch of common ground Wednesday: legislation that says any live birth - even one that occurs during an abortion - is a person with legal rights. The measure was unanimously approved by the House civil law committee and now moves to the House floor. Unlike earlier versions that failed, this bill does not spell out what medical care doctors must provide when an abortion procedure ends in a live birth. The legislation also specifically says it has no impact on Illinois abortion laws. Still, anti-abortion groups are pleased. ‘What it does is support the legal principle that infants that are born alive, regardless of their stage of development or the circumstances of their birth, are persons and deserve protection under the law,’ said Dawn Behnke, an attorney who lobbies for the Illinois Federation for Right to Life. Abortion rights supporters said they were satisfied that this legislation is not an attempt to restrict abortion. Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said the legislation will simply ensure babies get the medical care their doctors and parents think is appropriate.” [AP, 5/9/05]
The Born Alive Bill That Passed Into Law In IL—In Addition to Including the Language from the Failed 2003 Legislation and Federal Law—Stated That “Nothing In This Section Shall Be Construed To Affect Existing Federal Or State Law Regarding Abortion” or “Generally Accepted Medical Standards.” In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words ‘person’, ‘human being’, ‘child’, and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this Section, the term ‘born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section. (d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards. [94th GA, HB 984 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?GA=95&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=984&GAID=8&SessionID=50&LegID=15648), PA 94-0559, 8/12/05]


BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS


Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should “Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “‘For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when ‘there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,’ an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes ‘it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique ‘most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus’ and perform the abortion in the presence of ‘a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.’” [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]
• Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm), 720 ILCS 510/6]


READ PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S HISTORY OF "BORN ALIVE" LEGISLATION IN ILLINOIS


Download file (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/PP%20Born%20Alive%20History.pdf)



SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT "BORN ALIVE" BILLS--WHY OBAMA OPPOSED SOME AND SUPPORTED OTHERS



Language
Clearly Threatening RoeSo
Called "Neutrality Clause"Language
Explicitly Indicating No Effect on IL Abortion Law

2001,
SB1095 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1095LV.html)


Obama
Voted Present On Floor
(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.


2002,
SB
1662 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1662LV.html)


Obama
Voted Against on Floor
(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.

2002
Federal Law (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t01t04+9847+0++%28born% 20alive%20infant%29)


Obama
Would Have Supported
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm,
deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born
alive" as defined in this section.

2003,
SB1082 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=0)



Obama
Voted Against in Committee
(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under
the law.

REMOVED BY AMENDMENT(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm,
deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as
defined in this Section.

ADDED BY AMENDMENT

2005
Law (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=094-0559)



Passed
in IL After Obama




(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm,
deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any
member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as
defined in this Section.(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect
existing federal or State law regarding abortion.

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter
generally accepted medical standards.

[timvp]

Why vote against the bill? Why are two laws saying the same thing a bad thing? That doesn't pass the common sense test.Basically, the new bill wouldn't have allowed exceptions for partial birth abortions if the mother's health were in danger. Obama saw this as a way for the pro-life contingent to begin to chip away at RvW.

This boils down to a pro-life or pro-choice issue. Giving the "health" exemption is making it a free for all because every doctor can find a health issue to sign off on.

I'm not going to say Obama is radically pro-choice ... but he's pretty damn close.

[2centsworth]

opposing view of Obama's above stated position



Obama and 'Infanticide'
August 25, 2008
The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.
Summary
Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."


Analysis


Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes attacked Barack Obama over this legislation during their 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, repeatedly (http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=366) accusing him (http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341) of favoring "infanticide." (http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=338) Because of this, Keyes said, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama (http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348)." Nevertheless, 70 percent of Illinois voters did vote for Obama, but now the issue has bubbled up again.

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper (http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm) and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=), sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/summary/920SB1095.html) and 2002 (http://ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1662.html), had met with opposition (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/PP%20Born%20Alive%20History.pdf) from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills&docid=f:h2175enr.txt.pdf) of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020805-6.html) Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429313.aspx) to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Who's "Lying?"

NRLC objects. They point to evidence that SB 1082, the bill Obama voted against in committee, was amended to contain a "neutrality clause" that is identical to one contained in the federal law. (The Illinois government's legislative information Web site shows the proposed amendment, but doesn't give results for votes in committee. NRLC's documents show that the amendment was adopted.) Since he voted against the state bill, NRLC says, his claimed worry about Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen, intended to cover up his unconcern with the protection of infant lives.
In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, 'A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."

NRLC posted documents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=) was adopted in committee and added the following text: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law.

The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis (http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/SenRepubStaffAnalysisSB1082.html)" and a handwritten roll call (http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ObamaKills2003amendedBAIPA.htm) confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both documents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford's firsthand account.

A June 30 Obama campaign statement (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php) responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.
Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]
The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.


Same Words, Different Effect?

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php) for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=50&GA=94&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=0984&GAID=8&LegID=15648&SpecSess=0&Session=0) of the Illinois bill, which passed (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/94/senate/09400HB0984_05182005_019000T.pdf) the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/06/) says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.


A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45553), have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm) states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."


On the Record


While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf) and 2002 (http://ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf) bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.
Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

-by Jess Henig

[ChumpDumper]

If quotes have to be mined this deeply to try to prove a position, it's not going to be a campaign issue.

[2centsworth]

Yes, Obama is the Mavericks and McCain is the Spurs :rolleyes I won't call you names, but that is just an incredibly insulting and fucking stupid thing to say.

you're insulted because you probably know it's true.




I'm voting for Obama because I TOO am concerned with the direction of my country. I don't want my government starting any more dumb fucking wars. I don't want my president appointing a fucking horse jockey to FEMA and doing nothing while New Orleans drowns. I don't want my government to torture terrorism suspects and run a gulag down at Guantanamo. I don't want my government putting the regulatory agencies in the very hands of the people it's supposed to regulate. I don't want my government enacting economic policies that squeeze the middle class and widen the gap between the haves and haves not.

The Republicans have failed. They have failed in economic management, they have failed in foreign affairs, they have even failed in the basic maintenance of things like bridges and levees. They have FAILED. And you want to pull some self-righteous bullshit about how this is nothing more than the NBA transferred to politics for me. That's just so very insulting and stupid.

so you agree 100% with every single liberal talking point and you claim to be a free thinker. you just proved you're a team member.




A cursory google search would give you all the answers you need.

better than the you're a liar, Jill whats-her-face support domestic abuse, michael j fox is a cannibal responses I'm getting from you. Then you have the nerve to talk about lowest common denominator.

[Anti.Hero]

I don't give a shit about abortion one way or the other but Obama is lying to you all. He's got quite a history on this one topic alone that can't be simply shrugged off in a 30 second slyly chosen group of just words, just speeches.

What is pro-choice? That's basically pro-abortion. That's like Jefferson being pro-choice=pro-slavery because as bad as it was it was keeping the economy going :lmao


PROFESSOR GEORGE: Yeah, the prosecutors couldn't prosecute, they said, because the attorney general said there wasn't a law available that was adequate for a prosecution, to sustain a prosecution. There are technical reasons for that. I could go into it. So the legislature took up a bill that would fix that, that would provide a basis. It's called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. And if it had been enacted in Illinois -- eventually it was enacted at the federal level and signed into law by President Bush. But without it babies could continue to be discarded in this way and without it they would at least be given basic comfort care. And those who were capable of surviving would be given full medical care so that they would be able to continue with their lives. A few people opposed this and the only person in the Illinois legislature to actually speak out against it and try to stop it was Barack Obama. He then made up a series of stories when he was confronted with what he had done for why he had done it. He said, for example, at one point that, well, he would have supported the bill but he was afraid that the bill would cut back on the availability of abortion itself because there was not a so-called abortion neutrality clause as there was in the federal bill. He accused people who criticized him on that of being liars. Well, then those people there at the national committee produced, Glenn, the documentary evidence showing, proving that Barack Obama had in fact voted against a bill with a neutrality clause. So the people he called liars showed that he was lying. He then shifted his story and said that the only reason that he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was that there was already legislation on the book protecting those babies. So the trouble with that was that the attorney general was declining to prosecute precisely because there was not a law on the books adequate to the task. So Senator Obama is simply making up stories here to cover really a despicable decision that he made. He should simply admit that what he did was wrong. He was overzealous in trying to protect abortion and had gotten so overzealous that he was actually protecting a form of infanticide and that he's sorry, that people make mistakes. But he is not doing that. He is making up stories and those stories are very easily then proven to be false by anyone who looks into the facts.

[ratm1221]

Hypothetically, if your wife was pregnant with a child, and the doctor says there is a complication with pregnancy a week before the child is to be born. They tell you that either your wife can abort the baby to save her life, or she can try and have the baby and probably die and have a small chance the baby will live.

You want to give this decsion to someone else?

Because the way they write up these bills have no protection for the mother. The baby is supposed to live no matter what. I'm sorry but I'd choose my wife over a baby in a heartbeat, without a second thought. That's just me though.

[TheMadHatter]

It baffles my mind how people can continue to be single issue voters with so many pressing issues facing our nation. I'm particularly peeved at those who consistently vote for candidates based solely on their abortion positions.

I would ask those of you who are strongly pro-life the following question. What has George W. Bush done to stop abortions in this country? The answer is, not much and this is with full Republican control of the Congress and the nomination of two Supreme Court justices. He and the Republican Party have absolutely no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. If it hasn't happened by now it will likely never happen, the Republicans won't sniff an overwhelming majority of power like that for quite some time. Abortion is a wedge issue, and the Republican Party cannot win elections without them. Gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc.

If you want to cut down the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies we have got to teach comprehensive sex education to teenagers. Use condoms and get your facts straight about birth control, STD's, etc. It's the only responsible way to do this. Abstinence only education has been a resounding failure for obvious reasons.

[TheMadHatter]

Furthermore, I'm alarmed to find so many supposed "pro-lifers" are in favor of the death penalty.

I'd wager to see the vast majority of Christians in this country are super-market Christians. They pick and choose what they like. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.

[ratm1221]

It baffles my mind how people can continue to be single issue voters with so many pressing issues facing our nation. I'm particularly peeved at those who consistently vote for candidates based solely on their abortion positions.

I would ask those of you who are strongly pro-life the following question. What has George W. Bush done to stop abortions in this country? The answer is, not much and this is with full Republican control of the Congress and the nomination of two Supreme Court justices. He and the Republican Party have absolutely no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. If it hasn't happened by now it will likely never happen, the Republicans won't sniff an overwhelming majority of power like that for quite some time. Abortion is a wedge issue, and the Republican Party cannot win elections without them. Gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, etc.

If you want to cut down the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies we have got to teach comprehensive sex education to teenagers. Use condoms and get your facts straight about birth control, STD's, etc. It's the only responsible way to do this. Abstinence only education has been a resounding failure for obvious reasons.

Agreed. I made this exact point in another thread. People don't realize that these are just topics that get the "gimmie" votes. They say they are against something, but they do absolutely nothing to change it when they have the chance.

[timvp]

I'm particularly peeved at those who consistently vote for candidates based solely on their abortion positions.This is the United States of America. People can vote for whatever reason they see most important. Who are you to tell anyone differently?


Furthermore, I'm alarmed to find so many supposed "pro-lifers" are in favor of the death penalty.Did you hurt yourself making that stretch?

:lmao @ comparing unborn human life to a murderer or child rapist.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Did you hurt yourself making that stretch?

:lmao @ comparing unborn human life to a murderer or child rapist.

In other words, it isn't so much a pro-life thing as it is a pro-innocence thing... right?

[balli]

for Obama if this is true. For the love of God, this can't be true.

http://www.bornalivetruth.com/jillstory.aspx

You're a jackass who creates meaningless threads. Know what the fuck you're talking about before you try to post something like this. The 50 some odd million people who actually are informed, who watched the debate, think you're an idiot.

[TheMadHatter]

This is the United States of America. People can vote for whatever reason they see most important. Who are you to tell anyone differently?

Did you hurt yourself making that stretch?

:lmao @ comparing unborn human life to a murderer or child rapist.

I'm not telling people HOW to vote. I'm pleading that they use common sense when they go to the voter booth because informed voters like myself suffer when idiots like you vote George W. Bush into office....twice.

And thank you for proving the ignorance of the pro-life community in one fell swoop. Usually it's not this easy. You're not pro-life. You're pro innocent life. Jesus made no such distinction in his teachings. In fact support of the death penalty is in DIRECT opposition to Jesus' teachings. It's funny how un-Christian Christians are these days.

[Kori Ellis]

It baffles my mind how people can continue to be single issue voters with so many pressing issues facing our nation.

Serious question ... Do you think anyone votes based on ONE issue only? I don't think anyone makes a decision based only on one factor. Certainly they have some issues that are more important than others. But I never hear people say.. "I'm voting for Obama only because he's Pro-Choice. I don't care about anything else."

[timvp]

I'm not telling people HOW to vote. I'm pleading that they use common sense when they go to the voter booth because informed voters like myself suffer when idiots like you vote George W. Bush into office....twice.I didn't vote for Bush. And if you consider yourself an informed voter, I'd hate to see what an uniformed voter looks like . . .

Seriously, one could be the most informed voter in existence and still decide to vote based on one issue. You being emo about it doesn't make it any less right.


You're not pro-life. You're pro innocent life. Who said I was pro-life? You do know I'm voting for Obama, right? The man who will become the most pro-abortion president in modern history.

Continually making assumptions on my stances just because I point out your lunacy of reasoning is quite funny.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Who said I was pro-life? You do know I'm voting for Obama, right? The man who will become the most pro-abortion president in modern history.


First of all, its not pro-abortion, its pro-choice, there's a difference. Second, what exactly makes you believe Obama is going to be "the most pro-abortion president in modern history"? the fact that he seems to be the most left leaning in recent times?

I'm just curious

P.S. I noticed you cleverly avoided taking a side on the issue by the way. In the end, what are you? Pro-life or pro-choice? I'm pro-choice myself

[Anti.Hero]

Many dems are far too intellectual to believe in a heaven or hell so it's no biggie OP.

If they want to hold a #### by its legs while shoving scissors in it's skull to collapse the bone and crush the brain, who's to stop them I say.

[Tully365]

Did Jill just find out this week that Obama is running for president and therefore bravely decide to step forward with this vital information?

[TheMadHatter]

Serious question ... Do you think anyone votes based on ONE issue only? I don't think anyone makes a decision based only on one factor. Certainly they have some issues that are more important than others. But I never hear people say.. "I'm voting for Obama only because he's Pro-Choice. I don't care about anything else.".

When I say single issue voters, I mean people who let one issue dominate their mindset on how they view a candidate. For example, many were fooled with Bush's compassionate conservative while ignoring the fact that his administration started an illegal war sending thousands to their death. Ignoring the fact that he gave corporations billions in tax cuts to the detriment of the common man.

Let's be honest, there is probably nothing Obama can do to get you to vote for him. Don't lie to me, he's pro-choice and you hate that and you will never vote for him because of this. Even though the man he's running against essentially wants to extend the Bush policies of the last 8 years that have put this country in the situation it's in today. This is why wedge issues are SO powerful and why they have worked for the Republicans for the last 20-30 years. Sooner or later you'll wake up and realize that no party in this country wants to do a goddamn thing about abortions or Roe v. Wade and start paying attention to the issues that really matter.

[TheMadHatter]

I didn't vote for Bush. And if you consider yourself an informed voter, I'd hate to see what an uniformed voter looks like . . .

Seriously, one could be the most informed voter in existence and still decide to vote based on one issue. You being emo about it doesn't make it any less right.

Who said I was pro-life? You do know I'm voting for Obama, right? The man who will become the most pro-abortion president in modern history.

Continually making assumptions on my stances just because I point out your lunacy of reasoning is quite funny.

You didn't vote for Bush yet you believe he made a better President than either Kerry or Gore would have been? :downspin::downspin::downspin:

I don't know what your positions are because you're too afraid to actually post them.

When you make sensationalist claims like "Obama will be the most pro-abortion" President ever you better back them up. What the fuck does that even mean? If anything abortions may go down under Obama as he would likely fund comprehensive sex education to teenagers which is FAR more effective at stopping abortions and unwanted pregnancies than idiotic abstinence only education.

[timvp]

First of all, its not pro-abortion, its pro-choice, there's a difference.True. Doesn't change the claim.


Second, what exactly makes you believe Obama is going to be "the most pro-abortion president in modern history"?
His voting record combined with his very own words before he starting his presidential campaign and began flip flopping a bit on the issue.


P.S. I noticed you cleverly avoided taking a side on the issue by the way. In the end, what are you? Pro-life or pro-choice? I'm pro-choice myselfI think it's an issue that should be handled at the state level, so it doesn't enter into my equation of who to vote for as president.

For the record, I don't fit in either camp. I'm pro-life in theory but it's such a situation by situation decision that most pro-lifers consider me pro-choice.

[timvp]

.

When I say single issue voters, I mean people who let one issue dominate their mindset on how they view a candidate. For example, many were fooled with Bush's compassionate conservative while ignoring the fact that his administration started an illegal war sending thousands to their death. Ignoring the fact that he gave corporations billions in tax cuts to the detriment of the common man.

Let's be honest, there is probably nothing Obama can do to get you to vote for him. Don't lie to me, he's pro-choice and you hate that and you will never vote for him because of this. Even though the man he's running against essentially wants to extend the Bush policies of the last 8 years that have put this country in the situation it's in today. This is why wedge issues are SO powerful and why they have worked for the Republicans for the last 20-30 years. Sooner or later you'll wake up and realize that no party in this country wants to do a goddamn thing about abortions or Roe v. Wade and start paying attention to the issues that really matter.
You, sir, are an emo Obamatard asshat of the highest order.

[timvp]

You didn't vote for Bush yet you believe he made a better President than either Kerry or Gore would have been? :downspin::downspin::downspin:Well done. Prove otherwise or else kindly STFU.


I don't know what your positions are because you're too afraid to actually post them. :lmao @ timvp afraid to post his opinion. Are you new to the internet?


When you make sensationalist claims like "Obama will be the most pro-abortion" President ever you better back them up. What the fuck does that even mean? If you don't know what it means, how can you call it sensationalist?

I know you are the ultimate Obamatard but you're becoming more pathetic by the day. Step yo game up, child.

[TheMadHatter]

But when the options were Bush or Gore and Bush or Kerry, I think the U.S. made the right choice both times.


The reason why I say you are too afraid to post what you really feel is you really did post this in a thread a few weeks back. But now you deny you ever said it everytime I bring it up, it's an embarrassingly stupid statement to make.

I have more respect for whottt who will actually man up to the idiotic things he says.

[timvp]

The reason why I say you are too afraid to post what you really feel is you really did post this in a thread a few weeks back. But now you deny you ever said it everytime I bring it up, it's an embarrassingly stupid statement to make.

I have more respect for whottt who will actually man up to the idiotic things he says.
Where did I deny that I said that? Provide a link. Thanks.

Are you really this got damn dumb? I've never denied I said that.

[Kori Ellis]

Let's be honest, there is probably nothing Obama can do to get you to vote for him. Don't lie to me, he's pro-choice and you hate that and you will never vote for him because of this. Even though the man he's running against essentially wants to extend the Bush policies of the last 8 years that have put this country in the situation it's in today. This is why wedge issues are SO powerful and why they have worked for the Republicans for the last 20-30 years. Sooner or later you'll wake up and realize that no party in this country wants to do a goddamn thing about abortions or Roe v. Wade and start paying attention to the issues that really matter.


Really?

Wasn't Bill Clinton, pro choice? I voted for him.

If I was going to vote, I would vote for Obama because I think he sucks less than McCain.

[TheMadHatter]

Where did I deny that I said that? Provide a link. Thanks.

Are you really this got damn dumb? I've never denied I said that.

Then you are dumber than we all thought. George Bush a better President than Gore......words cannot express the stupidity of such a statement.

PS you did say it but I'm not going to go digging again for another one of your moronic posts.

[PM5K]

In all fairness this argument seems to be about people making a decision based on one issue, but Kori clearly said being pro life was one of the reasons she wasn't voting for Obama, not the ONLY reason.

[Oh, Gee!!]

On NPR, I heard the Constitution(al?) Party Presidential Nominee (forgive me, I don't remember his name) railing on McCain and Bush because they are all talk when it comes to being pro-life. According this guy, an ultra right-wing conservative btw, the rate of abortions has remained the same throughout Bush's presidency and will remain the same throughout McCain's as well. He says they pay lip-service to the issue during elections but do nothing to change roe v. wade once elected. I'm not in line with this guy politically, but I do agree with his view that Republican politicians are generally all talk when it comes to abortion. I'm sure some aren't, but the ones that run for president seem to be.

In other words, you're a fool if you're voting Republican simply because the nominee says he/she is pro-life.

[Bartleby]

If the republicans outlawed abortions it would be harder for them to get pro-lifers motivated to vote, which is why I think they're really not as committed to overturning Roe v. Wade as their rhetoric suggests.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Kori clearly said being pro life was one of the reasons she wasn't voting for Obama, not the ONLY reason.

another reason being that he's black, and another being that he's not white.

[Phenomanul]

If the republicans outlawed abortions it would be harder for them to get pro-lifers motivated to vote, which is why I think they're really not as committed to overturning Roe v. Wade as their rhetoric suggests.

Or maybe Roe vs. Wade is something that's more difficult to overturn than you all are suggesting here... (especially with a Democratic Congress)...

There's this thing called 'Checks and Balances'....

[Oh, Gee!!]

There's this thing called 'Checks and Balances'....

There was a Justice Department memo suggesting that there's no such thing.

[Mr. Peabody]

On NPR, I heard the Constitution(al?) Party Presidential Nominee (forgive me, I don't remember his name) railing on McCain and Bush because they are all talk when it comes to being pro-life. According this guy, an ultra right-wing conservative btw, the rate of abortions has remained the same throughout Bush's presidency and will remain the same throughout McCain's as well. He says they pay lip-service to the issue during elections but do nothing to change roe v. wade once elected. I'm not in line with this guy politically, but I do agree with his view that Republican politicians are generally all talk when it comes to abortion. I'm sure some aren't, but the ones that run for president seem to be.

In other words, you're a fool if you're voting Republican simply because the nominee says he/she is pro-life.

That's funny because I heard a guy saying the same thing on Michael Medved (sp?). He wasn't the Constitution Party candidate, he was the author of some polemic on abortion. He was saying that the Republicans realized they could use this issue to court Christian conservatives, who hadn't been as fervent in their support as they are now. He was saying that Republicans know that actually acting on the issue is politically dangerous, so the issue is nothing more than a tool that gets paraded around every two years.

[Bartleby]

Or maybe Roe vs. Wade is something that's more difficult to overturn than you all are suggesting here... (especially with a Democratic Congress)...

There's this thing called 'Checks and Balances'....

Prior to 06 Republicans controlled Congress and the WH and there was a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Why didn't they go for it then?

[Mr. Peabody]

There was a Justice Department memo suggesting that there's no such thing.

http://www.madison.com/images/articles/tct/2005/07/26/17582.jpg

I'll get you a copy of that memo.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm still waiting for prayer in public school like reagan promised in 1979, and a constitutional ban on gay marriage. was I lied to???

[Mr. Peabody]

I'm still waiting for prayer in public school like reagan promised in 1979, and a constitutional ban on gay marriage. was I lied to???

After Hussein is elected, there will be prayer in schools. Muslim prayer.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Peabody is bring teh LOLZ today.

[Findog]

you're insulted because you probably know it's true.


Well there just went any chance of constructive discussion with you. I don't care about this country at all, I just want "my side" to win. Thanks, fuckbag.



so you agree 100% with every single liberal talking point and you claim to be a free thinker. you just proved you're a team member.

Yeah, the overwhelming majority of the country is brainwashed into thinking Bush was a horrible President and McCain would continue the majority of his economic policies. We're all just sheeple. Thanks, fuckbag.






better than the you're a liar, Jill whats-her-face support domestic abuse, michael j fox is a cannibal responses I'm getting from you. Then you have the nerve to talk about lowest common denominator.


You're pretty dumb. I mean, low-information, lowest common denominator dumb. It would be like me posting something from counterpunch.org or dailykos to make my contention that Bush and McCain suck. Thanks, fuckbag.

[Phenomanul]

Prior to 06 Republicans controlled Congress and the WH and there was a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Why didn't they go for it then?

IIRC Republicans had control of the Senate but not the House, I don't believe one party has ever had full control of Capitol Hill.

Besides, I happen to agree with Oh Gee!!'s comment/observation. I just wanted to make sure that people here realized that the infrastructure of our government properly limits the power/influence that emanates from the presidential seat. The president's views are not as dominant as people would like to suggest... Even as 'Commander' of the armed forces the president's role is constrained (as it should be).

[Findog]

:lmao at any Republican who thinks John McCain gives two shits about abortion, or that he would nominate a pro-life Judge to the SCOTUS when the Dems will have the majority in the Senate. And we're the sheeple.

[Phenomanul]

:lmao at any Republican who thinks John McCain gives two shits about abortion, or that he would nominate a pro-life Judge to the SCOTUS when the Dems will have the majority in the Senate. And we're the sheeple.

So.... you think you know John McCain, and what he will or won't do? :lmao

At this point I don't think anybody does... Having said that, his voting record on the issue speaks for itself (as does Obama's). That is after all, public record. No opinions, simply yays or nays.

[Findog]

So.... you think you know John McCain, and what he will or won't do? :lmao

At this point I don't think anybody does... Having said that, his voting record on the issue speaks for itself (as does Obama's). That is after all, public record. No opinions, simply yays or nays.

Neither party has any interest in upsetting the status quo on abortion. Republicans keep the Christ tards in line by promising to overturn R v. W, even though they know the power of the pro-life movement is NOTHING compared to the social forces that would be unleashed if it were overturned. A lot of these Christ tards are only politically involved on this one issue, and the GOP loses a key constituency without the abortion issue. The Dems, on the other hand, use fear-mongering that R v. W will be overturned to keep a vise-grip on female voters, a slight majority of which generally favor their party.

McCain cannot stand the evangelical base of his party and would not hesitate to cut deals and work with the Dems in Congress...he'd have no choice either, since they'll control both houses.

[Phenomanul]

Neither party has any interest in upsetting the status quo on abortion. Republicans keep the Christ tards in line by promising to overturn R v. W, even though they know the power of the pro-life movement is NOTHING compared to the social forces that would be unleashed if it were overturned. A lot of these Christ tards are only politically involved on this one issue, and the GOP loses a key constituency without the abortion issue. The Dems, on the other hand, use fear-mongering that R v. W will be overturned to keep a vise-grip on female voters, a slight majority of which generally favor their party.

McCain cannot stand the evangelical base of his party and would not hesitate to cut deals and work with the Dems in Congress...he'd have no choice either, since they'll control both houses.

These comments do nothing to back up your claim that "McCain [doesn't] give two sh*#$ about abortion"... I agree that both candidates are pandering to their constituencies (I've never said otherwise)... In fact they've been doing that forever on the abortion issue. But there is a fundamental difference between pointing out that dynamic and suggesting that McCain doesn't care about the heart of the issue at all.

BTW your characterization of evangelicals, while well within your GOD-given perogative, does little to bolster your arguments around here - much less the discussion at hand.

-Peace

[Findog]

BTW your characterization of evangelicals, while well within your GOD-given perogative, does little to bolster your arguments around here - much less the discussion at hand.

-Peace

I don't respect "Evangelicals," if by that you mean people that exclusively support the GOP and do so on the basis of abortion alone. There is more than one sin, and Jesus spent most of his time condemning the sin of hypocrisy above all others. They rail and rail and rail about homosexuality (which is not a sin) and abortion, but they have nothing to say about bearing false witness and prosecuting dumb, unnecessary wars that were justified on the basis of lies to the public. So, to respond, I think "Christ tard" is an appropriate term. A real Christian would not blindly support one party or the other. God is not a Republican or a Democrat.

[ChumpDumper]

You won't go to heaven if you don't spell God in all capital letters.

[Mr. Peabody]

God is not a Republican or a Democrat.

Then why'd he personally ask "W" to run for president?

[Phenomanul]

I don't respect "Evangelicals," if by that you mean people that exclusively support the GOP and do so on the basis of abortion alone. That's still a pretty broad stroke of the paintbrush.



There is more than one sin, and Jesus spent most of his time condemning the sin of hypocrisy above all others.
True.



They rail and rail and rail about homosexuality (which is not a sin)

One can choose to doubt whether the WORD is true, but let's not kid ourselves about what the Bible says. To claim the Bible doesn't speak against homosexuality (by suggesting that it is not a sin) is self-deception at best!

Now, I am not in any way saying homosexuality is the only sin or greater than the other sins - pride, hypocrisy, selfishness, greed, theft, murder, etc! Nevertheless it is still a sin.


Leviticus 18:22
18 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

[Compare with Lev 20:13]:

13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

That last passage was under the Hebrew law [acts of homosexuality warranting the 'death sentence'] and we aren't bound to it, since Christ fulfilled the law. Nevertheless, the passage still considers homosexuality as an abominable act (sin) before The LORD.


Romans 1:26-28
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

1 Corinthians 5:9-11
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers. And it is for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Jude 1:3-7
3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that the Lord has once for all entrusted to us, his people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

[B]5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord [c] at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.



and abortion, but they have nothing to say about bearing false witness and prosecuting dumb, unnecessary wars that were justified on the basis of lies to the public.
Christians don't claim perfection, or the ability to live a life without sin. They simply recognize that they need Christ. Detractors who use this reasoning as justification for their hatred towards Christians or their moral values, are only lying to themselves. Don't focus on men, because men will ultimately fail.

Place your sights on Christ, He will never be a hypocrite, or abandon us; Jesus never fails us.



So, to respond, I think "Christ tard" is an appropriate term.
For who? The voting 'sheeple' or Christians in general?




A real Christian would not blindly support one party or the other. God is not a Republican or a Democrat.

I agree.

[Kori Ellis]

another reason being that he's black, and another being that he's not white.

:lol So I'm married to someone who is part black, but I wouldn't want a black person as President? That's rich.

[Oh, Gee!!]

:lol So I'm married to someone who is part black, but I wouldn't want a black person as President? That's rich.

Oh, I see. You can use the black man to fulfill some mandingo-black buck fantasy, but he's not good enuff for the presidency. yes massa. White Devil.












I kid

[Kori Ellis]

:lol I think have already said that I would vote for Obama over McCain, if I was going to vote.

[timvp]

Then you are dumber than we all thought. George Bush a better President than Gore......words cannot express the stupidity of such a statement."We"? There is more than one 12-year-old left wing nut job emo on the forum?


PS you did say it but I'm not going to go digging again for another one of your moronic posts.$500 if you find me denying I said that. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

True. Doesn't change the claim.

It doesn't for those that can tell the difference. I think we can all agree statements such as this ought to be idiotproof.


His voting record combined with his very own words before he starting his presidential campaign and began flip flopping a bit on the issue.

I guess my query was aimed more at defining what exactly you meant by him being "the most pro-abortion president in modern history". I'm not entirely aware of Obama's comments on the matter though, so I'll take your word for it. I was just curious.


I think it's an issue that should be handled at the state level, so it doesn't enter into my equation of who to vote for as president.

For the record, I don't fit in either camp. I'm pro-life in theory but it's such a situation by situation decision that most pro-lifers consider me pro-choice.

I don't really agree with you here, as I think leaving it for the states to decide leaves room for a lot of ambiguity on a matter that both sides normally agree to be about moral absolutes, the right to live of the fetus vs the right of the woman to choose over matters pertaining to her body. Having said that, I agree there are circumstances and circumstances. Which is what makes debating this issue all the more difficult and controvertial.

[TheMadHatter]

Findog, great points. Completely agree with you.

My issue with the pro-life movement and the hardcore Christian Right in general is the hypocrisy of its followers. They claim to be pro-life but many support the death penalty, either you think all life is sacred or you don't. There is no middle ground. They claim to be compassionate conservatives but support the worst kind of hate mongering towards Middle Easterners and actively supported an illegal and horribly prosecuted war that had nothing to do with our safety from terrorism or 9/11.

Jesus hung around with the bottom rung of society and preached tolerance and turning the other cheek yet all I see from this side is intolerance and hatred to those with differing views. Jesus would be ashamed of what has become of his teachings today and those who have exploited his message. It's the worst kind of bigotry IMHO.

[timvp]

They claim to be compassionate conservatives but support the worst kind of hate mongering towards Middle EasternersAh ha. We finally find the root of your emotional hate. You're a middle easterner and you think all Republicans hate you and your people. That explains why you are so emo in all your posts.

It all makes sense now.

[2centsworth]

Well there just went any chance of constructive discussion with you. I don't care about this country at all, I just want "my side" to win. Thanks, fuckbag.




Yeah, the overwhelming majority of the country is brainwashed into thinking Bush was a horrible President and McCain would continue the majority of his economic policies. We're all just sheeple. Thanks, fuckbag.






You're pretty dumb. I mean, low-information, lowest common denominator dumb. It would be like me posting something from counterpunch.org or dailykos to make my contention that Bush and McCain suck. Thanks, fuckbag.

I'm not offended in the least. In fact, you're a joke. Go DEMS GO!!!:flag:

[TheMadHatter]

Ah ha. We finally find the root of your emotional hate. You're a middle easterner and you think all Republicans hate you and your people. That explains why you are so emo in all your posts.

It all makes sense now.

Wrong on all counts. You should stick to basketball.

[Findog]

In fact, you're a joke.

The joke is you falling for this smear garbage, and then turning around and describing yourself as a "free thinker." :lmao

Typical Christ tard.

[whottt]

There was a law in place in Illinois covering the same thing already.
Doctors are already bound by the AMA to treat a fetus that survives the procedure.

And for the record, I'm pro-life - one of the reasons I'm not voting for Obama. Just to throw that out there.


There's a recorded speech by Obama on the Floor of the Illinois state Senate where he says clearly and plainly one of the main reasons for not supporting that bill is because it goes agaisnt the original wishes of the mother to have the child aborted.

His own words.

But don't let the facts get in the way.

[timvp]

Wrong on all counts. You should stick to basketball.You know I'm right. timvp can read emos and why they are emo.

[TheMadHatter]

You know I'm right. timvp can read emos and why they are emo.

:lmao you're a real winner kid

[2centsworth]

The joke is you falling for this smear garbage, and then turning around and describing yourself as a "free thinker." :lmao

Typical Christ tard.

no brother, it's falling in line 100% of the times like you do. Plus, making up statistics just to support a lib agenda is about as sad as it gets. Save yourself time and for each reply just post www.liberaltalkingpoints.com (http://www.liberaltalkingpoints.com).

[timvp]

:lmao i'm an angry middle easterner kid

True.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

:lol at timvp getting in a dick measuring contest with the mad hatter

[timvp]

:lol at timvp getting in a dick measuring contest with the mad hatterThat was a pedo thought on your part considering TheMadMiddleEasterner is about 12.




P.S.

Did you clear it with mookie?

[2centsworth]

For you Findog since I have a memory of an elephant.



1% of the U.S. population now owns 95% of the nation's wealth, the highest discrepancy since the Great Depression. Rich people can shut the fuck up about their taxes.




In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%,




….I pulled that somewhat out of my ass,


Of course you did findog, you’ll say anything to support your team.

[whottt]

Obama's own words on the Floor of the Illinois State Senate:

ypDwNpgIUQc&feature=related


Wouldn't want those pesky little brats that don't die like they are supposed to burden the mother by having the audacity to survive the attempt to kill them.

[TheMadHatter]

That was a pedo thought on your part considering TheMadMiddleEasterner is about 12.




P.S.

Did you clear it with mookie?

This thread has certainly devolved.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

That was a pedo thought on your part considering TheMadMiddleEasterner is about 12.




P.S.

Did you clear it with mookie?

I didn't mean it like that...

dude, are you totally averse to using the PM messaging system?

Just throw me on there alongside mook, there can be more than 1

[ElNono]

Obama's own words on the Floor of the Illinois State Senate:

ypDwNpgIUQc&feature=related


Wouldn't want those pesky little brats that don't die like they are supposed to burden the mother by having the audacity to survive the attempt to kill them.

Actually Obama stated he opposed the BAIPA law in the state senate because it didn't protect the health of the mother. But don't let facts get in your way...

[Phenomanul]

Actually Obama stated he opposed the BAIPA law in the state senate because it didn't protect the health of the mother. But don't let facts get in your way...

Be that the case, it still doesn't excuse the argument Obama uses in that video.

:wtf

"It goes against the original decision????"

Wow... I really don't know how that stance can be defended.

[ElNono]

Be that the case, it still doesn't excuse the argument Obama uses in that video.

:wtf

"It goes against the original decision????"

Wow... I really don't know how that stance can be defended.

I actually didn't watch the video... I'm just telling you what I know about the BAIPA

[whottt]

Be that the case, it still doesn't excuse the argument Obama uses in that video.

:wtf

"It goes against the original decision????"

Wow... I really don't know how that stance can be defended.



#1. He's incredibly stupid. ElNono is I mean. I reccomend ignore.

#2. What you just saw there is an example of the way Obama followers are totally brainwashed.

You have to understand...ElNono is this stale lame poster...he's got very little personality...that's exactly the type of person that is easily brainwashed.

You notice how he just completely ignored Obama's own words? Why? Because Obama said to.



They do that shit all the time dude. They just flat out ignore or don't see the reality.


Plenty of examples of Obama flat out lying and that he isn't what he says he is and they just ignore it...time and time again. It's fucking creepy.

It's definitely some kind of brainwashing...beyond all doubt.

I mean can you think of any other explanation for the way he just completely ignored Obama's own words?


"These are not the droid's we're looking for".


Watch, they'll all ignore his own words...

[Findog]

no brother, it's falling in line 100% of the times like you do. Plus, making up statistics just to support a lib agenda is about as sad as it gets. Save yourself time and for each reply just post www.liberaltalkingpoints.com (http://www.liberaltalkingpoints.com).

I voted for John McCain in 2000 because unlike Al Gore, George W. Bush and Bill Bradley, he was a truth teller. When asked why there wasn't a patients bill of rights, he said "There won't be one as long as my party is controlled by the insurance companies and the Democrats are controlled by the trial lawyers." I miss that John McCain. If 2000 John McCain were running this time around, I'd strongly consider voting for him. I've voted for Democrats more times than I have Republicans or Independents, but the lemming here is you, not me.

You're the Christ tard falling for this abortion smear garbage, not me. You're the person who can't come to terms with the failures of the GOP the past 8 years and has to dismiss having this pointed out to you as "liberal talking points." I don't think Obama is a savior or a saint, but his Presidency will mark a return to the grownups and adults being back in charge. Get a fucking clue.

[Findog]

]Of course you did findog, you’ll say anything to support your team.

I don't have a "team." And I'm not a Christ Tard that will believe anything the anti-choice lobby says just because it fits with my own preconceived notions. I bet you believe a woman can get a D&E simply because she doesn't want to raise the child. :lol

[ElNono]

#1. He's incredibly stupid. ElNono is I mean. I reccomend ignore.


You have so much credibility. As a matter of fact, you are the only user I know in these forums that have me on ignore. That right there says a whole lot.



#2. What you just saw there is an example of the way Obama followers are totally brainwashed.


Says a Palin fanatic? :lmao



You have to understand...ElNono is this stale lame poster...he's got very little personality...that's exactly the type of person that is easily brainwashed.


So easily brainwashed that I owned your ass TWICE. You got so badly owned you had to put me on ignore. Only to remove me from ignore because you were so easily getting your ass handed to you even when you were not reading my posts. :rollin
You've been the weakest poster in these political forums for a while now. And I agree with other people that said you didn't used to be like that.
But that's ok. It's actually GREAT to know you still can't get me out of your system. :lmao



You notice how he just completely ignored Obama's own words? Why? Because Obama said to.


I said I didn't watch the video. I see that you're not just retarded, you also can't read.



They do that shit all the time dude. They just flat out ignore or don't see the reality.


Says the one that claims NY is gonna go red!!!!



Plenty of examples of Obama flat out lying and that he isn't what he says he is and they just ignore it...time and time again. It's fucking creepy.

It's definitely some kind of brainwashing...beyond all doubt.

I mean can you think of any other explanation for the way he just completely ignored Obama's own words?

"These are not the droid's we're looking for".

Watch, they'll all ignore his own words...

LOL. I can't vote. Not for Obama, not for McCain. I just don't like McCain because I know behind all the campaign charade, he's the extension of Bush/Cheney.

But hey, if there's anything I can take from your post, is how emo you still get over me. It's priceless, and it's a testament to how weak minded you truly are.

In closing:


Why's everyone laughing?

:lmao:lmao:lmao