It's Palin ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is possible to be both pro-choice and anti-abortion...easily. I am and feel no dissonance in saying so.

Cherry said:
And within the context, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo Obama likened learning "other, you know, information, about contraception" with "not being punished with a baby." What kind of contraception is Obama referring to?
Click to expand...
Anything but Abstinance only??! How and why to use a condom, pros and cons of other forms of contraception, including the pill, cervical caps, spermicidal sponges etc etc...
 
Gonz said:
Obama implies that the right to an abortion trumps an infant's right to life, even after he is born.
Sun-Times
Click to expand...

Your link doesn't work at the moment but the fact that it says "Obama implies" and not "Obama has said" and also that it says "Op ed" in the url makes it look like it's not real news.
 
For those having trouble with the link, here is the story from Obama's hometown newspaper.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0826byrneaug26,0,4780984.story

Voters should be troubled by Obama's abortion stance
Dennis Byrne
August 26, 2008

Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.

How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted."

But an unthinkable debate is raging as a part of the presidential campaign, centering on how Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted while he was an Illinois state senator on legislation designed to protect the lives and health of all newborns. The debate over Obama's voting record has grown so arcane that we've lost sight of why this question ever came up: Some infants that survive abortion are denied medical assistance. They are left to die.

Jill Stanek, a former nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, described in 2001 during congressional testimony how it happens: In a "live-birth abortion," doctors "do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward." Medication stimulates the cervix to open, allowing the baby to emerge, sometimes alive. "It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital, one . . . lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." Some actually are born healthy because they are aborted to preserve the "health" of the mother, or because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. At best, they are left in a "comfort room," complete with a camera (for pictures of the aborted baby) "baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, footprinting equipment and baby bracelets for mementos and a rocking chair," where they are rocked to death. "Before the comfort room was established," Stanek said, "babies were taken to the soiled utility room to die."

Yes, there ought to be a law against this, and Congress passed one unanimously. It declares that a person is defined as "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Born alive means any human being that after "expulsion or extraction" from the mother "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, Caesarean section, or induced abortion."

Pretty simple, right?

Well, not really. Some people fear that this fundamental protection, ensuring to all the first of the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," is in reality a sneak attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion. To prevent this "Trojan horse," they insisted, and got, in the federal law a guarantee against construing the law to "affirm, deny 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'. . ." This mumbo jumbo is supposed to mean that abortions can't be restricted.

To mollify pro-choice concerns, including Obama's, this was inserted in several versions of the Illinois legislation. But it didn't matter, because the legislation died anyway, with Obama's help. Whether or not he refused to vote for a version that contained the right-to-an-abortion provision isn't what's important here. What is important is that Obama put the supposed and vague threat to an abortion right ahead of a real and concrete threat to the most innocent of human lives.

Obama's response to all this is to sidestep any discussion about when human personhood begins, the key question in the abortion debate. Some say it begins at the moment of conception; others say it begins at birth. (Still others look for a middle ground, suggesting it begins when brain activity starts.) But by arguing against the born-alive legislation because it might in some distant and ambiguous way obstruct abortion, Obama implies that the right to an abortion trumps an infant's right to life, even after he is born.

Such logic is breathtaking. It says that even after birth, a mother's right to rid herself of the baby supersedes any right that a child, now independent of the mother's body and domain, has a right to live. Where America stands on this issue truly is a measure of its sense of justice and compassion. On this score, Obama fails.

Dennis Byrne is a Chicago-area writer. His blog can be viewed at http://dennisbyrne.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
 
One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall-profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad and also on the theory that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells at more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.



Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.
Click to expand...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839724-2,00.html
Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 21/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.
Click to expand...
 
jimpeel said:
For those having trouble with the link, here is the story from Obama's hometown newspaper.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0826byrneaug26,0,4780984.story
Click to expand...


And entirely false.

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.


As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008
Click to expand...


 
"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."
--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008
 
spike said:
Sweet, another opinion piece.
Click to expand...

There are a hundred stories about this. I just picked one from a major newspaper in his area.

MrBishop said:
"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."
--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008
Click to expand...

Way to take a stand Obama.
 
Gonz said:
There are a hundred stories about this. I just picked one from a major newspaper in his area.
Click to expand...

Are you and jimpeel the same person? I thought he posted that one but maybe you just use two different screennames.

At any rate maybe you should find one of the hundred stories that's not an opinion piece when making this claim of yours.
 
Read the red sentence. It says it all.
MrBishop said:
"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."
--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008
Click to expand...
and he kowtowed to them.

So you have shown us that a small coalition of special interests pull the strings of marionette Obama and this is the man you want in the most powerful seat on Earth?
 
So you have shown us that a small coalition of special interests pull the strings of marionette Obama
Click to expand...

Actually no, he hasn't. You should know McCain is the one controlled by special interests. After all he led the presidential field in using lobbyists as fundraisers.

So if you're against having you guy controlled by special interests I guess you won't be voting for McCain.
 
Uh Oh. Bambam blew it bigtime:


"You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,' but it's still gonna stink after eight years."
Click to expand...

He's called Palin a pig and McCain a stinky old fish. That's just not going to do him any favors.
 
You're right. Could've been he was comparing Sarah Palin to a "stinky fish."

:shrug:

'Splain away. I'd love to hear what he actually was trying to say. Do you think those comments were on or off teleprompter?

It's too late to put the brakes on with "he meant this or that": the words have already been spoken, they're out for everyone to see and hear, and the outrage is rising.

He's like John Kerry all over again. He tries to make a joke and self destructs.

Apparently, Hillary's Fans don't find his references too amusing, either.
 
Cerise said:
You're right. Could've been he was comparing Sarah Palin to a "stinky fish."
Click to expand...

'Splain away. I'd love to hear what he actually was trying to say.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just read what he said? Why do you feel the need to make up shit about it?

It's too late to put the brakes on with "he meant this or that": the words have already been spoken, they're out for everyone to see and hear, and the outrage is rising.
Click to expand...

Only a total idiot would be outraged considering the words are right there to read and he didn't call anyone anything.

He's like John Kerry all over again. He tries to make a joke and self destructs.
Click to expand...

You wish, no self destruction. Just fauz outrage from the desperate.

Apparently, Hillary's Fans don't find his references too amusing, either.
Click to expand...

OMGFG!! One forum poster had something to say! Holy shit.

Is that you going incognito on the hillary forums? :laugh:
 
You just gave up huh? That's ok, it was a non-starter anyway.

You can try and scrape up some other diversion tomorrow I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top