Obama is not saying he wants babies murdered -
Posted By: Amanda on 2009-03-06
In Reply to: I will say this again. I posted here because - Original Poster
Obama is prochoice - that means each person has the right to decide for themselves. You all amaze me when you say you want the government out of your life and to quit telling you what you have to do, but then it is okay for the government to tell the other person that they can't do something they want to because it does not go along with your belief system.
I would never ever have an abortion. I think it is wrong. However, I think that each person should have the right to decide for themselves if they do it or not. In this case I agree, government stay out of my business!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Obama values life of babies AND their mothers.
I am not in the habit of debating with brick walls, but I will address your issue directly just as soon as you come up with something that will convince me that McCain's air quotes demontrate high regard for human life. Kill the mom, save the baby, then watch while it pulls itself up by its bootstraps, lest we turn our beloved country into a welfare state. P-U.
I don't know of any orphans murdered and...
buried in mass graves, but if it happened...equally as evil. No one person should have the say over the life of another. Murder them in the womb, but if they live to be 6 months old and the mother gets tired of them and drowns them...she goes on trial for murder. What a difference 6 months makes.
and how many has he murdered with his lies?
x
You forgot the 3000 murdered Americans?
If Muslims are so against the Taliban or radical Islam, why haven't those in this country spoken up loud and clear again it? What are they afraid of?
And speaking of the MODERATE Muslims, you don't see them speaking out against it either..... their silence is very telling!
True to their newest stand, right wing blogger smears family of murdered soldier.
Predictably, falling right in line with Tony Snow and his *2,500 is a number* statement on June 15, followed one day later by the fiercely *patriotic* Rush *I'dLoveToServeMyCountryButCan'tBecauseOfThisPimpleOnMyButt* Limbaugh, reminding them that aborted fetuses are more important than murdered American soldiers (as was posted on the *other* board on June 16), all the while publicly declaring that all liberals who post on this board don't care about our troops. *Profound* indeed.
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_134.html#002858
The Horse's Mouth
A blog about the reporting of politics -- and the politics of reporting. By Greg Sargent
« | Main | »
WINGNUT JOHN HINDERAKER SMEARS DEAD SOLDIER'S UNCLE. A couple of minutes ago I came across this Associated Press story saying that the uncle of Kristian Menchaca -- one of the U.S. soldiers who was missing and is now said to be dead -- criticized the United States for Menchaca's disappearance and death. My first thought was to do a post asking how long it would take before the wingnuts started smearing the grief-stricken uncle.
Alas, I'm too late. Over at Powerline Blog, John Hinderaker has already cranked up the slime machine and let fly:
In a sick coda, Menchaca's uncle, Ken MacKenzie, appeared on the Today show and recited weirdly inapplicable Democratic Party talking points in relation to his own nephew's death...No shame.
I've asked this before, but what is it about the relatives of people killed by terrorists that these wingnuts hate so much? Recall that Ann Coulter smeared the widows of 9/11 victims and that many righty bloggers smeared the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded in Iraq. Their sin, of course, was that they criticized America and George Bush.
Let me put this as clearly as I can: To the likes of Hinderaker, the pain of those who lost loved ones to this war only matters to the extent that the bereaved allow their grief to be used to prop up the war effort and Bush himself. If the bereaved relatives don't allow their grief to be used in this fashion, their sacrifice and loss no longer matter a whit -- they're not to be pitied or empathized with, but scorned and humiliated as brutally as possible. Despicable.
--Greg Sargent
Cry babies
Your post is so true. Cry babies, run to the moderator and get the posts they disagree with deleted, even though they are posted on the LIBERAL board.
Cry babies
The posts that get removed are removed because they violate the rules for the boards posted by the administrator. Typical liberal response, follow only the rules you like, and to use your term, become a cry baby when the you don't like the rules. With all due respect, spend less time whining about who posts on what board and what posts are removed, and more time trying to figure out why you think it is more important to investigate Bush than it is to concentrate on terrorism. Still having a real difficult time trying to wrap my mind around that one. But..it does underscore why conservatives are so concerned and rightly so.
Cry babies
The two posts of last week were removed because a conservative who came on this board (you?) did not agree with them. Both were articles from journalists and printed in major newspapers, so obviously cleared and approved by the editors of the newspapers and read throughout America. However, the conservative did not agree with the articles, so whined and cried and ran to the moderator (flash back of junior high actions) and had them removed. My opinion is, if a conservative cannot handle an article that was posted in a newspaper and obviously cleared by its editor, dont read it, go back to the conservative board and leave the liberal board alone. I have never posted on the conservative board but have read some of the posts and some are definitely inflammatory and attacks on liberal/democratic politicians. Liberals have not asked to have those posts removed. Conservatives: Do as I say, not as I do.
How many babies do you think die in
the wars that Bush and McCain support? Or does it only matter when American babies die?
You say you think McCain is the lesser of two evils because he is against abortion, right? Well if you are against the concept of killing innocent life, you should be APPALLED at the number of innocent children the US has killed in IRAQ, and will kill in Iran if Mr. 'Prolife" McCain gets in power.
Let your "conscience" be your guide.
So were the babies
murdered. I don't see you making a case for them.
Anchor babies. sm
You mean to tell me, gourdpainter, that you don't celebrate this country's great cultural differences and rights for every American born citizen? I'm shocked!!!! 
Seriously, yes, I do see this as a problem, but doing away with the 14th Amendment is not the way to keep this from happeniing. I'm not sure what the correct procedure for handling this would be or even if it could be done as anchor babies are automatically citizens, but I would think writing your congressmen would be the place to start. This is one of the tragedies this country might face because of weak borders and law enforcement's seeming inabiilty to send illegals back where they came from. It goes deeper than that, though.
You know, you mentioned in another post that no Native American has ever run for POTUS. Actually, they probably have more right than Caucasian American citizens to hold this office as they were here first. 
anchor babies are ---
Anchor babies are babies born to foreigners on American soil. They by virtue of being born here are automatically American citizens even if their parents are not and even if their parents are here illegally. Thus, one day, we could very well have a president whose parents are here illegally, whose parents do not speak English, and he will be legal to be the president! Think that's right?
The law concerning anchor babies....sm
In 1898, the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark declared that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common-law definition of birthright citizenship. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller’s dissenting opinion, however, argued that birthright citizenship had been repealed by the principles of the American Revolution and rejected by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, the decision conferred birthright citizenship on a child of legal residents of the United States. Although the language of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is certainly broad enough to include the children born in the United States of illegal as well as legal immigrants, there is no case in which the Supreme Court has explicitly held that this is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Based on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. An effort in 1997 failed in the face of intense political opposition from immigrant rights groups. Apparently, the question remains open to the determination of the political and legal processes.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm
Where do babies come from? 1 man and 1 woman
I understand these relationships, but I don't think traditional marriage between a man and a woman should cover gays/lesbians. They have civil unions in my state and now they want marriage. Leave the tradition of marriage alone.
I am not willing to assume that 1.2 million babies...
would have horrible lives. I can't see killing them all just in case some might suffer. But how is our choice to decide whether or not someone lives based on what kind of life they might have? I think it should be the choice of the creator, myself. I am curious as to what you think your creator thinks about choosing to kill an unborn child? I think mine's heart breaks every time one happens...over 2000 times a day. Yes, that's what I think.
It's quick? It's horrible but its quick? Good grief!!
You keep discounting the right of the child to live. Who are you, the mother, or anyone else, to say that child has no right to live? Do you think your creator endowed you with that right? Just curious.
How many unwanted babies have you adopted, sam? (nm)
???
but there was already a law in place to protect the babies -
nx
wow -- that's as sad as 1/2 aborted babies being left
nm
No, most of those murder enough babies legally as well.....
@@
They cant stop having babies if they have no forms
Remember the babies in dumpsters?
We had a 17-year-old come in our hospital, full-term and in complete denial she was pregnant. She got mad and left when told she was pregnant. She came back a few weeks later and they could not save her - she never went into labor, the baby was stillborn in her for god knows how long and it subsequently killed her. This kid was living here and there - her parents did not care. The ills in society will remain regardless of the laws.
Nope. She can have all the babies SHE wansts to have.
It's a free country. Believers in pro-choice want to KEEP it free.
Sorry, but according to the law, anchor babies are US citizens - nm
x
Better 1.2 million dead babies a year?
I think we get where you are coming from.
babies are piling up in hospitals and all you're
Have you written or called your local representative? Have you written Congress? What about getting a group together to picket the issue on Capitol Hill?
So many people claim to care, but what they really want is a "clear conscience". Not voting for Obama does not clear anyone of this travesty. It only makes people like you think it does. Sam, you claim to be an independent, but you need to change your card to republican. That's how a republican operates. They only worry about if their hands are clean at the end of the day.
GP..Exactly. And those "anchor babies" can sponsor their whole family and who know what else.
nm
You don't think you might hear the cries of aborted babies....
where were you? Why didn't you help me?
Anchor babies are natural citizens... sm
by virtue of being born on American soil, just as the babies of Chinese immigrants or German immigrants or any other nationality are citizens of this country if they are born on US soil. Granted, the influx of illegal aliens from Mexico has created a problem in that it has burdened the welfare system in this country, but that is not the issue here.
The issue is that Obama cannot produce proof that he is a natural born American citizen. The birth certificate floating around the internet purported to be real is a fake. You can find anything on the internet these days, true or not. Just the fact that liberals shoot down every article posted in support of a conservative's point of view as being "not a credible source" is proof of that.
Mr. Obama is well aware of the questions being raised concerning his birth certificate. If he had a REAL birth certificate, why would he just not produce it and put an end to all the speculation? Because he can't, plain and simple. He flew to Hawaii to see his ailing grandmother and "coincidentally" his "birth records" were sealed at the same time. Isn't that interesting?
Mr. Obama lived for 5 years in Indonesia, a country that does not recognize dual citizenship, therefore nullifying his American citizenship IF it ever existed in the first place. There are no records on file where he ever applied for citizenship after returning to the US.
We have to produce birth certificates for our children to attend school today. Why shouldn't the man who would be POTUS have to show his?
Barack Obama is not even legally a black American. He only has one black great-great-grandmother on his father's side while the other 7 were Arab.
That makes him 50% white, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% black. 12.5% is the minimum required to legally claim any racial status in America.
Obama would qualify as the first Arab-American president, NOT the first black president. That is why they keep saying "African-American" and NOT black because they know he is African Arab and not African black.
Why would you want anyone who has any kind of questionable background leading our country? Would you allow persons of questionable background to teach your children in school? What if that person was suspected of having an inappropriate relationship with a child but it could not be proven? Would you want to run that risk?
I agree that America has more pressing problems that whether the man about to take the helm is a natural born citizen, but do you want someone who is not even an American leading us through these problems?
Murdering near-term babies isn't violent?
nm
Thou shall not kill applies to unborn babies. sm
They are alive, no matter how many pretty pictures you try to paint about it. They are life, God's life.
Ridiculous post. Quit your whining, big babies
nm
Oldtimer, it is used in late-term abortions. To get rid of babies.
nm
We murder 4000 innocent babies by abortion each
and every day, 50 million total so far in this country and counting, and now we will pay for abortions worldwide. Social Security is bankrupt but would not be if those 50 million innocent children had had a choice for life. No one can deny that fact.
Add it up: Abortion kills 4000 innocent babies each day. Queers do not populate.
I would definitely say we are practicing population control, and Obama gonna see we practice worldwide.
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.
British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.
Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.
Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.
The evidence?
The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.
The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.
So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.
Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.
What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?
Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.
The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.
It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.
This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.
Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.
The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?
Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?
In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.
In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.
What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?
The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?
If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!
I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.
Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!
Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.
Okie dokie. We agree to disagree. Someone should speak for the babies...
and I would be one of those. Because I think they deserve a shot at life just like you do. You don't. Your prerogative.
You sound irrational...killing ethiopian babies with your money? ???
nm
If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do
Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
Obama was cool, while grouchy man steamed. Obama!!!
I'm so happy. The dippy people on here who are haters and racists and mccain lovers must be so po'd today. HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Obama gets elected, then it was meant to be! Go, Obama!
nm
Go Obama/Biden! I don't like it and will VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!
Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him. He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.
Obama
I believe Obama has an awesome political future. He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.
Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.
I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful. The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.
Obama is the man!!!
I think he will make an excellent president some day. Maybe Hillary/Obama would be a good ticket choice.
obama
FYI - he never attended a midrasha. This was later corrected.
Obama 08...nm
Obama et. al.
If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business. 
Obama
As I posted on the other board, it is crazy that in one breath people are freaking out saying he is a Muslim, and in the next one, they are freaking out because of his stand on abortion. Being pro-choice really does not go with being a Muslim.
I like Obama, and I like his stance on choice. I really could care less if he is a Muslim. But, he belongs to a Christian church and has for over 20 years, before he had a political career.
People never cease to amaze me!
Obama
My husband just returned from Iraq, we support the war-- but if I had to vote democrat, definitely Obama, please!! But I vote republican, hee hee.
Go Obama!
What a great victory for Obama!
Did anyone see the Kennedy’s endorsement for Obama and his speech this morning? I have never been more excited and inspired in politics. In my life I’ve voted both sides (usually not voting for a candidate but rather voting for the other side as a vote against a candidate). I usually tune out in politics because of outright lies. Barack is the first candidate that I finally understand what he stands for, what his plans are, and he is someone who can connect with everyone in every walk of life. He is a trustworthy, inspiring, and humble person and his voting record and other aspects of his government life give me the confidence that he would be a great president. Listening to his speeches gives me hope for a better country/future for everyone.
I respect everyone’s choice for who they think would be a better president, but I’m sick to death of Clinton and what she stands for. All you have to do is read up on the history of her and what she did when she resided in Oakland California (who her mentors/ colleagues were and what her motives/plans are). She claims to have all this “experience” but doesn’t have it. She takes what her husband accomplished and if it was something good she claims credit to it and if it was bad she had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile her husband is so consumed/greedy (not sure which word best suits him – maybe consumed with greed) to get back into the white house that he is purposely destroying the opponents (even Ted Kennedy had to call and admonish him), but that is the Clinton legacy, destroying other people’s lives. Then when someone does call him on something he will point his finger at them in a threatening way and plays the victim role. It makes me ill just thinking of having someone as corrupt as both of them back in the white house.
If Bill was such a great president they should bring up all the great things that happened under his presidency, but we are not hearing any of it, why? Because there is none. In my opinion he was one of the worst presidents in history. Not one thing he did was for the good of the country. And if anyone believes that she was such a “good wife” while he was out messing around with other women think again. She had her mind set on being president a long time ago. She just uses him to get what she wants. Everything she does has always been calculated.
As for his presidency, I think people are forgetting….he lied under oath and he was impeached for it. Which brings me to another question…why does anyone believe anything he has to say now? Remember the phrase “that all depends on what the meaning of is, is”. Then there was Waco Texas – people were burned alive. But they called them members of a cult, so I guess that made it okay. Then let’s see…Somalia, Bosnia, Monica (and no it wasn’t just about having an affair with her or all the other women), receiving illegal contributions, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on and on.
An article I just read said it better than I can….
“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience - namely, Bill - to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
If you are interested in reading the whole article this is the link…
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-brooks0128.artjan28,0,7018385.story
Obama
He would be better than the one that has been there for 8 years. No matter who is elected, it will take a long time to fix what Bush as screwed up!
<3 Obama too!!
:)
|
