Obama Confronts Racial Division in US

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Or maybe resign from the segregrated Congressional Black Caucus that doesn't admit whites?

Yeah, how is that fair? Let the white guys try to establish a Congressional White Caucus and refuse to admit blacks.

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, how is that fair? Let the white guys try to establish a Congressional White Caucus and refuse to admit blacks.

Exclusive blacks-only clubs, groups, awards, or what have you don't do much toward bridging the gap between the races do they?

Mac-7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Exclusive blacks-only clubs, groups, awards, or what have you don't do much toward bridging the gap between the races do they?

And remember, only whites can be racist! From what I've seen, blacks are more racist than whites.

Welllll... are all you closet racists and Red Dog Republicans ready for the first tour of a popular Presidential-level American abroad, since JFK or Ronald Reagan? Are we ready to be proud, instead of cringing at the remarks of our leader?(yes, Barack is our leader and will be our President)

The long political winter is over for America, and for the world! Even in Iran, the sunshine of reason and negotiation is beginning to melt the ice of the Bush winter.

Are you ready for cheering (instead of jeering) crowds enthusastically greeting an American representative? Are you ready for an American politician that is loved and respected (instead of hated and disdained) in foreign countries?

Are you ready for an American leader that will build bridges, make friends and develop support among countries around the world, instead of issuing blustering threats and creating enemies among our former friends.

This trip is going be looked upon as the tipping point of modern American diplomacy and foreign relations.

This will be the trip that will be regarded as the end of the negative Bush-McCain outlook of negativity and hostility towards the world, and the beginning of an intelligent, rational, sensible and effective era of American foreign relations and policy.

For the first time in many years, the majority of Americans will smile and be proud as we see our leader walk down a plane ramp amid cheers, waving and smiles from the people of foreign lands.

This trip, and the enthusiastic world acceptance of Barack Obama as our respected leader will also put an additional nail in the timely coffin of John McCain.

GO OBAMA!

YES WE CAN!

Mo Lubee wrote:

Welllll... are all you closet racists and Red Dog Republicans ready for the first tour of a popular Presidential-level American abroad, since JFK or Ronald Reagan? Are we ready to be proud, instead of cringing at the remarks of our leader?(yes, Barack is our leader and will be our President)
The long political winter is over for America, and for the world! Even in Iran, the sunshine of reason and negotiation is beginning to melt the ice of the Bush winter.
Are you ready for cheering (instead of jeering) crowds enthusastically greeting an American representative? Are you ready for an American politician that is loved and respected (instead of hated and disdained) in foreign countries?
Are you ready for an American leader that will build bridges, make friends and develop support among countries around the world, instead of issuing blustering threats and creating enemies among our former friends.
This trip is going be looked upon as the tipping point of modern American diplomacy and foreign relations.
This will be the trip that will be regarded as the end of the negative Bush-McCain outlook of negativity and hostility towards the world, and the beginning of an intelligent, rational, sensible and effective era of American foreign relations and policy.
For the first time in many years, the majority of Americans will smile and be proud as we see our leader walk down a plane ramp amid cheers, waving and smiles from the people of foreign lands.
This trip, and the enthusiastic world acceptance of Barack Obama as our respected leader will also put an additional nail in the timely coffin of John McCain.
GO OBAMA!
YES WE CAN!

What do you expect Obama to do that will change the world?

Mo Lubee wrote:

Welllll... are all you closet racists and Red Dog Republicans ready for the first tour of a popular Presidential-level American abroad, since JFK or Ronald Reagan? Are we ready to be proud, instead of cringing at the remarks of our leader?(yes, Barack is our leader and will be our President)
The long political winter is over for America, and for the world! Even in Iran, the sunshine of reason and negotiation is beginning to melt the ice of the Bush winter.
Are you ready for cheering (instead of jeering) crowds enthusastically greeting an American representative? Are you ready for an American politician that is loved and respected (instead of hated and disdained) in foreign countries?
Are you ready for an American leader that will build bridges, make friends and develop support among countries around the world, instead of issuing blustering threats and creating enemies among our former friends.
This trip is going be looked upon as the tipping point of modern American diplomacy and foreign relations.
This will be the trip that will be regarded as the end of the negative Bush-McCain outlook of negativity and hostility towards the world, and the beginning of an intelligent, rational, sensible and effective era of American foreign relations and policy.
For the first time in many years, the majority of Americans will smile and be proud as we see our leader walk down a plane ramp amid cheers, waving and smiles from the people of foreign lands.
This trip, and the enthusiastic world acceptance of Barack Obama as our respected leader will also put an additional nail in the timely coffin of John McCain.
GO OBAMA!
YES WE CAN!

Could the true believers just cut to the chase by sending Obama directly to Jerusalem and ride him into the city on a donkey?

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you expect Obama to do that will change the world?

He wont be George Bush or John McCain.

OBAMA IS NOT ONLY FOR LATE TERM ABORTIONS, BUT AGAINST SAVING THE LIVES OF BABIES WHO SURVIVE LATE TERM ABORTIONS: Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies who survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said,“Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... 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.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony “did not faze” Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said,“I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!”

“And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,” she said.

http://tinyurl.com/4knpm4

This is the Bill where Obama was the only dissenting voice.

http://tinyurl.com/5gxs9q

See also,“The Audacity of Death”(Wall Street Journal): http://tinyurl.com/6zebwh

Mo Lubee wrote:

<quoted text>
He wont be George Bush or John McCain.

That's what I thought. There is nothing positive about Obama, just he isn't a Republican.

Obama For Dog Catcher wrote:

OBAMA IS NOT ONLY FOR LATE TERM ABORTIONS, BUT AGAINST SAVING THE LIVES OF BABIES WHO SURVIVE LATE TERM ABORTIONS:...

He didn't vote for late term abortions...the bill, as it was presented by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, essentially barred ALL abortions...

at least get the facts straight!

Here's his direct quote:
"...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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional."

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>
He didn't vote for late term abortions...the bill, as it was presented by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, essentially barred ALL abortions...
at least get the facts straight!
Here's his direct quote:
"...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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional."

If a baby is born ALIVE after a botched aborton attempt, isn't that a PERSON??????

Obama supports infanticide - there is no other way to see it.

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
If a baby is born ALIVE after a botched aborton attempt, isn't that a PERSON??????
Obama supports infanticide - there is no other way to see it.

He didn't vote against it...he voted present. the reason he didn't vote for it is because the way it was introduced by anti-abortion lawmakers made it unconstitutional and dind't protect roe v wade. It would also have put a big strain of concern on any doctors performing legal abortions!

Now his opponents are just trying twist it and make it seem like he's for infanticide...just ridiculous!

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>
He didn't vote for late term abortions...the bill, as it was presented by Republican state Sen. Patrick O'Malley, essentially barred ALL abortions...
at least get the facts straight!
Here's his direct quote:
"...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 anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional."

You're wrong. The record is clear about Obama's opposition to the protection of live babies born of failed abortions. Please direct your inane arguments to the Wall Street Journal. Thank you for your cooperation.

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>He didn't vote against it...he voted present. the reason he didn't vote for it is because the way it was introduced by anti-abortion lawmakers made it unconstitutional and dind't protect roe v wade. It would also have put a big strain of concern on any doctors performing legal abortions!
Now his opponents are just trying twist it and make it seem like he's for infanticide...just ridiculous!

"When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.

In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,''human being,''child' and 'individual.'"

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "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 anti-abortion statute."

In 2002, Obama voted "no" on the bill."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJef...

Can you explain that?

Obama For Dog Catcher wrote:

<quoted text>
You're wrong. The record is clear about Obama's opposition to the protection of live babies born of failed abortions. Please direct your inane arguments to the Wall Street Journal. Thank you for your cooperation.

show me where...don't give me empty arguments...

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
"When Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.
In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,''human being,''child' and 'individual.'"
On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "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 anti-abortion statute."
In 2002, Obama voted "no" on the bill."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJef...
Can you explain that?

because the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade

jacksinner and sharptoon have an immunity to saying racist remarks..havnt youse herd..
shartoon gets away with paying debts and jacksinner pays off his illegitimate kid and side broad with company funds...theys immune...they gots the rights..katsup on the shirt and spitting in white persons food...

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>show me where...don't give me empty arguments...

Read the articles I posted. Sorry, but I don't have time to do your homework for you; I actually work for a living.

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>because the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade

So it's better to let live babies die....

Who in their right mind could support this????

Not to mention the mental health of a mother who stood by while her child was murdered. Abortionists don't give a crap about women - just money.

Racism starts when you hyphenate American. Let's see, now who started that.