Obama Confronts Racial Division in US

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>I understand that in the overall picture, he voted to protect roe vs wade, and therefore women's rights. The act, as it was written by republicans would have put a hardship on women, doctors, hospitals, etc...

As they say, "That's his story and he's sticking to it"

It's basically more BS because it was specific legislation concerning the real life occurrences of what to do when babies survive the abortion doctor.

His reasons included an explanation that this abortion surviving baby laying on the table really wasn't "born" yet.

Again, there's something wrong with a person that denies help to a newborn child. This is Obama.

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
As they say, "That's his story and he's sticking to it"
It's basically more BS because it was specific legislation concerning the real life occurrences of what to do when babies survive the abortion doctor.
His reasons included an explanation that this abortion surviving baby laying on the table really wasn't "born" yet.
Again, there's something wrong with a person that denies help to a newborn child. This is Obama.

And again, he wasn't the only one that didn't vote for it...1 person doesn't approve it, that means that person is in the wrong, the majority doesn't approve it, that means something is wrong with the bill/act...

why don't you blame the group that wrote it for not writing it in a way they knew would pass? more than once! you believe in something? write it in a way that everyone can agree, such as the one passed by the fed!

We are seeing a strange condition of racial Americana play itself out on these threads.

The younger generation is ready to accept all skin color as equals, and considers their own racially bigoted parents as somewhat odd social dinosaurs.

The die-hard racists among us are now mostly older curmudgeons, under-educated whites, or if younger live in houses delivered on wheels.

This ever-shrinking minority of bigoted gene-pool dregs has become increasingly bitter and strident, as they see the very foundation blocks of their ignorant beliefs being utterly destroyed by the acceptance of the candidacy of Barack Obama by main-street America.

Real Americans - those that truly believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights - are going to unite, black and white, to elect America's first black President in November.

This will send a message that will speak loudly of equality and opportunity in American society for Americans of all color, and it will spell the death knell of racial bigotry as a viable viewpoint.

And the bigots know it.

Mo Lubee wrote:

We are seeing a strange condition of racial Americana play itself out on these threads.
The younger generation is ready to accept all skin color as equals, and considers their own racially bigoted parents as somewhat odd social dinosaurs.
The die-hard racists among us are now mostly older curmudgeons, under-educated whites, or if younger live in houses delivered on wheels.
This ever-shrinking minority of bigoted gene-pool dregs has become increasingly bitter and strident, as they see the very foundation blocks of their ignorant beliefs being utterly destroyed by the acceptance of the candidacy of Barack Obama by main-street America.
Real Americans - those that truly believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights - are going to unite, black and white, to elect America's first black President in November.
This will send a message that will speak loudly of equality and opportunity in American society for Americans of all color, and it will spell the death knell of racial bigotry as a viable viewpoint.
And the bigots know it.

So people who don't vote for Nobama are racial bigots?

mlc9852 wrote:

<quoted text>
So people who don't vote for Nobama are racial bigots?

Some are, some aren't. The ones that are would certainly take umbrage at my remarks.

You aren'y taking umbrage are you?

Mo Lubee wrote:

<quoted text>
Some are, some aren't. The ones that are would certainly take umbrage at my remarks.
You aren'y taking umbrage are you?

I don't anything on here very seriously. But I will not vote for Nobama and I don't have to defend myself for my decision.

observant, there is NO defense for someone who wants to murder a child. even a child that is the result of a rape is a blessing and WAY too many people treat that child as some horrible curse. i understand the sentimentality of giving birth to such a child, but don't you people ever stop and wonder if that child chose to be conceived? ythey are blaming the MOST innocent in such a situation. abortion is state sponsored murder and despite if it is legal, only God can wipe that stain away.

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>And again, he wasn't the only one that didn't vote for it...1 person doesn't approve it, that means that person is in the wrong, the majority doesn't approve it, that means something is wrong with the bill/act...
why don't you blame the group that wrote it for not writing it in a way they knew would pass? more than once! you believe in something? write it in a way that everyone can agree, such as the one passed by the fed!

Wrong.
* The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House.
Sens. Kennedy and Boxer even spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL expressed neutrality.

* Obama actively opposed nearly identical legislation in Illinois, the sole state senator to speak against Illinois' Born Alive two years in a row.

* In 2003, Obama single-handedly stopped identical legislation to the federal Born Alive Act from being introduced in the Illinois Senate as chairman of the committee vetting the bill.

* That legislation finally passed in 2005 – the year after Obama left the Illinois Senate – refuting his claim it was unnecessary.

What else can you say?
He was and is wrong.
Love your Obama-bot commitment to try and muddy clear water though.

well laughing, he's gotta make it look like he actually cares about "women's right to choose". when women make such a choose they are told that it is their choice for not taking responsibility for their actions. when men don't take responsibility, they are called dead beat dads. before anyone screams about rape, incest, or the life of the mother, these account for a very minimal percentage of the state-sponsored murders. of all in each case, the MOST innocent is the child. you cannot excuse such abandonment. as far as baracks race speach, it was actually refreshing to see a politician talking about racial hypocricy. as far as his willingness to work across the aisle, he has the most liberal voting record (aka lock step with the party).

doug in jax fl wrote:

well laughing, he's gotta make it look like he actually cares about "women's right to choose". when women make such a choose they are told that it is their choice for not taking responsibility for their actions. when men don't take responsibility, they are called dead beat dads. before anyone screams about rape, incest, or the life of the mother, these account for a very minimal percentage of the state-sponsored murders. of all in each case, the MOST innocent is the child. you cannot excuse such abandonment. as far as baracks race speach, it was actually refreshing to see a politician talking about racial hypocricy. as far as his willingness to work across the aisle, he has the most liberal voting record (aka lock step with the party).

Indeed. I applaud Obama for speaking out for more "personal responsibility" but have to drop the hammer when he doesn't live up to his words again with his irresponsible votes against this legislation.

doug in jax fl wrote:

observant, there is NO defense for someone who wants to murder a child. even a child that is the result of a rape is a blessing and WAY too many people treat that child as some horrible curse. i understand the sentimentality of giving birth to such a child, but don't you people ever stop and wonder if that child chose to be conceived? ythey are blaming the MOST innocent in such a situation. abortion is state sponsored murder and despite if it is legal, only God can wipe that stain away.

while I agree, I also think you should leave that up to the decision of the mother...who are we to judge them? the bible itself tells us not to judge...

Secondly, what about in the case of life or death of the mother? it's not often, but it happens...

the bible tells us to treat our bodies like a temple. to cut off your arm, is to hurt your temple, and therefore a sin. But what if you have gangrene on your arm? If you dont' cut it off, the gangrene will spread, and kill you...therefore you are not taking care of your temple...catch my drift?

I'm not saying abortions are right or wrong, but I'm saying it's not my job to tell a woman what to do with her body...

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong.
* The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House.
Sens. Kennedy and Boxer even spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL expressed neutrality.
* Obama actively opposed nearly identical legislation in Illinois, the sole state senator to speak against Illinois' Born Alive two years in a row.
* In 2003, Obama single-handedly stopped identical legislation to the federal Born Alive Act from being introduced in the Illinois Senate as chairman of the committee vetting the bill.
* That legislation finally passed in 2005 – the year after Obama left the Illinois Senate – refuting his claim it was unnecessary.
What else can you say?
He was and is wrong.
Love your Obama-bot commitment to try and muddy clear water though.

Name call all you want...but you are not correct...

"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]"

observant, there have been women who postponed their own health so that their child can be born. i personally know of one who postponed much needed surgery for several months so that her child can be born. as far as "telling" a woman what to do with her body: 1. she chose what to do when she committed the act but don't want to take the responsibility for it. again we call men who do that dead beats. 2. last i looked it took 2 to conceive that child but only one to choose to avoid the responsibility?
there are people crying about how that there will be women who end up dead cause of trying to perform their own abortions, again not taking responsibility for their actions. hopefully, in this era of "enlightenment" people, men and women, would actually think before they commit the act. then again we are bombarded with the propaganda that we are only animals obeying our animalistic urges.
to get back on topic, i've read countless testimonies that people would be voting for obama purely because of his race. he gets the overwhelming vote from blacks in the primaries but clinton got over 60 % of whites and this percentage was called racist. i truly believe that this country would elect a woman president or anyone of any race if they were the best person for the job. obviously there are racists and sexists out their who would vote for anyone of their race or gender. the key is that there are people of any race and gender who is like this. racism is not an exlusively white issue.

doug in jax fl wrote:

observant, there have been women who postponed their own health so that their child can be born. i personally know of one who postponed much needed surgery for several months so that her child can be born. as far as "telling" a woman what to do with her body: 1. she chose what to do when she committed the act but don't want to take the responsibility for it. again we call men who do that dead beats. 2. last i looked it took 2 to conceive that child but only one to choose to avoid the responsibility?
there are people crying about how that there will be women who end up dead cause of trying to perform their own abortions, again not taking responsibility for their actions. hopefully, in this era of "enlightenment" people, men and women, would actually think before they commit the act. then again we are bombarded with the propaganda that we are only animals obeying our animalistic urges.
to get back on topic, i've read countless testimonies that people would be voting for obama purely because of his race. he gets the overwhelming vote from blacks in the primaries but clinton got over 60 % of whites and this percentage was called racist. i truly believe that this country would elect a woman president or anyone of any race if they were the best person for the job. obviously there are racists and sexists out their who would vote for anyone of their race or gender. the key is that there are people of any race and gender who is like this. racism is not an exlusively white issue.

this will be my last oint on abortion, as this is a no win argument...
as for your abortion points, i agree with you wholeheartedly, and I've always said people need to take more responsibilities, especially in the raising for their children.

That being said, I still have no right to tell a woman what to do. It's not called pro-abortion, it's called pro-choice. a pro choice person can be against abortions...

I also agree with you on the race issue...no arguments from me there!

Capt Clueless wrote:

All races are for segregation! Have you people not noticed There is a white neighboorhood and there is a Black neighboorhood , ther is a spanish neighboorhood ect. ect. People want to be with their own kind they basiclly can live where ever they choose but decise to stay together! So stop fighting it and stop bussing our kids into other neighboorhoods for school. And for petes sake dont vote for a racist musilm like Obama! He does not even no where to go he is not an oreo and he is not white. I guess that is why he took up the mmusselmen!

you ARE clueless...

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>Name call all you want...but you are not correct...
"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 **** 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]"

Let's talk about this subtlety in legalese.

Is a human being, born alive a baby that deserves medical attention or should it be killed by the abortion doctor that didn't succeed while it was in the womb?

Obama said it himself. He doesn't think that a baby lying on the table is officially "Born" yet and thus should not be treated and is subject for immediate execution by the abortion Dr.

Is this sound judgment or just a very confused politician laking wisdom and experience?

Is this really the guy you want for president?

The laughing liberal wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's talk about this subtlety in legalese.
Is a human being, born alive a baby that deserves medical attention or should it be killed by the abortion doctor that didn't succeed while it was in the womb?
Obama said it himself. He doesn't think that a baby lying on the table is officially "Born" yet and thus should not be treated and is subject for immediate execution by the abortion Dr.
Is this sound judgment or just a very confused politician laking wisdom and experience?
Is this really the guy you want for president?

The first part of your question gets into a whole other debate of when is a fetus considered previable. I'm not even going to get into that point!

Secondly, please show me where he specifically said this. Go see the transcripts and you'll see he never said that a baby lying on the table is not born, as you say, but rather he questions how it would be viewed by the courts due to the way it was written, and therefore the questions the constitutionality of the act. So, yes, I do want a president that's going to look after the constitution.

Latest Polls Released:
RCP Average (of all polls) 07/07 - 07/24 -- 46.1 41.9 Obama +4.2

FOX News 07/22 - 07/23 900 RV 41 40 Obama +1.0 (Sean - eat your heart out)
NBC/WSJ 07/18 - 07/21 1003 RV 47 41 Obama +6.0
Rasmussen Tracking 07/22 - 07/24 3000 LV 49 44 Obama +5.0
Gallup Tracking 07/21 - 07/23 2660 RV 45 43 Obama +2.0
CBS News/NY Times 07/07 - 07/14 1462 RV 45 39 Obama +6.0
ABC News/Wash Post 07/10 - 07/13 LV 49 46 Obama +3.0
Reuters/Zogby 07/09 - 07/13 1039 LV 47 40 Obama +7.0

So, they all show Obama with a slight lead in popular vote nationally, but it gets better;

1. Barack leads in State polls in 27 states.

2. Barack would get 332 electoral votes to McCains 183 if the election were held tomorrow.

3. Barack is ahead in 15 of the 21 states having double digit (10 or more) electoral votes. His average lead in those 15 heavyweight states is by 10.3 points, so things are unlikely to change dramatically in those states.

4. Vegas odds now show Barack Obama as a -230 prohibitive favorite, while McLame is a +160 longshot.

Great opportunity for all you intellectually challenged McLame backers to put your money where your mouths are.

Meanwhile, it's OBAMA TIME!

GO OBAMA!

YES WE CAN!

YES WE ARE!

SOON TO BE: YES WE DID!

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>The first part of your question gets into a whole other debate of when is a fetus considered previable. I'm not even going to get into that point!
Secondly, please show me where he specifically said this. Go see the transcripts and you'll see he never said that a baby lying on the table is not born, as you say, but rather he questions how it would be viewed by the courts due to the way it was written, and therefore the questions the constitutionality of the act. So, yes, I do want a president that's going to look after the constitution.

The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which defined legal personhood. This definition was identical to the federal BAIPA which was drafted from the definition of "live birth" created by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955.

Obama said in a speech on the Illinois Senate floor that he could not accept that babies wholly emerged from their mother's wombs are "persons," and thus deserving of equal protection under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/obama-link...

A federal version on the same legislation passed the Senate unanimously and with the support of all but 15 members of the House.

Mr. Obama has compiled a 100% lifetime "pro-choice" voting record, including votes against any and all restrictions on late-term abortions and parental involvement in teenagers' abortions.

To Mr. Obama, abortion, or "reproductive justice," is "one of the most fundamental rights we possess."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212611074804...

And he promises, "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," which would overturn hundreds of federal and state laws limiting abortion, including the federal ban on Partial-Birth abortion and bans on public funding of abortion.

Here's one of the transcripts:
March 30, 2001, pages 84-90:
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans...

What's most disturbing about Obama is him explaining that the abortion survivor "is still temporarily alive outside the womb..."

He then goes on to rationalize the slaughter of the child so as to not challenge the legality of abortion itself when in fact, THE BABY HAS BEEN BORN!

And where do you think this abortion surviving child resides while the abortion doctor is preparing to suffocate it?

-In a blender?
-on a table?
-in a trash bag?

Observant fan wrote:

<quoted text>The first part of your question gets into a whole other debate of when is a fetus considered previable. I'm not even going to get into that point!
Secondly, please show me where he specifically said this. Go see the transcripts and you'll see he never said that a baby lying on the table is not born, as you say, but rather he questions how it would be viewed by the courts due to the way it was written, and therefore the questions the constitutionality of the act. So, yes, I do want a president that's going to look after the constitution.

After reading the transcripts I attached, I think you'll find that Obama most certainly does recognize that the baby is alive and laying on a table somewhere.

All he cares about is killing it even though this little person beat the odds and survived the 1st attempt.

Do you understand that the baby was delivered?

What you and Obama are trying to say is that an official must officially start the clock on life or else it never existed and is subject to whatever horrors we can offer.

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 31-35.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans...