Authentic John McCain

If you can't trust a "man of God" to be honest, who can you trust?

Rick Warren lied to cover John McCain's butt, saying that McCain was isolated. McCain hadn't even arrived yet, so how could he have been there for the coin flip to see who goes first?

Michael P Ryan wrote:

If you can't trust a "man of God" to be honest, who can you trust?
Rick Warren lied to cover John McCain's butt, saying that McCain was isolated. McCain hadn't even arrived yet, so how could he have been there for the coin flip to see who goes first?

Mr. Ryan, let us assume that you are correct and Mr. McCain knew the questions ahead of time. All you have to do is listen to Mr. Obama's answers and you can only come to the conclusion that he is not ready to lead the country, or a small city for that matter.

Just one small example: "Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains ''human rights,'' Obama said that such determinations were ''above my pay grade'"

At least he's not senile ...

Michael P Ryan wrote:

At least he's not senile ...

Do you have conclusive evidence to support this statement?

Michael P Ryan wrote:

At least he's not senile ...

No, but the Viet Cong fried his brain. Still, considering his opponent...

Sad that out of a country of 300,000,000 it comes down to these two. Country-fried.

Clarification ... Obama's not senile ...

Michael P Ryan wrote:

Clarification ... Obama's not senile ...

Do you have conclusive evidence to support this statement?

XDEM wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr. Ryan, let us assume that you are correct and Mr. McCain knew the questions ahead of time. All you have to do is listen to Mr. Obama's answers and you can only come to the conclusion that he is not ready to lead the country, or a small city for that matter.
Just one small example: "Asked by Warren at what point in its development a baby gains ''human rights,'' Obama said that such determinations were ''above my pay grade'"

I think what he meant, is that it's for the Supreme Court to decide. They're the only ones who can overturn Roe v. Wade and the President has little to influence it besides appointing SOTUS judges. And as a lawyer, Anglo-Saxon law has always been that a human is not considered such until it takes a breath.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous concept and puts women back 50 years. If we define life as beginning at conception, and for some reason my egg becomes sperminated, however I'm on birth control and the egg never takes...have I committed an abortion? People find loopholes in laws and court decisions and exploit them. What's to then stop them from banning the Pill? If not right at conception, when? The law is about simplicity, clarity and efficiency.

What if I told you that you weren't allowed to have children because my belief if that the world is too populated? Don't push your antiquated belief on me.

MCBUSH wrote:

<quoted text>
I think what he meant, is that it's for the Supreme Court to decide. They're the only ones who can overturn Roe v. Wade and the President has little to influence it besides appointing SOTUS judges. And as a lawyer, Anglo-Saxon law has always been that a human is not considered such until it takes a breath.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous concept and puts women back 50 years. If we define life as beginning at conception, and for some reason my egg becomes sperminated, however I'm on birth control and the egg never takes...have I committed an abortion? People find loopholes in laws and court decisions and exploit them. What's to then stop them from banning the Pill? If not right at conception, when? The law is about simplicity, clarity and efficiency.
What if I told you that you weren't allowed to have children because my belief if that the world is too populated? Don't push your antiquated belief on me.

Point is he was asked about his position on the issue. He did a quick softshoe to dance around it.

I agree with you as far as Roe V Wade...but Obama just flat out avoided the question about an issue that many in our country are passionate about and do want to know how he thinks on it.

Thinking out Loud 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Point is he was asked about his position on the issue. He did a quick softshoe to dance around it.
I agree with you as far as Roe V Wade...but Obama just flat out avoided the question about an issue that many in our country are passionate about and do want to know how he thinks on it.

I think you can infer from his pro-choice stance that he agrees with how things are currently. I think he's also said that he's against late-term abortions with the exception of the mother's health and although pro-choice, is an advocate of adoption and programs that help mothers.

MCBUSH wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you can infer from his pro-choice stance that he agrees with how things are currently. I think he's also said that he's against late-term abortions with the exception of the mother's health and although pro-choice, is an advocate of adoption and programs that help mothers.

Don't disagree....just saying he avoided clearly stating his stance.

Thinking out Loud 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Point is he was asked about his position on the issue. He did a quick softshoe to dance around it.
I agree with you as far as Roe V Wade...but Obama just flat out avoided the question about an issue that many in our country are passionate about and do want to know how he thinks on it.

I disagree, his comment referred to his God(your God or mine as well) as being the ultimate ruler on the abortion issue....thus the comment regarding his pay level....

so ... if "human rights" are accorded to a "person" the moment the egg is fertilized, then will the insurance companies pay if the body self-aborts? Or would the mother to be get charged with involuntary manslaughter?

MCBUSH wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you can infer from his pro-choice stance that he agrees with how things are currently. I think he's also said that he's against late-term abortions with the exception of the mother's health and although pro-choice, is an advocate of adoption and programs that help mothers.

He also advocates killing a live fetus outside of the womb. How is that pro-choice...for whom?

MCBUSH wrote:

<quoted text>
I think what he meant, is that it's for the Supreme Court to decide. They're the only ones who can overturn Roe v. Wade and the President has little to influence it besides appointing SOTUS judges. And as a lawyer, Anglo-Saxon law has always been that a human is not considered such until it takes a breath.
Overturning Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous concept and puts women back 50 years. If we define life as beginning at conception, and for some reason my egg becomes sperminated, however I'm on birth control and the egg never takes...have I committed an abortion? People find loopholes in laws and court decisions and exploit them. What's to then stop them from banning the Pill? If not right at conception, when? The law is about simplicity, clarity and efficiency.
What if I told you that you weren't allowed to have children because my belief if that the world is too populated? Don't push your antiquated belief on me.

From your comment "The law is about simplicity, clarity and efficiency." By this statement I must assume you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. " The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR Arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED" couldn't be much clearer or simpler and efficient could it?

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
He also advocates killing a live fetus outside of the womb. How is that pro-choice...for whom?

That is a lie and you know it.

Bruce V wrote:

<quoted text>
From your comment "The law is about simplicity, clarity and efficiency." By this statement I must assume you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. " The RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR Arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED" couldn't be much clearer or simpler and efficient could it?

Hence my right to own a nuclear bomb in a briefcase.

Che wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a lie and you know it.

Actually if you will look at his vote on the Ill. bill, you will find this is a true statement.

"Barack Obama has claimed that he will bring to us a new sort of politics, away from the politics of special interests, the old politics of pandering. Yet, in 2003, he voted in the Illinois legislature against the protection of babies who happened to survive an abortionists best efforts to kill them. Initially, he claimed that he did that just to protect Roe v. Wade. From Hot Air;

Obama initially said he voted against the 2003 bill protecting born-alive aborted fetuses only because it would have threatened abortion rights due to its lack of a “neutrality” clause vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade. Minor problem: The bill did include that clause and State Sen. Obama was one of the committee members who made sure that it did — before he voted against it anyway.

So, now that he has talked himself into a corner, and he’s been caught in yet another lie, Obama has pulled out the “offended” defense (CNS News);

http://thisainthell.us/

" He’s claiming he supported the federal law (in theory; he didn’t have to vote on it) because federal law does not actually have any effect on state abortion law, and opposed the identical state version, because state laws can affect, um, state laws.

So as far as the law is just a theoretical protection for children, he’ll vote for it. His daughters better thank their lucky stars they survived that sort of logic. But, of course, the law is for us bitter people, not for the elite snobs with whom Obama associates. Their children are our eventual salvation, while our children are just dregs who are just a toss into the closet away from death anyway."

I can find the original if you need the proof.

Che wrote:

<quoted text>
Hence my right to own a nuclear bomb in a briefcase.

Here is a clue. A nuclear bomb is not a firearm. It is an explosive.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworl...

It is a complicated story.

But worth the investigation.