Saying Obama supported “infanticide” seems precisely the sort of “opportunistic, pandering, mealy mouthed bullshit” you are criticizing.
Congratulations on joining the hypocrisy crowd.
No, as a point of fact, it supports my claim. Obama did oppose the legislation I mentioned. The existence of other laws which might overlap the argument is immaterial, Illinois SB 1082 was seeking to clarify those laws and close any loopholes. Further, he continued to oppose it even after it was amended to include the same language as the federal statute, which Obama says he supports.
As far as I know, the DNC is still in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, you’re right about the lobbyist money, though.
ETA: Nevermind, I see the DNC moved a lot of their departments to Chicago.
The legislation had nothing to do with “infanticide.” That is a sleazy, willfully dishonest Republican smear
If a person can be so easily led to believe that Obama “supports infanticide”, they are a Lost Cause.
If they are reading Obama Nation, they are a Lost Cause.
If they claimed to support Hillary but now support McCain because of Obama’s actions, they are a Lost Cause.
I do not want these numbnuts on my side, thankyouverymuch. I would rather lose without them than pander to them. Fuck them all. There is little time, and there are reasonable people to court.
This one (not just from WD obviously) is just really really really starting to get on my nerves. Here’s what really really irks me about the number of times I’ve heard this:
1:
Obama’s worst enemies do not deny his intelligence. He’s not only an extremely ‘smart’ man, he’s a Harvard Law grad, Harvard Law Review editor who taught Constitutional Law for 12 years at U of Chicago (which is not exactly a Billy Joe Bickerstaff Law, Beauty and TV Repair school); he’s nobody’s fool on matters of reading and interpreting legislation and its possible ramifications and interpretations.
2: Do you *really and truly think *that Obama and 20 other Illinois legislators (several of them Republican) would be sooooooooo evil as to say
In addition to being perversely heartless (have you ever known anyone who thought that a full term or near full term infant should be killed?) it would be political suicide. Even a total baby hating sociopath is capable of self preservation by voting the “right” way on such a bill.
So what are the chances that not only is Obama that evil and heartless, but that 20 other members of the Illinois legislature (several of them Republican) would be as well. Is it more likely that:
A: The 92nd Illinois State Legislature just happened to be comprised 40% by politicians who not only had no moral qualms about killing born alive babies but were even willing to sacrifice their political careers just to make sure some babies got killed, knowing full well their votes were matters of public record?
or
B: That the issue was a bit more complex than that? Complexity such as that described on the website of (Constitutional scholar/Constitutional law professor) Obama (bolding mine):
or
C. Obama heard a prophecy that the child who would supplant him was to be born alive as the result of a born-alive abortion that year and would stop at nothing to make sure said child was destroyed, even blackmailing, seducing, and or casting an imperius curse on 20 other legislators to make them vote his way (but still not quite enough).
or
D. TLDR
Honestly, which is more likely- not a rhetorical question: that it was a complex policy issue with major strings attached, or Obama (the father of 2) is pro-infanticide?
If it’s fair to state Obama supported infanticide, is it fair to speculate how many babies John McCain killed in Viet Nam?
FTR: I think both things are equally dispicable. Honestly, if anyone actually thinks a candidate for president supports killing infants-- either through legislation or military action, you’re a dispicable human being.
Fair, but foolish. Doing so reinforces the opinion that liberals are unpatriotic.
Did you get lost on your way to Free Republic or something? This is the Straight Dope, and more specifically, Great Debates, where cites and actual content are the accepted norm, as opposed to childish guffaws, meant to refute what, is unclear.
This directly disputes the allegation that our new friend waged, namely, that “I was not convinced this man could stand up to his own party power brokers - someone had neutered him! He does not seem to be his own man - he’s being managed too carefully.”
Them facts, they’re funny things, huh?
For 5 1/2 years he didn’t kill any babies because he was a p.o.w. sustained by his faith in God. (And in fact the 23 bombing raids only killed military personnel and child molesters- very intelligent bombs- for McCain is pro-life, and an honorable man.)
Since when does killing babies in war = patriotism?
This is a question of considerable importance to we of the Satanist community, who are virtually unanimous in our support of Obama (despite the fact that, as a Muslim, he is not, technically, a Satanist.)
Orthodox and Conservative covens hold that for a sacrifice to the Dark Lord to be valid, the infant must be wholly viable, since offering up an infant with no chance for survival does not entail any real sacrifice, like “paying for services with counterfeit money”, as Mistress Hillary phrased it.
Reform covens hold that anything from the moment of conception on qualifies as a fully realized infant. However, full compliance with appropriate ritual is essential, merely flushing an accidental miscarriage is not a “sacrifice”, as no intent is demonstrated.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
It is worth noting that the group that styles itself “Satanists for Obama” are not legitimate communicants, but a subterfuge intended to bring disfavor and disgrace.
I think that it was a coldly calculated political decision designed to pander to the rabidly pro-choice crowd. I don’t think Obama is pro-infanticide. He did however, with that vote, support it to my definition, and I personally feel that that was a repugnant and unconscionable act, no matter how badly he wanted some group’s support. We keep being told how Obama is a different breed of politician, a man of integrity and honor. I’m sorry, but a man of honor stands up and tell the rabid pro-choicers “I completely support your cause, but I can not support a bill that would endorse, however unlikely, infanticide”.
I didn’t write that it did. I don’t believe it does. What I implied was that many persons will take criticism of an American serviceman’s legal conduct during wartime as unpatriotic. Asserting that Senator McCain’s actions as a pilot make him a mass baby killer is not helpful to Senator Obama’s campaign.
A vote against the bill was not a vote to permit “infanticide.” It was already illegal to kill babies, m’kay. Obama was not voting in a way which had any potential to allow theoretically alive aborted fetuses to be killed. It is fundamentally dishonest to characterize a no vote on this bill as a vote to allow babies to be killed. No such outcome was possible.
“sleazy, willfully dishonest Republican” should be completely synonymous with “Rovian”
So just “Rovian smear” should suffice.
Are we reading the same thing? From your FactCheck link:
So, definition bills and NOT what should be done to infants at all. Further, laws already exist to protect babies born alive and Obama supports this.
What part is repugnant?
And standing up to his constituents? You hammer Obama over this but do not recognize numerous and remarkable reversals in McCain’s stance to appeal to his base?
C’mon…
as you wish
confused doesn’t even begin …
thanks (?) I think
pinky/no stinkin’ capitalizations
How about complete sentences then?
Adding to the above, Obama’s vote on Illinois’s Induced Birth Infant Liability Act * was decidedly pro-Choice and in the interest of keeping abortion legal, of that there’s no question. IF the legality of abortion is an important enough issue for you to decide who gets your vote, then (without debating the ethics of that issue) Obama’s vote on that bill is completely relevant to your decision. Obama’s pro-choice, he believes abortion shoudl be legal, and if you want a candidate who’s against it being legal then there’s no question- you want McCain/Palin.
But for the love of all that is or may be sacred know WHY his voite on that bill is important and what exactly he voted for. Turn on the critical thinking mechanism and don’t just blindly accept the notion that Obama voted to make it legal to walk through maternity wards with a hammer looking at baby’s and saying “need help with that? Not too late to change your mind!” Just drives me nuts when people simplify issues like that. (I really don’t think that McCain is an inhumanly evil man who wants to put gays into concentration camps and wants to stay in Iraq just to indulge his bloodlust while destroying the middle class, but that he happens to have radically different ideas that he didn’t come to lightly adn some of which have good logic [but ultimately I disagree with]; I wish a lot of his supporters would have similarly more complex views on Obama.)
*Personally I’m pro-Choice, but I probably understand the position of those who are anti-abortion more than I do almost any other opposing viewpoint on social issues. I think I speak for most pro-choicers when I say it’s not that we see a first trimester fetus as “just a clump of cells” but that we see it as a complicated issue and that ultimately and for many reasons it is and should remain a personal choice. I’ve no evidence to back this up, but my guess would be that a lot more people move from anti-abortion to pro-choice after thinking it through than move the opposite direction.