50 percent hike in gas tax

[Jefferson3000]

Well, the "Office of the President-Elect" (when has their ever been such a thing?) held his emergency meeting with his economic advisors the other day to discuss the implementation of this gas tax, so I guess he is complete at the heart of this already. I didn't vote for him either, so I guess that makes me a racist as well.

 

[layoutshooter]

Cheri, he voted twice in the IL house to allow babies that survived an attempt to murder (abort) them and were BORN alive, which entitles them to the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, to just be left to die WITHOUT medical protection. So much for universal health care. He stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and accused my son and nephew and every other person serving in the armed forces ( which he was too cowardly to do himself) of un-speakable crimes like the deliberate targeting of civiliains and night rapes. (the night rapes are a favorite of muslim extremists which I THINK he may support). He ideas on nukes are the ideas of an idiot. He have no work experience of any kind, having never held a real job in his adult like. He has no military experience, the primary job he is in line to take. I take offense to his mis-trust of those of us who targeted nukes, a job I held for over 5 years, and can assure you of a couple of things. We NEVER wanted to fight that war, we went out of our way to try to reduce civilian deaths to a mimimum in any was possible. He has spoken out against everything that I believe in. Freedom, Free markets, My Second Amendment rights. The Constitution in general. That is why I don't like him. He stands for EVERYTHNG that I spent 20 years of my life defending this nation against. I consider him my enemy. That is how I feel. I don't give a diddily doodily what anyone thinks about how I feel. Unlike that sniveling coward, I EARNED the right. I have put my life on the line more than once for strangers that I had never met. He has done NOTHING of value. I fear the results of the next 4 years but I think we will see the end of our Constitution and this great Republic. I do believe we will see the murder of tens of thousands of U.S. Citizens when he goes after our rights, which I will fight to the death for. He will not take ANYTHING away from me. Layoutshooter

 

[drivingmecrazy]

Move this thread to the "Soapbox" then we don't have to read from the Haters- don't worry Sarah might run in 8 years and then you can have your slice of heaven.

 

[chefdennis]

Well I could add a few other things, but Layout pretty much covered alot of it for me. Thanks Layout, you speak for more then will admit it...........

 

[Turtle]

It happens on the Net a lot, people making fun of other's names. Those who do so are actually saying a lot more about themselves than they are about those they are making fun of. They make fun of political leaders, and often other members of an online community. It's lameness at its finest, nothing more than a third grader sticking their tongue out at someone because they have no other intellectual ammunition in an emotional argument. Not that they had any to begin with, usually. Oh, they'll give all kinds of reasons to justify the mangling of someone's name, and all of which end up being just as lame and emotional as the sticking out of the tongue. "I hate you, so there. And to prove to you just how much I hate you, I'm going to make fun of your name." Oooh, that hurt. Take a step back and you'll see how silly you look when you do it.

But what amazes me is the level of disrespect that people here, and elsewhere, can display towards the Office of the President of the United States. And they do so while while waving the flag, stating that it's their civic duty to do so. Well, no it's not. You don't have to respect the man, but you must respect the Office and the position. Criticize the policies and decisions, that's fine, but when you start criticizing the man himself, you cheapen the Office, you cheapen America, you cheapen me. Whether you voted for him or not, you are responsible for electing him. You can call him a bum, call him a terrorist, call him anything you want, just don't lose sight of the fact that you are responsible for him being there, the President answers to The People, and The People is who elected him.

In the case of the President-Elect, he ain't even the President yet, and rather than sit back and actually see what he does, people would rather be afraid of the unknown, be afraid of what he hasn't done, be afraid of what they fear that he might do. People would rather just be afraid. Fear of the unknown in an intelligent being is pure emotion, with no intelligent argument to fight it. Hence, let's make fun of his name, and lets call him names, let's fill in the blanks of unanswered questions with our own worst fears so that we may feel better out ourselves. Let's make ourselves victims, victims of the fear of the unknown. Yeah, that'll work.

 

[chefdennis]

yea weall'n are jest a bunch of emotional scaredie cats. You'll know, we's the one'ns hidin behind and clingin to ours bubles and guns.......weall'n just don't know no better.......we'n only heard what we heard, nothin else and from that we just twisten it up to make the new man in charge look bad, yeap dat be it...cause wbe ascared.......

 

[cheri1122]

Cheri, he voted twice in the IL house to allow babies that survived an attempt to murder (abort) them and were BORN alive, which entitles them to the protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, to just be left to die WITHOUT medical protection. So much for universal health care.
Whether you agree or not, abortion is a legal right. (When I think of the unwanted children & unfit parents already in existence, I'm glad.) But I'd have to see the wording of the bill on which he voted, to comment.
He stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and accused my son and nephew and every other person serving in the armed forces ( which he was too cowardly to do himself) of un-speakable crimes like the deliberate targeting of civiliains and night rapes. (the night rapes are a favorite of muslim extremists which I THINK he may support).
He mentioned them by name? Or was he referring to acts allegedly committed by American soldiers? If the latter, you can be sure there was a foundation for his comments, and that may be open to question. I don't think it's unpatriotic to assume our soldiers are capable of making the same mistakes in judgement and behavior that any human might.
May I ask WHY you think he may support Muslim extremists?
He ideas on nukes are the ideas of an idiot.
Most everyone's are - they can annihalate the entire earth, on a whim, or an ooops!
He have no work experience of any kind, having never held a real job in his adult like.
Being a professor of constitutional law wasn't a 'real job'?
But even if he never had a 'real job', Bush had things handed to him with a silver spoon, and couldn't make them succeed. If mismanagement isn't a bar to the presidency, why should inexperience be?

He has no military experience, the primary job he is in line to take.
Nor did our last president.
I take offense to his mis-trust of those of us who targeted nukes, a job I held for over 5 years, and can assure you of a couple of things. We NEVER wanted to fight that war, we went out of our way to try to reduce civilian deaths to a mimimum in any was possible. He has spoken out against everything that I believe in.
Bush was the same for many folks, but he still got to be their president.
Freedom,
Who created the Patriot Act? How many rights have we lost to 'Homeland Security already? Free markets,
Who told Congress that bailing out private sector corporations was "an emergency"?
My Second Amendment rights. The Constitution in general. That is why I don't like him. He stands for EVERYTHNG that I spent 20 years of my life defending this nation against. I consider him my enemy. That is how I feel. I don't give a diddily doodily what anyone thinks about how I feel. Unlike that sniveling coward, I EARNED the right.
You didn't think Bush was a sniveling coward? I did. A spoiled frat boy sniveling coward, in fact.
I have put my life on the line more than once for strangers that I had never met. He has done NOTHING of value.
Does keeping Hilary from becoming president count? Seriously, you are exaggerating a wee bit here, really.
I fear the results of the next 4 years but I think we will see the end of our Constitution and this great Republic. I do believe we will see the murder of tens of thousands of U.S. Citizens when he goes after our rights, which I will fight to the death for. He will not take ANYTHING away from me. Layoutshooter

The charges you've listed are 'value judgements', which are open to debate, not reasoned facts.
I think the Constitution and this great Republic have been on the way out for many years, since unbridled greed replaced the concepts of justice and accountability, myself.
And I'm willing to give Obama a chance to prove himself, before I make up my mind on his presidency.

 

[layoutshooter]

Cheri, on the abortion issue, I said babies that were born alive!!! That gives them rights under the 14th Amendment. For a So-Called Constitutional Professor that proves he knows little about it. If your are born you are a citizen. That is the same amendment that the civil rights people make thier arguments on. A man who know something about the military would not discuss "alleged" crimes in open debate and give our enemy more ammunition to hate use. The U.S. Army does NOT target cilvilians or use rape as a weapon. If you accuse the Army you accuse my family, don't try it, I take VERY poorly to that.

Turtle, I am not afraid of the unknown, I know this man is a Marxist, He is cut from the same cloth that Stalin was. He will act the same. I DON"T have to respect him, he does not respect me or my way of life. As long as we are under Marxist rule I will fight. I do not change my life for ANYONE. I have NEVER forced ANYONE to do ANYTHING that they did not want to. I did not make you own a gun, (it is Federal Law that is not enforce) I did not make you hunt. The Government chooses, with your power, to treat me as a criminal each time I try to excerise might RIGHT to buy a gun. I have to PROVE that I am NOT a criminal in a country with a Constitution that state that I am innocent until proven guilty. What a sorry state of affairs. Layoutshooter

 

[layoutshooter]

I also think he is a MAJOR security risk. One of the very first questions on an application for a Top Secret Security Clearance is (I cannot remember the exact wording, sorry)
Do you or in the past ever associated with anyone or group that is or was dedicated to the overthrow of the Government of the United States? Obama has and still associates with members of a group who did EXACTLY that!! William Ayers. We allow that traitor to teach his swill in our schools. You are who you hang with. I don't trust him. Just as Slick Willy casued the deaths of several intell agents so will this guy. Yea I am accusing Slick Willy of murder. He did not believe in security either. Agents died because of his big mouth.

Cheri, I would not trust Hillary as far as I could throw her. Remeber all these people are Marxists. I did not like Bush, I thought the bailout was wrong. I am not giving either the Dumbecrats or the Rebumlicans any slack. I think they all suck. Both parties are coorupt, criminal and just discusting.

Turtle, I can wave any flag I choose. I earned that right. I can choose who to respect and who to not respect. I base my beliefs on my life experince, not a few college classes and cute arguments over lattes. I know the horrors of our enemies. I know that Obama does not understand and will never understand the danger. IF if was, like he said he was, a different type of politition he would have made the following statement after his very first White House Security Briefing. "I want to apologise for all the mis-statements I made about President Bush over the last several years. While I might not agree with his actions or assestments, things are far less certain and far more complicated that I could have EVER imagined and I only hope that I can learn to understand what I learn in these breifing and I pray that I don't cause any un-needed deaths due to my lack of understanding and in-experiance." Has not said it and bet he never will. By the way, for a 3 year period I would have to on occasion have to contribute information directly to those breifings. One thing I can tell you, never do they say, "THIS is going to happen now" Don't work that way. Intell is an art, an imperfect art. We seldom, if ever, had all the "POOP" on a subject. An analyst , like my self, would have to use years of backround. A good code break would net only 10% of a message. You had to take those fragments, pair them up with something that seems unrealated, a picture from the other side of the world. Something that happened ten years age. etc etc etc. Then you would send up an "educated guess" on a possible situation that might develope. NOTHING is as easy as this Obama thought it was. I only hope he can grow up fast. Before it's too late.

Layoutshooter

 

[layoutshooter]

You can all wait until tomorrow to pick on me and ridecule my beliefs, my ideals and my outmoded way of life. I have to leave now to head out for FedEx for my TVAL testing in the morning. My extended vacation is over. I must start working agian. By the way, if you want another arguement, I blame the Dumbecrats and Obama for the damage to my truck and the loss of the nearly $30,000 in revenue that it caused. Bet you can't wait to hear how I came up with that one, can you? It's a good one!! It's even kinda sorta based on something that was true. LOL Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

"Turtle, I can wave any flag I choose. I earned that right."

You know what? I can wave any flag I want to, too, and I didn't even have to join the military to do it. You can play the "I earned that right" card just so many times before it becomes tiresome and comical.

Here's the kicker...
"I want to apologise for all the mis-statements I made about President Bush over the last several years. While I might not agree with his actions or assestments, things are far less certain and far more complicated that I could have EVER imagined and I only hope that I can learn to understand what I learn in these breifing and I pray that I don't cause any un-needed deaths due to my lack of understanding and in-experiance."

For one, I cannot believe that you think he should say that, or anything remotely like it. I cannot imagine a more UN-presidential statement, nor a statement that would make the President and the country look any more bewildered, helpless and weak than that one. If he actually came out and said that, you'd probably be the first in line to call him a pinko pansy. If you could beat me to the front of the line, that is.

In any case, since you keep playing the "I earned that right" card, I'm gonna play the old standby "If you think you can do better, then why don't you run for president" card, cause I haven't heard a single solution out of you (except for a couple that would require us to elect a dictator who thinks just like you). You're really good at complaining and spreadin' the doom and gloom, tho. But a little thin on the solutions.

BTW, I'd luuuuuv the link to the IL House bills where he voted twice to allow living babies to just die. Like Cheri said, it's what is in that Bill that matters, not bits and pieces of it. Clinton vetoed bills three times (maybe it was only twice) that would have outlawed partial birth abortions. He didn't veto them because he's in favor of partial birth abortions, he vetoed them because of other extraneous crap that Congress tried to ramrod though as part of the legislation.

 

[chefdennis]

Here is the IL bill that defined what a "born alive" baby was to be defined as. osamaba voted against this:

Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB1082

Full Text of SB1082



Introduced
Senate Amendment 001
Printer-Friendly Version PDF Bill Status


093_SB1082


LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b

1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:

6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.

27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28 becoming law.

Here is an article with osambas statements involving this issue:

Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide

Posted: January 16, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Jill Stanek
© 2009
Obama's 10 reasons for supporting infanticide

I was intimately involved in the five-year process to pass the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, testifying before committees twice that then-state Sen. Barack Obama sat on.
Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA.

10. Babies who survive abortions are not protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor on March 30, 2001:

I just want to suggest ... that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny.
Number one, 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 – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

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.

9. A ban to stop aborted babies from being shelved to die would be burdensome to mothers.

Before voting "no" for a second time in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 5, 2002, Obama stated:

What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that.
8. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a doctor's prerogative.

An Obama spokesman told the Chicago Tribune in August 2004 that Obama voted against BAIPA because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

7. Anyway, doctors don't do that.

Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times in October 2004 he opposed BAIPA because "physicians are already required to use life-saving measures when fetuses are born alive during abortions."

6. Obama apparently read medical charts and saw no proof.

Also, during a speech at Benedictine University in October 2004, Obama said "there was no documentation that hospitals were actually doing what was alleged in testimony presented before him in committee," according to the Illinois Leader.

5. Aborting babies alive and letting them die is a religious issue.

During his U.S. Senate contest against Obama, Alan Keyes famously said:

Christ would not stand idly by while an infant child in that situation died. ... Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.
Obama has always mischaracterized Keyes' condemnation as a blanket statement against Obama's pro-abortion position, which is untrue. Keyes was pointedly discussing infanticide.

Nevertheless, induced labor abortion, the procedure that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive, must be included as one Obama condones. Obama responded first to Keyes as he recounted in a July 10, 2006, USA Today op ed:

... [W]e live in a pluralistic society, and … I can't impose my religious views on another.
4. Aborting babies alive and letting them die violates no universal principle.

In that USA Today piece, Obama said he reflected on that first answer, decided it was a "typically liberal response," and revised it:

But my opponent's accusations nagged at me. ... If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
3. Introducing legislation to stop live aborted babies from being shelved to die was a political maneuver.

During the Benedictine University speech, Obama said, "The bill was unnecessary in Illinois and was introduced for political reasons," according to the Illinois Leader.

2. Sinking Born Alive was about outmaneuvering that political maneuver.

Obama has this quote on his website:

Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
And the No. 1 reason Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act was:

1. Introducing Born Alive was a ploy to overturn Roe v. Wade.

During a debate against Keyes in October 2004, Obama stated:

Now, the bill that was put forward was essentially a way of getting around Roe vs. Wade. ... At the federal level, there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe vs. Wade. I would have voted for that bill.
This was a lie on two points.

First, there was no such amendment.

Second, both definitions of "born alive" were always identical. The concluding paragraph changed in the federal version. But Obama, as chairman of the committee that vetted Illinois' version in 2003, refused to allow an amendment rendering both concluding paragraphs identical. He also refused to call the bill and killed it.

The federal paragraph (c) actually weakened the pro-abortion position by opening the possibility of giving legal status to preborn children, the opposite of Obama's contention:

Illinois' paragraph (c): 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.
Federal paragraph (c): 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.

At any rate, so what if stopping hospitals and abortion clinics from aborting babies alive and leaving them to die did theoretically "encroach on Roe v. Wade"?

Obama was admitting he supported infanticide if that were true.

 

[chefdennis]

Ok here is a article covering osamabas votes on this issue all of them, including the links to the full tet of each bill. Yea it is from a pro life group, but the bills are there, along with links to his votes, and a few explanations.

*for some reason i can't get the links within that article to post, so you will have to go to the article and read then and open them there.

Jill Stanek - Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Protection Act

February 19, 2008
Links to Barack Obama's votes on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Below is a listing of then-state Senator Barack Obama's votes and state senate floor speeches on IL's Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

A package of Born Alive bills was introduced three times during Obama's tenure.

The cornerstone bill was the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, aka "Born Alive Infant Defined," which defined legal personhood to include born alive infants any time the words "person," "human being," "child," or "individual" was stated in IL law.

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.

Following are Obama's actions and votes on Born Alive. The bill number changed every year it was reintroduced.

2001

Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act


Obama's "no" vote in the IL Senate Judiciary Committeehere, March 28, 2001

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001, pages 84-90


Obama's "present" vote on the IL Senate floor, March 30, 2001


2002

Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Obama's "no" vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 6, 2002

Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002, pages 28-35

Obama's "no" vote on the IL Senate floor, April 4, 2002

Listen to audio from Obama's 2002 IL Senate floor debate wherein he argued that while babies might be aborted alive, it would be a "burden" to a mother's "original decision" to assess and treat them.

Meanwhile, the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act with a "neutrality clause" added passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, the U.S. House overwhelmingly, and was signed into law August 5, 2002. The pro-abortion group NARAL expressed neutrality on the bill.


2003

Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Democrats took control of the IL Senate with the 2002 elections. This year Born Alive was sent to the Health & Human Services Committee, chaired by Barack Obama.

As can be seen on the vote docket, Obama first voted to amend SB1082 to add the "neutrality clause" from the federal version of Born Alive to the IL version to make them absolutely identical. (DP#1 means "Do Pass Amendment #1.)

Then Obama voted against the identical version. (DPA means, "Do Pass as Amended.)

Additional corroboration of Obama's vote: IL State Senate Republican Staff Analysis of SB 1082, March 12-13, 2003, bottom of page 2

For 4 years following his 2003 vote Obama misrepresented it, stating the wording of the IL version of Born Alive was not the same as the federal version, and he would have voted for it if so. As recently as August 16, 2008 Obama made this false assertion.

But when evidence presented was irrefutable, Obama's campaign on August 18, 2008, admitted the truth to the New York Sun.

The nonpartison group FactCheck.org has since corroborated Obama voted against identical legislation as passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and then misrepresented his vote.

 

[drivingmecrazy]

Relax...... in 4 years you can vote another Bush into office... and we can dive right back into recession.. sarah has the clothes this time, her daughter gave birth... so that will eliminate some scandel.. I'm sure she will be brushing up on geography, and public speaking, maybe Joe the plummer can join the ticket too! LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Turtle]

I link to the Bill would have been fine. You didn't need to copy and past all that. I'd have preferred the links to the Bills without the commentary from a radical anti-abortionist. In the first article, there are at least two "reasons" cited by Ms Stanek (who I am familiar with) where the commentary and highly skewed and flat out misleading. Those two examples merely happen to be the two that I am already familiar with. There's little point in my researching the others. But I'll take a look and give my thoughts.

Her opinions are highly agendized, and that's fine, but her commentary is highly slanted towards her cause, and highly slanted towards anyone who is not in favor of her cause. I prefer just the facts without political or emotionally charged commentary.

On the facts of 093_SB1082, when I read it the first thing that jumped out at me was "at any stage of development" as being the new and improved definition of what constitutes a "child." The next thing was the definition of "born alive" to include "...breathed or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord..."
Well, the umbilical cord can pulsate even on a stillborn baby. The bill as written is clearly an attempt at anti-abortion legislation. Obama's comments under #10 of Stanek's "10 Reasons" list are actually spot on. It's a constitutional issue of equal protection, and this bill redefines even a non-viable fetus as a born child. Her tidy one sentence summary heading on #10 is both wrong and very misleading. Babies who survive abortions actually, are, absolutely, protected under the Equal Protection clause of the Consitution. A non-viable fetus, on the other hand, do not. She's using "baby" there to redefine what a fetus is, and is doing so for all instances and occasions.

By voting NO on the bill, Obama was not voting to allow babies to die on the table. Sheesh.

To comment on #9 on Ms Stanek's hit parade, I'd have to read Obama's comments in context, because as written here, they make little sense, despite the fact that she has summarized things for us as she sees them.

For #8, Ms Stanek should be ashamed at her congnitive and compresension skills. The bill, as written, would absolutely, in all circumstances, take away the professional judgement of a doctor as to whether or not a fetus is viable. Obama's spokeman's quote is again spot on, yet she managed to twist it to mean aborting a baby (there's that word again) alive and then letting it die is a doctor's perogative. There's a vast difference between a doctor's professional medical judgement, and a doctor's perogative. It isn't now, nor has it ever been, a doctor's perogative to just let a baby die.

#7 and #6 are irrelevant, and #5 is way irrelevant.

#4, including her summary, is a very valid reason. Most people who are anti-abortion have that stance for religious reasons. Taking a stance based in large part on religious reasons, and then trying to enforce that stance on others is not a good thing, no matter how you look at it. Since the Bill itself is clearly an anti-abortion bill, which is why Ms Stanek has been working so hard to get this legislation passed, then the universal principle must come into play, otherwise it's just a religious and moral stance being forced on everyone. Most abortions occur early in a pregnancy where the fetus is not even close to being viable, yet most of those early abortions are induced, and the fetus is very often still alive when "born" by the defintions of this bill. As distrurbing and disgusting as that is, that's what an abortion is. If you are anti-abortion, you'll play that up like crazy, and if you're for abortion, you have to come to terms that an abortion is ending a life, no matter how you chose to define it. It's ugly, but that's they way it is.

#3 is kind of insulting, her giving as a reason for Obama voting NO being that the bill was introduced as a political maneuver, when in fact it was in no small part her own political maneuver in the first place. Obama stated that Illinois didn't need the bill (he's right, they don't, as the Constitution already covers it) and that the bill was introduced for political reasons (which may or may not be the same as political maneuvers, as she states). He's right in that it was introduced for political reasons, 'cause abortion is a political issue, and if this isn't about abortion then there's no reason to introduce a bill that redefines what a live birth is.

Abortion shouldn't even be a political issue, it's a morals issue, and the only reason it's a political issue is because some people want to impose their morals on others, and they're trying to use the political process to do it.

#2, she may very well be correct, it may in fact be a maneuver to the maneuver. That's politics. She's just sore because she got out maneuvered, apparently.

And #1, it's all emotional semantics. She's using the failed bill's definition of a child to argue that Obama is pro infanticide. And in her concluding statement she's very much in favor of this bill enabling the weakening or elimination of Roe v Wade. The leap from allowing a non-viable fetus to die in an abortion to that of infanticide is a rather large leap. It would be different if we (and Obama) were talking about full term or near-term live births where they are left to die, but we're not. Stanek is trying to redefine what a child is, and what a live birth is, to make it all the same. It's not.

The second posting from Stanek's site is mostly irrelevant, as its primary purpose is to merely foster a hatred of Obama and keeps pounding away at the fact that he refused to vote in favor of the bill. He had his reasons, and mostly stated them, and Stanek and others disagree, therefore Obama is bad. Not only that, he's failed to see "their" light three separate times. What's the reason for this bill in the first place?

The only other comment I'll make is his issue of a burden to the mother. That's a valid one. The mother goes in for an abortion and the fetus is "born live" even though quite a non-vialbe fetus (possibly even due to the doctor's failure to perform the abortion properly, as can happen in some cases). Instead of an abortion, which is already very emotional for the mother, she gets this living lump that is now redefined as an actual child, that may survive minutes, hours or even days, all the while the emotional stress is an overwhelming burden. The baby may even survive much longer only to have severe physical and mental developmental abnormalities. At the very least that's a burden to the mother, and cruel to the infant.

Ms Stanek (and others) is more concerned about winning, about imposing her will and her morals onto others, and could really care less about the severe long term emotional stress on the mother and absolute cruel treatment of an infant that could and would result from her cracker jack legislation. They can't get Roe v Wade overturned, so they're stabbing away at whatever they can, regardless of the consequences.

I'm not a big fan of Obama, and I've made no secret of that, but I'm even less of a fan of those who feel they have the right to impose their will on others. The only people who should have any sayso or input on an abortion are the pregnant mother, and maybe, maybe, maybe the father who got her pregnant. It's nobody else's business.

Of course, when you introduce state and federal funding for abortions, then it becomes everybody's business.


Oh, BTW, Drivingmecrazy, Palin doesn't have those clothes anymore. They weren't hers to keep. The campaign bought those, so they went back to the campaign. She never even took them off the plane when she got back to Alaska.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Relax...... in 4 years you can vote another Bush into office... and we can dive right back into recession.. sarah has the clothes this time, her daughter gave birth... so that will eliminate some scandel.. I'm sure she will be brushing up on geography, and public speaking, maybe Joe the plummer can join the ticket too! LMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Been watching Tina Faye reruns again? This is the best you've got against Palin?

Want a good geography lesson? Ask Obama where he came up with those extra 7 states from in his speech.

Tired of this caterwauling from ppl who don't have a clue.

 

[layoutshooter]

Turtle, sorry you think I play my flag waving too much. I will try to behave. HEHEHE Try being the word. As to me running for President, won't happen, the people in this country could NOT handle the truth about what happens out there in the world. I would not be so nice as the last several Presidents have been. Had I been in on 9/11 I would have had the B52's,B1B's,B2's and every other heave bomber I could put my hands on in the air within a week of that attack. I would have put in a draft to counter-act Clinton's gutting of our military and get our troop strengths up to a standing Army of 2 million. The draft would be universal, women included. No defferments for ANY reason. If you belong to a religious group that is opposed to combat you will work in State side hospitals. When I went into Iraq I would have went in with a force twice the size of what was used on D-Day. I would have had 500,000 troops in there in the first month. I would take out the main tumor, Iran, the secondary tumor, Syria at the same time. The economy. Elimitnate welfare for everyone except those who are too sick or old too work. Everyone else will work for thier lively hood. More later. Have to check out the hot tub now. Layoutshooter

 

[layoutshooter]

You know what? This is dumb. I am not going to just sit here and argue with people over things that they have no idea in the world what they are talking about. It is a waste of time. As to abortion, kill all the babies you want. You can answer to God for that later. I will make the following things VERY clear, in case I did not before. I don't like or trust Obama. Just like Bush, EVERYTHING that goes wrong starting Jan 20th for the next 4 years is Obama's fault. NO SLACK. Just like Bush, nothing that goes right was done by Obama. You can do WHATEVER you like, be a Marxist, Socialist what ever I don't give a d*mn what you do. Just don't make me play with you or pay for it in any way. I will not pay any more taxes. I will just stop writing the checks. Don't interfere with my life in any way, shape or form. Any attempt by ANY man or government to change my way of life, stop me from hunting, owning guns, including hand guns and semi-autos will be met with a fight. I have never bothered anybody but you (the generic you) are starting to bother me. Just leave me alone. I will be dead soon, 6 years past my life expectency already, so just go away, let me live my life as I see fit, as a FREE MAN until I die. I have never used violence against any man unless I was attacked first, still goes, leave me totally alone and we can get along. Don't mess with me or my family, I will fight. Not a threat, not wierd heroics, just the way I have always lived my life. I believe in my beliefs. Don't like it or me? Tough cookies. (silly saying but I am being nice for Lawrences sake.) I was raised by a real MAN, I raised my sons as my Dad raised me. I have lived up to the responsibilities that God saw fit to honor me with. When I do die I will go out with my head held high. I did more for others than that was done for me. That is how it should be. I am proud of my life and what I accomplished in my life. I don't need anyone elses approval. Yea, I am a relic, old fashioned etc. Thank God. Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

 

[layoutshooter]

HEY TURTLE, I really like that one!!! Too bad you did not make Obuma look more like a jack *** though, after all, he is a Dumbecrat. By the way I am fatter than that guy is and I never shake my fist at anyone. I would just "Moon" him! Far more classy.

I will tell you one thing, Obuma's picks for the intell position kinda prove my point about his total lack of experience. I NEVER, in all my years in that business worked for a Director of ANY large division or agency that did not have AT LEAST 30-35 years in the business. It takes that long just to get your feet on the ground. When I got my "little" branch, I had 14 years in. I had 3 Air Force captians, 1 Air Force Major, 2 Air Force Staff Sargents and 1 very smart Air Force Senior Master Sargent working for me. My operatiting budget was around $70 million per year. 14 years was kinda quick to take over an operation as small as that. I cannot even imagine a total rookie running C.I.A. How foolish. He won't even know the lingo. It will cost lives. Many will die. Mostly soldiers, so few will care. No one will care about the intell agents that die because of this. The only time anyone will care is when we have another 9/11. Just a side note, my $70 million dollar budget was bigger than ANY that Obuma has handled and controlled up until now. The only real teacher is experiance, that is what President-Elect is lacking, totally. I would not allow my self to be put into that position. If I was ever offered a job that I knew I was not qualified for I would turn it down. One, I could not do a good job and I never take on a job that I don't think I can do well. Two. I can't even imagine having the responsibility of the lives of every man, woman and child in this country on my shoulders and not having a clue what was going on. Three. I can't imagine running a very smart, experiacned work force who had not faith in me what so ever. NO way to start a job and gain respect. We are in way worse trouble than I thought we were. Obuma is even dumber than I gave him credit for. Layoutshooter