| Author | Post |
|---|
FBYSC
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
My point was made to another poster about paying "blacks" reparations. My response to that was everybody doesn't feel that way, including myself. Another point I was bringing out was the fact of the matter of how many times I read post for varies posters and they pushed the point of pointing out that Obama was African American or he was black or a comment about blacks in reference to the one I pointed out here in the post I previously addressed.
For the reasons of voting for a president should be our belief if he/she is qualified, not the color of the candidates skin. Like you said most African Americans are voting for Obama for that main reason, and most Caucasians are not for the same. Thats fact and not you or me can change that. I think it's irresponsible for anyone to vote for someone because of that one reason. I've weighed both candidates position and followed the election very closely. I agree with statements from both parties and I disagree with some too. But rather our opinions, one of these men are going to be president.
And I see no reason to pull any cards.
FBYSC wrote: Can't seem to figure out why some people feel that they've done so much and have done nothing. Last time I checked I didn't had my hand out for no restitutions because my anscetors may have been slaves, nor that they also where already native to this country. Yes, Slavery may have ended in the 1800's but because of some ignorant, self center, and those who feel that they are superior to another race; felt and some still feel the same hate for people of color, are the same reasons and the same ignorance that you speak as you do about Obama and as you call us "blacks." That's so selfish and you all should be asshamed of yourself, for allow your bias ways lead you in making imporant decissions. I feel thats why some people have said that at times America is nothing to be proud of when it's full of people who one feel like the world owe them something and those who feel that they are the only ones who have a right to walk across this land. For America I am proud, but it's the people who perpertrate to make this land of "OURS," great. I remember a few words from a song we sang in Kindergarten.. "This land is our land, from coast to coast and this land was made for you and me."
It's statements like this that really open my eyes, to see that although some people I encounter who seem to be real human beings are mostly wolves in sheep clothing. God said love thy neighbor, not close your door in his face because your afraid he'd ask you for a favor.
AGCS wrote:
Meems wrote: If restitution for blacks who had ancestors that were slaves ever comes about ...
If restitution for Blacks ever comes about? What the hell else have we been doing ever since Lyndon Johnson instituted the so-called "Great Society" and gave official sanction to Affirmative Action? We have been paying billions in restitution for over 40 years. Now, thanks in part to Bill Clinton's "no doc" mortgage loan program for minorities, started in 1993, the government has destroyed the economy. Slavery ended as of December 6, 1865. We do not owe the descendants of slaves a dime! Get over it!
"You all" are voting because of color IS NOT ACCURATE. Talk about BIAS. You just assume because I am not black, I'm voting for the white guy. heheh WRONG.
FBYSC, its sounds as if you are making and educated decison on who you will choose for president. As there are many uneducated people who can't make a sound decision will vote for McCain because of color of skin.
There are just as many blacks doing the same. I heard of a test run where several blacks were asked about issues regarding the election. They were giving quotes and ideas said by the McCain campaign and told them that these were the ideas of Obama.
They did not have a clue. They agreed with the ideas and said they would be voting for Obama.
As for my decision, I would love to have a young energetic and charismatic individual
WITH the values that I share. But I have to go with some old guy and the values that I share. And before you pull the race card on me, If I was a racist, my granddaughters father would be a dead man or at least broken up a bit. He is a great father to my grandchild and husband to my daughter. He too is a hard working man like myself.
|
outside the box
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 02:56 pm |
|
FBYSC wrote: Can't seem to figure out why some people feel that they've done so much and have done nothing. Last time I checked I didn't had my hand out for no restitutions because my anscetors may have been slaves, nor that they also where already native to this country. Yes, Slavery may have ended in the 1800's but because of some ignorant, self center, and those who feel that they are superior to another race; felt and some still feel the same hate for people of color, are the same reasons and the same ignorance that you speak as you do about Obama and as you call us "blacks." That's so selfish and you all should be asshamed of yourself, for allow your bias ways lead you in making imporant decissions. I feel thats why some people have said that at times America is nothing to be proud of when it's full of people who one feel like the world owe them something and those who feel that they are the only ones who have a right to walk across this land. For America I am proud, but it's the people who perpertrate to make this land of "OURS," great. I remember a few words from a song we sang in Kindergarten.. "This land is our land, from coast to coast and this land was made for you and me."
It's statements like this that really open my eyes, to see that although some people I encounter who seem to be real human beings are mostly wolves in sheep clothing. God said love thy neighbor, not close your door in his face because your afraid he'd ask you for a favor.
AGCS wrote:
Meems wrote: If restitution for blacks who had ancestors that were slaves ever comes about ...
If restitution for Blacks ever comes about? What the hell else have we been doing ever since Lyndon Johnson instituted the so-called "Great Society" and gave official sanction to Affirmative Action? We have been paying billions in restitution for over 40 years. Now, thanks in part to Bill Clinton's "no doc" mortgage loan program for minorities, started in 1993, the government has destroyed the economy. Slavery ended as of December 6, 1865. We do not owe the descendants of slaves a dime! Get over it!
"You all" are voting because of color IS NOT ACCURATE. Talk about BIAS. You just assume because I am not black, I'm voting for the white guy. heheh WRONG.
FBYSC, its sounds as if you are making and educated decison on who you will choose for president. As there are many uneducated people who can't make a sound decision will vote for McCain because of color of skin.
There are just as many blacks doing the same. I heard of a test run where several blacks were asked about issues regarding the election. They were giving quotes and ideas said by the McCain campaign and told them that these were the ideas of Obama.
They did not have a clue. They agreed with the ideas and said they would be voting for Obama.
As for my decision, I would love to have a young energetic and charismatic individual
WITH the values that I share. But I have to go with some old guy and the values that I share. And before you pull the race card on me, If I was a racist, my granddaughters father would be a dead man or at least broken up a bit. He is a great father to my grandchild and husband to my daughter. He too is a hard working man like myself.
|
4string
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 02:52 pm |
|
flsr wrote: 4string wrote: flsr wrote: 4string wrote: Obama is ahead by10 points and growing. Despite all the "made up" attemps to smear him. McCain has run nothing but smear, but now wants to call a truce and "Be Civil" Too late! Grumpy Old Men do not get elected.
The reason McCain isn't winning is because he hasn't done enough smearing. Anyway if he smears truth all over the Democrats they won't believe a bit of it because they want their "pie in the sky" messiah.
McCains has run nothing but smear from day one, 100% smear, nothing saying what he will do different. All he did in the last debate was bring even more hardship to a poor guy Joe (actually his name is Sam) The Plumer who did not ask to be put under the spot light, and is now in fear of loosing his job, he is not even elected yet and he is already adding to the unemployment numbers. As Laura Ingraham asked last night: When were the MSNBC crew at Ayers house. The slime are all over this one man because he dared to ask Obama a question. As was noted the man did not go to any rally of Obama's, Obama came into his neighborhood. I believe we can expect more of this after he's elected.
McCain's people are the ones who tried to use a sound bite to their favor, and have now disrupted this guys life. Although at first this guy was eatting his 15 mins up, now he wishes he never went into the street that day. To try and trip up Obama, when in fact he is no where near to being in a position buy the company, or move into a $250,000 tax bracket.
|
Bilgerat
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
flsr wrote: As Laura Ingraham asked last night: When were the MSNBC crew at Ayers house. The slime are all over this one man because he dared to ask Obama a question. As was noted the man did not go to any rally of Obama's, Obama came into his neighborhood. I believe we can expect more of this after he's elected.
Sen. Obama has had one of the largest and most powerful group on his election staff, aiding him at every turn.
The main stream media
|
flsr
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 02:39 pm |
|
4string wrote: flsr wrote: 4string wrote: Obama is ahead by10 points and growing. Despite all the "made up" attemps to smear him. McCain has run nothing but smear, but now wants to call a truce and "Be Civil" Too late! Grumpy Old Men do not get elected.
The reason McCain isn't winning is because he hasn't done enough smearing. Anyway if he smears truth all over the Democrats they won't believe a bit of it because they want their "pie in the sky" messiah.
McCains has run nothing but smear from day one, 100% smear, nothing saying what he will do different. All he did in the last debate was bring even more hardship to a poor guy Joe (actually his name is Sam) The Plumer who did not ask to be put under the spot light, and is now in fear of loosing his job, he is not even elected yet and he is already adding to the unemployment numbers. As Laura Ingraham asked last night: When were the MSNBC crew at Ayers house. The slime are all over this one man because he dared to ask Obama a question. As was noted the man did not go to any rally of Obama's, Obama came into his neighborhood. I believe we can expect more of this after he's elected.
|
4string
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 02:27 pm |
|
flsr wrote: 4string wrote: Obama is ahead by10 points and growing. Despite all the "made up" attemps to smear him. McCain has run nothing but smear, but now wants to call a truce and "Be Civil" Too late! Grumpy Old Men do not get elected.
The reason McCain isn't winning is because he hasn't done enough smearing. Anyway if he smears truth all over the Democrats they won't believe a bit of it because they want their "pie in the sky" messiah.
McCains has run nothing but smear from day one, 100% smear, nothing saying what he will do different. All he did in the last debate was bring even more hardship to a poor guy Joe (actually his name is Sam) The Plumer who did not ask to be put under the spot light, and is now in fear of loosing his job, he is not even elected yet and he is already adding to the unemployment numbers.
|
4string
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 02:21 pm |
|
| 14 points and climbing Obama over McCain.
|
flsr
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 02:12 pm |
|
A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.
She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.
He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.
Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.
The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party".
|
AGCS
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 12:56 pm |
|
FBYSC wrote: Can't seem to figure out why some people feel that they've done so much and have done nothing. Last time I checked I didn't had my hand out for no restitutions because my anscetors may have been slaves, nor that they also where already native to this country. Yes, Slavery may have ended in the 1800's but because of some ignorant, self center, and those who feel that they are superior to another race; felt and some still feel the same hate for people of color, are the same reasons and the same ignorance that you speak as you do about Obama and as you call us "blacks." That's so selfish and you all should be asshamed of yourself, for allow your bias ways lead you in making imporant decissions. I feel thats why some people have said that at times America is nothing to be proud of when it's full of people who one feel like the world owe them something and those who feel that they are the only ones who have a right to walk across this land. For America I am proud, but it's the people who perpertrate to make this land of "OURS," great. I remember a few words from a song we sang in Kindergarten.. "This land is our land, from coast to coast and this land was made for you and me."
It's statements like this that really open my eyes, to see that although some people I encounter who seem to be real human beings are mostly wolves in sheep clothing. God said love thy neighbor, not close your door in his face because your afraid he'd ask you for a favor.
Why should America today owe you or me any special consideration or entitlements because of the condition and status of our ancestors? I have no objection to helping others who are in need. But, to demand punitive "restitution" and monetary reparations is hardly asking a neighbor for a "favor." As to the use of the name "Blacks" versus "African-American," I refuse to recognize or use hyphenated American names. For example, I do not consider myself to be a "European-American." Notably, our common enemies, who want to kill all Americans, draw no such fine distinction between us. Neither should you. I wish you well.
|
FBYSC
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 04:33 am |
|
Can't seem to figure out why some people feel that they've done so much and have done nothing. Last time I checked I didn't had my hand out for no restitutions because my anscetors may have been slaves, nor that they also where already native to this country. Yes, Slavery may have ended in the 1800's but because of some ignorant, self center, and those who feel that they are superior to another race; felt and some still feel the same hate for people of color, are the same reasons and the same ignorance that you speak as you do about Obama and as you call us "blacks." That's so selfish and you all should be asshamed of yourself, for allow your bias ways lead you in making imporant decissions. I feel thats why some people have said that at times America is nothing to be proud of when it's full of people who one feel like the world owe them something and those who feel that they are the only ones who have a right to walk across this land. For America I am proud, but it's the people who perpertrate to make this land of "OURS," great. I remember a few words from a song we sang in Kindergarten.. "This land is our land, from coast to coast and this land was made for you and me."
It's statements like this that really open my eyes, to see that although some people I encounter who seem to be real human beings are mostly wolves in sheep clothing. God said love thy neighbor, not close your door in his face because your afraid he'd ask you for a favor.
AGCS wrote:
Meems wrote: If restitution for blacks who had ancestors that were slaves ever comes about ...
If restitution for Blacks ever comes about? What the hell else have we been doing ever since Lyndon Johnson instituted the so-called "Great Society" and gave official sanction to Affirmative Action? We have been paying billions in restitution for over 40 years. Now, thanks in part to Bill Clinton's "no doc" mortgage loan program for minorities, started in 1993, the government has destroyed the economy. Slavery ended as of December 6, 1865. We do not owe the descendants of slaves a dime! Get over it!
|
AGCS
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 189 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 04:09 am |
|
Meems wrote: If restitution for blacks who had ancestors that were slaves ever comes about ...
If restitution for Blacks ever comes about? What the hell else have we been doing ever since Lyndon Johnson instituted the so-called "Great Society" and gave official sanction to Affirmative Action? We have been paying billions in restitution for over 40 years. Now, thanks in part to Bill Clinton's "no doc" mortgage loan program for minorities, started in 1993, the government has destroyed the economy. Slavery ended as of December 6, 1865. We do not owe the descendants of slaves a dime! Get over it!
|
Meems
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 751 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 10:09 pm |
|
Thanks Don, I do appreciate the information.
Here is a laugh. If restitution for blacks who had ancestors that were slaves ever comes about, can't you just see all the whites that will be scrambling and claiming that one drop rule.........tooooooooooo funny.............
|
The Republican
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 08:40 pm |
|
Commentary: Obama's Abortion Extremism
by Robert George
His views on life issues mark him as the most extreme pro-abortion candidate to have ever run on a major party ticket.
 Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress.
Yet there are Catholics and Evangelicals — even self-identified pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals — who aggressively promote Obama's candidacy and even declare him the preferred candidate from the pro-life point of view.
What is going on here?
I have examined the arguments advanced by Obama's self-identified pro-life supporters, and they are spectacularly weak. It is nearly unfathomable to me that those advancing them can honestly believe what they are saying. But before proving my claims about Obama's abortion extremism, let me explain why I have described Obama as 'pro-abortion' rather than 'pro-choice.'
According to the standard argument for the distinction between these labels, nobody is pro-abortion. Everybody would prefer a world without abortions. After all, what woman would deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion? But given the world as it is, sometimes women find themselves with unplanned pregnancies at times in their lives when having a baby would present significant problems for them. So even if abortion is not medically required, it should be permitted, made as widely available as possible and, when necessary, paid for with taxpayers' money.
The defect in this argument can easily be brought into focus if we shift to the moral question that vexed an earlier generation of Americans: slavery. Many people at the time of the American founding would have preferred a world without slavery but nonetheless opposed abolition. Such people — Thomas Jefferson was one — reasoned that, given the world as it was, with slavery woven into the fabric of society just as it had often been throughout history, the economic consequences of abolition for society as a whole and for owners of plantations and other businesses that relied on slave labor would be dire. Many people who argued in this way were not monsters but honest and sincere, albeit profoundly mistaken. Some (though not Jefferson) showed their personal opposition to slavery by declining to own slaves themselves or freeing slaves whom they had purchased or inherited. They certainly didn't think anyone should be forced to own slaves. Still, they maintained that slavery should remain a legally permitted option and be given constitutional protection.
Would we describe such people, not as pro-slavery, but as 'pro-choice'? Of course we would not. It wouldn't matter to us that they were 'personally opposed' to slavery, or that they wished that slavery were 'unnecessary,' or that they wouldn't dream of forcing anyone to own slaves. We would hoot at the faux sophistication of a placard that said 'Against slavery? Don't own one.' We would observe that the fundamental divide is between people who believe that law and public power should permit slavery, and those who think that owning slaves is an unjust choice that should be prohibited.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let us assume that there could be a morally meaningful distinction between being 'pro-abortion' and being 'pro-choice.' Who would qualify for the latter description? Barack Obama certainly would not. For, unlike his running mate Joe Biden, Obama does not think that abortion is a purely private choice that public authority should refrain from getting involved in. Now, Senator Biden is hardly pro-life. He believes that the killing of the unborn should be legally permitted and relatively unencumbered. But unlike Obama, at least Biden has sometimes opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion, thereby leaving Americans free to choose not to implicate themselves in it. If we stretch things to create a meaningful category called 'pro-choice,' then Biden might be a plausible candidate for the label; at least on occasions when he respects your choice or mine not to facilitate deliberate feticide.
The same cannot be said for Barack Obama. For starters, he supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest. The abortion industry laments that this longstanding federal law, according to the pro-abortion group NARAL, "forces about half the women who would otherwise have abortions to carry unintended pregnancies to term and bear children against their wishes instead." In other words, a whole lot of people who are alive today would have been exterminated in utero were it not for the Hyde Amendment. Obama has promised to reverse the situation so that abortions that the industry complains are not happening (because the federal government is not subsidizing them) would happen. That is why people who profit from abortion love Obama even more than they do his running mate.
But this barely scratches the surface of Obama's extremism. He has promised that 'the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act' (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including, as Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has noted in a statement condemning the proposed Act, 'a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons.' In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry-protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women has proclaimed with approval that FOCA would "sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws [and] policies."
It gets worse. Obama, unlike even many 'pro-choice' legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice. He has referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a 'punishment' that she should not endure. He has stated that women's equality requires access to abortion on demand. Appallingly, he wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing 'pro-choice' about that.
But it gets even worse. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies. In fact, Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies. Here is a concrete test of whether Obama is "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion. He flunked. Even Senator Edward Kennedy voted to include coverage of unborn children in S-CHIP. But Barack Obama stood resolutely with the most stalwart abortion advocates in opposing it.
It gets worse yet. In an act of breathtaking injustice which the Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done, as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. This legislation would not have banned any abortions. Indeed, it included a specific provision ensuring that it did not affect abortion laws. (This is one of the points Obama and his campaign lied about until they were caught.) The federal version of the bill passed unanimously in the United States Senate, winning the support of such ardent advocates of legal abortion as John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. But Barack Obama opposed it and worked to defeat it. For him, a child marked for abortion gets no protection-even ordinary medical or comfort care-even if she is born alive and entirely separated from her mother. So Obama has favored protecting what is literally a form of infanticide.
You may be thinking, it can't get worse than that. But it does.
For several years, Americans have been debating the use for biomedical research of embryos produced by in vitro fertilization (originally for reproductive purposes) but now left in a frozen condition in cryopreservation units. President Bush has restricted the use of federal funds for stem-cell research of the type that makes use of these embryos and destroys them in the process. I support the President's restriction, but some legislators with excellent pro-life records, including John McCain, argue that the use of federal money should be permitted where the embryos are going to be discarded or die anyway as the result of the parents' decision. Senator Obama, too, wants to lift the restriction.
But Obama would not stop there. He has co-sponsored a bill-strongly opposed by McCain-that would authorize the large-scale industrial production of human embryos for use in biomedical research in which they would be killed. In fact, the bill Obama co-sponsored would effectively require the killing of human beings in the embryonic stage that were produced by cloning. It would make it a federal crime for a woman to save an embryo by agreeing to have the tiny developing human being implanted in her womb so that he or she could be brought to term. This "clone and kill" bill would, if enacted, bring something to America that has heretofore existed only in China-the equivalent of legally mandated abortion. In an audacious act of deceit, Obama and his co-sponsors misleadingly call this an anti-cloning bill. But it is nothing of the kind. What it bans is not cloning, but allowing the embryonic children produced by cloning to survive.
Can it get still worse? Yes.
Decent people of every persuasion hold out the increasingly realistic hope of resolving the moral issue surrounding embryonic stem-cell research by developing methods to produce the exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos. But when a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to put a modest amount of federal money into research to develop these methods, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed it. From any rational vantage point, this is unconscionable. Why would someone not wish to find a method of producing the pluripotent cells scientists want that all Americans could enthusiastically endorse? Why create and kill human embryos when there are alternatives that do not require the taking of nascent human lives? It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos.
This ultimate manifestation of Obama's extremism brings us back to the puzzle of his pro-life Catholic and Evangelical apologists.
They typically do not deny the facts I have reported. They could not; each one is a matter of public record. But despite Obama's injustices against the most vulnerable human beings, and despite the extraordinary support he receives from the industry that profits from killing the unborn (which should be a good indicator of where he stands), some Obama supporters insist that he is the better candidate from the pro-life point of view.
They say that his economic and social policies would so diminish the demand for abortion that the overall number would actually go down-despite the federal subsidizing of abortion and the elimination of hundreds of pro-life laws. The way to save lots of unborn babies, they say, is to vote for the pro-abortion-oops! 'pro-choice'-candidate. They tell us not to worry that Obama opposes the Hyde Amendment, the Mexico City Policy (against funding abortion abroad), parental consent and notification laws, conscience protections, and the funding of alternatives to embryo-destructive research. They ask us to look past his support for Roe v. Wade, the Freedom of Choice Act, partial-birth abortion, and human cloning and embryo-killing. An Obama presidency, they insist, means less killing of the unborn.
This is delusional.
We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, "abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased." In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that "abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent." No one is really surprised. After all, the message clearly conveyed by policies such as those Obama favors is that abortion is a legitimate solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancies -- so clearly legitimate that taxpayers should be forced to pay for it.
But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be.
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on many important issues about which reasonable people of goodwill, including pro-life Americans of every faith, disagree: how best to fight international terrorism, how to restore economic growth and prosperity, how to distribute the tax burden and reduce poverty, etc.
But on abortion and the industrial creation of embryos for destructive research, there is a profound difference of moral principle, not just prudence. These questions reveal the character and judgment of each man. Barack Obama is deeply committed to the belief that members of an entire class of human beings have no rights that others must respect. Across the spectrum of pro-life concerns for the unborn, he would deny these small and vulnerable members of the human family the basic protection of the laws. Over the next four to eight years, as many as five or even six U.S. Supreme Court justices could retire. Obama enthusiastically supports Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges who would protect that morally and constitutionally disastrous decision and even expand its scope. Indeed, in an interview in Glamour magazine, he made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama. John McCain, by contrast, opposes Roe and would appoint judges likely to overturn it. This would not make abortion illegal, but it would return the issue to the forums of democratic deliberation, where pro-life Americans could engage in a fair debate to persuade fellow citizens that killing the unborn is no way to address the problems of pregnant women in need.
What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama's America is one in which being human just isn't enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama's America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: 'that question is above my pay grade.' It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy — and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.
In the end, the efforts of Obama's apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn't even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.
Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.
This article originally appeared in Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good and is reprinted with permission.
|
The Republican
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 05:25 pm |
|
Obama: The only involvement I've had with ACORN is, I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.
He did, but that wasn't his only involvement. He also worked closely with ACORN's Chicago office when he ran a Project Vote registration drive after law school, and Obama did some leadership training for Chicago ACORN. The Woods Fund, where Obama served as a board member, gave grants to ACORN's Chicago branch; both organizations are concerned with disadvantaged populations in that city. And during the primaries of this election, Obama's campaign paid upwards of $800,000 to the ACORN-affiliated Campaign Services Inc. for get-out-the-vote efforts.
|
livelaughlove
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 04:37 am |
|
Meems wrote: livelaughlove.........I love your handle.........this is my motto and I try hard to live by it.........I wear an ankle bracelet with the words live laugh and love on it. Never take it off.
aww geeze.
why thank you. its the way i live my life!!
|
Meems
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 751 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 15th, 2008 02:48 am |
|
Any one seen this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
|
Meems
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 751 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
livelaughlove.........I love your handle.........this is my motto and I try hard to live by it.........I wear an ankle bracelet with the words live laugh and love on it. Never take it off.
|
pops
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Florida USA |
| Posts: | 769 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 10:42 pm |
|
designdiva wrote:
IMHO.....That would be the way they count votes in PBCOUNTY.....sorry couldn't resist........ Diva 
WE NEED A RECOUNT!!!
|
The Republican
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 09:58 pm |
|
IMHO wrote: Let's see - This must be how the Republicans count votes
Will vote for McCain 51%
Will vote for Obama 40%
Undecided 10%
________
101%
that is pretty funny...
|
designdiva
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1578 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
IMHO wrote: Let's see - This must be how the Republicans count votes
Will vote for McCain 51%
Will vote for Obama 40%
Undecided 10%
________
101%
IMHO.....That would be the way they count votes in PBCOUNTY.....sorry couldn't resist........ Diva
|
IMHO
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 09:02 pm |
|
Let's see - This must be how the Republicans count votes
Will vote for McCain 51%
Will vote for Obama 40%
Undecided 10%
________
101%
|
The Republican
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 08:18 pm |
|
Hillary Supporters: Will you vote for Obama or McCain?
799 • 51%
626 • 40%
155 • 10%
Undecided
|
4string
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
flsr wrote: 4string wrote: okeegator wrote: livelaughlove wrote: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/02/fact-check-94-times/
Also if you look the number of times he voted to raise taxes was half that amount, that was pointed out the same night it was brought up in the debate so its a lie that McCain keeps telling.. Of those times he voted to raise taxes it was on the upper 1% and big business, not middle class and lower. The only people McCain plans to lower taxes for are the upper class.You know, the ones who provide jobs for the lower class, and will lose interest in doing so if their taxes are raised by Obama So you believe in the trickle down, and that it really works? When every time we use it unemployment rises, wages go down, and the CEOs get richer.
|
flsr
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
4string wrote: Obama is ahead by10 points and growing. Despite all the "made up" attemps to smear him. McCain has run nothing but smear, but now wants to call a truce and "Be Civil" Too late! Grumpy Old Men do not get elected.
The reason McCain isn't winning is because he hasn't done enough smearing. Anyway if he smears truth all over the Democrats they won't believe a bit of it because they want their "pie in the sky" messiah.
|
4string
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 06:17 pm |
|
| Obama is ahead by10 points and growing. Despite all the "made up" attemps to smear him. McCain has run nothing but smear, but now wants to call a truce and "Be Civil" Too late! Grumpy Old Men do not get elected.
|
flsr
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1108 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 01:34 pm |
|
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Negative Advertising
One of the oldest phenomena of American elections-- criticism of one's opponent-- has in recent times been stigmatized by much of the media as "negative advertising."
Is this because the criticism has gotten more vicious or more personal? You might think so, if you were totally ignorant of history, as so many of the graduates of even our elite universities are.
Although Grover Cleveland was elected President twice, he had to overcome a major scandal that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which was considered more of a disgrace then than today. Even giants like Lincoln and Jefferson were called names that neither McCain nor Obama has been called.
Why then is "negative advertising" such a big deal these days? The dirty little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it with liberals.
In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts called himself a "technocrat," a pragmatic solver of problems, despite a classic liberal track record of big spending, big taxes, and policies that were anti-business and pro-criminal.
When the truth about what he actually did as governor was brought out during the Presidential election campaign, the media were duly shocked-- not by Dukakis' record, but by the Republicans' exposing his record.
John Kerry, with a very similar ultra-liberal record, topped off by inflammatory and unsubstantiated attacks on American military men in Vietnam, disdained the whole process of labeling as something unworthy. And the mainstream media closed ranks around him as well, deploring those who labeled Kerry a liberal.
Barack Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be-- unless they check out the record of what he has actually done?
In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent years promoting polarization. That is what a "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment, in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers' money or to force banks to lend to people they don't consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did.
After Barack Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles.
That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers' money bankrolling the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger.
When Barack Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy and resentment hype? Or were Wright's sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up that message?
How subtle is "Goddamn America!"?
Yet those in the media who deplore "negative advertising" regard it as unseemly to dig up ugly facts instead of sticking to the beautiful rhetoric of an election year. The oft-repeated mantra is that we should stick to the "real issues."
What are called "the real issues" are election-year talking points, while the actual track record of the candidates is treated as a distraction-- and somehow an unworthy distraction.
Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they do? A few gullible people do-- and they often get deceived and defrauded big time.
Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and the racial divide-- after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies.
Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception.
Last edited on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 01:40 pm by flsr
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 02:46 am |
|
Concerned Taxpayer wrote: Don Horner wrote: Does anyone honestly believe that if any news person, anywhere, of any political stripe, thought there was a story here, that they wouldn't pursue it to the ends of the earth? If a story like this were true, there would be a Pulitzer in it, at the very least!
Do you honestly believe if there was anything to this story, that the McCain campaign would not pursue it to the ends of the earth?
Like Okeegator says, this has been investigated to death. If there was anything to it, it would have been found by now.
The fact that ANY of you even BEGIN to believe this is what I find hilarious.
So, why isn't your hero, Barack Hussein Obama, simply providing the Federal Court with the necessary documents to authenticate his constitutional qualifications instead of refusing and seeking dismissal of the lawsuit? Obama could very easily make this controversy go away. Why isn't he doing so? What has he got to hide, if he is truly qualified? Or, could it be that he somehow special and not subject to the same rules as everyone else? In the end, if its true, the joke will be on you and other left-wing zealots.
I doubt there is anything to it but I agree that he should present the documents and put the speculation to rest.
If its true, in the end the joke would be on all of us.
|
outside the box
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 02:13 am |
|
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAHAHA ....LOL!!!
THATS SOME FUNNY STUFF RIGHT THERE. I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE, THATS FUNNY
|
Ciphered
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14th, 2008 01:32 am |
|
Now here are some "informed voters" who say they are voting for Obama and can tell you why! Problem is they don't know what the man stands for.
This is from the Howard Stern Show. He sent someone into Harlem to ask people who they support, and most said Obama. He then asked them about "Obama's" stance on issues, but substituted McCain's stance instead. These people all said they agreed with "Obama's" policies ... even his choice of VP running mate - Sarah Palin. The clip only has sound - no video.
This is frightening. I just hope Acorn doesn't get to Harlem before the election.
http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3
|
Concerned Taxpayer
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 239 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 11:11 pm |
|
Last edited on Tue Oct 14th, 2008 11:10 pm by Concerned Taxpayer
|
livelaughlove
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
The Republican wrote: Dear Friends:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm
46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small
business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to
be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not
Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are "two Americas " but
that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want
to be if they'll just work to get there and nowhere else on earth can
they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those
who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of
America first.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the
future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of
honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been
passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves
in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills,
raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life.
They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their
heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what
they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't
understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust
with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They
want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more
government programs.
We are in the unique position in = this country of
electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a
candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager
that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of
the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at
the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best
qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and
essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the
credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the
job right?
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this
country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't
explain, and calling it "change".
"Change what?", I ask.
"Well, we're going to change America", they say.
"In what way?", I query.
"We want someone new and fresh in the White House", they
exclaim.
"So, someone who's not a politician?", I say.
"Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so
we're voting for Obama", they state.
"So the current system, the system of freedom and
democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a
fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news,
and win his party's nomination for the White House that system's all
wrong?"
"No, no, that part of the system's okay we just need a lot
of change."
And so it goes. "Change we can believe in."
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of
change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking
virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois,
so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can
really tell me why only that he's going to change a lot of stuff
"Change, change, change." I have yet to find one single person who can
tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be
President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth
other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of
change.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his
upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's
ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, "What
qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and
talks about change?"
CHANGE WHAT?
Friends, I'll be forthright with you I believe the American
voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're
doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them
I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most
liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political
experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements?
Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read
his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's
lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from
Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new
taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two
leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
Here's a question - "Where were you five and a half years
ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that
time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school
graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000
days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6,000 meals, give or take."
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973,
in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He
considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and
insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did
you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down.
A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a
filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom
in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character
that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose
military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find
anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A
graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver
Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own
son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond
of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is
condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this
man's sacrifice for his country, and his proven leadership abilities,
and talk some more about change."
I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am
utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I
trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best
interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be
President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.
Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A
man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about
change, can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public
service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the
Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and
new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of
character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe
"likeability" is a higher priority for them than "trust". Being a
prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the
United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly
DOES.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for
thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people of all
parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who
wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their
nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask
who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily
apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are
now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his
citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any
foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.
Phone: 760.434.1395
E-mail: ronald.hess@alumni.purdue.edu
<mailto:ronald.hess@alumni.purdue.edu>
amen brother!
|
livelaughlove
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 10:32 pm |
|
Don Horner wrote: livelaughlove wrote: I have a question to propose to all you Barrack BinLaden, oops Obama supporters....
I have a question for you: Regardless of how you plan to vote, how can you have so little respect for a man who has been elected to an office held by only 99 other Americans? You know his name; that was a deliberate attempt to show your contempt; all you succeeded in showing is your childishness.
No, I showed the reason why many Americans are worried.
All you have shown is your narrowmindedness.
THANK YOU,
A PROUD AMERICAN WHO WOULD LIKE TO KEEP AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE.
jerk.
|
Don Horner
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 10:15 pm |
|
Does anyone honestly believe that if any news person, anywhere, of any political stripe, thought there was a story here, that they wouldn't pursue it to the ends of the earth? If a story like this were true, there would be a Pulitzer in it, at the very least!
Do you honestly believe if there was anything to this story, that the McCain campaign would not pursue it to the ends of the earth?
Like Okeegator says, this has been investigated to death. If there was anything to it, it would have been found by now.
The fact that ANY of you even BEGIN to believe this is what I find hilarious.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 13th, 2008 10:08 pm |
|
OkeeArt wrote: where was he born or where he says he was born?
I guess that is the crux if it. Assuming he ws born in Hawaii, the whole point of his citizenship is moot. Apparently Obama released a copy of his birth certificate that some are calling a fake. I guess we will see where it goes from here.
This would be the story of the century and the issue must have been investigated a thousand different ways. Why hasn't anything been uncovered? My guess is someone (Corsi) is trying desperately to cast doubt.
You conspiracy nuts crack me up.
|
|
| | |