Emperor Has No Clothes!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41
  1. Obama’s “initiatives” for the Black community. What are they? Unemployment and poverty continue to get worse and are disproportionally worse to other ethnic minorities. And he refused to even address it; even they are fiercely loyal to him. Why won’t he do something? If he can’t, at least make some noise, draw some damn attention.

What initiatives are you referring? Please link from government sites or official press statements.

  1. Fort Hood Shooting. Calling it “Workplace-Violence” Really??

I get that youâ??re exasperated. But what is your complaint here?

  1. Inability to state “We are at war with Radical Islamic Muslim Terrorists who want to kill us” is putting all of us in danger.

â?¦.what? Examples?

  1. New Black Panther Party voting intimidation. Dereliction of duty.

Two black guys videoed holding open a door at voting precinct during voting day? You mean that time that Fox News freaked out about two black guys at a polling station and reported on it likeâ?¦ 53 times in one day?

  1. Recess Appointments. Total embarrassment. And he was a law professor at one point? So he could install the Dream Act, right???

Recess appointments have occurred under every president, EVERY president since at least Teddy Roosevelt. Did you know that? It has been looked down upon and those recess appointees are not given the same amount of respect as those who have run the full course, but they were not challenged as unconstitutional until recently. On top of that, the reason why he was using recess appointments was because Republican law makers were largely attempting to destroy the ability of agencies which they did not want to have any functionality for, despite being lawfully established, by denying them the ability to install agency heads.

  1. Shit handling of the Boston Bombing by the Justice Department. And Let’s just be clear about one thing: With all this criticism about Obama, none of it is personal. He is just an inept, misguided, naive, amateur. With a political philophy that I disagree with. Eric Holder is a piece of shit. Straight up. I don’t like the man. I hope he is charged criminally. He has committed perjury multiple times, and he should be charged. And speaking of the dirt-bag…

How was the bombing mishandled? Please elaborate.

  1. Whistle-blower prosecutions. Again, Holder.

I am not a fan of Holder, but thereâ??s a difference between whistle-blowing and just haphazardly leaking sensitive information in violation of confidentiality agreements. Whistle-blowers involve exposing corruption and law-breaking. Leaking is simply divulging information that isnâ??t really about corruption. Can you elaborate upon who you see as whistle-blowers and why?

  1. EPA for releasing personal data on 80,000 farmers and livestock operators to rabid leftist environmentalist groups, thus targeting farm families.

A freedom of information act (FOIA) request made by Earth Justice, a not-for-profit public interest law firm that specializes in environmental law constitutes what? Two things Iâ??m wondering is 1) what makes Earth Justice a â??rabid leftist environmentalist group[s]â?? (it was one firm, not â??groupsâ??)? Just because a firm specializes in environmental law doesnâ??t necessarily make them â??rabid leftist environmentalists.â?? I mean, Green Peace? Yes, absolutely. PETA? Insanely so (hot women posing nude aside). But I am unaware of what makes them rabid leftist, and I fail to see what exactly was released through a lawful FOIA request was out of bounds. Itâ??s nuance, but its important.

  1. Death of SEALS in Afghanistan: irregularities, lies and cover-ups.

Examples?

  1. Waging war in Libya without congressional authorization.

Several presidents have offered air support and weapons without Congressional support without Congressional authorization. Because there is a difference between waging actual war, which requires actual Congressional support (for example, Bush got authorization to invade Iraq and Afghanistan), and just offering a bit of air support. Itâ??s not exactly something I would not vote for a man because of.

  1. Lies and media manipulation in the wake of Sequestration resulting in public safety put at risk.

Such as? Because last I checked, there are quite a lot of parties that rely on federal funding that ensure safety. Such as air traffic controllers, for example. That seems like something pretty important.

  1. All the “Czars”

I am honestly confused by this criticism, just because there have been â??czarsâ?? in every single administration since FDR. Arnold Schwarzennegger volunteered to be GWBâ??s â??public health czar,â?? for example. Did you not know that?

  1. Born Alive Infant Protect Act. Lied REPEATEDLY about his voting record when he was a state senator. Why are many outside of Illinois unfamiliar with this scandal? Thank the media for covering for him.

Donâ??t know what youâ??re referring to, but I think that you should probably look into this article, which researches something which I think you were referring.

Debunked. I donâ??t know if youâ??re pro-life, but if you are, thatâ??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too.

  1. ACORN. N’uff said.

A heavily, heavily edited video by an individual with absolutely no credibility is held up and touted as an example of voter fraud, letting go of the fact that a) it was heavily edited, and b) Oâ??Keefe was sued for defamation and the plaintiff WON and c) did not actual end up demonstrating voter fraud, and you think this is a scandal that will create buyerâ??s remorse? Whatâ??s more crazy than any allegation that this â??scandalâ?? created is the fact that ACORN doesnâ??t exist anymore, and hasnâ??t for years, but Republicans are still passing laws banning its funding. Think about that. Banning funding for an organization that hasnâ??t existed for years.

  1. Marxist New Party. In 1995 he accepted the nomination and ran as their candidate! Don’t believe me?

No, actually, I donâ??t, unless youâ??re willing to post a link. I look forward to the reputable sources you provide.

  1. Civilian National Security Force. He wants the SEIU to “paint the nation purple”.

Links? Because from my google search, I am only getting conspiracy theories and crazy â??we have to be cautious of a dictatorshipâ?? statements from uninformed, republican representatives from nowhere, USA

I did, however, find this:

  1. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.

I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone Iâ??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.

  1. Emil Jones controversy. Explains his character.

Please elaborate. Youâ??re just naming people and not providing any context.

  1. Terence Flynn of the Labor Relations Board resigned after being accused of leaking information to the National Association of Manufacturers. Martha Johnson head of the GSA fired two top officials and resigned herself after it was revealed that they lived it up to the tune of $822k in Vegas on a 4 day training conference for 300 workers.

I think you need to get your facts straight. Terence Flynn was a Republican that leaked information, not a Democrat. Was he acting in the interests of the Democratic party or Obama? Thatâ??s like blaming Bill Clinton(D) for Tom DeLayâ??s(R) money laundering.

Martha Johnson was inexcusable. The inspector general investigated the matter and found so, and sheâ??s out.

  1. Gitmo.

What about it? He proposed closing it and moving the inmates to the mainland. Every state declined to host holding those inmates. Soâ?¦ he was to do what? Now, heâ??s pushing again to make the case that, because no one has every escaped a supermax prison, that we could keep them there. But regardless, we need a state that will hold them for us.

  1. Support of Muslim Brotherhood.

Please support this allegation with sources. I look forward to seeing where you get this from.

  1. Sealing of ALL his personal records including his Harvard Thesis and Occidental College transcripts. The first President ever to have ANY type of “NON-TRANSPARANCY”. Love that word.

So? I donâ??t really care what classes he took in college (he graduated at the top of his class, I know his major, and he got into an ivy-league school with absolutely no connections. In other words, he made it on the merits of his academics), and quite frankly, I wouldnâ??t want to be judged on a paper that I wrote to graduate law school, because my views have changed over time. My paper, for example, was on cost-containment measures in the PPACA and how to improve them. I no longer agree with the improvements I proposed, because (surprise!) Iâ??ve learned a lot more over the course of 3 years. Now compound that by twenty years.

42
  1. “Ground Force” one
43

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I donâ??t know if youâ??re pro-life, but if you are, thatâ??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term â??born alive infantâ?? as â??any member of the species homo sapiensâ?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits â??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.â??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, â??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.â??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a womanâ??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

â??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 weâ??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.â??

Notice that Obama referred to â??previable fetuses,â?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the motherâ??s body. Obamaâ??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…

[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.

I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone Iâ??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.

[/quote]

We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…

Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…

44

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I don�¢??t know if you�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term â??born alive infantâ?? as â??any member of the species homo sapiensâ?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits â??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.â??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, â??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.â??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a womanâ??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

â??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 weâ??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.â??

Notice that Obama referred to â??previable fetuses,â?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the motherâ??s body. Obamaâ??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…

[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.

I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone I�¢??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.

[/quote]

We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…

Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…[/quote]

Do you know that’s its illegal to break a sea turtle’s eggs. But a human fetus? Nah… Or even an infant birthed a few weeks early in some cases. Think about it.

45

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

Do you know that’s its illegal to break a sea turtle’s eggs. But a human fetus? Nah… Or even an infant birthed a few weeks early in some cases. Think about it.
[/quote]

Yeah, our culture is fucked up. They can hear a god damn heartbeat and still pretend it isn’t a human being…

46

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I don�?�¢??t know if you�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �¢??born alive infant�¢?? as �¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�¢??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �¢??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.�¢??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

�¢??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.�¢??

Notice that Obama referred to �¢??previable fetuses,�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�¢??s body. Obama�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…
[/quote]

I take your comments on the Born Alive Act that you took issue with; Obama articulated that he did not support the bill because it created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade and further, provided the legal reasoning why. Obama is pro-choice. Most Democrats are pro-choice. It’s part of their party’s platform. Therefore, protecting from challenges to the Supreme Court ruling which created the privacy right that ensures abortion access prior to fetal viability is something that Democrats tend to hold with importance, homie. The Born Alive Act, at least as proposed, would have created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Obama opposed it. So… what’s your criticism? That you’re pro-life, and therefore the fact that Obama didn’t support the poorly written Born Alive Act demonstrates…that he’s pro-choice?

Your move son.

47

Everyone please forgive Norcal, he is just upset his property taxes are about to sky rocket.

That’s right bumpkin, Jerry Brown is about to undo Prop 13, ready to pony up ?

48

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
So… what’s your criticism? [/quote]

That he refuses to protect that which is obviously human OUTSIDE of the womb.

The fact that he refuses to do so based on the notion that he wants the ability to murder said human as long as it is still INSIDE the womb is his own moral corruption and between him and his god if he chooses to believe in one. I don’t care that he lies to himself and pretends the baby being slaughtered in the womb isn’t human, many many many people delude themselves to this fact.

The criticism is, based on his logic, murdering a 2 year old boy should be legal then…

Good, because this is the POTUS you defend:

http://twitchy.com/2013/06/19/this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-white-house-pathetically-attempts-to-govern-by-meme/

The man that is supposed to represent the highest office on the face of this Earth, the most powerful man on the planet right now, is tweeting 4chan memes… Let that sink in for a min. A man that shares an office with the likes of Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy, Truman, JFK and Reagan has lowered himself to the level of 4chan internet troll…

wow.

49

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

I take your comments on the Born Alive Act that you took issue with; Obama articulated that he did not support the bill because it created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade and further, provided the legal reasoning why. Obama is pro-choice. Most Democrats are pro-choice. It’s part of their party’s platform. Therefore, protecting from challenges to the Supreme Court ruling which created the privacy right that ensures abortion access prior to fetal viability is something that Democrats tend to hold with importance, homie. The Born Alive Act, at least as proposed, would have created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Obama opposed it. So… what’s your criticism? That you’re pro-life, and therefore the fact that Obama didn’t support the poorly written Born Alive Act demonstrates…that he’s pro-choice?

Your move son.

[/quote]

What is the name of the bill? What word does it have in it? Oh right, BORN…

Ohhhh I get it… If we call babies, babies then people won’t be cool with the murder mills who donate to my campaign, and get me votes…

Can’t save em when they are born, because we might not be able to kill em before they are born anymore.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense to a ration human.

50

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Everyone please forgive Norcal, he is just upset his property taxes are about to sky rocket.

That’s right bumpkin, Jerry Brown is about to undo Prop 13, ready to pony up ? [/quote]

Hey, you get what you pay for. The stuff we enjoy in this state isn’t for free. But I bet you would love that?

52

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I don�¢??t know if you�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term â??born alive infantâ?? as â??any member of the species homo sapiensâ?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits â??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.â??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, â??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.â??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a womanâ??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

â??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 weâ??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.â??

Notice that Obama referred to â??previable fetuses,â?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the motherâ??s body. Obamaâ??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…

[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.

I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone I�¢??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.

[/quote]

We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…

Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…[/quote]

I would expect, now that obama is interested in saving children as he claims, via his intrusive gun control policies, he must be now anti-abortion. Because after all, he cannot take having another child die in a senseless act. Nothing is more senseless than the callous murder of children in abortion. I am so pleased he changed his tune…Or wait, is he really concerned with control, rather than saving children’s lives? And using children as a backdrop to ram his freedom robbing policies down our throat? Certainly, people aren’t that stupid? But alas, yes, they are stupid.

Don’t kill kids with guns, just chop them up with a scalpel and suck them out with a vacuum cleaner. That’s the humane way to murder your children. Shooting them is just wrong.

53

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I don�?�¢??t know if you�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �¢??born alive infant�¢?? as �¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�¢??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �¢??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.�¢??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

�¢??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.�¢??

Notice that Obama referred to �¢??previable fetuses,�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�¢??s body. Obama�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…

[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.

I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone I�?�¢??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.

[/quote]

We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…

Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…[/quote]

I would expect, now that obama is interested in saving children as he claims, via his intrusive gun control policies, he must be now anti-abortion. Because after all, he cannot take having another child die in a senseless act. Nothing is more senseless than the callous murder of children in abortion. I am so pleased he changed his tune…Or wait, is he really concerned with control, rather than saving children’s lives? And using children as a backdrop to ram his freedom robbing policies down our throat? Certainly, people aren’t that stupid? But alas, yes, they are stupid.

Don’t kill kids with guns, just chop them up with a scalpel and suck them out with a vacuum cleaner. That’s the humane way to murder your children. Shooting them is just wrong. [/quote]

What??

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/18/dem-rep-stumped-when-asked-why-she-opposes-5-month-abortion-ban-even-if-it-saves-one-life/

54

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I don�??�?�¢??t know if you�??�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�??�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �?�¢??born alive infant�?�¢?? as �?�¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�?�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �?�¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�?�¢??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �?�¢??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.�?�¢??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�?�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

�?�¢??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.�?�¢??

Notice that Obama referred to �?�¢??previable fetuses,�?�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�?�¢??s body. Obama�?�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…
[/quote]

I take your comments on the Born Alive Act that you took issue with; Obama articulated that he did not support the bill because it created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade and further, provided the legal reasoning why. Obama is pro-choice. Most Democrats are pro-choice. It’s part of their party’s platform. Therefore, protecting from challenges to the Supreme Court ruling which created the privacy right that ensures abortion access prior to fetal viability is something that Democrats tend to hold with importance, homie. The Born Alive Act, at least as proposed, would have created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Obama opposed it. So… what’s your criticism? That you’re pro-life, and therefore the fact that Obama didn’t support the poorly written Born Alive Act demonstrates…that he’s pro-choice?

Your move son.

[/quote]

Perhaps that is because it’s obvious that the life you are killing is human. The second your force to admit that, you have no leg to stand on. Personally I agree, there is no difference between butchering a child to death on the table when born alive then butchering it in utero and sucking it out with a hoover.

You know why it challenges roe v. wade? Because it was founded on incorrect premises. Once you admit it’s murder, the whole argument falls apart. When it comes to killing kids, it doesn’t much matter how you do it. Hell even Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) has turned pro-life and wants the verdict overthrown.
Only a complete unadulterated idiot doesn’t know abortion is murder. The rest are fucking liars who want the right to murder when a life is inconvenient to them.

Children born alive and killed, children born dead, there is no difference.

55

lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill.

56

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

I take your comments on the Born Alive Act that you took issue with; Obama articulated that he did not support the bill because it created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade and further, provided the legal reasoning why. Obama is pro-choice. Most Democrats are pro-choice. It’s part of their party’s platform. Therefore, protecting from challenges to the Supreme Court ruling which created the privacy right that ensures abortion access prior to fetal viability is something that Democrats tend to hold with importance, homie. The Born Alive Act, at least as proposed, would have created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Obama opposed it. So… what’s your criticism? That you’re pro-life, and therefore the fact that Obama didn’t support the poorly written Born Alive Act demonstrates…that he’s pro-choice?

Your move son.

[/quote]

How tragic it would be to save a baby who survived the act of abortion. Why, that would be an abomination!

The left is often so transparent. Their goal is intrusion and behavior control. With the recent revelations of the IRS, we can throw in thought control.
I could respect them at least a little bit if they were at least honest. “We want to control what you do.”
Every time a democrat mentions children, you can bet your sweet ass you are about to lose a freedom.
As long as liberal support abortion, their professed morality rings as hollow as the grand canyon.

57

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]

Absolutely!

58

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I don�??�??�?�¢??t know if you�??�??�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�??�??�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �??�?�¢??born alive infant�??�?�¢?? as �??�?�¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�??�?�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �??�?�¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�??�?�¢??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �??�?�¢??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.�??�?�¢??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�??�?�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

�??�?�¢??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.�??�?�¢??

Notice that Obama referred to �??�?�¢??previable fetuses,�??�?�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�??�?�¢??s body. Obama�??�?�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…
[/quote]

I take your comments on the Born Alive Act that you took issue with; Obama articulated that he did not support the bill because it created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade and further, provided the legal reasoning why. Obama is pro-choice. Most Democrats are pro-choice. It’s part of their party’s platform. Therefore, protecting from challenges to the Supreme Court ruling which created the privacy right that ensures abortion access prior to fetal viability is something that Democrats tend to hold with importance, homie. The Born Alive Act, at least as proposed, would have created a direct legal challenge to Roe v. Wade. Therefore, Obama opposed it. So… what’s your criticism? That you’re pro-life, and therefore the fact that Obama didn’t support the poorly written Born Alive Act demonstrates…that he’s pro-choice?

Your move son.

[/quote]

Perhaps that is because it’s obvious that the life you are killing is human. The second your force to admit that, you have no leg to stand on. Personally I agree, there is no difference between butchering a child to death on the table when born alive then butchering it in utero and sucking it out with a hoover.

You know why it challenges roe v. wade? Because it was founded on incorrect premises. Once you admit it’s murder, the whole argument falls apart. When it comes to killing kids, it doesn’t much matter how you do it. Hell even Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) has turned pro-life and wants the verdict overthrown.
Only a complete unadulterated idiot doesn’t know abortion is murder. The rest are fucking liars who want the right to murder when a life is inconvenient to them.

Children born alive and killed, children born dead, there is no difference.[/quote]

59

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

Debunked. I don�?�¢??t know if you�?�¢??re pro-life, but if you are, that�?�¢??s fine. The thing to watch out for is thinking everyone else is too. [/quote]

[i] The anti-Obama claims from Huckabee and Ohden refer to a series of Illinois bills known as the Born Alive Infant Protection acts, which would have defined the term �¢??born alive infant�¢?? as �¢??any member of the species homo sapiens�¢?? expelled or extracted from his or her mother that exhibits �¢??a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles.�¢??

The 2001 and 2002 measures included a controversial line that proved to be a sticking point. It said, �¢??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.�¢??

Obama took issue with that part of the bill, saying it could interfere with a woman�¢??s right to an abortion, as established through the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Here is an excerpt of his remarks from the 2001 floor debate:

�¢??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 nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, 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 antiabortion statute.�¢??

Notice that Obama referred to �¢??previable fetuses,�¢?? or those that do not have a reasonable chance of survival outside the mother�¢??s body. Obama�¢??s primary concern seems to be that the born-alive act would prohibit aborting a fetus still inside the womb. [/i]

So… As long as we pretend the homo sapiens “fetus” with a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, is still in the womb, it is cool to murder it. But, as long as that provision is intact, it is cool with him to protect it once it is outside of the womb. However, if protecting the obviously living human outside thw womb means we have to protect it inside the womb, then protecting it outside the womb is a no go?

Jack and shit was debunked here homie… Using Bam’s logic, people that shake their babies to death shouldn’t be punished, because a 2 year old has very little reasonable chance of survival without adult intervention…

[quote]33. Ridiculed people who competed in the Special Olympics. Could You imagine if Bush did that? Wow.

I agree with you there. If I completely lost faith in everyone I�?�¢??ve known that has said something stupid, I would be a very lonely man indeed.

[/quote]

We are talking about the god damn POTUS, not Johnny Hotcakes bartender here. There is an expectation of higher moral standing and maturity that comes with having the most power any man on Earth could imagine in the contemporary era…

Good Christ. That type of comment is so far below the office of the POTUS that he should be ashamed of himself, and not one single person should be comfortable defending that statement in any way…[/quote]

I would expect, now that obama is interested in saving children as he claims, via his intrusive gun control policies, he must be now anti-abortion. Because after all, he cannot take having another child die in a senseless act. Nothing is more senseless than the callous murder of children in abortion. I am so pleased he changed his tune…Or wait, is he really concerned with control, rather than saving children’s lives? And using children as a backdrop to ram his freedom robbing policies down our throat? Certainly, people aren’t that stupid? But alas, yes, they are stupid.

Don’t kill kids with guns, just chop them up with a scalpel and suck them out with a vacuum cleaner. That’s the humane way to murder your children. Shooting them is just wrong. [/quote]

Okay, a couple things:

  1. I see that you have completely jumped over my point that you’re pro-life, and you’re simply criticizing a pro-choice position. That doesn’t create a story or a controversy; that’s just you disagreeing with someone being pro-choice. Again, just because someone takes an opposite policy position than what you hold doesn’t create a controversy. It’s just you disagreeing. You’re pro-life? Great. I’m not. And neither is the President.

  2. Just because a bill LABELS itself something does not absolutely mean that it UPHOLDS that thing. For example, the “Clear Skies Act of 2003” actually loosened restrictions on air pollution.

  3. The issue Obama had with the Act was that it could be interpreted to apply to PREVIABLE fetuses. Which, PREVIABILITY creates the right for women to abort their pregnancies; states can block access to abortions only AFTER fetuses reached viability. Some states are strict on it, others allow for a further amount of time. This is the threshold, however, that the basis of Roe v. Wade stands upon, and something that Obama was trying to protect because he is pro-choice. You may disagree with it, but that’s a disagreement that does not create controversy; it’s just you, disagreeing. It doesn’t matter how angry you are or how you feel about God or how you feel Obama must feel about God or how “deluded” anyone is who disagrees with your position, it is still simply a disagreement.

Feel better fella?

60

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol, Lets introduce a bill that says any abortion after a heartbeat can be detected has to be performed with an AR-15… I would love to watch the heads of every democrat explode upon (not) reading the bill. [/quote]

Boy, what a sensible and compassionate thing to say. Maybe I should insert that Jim Carey video to crack up the level of vitriol a notch. It seems a tad low.