obama puts the heat on mcpain

[edgeofthorns]

I'm sure Obama will lift the ban on partial birth abortions. So, now the slaughter of our unborn children will resume in full force again. I don't care who flames me, insults me, or calls me whatever they wish to call me. NO ONE has the right to murder another human being either born or not yet born. We don't hear any screams or see the victims on TV lying in the streets so the plight of the unborn goes underneath the radar. See how an abortion is performed and how these shredded babies are thrown into the trash like garbage afterward. This is what this man Obama believes should happen. I cannot think that sooner rather than later, mankind is going to pay bigtime for these crimes.

I'm right there with you about this, so no flames coming from this direction.

~Brian~

 

[edgeofthorns]

So tell me what you do to stop the slaughter of children who are born to exceptionally unfit parents that starve, beat, neglect, abuse, and then murder them? Or do they not count once they're out of the womb?


(well hey, if you're gonna bang the drum of emotional rhetoric...)

Using abortion as birth control, because people are too irresponsible to take precautions isn't the answer either. Along with that, these people that you speak of that starve, beat and neglect their children don't want children to begin with. I'm convinced that most of these losers only have children, because they want government/social help! Children are only means of getting hand outs from these people, so their water should be cut off. Historically, dems are the ones that cater to these BS programs.

~Brian~

 

[No-Mercy]

why are we still debating? i could argue with many things that have been said here, but the election is over.
it is time for everyone to realize we aren't enemies...just two guys on the same football team trying out for the starting QB position. in the end, the team rallies behind them and moves forward.

he is our president, (soon to be), and like him or not, it will do no good to split the country as he transitions into office. i say just buckle in and do the best to improve your town, community, or country and give this new presidency the chance to change it has earned.

 

[King Lek]

Historically, dems are the ones that cater to these BS programs.

~Brian~

Within that statement (amongst others), lies the problem with any political discussion in recent years as well as party perceptions that accompany them.

People have been sold into harsh "party" politics and their stereotypical musings lead by none other than the media and their puppet pundits all the while forgetting that most, are truly moderates hearded to a side.

This will not change until the 65% moderate population grabs a firm hold of their genitalia and do something about it.

As of today, I officially state that I am now a proud party member of the Demublicans........or would that be the Republicrats?.......hmmmm

 

[Pellaz]

Yah, those CEO's of failed banks definitely EARNED it. ESPECIALLY AIG reps.

Sorry, that's a straw man argument. And thanks to the CRA, many of those same banks were forced to loan "bad paper" (subprime loans on houses and --worse -- commercial properties) when they knew it was a bad idea, under threat of Federal sanctions.

Private health care is awfully broken. Also, you're wrong. He wants to allow people to buy into Government issued Health Care. Private Health Care will still be available. kkthx misinformed.

And government-issued or -handled health care will become a colossal boondoggle. The Federal government has a lousy history of attempting to run anything. Expect higher overall costs, longer waits for services, and of course, a healthy rise in the size of the federal bureacracy and its associated expense.

As I said, it isn't working that well in Massachusetts; nothing encourages me to think that it will work on an even larger scale.

And again, if you're so anti-socialist, you should be happy Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of the country.

How will he accomplish this? Currently, 40% of those filing tax returns don't pay any taxes at all.

I've heard that he proposes refunding $500 of SS tax to everyone who pays into Social Security. Yep, that's smart. Let's raid the already depleted Social Security trust-fund to deliver on a campaign promise.

why are we still debating? i could argue with many things that have been said here, but the election is over.
it is time for everyone to realize we aren't enemies...just two guys on the same football team trying out for the starting QB position. in the end, the team rallies behind them and moves forward.

he is our president, (soon to be), and like him or not, it will do no good to split the country as he transitions into office. i say just buckle in and do the best to improve your town, community, or country and give this new presidency the chance to change it has earned.

Well put. For better or worse, it's over. I'll give Obama time to settle in and see what he does. Appointing Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff was a poor start, though: not only is it another example of NON-change, but he's also not known to be much of a coalition-builder.

One thing the Democrats MUST realize, and Nancy Pelosi mentioned this last Wednesday so they apparently do: their guy was given the job, but there is NOT a widespread liberal shift to the left in the American electorate.

If they move too boldly to implement their more socialistic policies, they'll face a backlash in the next midterm elections at least as costly as the one they were handed in 1994.

Some of those policies:

1. Employee Free Choice Act (HR 800). Will mandate immediate unionization of any workplace when a simple majority of employees signs -- or is pressured to sign -- a petition to unionize. This bill has already passed the House, but was filibustered in the Senate before, but maybe not now. Obama has stated he will sign it.
2. 15% "one-time" levy on every IRA or 401K plan. This would raise about $2 trillion to shore up the Social Security system...and after all, only wealthy fat-cats have retirement plans, and Main Street needs that money. This idea has been floated repeatedly by some Democratic leaders.
3. Removal of the Social Security cap on all earnings. This would suck a lot of money out of the jobs-production sector (about 6% of all earnings over $90k).
4. Allowing the Bush tax-cuts to expire, rather than simply modifying them as stated in campaign pledges. He'd still increase the capital-gains tax rate back to Clinton levels, though.

It'll be fascinating to watch how much the Dems will try for. If they push for too much, Main Street will push back.

 

[Stingray11214]

Pellaz, Don't you know Dear Leader Barack has this board monitored? You and I might end up being neighbors at the Re-education Camp.

 

[Pellaz]

Pellaz, Don't you know Dear Leader Barack has this board monitored? You and I might end up being neighbors at the Re-education Camp.

Since I don't smoke, I can make a fortune in the cigarette-resale market in the internment camp!

 

[freakchylde]

How about harm to traumatized women (young and old) who get kidnapped, tortured and raped and end up pregnant?

If I'm reading the original argument right, it's specifically in regards to 3rd trimester abortions. The main argument against Obama is the fact that he refused to support legislation in IL that would have allowed for resucitation to occur for live births that inadvertently occur. Not to mention, 3rd trimester abortions are not exactly a case of giving birth to a dead baby. The procedure itself is actually murder of a viable fetus (in the means of removing it's ability to survive outside the womb).

I, myself, am iffy on the whole thing as I would prefer early inducement then adoption to the procedure. But I'm not going to step on a Dr's toes if there is a justifiable reason for the use of the procedure (which, thankfully, is not that wide-spread).

In the case you presented, those would either be a late 1st trimester abortion or an early 2nd. Which, IMO, wouldn't be near the same thing.

But anyway, that's a really ugly topic and will probably snowball from here. So my apologies if it does.

 

[Kenso]

If I'm reading the original argument right, it's specifically in regards to 3rd trimester abortions. The main argument against Obama is the fact that he refused to support legislation in IL that would have allowed for resucitation to occur for live births that inadvertently occur. Not to mention, 3rd trimester abortions are not exactly a case of giving birth to a dead baby. The procedure itself is actually murder of a viable fetus (in the means of removing it's ability to survive outside the womb).

I, myself, am iffy on the whole thing as I would prefer early inducement then adoption to the procedure. But I'm not going to step on a Dr's toes if there is a justifiable reason for the use of the procedure (which, thankfully, is not that wide-spread).

In the case you presented, those would either be a late 1st trimester abortion or an early 2nd. Which, IMO, wouldn't be near the same thing.

But anyway, that's a really ugly topic and will probably snowball from here. So my apologies if it does.

i dont see whats the problem with just allowing abortion really early on. i dont see why someone would wait til they were close to giving birth to change their minds.

ultimately though empress has the right idea, its bullshit that some girls go around fucking left and right, and just get abortions over and over. whats so hard about a condom, sheesh. there are tons of different scenarios where abortions happen, some of them are legit, and others are complete bullshit. its completely circumstantial, but there is no way to accurately review everyones situation.

i think that as long as the unborn child hasnt developed into anything that has legitimate shape or senses, then its really preventing life from happening rather than murder, and if you are against preventing life from happening, then take off your condoms and get to it!

 

[freakchylde]

i dont see whats the problem with just allowing abortion really early on. i dont see why someone would wait til they were close to giving birth to change their minds.

I agree, I don't believe I was clear in that I was iffy on the late term stuff, not the early ones.

ultimately though empress has the right idea, its bullshit that some girls go around fucking left and right, and just get abortions over and over. whats so hard about a condom, sheesh. there are tons of different scenarios where abortions happen, some of them are legit, and others are complete bullshit. its completely circumstantial, but there is no way to accurately review everyones situation.

Again, agreed. However, to me, the girls who utilise abortion as a means of 1st string birth control are going to reap the rewards of doing so. Eventually, their reproductive system and body are going to give out on them, yes it sucks as to who the secondary victims of the situation are, but that is life, sometimes.

i think that as long as the unborn child hasnt developed into anything that has legitimate shape or senses, then its really preventing life from happening rather than murder, and if you are against preventing life from happening, then take off your condoms and get to it!

Again, agreed. Hence why I would prefer early inducement over 3rd trimester abortion procedures. Then again, I'm more of a fan of chemical inducement all the way around, less physical trauma on the body. All that said, I am pro-choice, just not pro-Obama.

 

[lady_space]

In the case you presented, those would either be a late 1st trimester abortion or an early 2nd. Which, IMO, wouldn't be near the same thing.

Unless the girl is you know, really fucked up and doesn't admit to herself she's pregnant for several months, or her parents are staunchly anti-abortion and she has to go to court, or whatever. (Granted, these pregnancies that occur as a result or rape or incest (or, let's not forget, "pressure" for want of a better term) are a relatively small percentage, but certainly worth mentioning.)

I am a big fan of adoption in general, and I think it's left out of the
"abortion" discussion too much, so glad to see you mention it. That said, I don't think the government should step in and decide in *any* case. I have known people on all sides--a rape victim who had an abortion, a girl and a woman who practically used it as birth control, and one who gave up a baby for adoption--and my view is that it is a very personal choice, pure and simple. If we want people to quit having so many abortions, they need to be educated on their choices--BEFORE they get pregnant.

Edit: I don't want anyone to think I think it's easy to give birth and hand a baby over. It's not. It's a choice that is often demonized as much as abortion, and in some circles more. I think society could make it easier for women to make that choice instead.

Shaye

 

[Ascension]

Sorry, that's a straw man argument. And thanks to the CRA, many of those same banks were forced to loan "bad paper" (subprime loans on houses and --worse -- commercial properties) when they knew it was a bad idea, under threat of Federal sanctions.




And government-issued or -handled health care will become a colossal boondoggle. The Federal government has a lousy history of attempting to run anything. Expect higher overall costs, longer waits for services, and of course, a healthy rise in the size of the federal bureacracy and its associated expense.

As I said, it isn't working that well in Massachusetts; nothing encourages me to think that it will work on an even larger scale.



How will he accomplish this? Currently, 40% of those filing tax returns don't pay any taxes at all.

I've heard that he proposes refunding $500 of SS tax to everyone who pays into Social Security. Yep, that's smart. Let's raid the already depleted Social Security trust-fund to deliver on a campaign promise.



Well put. For better or worse, it's over. I'll give Obama time to settle in and see what he does. Appointing Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff was a poor start, though: not only is it another example of NON-change, but he's also not known to be much of a coalition-builder.

One thing the Democrats MUST realize, and Nancy Pelosi mentioned this last Wednesday so they apparently do: their guy was given the job, but there is NOT a widespread liberal shift to the left in the American electorate.

If they move too boldly to implement their more socialistic policies, they'll face a backlash in the next midterm elections at least as costly as the one they were handed in 1994.

Some of those policies:

1. Employee Free Choice Act (HR 800). Will mandate immediate unionization of any workplace when a simple majority of employees signs -- or is pressured to sign -- a petition to unionize. This bill has already passed the House, but was filibustered in the Senate before, but maybe not now. Obama has stated he will sign it.
2. 15% "one-time" levy on every IRA or 401K plan. This would raise about $2 trillion to shore up the Social Security system...and after all, only wealthy fat-cats have retirement plans, and Main Street needs that money. This idea has been floated repeatedly by some Democratic leaders.
3. Removal of the Social Security cap on all earnings. This would suck a lot of money out of the jobs-production sector (about 6% of all earnings over $90k).
4. Allowing the Bush tax-cuts to expire, rather than simply modifying them as stated in campaign pledges. He'd still increase the capital-gains tax rate back to Clinton levels, though.

It'll be fascinating to watch how much the Dems will try for. If they push for too much, Main Street will push back.

Very good post...I don't think you and I have ever agreed on much...but it looks like our politics are aligned. Yours is a just a little of what those of us that did not vote for the Democrat's messiah are worried about. But yet, we will be victim to.

As far as abortion goes, it's murder plan & simple. It's life that is being snuffed out.

 

[Purveyor Of Evil]

How about harm to traumatized women (young and old) who get kidnapped, tortured and raped and end up pregnant?

I stand quite in the center of whether or not abortion should be legal. After doing a huge research assignment on it, I started feeling really strong about the subject and I hate the idea that some women (teens and adults) just open their legs, get pregnant and run to the doctor to get it taken care of. However, I wouldn't ban it at all - consider that there are some unfortunate extreme cases to take into consideration. And as cold hearted as it may sound, I rather know some person aborted the child before birth than killed it afterward - despite the fact that it's so easy to anonymously leave a newborn at a fire station or a church, and no one will question the mother.

I'm not sure about everywhere else in this country, but for what ever reason, Miami seems to have a lot of cases of mothers throwing their kids in dumpsters or leaving their newborns to die somewhere.

I don't see really any reason for abortion. Even in a case of rape, can't that woman just give the child up for adoption? How typical of the way we think in America. The innocent always seem to pay for the sins of the guilty. How many people are dying to have children that aren't able and we have thousands of babies murdered by abortion every year. Murder is murder no matter what the pro-choice people say. Besides, everyone knows that Planned Parenthood is the Democratic Party's cash cow.

 

[Purveyor Of Evil]

Very good post...I don't think you and I have ever agreed on much...but it looks like our politics are aligned. Yours is a just a little of what those of us that did not vote for the Democrat's messiah are worried about. But yet, we will be victim to.

As far as abortion goes, it's murder plan & simple. It's life that is being snuffed out.

I say this with an unblemished record of heterosexuality. Ascension, I'm starting to like you. LOL!

 

[rushzil2112]

I am going to share a quote about abortion that I heard a few years back, and it can never be said any better and to me it completely kills the arguments about abortions(by the way I am completely pro-life, cause hell, the best metal musicians could of been aborted for christ sake, so you want to deny us more kick ass metal musicians).

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

 

[nailz]

I'm sure Obama will lift the ban on partial birth abortions.

I, for one, hope to god he doesn't. That would be absolutley horrendous, and I am very much pro-choice.

 

[nailz]

Using abortion as birth control, because people are too irresponsible to take precautions isn't the answer either

No it's not, but if you ban abortion, you may as well sell coat hangers in the condom aisle.

 

[nailz]

Sorry, that's a straw man argument. And thanks to the CRA, many of those same banks were forced to loan "bad paper" (subprime loans on houses and --worse -- commercial properties) when they knew it was a bad idea, under threat of Federal sanctions.

Citation on sanctions requested.

And government-issued or -handled health care will become a colossal boondoggle. The Federal government has a lousy history of attempting to run anything. Expect higher overall costs, longer waits for services, and of course, a healthy rise in the size of the federal bureacracy and its associated expense.

I don't buy it. Not with the proposition. I'd like to know how the Senates health care works before I jumped to this conclusion. I am, admittedly, uneducated on that. Does the government pay doctors or does a private company provide senators with insurance?

How will he accomplish this? Currently, 40% of those filing tax returns don't pay any taxes at all.

Read the tax plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf

By closing inefficient tax loopholes**, cracking down on offshore tax
havens, and repealing a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000.

**According to a recent Congressional investigation, offshore tax abuse costs this country up to $100 billion each year. As President, Obama would work with Congress to enact meaningful legislation to ensure that the Treasury and IRS have the tools they need to close down the use of international tax havens for improper tax avoidance or tax evasion. This will save the United States tens of billions of dollars each year.

So, in essence, the "gouging" everyone keeps referring to is nothing more than repealing the Bush tax cuts. Which, really as far as I'm concerned, is a great idea. Trickle down doesn't work. Rich people are Rich because they tend not to spend money.

Also:

The Obama plan pays for these tax cuts by:
cutting spending overall. Obama’s spending cuts include responsibly ending the war in Iraq, limiting payments to high income farmers, cutting subsidies for private plans in Medicare, reforming student loans, cutting earmarks to at least the level they were in 1994, ending no-bid contracting **(my god, how much money would this save, seriously?)**, and phasing out unnecessary and duplicative programs. He will also support pay-as-you-go budget rules and a constitutionally acceptable line-item veto to cut pork-barrel spending.

I've heard that he proposes refunding $500 of SS tax to everyone who pays into Social Security. Yep, that's smart. Let's raid the already depleted Social Security trust-fund to deliver on a campaign promise.

This is the first I've heard of it.

Appointing Rahm Emmanuel as his Chief of Staff was a poor start, though: not only is it another example of NON-change, but he's also not known to be much of a coalition-builder.

He's eating DONUTS with an OLD GUY. Your argument clearly fails.

Nancy Pelosi

Hiss. Sneer. Boo. Spit.

15% "one-time" levy on every IRA or 401K plan. This would raise about $2 trillion to shore up the Social Security system...and after all, only wealthy fat-cats have retirement plans, and Main Street needs that money. This idea has been floated repeatedly by some Democratic leaders.

This would be political suicide for anyone right now. Or ever.

Allowing the Bush tax-cuts to expire, rather than simply modifying them as stated in campaign pledges. He'd still increase the capital-gains tax rate back to Clinton levels, though.It'll be fascinating to watch how much the Dems will try for. If they push for too much, Main Street will push back.

I have a question for you, as a clear republican. The country suffers from a massive.. nay.. near insurmountable debt created by Bush(es), even after a hefty surplus during the Clinton years. (I'm sure you've seen the graphs ) .. that's hardly a partisan statement ... how do you propose we turn that around without raising taxes?

I'm really interested. And import tariffs I'd consider a form of tax

 

[No-Mercy]

Even in a case of rape, can't that woman just give the child up for adoption? How typical of the way we think in America. The innocent always seem to pay for the sins of the guilty.

and by innocent, you wouldnt include that victim of rape? unless you are applying that "those women who wont just give the child to adoption" are the guilty that are making the innocent pay.

unless these few sentences of yours have nothing to do with each other and are just terrible placed next to each other.

-btw im not hardcore one way or another on this issue, i fall somewhere in the middle and leave the majority of the decision making to women...not implying im pro-choice, but i feel if anyone knows the morality of it, it would be the person carrying the child.

so on that note, im curious about the adoption argument im seeing. because, to my knowledge, it is not hard to find foster kids who need a permanent residency and family. i mean...i havent known anyone who has wanted to adopt and hasnt been able to find a child. for that reason, i might suggest that we already have a "backlog" (terrible term i know but it fits) of children waiting for adoption...so im not sure adoption is really a solid option unless those arguing for adoption are willing to admit the % of kids actually adopted vs. those eligible for adoption. think many would be surprised how many are never adopted

 

[Ascension]

so on that note, im curious about the adoption argument im seeing. because, to my knowledge, it is not hard to find foster kids who need a permanent residency and family. i mean...i havent known anyone who has wanted to adopt and hasnt been able to find a child. for that reason, i might suggest that we already have a "backlog" (terrible term i know but it fits) of children waiting for adoption...so im not sure adoption is really a solid option unless those arguing for adoption are willing to admit the % of kids actually adopted vs. those eligible for adoption. think many would be surprised how many are never adopted

But yet, on my travels to and from Russia...there were families going to & from Russia to adopt children or bringing them back. One trip back to the states in particular there were over a dozen babies that had been adopted heading back to the US. Of course, while l was over there Putin put a stop to the adoptions as he had seen reports that his population numbers dwindling at an enourmous rate. Anyway...my first thought was...why are Americans flying 6000 miles to adopt?