Here again it's not a sin of position, it's a sin of commission.
We've discussed before that many urban Democrats don't seem to grasp that publicly touting one's NARAL-affiliated street cred is not exactly a path to victory in many places in Middle America where Democrats can actually otherwise win (as Democrats did in 2006 in a number of Congressional Districts carried comfortably by George W. Bush in 2004). Many swing voters in such environs lean toward social conservatism, and/or are put off by candidates who insist on abortion rhetoric when the issue isn't otherwise on the table.
The presence of Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket has exacerbated this problem since Democratic surrogates and liberal interest groups earnestly pointing out her pro-life position either a) doesn't cause a problem with many Midwestern swing voters or b) makes such voters wonder why the candidate's campaign is the first to bring up culture war issues rather than the economy, gas prices, etc.
Obama has a problem though - beyond just urban liberals turning off Middle Americans with fervent complaints about Palin's pro-life stance. His record and position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is hopelessly obtuse, leaving him ripe for political attacks.
At a visceral level, Obama's outreach to religious voters not firmly in the pro-choice camp is badly weakened by this issue. The evidence says he couldn't even support basic protections for babies who survive an abortion. That sounds like a pro-abortion radical, which the typical American swing voter likes about as much as a pro-life zealot who won't shut up about banning all abortions. Meaning: not much.
It's little surprise Obama has since been dinged for this by a 3rd party, in an ad pudge has already covered:
Now, foolishly, Obama's campaign has been goaded to respond...in Ohio:
There goes post-partisanship. Obama's campaign has been hoodwinked into running ads talking all about abortion in a Midwestern swing state. Granted, they probably felt they had to respond since events of the last few weeks indicate that a ticket led by John McCain of all people might well receive the same sort of enthusiastic support from Evangelicals that helped put George W. Bush over the top in 2004. But it's still the antithesis of the image that Obama used to ride to fame in 2007 and the beginning of the Presidential primary season.
At the end of election cycles Democrats often end up bemoaning how their Presidential candidate got painted as an elitist, urban liberal. Perhaps they might consider nominating someone who doesn't both fit the description and fall right into the trap too?
Posted by Eric Earling at September 20, 2008 05:45 PM | Email This"Stupid Americans should only vote for stupid politicians!"
You demostrate your stupidity simply for writing this bilge. I have no doubt you will prove it by voting for Barack Hussein Obama. Have another bong hit, dude.
Posted by: KS on September 20, 2008 08:14 PMHmmm...
I guess All Facts and Demokid's shifts must be over and David Matthews night shift has started. I wonder who gets the morning shift... Cato?
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on September 20, 2008 08:24 PM"You demonstrate my point so very well, KS."
You comments further demonstrate that you are a racist, xenophobe and a deranged nut job.
"Vote for Sarah Palin, KS! We need another Christian fundamentalist nutjob in the White House ..."
Idiot, I can't vote for her. I am voting for John McCain. Besides being a racist and a xenophobe, you are also Christophobe. God have mercy on your soul - if you have one. If you don't like this arrangement, go ahead and move to Venezuela where you'd fit right in with the totalitarian Government.
Posted by: KS on September 20, 2008 08:29 PMThe topic of the post was Obama's Abortion Fumble. Once again he was lieing, McCain supports Roe v. Wade and he knows that. He reminds me of an animated scarecrow. What a douchebag !
Posted by: KS on September 20, 2008 08:35 PMBARACK OBAMA
JOE BIDEN
FOLLICLES AND FOIBLES ©
by Norman Liebmann
Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden brings to mind the story of a basketball team that was so devoid of talent that the coach said to his most hapless substitute, "Get up, Jones, we're sending in the bench".
As the Senate is a squalid puddle of incompetents, choosing a running mate from among its members requires vetting by a Roto-Rooter man. Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate leads one to believe that political blunders are often premeditated. The Obama campaign short list contained more jerks than a Lackawanna freight train. Let's hope that at least Biden could be the best of the worst.
Obama has chosen Biden as his Rumpelstilskin in the hope he will show him how to spin straw into votes. Barack Obama trying to gain the Presidency astride Joe Biden is like trying to win the Indy 500 in a covered wagon. "Gentlemen, start your mules!"
In deciding between Evan Bayh and Joe Biden, Barack Obama was faced with a choice of the bland and the blunt. The sifting out of Joe Biden to be his running mate confirms the belief that Barack Obama has learned to resist the impulse to use his better judgment.
Barack Obama could not have made a more apt choice to help him lead what should be re-named The Decadent Party. Biden's political inclinations repose somewhere between Nikita Krushchev and Phil Donahue. Compared with Biden, one might justifiably describe Vladimir Putin as a moderate.
Biden spent four decades in that gang bang of ignorance and arrogance, the United States Senate, where his own obtuseness was not so noticeable. Hence it was inevitable that Obama would select for his running mate someone who served so diligently in giving America a fiscal hysterectomy. Inasmuch as these people in Congress cannot be restrained in their prodigality with taxpayer money (as violence is not an option) we can only hope that they will all make it a habit to cross the streets against the lights, and that either karma or a rogue Pontiac with defective headlights will put an end to America's financial woes.
The Obamas are an over-coifed family. Barack is the only one among them whose hair seems to lack spontaneity. At the announcement of his nomination, Michelle Obama kissed Joe Biden. There has got to be something better to do with that aperture.
Biden considers himself a rhetorician, so much so, he can hardly wait to hear what he's going to say next. He is not famous for his tact. Indeed, he can always be counted on to inject any conversation with a dose of blunt. (Biden might consider having a woman come in once a week to tidy up his language.) Joe has a reputation for literary larceny and is the master of the well-lifted phrase. When he says something clever you can be sure some public figure with more wit has road-tested it first.
The selection of Joe Biden assures that this election will be the nearest thing to a political mudslide. It is not known why Obama finds a short temper so objectionable in John McCain and so adorable in Joe Biden. Biden has been called Barack Obama's mad dog, a phrase that will not endear him to hydrants and telephone poles.
The Senate is a place where there is nothing happening every moment, hence the ideal place for Biden to restrain an impulse to make a contribution that might disturb its intellectual vacancy.
During his many years in the Senate is where Biden learned how to fight the impulse to make sense. Biden's political reasoning is about as organized as a pileup on the Interstate. In considering his record in the Senate, one speculates that if Joe Biden drinks he should quit, and if he doesn't drink he should start.
Barack Obama picked a running mate who is reputed to have a worse temper than John McCain. Biden is spoken of as a bare knuckle fighter - although Joseph Robinette (do you love that middle name) Biden he is not quite as tough as Michelle Obama who it is said was once a bare knuckle ballerina.
Joe Biden was needed to give the ticket gravitas. (It must have been something he ate.) With or without Biden, the Democrat Party has little access to profundity. Fortunately the Senate is a place where there is nothing happening every moment, hence the ideal place for Biden to restrain the impulse to make a contribution.
Somewhere along the line Biden sprung a leak in his charisma. He has been described as an apt accomplice for the callow Barack Obama - sometimes described as a virtual tower of empty. No one in the Senate has disparaged Barack Obama more than Joe Biden. No one in the Senate felt a greater need to.
PROSPECTS
Should Obama and Biden take over the Executive Branch of the government, they will become painfully aware that the Harry Reid they knew in the Senate and the Harry Reid that they must deal with now is one and the same stupid son-of-a-bitch.
Irrespective of who is his Vice President, the Obama Administration's policies would be guided by two entities - Al Gore and Al Jazeera. They will likely force America to continue to ingest that toxic substance called The United Nations.
The Obama/Biden team already has a solution to the energy problem. It is to offer Americans a choice between apathy and inertia. With the Obama/Biden ticket in power, the automobile industry can look toward leaner days. The silver lining is that used car dealers foresee a lucrative future in selling pre-owned windmills.
There will be another explosion of minority Welfare: (The Jews, the Irish, the Poles, etc. who endured as much hardship as any immigrants that ever came to these shores, made their contributions to America, and did not just become blotters absorbing the largesse of the nation.)
The Obama/Biden collusion will resist offshore drilling despite the logic that when you drill holes in the ocean, eventually they fill in by themselves.
Obama will make the case that the ten minutes the terrorists spent in Guantanmo was inhumane, while the five years John McCain spent in the Hanoi Hilton fairly flew by.
Reputed to be the most pro-choice fantic in the Senate, Obama will rejoice that he has chosen a running mate who is both Catholic and pro-abortion - a decision likely to inspire Pope Benedict XVI to convert to Buddhism.
DELAWARE
Senator Joe Biden is a small mentality representing a small state. Delaware is the DuPont family's rumpus room and said to be their property, lock, stock and Biden. The most expeditious way to get to Delaware is by taking the wrong off-ramp on the Interstate.
Delaware gives a new poignancy to the word "small". If you put in a pair of goal posts you pretty much have the dimensions of the state. It is a consolation to Biden that the state he represents is bigger than Rhode Island. The people of Delaware's continuous inclination to re-elect Biden to Congress over and over for four decades prompts an update of the GIGO computer axiom - Garbage In - Garbage out - Garbage back in. Elections in Washington are less an exercise in democracy than an exercise in rotating the hacks.
ELDERLY GOING ON OLDERLY
Biden's inching a step closer to the Oval Office proves the axiom that you're never too old to be too old. His previous efforts to become President ended in a series of near misses. His political career is stamped with a characteristic one might call "almost-ness".
Obama wanted to inject some "fresh blood" into the party but chose a guy with wrinkles in his hemoglobin. Joe takes care of his body just on the off chance that he may want to use it someday. When he feels the need to exercise he calls in one of the Senate pages to bend over and touch his toes for him. He claims to have 20/20 vision. Presumably that means he can see a distance of twenty inches with his left eye and twenty inches with his right.
Biden's scalp looks like it was worked over with a tomahawk by an Arapaho dermatologist. The hair plugs did not make his hair seem fuller, they just made his head look overcrowded. Had he opted to have his scalp tattooed it might have given his hair a veneer of permanence. At all events, he needed a refresher course to re-learn how to use a comb.
The Democrat campaign needed testicles but Biden gave it follicles. McCain managed to grow old gracefully while Biden could not manage to grow bald gracefully. Biden's decision to have hair plugs was either because he was too vain to let himself go bald or he got tired of carrying his dandruff around in his hand. At all events, he still has hopes that some Divine Providence will inspire his pompadour to resurrect.
It is said there's no fool like an old fool unless you have a young fool like Obama who needs an old fool to tell him how to channel all that youthful folly.
Obama is said to have imbibed deeply from The Fountain of Immaturity -
hence, Biden considers this a rare opportunity.
It is the hubristic opinion of Barack Obama that America has no friends. If America "has no friends" it is because many nations have a tendency to let the recent history of the world slip their minds.
And this ...
It is time to end the cowardice and the defeatism that is the Democrat Party. Unloading Barack Obama and Joe Biden is a good start, and we can hope it will inspire the rest of America's infirmities to clear up by themselves.
Posted by: KS on September 20, 2008 08:51 PMHe always brings so much to the table.
On topic, Obama will be fighting this issue to election day. His campaign is truly out of touch with the common person, as evidenced by the continual self-destruction.
To re-affirm an earlier comment, it sucks for them because it is true.
Posted by: Chris on September 20, 2008 10:30 PMI plead guilty to opposing Huckabee with a passion, but I sure don't hate the guy...I think he's a great political leader for Evangelicals. And, I didn't have any problem any of the issues you cite. I had strong issue however with his credentials on economic as well as national security conservatism. That and it always seemed to me that Huckabee's total inability to do anything other than get creamed among non-Evangelicals was a huge problem.
Back to your other point, I don't think Obama is trying to split Republicans. I think he's desperately trying to hold on to non-Democratic women to whom Palin has great appeal but whom weren't otherwise much interested in McCain.
Posted by: Eric Earling on September 20, 2008 10:42 PMDing! That's exactly what Obama is. Waaay, waaay too far into the realms of just plain disturbingness on the issues, as evidenced by his insistence that born-alive human beings just be left to die.
Posted by: Michele on September 20, 2008 10:53 PMI can only take so much idiocy from conservatives in one week.
Besides, I'm too busy gloating over the fact that Palin is now yesterday's news. Bet McCain is regretting that decision... a quick bump in the polls probably isn't worth another five weeks of having surrogates on the road that can't do any of the heavy lifting. If you compare the ability for Michelle Obama, Barack Obama and Joe Biden to draw crowds and energize people versus their Republican counterparts, you'll pretty much see that the battle is lost for you folks. It's going to be 1996 all over again.
McCain should have picked Jindal. Seriously.
Posted by: demo kid on September 20, 2008 10:58 PMAs pudge is so apt to say... you're a liar. You have absolutely no proof of this, except what you've managed to twist around to your own sick interpretation.
Yet another episode of Republican liars on parade.
Posted by: demo kid on September 20, 2008 11:06 PMdk - once again, you are a liar and can't handle the truth. For further proof, see #24.
Posted by: KS on September 20, 2008 11:27 PMA hack group that misinterprets votes for its own gain? Sorry, that's not proof.
Posted by: demo kid on September 20, 2008 11:53 PMBornAliveTruth is an independent group that was organized to educate the public on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act and Obama's record opposing it. Last month, pro-lifers unearthed evidence from the Illinois state archives that showed Obama had lied about his record on the bill.
There is also audio available on the Internet of Obama explaining why he did not think the bill should pass. "Essentially, adding an additional doctor who has to be called into an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments designed simply to burden the original decision to induce labor and perform the abortion," Obama said.
Index of documents relating to Barack Obama
and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
As Chairman of that committee Obama voted in the majority. NCLR has the committee action report of that vote. The 6-4 vote tally is included in the right hand column of the table.
Obama lied and continues to lie about his abortion record.
Watch the video to know the type of person Barack Obama really is when he voted, three times, against the Born Alive Act, which would have forced care for children born alive after a failed abortion attempt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo
This video has been watched, as of right now, more than 1,571,170 times and anyone that could vote for Barack Obama after understanding that he supports infanticide...deserves what they get.
Obama lied and continues to lie about his abortion and INFANTICIDE record.
demo kid: You have absolutely no proof of this, except what you've managed to twist around to your own sick interpretation.
I agree with demo kid, Obama DOES NOT insist that any infants be left to die. He DOES, however, insist that doctors and parents should be allowed to CHOOSE to leave infants to die.
And this is no misinterpretation.
For himself buddy. DM has been kick off of SP before, because he would spew over & over to try and take over the thread. It woun't be long before he's kicked again.
I just ingore him like many others. DM is a total wacko.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 21, 2008 09:46 AMAn "independent group"? It's a partisan group dedicated to making abortion illegal. Cases like this are so rare that this is more a transparent political maneuver by right-wing hacks to erode abortion rights than anything else. Don't pretend otherwise, and don't think that objecting to the intended goals of the bill's authors means anything but that. Anti-choice activists have truly hit a new low with this one.
@32: He DOES, however, insist that doctors and parents should be allowed to CHOOSE to leave infants to die.
Of course this is a misinterpretation, just as any effort by Republicans to restrict healthcare funding to kids would mean the same thing.
Posted by: demo kid on September 21, 2008 10:18 AMAnd yet, you seem to be capable of dishing out such unlimited amounts yourself. How DO you do it?
Posted by: Hinton on September 21, 2008 10:55 AMHaving proven yourself incapable of thought, that you wouldn't have a second one is no terribly surprising.
Posted by: Hinton on September 21, 2008 10:58 AMRead the text of the bill that Obama opposed. See sections b and c - it's irrefutable. This applies ONLY to children already born. Protecting them from being murdered.
And Obama opposed this bill. What in this bill is so offensive and wrong that it should be opposed?
Bottom line: the Slavery Party has an advocate of baby murdering as its Presidential candidate. Killing newborns is just fine and OK with him, and thus you as a supporter must be fine with it too...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 21, 2008 11:02 AMYou know... like sky dive off the Aurora Bridge... or protest the impending embarrassing loss by that empty suited, anti-American bigot you support like, say, the Buddhist monks did in Vietnam?
Posted by: Hinton on September 21, 2008 11:08 AMCorrect. In this context, "independent" means "not directly affiliated with any candidate or party." Which is exactly what they are.
Cases like this are so rare ...
Irrelevant. If they happen at all, they should be stopped. Obama voted specifically to keep them legal.
Of course this is a misinterpretation ...
Not at all. It is EXACTLY what Obama did.
... just as any effort by Republicans to restrict healthcare funding to kids would mean the same thing.
No, because Obama EXPLICITLY STATED he wanted to preserve the choice of the mother and the doctor when he opposed the legislation in question. You are believing Obama's lies. Actually look at the FACTS presented.
...have you stopped to wonder exactly how smart it is for the single most pro-babykilling Senator to go to WAR against an ABORTION SURVIVOR ... a aurvivor DISABLED BY THE ABORTION... in highly CATHOLIC Ohio and NM... AFTER SanFraNGranNan and Joe made the blistering ire of their own Bishops daily news?
The attack on Jessen has angered pro-life advocates."It is despicable, repulsive and beneath contempt that Barack Obama would attack Gianna Jessen,"
"She is a courageous abortion survivor and living miracle who would not be with us today if Obama's policies had been in place when she was born."
As an Illinois state senator, Obama opposed three legislative efforts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 to give legal protections to any aborted fetus that showed signs of life. The 2003 measure was virtually identical to a bill President Bush signed into law in 2002 that unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.
Obama and other opponents of the Illinois bill have noted the state already had a law to protect aborted fetuses born alive and considered able to survive.
If that is so, If BarryBabyKiller beleived that, his signing would have made it a zero sum game. Instead HE REFUSED TO SIGN IT.
Harvard Law BarryBabyKiller vs Disabled Abortion Survivor... you have to wonder about the "intelligence" of a guy who would allow such a PR nightmare to seep into the minds (and hearts) of the people he has charged with deciding his future.
My money is on Gianna... AND the American voters.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 21, 2008 12:33 PM"I'm living proof these babies have a right to live."
Given that I've never heard a cogent argument from you, I don't think that you're in a position to talk. Go back to crying yourself to sleep at night over the fact that McCain is losing horribly.
@38: Read the text of the bill that Obama opposed. See sections b and c - it's irrefutable. This applies ONLY to children already born.
You're an idiot for thinking that this is anything but a right-wing political move, akin to asking a candidate "Are you still beating your wife?" This bill would have done nothing but cracked open legal definitions to allow for challenges of legal rights to abortions in wider law.
Go back to making money on the backs of true slaves.
@40: First of all, your reading of "partisan" is very narrow! If you want to define it that way, that's fine... but assuming that a right-wing group is "nonpartisan" and "independent" is laughable.
Irrelevant. If they happen at all, they should be stopped. Obama voted specifically to keep them legal.
I'm really going to enjoy using this argument against you in the future!
This is not reasonable law, this is political grandstanding to score points with the whackjob religious right. If this were a serious issue that conservatives wanted to address, there is no reason why a compromise would not be in order instead of broad chicanery to push far right wing goals.
No, because Obama EXPLICITLY STATED he wanted to preserve the choice of the mother and the doctor when he opposed the legislation in question. You are believing Obama's lies. Actually look at the FACTS presented.
It's absurd. You're looking at the facts of this case from a partisan perspective, trying to read some kind of definition into it without context. Again, this was an attempt by the right-wing to hammer away at abortion rights, and to assume that this was motivated by anything else is laughable.
Perpetuate this by selectively examining the situation is not just dishonest, it's irresponsible.
Posted by: demo kid on September 21, 2008 12:51 PMHeck, I should add to my last comment a quote from a Chicago columnist:
So "born alive" bills failed repeatedly in Illinois from 2001 to 2004 in both chambers, with and without the involvement of then State Sen. Barack Obama.
In 2005, when additional language was added to a "born alive" bill in Illinois that explicitly spelled out that it would not impact abortion rights in any way, the law passed easily.
Proponents of the original bill, despite their constant reassurances that the proposals had nothing to do with abortion, nevertheless objected to the inclusion of the new language.
Blatant right-wing politicking, and nothing more. Get over yourself.
Posted by: demo kid on September 21, 2008 12:56 PMI acknowledge that Mr. Obama, may be very smart after all he was President of the law review at Harvard. He is obviously quite bright. But it is one thing to be smart, and another to be wise. A wise man will listen to the counsel of others, a wise man has moral absolutes, a wise knows himself and knows what he believes, a wise man doesn't make promises he has no intention of keeping, a wise man fears God.
Mr. Obama, doesn't know when Life begins. He can't admit that he was wrong about the surge. He lacks lacks integrity on a couple of key areas, one he promised to publicly finance his campaign. This promise was interagal to the issue of change and not engaging in politics as usual. He decided later that it wasn't interest to take public funds. Well, he shouldn't have made the promise to take public funds.
This campaign is turning into politics as usual, something Mr. Obama has decried. However, Mr. Obama has shown the country that its not about change or unity. Its about power, and about gaining it by any means necessary.
How, can he be taken seriously on his other promises, when he so easily breaks one which is integral to his message.
John McCain is not perfect, and neither is Sarah Palin, but I trust their wisdom and life experience, more than I trust Obama's dubious associations, and Ivy League degree.
I acknowledge that Mr. Obama, may be very smart after all he was President of the law review at Harvard. He is obviously quite bright. But it is one thing to be smart, and another to be wise. A wise man will listen to the counsel of others, a wise man has moral absolutes, a wise knows himself and knows what he believes, a wise man doesn't make promises he has no intention of keeping, a wise man fears God.
Mr. Obama, doesn't know when Life begins. He can't admit that he was wrong about the surge. He lacks lacks integrity on a couple of key areas, one he promised to publicly finance his campaign. This promise was interagal to the issue of change and not engaging in politics as usual. He decided later that it wasn't interest to take public funds. Well, he shouldn't have made the promise to take public funds.
This campaign is turning into politics as usual, something Mr. Obama has decried. However, Mr. Obama has shown the country that its not about change or unity. Its about power, and about gaining it by any means necessary.
How, can he be taken seriously on his other promises, when he so easily breaks one which is integral to his message.
John McCain is not perfect, and neither is Sarah Palin, but I trust their wisdom and life experience, more than I trust Obama's dubious associations, and Ivy League degree.
I acknowledge that Mr. Obama, may be very smart after all he was President of the law review at Harvard. He is obviously quite bright. But it is one thing to be smart, and another to be wise. A wise man will listen to the counsel of others, a wise man has moral absolutes, a wise knows himself and knows what he believes, a wise man doesn't make promises he has no intention of keeping, a wise man fears God.
Mr. Obama, doesn't know when Life begins. He can't admit that he was wrong about the surge. He lacks lacks integrity on a couple of key areas, one he promised to publicly finance his campaign. This promise was interagal to the issue of change and not engaging in politics as usual. He decided later that it wasn't interest to take public funds. Well, he shouldn't have made the promise to take public funds.
This campaign is turning into politics as usual, something Mr. Obama has decried. However, Mr. Obama has shown the country that its not about change or unity. Its about power, and about gaining it by any means necessary.
How, can he be taken seriously on his other promises, when he so easily breaks one which is integral to his message.
John McCain is not perfect, and neither is Sarah Palin, but I trust their wisdom and life experience, more than I trust Obama's dubious associations, and Ivy League degree.
Go ahead, try to spin. The facts are irrefutable. The bill did NOTHING about abortion - it does not even apply to a child until it is out of the womb, living and breathing on its own.
And Obama - and you, since you support him - believe that child should be murdered.
I know this is disturbing to you, probably because the truth about the Slavery Party position is coming to light. Murdering babies is just the first step...
Enjoy your time supporting baby murderers. So tell us Slavery Party Kid, when does a baby finally have a right to live? When do human rights finally apply?
Baby killing Obama says it's above his pay grade - how about you? At birth? One day, one week, one month? When is it no longer OK to kill a baby?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 21, 2008 02:07 PMAnd you've given NO proof that McCain is that person, or that Obama is not. I mean, I could rewrite what you said here, insert Obama instead of McCain, and come out with something far more reasonable.
And if you're saying you're voting for McCain because he's taking public funding, well... that's amusing. Admit it, you wouldn't vote for Obama even if Jesus came down and gave him an endorsement.
Posted by: demo kid on September 21, 2008 02:09 PMMy money is on Gianna... AND the American voters.
Newsflash commiekid... the drum we will NOW beat is that BarryBabyKiller is calling a disabled abortion survivor a LIAR. The drum we willnow beat is that BarryBabyKiller is a at WAR with a disabled abortion survivor. The drum we will now beat is that BarryBabyKiller is such a low peice of pond scum he has to beat up on a disabled abortion surivior.
AND we will beat the drum often, loudly and gladly.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 21, 2008 02:16 PMAnd discussions about when life begins... well... I think that's a mature discussion that you're just not ready to have.
Sorry, Shanghaied Dan... you're nothing but a flim flam man. Your party is a joke, your philosophy is rapidly showing its cracks, and your candidate probably should just be renamed Bob Dole Part II.
Posted by: demo kid on September 21, 2008 02:28 PMModern Love
Posted by Bill Jempty
Published: September 21, 2008 - 12:47 PM
David Hlvasa writes about the painful decision he and his wife faced once they knew the baby she was carrying, was already dead at the 20-week point of pregnancy.We each assumed there was only one possible decision, so when we talked, we talked logistics: appointments to reschedule, job responsibilities to manage. We asked questions we might have asked the midwife, about recovery time. Then we realized we weren't in agreement. I was talking about the D and C, while Lisa had decided to give birth. Incredulous, I asked why she would want to go through all that pain. She said she couldn't imagine just getting rid of our child by a surgical procedure; she wanted to see himResting on my outstretched hand, he was thin, nearly weightless, his skin pinkish-gray and translucent. He seemed to me less like a small baby than a scale model of a stripling child. I cradled his head between the ends of my middle and ring fingers, his features peaceful, perfect, blank.
I can empathize with this couple. Next January 26th marks six years since my son Daniel died 14.5 hours after he was born. Leonita and I also held our son.
In the NICU I stood with Fr. Tomasz watching Daniel's life signs dwindle to nothing on the monitor. At 7:23 a doctor put a stethoscope to m y son's chest and then said "Your son's heart had stopped." After 14.5 hours of life my son had died of septsis.
Later that day DW and I got to hold Daniel in my wife's hospital room. Friends and family came, I had called these people again after what happened this morning. I asked DW if she wanted me to buy a cheap throwaway camera to take some photos. She said no. We both regret not having done this.Other than the moment the doctor said Daniel's heart stopped, the moment I remember most was right after the nurse took Daniel from my wife and I so the funeral home could get him. DW broke out crying louder and heavier than any time I've seen her in the 17 years we been married. She is such a wonderful and loving person, who does many kind things for other people. Leonita wanted and deserved a child so much, and all she went through to just have Daniel taken from her. Why God, why?
Ann Althouse asks in the title of her post "Would you have labor induced to deliver a 20-week old fetus that already died?" No my wife and I wouldn't but Leonita would have for her 20-week old old BABY. My son was never a fetus, he was always my and Leonita's baby. Neither of us like the word fetus, and from those parents I know who lost a small baby, these feelings from bereaved parents is quite common.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 21, 2008 02:30 PMAlso note, David Hlavsa at no point in the article uses the word fetus in reference to his son Benjamin. Son or baby are used.
Forgive the slight rant, I really like Professor Althouse despite her poor word choice. I frequently link to her blog. Also we share the same birthday, January 12th.
I put the entirety of the Hlavsa's story beneath the fold. God bless David, Lisa, and their son Benjamin.
HAVING waited until we were in our 30s to start a family, my wife and I were having trouble conceiving, leading to sperm tests, hormone shots and other extraordinary measures.
Over many months, the process of conception became so technical that when Lisa told me she was at last pregnant, I found it hard to know what to credit. After the first ultrasound, she came home with a black-and-white picture of a tiny curled-up creature. We put it on the refrigerator: my son, the lima bean.At 20 weeks, we went in together for the second ultrasound. The technician made small talk and popped his gum as he dimmed the lights. Lisa lay back on the table. I shifted in my seat, jammed my hands into my pockets, and stretched out my legs like a teenager settling in to watch a movie. As the technician slid the paddle around on Lisa's belly, the image on the computer screen wheeled, dipped and blurred.Finally my son's image popped into focus. Arms and legs folded, he seemed to be resting on his back, as if lying on the bottom of a pool, waiting to spring to the surface.
I said, "Cool."
The technician muttered something, hit a button to freeze the image and walked briskly out of the room.
A few minutes later, in walked a small man wearing a rumpled white coat and steel-rimmed glasses, his bow tie askew. He shut the door behind him.
I don't remember exactly what he said; he looked as if someone had left him out in the rain. What we had taken for a frozen image, he explained, was in fact absolute stillness.
We still refer to the man as Doctor Death, perpetually forlorn, always breaking bad news. They keep him in a closet. (A year later, pregnant with our second son, Benjamin, my wife turned a corner at the hospital and saw him at a nurses' station; she did an abrupt, involuntary about-face.)
After Doctor Death left, our midwife arrived to explain that we had a decision to make. Did we want to schedule a D and C or induce labor? Her language was very plain, but it took a while for me to understand what she was really asking: Did we want the pregnancy to end in a surgical procedure in the outpatient clinic, or in the maternity ward as a stillbirth? We asked whether there were medical advantages or disadvantages to either choice. She told us it was simply a matter of preference. No hurry. Let us know.
On the drive home, we were mostly silent. As if exchanging telegrams, Lisa and I said what we needed to and no more. We each assumed there was only one possible decision, so when we talked, we talked logistics: appointments to reschedule, job responsibilities to manage. We asked questions we might have asked the midwife, about recovery time.
Then we realized we weren't in agreement. I was talking about the D and C, while Lisa had decided to give birth. Incredulous, I asked why she would want to go through all that pain. She said she couldn't imagine just getting rid of our child by a surgical procedure; she wanted to see him.
So I had to ask myself: Why didn't I want to meet my own son? Clearly, it wasn't Lisa's pain I was worried about. We pulled into the driveway, phoned the hospital, turned around and drove back.
Going to the hospital for a stillbirth is the photographic negative of going for a live birth. You carry the overnight bag, check into a room in the maternity ward and so on. But they put a marker on your door to alert the nurse-midwives that, in this room, things are different.
As a means of inducing labor in a body that is not yet ripe, Pitocin is brutally effective. But it can take a while to kick in. After an hour of flipping through magazines, Lisa and I decided to take a walk. The nurse said it might speed things along.
Wandering about in the midwinter dusk, Seattle sinking to the bottom of the gray scale, we were about a quarter mile from the hospital, just about to turn around, when the drug took hold, doubling Lisa over. We considered calling a cab, but she decided she could make it, so we stumbled back with her arm around my shoulders for support.
By the time we reached Lisa's room, her contractions were frequent and prolonged -- much more so than they would have been at the early stages of a natural labor -- and each surge of pain seemed to levitate her body above the sheets.
When at last the anesthesiologist gave her an epidural, Lisa sighed and fell back into the pillows. Within an hour, she was asleep, and shortly after that, I dozed off as well, like a Lab curled up in the armchair at the foot of her bed.
My first son was born some time in the gray dawn. In such cases, there is no rupturing of waters. The birth sac slips out whole and unbroken. The bag was a little bigger than my fist. The midwife put it on a towel and, with a small pair of scissors, carefully snipped it open.
She unfolded our son's limbs, disentangling one from the other, unfurling him like a new leaf, talking softly to us all the while, describing him. He was about five inches long, she said. He was anacephalic, which means his brain and nervous system had failed to develop. He had probably died about a week earlier.
Gingerly, she handed him to Lisa, and though it was clear that Lisa wanted to hold him longer, it was only a minute or two before she passed him to me. Later, she told me she was afraid he would come apart in her hands.
Resting on my outstretched hand, he was thin, nearly weightless, his skin pinkish-gray and translucent. He seemed to me less like a small baby than a scale model of a stripling child. I cradled his head between the ends of my middle and ring fingers, his features peaceful, perfect, blank. His feet reaching nearly to my wrist, his toes were like mine and my father's, the second toe longer than the big toe.
When we got back from the hospital, the epidural had not quite worn off, so Lisa did not have full use of her legs and clung to me as we staggered up the front steps. Thinking of ourselves as a public spectacle (How must we look to the neighbors? Drunk again!), we burst out laughing. Once inside, the bleak humor continued: Anacephalic? All right, so he won't go to Harvard.
It wasn't until I had settled Lisa onto the couch that my own legs quit working. I was in midsentence -- something about an errand -- teakettle in hand, halfway between the tap and the stove. A spasm went through me, I doubled over and I heard my own voice howling from far off, the full-throated cry of a child.
On the day I went back to the small college where I work, I felt myself in another kind of altered state, not above the flow of daily life but just below its surface, heavy, settled, still. I had been thinking about how to tell people: my colleagues, my students. Some knew that Lisa and I had been expecting a child; clearly I had to tell them what happened.
Others didn't know about the pregnancy, though. Should I spring the whole story on them all at once? When a parent dies or a partner -- when we lose someone who has lived in the world -- there are customs, worn paths to follow, ways to talk about it. But I didn't see any path with this. Was I supposed to keep quiet and pretend nothing had happened? I couldn't accept that.
So I typed out an e-mail message, brief and plain, explaining: Lisa had been pregnant, the child had died and we took some comfort from the belief that all he had ever known was love. I stared at the screen for a long time.
Then I clicked on the top of the e-mail program and addressed the message to everyone at the college: faculty members, students, staff, people I knew well, people I didn't know at all. I had a fleeting thought that this might be inappropriate, but then I pressed "send." It felt like a form of protest.
I wasn't really looking for a response. I wanted just to get the news out; I couldn't bear to repeat it over and over. And although my department's administrative assistant did field a few complaints about receiving something so personal by a general message ("Who is this guy?"), most apparently understood or at least excused my gesture.
AND then came the outpouring: for weeks after, people I barely knew would come into my office, gently shut the door and burst into tears. I heard stories of single and serial miscarriages, pregnancies carried nearly to full term, stillbirths -- all the lost, lost children. Grief hauled about, and nowhere to put it down. Some said they had never told anyone; who would understand?
My first son is like the faintest scar on my skin now, nearly hidden. Over time, will the mark disappear as my skin becomes mottled and wrinkled?
Lisa was planning to bury his ashes, about a teaspoonful, in the garden, part of which was to be his. Instead, she kept his ashes in the bedside table drawer, right next to her, as if afraid he would wake in the night and need her. She felt him close to her, a wisp of spirit, the smallest presence.
But he's gone now, she says. Offhand, I don't know where she keeps his ashes. But not in the garden. The garden is hers and Benjamin's.
When Benjamin was very young, just beginning to speak in sentences, he asked if he had a brother once. Lisa paused a moment before answering, but by the time she started to speak, he had moved on to something else.
But face it... as I said to Shanghai Surprise up there, your party is a joke, your philosophy is rapidly showing its cracks, and your candidate probably should just be renamed Bob Dole Part II. Get used to the idea of an Obama presidency.
Posted by: demo kid on September 21, 2008 02:32 PMOne by one, BarryBabyKiller's lies are being exposed. Layer by layer, BarryBabyKiller's extremism, his visceral hatred of anything in his way to the power he think he deserves is being revealed.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 21, 2008 02:42 PMAnd what does this story prove? Nothing. You're playing on emotions to get your point across, with an irrelevant story about a family's personal heartbreak.
You're nothing more than a pathetic vulture.
Posted by: demo kid on September 21, 2008 02:44 PMWhich is EXACTLY why I warned you against it.
WE know what it means. You and your beloved BarryBabyKiller haven't a clue.
BarryBabyKiller has some serious issues creeping up his ass:
1. belittleing a disable abortion survivor
2.an AP/Yahoo poll that says quite succinctly that ONE THIRD of white DEMOCRATS won't vote for him
3. Factcheck.org has called him a liar on Social Security TWICE!
4. His own running mate is at odds with him regarding guns...although they are BOTH lying to America.
5. The ever invisible Joe has some of his own problems with the lies use uses to manipulate sympathy.
6. BarryBabyKiller's lies about his role in begging for a delay in the trop withdrawal is picking up steam.
7. And then we have the Reid Pelosi response to the "crisis" which we can lay at the feet of BarryBabyKiller and his supporters/advisors from Fannie and Freddie.
The incredible shrinking Obama and his Teleprompter Blues or when his teleprompter broke
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 21, 2008 03:20 PMFirst off, a good note: Hawks win! Finally!
Now to the reality... Obama claimed that he had a problem because the bill didn't have a neutrality clause. When added, he still voted against it.
If it's just "political grandstanding" then why not decry it as such rather than coming up with excuse after excuse of why the bill wasn't suitable? Simply because it WASN'T political grandstanding...
Admit it, you wouldn't vote for Obama even if Jesus came down and gave him an endorsement.
I would, absolutely. However I don't think Jesus would endorse a baby killer. I mean, the Catholic Church - you know, that church that SanFranNan and Joe Biden supposedly belong to - condemns abortion of "fetuses". How could they - or the Christ they serve - support murder of living, breathing children?
Try to rationalize it, go ahead. You know the truth - Obama tried to dance around the issue with "no neutrality clause", then when it was added he still voted against it. Never once has he - or his staff - mentioned it was just grandstanding. That's not the defense. Because there is no defense. Obama truly does not see anything wrong with killing a child that is born, and happened to survive a botched abortion.
The Slavery Party - the party of Slavery, the KKK, economic servitude - can now add infanticide to its calling card. Enjoy, Slavery Party Kid!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 21, 2008 04:12 PMI'm really going to enjoy using this argument against you in the future!
I cannot imagine how you possibly could, unless you manipulated it to mean something I clearly don't mean.
This is not reasonable law
Then argue with Obama: he said he would vote for it if the exact change were made that was, in fact, made. And then he voted to kill it.
If this were a serious issue that conservatives wanted to address, there is no reason why a compromise would not be in order
You're again arguing against Obama here, since he said he would vote for it, and since his campaign currently says they would have voted for the bill that did pass the Illinois legislature after he left.
It's absurd.
It's fact.
You're looking at the facts of this case from a partisan perspective, trying to read some kind of definition into it without context.
That is completely false. I provided all the facts. There is no room for interpretation in what I said. Obama said he would vote for it. And then he voted to kill it. And the reason he gave was that it took away the "choice" of the mother and doctor for the newborn baby to be killed. NONE of that is open to interpretation.
Again, this was an attempt by the right-wing to hammer away at abortion rights, and to assume that this was motivated by anything else is laughable.
You keep saying that, but you offer no facts. That is merely your interpretation. On the flipside, everything I said is backed entirely by the facts.
Perpetuate this by selectively examining the situation is not just dishonest, it's irresponsible.
Except, of course, that I did no such thing. Even Obama agrees that you're full of it, since he said he would vote for the bill you said did not address a "serious issue."
In 2005, when additional language was added to a "born alive" bill in Illinois that explicitly spelled out that it would not impact abortion rights in any way, the law passed easily.
Except, of course, that language was ALREADY IN the bill that Obama voted to kill. This is demonstrated fact.
It's a fact: Obama voted to allow newborn infants to die because he wanted to protect the choice of the mothers and doctors to kill them. That is directly from HIS OWN WORDS.
I see, so you'd rather we kill newborn babies here in our hospitals, rather than freeing tens of millions of people.
Oh, and let's not forget that Hillary Clinton voted for the war, and in fact Joe Biden - your Slavery Party VP Candidate - voted for the Iraq War. Not once, but 4 times (look at the previous amendments leading to that final action bill).
It appears that Obama is actually out of touch with the mainstream, and only you hard-core Marxist Slavers really have an issue here! Hey, you've got wonderful hypocrisy in your own ticket...
You and the rest of your Slavery Party simply cannot accept the truth: your candidate is on record - not once, but twice - opposing a bill that prohibits murdering infants. Failed abortions, child born living and breathing but still "terminated" because of inconvenience. It cannot be for the mother's health - the baby is born. And it cannot be for the baby's "health" - the baby is already born.
Accept it, live it, for it is your mantle. Death to children because they're inconvenient. That is the legacy that you have to live with and accept and embrace as your own.
So David, since it's above the pay grade of your Slaver candidate Obama, when do human rights begin? At birth? Clearly not, because that's counter to what you and your candidate support.
And not within 12-14 hours after birth, since some infants have lived that long before dying at your hands.
So when is it wrong to kill a child? At what time? A perfectly rational, logical question. We've already established that you have no problem killing a newborn, now I just want to know how old a child can be before you think it's wrong to kill them.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 21, 2008 05:17 PMYou are spreading a whole lot of lies about Obama
Name one.
I see you're toking on the good weed...
You are spreading a whole lot of lies about Obama and mixing in a little overt racism into the mix
Name one lie. Please. And point out one statement even hinting at racism.
See, it's the nature of you Slavers. When you simply are wrong you scream "RACISM!" and "LIAR!". All I've done is use Obama's own words and actions to prove his position.
And since you support Obama, you - by association - accept and support his same positions.
Oh, and about positions: for the war like Joe Biden, or against the war like Obama? Just want to see what side of that little hypocrisy you support...
there's a recipe well suited to the stupid, uneducated conservatives who happen to write for and populate the SoundPolitics blog.
Can you point to any of those lies or racism? See, because if you can't then that means:
1. You are actually the liar, making things up.
2. You are actually the racist, using the charge to slander others
So you are hoisted on your own petard. I know, a drug-addled mind doesn't quite follow logic, but that hasn't been the strength of the Slavery Party since Scoop Jackson and Tip O'Neill.
I suppose that it is always wrong to kill a child. So please do stop dropping bombs on children!
Umm, we have. How many soldiers or US military actions in the last 4-5 months? And how many civilians killed by terrorists? You know, those guys you want to sit down and talk with. Have your little "Oprah" moment before they slit your throat.
Yet the Christian fundamentalist nutjobs are warmongers and they are more than happy to murder Muslim women, children and fetuses so that they might steal the Muslims' oil.
Nice try at lies and incendiary comments! I mean, how many CHRISTIAN MEN AND WOMEN gave their lives to free tens of millions oppressed by Muslim extremists?
And if we did it to steal oil, please show the proof! Because the proof is completely counter to your claims...
But I know, you'll just make the charge and ignore the facts, or even do any research because with your Slavery Party it's not the accuracy of statement but the seriousness of the charge.
God is going to punish the United States of America.
For murdering babies, maybe. I know Obama's position certainly isn't helping the issue!
Oh, and when do you concern yourself with "God"? I mean, are you one of those feel-good take-from-all-religions "Christians"? If you are a Christian, have a talk with your pastor or priest about how to justify murdering a baby for convenience.
Remember the collapse of the Soviet Union? That's America's future ... and it ain't so far away.
Thanks to you Slavers, it is a distinct possibility. CRA from Carter, further enforced by Clinton. Gorelick, Raines, Johnson with FM/FM. And your Slaver congressmen refusing to address the FM/FM issue for the last 6 years like the Republicans have tried to do. All in the name of "fairness".
So if it does all crash down, rest assured it is because of your Slavery Party's marxist and fascist roots. And I'll be fine - don't worry about me. I've sheltered my assets appropriately!
The Republicans have a senile candide and a Christian fundamentalist idiot promising more of the same.
Really? You sure McCain is senile, seeing how you can't even spell "candidate"? He's a lot more lucid than you!
And wasn't Ol' Joe the epitomy of the "good Catholic". And Billy Clinton the ever-Bible-toting Baptist? Seems you have a problem with people who actually WALK the talk, not just pretend. I know, actual REAL people, not hypocrites. Whatever do you do with REAL people?
You people will have to spend the next four years crying and you will certainly have many reasons to cry.
If he does win, I'll simply spend more time overseas, diversified out. Obama's got no plans, a 3rd rate Senator as his backup, and is an affirmed baby killer.
If that's what you see as the "salvation" of the US, then you're a pretty twisted individual, Slaver Dave!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 21, 2008 05:55 PMRacial views steer some white Dems away from Obama
white Dems
Prejudice among Dems may cost Obama
Prejudice among Dems
AP-Yahoo News: Race And Competency Drive White Democrats Away From Obama
Drive White Democrats away
The dirty little secret with your whine about conservatives being the racists is that conservatives wouldn't never vote for ANY pretentious baby killing MARKIST whatever color or gender he/she chooses to be.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 21, 2008 06:53 PMRational and thinking adults:
Should murder also be included in "Alternative lifestyles?"
davey and his BarryBabyKiller supporting comrades:
Why not? It's not like it's wrong. It's all just a matter of perspective. What's right, is what's right for you in your situation. See, I'm pro-choice. I'm all about people having the right to do with their bodies and their lives as they please. I support abortion, so why wouldn't I support any other kind of murder? It's all the same thing - and it's not like you're "wronging" anyone else. There's no such thing as "wrong." Or morality. Or rights. They're all just words on a paper, enforced by the vast right-wing conspiracy whose only goal is to force their beliefs on you. Well, screw them. Vote Democrat. Vote for murder.
So davey thinks "Right Wing Religious Extremists" is a growing concern who would force their religious beliefs on all 300 million of us.
As opposed to what, davey?
The lying liberals who don't just love to, but DO force their religious beliefs on all 300 million of us?
- Who force us to wear our seatbelts.
- Who tax any "sinful vice" (especially cigarettes, alcohol and gasoline) because they don't want us using it.
- Who ban trans fats and smoking from restaurants "for our own good," while at the same time dictating what kinds of food kids in schools can and can't eat.
- Who threaten us with CRIMINAL SANCTIONS if we don't recycle our cans and bottles.
- Who wish to FORCIBLY take away our ENUMERATED RIGHT to own a handgun because they believe guns are dangerous?
- Who indoctrinate our children in schools with junk science and unverified facts about everything from global warming to evolution to sex education - while at the same time demanding hat any theories they DON'T like be STRICKEN from the halls of knowledge.
- Who FORCIBLY steals and redistributes wealth and private property because they believe a person only needs so much.
- Who support amplifying criminal charges if the criminals THOUGHTS - HIS THOUGHTS - were contrary to what they want him thinking about minorities. - Who are CURRENTLY SUPPORTING A CANDIDATE who's banking on a platform of "change" - change into HIS PARTY'S beliefs, and HIS PARTY'S way of thinking.
Are you REALLY going to sit there and complain about a group of people who "forces their beliefs" on us, and make the audacious claim that CHRISTIANS are the worst perpetrators of that?
Give me a flipping break.
The socialist left is FAR MORE dictatorial and oppressive than Christians could EVER be in society in this day and age. So don't feed ME this bullsh*t about "forcing beliefs" on people unless you, and the ideology YOU support, come out and admit your hypocrisy.
This country was founded on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, CAPITALISM AND SELF-DETERMINATION. The three things that the left-wing is against more than ANYTHING ELSE. The Christians and God is of little threat to that.
In other words, freedom of religion, freedom to worship as they chose without fear of being persecuted for it.
And yet, let's take a look at how the left-wing feels about that:
- No prayer in schools.
- Take "under God" out of the pledge.
- No religious icons in public areas during the Easter/Christmas season. Not even using the WORD "Christmas" during the Christmas season.
- Discontinued support for (hells bells, outright attack ON) any organization (particularly the Boy Scouts) with Christian backing.
- Vicious and hateful smear campaigns in major media outlets.
- And the latest one I've been hearing about, HOA's starting to pass bylaws prohibiting religious iconography on PRIVATE PROPERTY for fear it might "offend the neighbors."
Yea, freedom of religion - right. Unless you're a Christian. Then you're a TARGET for bigoted, hate-filled left-wing atheists, who are actually the ignorant and dogmatic ones compared to the people they like to condemn AS ignorant and dogmatic - if not more so.
Our founders very deliberately setup our Government as one where the Church was separate from the State.
And yet, we allow any left-wing religious ideology (ESPECIALLY environmentalism, atheism, and social/moral relativism) in EVERY FACET of the government. Instead of letting people RUN THEIR OWN LIVES - they pass paternalistic law after paternalistic law. They strip individual rights and liberties left and right. They preach things that are UTTERLY BASELESS as absolute fact. They prosletyze their ideology with the same furor as a robed man on the pulpit (don't believe me? Go to ANY environmentalist, gay pride, or abortion rally.) American Liberalism is an angrier, more subversive, more divisive and extremist cult than Christianity could EVER be. And they control EVERYTHING - from high schools/colleges to the media. You want a group to be afraid of - be afraid of the religion that's pretending not to be one.
A group doesn't have to have a superpowered diety to have all the trappings of a religion.
And yet, what is the biggest goal of the left wing? To elevate the government to god-like status. To give it absolute control over every aspect of our lives, from what we're educated in schools, to what we're allowed to drive, to what we're allowed to eat, to what we're allowed to own (both in life and death.)
The left doesn't have a problem with the co-mingling of Church and State: The left has a problem with anyone's Church but their own being allowed in the government.
And a perfect example of THAT is Archbishop Nancy Pelosi shutting down the Senate because the liberal religion forbids the heretical discussion of oil drilling. She doesn't even want it voted on. VOTED ON, the most DEMOCRATIC PART OF OUR SOCIETY - and she tries to keep that from happening. And yet here you are talking about Christians being the ones trying to "force their
beliefs" on people. Bullsh*t. Absolute bullsh*t.
As governor, Palin has done nothing to impose her religious or social views.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 21, 2008 08:03 PMHave a good evening all.
Posted by: KS on September 21, 2008 08:09 PMThe reason I call you Democrats Slavers is simple:
1. Which Party fought a civil war to keep slavery?
2. Which Party had the KKK as its terrorist arm?
3. Which Party supported Jim Crow?
4. Which Party fought against the Civil Rights Act?
5. Which Party fought against the Voting Rights Act?
6. Which Party seeks to use economic chains to keep people from succeeding on their own?
7. Which Party seeks to take from the successful and forcibly buy the votes of the less successful?
8. Which Party fights any attempt to make Government truly colorblind?
The answer is, of course, the Democrats.
Which Party fought to end slavery? The same party that claimed MLK Sr. and MLK Jr. as card-carrying members. Who rammed through the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts. The same Party that wants to get Government off the back of people. The same party that wants Government to look at you as a person, not a race.
The Republicans.
It's not a lie, and it's not racist to call the Democrats Slavers. It's the truth. The physical chains may be gone, but now you Slavers seek to use the chains of economy and the shackles of speech suppression (via terrorist activities, censorship, and "political correctness") to make us all your good little houseboys.
Yes, I use the term Slavery Party knowing full well what the connotation is. And I use it knowing that the connotation is 100% correct.
So where are the lies? For a man like you - that lies and slanders and shouts racism has no credibility, and is in fact the source of lies and racism himself.
Own your slavery, own your hatred, own your support for infanticide. It is what you want, it is what you love, it is what you need to complete your marxist, fascist takeover of the nation.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 21, 2008 08:42 PMYou know, I can see it happening in the next 4 years if the Obamassiah gets in to office: China will have more freedoms than the US.
As of now, economic freedom is greater in China, and so are personal liberties. I own pistols and rifles in China. My favorite local rice noodle shop uses those evil trans-fats and even cooks with bacon grease. Each restaurant decides if they want to allow smoking, and where. You're responsible for your own actions, and if you don't save for your retirement and your family can't support you - tough.
Heck, I even go to the local evangelical Christian church when in Shanghai, and a full third of the sermons are against the Government for one thing or another! Yes, politics allowed in the churches!
The Slavery Party really wants to go back to the days of Stalin and Mao; thank God that the 1.3 billion Chinese are rushing headlong towards freedom and liberties we used to enjoy here in the US, 30 years ago...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 21, 2008 08:51 PM