Obama lies in the following ad:
Let's look at all the lies:
"Obama's always supported medical care to protect infants."
He wants to rewrite history but here he is in his own words (the video also contains exactly how Obama voted on the bill):
Do have broadband? Then go here.
The second lie:
John McCain's Attacks: "the sleaziest ads ever", "truly vile". Now, votes taken out of context accusing Obama of letting infants die? It's a despicable lie.He implies that this is McCain's ad, it isn't. It's a third party ad. Why doesn't he call Gianna Jessen a liar? She's the one making the charges.
The third lie:
He's running on a platform to ban abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.McCain has always supported abortion in the cases of rape and incest. It's one of the reasons he wasn't supported by pro-life groups in the past.
Obama supports infanticide, that's a fact that he's isn't going to be able to lie his way out of. He had the chance to support a bill that many pro-choice Democrats supported and he couldn't do it because he didn't want to grant babies who survived an abortion human rights, he thought it would weaken Roe v. Wade. This fact is not in dispute, it's well documented.
He had no problem doing it, why is he ashamed to admit it now? Do you think it's because the public might draw the line when it comes to infanticide?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
the public might draw the line when it comes to infanticide?
Hey, look, didn't criminals who survived execution get pardoned, a recognition that it was God's will they live ... or even a sign that they were truly innocent?
(Isn't that what made Clint Eastwood's Westerns so ominous, the rope marks on his neck?)
How can we do less than that here?
Do you also despise the policital platform that uses your tax dollars to kill men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and (coming soon) Iran? I do.
Do you also despise the bombing of hotels, ships, barracks and office buildings? Do you support or discourage pursuing those who wage that sort of war?
I disagreed with going into Iraq to start with (and Bush's numbers are in the toilet even with Republicans).
I support going into Afghanistan, since that is where the terrorists are most likely hiding.
I support our government when our government is doing its best to protect and defend the people of our country.
Do you disagree?
Republican platform: "The waging of war – and the achieving of peace – should never be micromanaged in a party platform, or on the floor of the Senate and House of Representatives for that matter. In dealing with present conflicts and future crises, our next president must preserve all options. It would be presumptuous to specify them in advance and foolhardy to rule out any action deemed necessary for our security. "
MzEllen
I almsot never post like I do here. I wsa trying to mimic Michelle's style, and you don't like it! At least you try to argue a post. Michelle appears to lack the brains to even argue intelligently. Needs to read Kuyper, she thought, to be reformed. Someone even had to suggest that to her.
Be honest MzEllen! How many of her last 100 posts are overtly reformed? How many discuss a relationship with Jesus Christ, or applies the gospel to life? None that I have seen!
I am against abortion, but not a one issue voter. Republicans will not reduce or eliminate abortion, as witnessed by their inaction whne they were in control of congress and presidency. Obama is much more consistently prolife in all areas except abortion than McCain. Republicans and Bush simply used abortion to get votes, but have no real intention of doing anything.
Question? Does a birth control pill that keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall and thus keeps it from having almost any cell division/growth cause abortion? Is that infanticide?
Moonshadow, the point I was trying to make with my comments about not baptizing fetuses or holding funerals for them is that we all recognize there is a difference between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus in the early stages of development and an INFANT, a baby, that can survive outside the womb. We recognize this difference in all of our laws and customs.
A person who believes there is absolutely no difference between them would say that a woman who rushes into a burning building to save a crateful of her fertilized embryos and leaves her five-year-old daughter to die in the flames would be morally justified and blameless for doing so.
I don't think most people would feel that way. That was the point I was trying to make. There is a difference, even if the reproductive absolutists, those who aspire to be the American Taliban, refuse to recognize it. For them to acknowledge this simple reality would be to invite questions, and questions, uncertainties of any kind, are precisely what they cannot deal with. That is what fundamentalism is: a withdrawal into certainty, away from truth.
then again, how is any of this going to fix the financial problems that are rocking world markets today? oh yeah, diversionary tactic. ok, i'll play.
"I know that I can get 'snarky' at times...it's generally out of frustration."
ditto, lady. and some days are worse than others. remember that the initial post sets the tone. and you'll see that the more outrageous the initial post, the worse the comments will be. we suffer 2 additional levels of frustration here: michele posts to an initial page in a hit and run fashion, rarely taking the time to support her "opinions", and already put on the defensive our comments are relegated to the back pages. we can deal with this, but just don't get your panties in a twist when we come out swinging, okay?
"At what point will you also advocate for killing old people (or young people) who are in pain? Or perhaps merely a drain on society?"
clearly i disagree with your definition of when a fetus becomes a person, but your analogy is false. nobody that i know of is advocating killing a separate being, otherwise capable of living on its own accord, out of convenience to society.
"I despise the political platform that would demand that I pay for (through my tax dollars) a political platform that would allow any abortion, at any time, for any reason, whether or not the woman can afford it."
so, you're against paying taxes that pay salaries to politicians who support the right to abortion? is that your claim? because that never seems to be the argument. it's always "life begins at conception, so aborting a fetus equates to infanticide" and that the rest of the country should live under laws dictated by your world view. calling people who support a woman's choice, or who support abortion rights, or who have an abortion "baby killers" doesn't seem to play well to that argument, which is what michele and others here do, so you'd be alone on your platform, and it should include opposing any and every war because of "collateral damage" and you should also be against capital punishment.
look, my liver is a living organ, but it is not a person of its own. granted, scientists today can take a living cell from it and clone it in ways that we never considered possible 2000 years ago, right?
does this mean that i'm guilty of murder if i suffer a heart attack and some living cells in my body die? where does it end? both the sperm and the unfertilized egg are also living cells, so maybe it starts during foreplay when the male penis hardens and sperm is generated in the testicles and one lucky sperm is "chosen" by a higher being. where does the bible define exactly when a new being begins?
see, this is partly the crux of the issue. the other part is your faith versus the religious beliefs of other americans in the political realm of a secular government.
you say that you're "puzzled that Biden can say that life begins at conception...it's okay to kill that life. But that's above Obama's pay grade."
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what they're saying. in fact, the point is obvious, that regardless of their religious belief on when "life begins" their belief is not the same as mine. this is why abortion shouldn't be a political issue, just like religion should not be a political issue. obama's not the one to decide for everyone when a "person" begins during the term of a pregnancy, and therefore supporting another's right to decide based on their own belief seems appropriate.
while i think a vast majority of people would agree that abortions aren't desirable, at least obama has talked about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, while leaving abortions legal.
that's what the "choice" is. get it? we're protecting your right to choose to not have an abortion. you choose to carry a fetus to term, great for you. i won't despise you for it in the least. but i also will not despise a different woman with different beliefs and a different situation who chooses to terminate pregnancy. i despise a person who forces a woman to have an unwanted abortion, and i despise those of you who try to stop women who choose to have one. so be happy and mind your own business.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.