Palin hung in effigy

the whole scene would be much scarier if the homeowner depicted mccain behind the resolute desk in the oval office, or worse yet... v.p. palinsane warming herself near a pile of burning books.

but, weighing the consideration that you paid when such things were done at obama's expense, i'll give you a big, WHO CARES?

"However, I do find it curious that you're blogging about Palin being hung in effigy, but that you've never made so much as a peep about the incidents where Obama was hung in effigy in this election."

1) Obama is black, therefore he is a non-person to McGinty
2) Obama is a Democrat, therefore he is a non-person to McGinty
3) Obama is not a Christian (according to McGinty) therefore he is a non-person

Face it, when FOX News can joke about hoping that Obama gets shot, and NOBODY on the right raises an eyebrow, we know what they are thinking.

"3) Obama is not a Christian (according to McGinty) therefore he is a non-person"

McGinty is a Christian? You'd never know after reading all of her hate-filled, anti-democracy rants flying in the face of the teachings of Christ. You know -- that old super liberal, community organizing, rich-despising Jewish guy.

Then again, hypocrisy is no stranger to the modern "religious" American.

Even left-winger Keith Olbermann called this character who hung Palin in effigy out, calling the act "despicable." Kudos to Olbermann on this call. I am an Obama supporter and find Palin to be sadly unqualified for her place on the ticket, but this kind of display is in terribly poor taste at best, and incites violence at worst.

Just for the record, earlier in my life I packed up and moved to the Philippines to work in a leprosarium, where I gained a reputation as the only worker who would shake hands with the lepers. And I'm voting for Obama. I don't go for abortion either. So MzEllen, it happens. Have you yourself sold everything to give to the poor?

MzEllen, why do you insist on spreading vicious lies about Obama? How can you purport to care so much about unborn fetuses and so very little about truth?

Here are the facts about the so-called "Born Alive" bill in Illinois:

* At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
* The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]
* The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
* Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress -- but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]

1. FACT

Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

2. FACT

Republican Bill Sponsor Said “None Of Those Who Voted Against SB-1082 Favored Infanticide.” Rick Winkel, a Republican former state senator who sponsored the “Born Alive” bill, wrote in a Letter to the Editor, “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.” [Chicago Tribune, Winkel LTE, 9/5/08]

3. FACT

The Illinois State Medical Society Opposed The Bill Because It Interfered With The Physician-Patient Relationship And Greatly Expanded Civil Liability For Physicians. “The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, “because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians.” [New York Times, 8/19/08] Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

4. FACT

The 2003 Bill Had The Same Wording As The Federal Measure But Would “Have Had A Different Effect At The State Level…By Undermining Illinois’ Legal Precedents On Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois' legal precedents on abortion. Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that's similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.” [Chicago Tribune, 8/20/08]

""don't complain when conservatives think you see Obama as a [lower case] 'messiah'""

Fine. Don't complain when I consider conservatives to be inbred, unintelligent, selfish ghouls who leech off the poor and lower classes in this nation.