|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: This issue is going to sink Obama. It's over. |
 |
|
Read Text below
Last edited by fiveeagles on Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why can't you also post a text link? Or at least hint as to what it's about (in a nutshell). I'm not going to bother downloading bloody videos. Anyway, if it is such a big deal, I'm sure I'll eventually read about it in tomorrow's paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Is this what passes for irony where you come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can't ask nice?
Similar to this.
The first video profiles the nurse on this
| Quote: |
A pro-life nurse is seconding a statement made by Alan Keyes that Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama, pointing to his support for infanticide.
Jill Stanek is a nurse who discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms while working at a hospital in Illinois and since has been a strong advocate against partial-birth and live-birth abortions.
According to her commentary on WorldNetDaily.com, Stanek explains why Keyes made his statement.
At the federal level, legislation was presented called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) which stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote and by an overwhelming majority in the House. President Bush signed the bill into law in 2002.
Stanek wrote that, �in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.�
�Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.�
�So, the reason Keyes said Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Barack Obama was because of Obama's fanatical support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide.�
In a recent USA Today opinion piece, Obama admitted being "nagged" by the Jesus-wouldn't-vote-for-him statement, but only because he wished he'd given a different comeback.
Obama�s initial response, as stated in USA Today was �that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another.� He added that he was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not a minister.
Stanek summarized Obama�s second response saying that �Obama insinuated opposition to abortion is based only on religion, lecturing pro-lifers like me to �explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.��
�I don't recall mentioning religion when I testified against live-birth abortion. I only recall describing a live aborted baby I held in a hospital soiled utility room until he died, and a live aborted baby who was accidentally thrown into the trash,� she told WorldNetDaily.
Yet, Stanek pointed out that religion was never part of the abortion ban debate. �I recall comparisons made to U.S. laws ensuring animals being killed are treated humanely. I recall testimony that late-term babies feel excruciating pain while being aborted.� |
The second video shows Barak Obama speaking out against the legislation that would have kept live aborted babies alive.
No transcripts available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not all Americans are pro life vs pro choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, but this issue is about infanticide. If Obama did vote against this legislation and this legislation was to help infants that made it after a failed abortion. He's done.
| Quote: |
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama asserted Aug. 16 that National Right to Life was "lying" about his record as an Illinois state senator in opposing a bill commonly known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill pro-lifers say protects against infanticide. As it turns out, Obama apparently was the one wrong on the facts.
The controversy -- which comes as the party tries to soften its abortion stance with a new platform -- surrounds Obama's opposition to bills in the Illinois state Senate from 2001-03 that would have required medical attention be given babies who survive botched abortions and that would have given them legal rights. On several occasions he was the leading opponent.
A nurse at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Chicago testified that she saw babies who had survived abortions left unattended to die, but surviving on their own for several hours. It shocked her so much that she is now a pro-life advocate.
Ever since he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004, Obama has defended his opposition to the various bills by saying he would have supported them if they had contained "neutrality clause" language stating -- as a federal version did -- that the bills would not weaken abortion law. The federal version passed the U.S. House and Senate in 2002 by voice vote, with Senate passage coming unanimously.
But public documents released by National Right to Life Aug. 11 show that Obama, as committee chairman in the Illinois Senate in March 2003, voted against a version of the bill (S.B. 1082) that contained a neutrality clause identical to one in the federal bill, leading to its defeat on a 6-4 vote. In fact, the neutrality sentence was copied word for word from the federal bill. National Right to Life charges Obama was part of a "cover-up" and for years has "blatantly misrepresented" the truth.
The news is significant not only because it conflicts with Obama's own stated reasoning behind his opposition to the bill, but also because the federal bill had the support of the U.S. Senate's most pro-choice members, including Democrats Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America -- a leading supporter of abortion rights -- didn't oppose it. Pro-lifers charge that if Obama in fact opposed a federal version of the bill on the state level, then he's further to the left on abortion than anyone in Washington.
"We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL," the aforementioned nurse, Jill Stanek, wrote on her blog. "For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that."
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called Obama "the most radically pro-choice nominee ever nominated by a major party."
"Barack Obama voted against the born alive infants protection act in the Illinois state senate and against the ban on partial-birth abortion, which means that Sen. Obama has never met an abortion he couldn't live with," Land told Baptist Press.
In 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune he opposed the state bill because it "lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." He has repeated that claim, with his campaign telling The New York Times in an Aug. 6 story that Obama would have supported a similar bill as the federal one. Obama himself told CBN's David Brody Aug. 16, "I have said repeatedly that I would have been ... fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported.... That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade." In the same interview, Obama said of National Right to Life, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."
Obama's campaign, though, acknowledged to the New York Sun in an Aug. 18 story that he did vote against a bill that was identical to the one on the federal level. The campaign now says Obama opposed the state bill because it would have weakened existing Illinois state abortion law -- a reason pro-lifers say wasn't previously given, and one that amounts to changing the subject. Obama's campaign also says that existing Illinois law already protected babies from botched abortions, although National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru disagrees and says existing Illinois law protected only post-viability babies, and not pre-viability babies. The bill would have closed that loophole, he says.
The neutrality clause that was part of the federal bill and added to the Illinois bill stated that "nothing" in the bill "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right" to a baby prior to being born alive. Both the federal bill and the Illinois bill defined a "born alive" aborted baby as one who is completely outside the mother's body but who still "breathes or has a beating heart," has "pulsation of the umbilical cord" or shows "definite movement of voluntary muscles."
The national controversy over Obama's opposition to the bill has been brewing for more than a year, but is getting far more attention now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, and now that National Right to Life has released the documents.
"Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide," former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican, wrote in a February editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer. "He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide -- I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: 'Yes, we can.'"
The procedure that normally resulted in a botched abortion is called "induced labor abortion" and requires inducing the woman, with the goal that the baby will die during labor. But sometimes, as Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001, the baby survives.
"In the event that a baby is aborted alive at Christ Hospital, he or she is not given any medical care, but is rather given what my hospital calls 'comfort care,'" she testified, according to a transcript. "'Comfort care' is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until the baby dies, although until recently even this was not always done."
Parents were given the opportunity to hold their aborted baby, but most of the time they declined. Stanek then told of how she watched one particular baby die, a moment that helped change her mind about abortion.
"One night, a nursing coworker was taking an aborted Down Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him," Stanek testified. "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had -- trying to breath.
"Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive, unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken."
The controversy comes as the Democratic National Convention gets set to adopt a platform with language meant to attract voters who are concerned about the party's pro-choice image. Pro-lifers, though, say the new platform does little to advance the pro-life cause. The organization Democrats for Life says the platform falls far short of its goals.
The new proposed platform begins by saying the "Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." The "ability to pay" reference -- which was in the previous platform -- apparently puts the party on record as supporting taxpayer-funded abortion. The new platform language asserts that family planning and sex education reduces "the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce[s] the need for abortions." It also says the party "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs." The new platform deletes the following sentence from the previous platform: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
Land, of the Southern Baptists Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, says the new platform remains staunchly pro-choice.
"I'm glad that they want programs to support women having their children," Land said. "That's a step in the right direction. We have supported legislation in the Congress -- put forward by Democrats for Life and others -- that would essentially do those things. But then [writers of the platform] turn around and take out the language in the previous platform that said their goal was to make abortion safe, legal and rare. So what the right hand gives, the left hand takes away. This is far from a pro-life platform. It is still an extremely pro-choice platform plank. This is a distinction without a difference.
"One who is taken in by this is being gullible in the extreme."
--30--
Michael Foust is an assistant editor of Baptist Press.
Obama's response to National Right to Life's charges can be read here:
http://www.cbn.com/images5/cbnnews/PDF/FromBarackObamaCampaign.pdf
National Right of Life's response to Obama's charge can be read at www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm. |
Last edited by fiveeagles on Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinitarian
Joined: 15 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope he's done - along with all the rest of the sanguineous baby killers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poemer
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Location: Mullae
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| All I needed to see was an Alan Keyes quote-- nobody in their right mind takes that joker seriously. He's become a parody of a parody, just another political huckster clamoring for the spotlight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Culture Wars have been absent so far. It's inevitable the social issues would come up at some point. It isn't clear how much influence they will have this time around. A lot of people are tired of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I watched the links before I posted my first post, and they actually led to videos that indicated that Obama was receiving more favorable coverage by the media. Not what you're talking about.
However, the right to life issue is dead in US politics. It doesn't matter anymore. Everyone already has their mind made up as to whether or not they would be willing to support a candidate who was pro-life or pro-choice. All the polls are indicating that a number of people that are pro-life are taking into account more than simply the abortion issue are much higher this election. Abortion is becoming less of a litmus test for the right.
Now, for the Left, considering the number of judges up for grabs, abortion is ABSOLUTELY a litmus test. As much as I want to hunt me some PUMA, I really don't think actual Dems are going to vote for McCain. Well, wildly spiteful Dems might, but that puts them more into the Lieberman, near Rep if not proper Rep, category.
You're blowing smoke again, fiveeagles, and you've essentially become a troll as far as your posting about Obama goes. If you're really as arch-conservative as you portray yourself you wouldn't even support McCain unless you really believe he's had some sort of fundamental conversion to the far religious right, which I hope is not true. He wants to win, that's all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
I watched the links before I posted my first post, and they actually led to videos that indicated that Obama was receiving more favorable coverage by the media. Not what you're talking about.
However, the right to life issue is dead in US politics. It doesn't matter anymore. Everyone already has their mind made up as to whether or not they would be willing to support a candidate who was pro-life or pro-choice. All the polls are indicating that a number of people that are pro-life are taking into account more than simply the abortion issue are much higher this election. Abortion is becoming less of a litmus test for the right.
Now, for the Left, considering the number of judges up for grabs, abortion is ABSOLUTELY a litmus test. As much as I want to hunt me some PUMA, I really don't think actual Dems are going to vote for McCain. Well, wildly spiteful Dems might, but that puts them more into the Lieberman, near Rep if not proper Rep, category.
You're blowing smoke again, fiveeagles, and you've essentially become a troll as far as your posting about Obama goes. If you're really as arch-conservative as you portray yourself you wouldn't even support McCain unless you really believe he's had some sort of fundamental conversion to the far religious right, which I hope is not true. He wants to win, that's all. |
"Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide,"
This will clearly be much bigger than the issue at hand. Like the article says, even Democrats Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy would have supported this bill.
If Obama is a full of fluff like Oprah, then ya, I am going to be posting articles to show his true character. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Doesn't Obama realize that only a loving God decides when a women expels a foetus(1 in 4) from her body? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is exactly what I thought when I saw the lastest of character issues of Barak.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_swiftboating_of_obama.html
| Quote: |
On "Hannity & Colmes," Democratic strategist Bob Beckel indignantly stated: "Are you suggesting Barack Obama wants babies to die? I've never thought the Republicans would go this far. This is about as low as you can go."
Yes, Bob. Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against a bill that would have granted legal protection to already-born babies still alive after a failed abortion. He used his power to prevent those innocent babies from having the best chance to survive. The evidence speaks for itself. It doesn't get much colder than that.
In the face of this latest smoking gun, Obama and his beleaguered defenders have no arrow left in their quiver except to attack their accusers and label them as "Swiftboaters."
Because Swiftboating really amounts to truth telling, the targets of those accusations should consider this an affirmation that the Obama forces know the charges are true. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fiveeagles wrote: |
This is exactly what I thought when I saw the lastest of character issues of Barak.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_swiftboating_of_obama.html
| Quote: |
On "Hannity & Colmes," Democratic strategist Bob Beckel indignantly stated: "Are you suggesting Barack Obama wants babies to die? I've never thought the Republicans would go this far. This is about as low as you can go."
Yes, Bob. Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois Senate to speak against a bill that would have granted legal protection to already-born babies still alive after a failed abortion. He used his power to prevent those innocent babies from having the best chance to survive. The evidence speaks for itself. It doesn't get much colder than that.
In the face of this latest smoking gun, Obama and his beleaguered defenders have no arrow left in their quiver except to attack their accusers and label them as "Swiftboaters."
Because Swiftboating really amounts to truth telling, the targets of those accusations should consider this an affirmation that the Obama forces know the charges are true. |
|
Well right there we know you're full of crap. It's been proven that the Swiftboat groups were lying about Kerry.
I'm sure you hope this means that Obama is out. I don't think it's going to happen though, and you'd best start accepting that he has a good shot to win. Hell, even if he loses McCain might still pull a gotcha and go back to the man most of us loved in 2000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This criticism has more bite than Swiftboating.
This is a specific piece of legislation being cited, that is demonstrable of a specific decision and vote Obama made while in the Illinois Senate.
I think the impatience seen on this thread from Fiveeagles stems from two things, which play off each other.
1) Fiveeagles makes a strong point
2) Fiveeagles is usually the poster who swings wildly, but he's hit this ball way in out field.
I haven't seen one of the Obama backers field this one effectively yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
