Democrats Use Scare Tactics in Pennsylvania
September 6th, 2008 at 11:11am Kevin Patrick
The smear and fear tactics from the Democratic National Committee have reared their ugly head in Pennsylvania. Here is a postcard the DNC is using to flame the culture wars and wrongly characterizing John McCain arriving in Pennsylvania mailboxes (and maybe others) today:
Frontside:
Backside:
McCain has them scared and they are going ugly early in Pennsylvania.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Grassroots, Life Issues
115 Comments
1. FmrMarine | September 6th, 2008 at 11:25 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&eurl=http://tammybruce.com/2008/02/barack_hussein_obam.php
2. FmrMarine | September 6th, 2008 at 11:28 am
ALL
three things about oBOMBa
1. illegal DRUG use
2. CRIMINAL associates
3. accusations of HOMOSEXUAL liasons
3. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
This smear is just too reminiscent of the 2000 campaign, which proves that Obama is just too much like Bush.
Vote for change. McCain/Palin!
4. kimberly4victory | September 6th, 2008 at 11:32 am
This is another Obama desperation play. They are running scared.
The Democrats have used the pro-choice ploy going on forever. When Republicans were in control of congress, was Rowe vs Wade threatened? Nope. When Republicans were in the WH for 20 years, was Rowe vs Wade threatened? Nope.
Their tactic is going to backfire. I’ve read posts on feminist sites, pro-Clinton sites, Nobama sites, PUMA sites and they all have come to the same conclusion. Republicans will not take away the woman’s choice. Democrats use it to scare women into voting for them.
5. Steamroller | September 6th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Hey Kevin I’ll let you in on a secret. This is what this frikin election is about; who will have the power to pick two possibly three Supreme Court justices. McCain/Palin will pick judges favorable to the views of the far right that will remove a woman’s right to choose.
Was there anything in the ad that was not true. All three items come with references. I believe you are confused. The fear comes in to play for women because they are in fact true. Some of the rights earned and worked for are on the line. Privacy and choice would all be up for grabs if McCain/Palin have a say.
6. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Kimberly, are you pro-choice? I wonder what percentage of Bush/McCain/Palin supporters are pro-choice.
7. Magnum Serpentine | September 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Well,
All three positions are true. McSame will ban all abortions via his supreme court picks, who will, of course, be oked by the fundamentalist Reconstructionist far right family rights group. let alone, his choice for VP Palin, who is under massive ethics investigations, is also against Abortion and said she is against abortion even in the case of rape. The Republic ticket is very scary indeed.
8. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am
yek,
I am definitely pro-choice. I believe that men and women have the choice whether or not to sleep with someone. I believe parents should have the choice where to send their children to school. I think parents should be able to have the choice to know whether or not their daughter is pregnant, I believe people should have the right to choose their health care provider and I believe that I believe people should have the right to choose to put some of the SS contributions in private accounts.
How pro choice are you?
9. kimberly4victory | September 6th, 2008 at 11:55 am
yekepyt: Thanks for asking. I suppose you might say that I am pro-life and pro-choice. That may be the reason why I rarely comment on the abortion threads.
My belief is that life begins at the exact moment of conception. As a single mom, I had the choice to keep my child or choose the other. I never gave it a second thought because of my Christian upbringing.
I chose life and I am SO glad I did. I have a wonderful daughter who I can share life experiences with and teach her to be a strong, independent woman. I know women who have made the opposite choice … even years later, they regret their decision.
However, I would never want to go back to the “back alley” days where women were forced to make a terrible decision and die for it. So, in that sense, I am pro-choice.
10. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Here’s more of what we can expect from the cocaine using, plagerizing Obama administration:
Looking to the future but with one eye on the past, Biden also promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with “a fine-toothed comb” and pursue criminal charges if necessary.
11. kimberly4victory | September 6th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Neocon: That’s just another scare tactic of the Zero-Gasbag ticket. The reason why they are using these scare tactics is because they are the ones who are scared.
12. Observer20 | September 6th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I am speaking as someone who has, until recently, been fed up with politics, and as such my knowledge of the specifics are limited. However, the question I am going to ask is frank.
McCain says nowhere on his site, and I have no access to any other official sources on his policy, that he will force unwillingly pregnant women to have babies. He says he will overturn Roe v. Wade and put the law of deciding abortion rights in State’s hands. My question is this; are the Democrats implying with this add that because McCain says he prefers state laws over federal laws (a popular Republican ideal), and that some of these states may, indeed, ban abortions, that McCain unnegotiably wants nobody to be able to have abortions?
If this is so, I find it hard to swallow.
13. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Kimberly,
Did you get my e-mail?
14. FmrMarine | September 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
obs20
>>>If this is so, I find it hard to swallow.>>>
THEN SPIT
15. FmrMarine | September 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
steambath
the “right to chose” is a LIE.
It is NOT a right, it a law passed by a treacherous,
wacko supreme court.
It gives women and doctors the “right”
to murder another INNOCENT human being.
I believe there should be occasions when a woman is allowed to end the pregnancy, but the unbridled slaughter that is thakin place in todays abortion mills makes Auschwitz look like a boyscout camp.
16. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Ahhh…the hypocrisy starts to reveal itself.
So…Kimmy, isn’t that what every comment, every caption, the whole idea about pro-choice is about?
How many times do you knuckleheads have to be told that NO ONE wants abortion? How many times are you told that other methods of contraception can accomplish this? Abstinence?
Please. The pitbulls own family is a prime example of abstinence.
Welcome Kimmy. Now when you realize that the RNC is “old boys club”, you’ll start to see things as the rest of the WORLD see things.
Hypocrite.
17. Obama08 | September 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Scared?
After your little hypocrisy laden hate fest Obama is still 4 points ahead in the daily tracking polls.
And when America sees Pit Pull Palin as “Pork Barrell” Palin, McSame will suffer.
‘This Election is Not About Issues’ — Rick Davis, McBUSH Campaign manager.
18. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hi neocon,
What I meant when I asked Kimberly if she was “pro-choice” was whether she supports existing laws that allow women to get an abortion.
She understood exactly what I meant, even if you didn’t. And, she and I seem to share the same opinion on the matter. Like her, I am “pro life” (and a parent) and “pro choice.”
As for your post, I agree with you on some things, too: I believe that men and women have a choice whether to sleep with someone, for example.
19. Mark Noonan | September 6th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Well, we can effectively respond to this in pro-life Pennsylvania by noting that Obama is running on the Democratic platform, which calls for federally funded abortion on demand, something not supported by even 10% of the electorate.
And maybe I’m missing something, but a search of “abortion” and “ban” in the GOP’s 2008 platform comes up with nothing relating to a GOP pledge to ban all abortions, including those resultant from rape and incest. There is a call for a Human Life Amendment without specifying any particular language for such an amendment - and the varied languages used since 1973 in Life amendments range from merely denying there is a right to an abortion secured by the US Constitution up to a ban on all abortions save those to save the life of the mother. The Democratic flier is dishonest, as far as I can tell.
20. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The RNC is the old boys club? Care to tell Sarah that?
Your distortion of conservatism is second to none. You are the poster child for liberal ignorance. Poor little soul.
No one wants abortion? Obama stated that if his daughter had an unwanted pregnancy, he would not want her saddled with that problem. I think that’s a clear advocacy for abortion.
21. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
yek,
So pro choice to you is ONLY related to a woman to choose to kill her baby, or not.
Good to know.
22. JPL | September 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Yo, Mag-Serp — Exactly what’s so “scary” about giving public policy-making on abortion back to the state legislatures, and, in the process, overturning one of the worst constitutional law decisions in history?
And perhaps Wellington could grace us “knuckleheads” with his/her wisdom on this question, too.
23. prowlerguy | September 6th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I got one of those little pieces of propaganda in VA. I couldn’t help but notice (before throwing it away) that the reference for the first, highlighted point was a liberal MSM source.
Now, inquiring minds might question “Why not simply reference the actual Republican platform, ? Unless, of course, they are lying, and the platform says nothing of the kind. But then, I guess that I am not really in the Democrat target audience because I a) can read, b) can form my own conclusions, and c) prefer to consider FACTS instead of emotions.
24. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Hi neocon,
No one in Obama’s campaign uses cocaine, as far as I know. You make a pretty strong accusation when you characterize his eventual administration as “cocaine using.”
You must have some pretty bulletproof evidence to support a serious allegation like this, right?
You wouldn’t just allege cocaine use without any means of proving it, would you? Because that would be dishonest and childish, and we all know you’re not dishonest or childish.
Are you just making up this “cocaine using” stuff because you think it makes you sound like you have some inside information on Obama’s campaign?
25. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I think Kimmy states exactly why…
26. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Hi neocon,
“Pro-choice,” especially when used in the context of a discussion about abortion, is a very well understood term. I was surprised that you didn’t understand what I meant by it, so I explained carefully: I was referring to a woman’s ability to get an abortion.
Somehow you have concluded that I don’t think people should be allowed to make other types of choices (such as who to sleep with or what to eat, I suppose).
I just want to be on record as stating that neocon is confused, apparently because he doesn’t know that the term “pro-choice” (like the term “pro-life”) has a specific meaning when discussing abortion.
27. Mark Noonan | September 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Wellington and Kimberly,
As regards the “back alley” abortion meme - my response to that is that do you know what the “back alley abortionists” did after Roe? They hung out a shingle and put their phone number in the yellow pages, after changing the name of their shady medical practice to “Feminist Women’s Health Center”, or some such nonsense. One of the problems the pro-abortion side is having is convincing younger doctors to even perform elective abortions - and thus the push to force doctors and hospitals to perform such acts.
An elective abortion is a Final Solution to a temporary condition, and I can’t think of any good reason to seek an elective abortion.
28. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hi neocon,
You report that “Obama stated that if his daughter had an unwanted pregnancy, he would not want her saddled with that problem.”
To save time, I am going to address this as if it were true (although it may well be another one of your “cocaine using” fabrications).
You conclude from Obama’s remarks (which, again, you may have made up yourself, we don’t know) that he is an “advocate” for abortion.
This is similar to your previous logic, where you concluded that because I am pro-choice for abortion rights, I must be against other types of choices.
Obama is not advocating abortion, here. No one is. Ever. Abortion is never a desired option. Ever. I get it, Kimberly gets it, 82% of Americans get it. Why don’t you?
(82% of Americans say that abortion should be legal either in certain circumstances or all circumstances, Gallup, May, 2008).
29. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Wellington,
Why are you afraid of federalism?
yek,
Do you support school vouchers?
Do you support privatizing SS?
Do you support teaching abstinence and birth control?
Do you support health care choice?
Obama admitted using cocaine before and he still smokes. I can only determine that he still enjoys the white stuff. I guess after all the accusations you leveled at Bush, you have no moral highground.
Pay back is a bitch, right?
30. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Mark writes, “I can’t think of any good reason to seek an elective abortion.”
Then don’t seek one.
31. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
yek,
You selectively don’t remember the “punish with a baby” quote??? Please.
Senator Obama has shared his perspective if this were to happen: he wouldn’t want them to be “punished with a baby”
32. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
That’s rhetorical B.S. and you know it.
Visit the real world now and then Noonan.
33. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Although you like to frame your pet issues as “choices,” I suspect that anyone reading here sees how transparent you are.
Do you support the right of communities to choose not to distribute their tax dollars as school vouchers?
Do you support the right of citizens to choose a social security system where market risk is minimized?
Do you support the choice to use contraception instead of abstinence?
Do you support people’s right to choose a universal health care system for their country? It’s their tax dollars, after all….
Now, on to the cocaine lie: you claim that you can determine that Obama continues to enjoy “the white stuff,” but you have just made this determination yourself, without any evidence or proof, or even a hint or suggestion that there is any shred of truth to it. Is this what you’re saying?
34. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
He hasn’t denied it has he?
I support all choice on those issues. Let the people decide. Let’s put all of those issues on a ballot and let the people decide. Are you up for that?
I think your side will probably lose on most of them.
35. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Unless and until Obama clearly and publicly denies his continued use of cocaine, I will have to assume that he still does.
36. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
By the way, my previous post was for neocon, and I did not mean to advance a particular opinion on the red-herring issues he introduced to this topic (school vouchers, privatizing social security, etc.)
I merely wanted to point out how transparent his “choice” logic is.
Here’s neocon: “Hey, buddy, do you support people’s right to choose my particular position on these hotly debated and politically charged issues? No? J’accuse! You must be anti-choice! See how clever I am to get you all tripped up in my wordplay like that?”
37. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
This statement clearly defines the type of person you are.
Again, I laugh at you.
38. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
yek,
I sense a little frustration and hostility. Are the wheels coming off?
39. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Hi neocon,
You write: “Unless and until Obama clearly and publicly denies his continued use of cocaine, I will have to assume that he still does.”
Ok, you are free to assume what you like. But you look silly, and you lose credibility, when you peddle your clearly unsupported assumptions as if they had some connection to the truth.
40. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The chickens are coming home to roost for those Bush bashers.
They can dish it, but can’t take it.
LMAO.
41. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
….you lose credibility, when you peddle your clearly unsupported assumptions as if they had some connection to the truth. - yek
Thank you for the belly laugh. That is so deliciously ironic.
42. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Hi neocon,
My characterization of your “choice logic” argument was spot-on. You’re all for people’s right to choose your position on controversial issues. Apparently, that’s how you define “pro-choice.” Anyone who disagrees with you is anti-choice.
Aren’t you going to tell me that when I point out how ridiculous your posts are, I am revealing myself to be anti-choice?
43. kimberly4victory | September 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ugh. This is why I rarely post on these threads.
I should have added I am against partial birth abortions, allowing a baby to die after a failed procedure, and government funded abortions.
Is it my imagination or is Wellington trying to convert me? LOL. Not a chance, beef, not a chance.
44. FactCheck | September 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Oh no! John McCain got attacked for being anti-choice! Did you know he was a POW? You can’t attack a POW!
Seriously, you guys are terrible at playing the tough guy role.
45. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Aren’t you going to tell me that when I point out how ridiculous your posts are, I am revealing myself to be anti-choice? - yek
um…………….no. I asked you if you would support putting all those issues on a ballot.
So quit being such a melo dramatic drama queen. okay?
46. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Hi neocon,
You run into a corner when pressed for data: first Obama uses drugs, then it’s just a “determination” you’ve made, and now it’s just an “assumption.” What’s next, you’ve got a “hunch”?
Still, nothing to connect your assumption to reality. You look foolish.
All because you can’t support your own arguments.
Meanwhile, the data I referenced (Gallup, May, 2008) still show that you’re way out of the mainstream on the issue at hand: 82% of respondents believe abortion should be legal either in certain circumstances, or all circumstances.
47. Observer20 | September 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Seeing as there is no mention of enforcing national abortion illegality in McCain’s platform, and even in the GOP 2008 platform (courtesy of Noonan’s first reply) which doesn’t even directly reflect McCain’s policy, it doesn’t say anything about unconditionally outlawing abortions, I am led to believe that the first statement in the add is absolutely false. Giving every state the ability to decide for themselves whether or not abortion is wrong does not equate in any way to a global ban on abortion to me. This has yet to be debunked by the liberals on this board.
I’m more interested in the other two reasons. Can anyone link to the specific bills and voting sessions where McCain voted against “reproductive health choices”? If it is evidenced from these 125 votes, if they illustrate a majority of his Senatorial lifetime votes, that he does, indeed, want to unconditionally ban abortion and threaten abortion doctors, then what the liberals here are saying may have some truth. However, if many of these votes are not for those reasons, I expect that if the Obama campaign decides to seriously use these talking points in the debates, they will be left looking very foolish.
At this moment it appears as though what is being discussed at heart is the age-old pro-life vs. pro-choice debacle. It’s fine to debate this, but how does your current tyrade against how much you desire a woman’s “choice” relate to McCain?
48. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Your a single Mom, you sound (write) kinda cute.
Maybe Kimmy, if you actually met the “Beef” in person, our discussion would change. We would no longer discuss abstinence, we would end up discussing contraception.
49. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Hi neocon,
I do not object to those issues being debated and legislated. Last time I checked, all of those issues were in fact being debated and legislated.
Your attempt to frame them all as “choice” issues in a topic about abortion is pretty silly, though. As is the magically shrinking cocaine allegation.
50. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
yek,
You seem to be getting more and more desperate. Debated and legislated is not the same thing as putting them on the ballot and letting the people decide. You seem to want bureaucrats decide, I’d like the people to.
Obama admitted to using cocaine and has never proclaimed that he stopped. Period.
You’re a good little sycophant though.
51. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Hi Observer, thanks for the thoughtful post.
Here’s the link you were asking about. Obviously it is designed to advance a particular viewpoint (it was compiled by NARAL) but it does include ten pages of dense footnotes that pinpoint each senate vote it references.
McCain Voting Record
52. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Wellington,
Your use of the word “kimmy” further exposes your misogyny and intolerance.
Thanks
53. Steamroller | September 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Funny how the wingnuts are playing this ad. You would think the neocons who post regularly would be singing hallelujah McCain/Palen. Or do wingnuts also fear the government will take away their right to choose by making the choice for them?
54. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Neocon darling,
Sweetie, coming from you makes it all so…so..real.
Save your hypocritical balderdash for someone else.
Actually, Ms. Kim (better?) if you just had a chance to meet me, I’m sure we could have a passionate, heated and lengthy discussion.
I am certain we could come to some agreement.
When you wake up the next morning, you’ll be converted all right.
After our discussion, I would have you throwing rocks at the first Republican you ran across.
55. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Hi neocon,
Who drafts the language when the proposal is put on the ballot? In our representative democracy, we elect lawmakers to represent us, at the local, state, and federal levels.
There are procedures and laws in place that allow for ballot initiatives to be created — these vary from state to state, and I do not object to them, if that’s what you mean.
If you are arguing that it should be easier for people to get their pet issues turned into ballot initiatives in your state, then you are free to work to make it so. Get going, do some community organizing, and change the law to one you think is better.
Obama wrote, in his memoir, that he used cocaine back in college. He employed the past tense (”used”) and provided a specific time frame for when the use took place (”back in college”).
You seem quite foolish when you purposefully misinterpret these statements as an indication that he is a current cocaine user.
Go ahead, stick to your guns — I am sure that lots of people will believe your hunch that Obama is a cocaine user if you keep repeating it, especially with the airtight proof you’ve provided to support the allegation.
56. kimberly4victory | September 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I posted this thread on Michelle Malkin and here’s a good response:
Maybe the GOP should follow up with their own version:
“Barack Obama is running on the Democrat platform, which would allow all abortions on demand, no matter the age of the unborn child, or its mother - and will include allowing any child who survives outside the womb, after an unsuccessful partial birth abortion attempt, being left to die.”
57. Observer20 | September 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Thank you, yek,
You already mentioned how obvious it is that this source isn’t unbiased, however even I, what I consider an average person, can think logically about many of the things they’ve listed on this list. As an example, I will try to discern the first ten in this list.
1. Obviously he is against Roe v. Wade, but he claims that it’s because he supports state’s rights to choose, not federal law.
2. Define “some” abortion procedures. Do we know for certain these banned procedures aren’t on 8-month old fetuses?
3. This is the toughest one for me to try to debunk in the list, to be honest. But does granting legal status to a fetus or embryo of undisclosed rate of development immediately equate to total abortion ban?
4. Well of course he would vote for a bill that gives states the ABILITY to do something. It’s getting old repeating myself, but he supports state’s rights.
5-14. These are just names of people he supported that coincidentally either were pro-life or supported the state’s right to decide for themselves.
I don’t really feel like going through the rest of the list. Suffice to say that there can be reasons why McCain votes against certain abortion laws other than the possibility that he dislikes abortion.
58. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Wellington,
I see you have still not developed any originality in lobbing insults. You again mimic me. I am flattered.
yek,
Good to know you support ballot measures for those issues. Let’s insist on it. And why do you care so much about the cocaine thing?
It seems to really get under your skin.
59. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
No, it’s not about the cocaine: I try to call attention to any lie that gets repeated by fools without proof.
Are you going to get started on the community organizing to change the laws to make it easier to approve ballot initiatives in your state?
60. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I already do yek. Are you going to grow up?
And would you like me to list the litany of lies perpetuated by liberals? Or do you care about those? Are they fools, or just concerned liberals?
You really are quite easily dismissed.
61. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I need to point out that you claimed those issues should be “debated and legislated” and then proceeded to lecture us on how bills get to the ballot. Debating and legislating is not how that is done. Simply crafting the language for the ballot is all that is required. Debating and legislating is how bureaucrats decide issues, not the people.
And if you’re so offended by me perpetuating half truths, then your “outrage” meter should have been spiked for nearly the last 8 years. Sadly it hasn’t been and that only exposes a blind allegiance to those who promise to take care of you.
Do you need to be taken care of yek?
62. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Hi Kimberly, can you provide any text from the Democratic platform that supports the statement you referenced?
I found the proposed 2008 plank and it doesn’t mention support for infanticide or homicide.
It also doesn’t mention that abortion should be available regardless of the age of the unborn child; in fact, it “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade” which protects a woman’s right to get an abortion up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”
So the Democratic party’s platform supports a woman’s right to an abortion up to about 28 weeks into her pregnancy, not “no matter the age of the unborn child.”
Here’s the proposed 2008 plank:
“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 Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also 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.”
63. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
yek,
I don’t see the mention of 28 weeks anywhere in that plank.
64. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Hi neocon,
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Each state has laws (that are debated and legislated) that control how ballot initiatives get on the ballot. Typically they require a certain number of signatures on a petition, they require that language for an opposing position be drafted and approved, a fiscal estimate must be prepared, etc.
My point is that there is a legal process involved… your statement that “simply crafting the language for the ballot is all that is required” is incorrect and belies your ignorance of the matter. Here’s a link to an abbreviated handbook that describes the process for California.
If you want to get your issue on the ballot, follow the rules and start your community organizing efforts. People do it all the time.
As for the magically shrinking cocaine allegation: You weren’t perpetuating half-truths, neocon, you were foolishly defending and repeating an outright lie that you had no proof to support.
And yes, the past eight years have been outrageous.
65. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Hi neocon,
The plank states that the Democratic platform “strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade.”
Roe v Wade protects the mother’s right to an abortion up to viability, and specifically states that “viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.”
Once again: the Democratic platform “strongly and unequivocally supports” a law that specifies that a mother’s right to abortion is not protected after viability.
I am sure that some people (Democrats and Republicans) want abortion on demand regardless of the age of the fetus, but it’s wrong to state that this is the Democratic platform.
66. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
yek,
How much does the Obama capaign pay you?
And thank you for further clarifying your earlier clarification. Why do liberals always have to go back and explain what they meant?
Did you see where your father figure again shot himself in the foot over guns today?
That man is a train wreck. Where are those styrofoam columns?
67. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I wonder why Obama staffers like yek think that posting their drivel on a conservative site will gain them any traction.
If they were smart, they would be explaining to Hillary supporters why they punked her in favor of a more inexperienced man.
I am sure she’d like to know.
68. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Hi neocon,
I have to explain what I mean because you don’t seem to understand things the first time around. You don’t come across as the sharpest tool in the shed, if you know what I mean.
Do you still think that “simply crafting the language for the ballot is all that is required” to get a ballot initiative on the ballot, or did you look at the handbook that I pointed you to?
Have you started your community organizing efforts? As a big fan of ballot initiatives, you must have enormous respect for the community organizers who collect petitions and actually succeed at getting their issues onto the ballot.
69. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Wow, now that’s an awkward segue. Classic.
70. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
neocon,
Another lie that you can’t begin to support? Won’t you ever learn?
Although I am flattered that anyone would think I worked for the Obama campaign, I don’t.
71. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Yek,
We’re all very impressed with your ability to link to other sites. nd it seems that Obama is always having to refine his statements, much like you do, which has nothing to do with someone elese’s ability to understand, rather than the inability to properly articulate his position in the first place. You have the same problem.
Why did the Democrats pass on the more experienced woman in favor of the more inexperienced man? Why did Democrats discard the American flags in Denver?
And why do you possibly think that you can persuade conservative to vote for a cocaine using, inexperienced, Harvard educated lawyer.
It just doesn’t make sense
72. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
You should work for them yek. You are as delusional as they are.
73. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
yek,
Where did the Annenburg money go?
Why did Obama lie about being on the Senate Banking committee?
And why again did Democrats choose the inexperienced male?
74. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Why are Biden’s sons connections to MBNA bank not being investigated?
Why are all three od Reid’s sons now lobbyists?
Why is the Democrat controlled congress on vacation sans any energy legislation?
Why aren’t Jackson and Sharpton campaigning for Obama?
Why did Mccain attract more viewers than Obama?
75. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
When was the last time Obama defied his party?
Why did Obama choose an entrenched Washingtonian if he plans on change?
What executive experience does Obama bring to the table?
Name one bi partisan effort that Obama led.
76. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Why did Obama vote to support FISA?
Why did Obama praise the SC for overturning the gun ban?
Why does Obama support faith based initiatives?
Why did Obama call his grandmother a typical white person?
77. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi neocon,
Can’t you find out those answers on your own?
Because just as with the other issues, I’d have to explain things over and over to you, in the tiny little bite-size chunks that you seem to require.
I’m happy to do it when I feel like it (it can be fun), but if you want me to educate you “on demand” we’ll have to come to some sort of commercial arrangement.
78. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
That’s what I thought.
next.
79. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Hi neocon,
Boy, you sure showed me a thing or two in this thread!
You showed your willingness to repeat lies, even when it made you look incredibly foolish. You showed your lack of understanding of the legislative process and the ballot initiative process. And you showed that you cannot put two and two together to figure out that the Democratic platform supports Roe v Wade’s 28-week viability check without me spelling it out to you.
Be honest: if I started to answer any of the questions you recently spewed out, you would continue to act (or be) stupid, and I would feel obligated to go back and simplify each of my posts into tiny little bite-size chunks of information.
This is your pattern. I’m sure I’ll take the bait another time, when I’m in the mood, but for now: Next.
80. JPL | September 6th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Would one of you libs finally answer my question? Exactly what is so “scary” about returning public policy-making on abortion to the state legislatures? If 82% of all Americans favor a right to abortion in some or all circumstances (as yekepyt claims), then obviously many if not most state legislatures will end up passing compromise laws that will allow some abortions and disallow others. What’s so awful about that process?
And a second question: How do you libs justify denying a substantial majority of Americans ANY political say on the abortion issue? According to the same source that yekepyt cited, 40% of Americans believe abortion should be allowed in only a “few” circumstances, and 17% of Americans believe it should never be allowed. This means that 57% of all Americans believe abortion should be more restricted than it is under Rowe v. Wade, and that this majority is denied ANY political voice on this subject for as long as that decision stands. Please attempt to justify that. [Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx#1
81. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Neocon sweetie,
You’ve become a caricature of your own self.
Classic.
If only Mark or Matt could have an Al Hirschfeld done of you, and used it in their banner.
The more cartoony the better.
Keep it up. You’re splittin’ my sides.
82. Danish Artist | September 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
“Scared?
After your little hypocrisy laden hate fest Obama is still 4 points ahead in the daily tracking polls.
And when America sees Pit Pull Palin as “Pork Barrell” Palin, McSame will suffer.
‘This Election is Not About Issues’ — Rick Davis, McBUSH Campaign manager.”
08ama, lemming obamaton….what was the point spread before both conventions? 4-6 points?
NO bump from Biden, hardly a bump above the margin of error after his “record breaking speech of a lifetime”, Palin’s announcement alone cost him a couple of points and then there is the convention so now were are in a 2-4 point margin, which is still not above the margin for error of the poll.
AND IT’S A FAR CRY FROM THE MARGIN earlier in the year. No matter how many times your repeat it to yourself, o8amaton, it will not become true.
Your party and your candidate far underestimated the American people. They are wising up to your guy’s shortfalls and inexperience.
Wise Americans are sick of the Democrat party and tired of their 30+ year old failed ideas. Obama is turning out to be more of the same and not the image of a new politician his campaign created for him.
83. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
JPL,
yek does not like to answer big scary questions. He may have to “refine” his positions and that can get dicey.
Federalism is not something yek would embrace.
84. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Wellington,
Are you still here? I would have thought your little league would have started by now.
Let’s see how original your comeback will be.
85. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I also find it amusing that both yek and welly mimic my insults and sarcasm.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks guys. Or should I say ladies?
86. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
JPL,
It’s easy to fall back on “let the states decide” — politicians of both parties do it all the time.
But certain issues can’t be decided by the states. Civil rights, for example.
Most people (and the Supreme Court) feel that a woman’s ability to receive an abortion is fundamentally tied to her right to privacy, and that right to privacy, being as important as any other right, should be protected at the federal level, and individual states should not be empowered to deny anyone of it.
By the way, it was Gallup Opinion Research that found that 82% of people thought abortion should be legal in certain, or all, circumstances. I merely pointed it out.
87. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
yek,
So you’re definitely not a federalist, right?
And I am glad you brought up civil rights. Why would former Democratic Governor Wallace want to impose segregation, if only at his states level?
I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say, segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Gov. George Wallace (D)
88. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Hear! Hear! Thank you for posting this.
I do not think this is a concept that the neo-right wing understands.
I’m playing centerfield today. Before I go I want to quote Ms. Kim one more time…
Another day dear neocon, now give the ole pants a hitch up, grab your cane and head down to Denny’s. The “old boys club” has to take advantage of the senior meal deal.
89. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Now the liberals are insulting the the older constituency that frequents the early bird specials. Is there a subset of people that they have not offended?
Let’s recap who liberals have most recently offended:
mothers
women
teenage girls
walmart shoppers
military families
evangelicals
and minorities attending the RNC convention
That’s the short list
90. Mark Noonan | September 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Wellington,
No, I’m afraid its the truth - or did you think there was a bunch of first-rate doctors in 1973 who were just waiting for abortion legalisation so they could add that to their list of services?
Good doctors never have and never will perform elective abortions - only lousy doctors do that, and they were once upon a time the “back alley abortionists”…
91. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Why would George Wallace, a Dixiecrat (social conservative), make a despicable, racist statement like that? He obviously thought it would appeal to the people of Alabama in 1963.
Many social conservatives of both parties supported racist positions during that period.
92. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
yek,
So you’re blaming Wallace’s statement on the people of Alabama? In turn, offending everyone that lives in Alabama.
Here’s a little history for you:
September 9, 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act
September 24, 1957 Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
June 23, 1958 President Dwight Eisenhower meets with Martin Luther King and other African-American leaders to discuss plans to advance civil rights
February 4, 1959 President Eisenhower informs Republican leaders of his plan to introduce 1960 Civil Rights Act, despite staunch opposition from many Democrats
May 6, 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats
July 27, 1960 At Republican National Convention, Vice President and eventual presidential nominee Richard Nixon insists on strong civil rights plank in platform
May 2, 1963 Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights
June 1, 1963 Democrat Governor George Wallace announces defiance of court order issued by Republican federal judge Frank Johnson to integrate University of Alabama
September 29, 1963 Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School
June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
June 10, 1964 Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
93. The Masses Opiate | September 6th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Women Should Fear An Obama Win
Things to count on if Obama Wins.
-A progressive tax system that soaks the rich and dries up investment
-A windfall profits tax on oil companies that further off shores production and increases our balance of trade deficit.
-A rougher time ahead for US auto stocks, given his past attacks on these companies and investor expectations.
-Higher food prices as he pushes for renewable energy
-Liberal judge appointments leading to higher tort costs, lower competitiveness and fewer US jobs.
-Weakening of NAFTA
-An illegal alien influx into America given his stated policy to not send back the 12,000,000 illegal’s here.
-The signing of the Kyoto Accord and the loss of 5% GDP.
-An economy strangling universal health care program.
-Higher oil prices.
94. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Hi neocon,
Nope, you’re wrong again.
I said he was trying to appeal to the people of Alabama in 1963. Did you know that in 1963, there were a lot of racists in Alabama?
See, here I go — feeling obligated, at least partially out of pity, to serve neocon information in the small, bite-sized chunks that he requires. I’ve got to learn not to take the bait!
95. neocon | September 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I’ve got to learn not to take the bait! - yek
You’re just too easy yek. I will stop toying with you.
96. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I sincerely appreciate it, neocon!
But you’re a bit of a bait-taker, too, you know.
When you have some time, read about the Dixiecrats. Also skim that brochure I provided you about ballot initiatives. I think your plan to become a community organizer and get your issues onto the ballot is a good one.
97. bagni | September 6th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
neo
you’re my hero
my interplanetary idol
braheem….you’re smart!
98. William Teach | September 6th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Wait, is the Barry campaign serious? He is going to be preaching to mostly small town folks about how great abortions are and how McCain is against them, and Barry is for them, even if the baby lives through the procedure?
99. JPL | September 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Once again: the Democratic platform “strongly and unequivocally supports” a law that specifies that a mother’s right to abortion is not protected after viability.
BULLSH*T. Under Rowe v. Wade and all U.S. Supreme Court abortion decisions that followed it, a woman has an absolute right to an abortion AT ANY TIME, including after viability, if necessary to protect her “health,” including “mental health.” This “mental health” exception is so broadly defined that it includes almost ANY excuse for an abortion, including:
–the “distress” of maternity or additional offspring;
–the mental “taxation” of child care;
–“distress” arising from having an unwanted child;
–the “problem” of bringing a child into a family that is psychologically unable to care for it; and
–the “difficulties” and “stigma” of unwed motherhood
SOURCE: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/
By supporting Roe v. Wade, the Democratic Party platform unequivocally takes the position that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, as long as she can convince an abortionist that she’ll suffer in some way if she gives birth to her child. That’s the true position of the Democratic Party platform.
100. Jeremiah | September 6th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
What seems so interesting about the whole thing, is that there was this sudden influx of family values with the left after Sarah Palin entered the scene.
The left encourages sex outside of marriage, but if the woman becomes pregnant, they want her to abort or murder her child.
In Bristol Palin’s situation, however, she made a mistake, but has chosen to do the right thing in the end, by giving her baby life.
And that’s what upsets the left so much, they do not want to see Bristol’s baby live. Nor her mother’s down-syndrome baby.
So, what are “family values” to the left? Uuuum, death to unborn children, sexually transmitted diseases, depression, and sodomy.
Pretty “good” set of “family values”, huh?
101. CanadianObserver | September 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Good doctors never have and never will perform elective abortions - only lousy doctors do that, and they were once upon a time the “back alley abortionists”…
90. Mark Noonan | September 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
———————————–
I just can not believe that in America, the greatest country in the history of the world, a medical procedure can be performed by lousy doctors who were once back alley abortionists.
How is this possible in this day and age? If, in the United States of America in the year 2008, it is only lousy doctors, not qualified ones, tending to these women, shame on y’all.
102. yekepyt | September 6th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
By supporting Roe v. Wade, the Democratic Party platform unequivocally takes the position that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, as long as she can convince an abortionist that she’ll suffer in some way if she gives birth to her child.
No, it doesn’t.
That’s the true position of the Democratic Party platform.
No, it isn’t.
As I said before, you can claim that some people want abortions to be available at any point during gestation, and you even make the claim that many Democrats want this (although I would dispute that claim).
But to specifically state that “abortion on demand regardless of gestation time” is part of the Democratic party’s official platform is patently and provably false.
103. William Teach | September 6th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Yet, yekepyt, whenever a judge is put up by Republicans, Dems first line of attack is that the judge will do away with abortion on demand rights. Barry is running a tv ad about Palin and McCain being pro-life (no, seriously, Barry is. Stop snickering, Conservatives, Barry is serious.)
The first issue of The Democrat party is abortion on demand.
104. JPL | September 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
yekepyt — Obviously you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Roe v. Wade EXPRESSLY holds that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion even after viability if necessary to preserve her “health.” In the words of the Court:
In the companion case to Roe, the Court elaborated:
And in Roe itself, the Court gave the following examples relating to the woman’s “mental health”:
Based on these quotes, it’s undeniable that Roe v. Wade recognizes a constitutional right to an abortion even after viability if the woman’s doctor believes it’s necessary to protect her from almost any kind of psychological stress. It follows that by supporting Roe v. Wade, the Democratic Platform necessarily supports all post-viability abortions for almost any reason whatsoever.
Period, Q.E.D., end of story. If you’re still in denial, read the cases yourself:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/reproduction/bolton.htm
105. JPL | September 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Scared? After your little hypocrisy laden hate fest Obama is still 4 points ahead in the daily tracking polls.
But your figures are so yesterday, dude…I’m more interested in today’s dailies, which frankly ain’t such good news for your “progressive” ticket:
Gallup Daily: Obama’s Edge Shrinks to 2 Points.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup%2BDaily.aspx
Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll: Barack Obama 46%, McCain 45%.
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Zogby Poll: Republicans Hold Small Post-Convention Edge (McCain/Palin 49.7%, Obama/Biden 45.9%).
Source: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
I guess people just aren’t buying that “hypocrisy-laden hate fest” theme of yours, dude. Better get a new talking point!
106. Observer20 | September 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
yek,
Honestly, now, being a supposed liberal on this grantedly conservative blog site making comments to an article declaring the audacity of such a virulant and, as I see it, completely falsified attack on McCain’s beliefs and voting record, you should be prepared for the counter-attack of the people here. They may not talk nice to you, but that’s because they mostly believe you (and by proxy all of “your kind”) have no hope in understanding our side of the issue. Talk about how McCain will nonnegotiably try to remove the woman’s “right” to abortion, and you should be prepared for the counter-attack of Obama’s funding of and support of no-bars-ever abortion for all women, no restrictions.
I tried to address all of the issues in the ad that attempted to besmirtch McCain’s judgment by trying to refute them with mere logic. You can do the same here if you try. Of course no smart politician will expose themselves to the possibility of being the proponent of “aborted” premature infants, but you have to do the digging yourself, examine your enemy’s sources and see if you can make any sense of it.
Saying “No it doesn’t” doesn’t cut it here.
107. Danish Artist | September 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I thought leftists were above using the politics of fear?
Any time terrorism is brought up, that is what liberals scream - the politics of fear.
I guess we have more to fear from the possibility of abortion, than from the radicals who want to terrorize infidels.
And they wonder why Obama’s lead is now only two points.
108. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Jeremiah,
What interplanetary radio station do you get this from?
Show me anywhere…anywhere pinhead, where the left did not want to see “Bristol’s baby live”.
Dude, you really should go back to church.
You’ve become your own minister now.
Minister Jeremiah of the Church of Jeremiah.
Me thinks you need another Pastor. Another opinion other than the neo right wing zealots who post here.
Honestly. Go back to church. Jes don’ pick one of those snake dancing churches. Don’t want to see nothing happen to you.
109. toobadforyou | September 6th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“Democrats Use Scare Tactics in Pennsylvania”????
That scary headline should be more like:
“Democrats Use FACT Tactics in Pennsylvania”
110. Jeremiah | September 6th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Wellington,
No, you’ll never admit that you don’t want to see their babies live, because you just plainly [don't].
It’s evidenced all the time in your advocating more abortion, and in the votes cast by the Senators.
Every bill that has sought to protect unborn children from harm your Senator Obama has chosen to vote “present” simply because it did not suit his views on the issue. Most notably on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act - In other words, he doesn’t care anything about the baby, babies could be lying on the floor dying and he doesn’t care.
No one proclaiming to be a Christian that I know would do or vote such as Obama has.
He has disgraced his office as representative of Illinois and the entire United States Senate, and he should never ever be permitted to represent the oval office. Voting Obama would be the same as the re-birth of Hitler all over again.
111. Wellington | September 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
You can find this stuff only on Blogs for Victory.
Yep, yep, yep!
Again, go back to church Jeremiah. Talk to a real pastor. It’ ll do you some good.
You’re being led astray here. This is the dark side. Go toward the light.
Find peace.
112. Jeremiah | September 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Wellington,
The “Democratic” party, controlled by liberals is the darkness that you find yourself mired in. So I would offer up the same advice to you - ‘Go toward the light.’
Of course, you can’t go unless the Holy Spirit draws you, and provided that the Lord has not discontinued the calling that you are so in need of, when this happens, you are rightfully called ‘reprobate’, meaning that God has forsaken you because of your rejection and wanting to follow after the lusts of the flesh. You’ve given into the seducing spirits that Satan has sent upon the earth to do his work, deceiving people with his lies and propaganda, and is evidenced in your advocation of extra-marital sex and abortion-on-demand … these are all lies that Satan has placed in your head and they have successfully deceived you at your own discretion, much the same as Adam and Eve gave into temptation in the garden of Eden. Satan says, “Ah! Murder they child, and you will be granted much “wealth” and “prosperity” anything you so desire, will be granted you. Stab away!” Satan says.
But what happens when they enter hell? “Oh no! Where is my wealth? Where are all the nice things you promised me, Satan?”
And Satan goes … “HAAAAAAA HA HA HA! These are the nice things, this IS your wealth, I am your kingdom”
You see … All lies! Because you loved serving Satan more than you did the Creator!
Yes, it may all sound stupid, and naive, but I would rather serve the Word than to believe a lie any day of the week, because what happens in the here and now is just temporary, but what happens on the yonder shore lasts for ETERNITY!
Ever wonder about eternity? It is utterly mind-boggling to say the least … man’s system of numbers can’t even do it, because it is non-stop.
Wouldn’t it be better to be in eternity where you know you will be loved and cared about, instead of swimming in fire?
Think about it …
113. JPL | September 7th, 2008 at 12:00 am
That scary headline should be more like: “Democrats Use FACT Tactics in Pennsylvania”
What BS. At least 2 of the claims in the DNC postcard are patently FALSE:
1. The postcard claims that John McCain’s views on abortion are “extreme.” In fact, McCain’s stated goal as president is sensible and relatively middle-of-the-road. He favors overturn of Roe v. Wade and a return of abortion legislating to the state legislatures. He does not seek to force states to enact particular abortion laws. As stated on his campaign website:
There’s nothing “extreme” about this position.
2. The postcard also suggests that McCain would seek to ban abortions even in cases of rape and incest. That’s a lie. In fact, McCain has long supported exceptions for cases of rape and incest. As reported in the Boston Globe on January 22, 2000:
So, far from espousing “facts,” the DNC postcard peddles at least 2 major lies.
114. Jeremiah | September 7th, 2008 at 12:36 am
If we go back to the Born Alive Rule, we find that if it was not determined that the child was living (viable), as there is not determining whether he child will be born stillborn, then any harm to take the life of a living, breathing baby was considered murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_alive_rule
With the advancement of technology, through, I think it’s Sonogram, we may now determine factually if the baby is alive or dead in the womb.
Yet, every single day, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year thousands of perfectly healthy little babies are murdered … and the “doctors” and “mothers” know it.
So, the question here is, what excuse to mother’s have to murder their unborn child? What excuse do the men and women who perform these bloody murders have to do what they do?
And the true answer is? There are none! Not one single, solitary excuse do they have to murder.
We may compromise in the here and now on when the baby is this, and when the baby is that, but in the end, God’s Word is the final arbiter on life. So, compromise is simply out of the question.
Down through the ages, God has given us the knowldedge and thereby the technology to prove to us His divine will and nature, so there are no excuses.
To see a living baby in the womb, and then knowingly murdering that little baby is akin to looking at a person ie Terry Schiavo and saying, “Sorry, I don’t need you anymore, I don’t care about you, I’m going to do what I want to do, and you’re not going to get in the way, so good-bye!”
How sad! Our nation does not realize that they are sowing what they will reap!
God help America!
115. Pain | September 8th, 2008 at 6:27 am
15. FmrMarine | September 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
That whacko court was made up of a majority of those appointed by GOP presidents at the time.