Obama doesn't deserve reelection

[Semirhage666]

So because they *might* have a tough life they should be aborted? If that logic held true, shit, the world population would be miniscule.

I know a few people who have said point blank that they would rather have been aborted than to have had the childhood they had.

 

[Semirhage666]

It doesn't surprise me that you must devalue human life as less than a pig in order to defend your position.

He said a pig is more valuable than a one month old fetus. He is right. I find the concept of giving any sort of rights to a one month old fetus to be horrific and unethical. Rights are for the LIVING. Plain and simple.

 

[Semirhage666]

Abortionists can't be trusted.

Oh, really?

http://www.svmoms.com/2009/05/ready-to-go-rip-george-tiller-my-own-abortion-story.html

http://www.dr-tiller.com/cheryl.htm

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you have the right to control the lives of others.

The fact that women have to deal with harassment when recieving legal health care in this country is absurd and shameful.

 

[Ambrocious]

And who the fuck is going to adopt a Down Syndrome baby? Realistically?

Someone who truly cares about and values life. Some people are so sick and decide to throw out the child for the first reason of inconvenience.

 

[Semirhage666]

We The People have decided it is wrong. As of now the majority of Americans think abortion is wrong. Given our political tradition abortion will eventually be made illegal. All we need is a Supreme Court that interprets the constitution that way. If the majority agrees they will elect representatives that appoint pro-life justices and that is that. God has nothing to do with this process. Gallup polls show the USA is becoming increasingly more pro-life. Views as yours will be defeated with or without God's help.

I hate to break it to you, but we're the only Western economically developed country that has any kind of an organized anti-abortion movement. I think it far more likely that we will wise up and realize how shameful that is and get our act together.

And guess what? At least 7 states have it written into their constitution that even if Roe V Wade is overturned, abortion will remain legal in those states. So it would take an actual nationwide federal ban on abortion to make it illegal here. That is not going to happen.

And if it were to happen, guess what would be happening right along with it? Lots of bans of gay marriage, adoption, etc. because guess what? The people who are extremely pro-life tend to be the same people that are extremely homophobic.

So if you're comfortable giving up both the hope of achieving the rights we are currently working for, and the rights we already have, all for the sake of fetuses, then good for you. I'm not. And I look down upon anyone who is.

 

[Semirhage666]

He said a pig is more valuable than a one month old fetus. He is right. I find the concept of giving any sort of rights to a one month old fetus to be horrific and unethical. Rights are for the LIVING. Plain and simple.

I was gonna edit this post but apparently I can't so I'll just quote it.

Death is generally defined in most U.S. states as a situation in which the brain "flat-lines." That is, there is no major central nervous system activity and there is no detectable electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex. At this point, the person may be declared dead in many jurisdictions. The patient may appear to be breathing, as a result of the action of a respirator. Her/his heart may still be beating, either on its own or as a result of a heart pacemaker. But he/she is judged to be dead. Unplugging the patient from life support systems at this point will not actually kill the patient; she/he is already considered to be dead.

If the point of death is defined as a lack of electrical activity in the brain's cerebral cortex one might use the same criteria to define the start of human life. One might argue that fetal life becomes human person when electrical activity commences in the cerebral cortex. Human personhood, would then start when consciousness begins and ends when consciousness irrevocably ends. One could then argue that a fully-informed woman should have access to abortion at any point before the point that human personhood begins.

When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered:

"If we’re talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that’s one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn’t happen with an embryo."

quotes from here http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm

 

[JB3]

And who the fuck is going to adopt a Down Syndrome baby? Realistically?

Lots of people. I would adopt a Down's baby in a heartbeat. So would my parents, sisters, their friends and so on. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean there aren't people out there that won't.

 

[JB3]

He said a pig is more valuable than a one month old fetus. He is right. I find the concept of giving any sort of rights to a one month old fetus to be horrific and unethical. Rights are for the LIVING. Plain and simple.

Ha. That's laughable.

 

[JB3]

I know a few people who have said point blank that they would rather have been aborted than to have had the childhood they had.

And that's what you're basing your opinion on? Get real pal.

 

[Semirhage666]

And that's what you're basing your opinion on? Get real pal.

Of course not. As a biologist, my opinion is based on the scientific facts of fetal development.

 

[MLSFreak]

This is what I find interesting: There is a group of people out there that are Pro-Life... BUT also anti gay. These are the same people who will tell a gay couple they are not allowed to adopt a child. Suppose abortions were not allowed and some woman who had a child didn't want her baby but was forced to have it anyway. The child may end up in a foster home with several loving gay couples ready to jump at a chance to adopt him/her but can't. So hey, pro-life is great but this group might need to also look at softening their stance on gay adoption. If every child is born in this country regardless of it's mother's choice, then it should have the same chance of being adopted by a loving couple (whether straight or GAY).

 

[NickCole]

Because extremes have too much political control. The far right has a stranglehold on gay civil rights. In many states even the moderates oppose gay rights. However your argument has merit. If we explain to the far right that gay adoption will result in less abortions they may budge.

They think we're pervs and a bad influence on kids. That's not the kind of thing you can explain people out of.

 

[Ambrocious]

I think the biggest fear of parents is that if they give their children to a gay couple is that the child will be lacking a more natural kind of nurture or something. Psychologically they fear that the child won't be loved enough and that maybe won't have that vivid connection as a real mom or dad might have.

The point however in adopting a child in need is to help the child out first of all and secondly it is a great learning experience for the ones adopting the child. If you adopt a child, chances are you will be strongly connected to it as if it were your own. The desire to care for people is an unstoppable force that should not be canceled out.

I think there needs to be better adoption agencies that allow people to adopt based on their past and experience without a partisan view.

This issue of adoption though isn't a left/right issue. It is a struggle in but a brief gimps of the history of mankind. It's an over all conception that time will do away with if the world progresses onward with goodness and justice and liberty.

 

[JB3]

Of course not. As a biologist, my opinion is based on the scientific facts of fetal development.

Please. Your opinion is no more valuable on the issue than mine is. Just because you're a biologist (which I somehow doubt you are), doesn't mean that you're qualified to decide that a fetus is okay to be killed. Further, for every biologist that believes what you do, there's another that disagrees. There is no consensus on the issue.

And you actually brought up an interesting issue in one of your posts. If rights are only for the living, as you say, then why is it considered murder when a pregnant woman is killed and the baby either dies in the process or is killed themselves? Seems to me, if your argument actually held true, then the government has no right charging people with murder for beings that aren't considered 'alive'. In the same vein, why are mothers that take drugs while pregnant open to be charged if the baby is born with those drugs in their system? Why should anyone care if the fetus is exposed to drugs? In your thinking, they're not a living person, after all. (do you see what happens when your ridiculously stupid argument is taken to its logical end?)

 

[Knucklehead]

I hate to break it to you, but we're the only Western economically developed country that has any kind of an organized anti-abortion movement. I think it far more likely that we will wise up and realize how shameful that is and get our act together.

.

I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about that. The last I heard, Ireland,which seemed pretty westernized to me when I visited it,(although some may argue that.) has, to this day an outright ban on abortion.

As I understand it, many women travel to England to have abortions performed.

Not having a uterus,I figure abortion is an issue best left to women to decide.

 

[Knucklehead]

im very on the fence about Obama.
on one hand he is trying way too hard to be bipartisan. on the other hand, those blue dog democrats and republicans are making it difficult for legislation to pass.
and i dont understand why people think hes some sort of magician as if he could suddenly fix 8 years of crap.
i remember when i was studying for my american history final back in hs (lol) there was this one president who got blamed for all the crap created by his predecessor and i feel thats whats happening to obama.

he is very iffy on gay rights. but is it for political expediency? i dont know. but however he would definitely be more pro-gay than any republican candidate...so uh yea..
and i hate to say this and i hope i dont get flamed but i think the economy should be our number one priority right now. the gay stuff needs to take time. i feel like its one of those things that need time and to be taken with tiny steps. i feel if you grab more than you can chew at the moment. you're gonna have to deal with a lot more unneccessary conservative backlash in the future.

I'm not on the fence at all on Obama.I feel he is a weak link and has wasted over a year seeking bipartisanship with people that hate him,and his agenda.The Democratic party in general has proven to be a profound disapointment.

Who could have possibly imagined after '08 that even after kicking the shit out of republicans all over the country, they are still too afraid to advance the platform that swept them into office.Now, their failure to act will probably get them kicked out of office just as fast.

I can't say they don't deserve it, but unfortunately, what will replace them is sure to be more dangerous than they were cowardly..

 

[JB3]

I'm not on the fence at all on Obama.I feel he is a weak link and has wasted over a year seeking bipartisanship with people that hate him,and his agenda.The Democratic party in general has proven to be a profound disapointment.

Who could have possibly imagined after '08 that even after kicking the shit out of republicans all over the country, they are still too afraid to advance the platform that swept them into office.Now, their failure to act will probably get them kicked out of office just as fast.

I can't say they don't deserve it, but unfortunately, what will replace them is sure to be more dangerous than they were cowardly..

If you honestly believe that not following through on their agenda will get them kicked out, then you honestly have no idea what is going on politically right now.

The only reason Obama got elected was because he represented a change from the typical Washington pol. What people wanted from him was bipartisanship and a change in Washington. (an end to the bickering, and an end to the ideological wedge that divided Washington for the previous 8 years)

They did NOT vote for the agenda he is now pursuing, including the largest budget and federal deficits, in the history of the planet. What we're seeing now is not a rejection of Obama, but a rejection of the policies that he and his fellow democratic leaders in congress have pursued.

Americans don't want anymore of the right's agenda and don't want anymore of the left's. They want an agenda that actually WORKS for the nation instead of for a party.

 

[Knucklehead]

If you honestly believe that not following through on their agenda will get them kicked out, then you honestly have no idea what is going on politically right now.

The only reason Obama got elected was because he represented a change from the typical Washington pol. What people wanted from him was bipartisanship and a change in Washington. (an end to the bickering, and an end to the ideological wedge that divided Washington for the previous 8 years)

They did NOT vote for the agenda he is now pursuing, including the largest budget and federal deficits, in the history of the planet. What we're seeing now is not a rejection of Obama, but a rejection of the policies that he and his fellow democratic leaders in congress have pursued.

Americans don't want anymore of the right's agenda and don't want anymore of the left's. They want an agenda that actually WORKS for the nation instead of for a party.

Listen Man,despite your username,I really try hard to treat you like a human.I will say though,you make it hard to even tolerate you.

This is not a personal attack,more an observation or an opinion.I have very strong political beliefs.Beliefs that were shaped years before you were even born.While I am not as politically savy as say Jock Boy or Opinterph, I am not politically illiterate.I'd really appreciate it you stopped treating me and everyone else that doesn't share what I consider to be your extreme poltical views as a fucking moron.While you are a bit more clever than the average republican hack, you're not a political genius.

What's going on RIGHT NOW,isn't why Obama was elected.People elected him because of the issues they faced over A YEAR AGO.You say, people wanted ''bi partisanship, and I suppose many people did.Not me.I want the republican party wiped off the fucking poltical map.They have come to embody all that I hate. I don't like them or ANYTHING they represent.They, particularly,the right wing extremists that own the party have left me hoping we can exchange gunfire.... soon.

However,I wasn't consulted by President Obama.I would have told him to abandon any hopes of bi partisanship.I would have gone with ramming though a social agenda that would have made FDR grin with pride.You honestly can't sit here and pretend that the GOP has made ANY effort to reach bi partisanship.Whatever that means to GOP hacks.

I think we agree on at least one thing though, Obama did ''represent ''change.''What we got was the same old same old.The same old weak assed Democrats and the same shrill republicans talking the same shit about spending.How come the GOP never gave a shit about spending while they ran up the deficit to historic levels? Nah, then it was ''un american'' to question obscene military spending and their pork projects..

My problem with Obama and the greater Democratic party is that they even use words like ''bi partisanship''.There is no bi partisanship to be found with people who don't share a single common goal.What disgusts me about them( democrats) is that they are wasting valuable time and as Bush 43 would say ''political capital'' trying to find it where it doesn't exist.

What I would have liked them do, and since I voted in the majority that elected the President, I can't help but believe millions share my views.I voted for leadership that would hammer through the platform that got them elected.Not one that fights in the Supreme Court to uphold the most repellent Bush era policies.Not one that rarely addresses the most vile of republican slurs.Not one that fails to recognize that they were elected to CHANGE things instead of still playing these same tired bullshit games with the GOP.Not one that still says''give war a chance.'' Not one that lets the GOP blame them for trying to keep the country and the world from falling into the worst economic depression since the 20's.But by that, we didn't mean to give the banks the whole fucking house.

Shit's either gonna change for real, or people are going to get hurt.I really don't want people to get hurt, but myself, I often wonder, just how much more of this bullshit are people supposed to tolerate before they had enough?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BksTHQo8Q78[/ame]

We would have been a lot better off if Obama had a fraction of FDR's fortitude.He knew how to deal with right wing scum.

 

[NickCole]

Listen Man,despite your username,I really try hard to treat you like a human.I will say though,you make it hard to even tolerate you.

This is not a personal attack,more an observation or an opinion.I have very strong political beliefs.Beliefs that were shaped years before you were even born.While I am not as politically savy as say Jock Boy or Opinterph, I am not politically illiterate.I'd really appreciate it you stopped treating me and everyone else that doesn't share what I consider to be your extreme poltical views as a fucking moron.While you are a bit more clever than the average republican hack, you're not a political genius.

What's going on RIGHT NOW,isn't why Obama was elected.People elected him because of the issues they faced over A YEAR AGO.You say, people wanted ''bi partisanship, and I suppose many people did.Not me.I want the republican party wiped off the fucking poltical map.They have come to embody all that I hate. I don't like them or ANYTHING they represent.They, particularly,the right wing extremists that own the party have left me hoping we can exchange gunfire.... soon.

However,I wasn't consulted by President Obama.I would have told him to abandon any hopes of bi partisanship.I would have gone with ramming though a social agenda that would have made FDR grin with pride.You honestly can't sit here and pretend that the GOP has made ANY effort to reach bi partisanship.Whatever that means to GOP hacks.

I think we agree on at least one thing though, Obama did ''represent ''change.''What we got was the same old same old.The same old weak assed Democrats and the same shrill republicans talking the same shit about spending.How come the GOP never gave a shit about spending while they ran up the deficit to historic levels? Nah, then it was ''un american'' to question obscene military spending and their pork projects..

My problem with Obama and the greater Democratic party is that they even use words like ''bi partisanship''.There is no bi partisanship to be found with people who don't share a single common goal.What disgusts me about them( democrats) is that they are wasting valuable time and as Bush 43 would say ''political capital'' trying to find it where it doesn't exist.

What I would have liked them do, and since I voted in the majority that elected the President, I can't help but believe millions share my views.I voted for leadership that would hammer through the platform that got them elected.Not one that fights in the Supreme Court to uphold the most repellent Bush era policies.Not one that rarely addresses the most vile of republican slurs.Not one that fails to recognize that they were elected to CHANGE things instead of still playing these same tired bullshit games with the GOP.Not one that still says''give war a chance.'' Not one that lets the GOP blame them for trying to keep the country and the world from falling into the worst economic depression since the 20's.But by that, we didn't mean to give the banks the whole fucking house.

Shit's either gonna change for real, or people are going to get hurt.I really don't want people to get hurt, but myself, I often wonder, just how much more of this bullshit are people supposed to tolerate before they had enough?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BksTHQo8Q78

We would have been a lot better off if Obama had a fraction of FDR's fortitude.He knew how to deal with right wing scum.

You might not like this but hear me out.

It's interesting how much you sound like that guy who just set his house on fire and flew his plane into the federal building, and also like the Tea Partiers.

And as I've been trying to say, I think there are more and more Americans feeling the same way. Bush really made a mess and what Americans wanted after him was someone to clean up the mess and get us headed in a better direction. And although there are many areas of problems, they all distill down to money, the nation's economy and our own financial circumstances. Everybody who voted in 2008 was either an adult or getting there in the 1990s; we remember what it's like to live easier, to get raises and promotions and feel secure enough to leave a job we don't love for a different one without fear we'll be jeopardizing our future. We remember what it's like to take a chance and buy a car or have some renovation done or take a vacation we can't totally afford today because we're confident a raise or a bonus or our IRS refund will cover it okay. Sure Republicans were assholes to the Clintons but that was just a sideshow to most of us who went about buying houses and saving for retirement and going to movies or restaurants or out for drinks without worrying we might not be able to fill up the gas tank next week.

ObamaCo's current meme is that his stimulus bill was a success. It's being dutifully repeated all over MSNBC and the New York Times and the Internet -- it's even being posted here on JUB by Obama loyalists as if it's fact. But it's not true any more than the rest of Obama's lies were true, and following on the heels of 8 years of Bush it's making people crazy. And it's going to get much worse because Obama's not going to change and become a competent leader, he's going to continue to be what he's always been that's brought him success, a seducer who can get people to like him and be on his side and a liar who gets by on the achievements of others. But the problem is our Congress today isn't going to hand Obama any achievements because what they need is a strong competent leader. So Obama says you do it, to Congress, and Congress says you do it, to Obama, and Republicans say Dems are incompetent, and Dems say Republicans are obstructionists when they haven't the power to obstruct anything. And how does this end up? Just like you said, with the incompetent Dems losing power to the party of really bad ideas.

We had a golden opportunity. Americans were sick of Republican rule and we had a candidate who'd developed solid plans for health care reform, for economic stimulus and bank regulation after the meltdown, and dealing with the foreclosure crisis (which is still happening and getting worse) and a list of other issues. And like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is a leader who knuckles down and fights hard to get the job done.

We need to stop being impressed with likability and cool and pretense, and learn again how to recognize the value of genuine accomplishment and leadership. That's our problem in America - we're valuing the wrong thing, we're valuing attractive make-believe over less attractive truth, and we've let that influence who we support as leaders. That's happened before in history and it always ends in catastrophe. If we don't turn this around and very soon, well we're headed down and picking up speed.

 

[Ambrocious]

Knucklehead, the reason we got the same old same old is because Obama couldn't have possibly been able to do all that he promised, even if he really wanted to. The reason being is that the previous Presidents before him dug their way too deep into a horribly economic deal with international bankers. Obama may have tried to do something a few times but my thoughts are that he could not have possibly done them because he is still loyal to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street.

The Obama Deception documentary is not meant to be a personal attack on Obama but it IS meant to show you that the same people who controlled George W. Bush, control Obama as well. The financial organizations in high standing power have control but liberty and exposure to these facts are waging a war of the mind and heart against this takeover.

Until the power brokers of this world that hold sway of our money and our debt are taken out of the way and disassembled, NO president will be able to face the challenge of helping the United States with the amount of Tyranny that we are facing today.

I use to be angry with Obama for letting this happen but then I realized that even he would face death if he really tried to stop all of this corruption. It is up to the free minded people of the world to learn the truth and storm against this takeover. We need to learn the truth of what is happening BEHIND the scenes so we can be able to deal with what is taking place in plain sight. You cannot defeat an enemy who looks like a savior.