posted September 23, 2008 03:20 PM         

This so called fact checking service is a leftist organization connected to the Annenberg Charitable Trust...which funded an O'Bomber organization to the tune of about $100,000,000 to introduce radical educational policies in Chicago. Fortunately, O'Bomber is such a failure that the radicalization of the Chicago School System failed but O'Bomber found a use for the hundred mil anyway. He used it to fund far left kook communist organizations.

So, let's go to the record to see what O'Bomber said. We already know what he did; he voted no to saving the lives of born alive babies and there's absolutely no doubt that's exactly what he did. Let's see what O'Bomber's concerns were...and they were most definitely not saving the life of a born alive baby.

OBAMA: Yeah. Just along the same lines. Obviously, this is an issue that we’ve debated extensively both in committee an on the floor so I — you know, I don’t want to belabor it. But I did want to point out, as I understood it, during the course of the discussion in committee, one of the things that we were concerned about, or at least I expressed some concern about, was what impact this would have with respect to the relationship between the doctor and the patient and what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation. So, can you just describe for me, under this legislation, what’s going to be required for a doctor to meet the requirements you’ve set forth?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: First of all, there is established, under this legislation, that a child born under such circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, and that’s as defined, of course, by the … practice of medicine in the community where this would occur. It also requires, in two instances, that … an attending physician be brought in to assist and advise with respect to the issue of viability and, in particular, where … there’s a suspicion on behalf of the physician that the child … may be [viable,] … the attending physician would make that determination as to whether that would be the case…. The other one is where the child is actually born alive … in which case, then, the physician would call as soon as practically possible for a second physician to come in and determine the viability.

SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?

SENATOR O’MALLEY: In the first instance, obviously the physician that is performing the procedure would make the determination. The second situation is where the child actually is born and is alive, and then there’s an assessment — an independent assessment of viability by … another physician at the soonest practical … time.

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a — an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that’s the case — and — and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

This is staggering. As Obama spoke these words, he well knew that children were being born alive but precisely not looked after by the abortion doctors whose water the senator was carrying. As Stanek put it, as many as one in five — twenty percent — were left to die. That was what prompted the legislation in the first place.

Through Obama’s radical prism, everything “is about abortion and not live births.” But in reality, this had nothing to do with “burden[ing] the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.” It was about the legal and moral responsibilities of doctors and nurses in circumstances where, despite that decision, a living human being was delivered.

Obama wasn’t worried about “the least of my brothers,” the child. He agitated, instead, over “what liabilities the doctor might have in this situation.” And what kind of doctor? A charlatan who would somehow “continue to think that it’s nonviable” notwithstanding that “there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

Given the choice between the charlatan and “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it,” Barack Obama went with the charlatan. The baby would end up limp and dead, whether in the operating room or the utility closet. It was, Obama insisted, about abortion, not live births.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzRhZTgzNmRlZWE0MTA1YTM4NWMxN2UxMjA5YjBkZTE=

posted September 23, 2008 03:31 PM         

And as for the National Review, everyone knows (or SHOULD know) that it's about as unbiased as Fox News. You can even tell, with the language of the article. Calling abortion "infanticide." What are you going to cite next? The Weekly Standard? The Washington Times?

You also didn't bother to bold this part: Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.

This bill is a farce. Anti-abortion activism is a farce and built on lies. The Republican party CURRENTLY is built on lies, which is why I stopped calling myself a Republican. I am so ashamed of anyone who believes in the Republican party's lies (like the myth about the "liberal media" LMFAO). Jwhop, do you HONESTLY believe Barack Obama wants to kill babies/children?

Abortion shouldn't even BE an issue. Do you know why? Because abortions are going to happen one way or another (just like DRINKING--remember what happened when the government tried to outlaw alcohol?), and if they are made illegal, women (who are already established as in fact ALIVE--there is no debate about this) will DIE. Of course, Christian right wingers don't give a sh*t about women or about their bodily rights (and their records show this), just about spreading the seed and creating more little Christian right wingers. You can't force women to go through unwanted pregnancies. Women are not cows. Abortion should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor, just like any other medical procedure. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus.

posted September 23, 2008 03:53 PM         

SENATOR OBAMA: Let me just go to the bill, very quickly. Essentially, I think as — as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.

Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense...

He stated there quite clearly that he expects a doctor would already endeavor to save a born-alive child.

Again:

if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, it — if you think there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense,

Understand? To paraphrase Obama, if the doctors aren't already doing this, then I'd see the purpose of this bill, but as I understand it, doctors are already trying to save the lives of live-born children.

posted September 23, 2008 03:59 PM         

as for abortion, it is NO goverment's business to decide who will have kids (or NOT, as in china). i would think a cons would get that!

posted September 23, 2008 05:09 PM         

Now, for all the infanticide fans; O'Bomber is your guy. He doesn't give a damn about saving the lives of children, he only cares about satisfying the most radical abortionists in the United States. Even there, O'Bomber is THE radical extremist among the "Kill the Babies Crowd".

Even Barbara Boxer, NARAL and Hillary Clinton couldn't stomach O'Bomber's infanticide stance.

As for the source of the information I posted, you, amowls should be more concerned with the direct quotes from Barack Hussein O'Bomber. That's the meat of the argument, not where it came from. BTW, those quotes came straight out of O'Bomber's mouth.

As for O'Bomber's confidence that the abortionist doctor would use good medical ethics and treat children born alive as a result of his/her botched abortion attempt...don't make me laugh. The practice of placing these born alive babies in isolation until they died on their own IS THE VERY REASON THE BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT WAS DRAFTED AND PASSED IN THE FIRST PLACE. You know amowls, those babies which refused to cooperate with their butchers and didn't...as "O'Bomber says...come out limp and dead".

I don't give a flying flip what you call yourself. There are plenty of people who...if you support O'Bombercide..would be happy to give you the proper designation.

I'm particularly drawn to your statement that there are NO CHILDREN involved in abortions. Apparently, you agree with O'Bomber that determining when a person has a right to life is above your pay grade too. So amowls, how about you? Do you have the right to life you would deny to a new born ALIVE baby. If your answer is yes, how about telling me how you arrived at the conclusion your life has value and should be protected but a new born baby's life is valueless and shouldn't. I can hardly wait to see you hem and haw your way through that minefield. I don't know how old you are amowls, but almost surely, there must be some black marks against you for something you've done..or failed to do when you should. No such blame for anything at all can attach to a new born ALIVE baby. They are totally innocent in every way innocence can be measured or judged. I suspect you are not but I would be fascinated to see you attempt to make that case.

Are you still attempting to get off the hook for saying Sarah Palin was indicted katatonic? What, is English beyond your comprehension? Indictments are preceded by investigations. If you meant to say "investigation" then that's what you should have said. Instead, you said "indicted", indicating an investigation was concluded and that the relevant facts when presented to a Grand Jury were such that a "a true bill of indictment" was returned against Palin by a Grand Jury.

In this case that investigation is going to go nowhere because...Governor Palin...as I've explained to you before...has the perfect right to fire anyone who is an "at will" employee of the state, as all cabinet members are. Maybe he wore one blue sock and one brown sock one day or she didn't like his new haircut or he wore a tie which clashed with his suit. It doesn't matter..though none of those are the reason...but if she decided to fire the Commissioner of State Safety Services...for any reason whatsoever...or no reason whatsoever, she has the legal right to do so. All those people "serve at the pleasure of the Governor...in all states, including Alaska".

posted September 23, 2008 05:41 PM         

quote:

---

I think you said you were an Elbow fan, did I get that right?

---

Yes! Very much so.

quote:

---

You've never had a real argument on this site acoustic. You must submit to nibbling around the edges of issues because any direct argument cuts directly against your interests and across your own arguments. You've had your head handed to you so many times I'm beginning to come to the conclusion you have masochistic tendencies.

---

That's patently untrue, and can offer up many examples of my besting you. Take this thread for example. And the sad thing is that I've already pointed these things out to you, and you've gone and tried to repeat the same falsehood.

quote:

---

The practice of placing these born alive babies in isolation until they died on their own IS THE VERY REASON THE BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT WAS DRAFTED AND PASSED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

---

Except that there was ALREADY a law on the books, which you can't even bring yourself to comment on, that makes Obama's assertion on the matter entirely correct: that doctors were ALREADY required to save any born-alive child. No dice!

posted September 23, 2008 06:24 PM         

The fact born ALIVE babies were shunted off into storage rooms and left to die..IS THE VERY BEST EVIDENCE THAT BUTCHERING ABORTION DOCTORS WERE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW...IF INDEED SUCH LAW EXISTED. In fact, statistics show that 1 in 5 of these types of abortions ended with a born ALIVE baby which was shunted off to a storage or closet room to die.

O'Bomber resisted placing into Illinois law a measure which would require the butchers..abortion doctors to get that second opinion from another doctor as to whether or not the baby was viable and could be saved.

As usual, you're arguing around the edges because the facts cut straight across your obtuse argument.

Something else which should be noted is that when O'Bomber was supporting O'Bombercide on the Illinois Senate floor...he attempted to suggest those abortions were for the protection of the health of the mother. He's such a lying little dunce.

O'Bomber:
the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purpose of the mother’s health, is being — that — that — labor is being induced..

Labor is not being induced for the health of the mother...but rather for the convenience of the mother...as 95% of all abortions in the US are.

In fact, the AMA says such abortions are generally not necessary to protect the life or health of the mother.

HEALTH AND ETHICS POLICIES OF THE AMA

0.500 Health and Ethics Policies of the AMA House of Delegates

5.000 Abortion (See also: Contraception; Pregnancy)
5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques

posted September 23, 2008 06:39 PM         

quote:

---

As usual, you're arguing around the edges because the facts cut straight across your obtuse argument.

---

The FACTS are as I've presented them, Jwhop. There's no nibbling around the edges.

If the law wasn't being enforced, it didn't require a NEW law. It merely required that the existing law be executed. You wouldn't support a redundant law yourself, would you?

posted September 23, 2008 07:02 PM         

Your arguments lack substance acoustic. If there indeed was a law requiring the attending butcher to treat..medically...those survivors of his/her botched abortion attempt...and he/she didn't treat, then exactly who the hell was going to know that and blow the whistle on him or her? huh, huh, huh...you think he or she is going to blow the whistle on themselves?

That was the reason for the requirement to call another doctor to make the decision as to whether or not the baby was viable...and would benefit from medical intervention to save it's life.

You're still attempting to nibble around the edges of this issue.

Main issue. O'Bomber voted against an Illinois bill which was identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act and by so doing supported infanticide..or O'Bombercide in his case.

The bill passed in the US Senate by unanimous vote including Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and even the usual abortion crowd didn't oppose it. O'Bomber opposed the same language in the Illinois bill.

That's the issue and all the rest...coming off you and the O'Bomber camp is pure spin and bullshiit.

posted September 23, 2008 07:45 PM         

quote:

---

Talking about the reason(s) for those abortions O'Bomber championed is most reasonable and logical...because O'Bomber misstated the reasons for those abortions in the first place...health of the mother.

---

Actually, it is in no way pertinent to the topic of "infanticide."

quote:

---

Your arguments lack substance acoustic.

---

What they lack in overblown drama, they more than make up for in actual facts.

quote:

---

If there indeed was a law requiring the attending butcher to treat..medically...those survivors of his/her botched abortion attempt...and he/she didn't treat, then exactly who the hell was going to know that and blow the whistle on him or her? huh, huh, huh...you think he or she is going to blow the whistle on themselves?

---

It's not a matter of "if" there is a law on the books. There is a law on the Illinois books.

Who should police the doctors? I would think the doctors themselves wouldn't want to go to jail, but in the absense of professional standards I don't know whose responsibility it is to notice such things... probably anyone present.

quote:

---

The bill passed in the US Senate by unanimous vote including Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and even the usual abortion crowd didn't oppose it. O'Bomber opposed the same language in the Illinois bill.

---

posted September 23, 2008 08:14 PM         

Plutonian Persona

The founding fathers put an Amendment into the US Constitution forbidding the practice of infanticide or any other form of murder by government fiat. Those people you mentioned would have been horrified at the prospect of abortion in the first place.

As for the conservative nature of the founders you mentioned, they were conservative to the very core of their beings.

Lastly, there's no mention of brotherhood in any of their writings. Where did you get that idea?

The elitists don't exist in conservative circles. Elitism is a foundational belief of the far radical left. These self elevating, self serving and self promoting leftists are examples of the arrogance of those who consider themselves to be superior intellectually, morally and spiritually...and without a single example that any of that is true at all. In fact, the evidence is in and has been in for 60 years or more that these self appointed ones are the worst hacks and examples of failed policy in this nation's history. They believe that when their policies blow up in America's face, they should get credit for their good intentions. The most recent example of this is the failure of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Instituted by 2 different democrat presidents, these morons used these congressional created entities as democrat piggy banks funding their election campaigns, placing democrat foot soldiers in charge to get them huge paydays and using Freddie and Fannie to fund a wide range of far left radical groups...like ACORN which is and has been engaged in overturning the American election process. When it all blew up in America's face, they say what...we were wrong; hell no, they say they were trying to make housing affordable and available for disadvantaged Americans...who could not make the mortgage payments. Now, this same group of democrats have put Americans on the hook for at least $1,000,000,000..that's trillion dollars..whoops, but they had such good intentions.

posted September 23, 2008 10:16 PM         

"The founding fathers put an Amendment into the US Constitution forbidding the practice of infanticide or any other form of murder by government fiat. Those people you mentioned would have been horrified at the prospect of abortion in the first place.

As for the conservative nature of the founders you mentioned, they were conservative to the very core of their beings.

Lastly, there's no mention of brotherhood in any of their writings. Where did you get that idea?"

You obviously need a lesson in history and need to get off your Jupiterian high-horse or whatever else it is that you are on.

Infantcide: Yes, 18th century people would be appalled by abortion, but then of course most people also believed in the concept of the Great Chain of Being. I don't condone it either, except in cases of rape, incest, and harm to the mother's health and well-being.

Founding Fathers and Conservativism: Do you actually know what the Enlightenment was about or are you simply spitting out whatever you perceive to be the correct answer??? Our Founding Fathers, whether you want to believe it or not, were extremely LIBERAL for their time: they opposed divine right monarchy (the prevailing governance of the time) and were looked upon as rebels by most of Europe, which was the predominate force at the time.

Founding Fathers and Brotherhood:

Washington and Franklin were both Masons, which in and of itself should say something about their ideas regarding brotherhood. Furthermore, I am talking about the abstract concept of "the brotherhood of man" formulated during the Enlightenment and to which our own Declaration of Independence makes ample usage of including "all men are created equal."

posted September 23, 2008 10:41 PM         

quote:

---

More drivel from you acoustic as you attempt to duck, bob and weave around the subject. O'Bomber refused to vote for a bill as a Illinois State Senator which would have forbidden the practice of infanticide. Period.

---

Yeah, you've been bringing up irrelevant information, and you accuse me of ducking and weaving. This is so typical: You make an outrageous claim; I step in with the facts; you puff out your chest and claim to be right when actually being wrong.

Let's be real for a second, though. You're never going to win by trying to pound on anything having to do with abortion. Never. You want to do something about it? Adopt a child. Get behind sex ed, or just education in general. Get involved in a church's young program. It can't be fixed with politics no matter how many volumes of forum pages you devote to it.

quote:

---

They're the least capable in the American population and the most lazy.

---

posted September 23, 2008 11:19 PM         

That's the issue and the only issue...you know acoustic the issue you're trying to duck, bob and weave around...as has O'Bomber himself.

O'Bomber is the candidate for all the infanticide buffs...here and everywhere.

Excuse me Plutonian Persona but the founders were rock ribbed conservatives when viewed through the lense of today's social, economic and political culture.

And I wasn't talking about abortion...which would have no doubt horrified them but rather infanticide...2 different things, unless one believes as some do that an unborn is nevertheless, a baby. As for infanticide, I believe the founders would have called it murder in the first degree and hanged the butcher doctors and probably the women who requested it.

Brotherhood is no where to be found in any of the documents relating to the formation of the United States but these words are found:

No person........shall be deprived of life, liberty or property....without due process of law.

Not only is O'Bomber out of step with the US Constitution with his stand in favor of infanticide but he's out of step with the vast and I do mean vast majority of American citizens as well.

The fact he's now denying it says he's a liar as well...as the dialogue on the state Senate floor prove.

posted September 24, 2008 12:26 AM         

Sorry but I don't read the election that way but I'm willing to let the voting public decide and as of now, O'Bomber has lost about 30% of Hillary supporters and is behind with independent voters.

posted September 24, 2008 01:28 AM         

Nothing yet on YouTube.

But I'm glad they finally made a single of my favorite from this album. A perfect song for a Scorpio with Capricorn Rising.

Bones of You

So I'm there
Charging around with a juggernaut brow
Overdraft, speeches and deadlines to make
Cramming commitments like cats in a sack
Telephone burn and a purposeful gait

When out of a doorway the tentacles stretch
Of a song that I know
And the world moves in slow-mo
Straight to my head
like the first cigarette of the day

And it's you, and it's May
And we're sleeping through the day
And I'm five years ago
And three thousand miles away

Do I have
time? A man of my calibre
Stood in the street like a sleepwalking teenager
No.
And I dealt with this years ago
I took a hammer to every memento
But image on image like beads on a rosary
pulled through my head as the music takes hold
and the sickener hits; I can work till I break
but I love the bones of you
That, I will never escape

And it's you, and it's May
And we're sleeping through the day
And I'm five years ago
And three thousand miles away

posted September 24, 2008 02:09 AM         

Not sure you will be able to access it though in the U.S. I'd bet someone will put it up on YouTube sometime soon ~ their last appearance on Jools' show is on.

posted September 24, 2008 12:05 PM         

You're on the wrong side of this argument defending the indefensible...infanticide/O'Bombercide and there's no way out of the maze in which you've trapped yourself.

Even committed so called "pro-choice" people admit that abortion is infanticide, is murder of the weak by the powerful. That doesn't deter them however but it sure as hell does separate them from the heads up their as$es crowd who continue to insist no babies are being killed when they're aborted.

Andrea Mrozek: Abortion, in plain English
Posted: September 23, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland

When pro-choice social commentator Camille Paglia wrote that she sanctions "murder" when it is called "abortion," pro-lifers were horrified. They should have cheered.

Her article -- published recently on Salon.com-- only briefly touched on abortion. But the offending comments were made as part of an attention- grabbing one-two punch. Paglia wrote that she is "a firm supporter of abortion rights," but then went on to say: "I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful … which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue." Almost every pro-abortion activist lives in a zone where they conceal what abortion really is -- though they know that the procedure involves killing a person each and every time. The difference between them and Paglia is that they don't come out and say it.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/23/andrea-mrozek-abortion-in-plain-english.aspx

Plutonian Persona, save your half-baked nonsense for the tourists.

I'll match my knowledge about early America, about the people, places and events which lead to the formation of the United States, what they believed and practiced and what they intended to accomplish with the Constitution with yours any day.

posted September 24, 2008 01:54 PM         

I was referring to the fact that you are being stagnant and not willing to hear what everyone else has to say; that is what Franklin's quote was trying to induce you to THINK about. You should read closer next time and process the information instead of having outlandish reactions to others' opinions. You are simply letting your rage for all things that are not like yours to get in the way of what should be a civil discussion.