gadgetlady

Thank you for putting in the "no exaggeration" -- I'm not sure how I would have read that statement had you not. As much as people try to paint me as a raving lunatic, a judgment, inflexible person, it's just not true. I, too, have sat with pregnant mothers, cried with them, and tried to help them not to make a critical mistake. I have sat with some of them after their abortions and cried with them as well. I have rejoiced at some of their babies' births. I have walked hand-in-hand with them to post-abortion counseling to help them get some healing. I have watched some of them cry at releasing their babies to an adoptive family, and I have watched some of them follow the progress of their birth-children up to and through adulthood. Some of these mothers have been people I don't know well, and some of them have been dear friends. I do not believe in chastising mothers in crisis pregnancy situations, but I also believe they need to know the truth and they need to be told, gently, that the thing growing inside of them is, indeed, a baby. But just because some of them make the choice to abort doesn't erase the fact that they are parents, and it doesn't make abortion any less wrong.

Absolutely the right way to go. It sounds like you believe abortion was not the right answer, even though she made the decision to abort.

Do you think abortion is a grief-less decision?

Well said. I still think we should be able to take a percentage of our taxes (10%? 20%? more?), bypass the government, and donate them directly to charity. Imagine if we cut the middleman (government bureaucracy) out of the mix and the charities actually helping people got 100% of the money? What a better job they'd do with it!

Problem is, she was already a parent. She's now just the parent of a dead baby rather than a live one. It is a heartbreaking situation when something like this occurs -- that I have never denied -- but to say it is acceptable to kill an innocent person because of the social circumstance, however heartbreaking it is, is wrong. Some choices have victims. This particular choice has two. I hope you assisted her with counseling after the abortion.

Ain't that the truth.

Well then why vote at all, if we can't take the words of what any politician says to be their true intent? Obama has been 100% clear on the issue of abortion. 110% clear. 200% clear. He believes in abortion on-demand through 9 months of pregnancy for any reason at all, federally funded by the government, and with zero restrictions. If you're OK with that, that's fine. But don't try to claim that that's not his position, because it is and even he does not deny it.

It wasn't taken out of context!!! Yes, it was in the context of a delivery of an entire pro-abortion speech, but there is nothing whatsoever deceptive about what that commercial said! Obama himself has never gone back and claimed that he would not sign FOCA or that the statement was taken out of context. I'm amazed that you are claiming that it was.

Well duh. Of course he can't sign it unless it's brought before him. Are you saying he didn't mean it? You said that Obama's abortion stance will change little on the issue legislatively. I said it would; see his stance on FOCA and look at what that specific act will do to abortion-on-demand, parental notification, partial-birth arbortion, etc. You then said you knew nothing about FOCA so I gave you some information (albeit brief). Now you seem to be saying that Obama didn't really mean what he said when he addressed Planned Parenthood (that it "means little"). If, when a politician says something concrete, we can't believe him, how will we ever know what he really means? I think we should take Obama at his word on this. He was pretty darn clear.

The "best I can do"? Are you saying Obama didn't actually say what he was videotaped saying? Or because the commercial was put out by pro-lifers, therefore his videotaped saying of it is somehow suspect? He was asked a question at a Planned Parenthood speech he was giving. He said that the first thing he would do as President is sign FOCA. Gosh, I guess because the clip is part of a pro-life commercial, there's no reason to believe he actually intended to say what he actually said. There are plenty of other sources documenting what he said that are not pro-life commercials. Feel free to enter the key words in a search and you'll find a plethora of them. It's obvious you don't trust pro-lifers; I'm sure you can find a pro-abortion group that is happy he said the first thing he would do as President is sign FOCA. Maybe you'll believe them.

Here’s some information on Obama and the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA): [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0__ctD48nfQ]YouTube - Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood, and FOCA[/ame] FOCA was brought to the Senate by Barbara Boxer and calls for, among other things, federal funding of abortion, a ban on providing fetal development information to mothers, a ban on parental notification laws, and a ban on laws requiring that the only ones able to perform abortions are licensed doctors.

Obama promised that the first thing he would do in office was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, "FOCA", which would reverse 100% of the (minimal) pro-life gains over the last 35 years (ban on partial birth abortion, parental notification, etc). Also, Obama has promised to have an abortion litmus test for judges (he calls it a "right to privacy" litmus test but that's "code" for abortion).

And for those of you who can only watch levity, here's a good one: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws]YouTube - Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States[/ame]

It's no wonder this man has been trying to hide his opinions on various matters; when they're exposed, they're scary. For those of you who don't want to read the article, watch this fewer than two minute video: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ]YouTube - SHOCK Audio Unearthed OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY[/ame]

This is an hilarious exchange. BJean misinterprets -- "Are you attacking me?????" And aprilapple responds -- "Oops, sorry! Misfire! Even though there are both liberals and conservatives who post a lot in R&R, I only meant to attack the conservatives!" So BJean responds -- "Oh, now that I know you were only intending to attack conservatives, even though what you said could equally apply to me as well, carry on. You have my blessing." You guys crack me up. :cool2:

Typical liberal technique: change the subject. Quick! When the facts are against you, divert attention!

I'm posting this on two threads because it applies to two threads. Well, as usual, I am astounded at the bigotry ascribed to me (or maybe I'm not). I did not try to make an argument that Obama's ancestry matters. I did not try to make an argument that no one should vote for him because of his familial background. I did not try to make an argument that he should be called "Arab" or "Arab-American" or "Arab-African-American" or anything else. I quite simply pointed out that he does not share commonality of heritage with the West Indies slave-descendants that traditionally are defined by the term "African-American". If someone (correctly) pointed out that I had Italian heritage, I wouldn't start jumping up and down saying, "What are you calling me, A WHOP???? Are you saying I have loyalty to ROME rather than to the US? Are you saying I don't deserver to be here????" On the contrary, I'd say, "Yes, I do." ALL I DID was correctly identify his heritage. It's the rest of you who are jumping to the conclusion that that fact is an issue in the election. Actually, that wasn't my only "source". I had heard the information in several other places, but when you asked me to find a source and I randomly picked one from a web search. I didn't read the whole thing because his "opinion" of the matter doesn't interest me. I was simply posting a link that demonstrated the factual information. Didn't say that. You just refuse to look at the facts.

I'm posting this on two threads because it applies to two threads. Well, as usual, I am astounded at the bigotry ascribed to me (or maybe I'm not). I did not try to make an argument that Obama's ancestry matters. I did not try to make an argument that no one should vote for him because of his familial background. I did not try to make an argument that he should be called "Arab" or "Arab-American" or "Arab-African-American" or anything else. I quite simply pointed out that he does not share commonality of heritage with the West Indies slave-descendants that traditionally are defined by the term "African-American". If someone (correctly) pointed out that I had Italian heritage, I wouldn't start jumping up and down saying, "What are you calling me, A WHOP???? Are you saying I have loyalty to ROME rather than to the US? Are you saying I don't deserve to be here????" On the contrary, I'd say, "Yes, I do." ALL I DID was correctly identify his heritage. It's the rest of you who are jumping to the conclusion that that fact is an issue in the election.

There you go again, taking things out of context. I said absolutely nothing about his political fortitude or patriotism (nor did I imply anything related to such). The context in which I presented the statements I made was that Barack Hussein Obama holds no commonality of genealogy with "African-Americans" as they are traditionally defined in the US: those of West Indies descent who were brought over to the US as slaves -- quite to the contrary, as his ancestors were slave traders and slave owners rather than slaves. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I then went on to say, "In the grand scheme of things, does it matter? No more than his "color" does, but I just find it hilarious that uninformed people cling to his being an "African-American" when he really descended from slave-traders, not slaves." To correctly understand this comment ("no more than his 'color' does"), you would have to go back to the original thread from which BJean pulled the incorrect assessment that I was calling Obama an Arab. My original comment was in response to someone else's question, "Does it really matter what color anyone is anymore." My response was, "No, it does not, or it should not." It is you and BJean that incorrectly chose to read nefarious intent in my statements, BJean claiming that I was calling Obama "an Arab" (I wasn't; I correctly identified his Arab descent -- no more, no less), and you claiming that I was commenting on his political fortitude or patriotism. No he is not "half African". Again, Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. . . Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government.

I posted a link on the thread on which I originally made the statement. From that link, you will find the following interspersed: Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. . . Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government. . . But in America's current political climate, that truth is heresy; that truth is "an inconvenient truth." It is the political equivalent in our time to what Galileo's scientific pronouncements were in his time: it is true, but nobody wants to know the truth because the lie is so much more comforting. That is why detractors of this truth will do everything to denounce it, except submit to the discipline of actually researching it. FYI, his first and middle names might be a clue as well. From Islam, - FAQs The Senator's first name, Barack, is a Swahili name that has its origins in the Arabic language. The original Arabic root of the name (B-R-K) means "blessed." In Arabic, the root word is used in many other phrases to denote blessings and to describe people who are blessed: Mabruk! = "Congratulations!" Barakallah feek = "May God bless you" Barakah = blessings from God (feminine version of the name) Senator Obama's middle name is Hussein, which was his grandfather's first name. The name, of Arabic origin, means "good" or "handsome one." It is common in Muslim cultures for children (both boys and girls) to have a middle name which directly connects them to their father or grandfather. I agree with you. My sister-in-law is black, from Trinidad. Trying to be politically correct, people call her "African American"; she finds that utterly silly.

I'm home. Guess the one link I provided was sufficient.

Beth, you did so well with your response to that whole wall of rhetoric -- I can't believe you had the energy to do that! Kudos. I do want to respond to this, because this is a misrepresentation of what I said on another thread. What I said was, "Obama isn't "African-American" in the sense of having descended from slaves brought over to the US (as we commonly "define" the term "African-American"). He is 1/2 white, and the other 1/2 is mostly Arab, not African, and the Arab part of his family were slave-owners and slave-traders. He doesn't have one relative that was a slave. In the grand scheme of things, does it matter? No more than his "color" does, but I just find it hilarious that uninformed people cling to his being an "African-American" when he really descended from slave-traders, not slaves." From this you paint me as someone who runs around willy-nilly calling Obama an Arab. The reality is that I correctly pointed out that he has Arab, slave-owning ancestry. There's nothing wrong with speaking the truth. I can't help it if the truth is something that you don't like; that doesn't make it any less true. But don't twist what I've said in an effort to paint me as a bigot.

Oh, no doubt. And I think it's critically important to go back to when the candidates didn't have their talking points drilled into their heads to figure out what they really believe. Obama spoke volumes at the Rick Warren thing. His handlers cleaned him up really well after that event.

If you listen to the first debate (I can't remember if it was the Presidential Forum / Rick Warren thing or the actual first debate), when Obama was asked where he would cut government, he couldn't come up with anything. McCain had a ton of places he would cut. Obama fumbled through the question and kept mentioning things that he would add to the budget. He couldn't come up with a single thing to cut. Fast forward to the second debate and all of a sudden he had his talking points -- the hatchet/scalpel thing. But if you go back to the first time he was asked the question, he didn't have that cute line in his head yet and you therefore got his real, unrehearsed answer -- he wouldn't cut anything, but rather add stuff.

You're not commanded to route it through a bureaucracy that leaks like a sieve.