There is NOT suppose to be money in politics in the first place!
The system got out of whack a long time ago.
The system got out of whack a long time ago.
Obama for President?
- Thread starter toc
- Start date
Obama, or for that matter any democrat nominee, doesn't stand a chance unless the Republicans nominate a candidate with half a brain. The moron factor is too hard to overcome. When there is a complete moron like Nixon, Reagan, or Dubya running against a clearly intellectually superior democrat the morons fall out in droves. They become much more confused and disoriented when their candidate has half a brain like Goldwater, Bush Sr. or Dole. If they nominate a moron that has betrayed his country by selling arms to terrorists ( ala Reagan/North), broke into opponents headquarters looking for blackmail dirt (ala Nixon/Liddy, or bore false witness to the people in order to start a war (ala Bush Jr.) then it will likely be a landslide. The democrats best chance is to vote in the Republican Primaries for someone who 1) has respect for the democratic process, 2) has enough patriotism to respect the laws of his country, and 3) is honest. If you nominate someone with a modicum of character and intelligence the republicans will not get excited and vote in the general election giving the democrat a chance to win.
As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a motherâs right to âchooseâ stopped at her babyâs delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on womenâs rights or abortionistsâ rights. Obamaâs clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinoisâ drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
Jill Stanek
Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.
BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a motherâs right to âchooseâ stopped at her babyâs delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.
I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on womenâs rights or abortionistsâ rights. Obamaâs clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.
In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.
(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinoisâ drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)
Jill Stanek
Check who and what organisations contributed to his campaign.
coercion
ânoun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
ALL LAWS ARE COERCION.
By definition, the government uses coercion.
Do you know who also uses coercion?
GANGS DO!
Government is just another name for gang.
When you vote, you may vote for a person who wants to use coercion the same way you do. Or you may vote against a person who wants to use coercion in opposition to you.
Our elected leaders should be on guard for more coercion instead of being part of the coercion.
THINK ABOUT IT.
ânoun 1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
ALL LAWS ARE COERCION.
By definition, the government uses coercion.
Do you know who also uses coercion?
GANGS DO!
Government is just another name for gang.
When you vote, you may vote for a person who wants to use coercion the same way you do. Or you may vote against a person who wants to use coercion in opposition to you.
Our elected leaders should be on guard for more coercion instead of being part of the coercion.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Jill, I agree that this was unconscionable on Obama's part. In IMHO I agree with you about not seeing any reason why this legislation would not sail threw anywhere with a full confidence vote.
The two questions I have for you is; first, was there something tied to the legislation in Illinois that Obama disagreed with and second, how did Bush sign BAIPA into law and it ended back in the Senate a year later?
Knowing nothing on the matter at all, I would like to throw out a conjecture. Like the NRA, which will lobby at all costs to prohibit even reasonable attempts at gun control, maybe the same attitude exists in all national organizations. It certainly makes no sense to give an inch anywhere on any topic if the other side will not budge on anything either. Afterall, wouldn't the "slippery slope" theory proposed by the NRA apply here? I mean, if BAIPA was passed, what's next? (I am role playing here as a Pro Deather). And it is apparent that Obama gets partially funded by NARAL.
Pro Deather:
Why give in on any area when the religious nut jobs don't concede anything to the choice of a woman?
Pro Lifer:
Why give in on anything when they are baby killers?