Question to Republicans or Non-Fans of Obama

MommyLiberty5013

GeraldoRivera:

Compare him to McCain - lack of expereince in teh 2008 election. FACT.

 OK fine. Four years ago he didn't have as much experience as his opponent. In this past election, he had four years of experience BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. So how is that a reason that you dislike him?

His voting records on Born Alive bills from 1997 through 2003 Obama voted Not present or NO on 7 of them. Meaning that he wanted infants born alive after abortions to not receive any medical treatment or care. FACT.

Not a fact. Infants born alive after botched abortions are ALREADY entitled to medical treatment and care under the law. 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_alive_baloney.html

Groups like BornAliveTruth.org say laws like the one that applied in Illinois leave discretion to the physician. As the anti-abortion group puts it, they cover fetuses who "are considered viable ? by the very doctor aborting them." That's a fact, and reasonable people might agree or disagree on the merits of relying on a physician's discretion. But for Jessen to claim that she "wouldn't be here" without the legislation Obama opposed is false. Jessen's life would have been protected under Illinois law with or without any of the "born alive" bills Obama opposed in 2001,  2002 and 2003.

For the record, Obama says he would have supported "born alive" legislation in Illinois if framed in a way that did not pose a threat to abortion rights granted by the Supreme Court in its Roe v. Wade decision.

He has run his elections on the premise of being a Christian, yet his policies and practices, commentary and actions do not align with Christ followers...swapping his postion on gay marriage, insulting Chrsitians and allowing legislation (ACA) to be passed that puts people in his supposed "group" in very tough spots. See cases like hospitals, churches, schools and companies like Hobby Lobby. FACT.

 Oh really? What did Christ say about gay marriage, exactly? Please cite me chapter and verse. Also, please let me know where in the Bible it says that you can't be a Christian if you believe that employer-based health insurance must cover oral contraceptives.

Your argument is that since Obama doesn't seem to follow YOUR version of Christianity, he must not be a Christian and must be lying about his faith. This is an absurd argument. And not a very Christian one, frankly.

In 2007, CNN did a piece on Obama having the most liberal voting record of any other senator. FACT botth hat they did this peice and his voting record.

So, in one year, he (maybe) had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/18/fact-check-is-obama-the-most-liberal-us-senator/

That doesn't make him the most liberal of all Democrats (except maybe, possibly that one year, among SENATE Democrats).

His spending is out of control. FACT. The debt has increased under him. FACT.

The President is not the one spending - you may be (and apparently are) unaware of this, but there are three branches of government - the executive, which is the president, the legislative, which is Congress, and the judicial, which is the Supreme Court. The President cannot pass a budget alone. In fact, he can't pass a budget at all - all he can do is sign what Congress sends to his desk. 

But yes, you are correct that the debt has increased under him. That does not make it "his" debt. 

Faulty logic...Nope. You just don't like the FACTS against him. Also, I am a well-educated, well-read, up on the news, informed citizen who votes and is involved in the political process. I gave my set of reasons for being a non-fan of Obama. I gave them based on facts, not opinions. These are the inconvenient truths (for liberals) about Obama. Maybe instead of being embarassed by me, you should look to him as your object of embarassment.

A new Gallup poll cites citizens as not being this glum about the country's current state and future since Carter's administration. Hhhmmm that's pretty telling. Again, I'm just reading and reporting the facts here.

Still embarrassed by you. 

No, what's embarassing is your lack of understanding of Obama's voting record on this issue. Even the NARAL supported this bill (see below), Obama voted against it. Obama's voting record was to vote "no" or "not present" on the bill or variations of the bill overtime that would give medical treatment to babies that survived abortions and came out of the womb breathing (and in some cases) crying.

"BAIPA (both the federal and Illinois state versions) on the other hand, was introduced to insure that babies who survive attempted abortions are provided the same medical care and sustenance as any other infant born alive. BAIPA was introduced after evidence was presented that babies born alive after unsuccessful abortions were simply discarded in utility closets without food, care, or medical treatment until they died...state senator Obama fought against the Illinois version of BAIPA that was identical in all material respects to the federal version. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed that he voted against the Illinois BAIPA because it failed to contain a ?neutrality clause? making it clear that the bill did not affect the right to an abortion. This is false. Documents obtained by National Right to Life show that the Illinois BAIPA did, in fact, contain a neutrality clause identical to the federal version.

As noted yesterday, not one U.S. senator voted against BAIPA. Even NARAL didn?t oppose it. At the time of the vote, CNN reported that NARAL?s (pro-choice group) spokesman said the following:

We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that?s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide. (Emphasis added)."

Edited to add: If they were already protected under the law, as you and your silly fact checker website assert, then why did this bill come to the state and federal floors then? Ummmm. If it came to the floor for a vote, then this means it wasn't previously determined and therefore needed to be determined by the legislature at that point in time. You are plain incorrect.

GeraldoRivera

MommyLiberty5013:

No, what's embarassing is your lack of understanding of Obama's voting record on this issue. Even the NARAL supported this bill (see below), Obama voted against it. Obama's voting record was to vote "no" or "not present" on the bill or variations of the bill overtime that would give medical treatment to babies that survived abortions and came out of the womb breathing (and in some cases) crying.

"BAIPA (both the federal and Illinois state versions) on the other hand, was introduced to insure that babies who survive attempted abortions are provided the same medical care and sustenance as any other infant born alive. BAIPA was introduced after evidence was presented that babies born alive after unsuccessful abortions were simply discarded in utility closets without food, care, or medical treatment until they died...state senator Obama fought against the Illinois version of BAIPA that was identical in all material respects to the federal version. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed that he voted against the Illinois BAIPA because it failed to contain a ?neutrality clause? making it clear that the bill did not affect the right to an abortion. This is false. Documents obtained by National Right to Life show that the Illinois BAIPA did, in fact, contain a neutrality clause identical to the federal version.

As noted yesterday, not one U.S. senator voted against BAIPA. Even NARAL didn?t oppose it.

If not one US senator voted against it, how are you upset with Obama for voting against it?

 

At the time of the vote, CNN reported that NARAL?s (pro-choice group) spokesman said the following:

We, in fact, did not oppose the bill. There is a clear legal difference between a fetus in utero versus a child that?s born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that the country can provide. (Emphasis added)."

Edited to add: If they were already protected under the law, as you and your silly fact checker website assert, then why did this bill come to the state and federal floors then? Ummmm. If it came to the floor for a vote, then this means it wasn't previously determined and therefore needed to be determined by the legislature at that point in time. You are plain incorrect.

Why did it come to state and federal floors? Because tons of crap comes to the floor that isn't necessary. Please show me case law or other law where an infant born alive after a botched abortion was NOT protected under existing statutes.

Voting "not present" is not the same as voting "nay" on something.

 

Finally, I'm asking you this because I genuinely want to know your answer: Why do you think Obama voted against these bills? Do you honestly, deep down believe that Barack Obama, as a human being, wants to kill babies?

 

 

I guess I'll just have to wait for you to look up the parts of the Bible where Jesus condemns gay marriage and employer-based health insurance mandating oral contraceptive coverage. 

shawna127

 Do you honestly, deep down believe that Barack Obama, as a human being, wants to kill babies?

It wouldn't surprise me, half of the nation wants to and does.  And he's already stated what side he's on.

I guess I'll just have to wait for you to look up the parts of the Bible where Jesus condemns gay marriage and employer-based health insurance mandating oral contraceptive coverage. 

While I'm fairly sure there wasn't health insurance back then. It does say in the bible, actually one of the ten commandments, that it is wrong to take a life.  Now there are many denominations that go with what's popular and not with the bible.  Hence, there are some "christian" denominations that say abortion is okay.  For the churches that believe life starts at conception and ends at natural death (namely the catholic church) this creates a problem with birth control because it can be an abortificent.

But birth control is also a type 1 carcinogen, I have no idea why any woman would knowingly poison her body.

missymo

shawna127:

 Do you honestly, deep down believe that Barack Obama, as a human being, wants to kill babies?

It wouldn't surprise me, half of the nation wants to and does.  And he's already stated what side he's on.

I guess I'll just have to wait for you to look up the parts of the Bible where Jesus condemns gay marriage and employer-based health insurance mandating oral contraceptive coverage. 

While I'm fairly sure there wasn't health insurance back then. It does say in the bible, actually one of the ten commandments, that it is wrong to take a life.  Now there are many denominations that go with what's popular and not with the bible.  Hence, there are some "christian" denominations that say abortion is okay.  For the churches that believe life starts at conception and ends at natural death (namely the catholic church) this creates a problem with birth control because it can be an abortificent.

But birth control is also a type 1 carcinogen, I have no idea why any woman would knowingly poison her body.

So many more people have been murdered in the name of Christian religions.  So, so many.  How do you reconcile that? 

Jan8

shawna127:

 Do you honestly, deep down believe that Barack Obama, as a human being, wants to kill babies?

It wouldn't surprise me, half of the nation wants to and does.  And he's already stated what side he's on.

I guess I'll just have to wait for you to look up the parts of the Bible where Jesus condemns gay marriage and employer-based health insurance mandating oral contraceptive coverage. 

While I'm fairly sure there wasn't health insurance back then. It does say in the bible, actually one of the ten commandments, that it is wrong to take a life.  Now there are many denominations that go with what's popular and not with the bible.  Hence, there are some "christian" denominations that say abortion is okay.  For the churches that believe life starts at conception and ends at natural death (namely the catholic church) this creates a problem with birth control because it can be an abortificent.

But birth control is also a type 1 carcinogen, I have no idea why any woman would knowingly poison her body.

This is also to ML.

You two do not own Christianity.  You cannot say someone is not a Christian.  If you have not sinned, please cast the first stone as Christ taught us.  

Furthermore, EVERY Christian denomination goes with what's popular b/c at the end of the day, no one is resting on Sunday or keeping kosher.  Resting on Sunday means no work...no driving, no cutting on lights, etc.  NOTHING!  These are just a few examples.  The Bible commands us not to commit adultery but when children were being molested the Catholic church turned their head.  They as a church committed adultery b/c it was convenient for them to do.

You can be a Christian and have the ability to love one another and not past judgment b/c God is the ultimate judge of  us all.  In fact, that is what God commands us to do.  Above all love one another.  Accepting those in the Church who have sinned is a sign of love and I am happy to go to a Christian church that excepts EVERYONE because the kingdom of heaven is not determined by you and who you think should enter it. 

You can be a Christian and have an abortion.  God is all forgiving.  Going to church does not make you Christian and you win no awards for it.  Accepting the Lord as your Savior makes you Christian and how dare you question someone's heart when you are not God.  You do not know individuals' personal walk with the Lord, nor should you know. 

You are an embarrassment to me as a Christian.  I will pray for you and pray that I can continue to love you in spite of your hate and judgment. 

The fetus you don't want to die are the same ones that you want to die when they are 55 because they have no health care.  Matt 25:45 ?He will reply, ?Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.?  So don't hide behind religion in one instance and then act like it does not exist in the next.  You do not own Christianity and you don't speak for most Christians...thank you Lord. 

lasposa425

Well said, Jan8.

shawna127

Jan8:

shawna127:

 Do you honestly, deep down believe that Barack Obama, as a human being, wants to kill babies?

It wouldn't surprise me, half of the nation wants to and does.  And he's already stated what side he's on.

I guess I'll just have to wait for you to look up the parts of the Bible where Jesus condemns gay marriage and employer-based health insurance mandating oral contraceptive coverage. 

While I'm fairly sure there wasn't health insurance back then. It does say in the bible, actually one of the ten commandments, that it is wrong to take a life.  Now there are many denominations that go with what's popular and not with the bible.  Hence, there are some "christian" denominations that say abortion is okay.  For the churches that believe life starts at conception and ends at natural death (namely the catholic church) this creates a problem with birth control because it can be an abortificent.

But birth control is also a type 1 carcinogen, I have no idea why any woman would knowingly poison her body.

This is also to ML.

You two do not own Christianity.  You cannot say someone is not a Christian.  If you have not sinned, please cast the first stone as Christ taught us.  

Never said this, I don't know a persons relationship with God.

Furthermore, EVERY Christian denomination goes with what's popular b/c at the end of the day, no one is resting on Sunday or keeping kosher.  Resting on Sunday means no work...no driving, no cutting on lights, etc.  NOTHING!  These are just a few examples.  The Bible commands us not to commit adultery but when children were being molested the Catholic church turned their head.  They as a church committed adultery b/c it was convenient for them to do.

No, not everyone.   We are called to rest that day with a few exceptions, this is still true today.  And the church is very much reconciling this, and not as a church, you as a Christian and just spewed about embarrasments should know that there are people who say they are of the faith when they aren't.

You can be a Christian and have the ability to love one another and not past judgment b/c God is the ultimate judge of  us all.  In fact, that is what God commands us to do.  Above all love one another.  Accepting those in the Church who have sinned is a sign of love and I am happy to go to a Christian church that excepts EVERYONE because the kingdom of heaven is not determined by you and who you think should enter it. 

This exactly, so true!  Only God can determine who goes to heaven or not so we shouldn't judge others.  But I can judge on what I think is wrong for me.  Also, my church does accept everyone.

You can be a Christian and have an abortion.  God is all forgiving.  Going to church does not make you Christian and you win no awards for it.  Accepting the Lord as your Savior makes you Christian and how dare you question someone's heart when you are not God.  You do not know individuals' personal walk with the Lord, nor should you know. 

Yes, again I agree 100%!  This is exactly why the sacrament of reconciliation is so powerful!

And again, I did not do this, but it sure seems like you're doing that to me.

You are an embarrassment to me as a Christian.  I will pray for you and pray that I can continue to love you in spite of your hate and judgment. 

Thank you ) and I will certainly do the same for you.  In fact I will put you in my intentions when I say my rosary tonight. 

The fetus you don't want to die are the same ones that you want to die when they are 55 because they have no health care.  Matt 25:45 ?He will reply, ?Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.?  So don't hide behind religion in one instance and then act like it does not exist in the next.  You do not own Christianity and you don't speak for most Christians...thank you Lord. 

When did I ever say this? 

Of course I don't which is why I never said to anyone on this board or about Obama that they aren't really Christian even though they say they are.

LuckyDad

shawna127:

 Do you honestly, deep down believe that Barack Obama, as a human being, wants to kill babies?

It wouldn't surprise me, half of the nation wants to and does.  And he's already stated what side he's on.

A fertilized zygote is not a human being, legally or otherwise.

ILoveToRobot

lasposa425:

shawna127:

lasposa425:

Another interesting question you might ask is: of the group that thinks Obama is an evil monster that wants to hurt us, do you think that those opinions come from ignorance, paranoia or just good old-fashioned racism?

 

umm, wow.  Should we/can we say the same thing about people who had the same thoughts about Bush?  And the whole racism thing is getting old,  I have many reasons why I don't like Obama and not one of them has to do with his race.  He could be pink, purple, white, blue, black for all I care I still would not thoroughly enjoy him as a person.

So you don't like people who have different views on things than you?  Ok but that's surprising considering you a Christian.  My comment was for people thinking Obama is an "evil monster intent on hurting us."  I would say the same to people who thought the same of Bush.  Do you really think he is an evil monster intent on hurting us?  Sounds like you don't.  Sounds like you just don't care for him as a person in which case my original comment was not directed at people with your opinion.  I still stand by my original comment: if you think Obama is an evil monster intentionally trying to hurt us, I think those people should ask themselves: does my opinion come from ignorance, fear (paranoia) or racism?

 

Minus racism.

ReturnOfKuus

I'm anti-Obama due to both the drone warfare and him giving himself the right to assassinate American citizens without due process.  I was also not a fan of the hipster sexism in his last campaign, though that's a comparatively minor issue.