ALERT: This forum is an anti-Obama propaganda site - Page 12 - XDTalk Forums

Brickboy240 · 08-12-2008, 03:56 PM

Ok, since we are accused of just bashing the Messiah Obama to no end...heres a refreshing idea...

Why don't YOU tell us why we SHOULD vote for Obama or what about the man makes him so qualified? Try to convince us that he not only has experience but is not a socialist.

So lets hear it.....if you're so jazzed about this guy, it should be easy to tell us all what is so wonderful about him....you know...what we're all missing.

Just as we are free to post what we do not like about Obama...you are free to post things that favor the man. Lets hear them.

- Brickboy240

PS: Yes, we trounced John Kerry back in 2004 as well...which proves two points...one; that we are not against Obama because he is black and two; that issues and voting records count.

RobbSmith · 08-12-2008, 04:01 PM

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions. Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets. Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."
It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police. Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now. Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Etta Place · 08-12-2008, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justgotback

Here is a quote from the article Frenchy posted written by Buchanan.

"Yet, when Congress was voting to ban this terrible form of death for a mature fetus, Michelle Obama was signing fundraising letters pledging that, if elected, Barack would be "tireless" in keeping legal this "legitimate medical procedure."

That disgusts me.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Palmguy

Senator Barack Obama, D-IL

The procedure that you refer to first of all is extremely rare. Second, if a woman is in need of a life-saving abortion at a later stage of her pregnancy, it should be up to a doctor the method that should be used, not politicians.

Etta Place · 08-12-2008, 04:07 PM

Here is an explanation of Obama's Illinois vote:

Quote:

Fact Check on CNN and Bennet's Inaccurate Claim That IL ''Born Alive'' Legislation Obama Opposed Was the Same as Federal Legislation He Supported
Barack Obama's White House Campaign Office (D) posted a Press Release (Fact Check) on June 30, 2008 | 5:38 pm -

BILL BENNETT: "Carol's piece was good; it was accurate, except there's one more thing you need to know. The 2003 bill, the more you look into this, the worse it is for Barack Obama to deny it because if you look into the record – and Carol did a good job – you will see the 2003 bill had exactly the same language as the federal bill, and Barack Obama voted against it. This was not about Roe v. Wade, this was not about abortion; this was about protecting these babies when they are alive, after seven months, five months, six months, whether it be an abortion or through birth or through any other means. Barack Obama, what he's saying is just false. Check the record. The more you dig into it, the worse it looks. He should just say whatever he wants, something else. 'I was naive, I didn't realize how close it was to the federal act.' He cannot say it was different from the federal act. It was the same." [CNN, 6/30/08]

REALITY: Illinois and Federal "Born Alive" Legislation Were Not the Same, Which Is Why NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal Legislation
Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species **** sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

NARAL Did Not Oppose Federal BAIPA Because of Its Clear Legal Difference Between A Fetus In Utero Versus A Child That's Born. NARAL Executive Vice President Mary Jane Gallagher said, "We, in fact, did not oppose this bill. There's a clear legal difference now between a fetus in utero versus a child that's born. And when a child is born, they deserve every protection that this country can provide them." In a statement, NARAL said, "Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Last year's committee and floor debate served to clarify the bill's intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman's right to choose." [CNN, 8/5/02; NARAL release, 6/13/01]

Chicago Daily Herald: Major Difference Between State And Federal BAIPA Was That "The Federal One Stripped Out Any Language That Could Have Been Used To Challenge" Roe V. Wade. "Perhaps on no other issue is Keyes' rhetoric against Obama as harsh as on abortion. Keyes repeatedly accuses Obama of favoring 'infanticide' because of Obama's vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The failed measure would have required doctors to provide medical attention to fetuses born alive during a rare type of abortion procedure. Keyes pointed out a similar measure sailed through Congress. But there was a major difference between the state and federal versions: the federal one stripped out any language that could have been used to challenge the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion legalization decision. Despite that, Keyes continues to hammer Obama with the "infanticide" charge virtually daily on the campaign trial. Obama, who pointed out state law already required doctors to care for fetuses born alive during botched abortions, said he's "deeply offended" by Keyes' assertion because he knows it's false. Beyond that, Obama would have voted against the ban on late-term abortions that Bush signed - but federal judges since have put on hold - and Keyes would have voted for it." [Chicago Daily Herald, 9/20/04]

REALITY: Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born Alive Legislation Because It Made a Distinction Between a Fetus in Utero and Child That is Born

Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, "Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]

BORN ALIVE PRINCIPLE WAS ALREADY THE LAW IN ILLINOIS

Illinois Law Already Stated That In The Unlikely Case That An Abortion Would Cause A Live Birth, A Doctor Should "Provide Immediate Medical Care For Any Child Born Alive As A Result Of The Abortion." The Chicago Tribune reported, "'For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when 'there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,' an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes 'it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.' And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique 'most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus' and perform the abortion in the presence of 'a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.'" [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]

Etta Place · 08-12-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

Ok, since we are accused of just bashing the Messiah Obama to no end...heres a refreshing idea...

Why don't YOU tell us why we SHOULD vote for Obama or what about the man makes him so qualified? Try to convince us that he not only has experience but is not a socialist.

So lets hear it.....if you're so jazzed about this guy, it should be easy to tell us all what is so wonderful about him....you know...what we're all missing.

Just as we are free to post what we do not like about Obama...you are free to post things that favor the man. Lets hear them.

- Brickboy240

PS: Yes, we trounced John Kerry back in 2004 as well...which proves two points...one; that we are not against Obama because he is black and two; that issues and voting records count.

BB, I am not an Obama supporter, but I think his record and statements should be presented in context and without excess emotionalism and without distortion. Otherwise, I think the divisions between Americans become more set in stone.

And, I think there is a difference between regulated capitalism and socialism. There are shades of gray. Many people on this board, including you, seem to see this issue in black and white. Do you think John McCain favors an unrestricted free market? Basically no one does except for serious libertarians.

Etta Place · 08-12-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by longtalltechsan

How in the world did we get a presidential candidate that up until the last election, was unknown? Had it not been for his 'inspiring' speech at the DNC convention, there is no way he would be where he is now. According to some reports, since being elected to the senate, he has actually been in the office only 143 days and now he is a serious presidential candidate. He hardly has any experience and his policies and stance on issues are ones that would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves. To his credit, the only thing I can see about him is that he is a good speaker, when he has a teleprompter or prepared remarks. It does not help that millions of people follow him religiously like he is the messiah. They hang on his every word and are smitten with him. This guy has absolutely no clue and we are about to hand him the toughest job in the world, when I wouldn't want him mowing the grass at my house. What is it with this country? It is said that Obama will be a good leader, but isn't a good leader that could lead his followers over a cliff without any of them asking why? Is that what we want?

Now, McCain is no peach, and some of his ideas on the issues really suck, but he is by far more qualified and has more of the experience needed to do the job, not to mention the familiarity of the issues and tasks at hand.

How in the hell did we get into this situation?

Because Americans want to be inspired.

Palmguy · 08-12-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote: