The Next US President: McCain or Obama?

[chad_tukes]

---

OT:

@mannyamador: ironic how you purposely try to inject religion/morality into politics. this is America, not a CATHOLIC country like the Philippines. "MURDERING ANOTHER INNOCENT HUMAN BEING" is far-fetched, since the word "MURDER" can be used in a different context. to make ABORTION legal doesn't mean MURDER is embraced; it gives women the right to get rid of something they did NOT want in the first place. how similar is that from murdering and stealing?

now, i'm not saying i am PRO-abortion. i am against the fact that politicians will take away a woman's right to choose and go for what they think is moral to THEM. it's as if politics is not dirty enough. what hypocrites they are!!

[diatabz]

@ mannyamador

Obama has shown the willingness to limit late-term abortions, provided there is an exception if a woman's health is at risk. He has also talked about finding ways to help women who choose to keep their baby, and about trying to reduce the need for abortions in the first place. Obama has tried to find common ground between conservatives and liberals. And as Chad said, this is America we're talking about. Not everybody believes in Jesus and not everybody sure as hell will vote for candidates simply because they love Jesus. In fact, according to the polls, more Americans are pro Roe.

John McCain on the other hand has said he believes a human being gets rights at the moment of conception. Kinda funny since he supports stem cell research.

Just my opinion, issues like hralth care, the economy and the war on Iraq are more pressing matters now than overturning Roe v. Wade.

[mannyamador]

@mannyamador: ironic how you purposely try to inject religion/morality into politics.

I did not inject religion into politics (and there's nothing wrong with that either, by the way). There are ATHEISTS who are against abortion. Being pro-life is about protecting the rights of the unborn. Just because a woman does not want a child doesn't give her the right to MURDER someone else.

Murder is killing the innocent. And that's what abortion is. No one has the right to "choose" to murder someone else. That's plain human decency. Religion says the same thing, but it is not necessarily a religious arguments, as you can see from the letter from a pro-life atheist I posted below.

As for Obama's "soft" positions on abortion, that's obviously just window dressing to make him more palatable to voters. The bottom line is that he will NOT try to change the ruling that allows abortion on demand for practically any reason. And he has voted against measures that try to protect infants too. That's real hypocrisy of the worst kind.

An Open Letter from a Pro-Life Atheist
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/jones1.html

Dear Sirs,

Below is a letter I sent to several sites, which is a version of what I send to pro-abortionists. Please feel free to make copies or duplicate this letter to send to anyone you wish. Please be sure to give me credit for my work.

Dear Sirs,

Most anti-abortion sites offer to send you "free information and a church bulletin" or a Bible. As an atheist, I'm not impressed, and I don't want that stuff. More importantly, how are you going to convince an atheist of anything if you use a source that he does not accept or worse considers it a hoax? I am an atheist and opposed to abortions for the following reasons:

1. Even if someone believes that abortions are acceptable, then at least consider this:

A. Most of the abortion methods are cruel, extremely inhumane, and very painful for the fetus/baby.

B. If you intend to kill the fetus, then do so in a humane way. If the equivalent methods of abortion were used to kill animals at the dog pound, the ASPCA and other animal groups...well, you get the idea.

C. The dangers associated with abortions are not explained clearly. Though most people believe that abortions are completely safe, there are many dangers physically and psychologically (infection, infertility, bleeding, depression, and suicide, just to name a few).

2. Abortions go against my belief in liberty and justice.

A. Liberty to choose for one's self requires that, as free individuals, we are responsible for our actions and the consequences thereof.

B. Justice is when you get what you deserve.

3. A woman should have the right to do with her own body what she wishes, but when she does what she wants to do, and as a result becomes pregnant, she has done what she wanted to do with her own body. However when she goes for an abortion, she is doing something to someone else's body.

4. What has the unborn done to deserve death? NOTHING! It is not at fault for anything including its own existence, and yet it is expected to pay with its life with no trial, no jury, and no say in what happens to it.

5. Every one knows that *** will result in a pregnancy, so sexually active people (and everyone else) should be responsible for their own actions unless they are not free. Freedom carries with it a requirement that you must accept responsibility for your own actions.

6. Pro-abortionists say: "If you don't like abortions, then don't have one." My response to them is: "That is a great logical process; you just changed my mind; I think I'll apply that to the rest of my philosophy and change my opinions about everything else too..."

"If you don't like slavery, then don't enslave anyone."
"If you don't like rape, then don't rape anyone."
"If you don't like murder, then don't murder anyone."
"If you don't like theft, then don't steal from anyone."
"If you don't like lies, then don't lie to anyone."
"If you don't like sexually transmitted diseases, then don't transmit one."
"If you don't like terrorism, then don't bomb anyone."
"If you don't like animal cruelty, then don't be cruel to one."
"If you don't like oppression, then don't oppress anyone."
"If you don't like arson, then don't burn the property of anyone."

As you can see this type of thinking is anarchy, at it's worst. Basically it says: "Shut up and let me do what I want; I don't care how it affects anyone else; I just want to do what I want to do." It is very self-centered and childish.

7. Most atheists do not see anything wrong with abortions and will not give you the time of day once you mention god or one of the many "holy" books that religious people believe in.

8. Another claim by abortionists is that the fetus is part of the woman's body and has no more consequences than removing some unwanted flesh. My response to that is: "If you smash your hand in a car door who feels the pain? You do! No one else, not your friends, your father, nor your mother. That PROVES that YOU ARE A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING, because you feel your own pain. If the fetus feels it's own pain, then that would make it a separate human being too."

Please feel free to use my logical arguments to help stop abortions. Please be sure to give me credit for my work.

Thank you for your time,
Randall M. Jones

[chad_tukes]

@mannyamador: as for the abortion and religion topic, we're off the discussion now so i'll leave it at that.

And he has voted against measures that try to protect infants too.

where did you get this? care to post some links?

[moz_k2]

Rick Warren: OK, now, um, let's deal with abortion. 40 million abortions since Roe V. Wade, you know, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time. All of the pain, and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very com... complex issue. 40 million... uh, abortions. At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

Obama: Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.


I think that statement is Obama's way of dodging having to give an answer.

[ieuseerm]

mao tinuod jud ning opinion ni diatabz, hilabina ang economy. grabeh karon mga financial institutions nang-collapse.
sa panahon ni bill clinton, surplus ang money. karong homan 8 years ni bush nga bugo, ang deficit niya makapatay.

Just my opinion, issues like hralth care, the economy and the war on Iraq are more pressing matters now than overturning Roe v. Wade.

[ieuseerm]

si mccain kay tiguwang and naa pa jud syay history of cancer. nya ang iyang cancer pa jud kay one of the deadliest forms of cancers: melanoma.
kaniadtong republican primaries in 2000, wala sya nanimaho. registered republican voters at that time were, like, mccain who? wa jud sya nanimaho.

[desertfox]

sa panahon ni bill clinton, surplus ang money. karong homan 8 years ni bush nga bugo, ang deficit niya makapatay.

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:


Fiscal Yr Year Ending National Debt Deficit

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

-excerpt from letxa.com Oct. 31, 2007

[diatabz]

Ok real quick lang jud.

The GOP has had eight years to tackle abortion. So far, nothing has happened. As I said, the elections are more than just the issue of abortion. I am not not voting for the Republican ticket because of Sarah Palin's extreme conservatism nor because of McCain's thoughts on conception. These are merely their moral views. Besides, the President can only go so far as to support an amendment to the Constitution or make appointments for the SC. I really think it's more of a legislative matter. I'm more concerned about the GOP's stance on energy, health care and national security. Roe v. Wade is the law, let's talk about other things.

[mannyamador]

And he has voted against measures that try to protect infants too.
where did you get this? care to post some links?

I posgted something on the previous page. Here's the link: https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post3286878

Here's another one:

Opinion: Does Barack Obama Support Infanticide?
By Steven Mosher
9/6/2008
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=29138

FRONT ROYAL, Va. (Catholic Online) - Abortionists, determined to carry their grisly business through to its deadly end, insist that babies born alive after a failed abortion be allowed to die. It goes without saying that the vast majority of Americans strongly oppose this form of infanticide. Few politicians, even those on the far left, dare to support it. Barack Obama, as a member of the Illinois state legislature, once did.

The evidence cited by Mosher in the above article is confirmed by FactCheck.Org:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...fanticide.html

@diatabz

Yes. Roe v. wade is law. And that is the point: this monstrosity is now becoming an important national issue in the US Presidential elections. Abortion as an issue has often been sidelined. It shouldn't be. It kills more Americans than any other issue, even more than the war in Iraq.