Barack Obama

[kujo]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1190861' date='Feb 10 2007, 04:53 PM']
Here is the difference. We know Bush signed the unborn victims of violence bill through and we know he's signed the ban on partial birth abortion. A republican candidate is less likely to go out of his way to reverse this when he reaches office because it was established by a republican predecessor.

not to mention, guess who else was involved in banning partial birth abortion:

McCAIN

he was even voting against it when Clinton was in office. Look at his record.

I urge you not to take a step back in the protection of the unborn, but rather at least keep the country where we are on this issue so that we may progress forward, and not back.

"On abortion, Obama voted against a measure designed to protect what supporters termed live babies born during abortion procedures."
[url="http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/01/obamas_record.html"]http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2...mas_record.html[/url]
[/quote]

All of this stuff is true, brother. And I am not going to argue with you about Obama's stance on abortion. I am 100% pro-life and I pray that Senator Brownback gets the Republican nomination; however, in the event that he does not, what are we left with?

[Didymus]

I also am praying for Brownbacks nomination. I need to do more research on McCain myself, cuz there are no conservative candidates anywhere (where are the Ronny Reagans?!!!). My dad was saying something about McCain coming out as 'pro-life' more than he was (pro-life, meaning somewhere around Bush's stance) but I need to look at this further.

Aside from the frustration within the GOP, I think the next year will be very interesting with Hilary and Obama goin at it. I was thinking for the longest time that her team would be able to tear him apart, but she is definitely lacking in charisma, of which he seems to have plenty.

[Didymus]

Here's some stuff I found on McCain's position. (Although its from a senate election)
He seems to be mostly pro-life, but unfortunately allows it in the case of rape, incest, and danger of the mother's death.

He voted against same-sex marriage, but believes it should be left up to the states and thus unfortunately voted against the Constitutional ban.

[url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm"]http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_SenateMatch.htm"]http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McC...SenateMatch.htm[/url]

Edited February 10, 2007 by Didymus

[Mercy me]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1190774' date='Feb 10 2007, 03:28 PM']
If a candidate is pro-abortion he is not even on my slate of candidates.

How can you vote for a man with no experience?
Who do you think will be pulling his strings?
[/quote]

I agree. The president of the United States is not an entry level executive possition.

[Colleen]

What really irks me is when I hear people all excited about Obama because "he's a great speaker and very charismatic," but don't even know where he stands. They want to vote for him because his speeches sound nice.

He definitely has celebrity going for him, in addition to his rhetorical abilities. Other than that, though, what's terribly exciting about him?

Edited February 11, 2007 by Colleen

[Didymus]

read where he stands in his speech. He may actually have alot of good ideas and experience for the presidency; he just happens to support killing babies even outside the womb.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Colleen' post='1191037' date='Feb 10 2007, 07:55 PM']
What really irks me is when I hear people all excited about Obama because "he's a great speaker and very charismatic," but don't even know where he stands. They want to vote for him because his speeches sound nice.


[/quote]
I've found that reminding people that Hitler was a very charismatic speaker often shuts people up.

[track2004]

Anyone either party nominates will be a bad person and everyone here will have something they absolutely hate about them. Frankly anyone who runs for that job has to be crazy. I'll wait for my party to decide who they like and ponder who will do their best for the interests of the country. In the mean time I'm going to chill out because we still have 21 months til the election.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1191151' date='Feb 10 2007, 10:50 PM']
I've found that reminding people that Hitler was a very charismatic speaker often shuts people up.
[/quote]
THis is why I never watch the candidates on TV, I don't want to be influenced by hype.
However, I do read their speeches.

[kujo]

Yeah, political apathy is wonderful.

Before we compare Obama to Hitler, let's take a step back and realize that Democrats (even the pro-abortion ones) are NOT evil. They have good ideas, as do the Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on morality.

Also, we must realize that the President doesn't hold singular-authority to do anything for or against abortion. It is the Congress (the Senate and House of Representatives) that pass the bills and the President has to sign them or veto them. Furthermore, the Supreme Court would have to overturn a mountain of cases in order to ban abortions. The only real power that the President has with this issue is appointing Supreme Court justices which, again, need to be approved by the Congress.

[KnightofChrist]

Anyone that supports the murder or murders a young child is evil, and their father is Satan.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts"]SOURCE[/url]
Columnist Says Barack Obama 'Lied To The American People;'
Asks Publisher to Withdraw Obama's Book
Tuesday August 10, 9:22 pm ET

NEW YORK, Aug. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Out2.com's independent contrarian columnist, Andy Martin, will publish a column and hold simultaneous news conferences in New York and London on Wednesday, August 11th to disclose he believes Barack Obama is a political fraud who "lied to the American people." Martin has asked Crown Books to stop sales of Obama's book because of its fraudulent content. Martin says Obama may be a threat to the Jewish community.

NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

New York:
Time/date: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 11:00 A.M.
Location: Northeast Corner of Fifth Avenue and 65th
Street (Temple Emanu-El)

London:
Time/date: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:00 P.M.
Location: 2 Dryden Mansions, Queens Club Gardens London W14

"I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama," says Martin, "but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage.

"Obama's life story is vastly different from the one he portrays. My point: if he will lie about his mother and father, what else is he lying about? Can we expect 'bimbo eruptions?'

"Fiction: Obama stated in his Convention speech: 'My father ... grew up herding goats.' The 'goat herder' claim has been repeated endlessly. It is a lie. Fact: Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer. His son, Obama's father, was a child of privilege, not privation. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman.

"Fiction: Obama was given an 'African' name. Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion. I am a strong supporter of the Muslim community, and I believe Muslims have been scapegoated. Obama has a great opportunity to be forthright. Instead, he has treated his Muslim heritage as a dark secret. His grandfather was named 'Hussein.' That is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, 'Baraka.' Baraka is an Arabic word meaning 'blessed.' Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa.

"Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, our own Barack Obama, Junior. Again, his name was an Arabic and Koranic.

Obama has spent a lifetime running from his family heritage and religious heritage. Would his father have given his son a Koranic name if the father was not a devout Muslim? Obama's stepfather was also a Muslim. Obama will be the first Muslim-heritage senator; he should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of in any of the three great Abrahamic religions.

"Fiction: Obama Senior was a harmless student 'immigrant' who came to the United States only to study. Fact: Obama was part of one of the most corrupt and violent organizations in Africa: the Kenyatta regime. Obama's father ran back to Kenya soon after the British left. It is likely Obama's father had Mau Mau sympathies or connections, or he would not have been welcomed into the murderous inner circle of rapists, murderers, and arsonists. I believe Obama's secret shame at his family history of rape, murder and arson is what actualizes him. Our research is not yet complete. We are seeking to examine British colonial records. Our investigation to date has drawn on information on three continents.

"And what about Obama's beloved Kenyan brothers and sisters? None of his family was invited to Boston to share his prominence. Are his relatives being kept in the closet? Where are they? More secrecy, more prevarication.

"It is time for Barack Obama to stop presenting a fantasy to the American people. We are forgiving and many would still support him. It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel. His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support," Martin states.

"Our investigation is continuing. In he meantime, Crown Books should stop selling Obama's novelization of his life. We have asked Crown to do that. Obama is living a lie."

Edited February 11, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

However it should be said that Obama is a member of the Untied Church of Christ, which does fully support abortion, homosexuality, and most any unmoral sin. There for a false church, and made up Christ, without a cross, or the sword of His mouth.

Edited February 11, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[MissScripture]

[quote name='kujo' post='1191205' date='Feb 10 2007, 11:34 PM']
Yeah, political apathy is wonderful.

Before we compare Obama to Hitler, let's take a step back and realize that Democrats (even the pro-abortion ones) are NOT evil. They have good ideas, as do the Republicans. Neither party has a monopoly on morality.

Also, we must realize that the President doesn't hold singular-authority to do anything for or against abortion. It is the Congress (the Senate and House of Representatives) that pass the bills and the President has to sign them or veto them. Furthermore, the Supreme Court would have to overturn a mountain of cases in order to ban abortions. The only real power that the President has with this issue is appointing Supreme Court justices which, again, need to be approved by the Congress.
[/quote]
I would just like to clarify that I was not comparing Obama to Hitler. Whenever people go on about someone being a wonderful (or terrible) speaker I say that, because their speaking is not who they are. People get too wrapped up in how pretty people make things sound, and sometimes that's all they pay attention to, and not what the person is actually saying or the morality.

[Aloysius]

the president actually could write an executive order like the emancipation proclamation allowing the states to illegalize abortion.

the emancipation proclamation undid the dred scott decision; theoretically a president could issue an executive ordeer which undid the roe v wade decision.

sadly, there are no presidential candidates with the will or courage to issue such an executive order. it would be a very legitimate and popularly supported act, though. with one stroke of the pen he could declare that the executive branch of the government would not enforce the judicial branch's ban on state illegalizations of abortion.

[Anomaly]

Though many of your RC Bishops don't speak clearly on this issue and seem to make minimum wage and socialized medicine morally equivalent to abortion...
You are not automatically excommunicated from the RC Church for failing to support minimum wage, supporting a war, or not supporting socialized midicine. You ARE automatically excommunicated for supporting or aiding Abortion!

If you are an R Catholic, you should vote for the candidate that LEAST supports abotion, or puts the most restrictions on abortion when faced with the choice of choosing between political candidates that are not clearly anti-abortion.

Unless you are a good R Catholic and are obedient to your Bishop or Priest that preaches that free immigration and war protests are more moral than being anti-abortion.

[Jaime]

[quote name='kujo' post='1190829' date='Feb 10 2007, 03:20 PM']
Here's the thing about the justices...it really doesn't matter that they are pro-life. Samuel Alito and John Roberts now sit on the Supreme Court ruling based on current laws in our country. Overturning Roe v. Wade and or any other abortion rulings without proper Constitutional precedence would be a tremendous use of judicial activism, the same sort of judicial activism that gave us these decisions in the first place.

Time will tell whether Alito and Roberts will live up to their hype. They seem to be intelligent, qualified guys who would not allow their personal-biases to affect the way they interpret the law. That is what's most important.
[/quote]


Yes but its been done before. The Japanese internment camps come to mind. The SC stated they were constitutionally viable then reversed their decision later on. I'm not a law scholar but I think the same holds true for slavery as well. These were decisions that did not have proper constitutional precedence and were corrected.

As for what's most important, I care very little if personal biases come into play. If the decision is morally and ethically correct for society, I'm not too worried about the particulars of how it was made.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1191522' date='Feb 11 2007, 10:49 AM']
Yes but its been done before. The Japanese internment camps come to mind. The SC stated they were constitutionally viable then reversed their decision later on. I'm not a law scholar but I think the same holds true for slavery as well. These were decisions that did not have proper constitutional precedence and were corrected.

As for what's most important, I care very little if personal biases come into play. If the decision is morally and ethically correct for society, I'm not too worried about the particulars of how it was made.
[/quote]
It has indeed been done before. Perhaps the most well-known such decision was [i]Brown v. Board of Education[/i] in 1954, the decision which found that racial segregation in schools was wrong. That decision overturned the 1896 decision in [i]Plessy v. Ferguson[/i].

The idea behind [i]stare decisis[/i] is to maintain some sort of predictability in the legal system, and sometimes this concern will override other concerns. Scalia has said that he will follow cases he considers to be wrongly decided out of respect for stare decises. However, that doesn't preclude reversing a precedent when it is appropriate.

[kujo]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1191392' date='Feb 11 2007, 04:03 AM']
the president actually could write an executive order like the emancipation proclamation allowing the states to illegalize abortion.

the emancipation proclamation undid the dred scott decision; theoretically a president could issue an executive ordeer which undid the roe v wade decision.

sadly, there are no presidential candidates with the will or courage to issue such an executive order. it would be a very legitimate and popularly supported act, though. with one stroke of the pen he could declare that the executive branch of the government would not enforce the judicial branch's ban on state illegalizations of abortion.
[/quote]

While it is true that executive orders can and have been used in the past (and it would certainly have my support in this instance), I think that many people, despite their personal opinions on abortion, would feel apprehensive about this use of executive power. While our Constitution calls for an "active, energetic" executive branch, I question whether this use of power would truly be embraced by the American public, and whether it would be really enforcable. Perhaps there is a reason that it is a power that has been so seldom used in our history.

One more thought on this...if we allow this sort of thing to occur (and, again, I would personally be supportive of it), where does it end? Could another President, with different views, issue another executive order reversing the previous one? There'd be no consistency there.


[quote name='hot stuff' post='1191522' date='Feb 11 2007, 12:49 PM']
Yes but its been done before. The Japanese internment camps come to mind. The SC stated they were constitutionally viable then reversed their decision later on. I'm not a law scholar but I think the same holds true for slavery as well. These were decisions that did not have proper constitutional precedence and were corrected.

As for what's most important, I care very little if personal biases come into play. If the decision is morally and ethically correct for society, I'm not too worried about the particulars of how it was made.
[/quote]

Good call. Thank God for the justices who were involved in removing the plague of slavery, internment camps, and segregation from our country. The problem is that judges are to rule based on the law, namely the Constitution, the Amendments to the Constitution, and previous decisions. If a judge were to make a decision on a case based on his/her personal predispositions (i.e.- religious views, previous experiences, favorite food, etc.), he/her is engaging in judicial activism. I am personally in favor of the sort of judicial activism that agrees with my views (such as protecting babies, the sick and elderly), but I am opposed to judicial activism that is antithetical to them (such as that which was practiced by the members of the Warren court who rules on Roe v. Wade). If you allow for one sort of activism, you have to allow for the other as well.

Or, as President Bush has done, you nominate justices who are skilled practitioners of the law, intelligent, and religious (in that order). You like the fact that they have strong moral values, but you choose someone who is not an overtly-pious person that the American public (and, more importantly, the Senate) will accept.

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1191564' date='Feb 11 2007, 01:53 PM']
It has indeed been done before. Perhaps the most well-known such decision was [i]Brown v. Board of Education[/i] in 1954, the decision which found that racial segregation in schools was wrong. That decision overturned the 1896 decision in [i]Plessy v. Ferguson[/i].

The idea behind [i]stare decisis[/i] is to maintain some sort of predictability in the legal system, and sometimes this concern will override other concerns. Scalia has said that he will follow cases he considers to be wrongly decided out of respect for stare decises. However, that doesn't preclude reversing a precedent when it is appropriate.
[/quote]

The idea behind [i]stare decisis[/i] is that, unless there is a new concern being risen by a new case, there is no need to overturn a previous ruling. In most cases, this makes perfect sense because, as you said, it provides our judicial branch with the ability to be consistent and not as transitory as some of the other branches of our government.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1191564' date='Feb 11 2007, 12:53 PM']
It has indeed been done before. Perhaps the most well-known such decision was [i]Brown v. Board of Education[/i] in 1954, the decision which found that racial segregation in schools was wrong. That decision overturned the 1896 decision in [i]Plessy v. Ferguson[/i].

The idea behind [i]stare decisis[/i] is to maintain some sort of predictability in the legal system, and sometimes this concern will override other concerns. Scalia has said that he will follow cases he considers to be wrongly decided out of respect for stare decises. However, that doesn't preclude reversing a precedent when it is appropriate.
[/quote]
What? Are you some sort of law scholar or something?