United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Originally posted by sithsaber408
More of it being a flip-flop than anything else is my problem.

I'd also like a link to the law he's mentioning.

If it's so, then where are the stories from the nurses about leaving aborted fetuses in soiled boiler rooms to die coming from? (you know, those reports that prompted the Born Alive bills on the federal and state levels?)

Where's the flip flop? A flip flop is changing position, his position hasn't changed. In fact, it's his consistency that bothers you.

I believe the difference between the bill in place now and the bill that was being pushed is that the one in place doesn't REQUIRE doctors to attempt to save fetuses that they feel have no chance at survival. The new one passed would force them to attempt to save them even if there is not a chance of it succeeding. At least that's the impression that I got from reading various articles about this topic.

Originally posted by BackFire
Where's the flip flop? A flip flop is changing position, his position hasn't changed. In fact, it's his consistency that bothers you.

I believe the difference between the bill in place now and the bill that was being pushed is that the one in place doesn't REQUIRE doctors to attempt to save fetuses that they feel have no chance at survival. The new one passed would force them to attempt to save them even if there is not a chance of it succeeding. At least that's the impression that I got from reading various articles about this topic.

Ok, so how about this:

If there were already bills in place, and doctors already save all viable babies, then why would such bills come to pass?

Furthermore, if it was a completely unneccessary bill then why would Obama pledge to support it if certain language was changed?

These points (other bills exist, it wasn't necessary) are yours, not Obamas. You're just trying to cover for him, where he changed his stance.

Again, a link to the current laws?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Ok, so how about this:

If there were already bills in place, and doctors already save all viable babies, then why would such bills come to pass?

Furthermore, if it was a completely unneccessary bill then why would Obama pledge to support it if certain language was changed?

These points (other bills exist, it wasn't necessary) are yours, not Obamas. You're just trying to cover for him, where he changed his stance.

Again, a link to the current laws?

And there you have it. A perfectly fine law already in place.

Sith, Obama said he'd vote for the FEDERAL version of a similar bill, not a STATE bill. Again, there was no change in stance. He never pledged to support a state bill. You're either lying or you don't know what he actually said.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If there were already bills in place, and doctors already save all viable babies, then why would such bills come to pass?

Can I just say for anyone using anecdotes as evidence of anything, "the plural of anecdote is not data."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"the plural of anecdote is not data."

ROFLMAO

copyright that immediately

Hey BF why is good ol PVS banned..we need him in here.

Originally posted by inimalist
ROFLMAO

copyright that immediately

Oh and in the interest of balance.

Here is today's updated graphic from 538.com:

Originally posted by BackFire
And there you have it. A perfectly fine law already in place.

Sith, Obama said he'd vote for the FEDERAL version of a similar bill, not a STATE bill. Again, there was no change in stance. He never pledged to support a state bill. You're either lying or you don't know what he actually said.

He just doesn't like Obama. That's it. There is no flip flop.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh and in the interest of balance.

Here is today's updated graphic from 538.com:

New ad by McCain - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NseW0UPMLtg

Response by Obama - “It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls -- a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/09/1370041.aspx

Originally posted by BackFire
New ad by McCain - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NseW0UPMLtg

Response by Obama - “It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls -- a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/09/1370041.aspx

Owned.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
720 ILCS 510/6 is the law.
(Source: P.A. 85‑1209.)"
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975.
(a) 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.
Any physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates the provisions of Section 6(1)(a) commits a Class 3 felony.
Subsequent to the abortion, [b]if a child is born alive, the physician required by Section 6(2)(a) 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. Any such physician who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly violates Section 6(2)(b) commits a Class 3 felony. [/B]

Originally posted by BackFire
New ad by McCain - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NseW0UPMLtg

Response by Obama - “It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls -- a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/09/1370041.aspx

Hahahaaaa. Add "sexual deviant" to the list of 'Unamerican", "Muslim(aka evil)", "Ter'rist appeaser", Ter'rist supporter" and "Marxist" tags.

Don't forget uppity.

Anywho, I see anti-Obama videos being posted up all the time on facebook. Usually, they're of him stumbling in his speeches, misspeaking, or doing something else foolish.

And then...

I've had to look myself for the anti-McCain videos. They're usually of him verbally appeasing an interviewer, lying, contradicting himself, and bumbling to find words right after he just lied and realized it.

Now, if the best the GOP can churn out on Obama is him stuttering or losing a teleprompter...

It's not that I'm voting Obama. After thought and research, I won't vote Obama or McCain. They both suck....but McCain sucks more than Obama.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Anywho, I see anti-Obama videos being posted up all the time on facebook. Usually, they're of him stumbling in his speeches, misspeaking, or doing something else foolish.

Originally posted by BackFire
Don't forget uppity.

That's right, forgot about that one. He's also supposedly a sexiest now too, since the word out now is that he referred to Palin as a "pig". The fun never stops.