Obama's "Appalachian Problem"

I'll 2nd that.

I don't think it is fair to call a nation racist because there are a few racists within it. I came across some graffiti yesterday (it was the first time I saw it in quite some time). One dolt (probably a teenager) does not make the city, county, state, or nation a racist one. It means that there is one dolt, who may represent a subset of 5% or so of the population.

I am confident that there are more Republicans or Democrats than racists in this country, and yet we never here the US referred to as a "Republican nation" or as a "Democratic nation" in the partisan senses of those words.

Neither are we a "racist nation." We are a nation that happens to have some racists, and probably fewer than most. I ran into more hatred of others in Quebec and Spain than I have in the United States (see secession and ETA).

What bugs me most about Obama is that he seems to believe that he and his surrogates should be allowed to say and do whatever they please without criticism.

I suppose the "new politics" is one in which, as Keli has already suggested, we vote for someone without worrying about who they are and what they believe. I for one can't say I'm too fond of it. I also resent the idea that somehow I don't like Obama because he is black. I don't like Obama because he supports abortion. I wouldn't care if he were a blond hair, blue eyed German supporting abortion, I would still never, ever vote for him. I heard him speak of his faith--I think it's more genuine than Jeremiah Wright's, but I don't care. He favors abortion, so I don't like him.

I resent having my opinions obfuscated by the press. His race has zero to do with how little I like him, and I have no reason to believe that I am alone. Some don't care for his socialist politics; others, for his statements in regards to Iran. What is clear is that we have several candidates believing different things, and many of us are basing our choices on the issues and not on race. That a minority within a CLOSED DEMOCRATIC primary in WVA admitted to casting their votes based on race is indeed unfortunate, but it is not a message of anything other than a MINORITY of DEMOCRATS in West Virginia remain jackasses.

And I don't need an exit poll to tell me that!

He doesn't just favor abortion. He protects abortion in its most macabre forms. I'm beginning to believe that he isn't just liberal but radical.

Yes, he wouldn't even support the state's "Born Alive Protection Act" which stated that if a baby survives an abortion (is outside of the womb and is still breathing) then the baby has a right to medical care.

If such a thing never happens (which is the left's pat answer to this), then he should have had no problem at all voting yes.

I'm with you, OC, the radical man is not fit for the office that he has, let alone the one that he wants.

SheikBen wrote:Yes, he wouldn't even support the state's "Born Alive Protection Act" which stated that if a baby survives an abortion (is outside of the womb and is still breathing) then the baby has a right to medical care.

If such a thing never happens (which is the left's pat answer to this), then he should have had no problem at all voting yes.

I'm with you, OC, the radical man is not fit for the office that he has, let alone the one that he wants.

Well DUH, iffen I remember right he won his Senate seat by DEFAULT, .... right.

Allen Keyes tried to prevent it from happening but to no avail.

ohio county wrote:He doesn't just favor abortion. He protects abortion in its most macabre forms. I'm beginning to believe that he isn't just liberal but radical.

Seems to me Jimmy that the democrats have elected a candidate that is more liberal then the last.

SheikBen wrote:Yes, he wouldn't even support the state's "Born Alive Protection Act" which stated that if a baby survives an abortion (is outside of the womb and is still breathing) then the baby has a right to medical care.

If such a thing never happens (which is the left's pat answer to this), then he should have had no problem at all voting yes.

I'm with you, OC, the radical man is not fit for the office that he has, let alone the one that he wants.

You know, I can deal with the fact he is a socialist. I don't like it, but I can live with it. You've hit the nail squarely on the head why I would never vote for Obama. He is some sort of pro-abortion radical. While I have never considered myself to be a one-issue voter, perhaps I have become one, or maybe I always was.

If we are unable or unwilling to protect the weakest amoung us just what kind of a people are we? That's the real test of a "great nation" to me.

Now, it is your turn to hit the nail on the head. Slaughtering our babies demeans and condemns our entire society.

ohio county wrote:Now, it is your turn to hit the nail on the head. Slaughtering our babies demeans and condemns our entire society.

Nobody is "slaughtering babies". Nobody requires abortion. Ultimately, those who support women's rights must respect that the decision is between a woman, her doctor and her god (or conscience). Again, I'd say that the "libertarians" among us would be at the forefront of liberties, not ensconced in moral assessments.

That is like telling me that nobody is making me kill my born children, but it's a matter between me, the gun manufacturer, and my god (or conscience).

Whenever someone takes the emphasis off the humanity of the fetus (which, while I believe the fetus to be fully human, is a fair consideration) and puts the emphasis on women's rights (humanity of the fetus be darned), it tells me that, as Stephanie has so clearly stated, our nation is condemnable.

Putting it a different way, if the fetus is not a human, then there is no conscience issue at all. Having an abortion is no different than having an appendectomy, and it would be hard to imagine any god telling you that you can't have an appendectomy.

However, if the fetus is a human, then innocent babies are being slaughtered (in India and China, overwhelmingly female) in the prepostorous name of "women's rights."

SFCraig wrote:

ohio county wrote:Now, it is your turn to hit the nail on the head. Slaughtering our babies demeans and condemns our entire society.

Nobody is "slaughtering babies". Nobody requires abortion. Ultimately, those who support women's rights must respect that the decision is between a woman, her doctor and her god (or conscience). Again, I'd say that the "libertarians" among us would be at the forefront of liberties, not ensconced in moral assessments.

Abortionists take the lives of the most innocent and defenseless of our society. Now you can call that abortion, you can call it a medical procedure, you can call it a termination, you can call it Santa Claus but the intentional taking of an innocent life is premeditated murder. When premeditated murder is committed by the millions with the consent of the government, that is slaughter.

Jimmy is just telling it like it is. If slaughtering human beings makes you uncomfortable, I suggest you stop supporting abortion.

Every totalitarian society has pushed some measure of euthanasia for the weak, crippled, or infirm. Only recently has it become an acceptible means of birth control.

I feel compelled to mention again abortion's targeting of the poor and the racial minorities.

Wealthy white doctors kill poor African American children and the liberals tell me that this is necessary for human rights?

I appreciate Stephanie's calling out the whole "Medical procedure" stuff. Just beause a doctor does it does not make it right.

Joseph Mengele had an MD (or whatever title the Germans gave doctors) and performed a bunch of "medical procedures" too. Should he have been allowed to continue his experiments, given all of his "training?"

Or were his actions really just between "him, his conscience, and his god?"

Hi OC,

I worry about eugenics and think you're right. What I can't believe is that the Democrats, who claim to speak for the vulnerable poor, favor the destruction of the most vulnerable among us. The phrase "every child a wanted child" just sounds to me a little too much like "no child too poor" or "no child too disabled."

You know, Sheik, what we often talk past is the spector of a lonely, under-age girl - on the outs with her parents, looking for a modicum of support from a formerly nominal loving male. If it is possible to humanize abortion or sell it as a positive act why do they not put the emphasis on that pathetic creature? Why do they spout "rights"? From whence do rights emanate? What does a tragic choice made by a young girl have to do with a woman's rights to control her body? Why is there so much euphemism involved? I sure don't have all the answers but I know that using the macabre and casual slaughter of our innocent children is an indictment of our society.

The whole wanted child thing makes me nuts. I have children that weren't planned. My kids are my greatest joy, all of them. There were a couple that I didn't necessarily "want" at the time.

My daughter, the girl I adore and brag endlessly about, wasn't planned. When I found out I was pregnant with her I climbed into bed and cried for 3 days until my exhusband told me if I didn't pull myself together he was going to have to "do something with me". I got out of bed but was miserable. Even when I brought her home from the hospital, I wasn't exactly thrilled at bringing an infant home to my toddler. I thought it would be too much.

She knows this, btw. Everybody thinks it is hilarious now because she and I are so close now and she is so loved by her entire family. My father worships at the alter of Katie. Her little brother thinks she's the most wonderful, beautiful, intelligent girl that has ever lived.

She wasn't wanted then, but the world is a better place because she is here now.

I had the pleasure of meeting a lady who was the product of rape. She was raised in an adopted family and made a pretty decent case for the sanctity of life. It truly is always darkest just before the dawn. And if it is true (I believe it is) that no problem is so overwhelming one has the right to take one's own life, then it is also true he has no right to deny life bestowed on another. Give it a day or two. It will look different after some time passes.

ohio county wrote:You know, Sheik, what we often talk past is the spector of a lonely, under-age girl - on the outs with her parents, looking for a modicum of support from a formerly nominal loving male. If it is possible to humanize abortion or sell it as a positive act why do they not put the emphasis on that pathetic creature? Why do they spout "rights"? From whence do rights emanate? What does a tragic choice made by a young girl have to do with a woman's rights to control her body? Why is there so much euphemism involved? I sure don't have all the answers but I know that using the macabre and casual slaughter of our innocent children is an indictment of our society.

I don't even have to leave my extended family to know of an unfortunate case of a frightened girl being lied to by her mother and getting an abortion. Her mom lied to her and told her that if she had the child her father would not let her come home. As it turned out, the father (who the mother soon after divorced and made look bad whenever she could) wasn't aware that abortion was on the table, and in a million years would not have kicked his daughter out.