Barack Obama Will Kill Your Baby as Quick as Look at It
We've all known for months now that Barack Obama is a Muslim, an atheist, a foreigner and a self-hating American. That's just common knowledge.
But what's not so commonly knowledged is that Barack Obama is also a shameless baby-hater. Oh, he hates them. He hates babies so much. So, so much that if he so much as sees a baby, he'll strangle it with his bare hands.
Thank the Lord Jesus Christ that we have GOP 527 groups around to make sure this message gets out there… again… and again… and again and again…
Pat Buchanan: "Barack Obama on the issue of life is further left than anybody in the Congress of the United States. He not only pro abortion but pro-abortion on demand, he is pro-late term abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, he objected to the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban.
"But most important, Barack Obama and the Illinois legislature supported, or rather opposed a bill that would have protected the life of babies born from a botched abortion who were alive, three times. And I do know Republicans are planning, or rather 527s are planning attack ads on this and I will be interested to see if Rick Warren brings it up."
All I can say is it's about time! I was really starting to get concerned that the intellectual timbre of the GOP's incessant attacks on Obama were alarmingly high and even-handed.
RSS
GetEducatedAmerica, "when life begins" in a legal sense can only be determined by consensus, which means that at this point, the legal answer is "at birth," which is when you are registered with a birth certificate and social security number. Callous, true, but that's secular government.
The fact is that different religions and world views differ on when life begins – or more accurately, when a person begins. If you say 'at conception," then what about fertilized eggs that never implant? Or the large number of first-trimester miscarriages? Or acephalic babies? The issue is much more complicated than the pro-life vs pro-choice dichotomy we're so often presented with, and it's one that needs serious consideration, which, frankly, can only happen outside the world of partisan politics.
As for "increased taxes means more layoffs," funny that you should tell us to "ask corporations." Wouldn't they have the biggest stake in lying about that??
GetThoughtfulAmerica!!
lol, I love how you say he is Muslim… and then an athiest – well which is it?? oh, right, neither. lol, you are an idiot.
wait a minute… you are not an idiot! You are brillant. I'm the idiot. Nice satire my friend! (read the rest, ha!)
So, this is actually true? Some Christian girl whispered this in my ear. She is brain damaged (car accident) and so I just said "whatever" but then I hear again that Obama has thrown babies in the closet. Wow, that sounds so very plausible! I'm sure he's throwing babies in the closet right as we type here!
Say Iowagradstud, if in the legal sense the time when life begins is determined by consensus, does one consult with the local court when buying contraceptives in order to avoid conceiving it? And what exactly is it that those who use contraceptives are trying to avoid? Being stuffed with a meaningless tissue lump? Carrying a growth that has the pre-disposition to be expelled from the uterine cavity?
You are right, partisan politics is not the place to seriously consider the time when life begins, however, the Democrazy party has predicated its success in this election, and among women in particular, on this very issue. They endlessly parade the specter of a Supreme Court that might take away their 'right' to kill 'the product' of their lack of sexual restraint by tilting to the right.
The fact remains that a government by the people and for the people must have people to be BY and FOR — If people are given the 'inalienable right' to contracept, abort and euthanize each other into inexistence who then remains to be governed?
Actually, let me offer a very realistic scenario: since only the lowest common denominator, as well as those whose radically aggressive religion demands that they reproduce in order to propagate and dominate through their faith, are the only ones who are reproducing in significant numbers, it follows that in a not too distant future we will in fact be subjugated by those two attractive groups.
The history of the fall of the Roman Empire should have been mandatory reading decades ago, except for the fact that it has been the lowest common denominator – among them the teachers unions – determining what the school curriculum should be.
"If people are given the 'inalienable right' to contracept, abort and euthanize each other into inexistence who then remains to be governed?"
Nobody, and since any nation who'd go to that kind of extreme would be one of complete idiots, I'd say, good riddance.
But I think (perhaps naively) that most people are able to, with the help of their friends, families, spiritual/religious advisers, and even prayer, come to moral and intelligent decisions that work for their situation, rather than relying on blanket laws. And the government should stay as vague as possible on issues of personal morality (as opposed to public good, as in murder, theft, etc.) that will allow us the freedom to make those decisions.
"…if in the legal sense the time when life begins is determined by consensus, does one consult with the local court when buying contraceptives in order to avoid conceiving it? And what exactly is it that those who use contraceptives are trying to avoid? Being stuffed with a meaningless tissue lump? Carrying a growth that has the pre-disposition to be expelled from the uterine cavity?"
Um…. are you serious? I think you're arguing against your own point if you think about it. Yes, there is no consensus that life begins at conception in our govornment, and thus contraception that can potentially stop a fetilized egg from attaching to the uteran wall is allowable; this can happen (by accident if an egg does get fertilized somehow) with normal birth control pills, and is the intention of Plan B.
But you're point about the end result of a woman getting pregnant doesn't make much sense to me….
You're right– women don't worry about "carrying a growth." They worry about having a baby… as in, "what am I going to do? Eventually this thing is going to be BORN and crying and needing food and money and I'm in X or Y situation" etc. If the baby stayed a smallish fetus forever, just hanging out in the uterus, and there were little to no consequences on a woman's life later (which is absured, but go with me here), then I doubt abortion wouldn't be the issue it is.
But a baby is the END CONSEQUENCE of a pregnancy coming to term, and thus being born. I don't see how birth control that tries to prevent stage 1 (fertilizing of egg) or even stage 2 (attaching to uterus)–so that something like abortion DOESN'T even have to ever be on the table 99% of the time– somehow proves your point that a fetus is a baby/child/person. All it proves is that women know that pregnancy, un-hindered, usually ends in birth. That's not a philisophical or religious statement; that's basic sex ed.
Yeah, he also kicks grown children (7 or 8 year olds) in the face!
See The Onion's video:
'No Values Voters' Looking To Support Most Evil Candidate
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/no_values_voters_looking_to
Oh, Thank God that Pat Buchanan has finally told THE TRUTH about this, this, this … creature … with fangs in his mouth and blood dripping from his hands!! And now that he has stuck the thin end of the wedge into the crack left open by doubt among people who just cannot trust Barack Obama "for some reason", he and his cohorts will HAMMER HAMMER HAMMER that wedge in as far as it will go.
But, seriously, if we're lucky they'll just hammer themselves in the head.
Hes a fricken Christian you idiot