New audio further proof of Obama's socialism

From Thomas Sowell's latest article: "Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well."

htp://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/27/obama_and_the_left_?page=1

For the complete article (good)
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/27/obama_and_the_left?page=1

On one hand, it is noble to want to believe. The day we stop believing that there are people who will do the right thing when given the opportunity is the day that we have truly given up on ourselves. On the other hand, refusing to recognize when you are being purposely misled is downright naive and irresponsible. I won't go so far as saying Obama is any more socialist than President Bush (the Treasury Department is considering bailing out the big three automakers now), but I will say that all the things he promises to do are fundamentally impossible in our current economic situation. One of the biggest threats to our national security is the national debt, which we cannot continue to allow to be the 900 pound elephant in the room. We must confront this and conquer it before it drags us down just like every other problem that society continually puts off until tomorrow.

There already has been a push for slavery reparations it started just couple of days after the Messiah stepped out from among the Greek Columns to except his ascendecy, just the media is keeping the lid on for right now. I expect to hear from that crowd a week after the election if the ONE wins it that is..

Yep, Sgt, there's going to be all kinds of giveaway programs, except for the ones who work to pay for these programs. I wonder how they figure who genuinely have ancestors who were slaves? And, will reparations be given to blacks, who ancestors own slaves? Or how about the many Africans who immigrated here of their own volition? Barack Hussein will find a way to do it. I just hope all that extra cash doesn't go up in smoke, but I imagine it will, as in the past.

The idea of reparations for slavery is so ridiculous. It would never ever happen even if Al Sharpton was president. There is no way Congress would ever do that, even if the Democrats controlled every seat in the entire Congress. I agree that slavery was terrible... but that was what... 130 years ago? The African American population of today has no right or need for payments for the enslavement of their ancestors. Also, consider that modern research has shown that a majority of the WHITE American population likely has ancestors who were slaves. They don't talk about it as much in history texts, but there were a lot of white slaves of European descent, they were just called indentured servants. Classic history says that these indentured servants worked a few years to pay off a debt, but recent exploration has shown that it is likely that many of these indentured servants were nothing more than glorified slaves.

Matthew,
You really think that slavery reparations is ridiculous?
Some states grant in state college tuition fees to illegal
immigrants while charging out of state students more,
who were born in the US. So it's not that farfetched
that the government won't give out slavery reparations
of some form..

Obama, in this clip, sounds like a reasoned, considerate speaker with a nuanced understanding of the law and a curiosity for how it might changed. This makes me like him even more. Sorry.

I'd love to hear more about the context of this interview. Sadly, it doesn't really exist so far. Either way, if the McCain campaign has resorted to 7-year-old sound bytes (or "bombshells," as they're apparently referred to in the right) to try and win the election, I'm sure there are a ton of outdated and silly ones you could find from McCain. I doubt the Obama campaign will bother, though.

nuanced-Lib speak for no real postion on any postions, example "I voted for it before I voted against it"

OT did anyone catch that story about the guy in Florida
who for a holloween decoration has an effigy of a lynched Sarah Palin.

I saw it... no matter who a person is voting for, I felt that was overboard beyond poor taste. Imagine what would happen if someone hung Obama in effigy... That would be a fast and sure way to get Sharpton and Jackson to come for a visit.

Matt,
Have you really been so duped by this guy B. H.Obama, that you cannot see that what he is saying is a generalized lie to get elected? When talking to Joe the plumber he said,
"I think, when you spread the wealth around, it umm, is good for everybody".. And you don't see the danger in that?

What on earth makes you think you are "entitled" to anything you didn't work for? If he truley believed what he is saying, why is he still rich?
Why has he NOT given his wealth away? He surrounds himself with the rich and greedy, and talks down to the poor and lazy. If he believed in what he says, his tax returns should show he has taken "ZERO" deductutions, so that the government could redistribute his money to those on welfare, and every other socialist program he touts as entitlements.

What if you had 10 million dollars you worked for, and earned through legal means, (which I am sure you will never have, because you want my/our money to be handed to you) and the government said..."yo yo dude, you got too much money. Go to the bank and withdraw 9 million dollars, take it to 18 neighbors and give them each $500,000.
If you say you would do it, you are a liar. If you say you wouldn't then you can't back a socialist like this idiot Obama.

Any time any government gets involved in schemes like this, they create another blood sucking gang of theives and the 'new money' stolen from those who earned it , would be eaten up by liars and cheaters before it ever got redistributed.

Obama KNOWS that what he proposses will never be accepted by the Congress, because it would affect all them in as much as they would loose thier own money. The ONLY reason he says these things is to encorage the poor and freeloaders to go vote for him. What he says he wants, and what he will get are two differant things. Presidents don't and can't make law on thier own. So you should muddle through the hype and lies and see that like many other poloticians, he is lieing through his teeth. And you are a sucker to think he means even one word of it, because he does not "LIVE what he PREACHES".
Yes Matt, you are a blind lemming being lead to the cliff by a liar, unless of course you are willing to give me half of everything you have , right now, today, to show you believe in the redistributive bull s**t

Matt, \so what is your address? I will have a small truck there today, but if you have a lot of stuff I can make two trips, then we can stop by the ATM and you can give me half of what you have saved. About $200 I would guess?

If you're trying to make a point or have a constructive dialogue, it would better serve you to be less condescending and sarcastic. If you're trying to belittle someone and increase/embrace the bitter divide between the supporters of the two parties, it seems you're doing just fine though. The most disturbing thing out of all of the electoral process is not the views that any of the candidates share or the views that they differ on, it is the extreme bitterness of one side towards the other. If we really want to open a dialogue and find out how we can work together, we need to start by showing each other a little respect. No one hates America and no one is out to get you. I am fully expecting some sort of smart retort (probably blaming someone), but hey, maybe eventually someone will get it: Working together will make everyone happier and ultimately will improve the situation of everyone in society, rich and poor alike.

You cannot work with liberals. Their views are set in stone. Bush tried many times and it was him who relented. So did most republicans, and we are in this fix, in part because republicans didn't have a backbone, and were afraid to stand up to the democrats. Republicans warned democrats years ago about Fannie Mae, and guess what, they didn't follow through because they were intimidated by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the other democrats who they let talk them down.

That effigy is hanging in California not Florida,I
apologize for that, just got a little confused as
to which of the 57 states Palin was hung in..

Obama is a Marxists and his US Senate Bill S2433 that Obama is sponsoring is proof enough. Obama's S2433 will cost tax paying Americans an "ADDITIONAL" 845 Billion and will consume seven percent of our GNP. The money that is fleeced out of us be Obama's S2433 will be given to the corrupt United Nations,specifically for "The UN Global Poverty Act". Your harn earned money will then be REDISTRIBUTED to third world dictators. Google Obama's S2433 AND READ HOW oBAMA WILL USE THE un TO redistribute your wealth. There is no way that the rich alone can fund Obama's massive Marxist schemes in the USA let alone worldwide. Obama and his Marxist allies will come for your money, you can count on that. Eli Jones

It's amazing to me that you equate a 3% tax hike on the rich with making them "give all their money away," danimal.

a 3% hike! silly socialist, what makes you think it will
be just 3%?

Because that's the economic proposal on the table he's been pushing for the last year.

If there is a big sweep of repubs out the door next
week and the progressive's win and push for all of this
massive entitlement spending plus give 95% of the middle class a tax cut. There is just no way a 3% tax
hike on the rich is going to cover it..
Bush's math was fuzzy for sure, but Obama's math would break the natural laws of the universe

So your response to that is to make up even fuzzier math based on a paranoid ideas that this country's turning into the new Soviet Union? Makes sense.

No more socialist like the European Union, it will become the new Soviet
Union when you go to prison for insulting Comrade Obama..

Matthew, Matt...
you two are interchangable ...right?
Anyway, by all means, lets work together. You gat half your stuff ready and I'll be there to pick it up...we can work together loading it up. Like I said. If you are not willing to GIVE it....stop asking for mine....and look at the idiocy Obama intends to do with the stolen money he wants. FEED THE WORLD HE SAYS. I feed the kids next door some days, others I give money or food to the church so they can feed the needy. I'll do my part without some big spending, big government socialist, marxist moron telling what I need to do. Thanks.

Man, what did I do to get thrown in with the socialists I believe everyone pays too much taxes already. I also think there should be either a flat tax for everyone or a two-tier system-- the system we have now is fundamentally unfair. I just think that calling Obama a socialist is a little far-fetched. In my opinion, he is a centrist, for the most part. Compared to McCain, he is a liberal. To me, your argument would be a lot more effective if you stopped going to the extreme and saying "omg Obama and Karl Marx are palling around with Osama bin Laden" and instead said "Obama's tax policies seem to unfairly penalize the rich. He also has questionable ties." Save the sensationalism for the media. I won't be voting for Obama. I am fiscally conservative and socially conservative (although the idea of what conservative is has been hijacked by the religious right-- so nowadays I am labeled a social liberal). I just think the overexaggerations and sensationalism by everyone in this campaign is a little ridiculous. Everyone knows that (Obama and McCain) are stretching the truth to a point that it doesn't even resemble the truth anymore, so why do they even do it? Wouldn't it be more effective to stop dividing everyone by taking everything to the farthest extremes? Wouldn't your message be more relevant if you told the truth instead of spitting out the same catch phrases and lies over and over again? I guess I can answer my question by saying that they probably wouldn't do it if it wasn't effective, which is pretty sad.

Oh, and I'm not sure if you are asking, but we are different people (Matthew and Matt).

Matthew,
I pretty much believe in the samethings you do,except for conservatives being hijacked
by the religious right. There is no true conservatism in this country anymore, not since
they started pulling this bipartisian crap..

You know how all those whiny liberals said they'd move to Canada if Bush won in 2004? Well I will totally move to Canada if Obama is elected. Because Canada will be less socialist than America come 2009.

More rumors from Obama's past coming back to haunt him:
http://tinyurl.com/6jb7l6

Danimal,
Hey dude. you mentioned that congress would not go for Messiah's tax plan cause it would affect them to much. I don't know, I think they will, because most of the people in congress already has big money they are already wealthy and make most of their money from capital gains instead of an income. Capital gains are taxed lower than Income. So I can see them going for it.

Matthew,
I don't understand how you would not at least think BO has socislist leanings at the very least. I won't bother quoting him, I know you have heard all of the interviews, it is his own words. You seem like someone who tries see the good in a person, but if it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck......well, you know the rest of the saying.

Thanks fellas. Fun to read from a distance.

Still don't understand what 'socialist' is such a slur in the US though. Both camps favour federal taxes and so, by definition, are spreading the wealth. That makes both sides 'socialist', so where's the power of the slur? Do you really want a country that collects no taxes? I wonder if you realise the ramifications of that.

Scant my man
How ya doin' dude. been a while my friend. Just having some fun with Matthew, He and Matt are a fun. With Matt being, in my best guess, much younger than you or I. Kids now-a-days, what are you gonna do eh?
All I am getting at is that these folks (Matt) who keep going on about how great a redistribution of wealth would be, are driveing me freekin batty. They think it's great if they are the redistribute-ee's, but don't seem to want to be the redistribute-er's. I told Matt to gimme his stuff, but he has not given me a pick-up time or place. Go figure.
Oh and, I hate ducks. Except for Daffy, now there is a black duck I can get behind. (oops)

Lee offered me a shrimp on the barbbie, but I can't get to aussie land this week....
HI lee. Gday. What the heck is a bruce and a sheela anyways? And don't gimme no vegamite sandwhich either. Of course there needs to be taxes Lee, but some of these guys only think the rich should have to pay them.

Obama compares America to Nazi Germany:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFWeWludazM

I don't think socialism is a slur, seems better than half the country's planning
on voting in Obama, and he doesn't do anything but espouse socialism in just
about every speech he makes. But to be fair to him I would say for now that
he is a socialist with a small "s" sort of like William Ayers a is communist with
a small "c" while Bush, and his buddies like Paulson, and Bernecke are socialists
with a CAPITAL "S" that's why I will not vote McCain, this present day repub
party is in a hole of it's on making and I will not jump in and help them keep
digging..

I was considering voting for Barr, until I learned about Obama. I cannot, in good conscience, vote to allow a socialist, Marxist, or Communist any control. If we have a super majority of liberals, and a liberal president, who will appoint liberal judges, maybe as many as three, I want no part and parcel of that. Hell, he could appoint Ayers for the SC for all we know. I do know I will work my arse off to get real conservatives elected, next go round. Obama did rally the real conservatives this time.

Why the hell! do my comments appear in the form they do?!?!

So G, are you saying your voting McCain?

Lee, socialism and communism have been vilified in past American history. Fifty years ago, communists and socialists were the scariest thing in the world to most Americans. It wasn't exactly out of the ordinary for the government to arrest people suspected of communism and hold them for no reason. There are also numerous trials and executions of suspected communists/socialists that, when reviewed today, were totally bogus and unwarranted. It is highly unlikely the federal government committed outright murder of suspected radicals in the recent past. Because of this type of animosity towards the socialist/communist movement in the US, the word still exists today with a VERY negative connotation associated with it.

Scant,
Obama may have socialist leanings, but no more than anyone else in the government. Today, the government is debating whether or not to offer financial backing to General Motors so that they can stay solvent by acquiring Chrysler. A month or so ago, the government bought major stakes in US banks. Before that, the government bought 79% of the largest insurance company in the United States. "Spreading the wealth around" is somewhat of a Marxist statement, but I believe it has been blown out of proportion a bit. Personally, I like John McCain just about as much as I like Barack Obama, which is not that much, so a statement like this doesn't really bother me. No matter who wins, they will be considered a terrible president in all likelihood. They are inheriting a wealth of problems: two unpopular and costly wars, an economic crisis of epic proportions, an increasingly partisan Congress that would rather bicker back and forth instead of working together to solve the problems that face our nation, etc. This is a recipe for failure (or maybe disaster) no matter who becomes president.

RE: conservatism in the United States
At some point, the Republicans sold out to the Christian right. While this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing (and I don't want to argue about this or make people upset on here), I think a lot of these organizations don't understand the principles of their own faith, and the Republicans allowed these sorts of views to permeate their platform as long as they were given free reign over non-social issues. The Republican party should be the party to protect personal freedoms and ensure that democracy is applied equally to all parties. Instead, they have allowed themselves to become the anti-gay, anti-women's rights, and anti-personal liberty party. Instead of less government and staying out of our personal lives, they've sold their soul to a large amount of fundamentalists who vote only based on these issues. Barry Goldwater would be rolling in his grave.

I meant to say: "it is highly LIKELY the federal government committed outright murder of suspected radicals in the recent past (Sacco and Venzetti, many others)."

No, it means I'm pulling the lever for him. I don't like calling it a vote, but the alternative is scarey as heck. Anything to keep Obama and a Super majority out! Period! Just imagine three liberal SC judges. We will be a one party monopoly. And, that's unbearable to me.

Danimal,
I been hanging around and been reading the blog, but dang, when I get to my laptop everybody has beat me to the punch, and I have nothing new to add. Working less overtime so maybe I can get in here a little quicker. I will help carry some of Matts stuff to your truck let me know. Lee is from down under, cool. I didn't know, I read his post but he doesn't have an accent.

Sgt. I wondered why your post come out like that too, but figured you wrote it that way.

Matthew, I think you are wearing rose colored glasses my friend. I am not a fan of MaCain and absolutly not of BO. I will vote for MaCain even though it jerks my chain to do so, but the damage this country could face with him, I think would be to bad to overcome in the future. I don't know what to tell you BO's words are out there for all to hear and read. He believes in a strong central gov. with all the controll. This is a bad ass world with alot of nuts in it, I think he would cave like a house of cards when pushed just even a little bit.

"At some point, the Republicans sold out to the Christian right."
The very last republican that "sold out" to the Christain right
was Ronald Reagan, and he tanked the Soviet Union..

Like I said, when/if this country has significant problems over the next few years, if we never regain our dominant status and respect among the rest of the industrialized world, I won't be the one to blame. I'm voting for small(er) government and lower taxes for everyone. I may be viewing the world through rose colored glasses but I like to look at the bright side of everything. I will always believe in the power of one person doing the right thing. There are three issues I really care about: equality for homosexuals, the protection of a woman's right to choose, and ending the war in Iraq. I'm more inclined to agree with Obama on these things so I can tolerate that part of his presidency if he wins. I know I am kind of naive to ignore the negative aspects of his policies (namely his tax policy, his Israel/Palestine policy, too much to even name), but I will vote for who I agree with most, regardless of whether or not they come from the two corporate-controlled parties. If you don't already know, I am voting for Ralph Nader. I would vote for Bob Barr, but he has done one hell of a flip-flop in the last few years and I don't trust him. I actually contacted my local Libertarian party leaders about the convention and watched in horror on CSPAN as Barr got the nod. Let's all hope for the best, regardless of what happens. In the end, we are all in this together.

Obama-To avoid being a sellout... I chose my friends carefully...Marxist professors and structual feminists...
17 seconds, audio:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/barack-obama-admits-i-chose-my-friends.html

Matthew,
You should vote for who you agree with most I won't get on you about that.

Women's rights, what are you talking about, they have rights? How do you fix a woman's watch? You don't! theres one on the kicthen stove!

I have a close realitive who is homosexuals and if BO gets elected he will have to share his wealth with me, now I like that kinda equality. Matthew can you tell I have a sarcastic kinda of humor, except for the womans right thing, I meant that. My Ex burnt me, we men should have never given them the right to vote.

I agree with Matthew, I want the war I Iraq ended soon also.
Special Rights for the queer sect and the right for women to
murder their babies..no way in a million years would
I ever agree to that!

Ooof, here we go again.

This is fundamentally the reason I defend Obama. I'd rather have Nader or even Ron Paul in there. I'm not a 'till death fan of Obama's tax policy (I think the "socialist" part is sort of ridiculously blown out of proportion, so i do what I can to point that out), I don't think his voting record on Iraq is the strongest (he's been more vocal than active in trying to end the war, really), and he's in the pocket of a whole lot of people just like any major candidate, but the guy represents a culture I want to believe this country can be. One that's understanding of people, one that can empathize with people different than themselves (I don't think you've quite gotten there yet, SGD), one that's interested in ways to selflessly improve things, and one that can carry itself with dignity and respect throughout the world.

That's certainly an extremely optimistic view of an Obama presidency, but I think it's a good place to start. Is that naive? I don't think so. Sure, Obama's a politician -- he's stepped on some toes and stabbed a few backs coming up through Chicago and he can be a bit hard to pin down. But show me one man or woman in politics who isn't. I know this much about Obama -- he's strong, he's intelligent, he knows the Constitution inside and out, he's a commanding physical presence, he's a great speaker, the world looks favorably on him, and he seems like a shrewd decision-maker. I can't say any of those things for McCain, who's run possibly the most embarrassing, negative campaign in history this fall.

Obama will be balanced by Congress, even if it's a super majority. Remember that every Democrat (and Republican) is in DC thanks to financial backers and vocal constituencies and as long as voters hold them accountable, they won't do anything that would cost them reelection.

McCain used to represent things like dignity and respectfulness and change to me, in 2000. He really seemed like a great guy. But he's turned ugly in the last 2 years, especially since the addition of Palin, which goes along with what Matthew is saying about the party's dependence on the Christian Right.

Danimal -- sure, come on over. You can have my collection of Lincoln Logs and Erector Set parts. I'll keep the Atari system and army guys.

I want to believe in Obama. I've honestly convinced myself and rationalized voting for him at least twice during the last six months, but every single time I hear Ralph Nader speak it brings me back to reality. Obama is selling a vision. He might be able to deliver and he might not. It will be difficult and it might succeed in some parts and fail in others, but he is selling an idea. I think a lot of Americans are into his positive campaign (I know he has had negative ads and whatnot, but his overall message has been positive compared to the mixed negative/positive McCain campaign). With the economy going down, an unpopular war, increasingly partisan politics, people want to hear about positive uplifting things, which Obama can speak about very eloquently. I can understand how a lot of people are buying into this, and like I said before, I have caught myself believing a few times. At the end of the day though, Obama has cast some terrible votes and has some pretty god-awful positions. The more and more I listen to him the more I see how he panders to pretty much every major demographic there is. The guy doesn't have one single controversial position, or at least he makes it seem as if he doesn't. McCain will straight up say "I will appoint judges who will revisit Roe v Wade." People don't like that, but that is his policy. Obama just simply takes the populist approach to everything, preferring to avoid any conflict or conversation on real change. In my book, he is leagues better than McCain (looking solely at policy), but far from being anyone I could vote for.

I guess that's just where our strategies differ. I think I agree with everything you've said about Obama (although I personally thought he was actually pretty strong in his defense of Roe v. Wade in the third debate), and I would ideally love to live in a country with Nader as president, but like you said, I think Obama is leagues better than McCain, and that's where the argument ends for me as far as who I'll throw my support behind, because I don't at all look forward to President McCain and Vice President Palin.

That said, the state I'm voting in now is so Democrat that I can freely vote for Nader all I want and not suffer any irrational voter guilt for doing so. I personally feel like getting stung by Nader voters in the past has helped whipped the Democrats into smarter campaigners.

Matthew, and/ or Matt:
Just the fact that Obama said he would lift the ban on partial birth abortion shows he has no moral fortitude. What he is saying in effect is:
"Go ahead and rip the top of any newborn baby's head open and scramble its brains. It's OK." That should be enough right there for any rational, caring, loving human being to end any support of Obama. Then add to that his desire to 'enslave' even more people by making them dependant on government handouts.
In those two things we see this: murdering babies is OK, and don't worry if your lazy or failed to finish school, we (the socialist) government will give you what you have not earned. This just makes my little brain spin wondering how anyone can agree with Obama on anything. For me, just hearing those two things stops me from wanting to hear anything else he says.

All I can say for Matt/Matthew is , What ARE you smokin?

As a woman, I have equal rights. It's men who don't, since the babies women kill were created by men. She merely carries the child. When she kills her baby, she is also killing his. Believe it or not, there are actually men who want to these babies! /saracasm Obama supported bills that prevent doctors from trying to save a baby's life from botched abortions. These babies are put on lab pans to await death. What kind of woman allows something so horrific? And then, there are stories about babies who survivied botched abortions, and live to tell about it. One woman, in particular, has cerebral palsey because she was born premature during a bad attempt at abortion.

Danimal:
1) Do you disagree with all abortion or only with partial birth abortion? I'm just curious, that is what it sounds like to me, and I didn't know there were people who are okay with one and not okay with the other. Personally, I believe in the woman's right to choose what she does with her own body-- to an extent. I think until a certain point (I'm not familiar enough with how pregnancy progresses to say 6 months or 3 months or whatever), the mother should have the right to do whatever she so chooses. I personally can never have a child since I am a man, so I will protect the right of those who can to make the decision for themselves. After said point though, there really needs to only be abortion allowable in the case that the mother's health is endangered. I think partial birth abortion just because a person took too long to make up their mind or some similar reason is something that should be avoided. Personally, I would never abort a child/fetus/embryo/whatever. If I ever got a girl pregnant (crosses fingers), I would want her to deliver the child and I would probably be quite upset if she chose to abort it. I still believe that it should be up to the woman though. So for me, there is no moral issue with a person who believes the government shouldn't restrict our personal rights. I've always thought that if men could have babies, abortion would have been legal for the last 2000 years.
2) The idea that someone running for president in America who wants to give everything away to "people who have not earned it" is pretty far out there. There are checks and balances to ensure that people do not exploit the system. Do people still do it? Of course. To deny the fact that welfare/"hand outs" help people that came into bad situations is wrong though. I don't know where this idea came from that he wants to give away all of you and I's tax dollars, but it seems like it has been quite trumped up. If you want to talk about giving stuff away for free, how about McCain's plan to refinance everyone's troubled mortgages and having the taxpayer take the loss? That, my friends, is giving things away to people who didn't earn it. I mean, don't think we don't look at these problems the same. I work full time while attending college. I am an older student because I was in the military. Since I work full time, I make "too much" money to get the "free money" from the government. Meanwhile, all these 18 and 19 year olds who are just starting college get all the grant money because they don't work or they only work part time. There are tons of screwed up things about our society, but rather than completely dissolve these programs (simultaneously cut "handouts" but also hurt the people who have actually fell on hard times) I would rather we reform them so that people cannot take advantage of them. Unfortunately, it might take quite a while (if ever) until we can manage to do that. I think a lot of our problems came from the people who started the welfare system. It was too easy to exploit and it started a culture of asking for a handout within poor and economically challenged areas. It will take generations to undo the culture that has been created. Like I said, I don't think we disagree that much, I think we just want to handle it differently. In the end though, we could all be paying much less taxes if the government intervened less in the private sector (this includes "handouts" and many other areas of government spending). Welfare is just one of the problems, which probably neither candidate will confront.

crw, I am normally a really polite guy, but honestly what am I supposed to say to an inane comment like yours? Did that make you chuckle to yourself when you typed that out?

Obama advocates civilian Gestapo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2PP4pYGno

You mean the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the local police, the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA? Which one?

According to the dictionary; Socialism is the intermediate step between capitalism and communism". Barack Hussein Oboma is a socialist. If America elects this character she will learn a bitter lesson.

From what I've heard and read, the argument about the botched abortions law doesn't pan out since, as sources like the Associated Press pointed out, there already was such a law on the books in Illinois when he was called on to vote on it. He wasn't voting against saving abortion survivors -- they were already protected by the law.

I think late-term abortion is a bad, bad thing too. But as Obama has said, issues like abortion are something that we can all work on toward some kind of compromise. There are too many gray areas in that issue to let it become such an "us against them" kind of debate.

One day, B. Obama wakes up and he looks in the mirror.
He notices that he's turning white from the neck up to the top of his head.
He calls the doctor, he's really scared; he's never seen anything like this.
So he calls up the doctor and explains what he sees, and the doctor tells him to come in.
The doctor looks at him and goes, "I know exactly what is going on here".
The doctor goes over to the corner of the room and mixes up this brown liquid and puts it into a cup and tells B. Obama to drink it.

Well Obama takes a big ol' drink of it and spits it out and says "THIS STUFF TASTES LIke BULLSH*T!

The doctor replys, "It IS bullsh*t; Your just a quart low!

Just a funny Don't take offense!

Oh look -- a racist joke. Thanks a lot for sharing.

lol. It wasn't intended to be, however, if you want to take it as such; then so be it. Is that you Dragon22? Just a joke I heard, and wished to share it. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Matthew and Matt, your take on abortion is interesting,
you support a woman's right to choose, only to
a certain extent and then it's okay to restrict it.
Like Roe vs Wade it's a twisted tortured reasoning.

I support a woman's right to choose all the way until she delivers the child. I think it is very, very irresponsible of a woman to have a late term abortion. I think that every effort should be made to educate people how to avoid unwanted pregnancy. I think that abortions should remain safe, legal, and rare. I think that when a woman realizes she is pregnant, she should consider whether or not she will carry the child to term and then stick with that decision. At the end of the day, it is her decision to make and it is her decision to live with (I would hope she would consult the father as well). This may sound crude but it isn't breaking my heart when a woman has a late term abortion. Like I said, it is very irresponsible in my view, but the people who cry foul over late-term abortions see it as a huge moral chasm. I was trying to, you know, compromise. I know that is really unfamiliar to most people, but there are people who want to work together so that we both get a little of what we want.

Matt said, "issues like abortion are something that we can all work on toward some kind of compromise. "

Compromise? What is the compromise? Either you're making it legal to murder babies, or you're not. I don't see grey area in there.

"This may sound crude but it isn't breaking my heart when a woman
has a late term abortion"
To bad your mom didn't feel the same way..

Abortions aren't "safe" now. So let's throw that myth out.

And abortion is murdering a human being. If folks are so interested in discussion, let's just all agree to that empirically verifiable fact.

So, why exactly should we compromise on murder? You ask for a compromise, you ask for safe and legal abortions...yet never offer any reasoning as to why.

Folks just want things w/o the hard work of thinking through the issues. That's simply laziness, not a spirit of compromise.

If you really want to prevent unwanted pregnancies...if you REALLY feel for women in this position...then there is an obvious, 100% FOOLPROOF method to prevent this...abstinence before marriage. If you're sincere in your desires, then you'll compromise and start advocating the safest, most affordable, most pro-feminist solution.

Fair enough? Ok, guess we're done w/ this issue. Thanks for compromising.

Back to the topic at the top, this doesn't sound particularly reasoned, considerate speaker, w/ any understanding of the law. What it sounds like is vague, Orwellian doublespeak, from someone who is trying to impose the will of the few on the many. But hey, what would I know? I solve problems, unlike law school grads who create them.

Matthew,
As you stated, you have never fathered a child. Let me tell you a little something about that. I have. And I was involved in the entire ordeal. I planted the seed. I stood by and was there for every minute to deal with the changes my wife went through. Her sense of lose at the girlish figure, (athough temporary) her change in diet, (mine as well because she was the cook!!!) Her mood swings, and understanding them. The trips to the dairy queen, wallmart, Rays, in the middle of the night/day/snowstorm/etel to satisfy a craving. The classes for natural child birth. The tossing and turning and making comfort in the night. 25 hours of labor, and the watched this child come into the world. And believe me...all that was the EASY PART!!!! To even imagine a doctor screwing a metal hook or drill into a childs skull to scramble it's brains is maddning to me. I am not a violent man, but if I were to witness an attempt at this, I could and most likely kill said doctor.
Its murder plain and simple...never mind the Bible at this point....dead is dead ..and causing that death is murder..period, dot.
Watch a little science channel my friend, or public broadcating...catch a show about how and when a fetus developes..the stages, the awe...then say it is not murder.
Damn a womens right to her body in the case of murder. And I mean that. No time do I advocate killing a child, not ever, for any reason. And don't bother bringing up the insest, rape, etc...I said no time and thats what I mean.

You guys act like I'm the one who wants to go out and murder babies. I said repeatedly I would never want a woman to get one and I would disappointed if a woman ever did. The fact of the matter is that someone somewhere is always going to want to get an abortion. Maybe it is the "easy way out" or maybe they are lazy. Maybe they can't afford a child or whatever. To be honest, one reason is the same as the others. If abortion is illegal, women will resort to illegal back alley abortions like they did before Roe v. Wade. Women will commit suicide or have other mental health problems. Abortion is not good, we both agree on that. The ideal situation for both of us would be that it never occurred ever. The truth, whether you accept it or not, is that there will be women out there who will always seek an abortion, and I think that they should have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies. I don't really want to argue and I'm not really even sure how we got on this subject, but I'm done with this topic after this. Obviously, you cannot fathom my position as evidenced by the angry, condescending posts you make-- Always seeing the negative side of everything. We agree more than we disagree, it will do a lot of you a lot of good if you'll realize that someday.

Matthew,
Son, It's called passion. Not anger. I have no beef with you persay. And you most certainly have a right to your opinions. More the better, I do welcome other views, but that don't mean I will change my mind. If a woman resorts to back alley murder, she has a right to bleed to death in said alley, just like the child she killed/tried to kill. Like is said so many times, let God sort it out. I am a steadfast believer that if you take a life with malace and intent...you forfit your right to live. No that does not include self-defence, or war. Remember, it's the intent.
We got on this subject because Obama wants to legalize murdering babies.

I hope this comes out right. If not, sorry!

Table 1. Impact of the Legalization of Abortion on the Number of Abortions in the USA, 1968-2003, by Number of States with Permissive Laws

Year States Legal Abortions Year Legal Abortions

1968 5 18,000 1988 1,590,800
1969 9 50,000 1989 1,567,000
1970 11 193,000 1990 1,609,000 (highest no.)
1971 480,000 1991 1,556,500
1972 17 587,000 1992 1,528,900
1973 ALL 744,600 1993 1,495,000
1974 898,600 1994 1,423,000
1975 1,034,200 1995 1,359,400
1976 1,179,300 1996 1,360,200
1977 1,316,700 1997 1,335,000
1978 1,409,600 1998 1,319,000
1979 1,497,700 1999 1,314,800
1980 1,553,900 2000 1,313,000
1981 1,577,300 2001 1,313,000 (estimate)
1982 1,573,900 2002 1,313,000 “
1983 1,575,000 2003 1,313,000 “
1984 1,577,200
1985 1,588,600 Total 1973-2003: 43,370,300
1986 1,574,000
1987 1,559,800 Total 1968-2003: 44,698,300

Matthew, if it really was ONLY the woman's body involved here, there would be no argument. Trouble is, the baby has a body too, and that body has rights... maybe not under the law of man, but from God. Funny thing is, if a woman is planning to go have a late term abortion, but goes into premature labor, gives birth to a viable living baby, she can NOT choose to kill it after it's born. She can't lay it on a cold metal table and leave it to die. She can't drop it in a dumpster. She can't stab it in the back of the head. But, that same woman could choose to go to a clinic that very day, give birth to the entire baby feet first, except its head, and then allow a doctor to jam a scissors into the back of its skull. All because our government allows the technicality that as long as the baby's head isn't born, it's not really a baby yet. How nice of them to create this horrid idea just to relieve themselves and these murderers of any guilt.

Maybe you can explain to me how a person can be charged and convicted of murder if he either intentionally or unintentionally causes the death of an unborn baby when the mother WANTED the baby (ie, car accident, assault, etc), but a "doctor" cannot be charged with anything if he causes the death of that same unborn baby because the mother decides she does NOT want it. It is all a matter of convenience.... for the woman. I consider myself a fairly modern woman. I am 40 years old, not old, not young. I am for women's rights, but more than that, I am for human rights. I am for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves.... those who cannot protect themselves...those who don't have any say in what happens to THEIR own bodies. As a woman I have all the rights I need without needing the right to murder an unborn baby. I have the right to say "no" to sex. I have the right to use birth control. I have the right to put a baby up for adoption if said birth control fails or if I am a victim of rape. I have the right to choose to carry and deliver and raise a baby. What I do NOT have the right to do, nor do I ever want to have the right to do, is intentionally allow someone to kill an unborn child, for ANY reason.

Matthew wrote,
"If abortion is illegal, women will resort to illegal back alley abortions like they did before Roe v. Wade. Women will commit suicide or have other mental health problems."

Uh, where did you get your info? Not many "back alley" abortions occurred before Roe v Wade. Hardly any to be honest. And abortions today are actually quite dangerous, both to a woman's physical health and mental health.

Once again, you feign caring. I say "feign" because you don't check facts before offering your opinions, and what you do offer is the more harmful approach. True caring means putting forth an effort, at the very least researching legitimate answers. Not being lazy and offering an idea that demonstrably does far more harm than good.

Make no mistake, we are quite far apart in our perspectives. You give lip service to being concernded, while your opinion is the sign of a lazy, self-centered mind. Sorry to be the dose of reality to your over-inflated opinion of yourself.

Okay seeing as how I used to be a campus organizer at a major midwestern university for their entire pro-choice movement, I take great offense to you assertion that I do not care and that I am lazy and using no factual basis. I'll give you some statistics from independent studies to show you how dangerous illegal abortions are.

National Assn of Abortion Providers (the doctor's professional group) cites a study performed by the Guttmacher Institute (a nonprofit focused on studying reproductive issues) that says that pre-Roe v. Wade, estimates of illegal "back alley" abortions were as high as 1.2 million per year.

This is from NARAL (a liberal organization furthering women's rights), the organization I worked for: Pre-Roe v. Wade, as high as 5,000 women in the US died from illegal abortions each year. Also, the number of abortions performed pre-Roe v. Wade (1.2m per year) and the number of abortions estimated to be performed yearly now (1.4m per year) are quite similar (obviously more women will seek abortion if they are legal). Also consider that according to the Association of Abortion Providers, 89% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks and less than 1% occur past the 21st week.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over 78,000 women in the world die each year from illegal abortions. That is 78,000 women who were essentially denied proper medical care and were forced to resort to other means.

Now, I'll stop there simply for the fact that it doesn't matter how many statistics I cite, I'm still an ignorant liberal to you. You can go to your favorite anti-abortion organization and they'll give you statistics that are different, and it probably is somewhere in the middle.

I spent a considerable amount of time, being one of the founding members, of a NARAL Pro-Choice America group. We got funding from the national organization and we carried out all types of events on campus. We worked closely with Planned Parenthood, the university's health education department, and the local hospital to distribute free contraceptives, facts on RU-486, and host special events related to women's rights and abortion rights. One of the best things we did was our annual Roe v. Wade anniversary party where we hung coat hangers along the railings of every sidewalk on the entire campus every year.

I won't waste any more of my breath, because you've already made up your mind about me and everyone I'm associated with. Sorry to be the dose of reality to your over-inflated opinion of yourself.

Roe v. Wade will never EVER be overturned. There are millions of young Americans willing to fight to protect this right and the majority will only continue to swing the right way. Enjoy wasting your efforts and getting all bent out of shape over an Internet message board. Have you even ever been involved in any sort of real-life politicking, or are you only an Internet preacher?

SgtGideonsDad, did you see this in today's paper?

"A life-sized likeness of Barack Obama was found hanging from a tree with a noose around its neck Wednesday at the University of Kentucky, the second time in about a month such an effigy of the Democratic presidential nominee was reported on a college campus.
UK spokesman Carl Nathe said the effigy was found Wednesday morning in a high-traffic area between a classroom building and parking garage. Police immediately took it down but released no information about their investigation. "

When they do this to Obama, the police jump in and take it down right away, but when they hung an effigy of Sarah Palin, what did they do?

Um. Do you realize what you are saying? I agree that both are distasteful, but literally 50 years ago in this country we were hanging black men without trials illegally hundreds of times a year. I don't know how old you are, but my grandparents can remember lynch mobs. When is the last time we hung white women without a trial from the city in the middle of town? Also, the FBI did investigate the Sarah Palin thing, and they said it is not a hate crime to put something up like that. Maybe you should do a little searching of famous photos and look at some of the lynch mobs of smiling white people underneath dead African Americans hanging from a tree. I'll even give you a link to a photo from 1930, which some of our grand parents and great grand parents can remember: http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm18.html This type of behavior occurred until the late 60s, although it was most common in the early 20th century. I agree with you that both of them are awful and that the person who did either should be ashamed of themselves, but it is one thing to have a coffin in your front yard with a skeleton coming out of it. It is another thing altogether if you put a gold Star of David on that skeleton and a swastika on the coffin.

Matthew, I love how you like to try to sound so condescending to people who are older than you.

I am WELL aware of the history of this country, lynch mobs, etc. I had a history professor in college that was BIG time into studying and teaching about it. He was from the south and often spoke from personal experience in his lectures. I will never forget the lecture when he told us about a man he knew who kept his own "souvenir" from a lynching he had been involved in... in a jar of formaldehyde on the mantel over his fireplace. Did you know there was a lot more to "lynching" than just hanging a man from a tree? After the stories I heard from this professor, I realized that hanging a person from a tree wasn't anywhere near the worst thing they did to them. I still feel sick just remembering the things he said (and that was 20 years ago).

My point in this whole thing was, hanging a person in effigy... no matter WHAT color that person is, is WRONG. Do you think for a second that the FBI did any investigating of the Obama effigy before the police ran in there and took it down? Or did they just assume that since it was a black man, it HAD to be a "hate crime"? To paraphrase a line from the movie "The American President", 'Not a day goes by that I'm not hung in effigy somewhere.' Being hung in effigy has LONG happened to political leaders, especially the presidents of this great nation. It's NOT right, but don't expect that it will stop just because this leader is a black man. To expect that is racism in itself.

There is also no real comparison between this incident and putting "a gold Star of David on that skeleton and a swastika on the coffin." Putting the Star of David on a skeleton and a swastika on the coffin is beyond obvious in its intent and in its hatefulness towards an entire race of people. You are assuming that because they hung Obama in effigy and Obama is black, it must be a hate crime against black people. You cannot make that assumption considering the fact that he is running for President of the U.S. and all presidents are hung in effigy by someone somewhere all the time. Is it hateful? Of course it is! Just as it was hateful to hang Palin in effigy as well, but was it directed at race? I doubt it, it was more likely a political statement, it IS that time of year you know. If Obama is elected president, is it suddenly going to have more meaning when we see pictures of people in foreign countries hanging and burning effigies of him than it does when we see pictures of them doing the very same thing to George Bush? Sorry, but that's going far beyond the statement "All men are created equal." Tipping the scales in the opposite direction is no better and no more fair than the past we are trying to free ourselves from.

Matthew,

First of all, you still avoid the main point that abortion is killing a human being. Cite all sorts of statistics, your avoidance of this fundamental issue speaks volumes.

Secondly, do you really expect that NARAL and an Abortion advocacy group are accurate w/ their statistics?

These numbers have been exaggerated, to say the least:
http://www.abortion.org.nz/about-abortion/controversy/17/
http://fathersforlife.org/health/abortion.htm

And you cite 78K women dying from illegal abortions...how about the number from legal abortions? They aren't safe. And that's a direct cause...peer-reviewed, well-documented studies connecting abortions and breast cancer are numerous.

I don't think you're ignorant...I think you're dishonest. You WANT to keep abortions legal so you create data to support your position. And I think you're lazy, b/c you take the easy way out instead of doing the work to see if you position really holds up under analysis. You take the easy way, and let millions suffer and/or die, while you pretend you care about people. Yeah, that irks me.

I don't understand what there is to analyze. You say that little bundles of cells are people and I say they aren't. Who exactly are we supposed to ask to analyze this? God (if there is one, and which one if there is?)? I think we will just have to disagree on this, which I can understand. To me, the primacy over one's own body is more important the moral/ethical issue that you side with. I can understand both sides, but I value an individual's right to self-determine. We should do everything we can to stop abortions from happening in the first place via sex education, free contraceptives, everything you can think of, but to deny someone the right to do as they wish with their own body is plain wrong to me.

I said in my previous reply that the stats would be different at "your favorite pro-life organization." Neither are probably correct, but statistics aren't exactly kept very accurately so we will never really know other than too many abortions and too many deaths.

You're saying, as a man who can never bear a child, that you can tell a woman what to do with her body. I have a fundamental problem with that, and to me that is the real issue here. I don't want to argue because both of us are already set in our ways, I'm just trying to figure out what it is that motivates the other side (for future reference), and I think you have given me a great insight.

Susan, I agree with a lot of what you say in terms of having an emotional revulsion to abortion. Here are the gray areas I see, though:

The pregnancy causes a high risk to the mother's survival
In the case of rape or incest

I mean McCain supports abortion in those cases as well, as I would hope everyone here knows.

The real question that is really sticky here is figuring out when the embryo is really a baby, right? Are four cells beginning to split up a baby? It's an insane choice to have to make. If a woman has a very early miscarriage, is a death certificate issued?

I am personally highly against late-term abortions and wouldn't at all be disappointed if they were outlawed forever. This is currently allowable and often the case on a state level, along with a lot of other restrictions placed on abortion options. I agree that in the case of merely accidental or inconvenient pregnancies that it's unfortunate that abortion is such a pedestrian option (even though it's certainly nothing that anyone who goes through it takes lightly, I'm sure). The vastly superior strategy is improved sex education and contraceptive methods. If there could be a compromise to cut abortion down the limited cases above and move forward with an honest and effect sex education program, I would probably be down with. The problem in recent years, from my standpoint, is that the same people most strongly in favor of outlawing abortion -- the Christian Right -- also tend to be the ones most opposed to realistic sex education. Look no further than the Palin family for evidence of that. If we could change that, then I think real progress could be made on the issue.

***

About Palin's noose -- it's pretty awful, for sure. If I were the city, I'd insist on them taking it down. There is a lot of added racial baggage re: the lynch mobs, though, you have to admit. And in the case of the Ohio man who did it, he even flat-out told authorities that he simply didn't want to see an black man as his president, which takes a lot of the guesswork out of what he meant by it.

Susan, I caught the story of Obama hanging in effigy.
I don't how to say this to you except to say it's only half
as offensive to hang a woman in effigy as it is to hang
a black man.But hey! you do have the right to kill your
baby and with Matthews help it will be federally funded.

SgtG'sDad, sadly, you appear to be right.

A humorous commentary on Halloween and Obama and Socialism...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444586,00.html
My favorite part: "Anyway, faced with a mandatory costume policy, the PWB interns declared a moratorium on actual productive endeavors until they could cook up a costume scheme that everyone in the office was happy with. I suggested we all go as Obamatrons… we could walk around all night in our best stiff-legged zombie fashion with little toy unicorns and fairies sewed to the seats of our trousers like so many happy promises flying out our butts. "

Obama isn't proposing any changes whatsoever in abortion laws. Why do you keep acting like he's going to make anything "worse?"

I'm curious what you would think of the compromise of increasing sex education programs and research into contraceptive methods as a trade-off for limiting abortion to rape, incest and extreme harm to the mother's health.

Matthew,
The only 'insight' a good set of morals requires on this subject is this. Murder is muder. Killing is killing. Babies are a live. Question....is an ameba alive? Single cell, what did biology tell you in school. What does science say? Is an amaba living? IF you can agree it is alive, then surley you see a multicelled bundle of cells is living also. This IS a CHILD. It will not grow into a chicken or a donkey or an elephant. It will become only ONE THING...the thing that it was at conception...and that is a HUMAN...preiod.

I'm curious Matt, who would provide the sex education programs and research into
contraceptive methods? surely not the state, since they already provide comprehensive
sex education and condom on cucumber classes, and still the Planned Parenthood
death camps just churn away..

And, back to Obama. Remember the students who hung Palin in effigy, and got away with it? Well, those students who hung the big O in effigy got arrested:

"Two arrested in connection with Obama effigy

By Beth Musgrave - bmusgrave@herald-leader.com

University of Kentucky officials announced the arrest of a student and his friend in connection with an effigy of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama that was found on the campus Wednesday.

UK police said the two men told them the act was in response to news reports of an effigy of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in California.


Bush and Fischer were charged with Obama effigy on October 30, 2008.

* Related Story UK students, leaders decry effigy of Obama * Related Story Noosed Palin mannequin removed from front yard

Click here to find out more!

Joe Fischer, 22, a UK senior and once a football team walk-on, and a friend, Hunter Bush, 21, were charged Thursday with burglary, theft and disorderly conduct.

Police said items to make the effigy were stolen from a fraternity house and that Fischer and Bush turned themselves in Thursday.


"

SGD - yeah, I'd say the state should look into better programs. In the end, it's not the state's fault if kids are having unprotected sex and getting pregnant of course, but it's in everyone's best interest to do what they can to help the situation, I think.

Happy -- it says right in your post that they were arrested for burglary, theft and disorderly conduct, not a hate crime. As far as federal law, something like this can't really fall into the category of "hate crime" since it's covered by free speech (sort of the reason that the KKK still have parades).

But, the goons who hung Palin in effigy got off scot free.

Right -- they didn't steal anything to make the effigy and they put it up on their own private property, not school grounds.

"You say that little bundles of cells are people and I say they aren't. Who exactly are we supposed to ask to analyze this?"

If you need to ask this then you really shouldn't be taking a position. I would say it is a clear indictment on your laziness. This is THE fundamental question. To toss it aside casually (and then take a position) is precisely the dishonesty and laziness I referred to.

First step, as danimal pointed out, is to define life. What is life? Even 9th grade biology textbooks recognize this (and offer rather cumbersome definitions).

Secondly, define what "human" life is. You can use genetics or other source for your definition. It's a non-trivial exercise, but not too difficult. It is a hot topic in bioethics today, given the work in cloning, genetic modification, organ donation, prosthetics, etc. But fortunately, those subtleties don't exist in this discussion.

Ok, so once you've defined "living" and "human" you can see if your "bundle of cells" fits that definition. It inevitably will. I have seen some definitions that would exclude a fetus in the first trimester. I'm even willing to make that compromise, providing the debate continues, because those are rather contrived definitions, but I'd be glad to cement in progress.