Obama's Conditional Respect for Fatherhood
Barack Obama will speak about the "importance of fatherhood" today.
I can only assume he means conditional fatherhood. After all it's difficult to square his support of infanticide and the idea of mistaken babies that are, after all, just a punishment, with the responsibilities of being a father through good times and bad.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:32 AM
Comments
Yes, I will "lay that on him". He doesn't deserve the title "leader of the free world". He is the "leader of genocide".
Infants are people, too. Infanticide at the level of 50,000,000 American lives is American genocide. The buck stops with Obama. He's in the White House now.
Posted by: laura at June 19, 2009 12:54 PM (JFvHi)
Posted by: James at June 19, 2009 01:26 PM (hLgY7)
So explain to me again why our executive leader dislikes punishing irresponsible behavior? Teach the consequences of the actions, and let that be a deterrent--don't just excuse the behavior as a mistake if they're informed and do it anyway!
How can a president ever discipline a bureaucracy if he dislikes 'punishing' slackers with the just and reasonable consequences of their actions???
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 19, 2009 02:39 PM (ESqOI)
Posted by: Roger Knight at June 19, 2009 03:49 PM (WwcoK)
Posted by: zhombre at June 19, 2009 05:03 PM (BaaTP)
Barack Obama has the "Black Community" in his back pocket, yet his policies (both societal and fiscal) are ruining it. If people would sit down and THINK about what this man is doing, and how his agenda leads to despotism and tyranny, they'd be calling for his head. Unfortunately, liberal "education" and media propaganda have made a huge portion of our population into helpless waifs.
Posted by: John at June 19, 2009 06:43 PM (gCbiR)
Equivocation is NOT your friend, folks!
Posted by: Diogenes at June 20, 2009 01:45 AM (SdFiI)
Equivocation is NOT your friend, folks!"
It is Obama who does not differentiate. They are all sacrificed at the door of the woman's right to choose.
What is the difference between a new born and an infant?
Posted by: davod at June 20, 2009 03:54 AM (GUZAT)
But keep up the abortion rhetoric and lets watch as the country moves more to the left and is socialized. I for one feel that your emphasis on trying to get laws passed to control women and couples difficult decisions as one of the main reasons for the increasing powere of the left as you are chasing off a larger proportion of conservatives that feel it is ok for women to take control of themselves and not rely on the state to do so. Thus we can never be organized to repel the socialist as we must always worry that the religious right is going to be placed in power. Abortion is out of the box, it is not going back in not matter what you do or say, so get off it. As to Obama, he sucks and the only thing that is good about his administration is that we might have a split in the country and can once again be free.
Posted by: David at June 20, 2009 06:07 PM (i0TVe)
"But keep up the abolitionist rhetoric and lets watch as the country moves more to the slave-state side."
Pretty stupid reasoning, even for an abortion-worshipping Moby. Does he honestly think anyone is falling for his token "Obama sucks line?" Probably gets off looking at pictures of aborted fetuses, or something.
Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at June 21, 2009 03:11 PM (6XMIC)
Posted by: Cindi at June 21, 2009 06:41 PM (/8Bs3)
David, who are you that you have the power to "order" abortions? By your illiterate writing 'skills' I can see you lack sufficient education to be a doctor. Also no doctor would ever refer to living cells as "lifeless tissue" even if they doubt sentience.
I smell a lie. You're claiming to have experience that should give you authority but your ethos simply fails: your ignorance gives you away.
Stop polluting the libertarian argument with your ineptitude.
Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 21, 2009 07:06 PM (6H6xG)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 21, 2009 07:37 PM (WjpSC)
Dave should watch this video and then try to explain that what you see being pulled out of the womb is actually "lifeless tissue"..
Posted by: SparkyOreily at June 22, 2009 11:47 AM (JbDFp)
I found the video that you recommended to be interesting in its propaganda style. Note that it is sponsored by the Catholic Church which has long used sex to control its advocates. Most of the fetuses were in the late second trimester to early third trimester stages. Most abortions are first to early trimester. After that many doctor’s with counsel having the child. As to the dismemberment, ask yourself why the church would do that. This is their video and is obviously staged. Unless there is a problem in dilating the cervix, the material usually comes out much more intact. As you can see in the video the tissue is human formed but lifeless as there is no breathing or heart action. Thus does not meet the criteria for life as we define it. You will note that no one post the pictures of children that have been tortured by their parents and loved ones because they were a burden. Believe me that you do not want to see that.
As to the comparison to slavery issues in 1860, I do have a problem with the actions of the Federal government at that time. Slavery was a legitimate enterprise that the whole country was participating in. It was a substantial economic investment in the South and certain Yankee cities that provided the finances, ships, markets, insurance and every other aspect of the business that was necessary. The Federal government tried to make it part of their agenda even though they did not have the constitutional power to do so, thus one of the first intrusions into our lives and business that has progressively escalated to this day. Without this intrusion, slavery would have peacefully gone its way and Blacks would have been accepted into our society in a much better manner than has occurred. As it is, the religious of the day wanted their way and pushed until the country was torn apart and has not mended to this day.
But my point is that a large proportion of people feel uncomfortable with religion and morals should not be in the government any more than socialism. They feel that abortion is the rallying point for the religious and their attempts to push an agenda down our throats like the socialist; all of this without constitutional authority. We are all conservatives and want a different path for the country than the one being mapped out in Washington now. The problem is that those of us who do not have a religious agenda feel that by joining with the church groups, we are only trading one overbearing group for another. To beat Obama we need a united front that everyone can live with. If you harp on abortion, you are going to drive away people like myself who want the government out of all my affairs. Of course, if the country should split, I can live with that too. If you want to limit abortion, get your preachers to do their jobs and increase the moral content of the country, don’t try and legislate it.
Posted by: David at June 22, 2009 04:13 PM (i0TVe)
Posted by: SparkyOreily at June 25, 2009 02:58 PM (JbDFp)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0143 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0109 seconds, 24 records returned.
Page size 16 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.