T1B

poptart wrote:

Porter wrote:(Palin is) a piece of eye candy with incredibly extremist views

What are her incredibly extremist views?

BSmack wrote:

Nishlord wrote:You're all wrong.

The Balkans.

I know mv's repeated postings regarding his desire to initiate "ethnic cleansing" can be distracting, but I'm not seeing that comparison. But do feel free to elaborate on your thought.

I can imagine The Pope reading from the Quran too.

Dinsdale wrote:

no-F-N-Joke wrote: I'm throwing my hat in for the Ottoman Empire, to many similarities.

Nishlord wrote:You're all wrong.

The Balkans.

Wow... it's generally the Ugly Americans that need to be told to "crack a fucking book sometime."


Unless that was some weird reference to Americans being forced into Islam?

JayDuck wrote:
Or I could just look at the polling data, which has Obama leading McCain among voters with a college education.

JayDuck wrote:

poptart wrote:

Porter wrote:(Palin is) a piece of eye candy with incredibly extremist views

What are her incredibly extremist views?

Well, she's not only a pro-lifer, but was been an abortion clinic protester, impeding patients rights at legal medical facilities.

She believes that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth together.

She believes in speaking in tongues and divine healing.

Those are all extremist views, close to as far along that end of the spectrum as you can get.

PSUFAN wrote:
Do you think Palin's shaved, or does she have a thick pelt of of fishwig?

PSUFAN wrote:Why is Larry Flynt so silent? 10 years ago he would have already offered Palin 15 million to churn her butter in his rag.

PSUFAN wrote:tight, dark, eraser nips...or full, lush, pink rosy areolae?

poptart wrote:

Porter wrote:(Palin is) a piece of eye candy with incredibly extremist views

What are her incredibly extremist views?

B.O., on the other hand, is undeniably ... FAR left.

mvscal wrote:

_Porter_ wrote:but Rev. Wright's views represent those of a majority of black preachers around the country. I've been to one service, therefore it must be true :D. Seriously, rule #1 of speaking before a crowd is "know your audience". He's saying what his congregation wants to hear.

Is that supposed to make it OK? Maybe the rest of the country isn't interested in the views of a bunch of motherfucking n...iggers.

pron wrote:My man Larry is on top of it.

mvscal wrote:

_Porter_ wrote:So a 14 y/o kid who is raped by her own father is supposed to raise and love that child like she would a kid conceived in a normal relationship?

Never heard of adoption? Of course you have. You're just full of shit that's all.

mvscal wrote:

_Porter_ wrote:So a 14 y/o kid who is raped by her own father is supposed to raise and love that child like she would a kid conceived in a normal relationship?

Never heard of adoption? Of course you have. You're just full of shit that's all.

_Porter_ wrote:

poptart wrote: What are her incredibly extremist views?

Off the top of my head, no abortions in cases of incest and rape are not only extremist, but fucking disgusting. So a 14 y/o kid who is raped by her own father is supposed to raise and love that child like she would a kid conceived in a normal relationship?

_Porter_ wrote:Obama chose a guy, who while he annoyingly speaks in the third person way too often, is highly experienced and if anything is more than qualified for the job,

When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

Mister Bushice wrote:Odd how the Media has roasted Palin for her idiotic statements, but Bidens seem to be overlooked?

Mister Bushice wrote:So far there have been stories published on major news outlets about her husbands background, her children, her daughters pregnancy, the boyfriend, supposed nude photos from when she was younger, a half dozen or so speaking gaffes she's recently made and,

Biden? Nothing. No stories about his family, nothing about his past, and he's not being featured on SNL as a dopey no nothing. They rank on Hilary instead of him.

Biden has pretty much skated under the radar. No one in the media is investigating his life to the extent they are Palins.

Smackie Chan wrote:The fact is that those who report the news have a fairly good idea of what the public wants to hear about, and Biden ain't it.

War Wagon wrote:Sarah became an instant sensation... and a real threat to Obama's mandate by pre-ordained landslide. That's why the liberal media (and liberal posters) attack her with such ferocity.

They focus on her gaffe's and try to summarily dismiss her as an air-head, while looking the other way and barely mentioning Biden's equally moronic gaffes.

It's not fair, but nobody said politics was. She knew what she was getting into, or should have.

But despite the media and to libs eternal chagrin, American voters tend to make up their own minds.

Mister Bushice wrote:No argument about Bidens boring life, but since they've both been veeped, the news is all about trying to trip up Palin, and not so much Biden, despite the fact he's got an equal chance of coming across as stupid.

Mister Bushice wrote:No argument about Bidens boring life, but since they've both been veeped, the news is all about trying to trip up Palin, and not so much Biden, despite the fact he's got an equal chance of coming across as stupid.

Mister Bushice wrote:Biden? Nothing. No stories about his family, nothing about his past, and he's not being featured on SNL as a dopey no nothing.

Smackie Chan wrote: I see this campaign as being cleaner than those of recent election years. No Karl Rove as political strategist

War Wagon wrote:

_Porter_ wrote:
Off the top of my head, no abortions in cases of incest and rape are not only extremist, but fucking disgusting. So a 14 y/o kid who is raped by her own father is supposed to raise and love that child like she would a kid conceived in a normal relationship?

Great example, _Porter_.

God only knows what percentage of abortions are a direct result of fathers raping their 14 year old daughters.

poptart wrote:as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor --

The most telling debate Barack Obama ever had was not with John McCain but Patrick O’Malley, who served with Obama in the Illinois Senate and engaged Obama in a colloquy every American should read.

The Obama-O’Malley debate was a defining moment for Obama because it dealt with such a fundamental issue: The state’s duty to protect the civil rights of the young and disabled.

Some background: Eight years ago, nurse Jill Stanek went public about the “induced-labor abortions” performed at the Illinois hospital where she worked. Often done on Down syndrome babies, the procedure involved medicating the mother to cause premature labor.

Babies who survived this, Stanek testified in the U.S. Congress, were brought to a soiled linen room and left alone to die without care or comforting.

Then-Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley, whom I interviewed this week, contacted the state attorney general’s office to see whether existing laws protected a newborn abortion-survivor’s rights as a U.S. citizen. He was told they did not.

So, O’Malley—a lawyer, veteran lawmaker and colleague of Obama on the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee—drafted legislation.

In 2001, he introduced three bills. SB1093 said if a doctor performing an abortion believed there was a likelihood the baby would survive, another physician must be present “to assess the child’s viability and provide medical care.” SB1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child’s rights. SB1095 simply said a baby alive after “complete expulsion or extraction from its mother” would be considered a “’person, ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.’”

The bills dealt exclusively with born children. “This legislation was about preventing conduct that allowed infanticide to take place in the state of Illinois,” O’Malley told me.

The Judiciary Committee approved the bills with Obama in opposition. On March 31, 2001, they came up on the Illinois senate floor. Only one member spoke against them: Obama.

“Nobody else said anything,” O’Malley recalls. The official transcript validates this.

“Sen. O’Malley,” Obama said near the beginning of the discussion, “the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was—is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the—the fetus or child, as—as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb.”

Obama made three crucial concessions here: the legislation was about 1) a human being, who was 2) “alive” and 3) “outside the womb.”

He also used an odd redundancy: “temporarily alive.” Is there another type of human?

“And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living,” Obama continued.

Here he made another crucial concession: The intention of the legislation was to make sure that 1) a human being, 2) alive and 3) outside the womb was 4) “properly cared for.”

“Is that correct?” Obama asked O’Malley.

O’Malley tightened the logical knot. “(T)his bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a—a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States,” said O’Malley.

But to these specific temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb-human beings—to these children who had survived a botched abortion, whose hearts were beating, whose muscles were moving, whose lungs were heaving—to these specific children of God, Obama was not willing to concede any constitutional rights at all.

To explain his position, Obama came up with yet another term to describe the human being who would be protected by O’Malley’s bills. The abortion survivor became a “pre-viable fetus.”

By definition, however, a born baby cannot be a “fetus.” Merriam-Webster Online defines “fetus” as an “unborn or unhatched vertebrate” or “a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” Obama had already conceded these human beings were “alive outside the womb.”

“No. 1,” said Obama, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a—a child, a nine-month-old—child that was delivered to term.”

Yes. In other words, a baby born alive at 37 weeks is just as much a human “person” as a baby born alive at 22 weeks.

Obama, however, saw a problem with calling abortion survivors “persons.” “I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions,” said Obama, “because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a “person” entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother’s uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

_Porter_ wrote:...it's pretty stupid that voters have this conversation every election cycle when it should be somewhere around #23 on the list of important topics in any years election.

poptart wrote:Porter, if anyone finds B.O.'s abortion position easier to digest than Sarah Palin's, well ... they're just straight up sick in the fucking head.

http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJ ... idate_ever

He is so pro-abortion he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede -- as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor -- that these babies, fully outside their mothers' wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact "persons."
"Persons," of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

JaySuck wrote:You're a fucking moron. Obama's position was that the laws on the books already covered the survivors and there didn't need to be new legislation specific for that case.

poptart wrote:

JaySuck wrote:You're a fucking moron. Obama's position was that the laws on the books already covered the survivors and there didn't need to be new legislation specific for that case.

No, you're a fucking liar.

The 'laws on the books' clearly do NOT 'cover survivors.'

Read the link and sftu, asshead.


Your messiah is a piece of shit liar, as are you.