[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Obama didn't seem to question the veracity of the witnesses. Why would it be helpful for you or I to do so when we are trying to figure out why Obama voted the way he did? (I think Obama's solution was to build "comfort rooms" so they would have a nice place to refuse to treat the baby, rather than leave them in a linen closet.) And I'm not questioning anyone's veracity except Obama's. If the attorney general were to stand up and say, "we'd been prosecuting people for letting babies die after failed abortions." I'd believe him. But he didn't say that. He said something more like, "under that old law, I can't prosecute them for letting babies die after failed abortions."

no, obama is not going to grandstand and challenge what the witness says, as any politician heading a hearing does he thanks the person and moves on.

the point I made was that you challenge everyone involved who is on the other side of the issue , using the word "lies", and you take as certain statements by those who support your position.

a very credible situation is the attorney general isn't prosecuting people because they aren't breaking the law. the law is on the books, and there are many qualified people who have the opinion that it is adequate.

I believe them. you don't.

That that was public record, and was the reason that the new law was proposed leads me to believe that Obama knew about it. If you want to believe that Obama didn't know about it, then you must think that Obama is just about the worst legistlator in the history of legistlators.

no, the reason the new law was proposed (in the view of many legislators and doctors) was to restrict a woman's right to obtain an abortion by way of the proscribed regs in the proposed law.

[eyeroll] First, this isn't the argument Obama keeps repeating to the public. This had nothing to do with the paragraph he said it requred, and was never part of his, "there is already a law" argument. From the debate you quoted:
Obama's position is incredible, which is why he's been trying to obscure it with different stories.
Second, I view it as beneficial to have laws protecting the lives of innocents. You obviously don't want any laws governing medical practice. (oooh, that is an easy tactic!)

I think that the fact that you are having such a hard time rationalizing Obama's votes is pretty good evidence of just how far to the extreme left he is.

what? there is not a "hard time rationalizing", in fact there are several reasons for opposing the new law. of course, you view having multiple reasons for opposition as evidence that the reasons must be "lies'.

there ARE laws in Illinois governing medical practice. that is the point! they don't need more.

obama is not "repeating to the public" the responses that I have given to your demonizing of the doctors. he doesn't typically need to respond to people who do what you have done, portraying doctors as people who have no desire to provide care when it is needed.