Just an Obama question...

[Arne]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Free speech doesn't apply here buddy. Private "organization" with rules.

That are made by mavdog?

I've seen people post Obama as a muslim terrorist, I've seen Hitler being posted, I've seen questionable images that made fun of the muslim religion without even giving special information by posting those. Why should my video, in which the propaganda was certainly not at the center, be permitted?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

Oh okay, but I think that's not what I call freedom of speech. I was clearly referencing to what she said. But it just goes to show that you think that people can't make up their mind themselves, therefore we have to protect people from seeing things that contain information as well as propaganda.

do individuals have the right under "freedom of speech" to promote lies, falsehoods?

personally I do not believe that is true.

"freedom of speech" does not include slander or libel.

And in addition I would read "Mein Kampf" any time, if there's very useful historical information in it that I want to see. Does that make me a Nazi?

only if you promote it as a work to be followed and recognized as truth.

[Arne]

Madeleine Albright does think the sanctions were worth it. So the content of the video (not the text by some kid) is truth. She might find it bad that the children died, but she would not change policy to prevent it.

I did not promote anti-israel propaganda.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Can anyone give me the reason as to why Obama didn't support a live birth abortion ban? I know this has probably been discussed, but could someone elaborate on his stance?

he's caught in the abortion rights conundrum.

it's reflected in the response at the church a few weeks ago, when he was asked when he sees life beginning, he didn't answer the question but did the shuffle by saying he didn't know, the answer "is above my paygrade".

he should be honest and say that "life" begins at conception, as the egg is fertilized and begins to divide...clearly it is a living thing. maybe not a human yet, but it is living nonetheless, and he supports the right of a woman to terminate that pregnancy up until a certain point of gestation.

but he didn't, he acted like a politician not wanting to lose a voter.

if he votes for the bill, he votes to place criminal penalties on someone performing a late term abortion if the fetus shows the signs of life outlined. with the efforts to stop the right of a woman to have an abortion there is the everpresent concern that those who want to prohibit the woman from having an abortion acheive that goal by enacting laws that don't outlaw abortions but criminalize its result.

is he lying? perhaps, but more likely he is just not being honest. there is a difference don't you think?

[DirkFTW]

depends on what the definition of is is.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

he's caught in the abortion rights conundrum.

it's reflected in the response at the church a few weeks ago, when he was asked when he sees life beginning, he didn't answer the question but did the shuffle by saying he didn't know, the answer "is above my paygrade".

he should be honest and say that "life" begins at conception, as the egg is fertilized and begins to divide...clearly it is a living thing. maybe not a human yet, but it is living nonetheless, and he supports the right of a woman to terminate that pregnancy up until a certain point of gestation.

but he didn't, he acted like a politician not wanting to lose a voter.

if he votes for the bill, he votes to place criminal penalties on someone performing a late term abortion if the fetus shows the signs of life outlined. with the efforts to stop the right of a woman to have an abortion there is the everpresent concern that those who want to prohibit the woman from having an abortion acheive that goal by enacting laws that don't outlaw abortions but criminalize its result.

is he lying? perhaps, but more likely he is just not being honest. there is a difference don't you think?

This is what scares me about Obama. He more than most seems willing to do anything for a vote. I don't believe that there is a thing that he would not do to win a vote. Typically, I wouldn't say that about alot of Democrats. Usually there is a line that they won't cross. I don't think Obama has that line. Well, it has to be there somewhere, but it's way out of whack compared to even most other politicians.

Frankly, I'm scared of what he'll do if he receives the nomination. He has no moral compass whatsoever. His only compass to this point is to get elected at all costs. I know that the cynics will say that the same is true with all politicians.. But I just don't believe that it's true to the same extent as with Obama. And honestly, there are too many ties that he has that I'm just not comfortable with. With the Republicans, I actually feel that they are good people that want to put the U.S. first. While I don't agree with much of what they believe in, I do trust their intent. With Obama,... he scares the living hell out of me.

And was he lying? Absolutely.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

is he lying? perhaps, but more likely he is just not being honest. there is a difference don't you think?

Um, of course he's lying. He said he has always supported treating any born infant, regardless of the cause of birth. And then I posted direct quotes of him speaking against a bill the supported the same thing. He claimed that the bill went further than the national bill, and it did not. Read it for yourself, I linked it.

And that bill did NOT do what you described. It did NOT place penalties on someone performing an abortion on a late term fetus. It placed penalties on someone not treating an infant born alive as the result of abortion.