Just an Obama question...

[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?

[jthig32]

Some of the provisions provided in the bill required doctors to treat children born during an abortion as...well....children.

So defining a child that is still alive upon birth during an abortion would give it protection from the actual act of abortion itself.

Basically the point is, the abortion takes place while the "fetus" is still "previable". But then during the procedure the baby is born, alive and breathing, and the bill wanted that baby considered a human being "previable" designation be damned. And Obama's point was considering a "previable fetus" a human and protected from abortion would set an undesireable precedent.

[Murphy3]

that's pretty much what I thought..thanks.

[jthig32]

I haven't provided my opinion one way or the other. Simply given you fact. I actually found a transcript of a senate session where he said the things I just paraphrased.

[chumdawg]

He voted against it because, as thiggy described, the bill was introduced as a back-door strategy to overturn Roe...and he is pro-choice.

How many living and breathing babies are murdered, after all? What was the need for this bill, if not a political means to an end?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

He voted against it because, as thiggy described, the bill was introduced as a back-door strategy to overturn Roe...and he is pro-choice.

How many living and breathing babies are murdered, after all? What was the need for this bill, if not a political means to an end?

No, no no. It was not a backdoor. He used the backdoor excuse as a reason to vote against it. A BORN "previable fetus" is still a legal distinction between an UNBORN "previable fetus" last time I checked.

The need for the bill was to treat living breathing human babies like freaking living breathing human babies.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How many living and breathing babies are murdered, after all?

Isn't one far, far too many? That was a shockingly flippant statement.

[DirkFTW]

jthig is spot on. Just thought I'd second his explanation.

[Murphy3]

Surely no rational human being could support his decision or reasoning.

As a human being with no party affiliation that cares about and loves his country, Obama is a scary man.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Isn't one far, far too many? That was a shockingly flippant statement.

Of course one is far too many. Where is there evidence that there indeed IS even one?

I mean, come on, what are you saying here? That mothers deliver a baby and then say "kill it"? And that doctors then do so? And that this goes unprosecuted?

Really? You'd have to show me the evidence, because I can't believe that all of those things happen.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Surely no rational human being could support his decision or reasoning.

As a human being with no party affiliation that cares about and loves his country, Obama is a scary man.

From the mouths of nuns.

[jthig32]

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.
The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.
Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed. In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

Link

Now granted, this is from an obviously biased site. But unless this woman is out and out lying to the point that she testified to two different committees on the subject, there's your evidence.

It doesn't happen as you portrayed; a mother to be doesn't just change her mind.
What happens is the child comes out of the womb still breathing as part of the abortion, and the doctors leave it lying around to die.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

What happens is the child comes out of the womb still breathing as part of the abortion, and the doctors leave it lying around to die.

I'm a lot more inclined to believe that the bill was a political ploy than to believe that mothers and doctors leave a living child around to die.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to believe that a doctor could get away with that.

I'm sorry, but the whole thing just runs afoul of basic human instinct.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm a lot more inclined to believe that the bill was a political ploy than to believe that mothers and doctors leave a living child around to die.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to believe that a doctor could get away with that.

I'm sorry, but the whole thing just runs afoul of basic human instinct.

Man..so does sucking a late-term babies brains out. There's nothing normal about abortion, it's killing a baby, no two ways about it.

You can rationalize it to make you feel okay with it and I can understand it, but when you get down to it, it's killing a living growing human being.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm a lot more inclined to believe that the bill was a political ploy than to believe that mothers and doctors leave a living child around to die.

In fact, I'm hard pressed to believe that a doctor could get away with that.

I'm sorry, but the whole thing just runs afoul of basic human instinct.

Well you're wrong.

From the full testimony of what I posted above:

But what was most distressing was to learn of the method Christ Hospital uses to abort, called induced labor abortion, now also known as "live birth abortion." In this particular abortion procedure doctors do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.

To commit induced labor abortion, a doctor or resident inserts a medication into the mother’s birth canal close to the cervix. The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant and ready to deliver. This medication irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. When this occurs, the small second or third trimester pre-term, fully formed baby falls out of the uterus, sometimes alive. By law, if an aborted baby is born alive, both birth and death certificates must be issued. Ironically, at Christ Hospital the cause of death often listed for live aborted babies is "extreme prematurity," an acknowledgement by doctors that they have caused this death.

It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Some of the babies aborted are healthy, because Christ Hospital will also abort for life or "health" of the mother, and also for rape or incest.

In the event that an aborted baby is born alive, she or he receives "comfort care," defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until s/he dies. Parents may hold the baby if they wish. If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby until s/he dies. If staff did does not have the time or desire to hold the baby, s/he is taken to Christ Hospital’s new Comfort Room, which is complete with a First Foto machine if parents want professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking a Down’s syndrome baby who was aborted alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was between 21 and 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I could not tell if he was still alive. I held him up to the light to see through his chest wall whether his heart was still beating. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Link

As Dude pointed out, pro-choicers have fought like hell to allow doctors to deliver half the baby and then suck their brains out. You really think they don't do what is detailed above?

[Murphy3]

Live birth abortions aren't completely uncommon. Most of the time, you'll hear about live birth abortions in connection to downs syndrome babies. But yeah, the mother's are induced and the babies are left to die. What is sick is that they wait until the babies are 22-26 weeks gestation and induce labor. So, the baby is viable but left to die.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'm sorry, but the whole thing just runs afoul of basic human instinct.

I think this is exactly why the Federal bill passed with only 15 out of 433 opposed in the House and passed unanimously in the Senate. NARAL did not oppose the bill.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Well you're wrong.

From the full testimony of what I posted above:


Link

Well, if that's the case, then I've learned something today. I didn't realize that a lot of women left their babies to die.

[Murphy3]

....and now you know what Obama supports.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

....and now you know what Obama supports.

I already knew he supported allowing mothers to kill their babies or let them live. The circumstances may appear different, but the end result is not.

[Murphy3]

No, the end result is not. I'd also say that the end result isn't the same for putting someone to death via the miracle of the electric chair. Someone still dies.

And, I can't say that I support either. I'm definitely pro life.... all the way around. I don't believe in executions. I don't believe in abortions. But damn, this live birth abortion thing is the absolutely sickest and cruelest thing to support imaginable. I don't believe in putting anyone to death, but anyone that supports live birth abortions gets pretty damn close to making me change my opinion.

[Flacolaco]

This seriously saddens me....the thought of any of that stuff above that thig posted. This is truly one of man kinds most wicked of activities.

[Murphy3]

I know. You cannot imagine how sickened I was.

And trust me, I know how screwed up the health care profession can be. I used to work in it. I've been there when an elderly woman was being kept alive with burns over nearly 90% of her body. She had absolutely no hope of living. She didn't want to live. Amazingly enough, she could still somewhat communicate. But, there was no one there to sign the paperwork to withdraw care until her kids could make it in about 3-4 days later.

This woman needlessly went through the most excruciating pain imaginable when she was burned. Obviously, she was in constant pain, but she basically relived the pain every time she was treated.. every time her bandages were changed and more and more of her skin fell off. It was hard for the nurses to even find a place to bandage her because everything was burnt.

With all of this being said, the rules were in place for a reason. At some point, the rules were passed to basically cover the hospital's ass from possible lawsuits. I suppose I understand. I do. It was as absolutely inhumane as anything that I thought I could ever imagine a hospital could do.. until now. What Obama supports blows anything that I have ever seen out of the water. How could this be allowed to happen?

I'll have difficulty sleeping tonight. I know that I never should have revisited the live birth abortion issue. It is disgusting.. reprehensible.. It's something that you'd imagine Hitler doing to a Jewish born baby.

[DirkFTW]

Sorry Murph...

'I survived an abortion attempt'
By Jane Elliott
BBC News website health reporter

Gianna Jessen's mother was seven-and-a-half months pregnant when it was decided to abort the foetus she was carrying. A saline solution was injected into Gianna's mother's womb, which doctors thought would kill the foetus within hours. This time, most unusually, the procedure failed and Gianna was born alive, thanks in part to a shocked nurse.

She was so taken aback by Gianna's live delivery that she summoned an ambulance to whisk her from the abortion clinic to the hospital. She weighed only two pounds at birth and needed to stay in hospital for nearly three months. In an ironic twist of fate the abortionist had to sign her birth certificate. Now American-born Gianna, aged 28, is in London to give her message against abortion.

Unusual case

Pro-choice groups say that while hers is a distressing story it is unusual and that guidelines are in place in the UK to stop live births after abortions. The legal limit for abortion in the UK is 24 weeks. The only exceptions to this is where a woman's life is in danger or if there is a real risk that the child, if born, would have a severe physical or mental disability. In those cases, there is no legal time limit.

Gianna, a committed Christian, is opposed to abortion. She has cerebral palsy as a direct result of the procedure carried out on her in the womb. "The saline solution injected into the mother is to burn the baby, which gulps it in the womb," she said. "But after being literally burned alive for 18 hours I was delivered live. It says on my records that I was born after a saline abortion. I was not expected to be delivered live but fortunately for me the abortionist was not in the clinic when I arrived alive instead of dead. I was born about 6am and my 'birth' was not expected until about 9am, when he would be arriving for his office hours. There were many witnesses to my entry into this world. My biological mother and other young girls at the clinic, who also awaited the death of their babies, were the first to greet me and I am told this was a hysterical moment."

Bleak outlook

Initially the prognosis for Gianna, who comes from Tennessee, was poor. Because of her cerebral palsy her foster mother was told that she was unlikely to ever crawl or walk. She, however, was determined and eventually learned to sit, crawl and then stand. She started to walk with leg braces and by the age of four was walking with the aid of a walker - now she walks without any assistance. She refuses to let her cerebral palsy blight her life and is currently training for the London marathon.

But she says her determination can cause her problems. "I am often misunderstood, which is often the most painful. My determination not to give up is often misunderstood as being over confident. But it is not that. I am just determined not to give up. I am just not a quitter. Being almost murdered in the womb and then having to struggle from the moment I was delivered means I have a love of life and a joy of life."

Forgiveness

Gianna has never met her biological mother, but her adopted mother has and passed on Gianna's forgiveness. Her biological parents were both just 17 when Gianna was born. She is in London this week to lend her voice to the anti-abortion group 'Alive and Kicking,' who are campaigning to encourage reform of the Abortion Act aimed at reducing the annual number of abortions. This week Gianna will speak at a parliamentary meeting at the House of Commons to tell her remarkable story. And she hopes hearing her story will persuade others to consider the rights of the unborn child.

"What happened to me was all being done in the name of women's rights, but the only one who cared about my rights was the nurse in the clinic, who got me the heck out of there. My mother was making a decision that was 'only hers to make', but I bear the scars of that."

Citra Abbott Spokesperson for Alive and Kicking said: "Gianna is bearing witness to the humanity of the unborn child and to the right to life of every human being. She is also a powerful witness to the rights of the disabled."

Rare cases

Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said it was important to remember that late abortions, like that of Gianna's mother, are uncommon. "These stories are extremely distressing. But the point we would always make is that these very late abortion at times when there is a potential for life are very few and far between. And there is very clear guidance to make sure this sort of thing does not happen."

She added that cases like Gianna's were now less likely to happen because of advancing technology and tightened regulations, and that when a woman opted for a late abortion it was usually because the babies had a foetal abnormality. "If women have a wanted pregnancy and go into labour prematurely they need to know that everything will be done to their babies, but if they need to have an abortion at this late stage then the intention will be that there is not live birth and the procedure should avoid a live birth."

Link

[DirkFTW]

Another survivor.

An Abortion Survivor Touched Hearts and Changed Lives
By Liz Townsend

...

Marykay Brown, Sarah's adoptive mother, told NRL News this was just one example of the many people whose lives her daughter touched during her brief life. Sarah, who was five, died September 28 from complications stemming from the abortion attempt. Yet as Mrs. Brown and her family continue to speak about Sarah to audiences across the country, her story will continue to touch hearts and change lives.

Sarah's story begins July 13, 1993. She had spent 36 peaceful weeks in her mother's womb before the needle filled with poison stabbed her in the brain three times. By all odds the assault should have killed her, but something inside Sarah refused to give up. Two days later she was born in a Wichita, Kansas, hospital.

Sarah's birth mother signed away her rights to her daughter almost as soon as the seven-pound, five-ounce abortion survivor was born with visible puncture wounds above her left eyebrow and at the base of her skull. Without knowing her whole story or the extent of her injuries, Bill and Marykay Brown obtained temporary custody of the little girl within 24 hours of her birth and adopted her 30 days later. The Browns heard about Sarah from a pro-life attorney who knew they wanted to adopt a special-needs child.

The toxin that the abortionist injected into her brain caused injuries that became apparent and progressively worse as Sarah grew. "For the first few months she seemed to be progressing normally, although she was blind," said Marykay Brown. "She had acute hearing, and was beginning to try to speak."

...

Sarah had progressive airway disease, caused when she ingested some of the poison during the abortion attempt. Before her death she spent a short time in the hospital and the family knew she was getting weaker, according to Brown. Sarah died at home on the morning of September 28, surrounded by her loving family. "Sarah died the most peaceful death," Brown said. "There was no struggling. All of us were with her."

...

Link

There are more stories here.

[Mavdog]

from an interview with obama about this bill:

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.

to be fair, there is a great deal of controversy about if obama's opinion of the bill's language is accurate or not, if he is trying to rewrite the events. here's an article that accuses him of just that:

"Life Lies
Barack Obama and Born-Alive.

By David Freddoso


"In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.

In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.

Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...YxNmEwMTdhYWE=

[jthig32]

Here are direct quotes of Obama from the transcript:

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in teh Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled tothe kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbit abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, 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

His description here was inaccurate. The bill was only dealing with children after they are born. This bill had no effect on unborn children.

The second reason taht it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on teh doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as along as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably corssing the line in terms of unconstituionality.

This flies directly in the face of:

And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.

Link

He is flat out lying. He was fighting to keep the "previable" designation relevant to babies outside of the womb.


Note: Forgive the typos in the quotes, that PDF does not allow copy/pasting, so I typed the quotes.

[Arne]

On another note, Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State under Clinton and now on Barack Obama's foreign policy team) thinks killing 500.000 Iraqi children is okay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5QFnAoqRZM

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

On another note, Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State under Clinton and now on Barack Obama's foreign policy team) thinks killing 500.000 Iraqi children is okay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5QFnAoqRZM

first of all, the label "jewish secretary of state" is a) not correct, she is a member of the episcopal church, b) is an inflamatory label intended to further an anti-semetic response, and c) the interview is parsed to accomplish an objective of making her, jewish people and the usa appear comfortable with the loss of innocent life.

this post by you shows a very ugly side that frankly is pretty repulsive.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Arne

On another note, Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State under Clinton and now on Barack Obama's foreign policy team) thinks killing 500.000 Iraqi children is okay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5QFnAoqRZM

that's what, an annual abortion tally here in the US?

[jthig32]

Let's disregard Arne and keep this thing on track. I think the quotes in my post, along with the article Mavdog posted combine to form pretty damning evidence against Obama on this particular issue.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first of all, the label "jewish secretary of state" is a) not correct, she is a member of the episcopal church, b) is an inflamatory label intended to further an anti-semetic response, and c) the interview is parsed to accomplish an objective of making her, jewish people and the usa appear comfortable with the loss of innocent life.

this post by you shows a very ugly side that frankly is pretty repulsive.

I did not write the text to the video. I simply wanted to show the video. The video clearly shows how she responds by saying "...we think the price was worth it". Your little smear attack against me won't change that fact. If you can't make the difference between propaganda and information then that's your problem, because you wouldn't be able to read the newspapers anymore.

[Murphy3]

Obama's views are disgusting with regards to this topic. Any person with such views should have no authority over another human being in any situation.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

I did not write the text to the video. I simply wanted to show the video.

oh, I see, you didn't write it, you just posted it, knowing that it contained the text.

I can hear you saying "I don't really endorse Hitler, I just distributed Mein Kampf because I liked the art work on the cover..."

The video clearly shows how she responds by saying "...we think the price was worth it".

it was parsed! we don't know what context she said it, or even if she was referencing the loss of lives at all.

what a tool...

Your little smear attack against me won't change that fact. If you can't make the difference between propaganda and information then that's your problem, because you wouldn't be able to read the newspapers anymore.

it is indeed "propaganda", it is NOT 'information", and if you believe this is a "smear attack" you don't understand the difference between truth and fiction.

[Smiles]

Could we possibly get a copy of that bill posted to this thread?

[jthig32]

I posted a link in post 26 to the transcript of the first session in which he argued against the first bill. Start reading on page 84.

[jthig32]

And just to further drive the point home: Obama argued against the bill in 2001, and then voted present (which is so stupid).

Then in 2003, he was on a health committee that a similar bill was brough to. He voted to amend it, adding redundant neutrality language stating that nothing in the bill applied to unborn babies. This made this state bill IDENTICAL to the federal bill that was approved unanimously by the Sentate, and backed even by abortion proponents.

After approving this amendment, Obama then promptly voted against the bill itself and the committe denied it.

More needs to be made of this. He made a mistake on this issue and he is out and out lying about it now to cover it up.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

oh, I see, you didn't write it, you just posted it, knowing that it contained the text.

I can hear you saying "I don't really endorse Hitler, I just distributed Mein Kampf because I liked the art work on the cover..."



it was parsed! we don't know what context she said it, or even if she was referencing the loss of lives at all.

what a tool...



it is indeed "propaganda", it is NOT 'information", and if you believe this is a "smear attack" you don't understand the difference between truth and fiction.

First: The content of a video is more important than the text some 16 year old frustrated teen puts in it. This cannot be compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and its cover.

She did reference the loss of lives. Only she didn't include her very own reason for who is responsible:

"I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations."

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.pdf

Call me a tool all you want. But the fact remains that you tried to paint me as a anti-semit simply for posting a video that contained some text by some stupid kid. Go to youtube.com type in "Madeleine Albright worth it" and this will be the first video that comes up. I actually did see the whole thing a long time ago, but there's nothing to find on youtube and googlevideo.

Brezinsky and Albright might be your dream team for Obama's foreign policy panel. It isn't for me.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

First: The content of a video is more important than the text some 16 year old frustrated teen puts in it. This cannot be compared to Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and its cover.

no, it can be compared, as both had as a goal the furthering of an anti-semetic message cloaked in a broader context.

She did reference the loss of lives. Only she didn't include her very own reason for who is responsible:

"I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations."

this provides proof that albright doesn't believe that she "thinks killing 500.000 Iraqi children is okay", and it's interesting that you have given a clear rebuttal to your own post.

Call me a tool all you want. But the fact remains that you tried to paint me as a anti-semit simply for posting a video that contained some text by some stupid kid. Go to youtube.com type in "Madeleine Albright worth it" and this will be the first video that comes up. I actually did see the whole thing a long time ago, but there's nothing to find on youtube and googlevideo.

Brezinsky and Albright might be your dream team for Obama's foreign policy panel. It isn't for me.

first, I am not endorsing albright or brezinsky for anything.

second, I did NOT call you an anti-semite, I correctly pointed out that the video you posted was intended to further an anti-semetic agenda.

we owe it to the community to be circumspect about what we post, and to not promote/circulate material that contains messages of prejudice.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

we owe it to the community to be circumspect about what we post, and to not promote/circulate material that contains messages of prejudice.

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.

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?

[jthig32]

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