Sen. Obama: Voted to protect the act of baby murder

bucs90

Gold Member
Feb 25, 2010
26,545
6,027
280
Former Nurse on Obama's Controversial Abortion Vote - Hannity - FOXNews.com

Yep. Shocking headline. Unfortunately true. Live birth abortion. Birthing a baby, with anticipation it would die in the process. But 10-20% LIVED, survived the abortion, and they are left to die alone, crying, breathing. Those babies were marked for death, so their fight to survive must be ignored.

This nurse testified to holding and rocking a small baby until it died 45 minutes later because she couldn't tolerate the thought of the baby dying alone in a damn closet. The doctor and parents, however, didn't think it would survive the abortion, so they just left it to die.

Senator Barack Obama voted NO on a bill that would ban this act.

Only fucking filthy human beings with no souls would vote that way.
 
How dare that baby survive it's death sentence.
 
If you remember obama voted this way because he is not sure that a baby born and wholly outside its mother's womb is a person entitled to Constitutional protection.
 
Yet air pollution is a major contributor to poor mental and physical difficulties of the unborn and is a major contributor the climbing US mortality rate of the unborn.
Yet some want to do away with the Clean Air Act? Are they pro-life at the same time?
If one wants to protect the unborn, they can't be selective about what ways to protect the unborn, otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.
 
Yet air pollution is a major contributor to poor mental and physical difficulties of the unborn and is a major contributor the climbing US mortality rate of the unborn.
Yet some want to do away with the Clean Air Act? Are they pro-life at the same time?
If one wants to protect the unborn, they can't be selective about what ways to protect the unborn, otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

Advances in technology and an American populace that wishes to see reductions in pollution is why the air is cleaner today than it was during the days when London was perpetually "foggy" or when rivers caught fire in Ohio in the 1970s. Federal government laws and regulations didn't clean the air, advances in technology in the marketplace, along with a free press to report on polluters is why we have cleaner air today. Government just loves to ride the coattails of technology in order to claim it was their intervention that improved things...with plenty of suckers believing them.
 
Yet air pollution is a major contributor to poor mental and physical difficulties of the unborn and is a major contributor the climbing US mortality rate of the unborn.
Yet some want to do away with the Clean Air Act? Are they pro-life at the same time?
If one wants to protect the unborn, they can't be selective about what ways to protect the unborn, otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

Advances in technology and an American populace that wishes to see reductions in pollution is why the air is cleaner today than it was during the days when London was perpetually "foggy" or when rivers caught fire in Ohio in the S. Federal government laws and regulations didn't clean the air, advances in technology in the marketplace, along with a free press to report on polluters is why we have cleaner air today. Government just loves to ride the coattails of technology in order to claim it was their intervention that improved things...with plenty of suckers believing them.

And that explains the increasing cases of respiratory diseases in children living in the US?
 
Advances in technology and an American populace that wishes to see reductions in pollution is why the air is cleaner today than it was during the days when London was perpetually "foggy" or when rivers caught fire in Ohio in the 1970s. Federal government laws and regulations didn't clean the air, advances in technology in the marketplace, along with a free press to report on polluters is why we have cleaner air today. Government just loves to ride the coattails of technology in order to claim it was their intervention that improved things...with plenty of suckers believing them.

Nonsense.

It was a blend of private and public sector solutions and efforts that made the environment cleaner.

And environmental regulation is needed now more than ever, as ‘modern’ pollution can occur for years, often decades, before detection, well after the damage is done.
 
Yet air pollution is a major contributor to poor mental and physical difficulties of the unborn and is a major contributor the climbing US mortality rate of the unborn.
Yet some want to do away with the Clean Air Act? Are they pro-life at the same time?
If one wants to protect the unborn, they can't be selective about what ways to protect the unborn, otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

Advances in technology and an American populace that wishes to see reductions in pollution is why the air is cleaner today than it was during the days when London was perpetually "foggy" or when rivers caught fire in Ohio in the 1970s. Federal government laws and regulations didn't clean the air, advances in technology in the marketplace, along with a free press to report on polluters is why we have cleaner air today. Government just loves to ride the coattails of technology in order to claim it was their intervention that improved things...with plenty of suckers believing them.

And I suppose no government regulations improved sanitation in the food industry?
 
Yet air pollution is a major contributor to poor mental and physical difficulties of the unborn and is a major contributor the climbing US mortality rate of the unborn.
Yet some want to do away with the Clean Air Act? Are they pro-life at the same time?
If one wants to protect the unborn, they can't be selective about what ways to protect the unborn, otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.
Yet the price of rice in China was.....

Who cares?

Irrespective.

With respect to this vote by Obama, if he wanted to be consistent with the law, his vote was his only choice. His vote is really a non-issue, if one expects folks to be consistent with existing law.
 
Yet air pollution is a major contributor to poor mental and physical difficulties of the unborn and is a major contributor the climbing US mortality rate of the unborn.
Yet some want to do away with the Clean Air Act? Are they pro-life at the same time?
If one wants to protect the unborn, they can't be selective about what ways to protect the unborn, otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

Advances in technology and an American populace that wishes to see reductions in pollution is why the air is cleaner today than it was during the days when London was perpetually "foggy" or when rivers caught fire in Ohio in the S. Federal government laws and regulations didn't clean the air, advances in technology in the marketplace, along with a free press to report on polluters is why we have cleaner air today. Government just loves to ride the coattails of technology in order to claim it was their intervention that improved things...with plenty of suckers believing them.

And that explains the increasing cases of respiratory diseases in children living in the US?

Are you suggesting we have more pollution today than in years past? If so, it would appear that your beloved regulatory agencies have not done the job you suggest they can do. Hmmm...just not enough funding I suppose???

If respiratory disease is increasing, I wonder if that has anything to do with the medical profession's ability to detect respiratory disease? Naw, it must be your failing regulatory agencies and lots more pollution. So, which is it?
 
Advances in technology and an American populace that wishes to see reductions in pollution is why the air is cleaner today than it was during the days when London was perpetually "foggy" or when rivers caught fire in Ohio in the 1970s. Federal government laws and regulations didn't clean the air, advances in technology in the marketplace, along with a free press to report on polluters is why we have cleaner air today. Government just loves to ride the coattails of technology in order to claim it was their intervention that improved things...with plenty of suckers believing them.

Nonsense.

It was a blend of private and public sector solutions and efforts that made the environment cleaner.

And environmental regulation is needed now more than ever, as ‘modern’ pollution can occur for years, often decades, before detection, well after the damage is done.

Let's say you're right...you're not, but let's say you are. How do you plan to pay for this increased regulation you say we need...along with all the other drags on job creation caused by more regulation? More deficit spending?
 
Yet air pollution is a major contributor to poor mental and physical difficulties of the unborn and is a major contributor the climbing US mortality rate of the unborn.
Yet some want to do away with the Clean Air Act? Are they pro-life at the same time?
If one wants to protect the unborn, they can't be selective about what ways to protect the unborn, otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

Advances in technology and an American populace that wishes to see reductions in pollution is why the air is cleaner today than it was during the days when London was perpetually "foggy" or when rivers caught fire in Ohio in the 1970s. Federal government laws and regulations didn't clean the air, advances in technology in the marketplace, along with a free press to report on polluters is why we have cleaner air today. Government just loves to ride the coattails of technology in order to claim it was their intervention that improved things...with plenty of suckers believing them.

And I suppose no government regulations improved sanitation in the food industry?

No but technology did. As did our free press that brought to the people's attention issues with certain segments of the food industry (such as meat packing). The laws and regulations followed the will of the people AFTER the market was motivated to respond and AFTER changes in technology improved the situation. More importantly, sanitation would have improved to a greater extent without federal regulations - instead of food processors relying on 'government approved' sanitation to shield them from litigious action, they would have had to PROVE to their customers that their sanitation guidelines were effective and they we suffer the consequences if they were not. Now, we still get food born illnesses but the companies do not suffer consequences in the market. Sure, they may get a slap on the wrist from the regulatory agency but they keep right on producing. I'll take an Angie's List/Consumer Report type system of checks and balances over a central planning bureaucrat any day.
 
If you remember obama voted this way because he is not sure that a baby born and wholly outside its mother's womb is a person entitled to Constitutional protection.

No, this deals with induced abortions that are failures = baby born alive and then left to die in oh closets or on tables or whatever and wherever.

It had gotten so bad that legislation had to be passed called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act .

Here's a link. It was passed unanimously in the Senate. Even Senator Ted Kennedy voted for the legislation.

Born-Alive Infants Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I guess Obama must not have done anything "outrageous" this week, so you guys are having to recycle stories from 4 years ago.

Up next I hear they're going to recycle the old "Obama sat in a chuch where the preacher said "God Damn America!" dribble.
 
The American people didnt care about it in 2008. I highly doubt they are going to care about it now.

I seriously hate the fact that what I just said is true.
 
I guess Obama must not have done anything "outrageous" this week, so you guys are having to recycle stories from 4 years ago.

Up next I hear they're going to recycle the old "Obama sat in a chuch where the preacher said "God Damn America!" dribble.

Yeah, crazy that they would bring up his history and record. They should just pretend as though Obama has done nothing but good things. As if all the bad things he has done to this nation and people dont really matter because your side gets power.
 
Former Nurse on Obama's Controversial Abortion Vote - Hannity - FOXNews.com

Yep. Shocking headline. Unfortunately true. Live birth abortion. Birthing a baby, with anticipation it would die in the process. But 10-20% LIVED, survived the abortion, and they are left to die alone, crying, breathing. Those babies were marked for death, so their fight to survive must be ignored.

This nurse testified to holding and rocking a small baby until it died 45 minutes later because she couldn't tolerate the thought of the baby dying alone in a damn closet. The doctor and parents, however, didn't think it would survive the abortion, so they just left it to die.

Senator Barack Obama voted NO on a bill that would ban this act.

Only fucking filthy human beings with no souls would vote that way.

This is OLD NEWS. This issue was in the news media stream back when Obama was running for President in '08. I guess Hannity must have had a slow news day.

Obama also stated back in '08 that if one of his daughters made a "mistake", he didn't want them to be "punished with a baby". Once again, old news.
 
Last edited:
I guess Obama must not have done anything "outrageous" this week, so you guys are having to recycle stories from 4 years ago.

You're right. I gotta give Obama credit. It's hard to top his vote in support of murdering babies. Not sure how he can top that one.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top