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

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

I have no problem with attacking Obama on his record as President, or his record as a Senator. Or, as this thread is, his record as an Illinois State Senator.

But the church he attended isn't part of his "record", and never should have been.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

And why does the fact that this is old news make it any less disgusting?

 

[Avatar4321]

I call this legalized murder

yeah but you are stupid so who cares.



anyways...mmmm baby murder, its so silly.

Allowing children to be legally killed, Not unborn children, but actual living breathing children is silly?

Why exactly is killing children silly?

 

[bucs90]

See some people are upset I reached into the past. No one except me, that I know of, talked about this in the media today.

I, for one, just can't help but remind everyone our president once voted to BLOCK a bill that would ban the murder of living babies.

The fact that our society elected him anyway, despite this, says a LOT about how our morals have crumbled.

 

[Avatar4321]

See some people are upset I reached into the past. No one except me, that I know of, talked about this in the media today.

I, for one, just can't help but remind everyone our president once voted to BLOCK a bill that would ban the murder of living babies.

The fact that our society elected him anyway, despite this, says a LOT about how our morals have crumbled.

Considering his history of merely voting present, the fact that he did vote against it says alot.

 

[bucs90]

See some people are upset I reached into the past. No one except me, that I know of, talked about this in the media today.

I, for one, just can't help but remind everyone our president once voted to BLOCK a bill that would ban the murder of living babies.

The fact that our society elected him anyway, despite this, says a LOT about how our morals have crumbled.

Considering his history of merely voting present, the fact that he did vote against it says alot.

GREAT point. He voted present the majority of the time.

But when the Anti-Baby Murder bill came up, OH MAN he had to take a stand against that damn legislation!!!! Death to Babies!!! Hope and Change!!!

 

[Avatar4321]

and how would these children be killed if already born?

By leaving them on the cold floor with no care.

 

[bucs90]

yeah but you are stupid so who cares.



anyways...mmmm baby murder, its so silly.

Allowing children to be legally killed, Not unborn children, but actual living breathing children is silly?

Why exactly is killing children silly?

and how would these children be killed if already born?

If the baby survives the botched abortion, they are tossed into a trash can or plastic tub and ignored, allowed to die from negligence, exposure, failure to care, any fancy name you put on it, the child dies. Read the info on this.

If the child was 1 year old and treated like that, they'd be charged with homicide by child neglect. But since the child is only 5 minutes old, they are not.

And Obama voted in FAVOR of allowing this to continue.

That man is sick, has no soul and if he is a Christian, he'll be judged by God for that vote.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

That technology was only put into place because it was forced upon business by the government. Had it not been for government regulation on environmental issues, much of this clean technology would never have been developed. You are fooling yourself if you believe businesses are interested in increasing their costs for any reason.

 

[Utilitarian]

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.

Come to think of it, this would also increase the size of the botulism test kit market.

 

[jillian]

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.

cause they aren't pro life. they're pro birth.

as soon as they're born, the rightwingnuts think they should be on their own.

i love 'small government' hypocrites.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Nice try. It was already illegal to murder someone that was alive.

I always wondered why the nurse, who admitted to murder, wasn't charged with murder.

 

[bucs90]

and how would these children be killed if already born?

If the baby survives the botched abortion, they are tossed into a trash can or plastic tub and ignored, allowed to die from negligence, exposure, failure to care, any fancy name you put on it, the child dies. Read the info on this.

If the child was 1 year old and treated like that, they'd be charged with homicide by child neglect. But since the child is only 5 minutes old, they are not.

And Obama voted in FAVOR of allowing this to continue.

That man is sick, has no soul and if he is a Christian, he'll be judged by God for that vote.

yeah.......you have any links to show Obama's reasons for voting no on this?

this is also Hannity and yawn...Not exactly winners.

WHAT??????????? YOu want a link on "why" he voted in favor of baby murder?

Is there ANY, huge capital "ANY", reason he could give that would justify his vote to NOT block this act of child murder? ANY!!!????

 

[Avatar4321]

yeah.......you have any links to show Obama's reasons for voting no on this?

this is also Hannity and yawn...Not exactly winners.

So if I understand you correctly, you don't care that Obama did this because Hannity is yawn.

And what does it matter what his reason was for voting against it? The man voted against it.

 

[Avatar4321]

and how would these children be killed if already born?

By leaving them on the cold floor with no care.

uh huh, because that would happen

It did and does happen. That's precisely why this legislation was proposed.

 

[bucs90]

and how would these children be killed if already born?

By leaving them on the cold floor with no care.

uh huh, because that would happen

It did happen. It does happen. And in continues to happen....in part because Barack Obama, in one of his few votes he actually took a stance on, voted to block a bill that would ban this act.

Those damn babies.....how dare them fight to survive a botched abortion. They should know they were marked for death and die already!!!!

 

[eflatminor]

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.

That technology was only put into place because it was forced upon business by the government. Had it not been for government regulation on environmental issues, much of this clean technology would never have been developed. You are fooling yourself if you believe businesses are interested in increasing their costs for any reason.

Wrong. You don't understand how the market works. You are right that businesses are not interested in increasing their costs...which is why they're happy to get in bed with government regulators and help them to write those regulations that end up shielding the companies from lawsuits and competition. The technology was put into place because the companies feared a loss of sales and/or lawsuits if they poisoned someone. The government came along for the ride, along with a bunch of gullible voters that look to a central planner for their own problems. That would be you.

 

[Avatar4321]

yeah.......you have any links to show Obama's reasons for voting no on this?

this is also Hannity and yawn...Not exactly winners.

So if I understand you correctly, you don't care that Obama did this because Hannity is yawn.

And what does it matter what his reason was for voting against it? The man voted against it.

because things are never that simple. What if this was attached to another bill and that was his reason for voting no on it, Therefore later on you could use it against him.
Which is always one of the problems with voting for someone who comes from the senate. Bills are always attached to other bills.


but you guys knew this, but you really dont care. This just makes him look bad without any thought put into it. We all know how thinking is evil.

actually, they pretty much are.

do you support keeping children alive. Yes or no?

not really that complicated an issue.

 

[bucs90]

My God. Liberals on here are making excuses for this.

They're so obsessed with Obama, that even when shown he literally voted to protect the outright murder of living babies, they ask "Show me a link on why he voted that way".

Jesus Christ!!! They're so enchanted with him, that even faced with baby murder, they believe Obama surely had a good, intelligent reason to vote that way. After all, he is Obama, the most brilliant man to ever live, so surely he had a great reason to keep baby murder legal in Illinois.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Come to think of it, this would also increase the size of the botulism test kit market.

Personally, I much rather test my own food than rely upon some overpaid bureaucrat with no fear of ever being fired much less having to face competition.