Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
Thank you for helping to prove my point. You have always been a font of validation for my arguments. You're simply awe inspiring.
So its a lie to say Obama lacks experience? I thought it was a statement of fact. Regardless of whether or not you support Obama, you have to admit there is nothing in his track record that would make you think he was qualified to be President. In the end, we must depend solely on his speeches and interviews for this information, and he has been anything but forthcoming.
And KG, US states have very little control over the abortion issue since the Roe vs. Wade decision. Xantar is correct in saying that its largely a supreme court matter, but he is incorrect in believing that makes this an unimportant issue for the presidential campaign. The President appoints the judges and they make the ruling on whether or not a doctor can kill and new born simply becuase it wasn't supposed to survive. With several justices appraching retirement age, I can't think of a more important duty of a new president than appointing judges right now.
And again, I'll pick the candidate that says "don't kill the baby"
|
Obama never actually voted "no" towards the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, he voted "present".
His reasoning was:
"Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid 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 anti-abortion statute."
Later on, when the act was passed at the Federal level, this bit of wording had been added on (which is what brought in the support of pro-abortion democrats)
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."
Obama has since stated that he would have voted "yes" if that wording had been there when the Illinois voting took place.
Although I think I still disagree with his decision, it at least makes it a little more clear as to why he made it, and that it wasn't intended to be malicious towards babies.
At the same time, we also have to consider that neither candidate is going to have all the qualities that each of us look for in a good person/leader, as no two people are the same. For example, I could never like McCain as a person due to his stance on gay issues. I consider this to be on the same level as racism, no questions asked.
However, that's not the main reason I will be voting for Obama. I will be voting for Obama because I agree with him and support his stance on a vast majority of issues. I am not very "liberal" when it comes to gun control, but that is just one topic among many.
EDIT:
As for speaking to the Germans:
Yes, it was a photo-op, done primarily because you and others criticize his experience. He wanted to show that he has the ability to be a world leader and galvanize other nations into working with the United States. We are a pretty hated place around the world at the moment, and I think the rest of the world sees Obama as a reasonable person that they can work with, compared to what we've had serving the last 8 years.
As for putting troops in Afghanistan rather than Iraq:
I'm not in support of sending more troops anywhere. I think the Middle East is a lost cause, and that Jon McCain's plan to "WIN!" is incredibly stupid. We are never ever going to fix the problems they have over there. They have been fighting this war since the death of Abraham, we are -never- going to fix the conflict and strife that is happening there.
However, this was -supposed- to be a War on terror, instigated by the 9/11 attacks, and it -wasn't- Iraq that started all of that. America was lied to in order to get troops into Iraq, when Afghanistan was probably where they should have been sent in the first place.
It would be like if Germany suddenly attacked us, and in order to get back at them we blew up Canada.