Even you couldn't make his comments on how he would choose a Supreme Court judge funny.I think Obama revealed more about his true intentions last night than in any of the other debates.
Yep. "No litmus tests — er, except that I did oppose judges because they were conservative, and they've gotta be for Rowe. But otherwise...."
One of my favorite McCain shots was a fast one from the hip:"Because there's not enough vouchers; therefore, we shouldn't do it, even though it's working. I got it."
Obama said that he believed Rowe vs Wade was the right decision by the court. Wasn't that a 5-4 vote. I mean, look at that 1 lousy vote, and 40,000,000 babies have been killed legally.McCain should have said so much more on abortion, though he did say more than usual.I wish they would have a tag-team debate, Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, and McCain could tag Palin, and then she could have jumped in there on some of these issues, like partial birth abortion, and infanticide.
Roe was decided on a 7-2 vote with the majority opinion written by Harry Blackmun, a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon.The true effect of Roe is not 40 million abortions because the vast majority of them would have taken place anyway as most states had already begun liberalizing their abortion laws. The Supreme Court in this case sped up a process that was already in progress. I think it is probably true that more abortions have occurred as a result of Roe than would have otherwise, but I can't prove it. I think Senator McCain was correct that Roe was wrongly decided.The question we should be asking ourselves is what are we going to do to reduce/eliminate abortion in light of the fact that we are going to have a Senate with at least 56 Democrats and a House with at least 250 Democrats? If Obama wins the White House that number will be even greater.
There you go again with your hateful attacking drawing people away from substantive issues. I guess I should expect this type of rhetoric from the kind of people in this Christian sub-culture. You will wake up the day after the election and realize no one is hearing your message. I mean; I was listening to one of the top rated morning radio shows here in LA and the DJs didn't even know who this "Joe the plumber" guy is. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we learn Joe the plumber really isn't a plumber at all, but some plant for a Sean Hannity stunt. Fred
Hey Fred,If you think this stuff is distracting us, why don't you do something to draw us back into the "substantive issues?"Me, I think the rhetorical pictures attached to this post are directly related to the substantive issues. Why do you complain about the use of rhetoric? It's what makes the debate fun! You don't really think that the Obamessiah camp (Oh wait, that's rhetoric) doesn't use rhetoric, do you? In fact, you yourself just used rhetoric by attacking the use of rhetoric as "hateful." (What's hateful about it? -- Nothing I can see; the rhetoric is all targeting Obama's policies and probable consequences thereof, it's not libelous or slanderous or any personal attack on Senator Obama's manhood.)Rhetoric is a time-honored debate technique. It's not going away anytime soon. Get used to it. Have you ever read the Lincoln-Douglas debates?
"The true effect of Roe is not 40 million abortions because the vast majority of them would have taken place anyway as most states had already begun liberalizing their abortion laws." -ironmanThis seems to disagree with your thought. I couldn't find any numbers on abortion, but with the laws as they were before 1973, considered to the Supreme Court's judgment making abortion a constitution right, I would think there would have far, far less abortions today then there have been. "In 1967, Colorado became the first state to legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman. Similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina. In 1970, New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. A law in Washington, DC, which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being," essentially allowing abortion in Washington, DC. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama allowed abortions in cases of the woman's physical health. Thirty-one states still allowed abortion to protect the woman's life only. In order to obtain abortions during this period, women would often travel from a state where abortion was illegal to states where it was legal."Thanks for the input ironman.
(MMike, you know Fred was kidding, right?)(Fred, you were kidding, right?)
If Fred's comment wasn't 100 percent tongue-in-cheek, I'll be beyond shocked.
Err...I guess I got punked on Fred's comments.It's hard to tell the seriously deranged from the jokesters these days. Yeah, that's what I'm sticking with.
Nice posters.McCain obviously won the debate. I was amazed, though, at the Clintonesque of Obama and how cool and calm he was.Correction to Ironman's statement, Blackmum was thought to be conservative when he was selected, but he actually became more and more liberal eventually voting with Brennan most of the time by the time he left the court. Blackmum was not conservative. I just wanted to point out that for some who maybe are confused how a conservative could vote for Roe v. Wade. They can't. Former Chief Justice William Renqhuist was one of the lone voices that dissented on that opinion.
Here's a good quote:“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” - Winston Churchil
Yes, it's a great quote, but also apocryphal. So far, no one has been able to source it in any of Churchill's writings.
Who ever authored it should take proper credit for it.
Dan,Please change the name of your blog. It is currently named "Biblical Christianity". The assumption therefore is that articles on your blog would actually fit the Bible.This particular posting doesn't. It's partisan hackery, not Biblical Christianity.If you want to blog about this stuff, fine. Just don't label it under the name of Biblical Christianity.
I suppose it's too much to ask that you actually read and think about the "What Is This Blog About?" section. Or the actual contents of the articles. Drive-by sniping is clearly more suited to an MTV attention-span.
Post a Comment
Amazon also has it available for immediate download on Kindle
Also at Amazon
See details at Kress
NEW! Also now available for download at Logos