Taxpayer,
A rape victim who ends up pregnant is in a horrific situation - especially when the culprit is a family member. That scenario emphasizes the heinous, despicable, and hateful nature of the crime.
To make things even more difficult, the fact that an innocent life was created as the result of such a vile act doesn't negate the fact that a life as equally prescious and viable has an intended child is now in the balance. My heart bleeds for any unfortunate mother who finds herself in those shoes. I sincerely believe that intentional termination of such a pregnancy is equally murderous as the termination of a pregnancy that was an "accident".
.
But again, I certainly wouldn't want to be the woman in those shoes. "There, but by the grace of God, go I."

So all of you who believe "abortion is murder" believe it's perfectly acceptable to force a woman to bear the child of the man who raped her -- and even if that man is her father, hmm? Sarah Palin does.

Exactly what crime did the victim of rape or incest commit that she deserves this...in the name of "life", no less?

Sheesh...

It's okay, Tom. That's why Obama loves the public school system and has as his goal to indoctrinate young minds and keep them just ignorant enough to be part of his flock. That's right out of the socialist handbook--educate the public, but not too much.

Rico: As for the more careful reading of what you said I can only plead that I am a product of public education. :)

My source is FactCheck.org. You know Rico, that far left website funded by the radical Walter Anneberg, the same man who funded the infamous Chicago education committee that Barack and Bill Ayres were on together. You remember Walter, he paled around with known Republicans such as Ronald Reagan who appointed him ambassador to Great Britain.

That is a LIE! He uses that excuse every time and every sheep in his flock buy it. He claims that the wording was different than the federal bill at the time and so he couldn't support it. That turned out to be BS(like most of what he says). When the wording was changed to exactly mirror the verbage in the federal bill, Babykiller Barry blocked the vote. Educate yourself and read the facts of each vote he made (or voted present on--what leadership!). He thinks babies are 'punishment'. That was the word he used.
It amazes me how many of his flock wear their rose-colored glasses while looking at him, yet still manage to have their heads up their asses. That's got to hurt!
When reading the record of is votes/non-votes, I hope you do a better job than you did reading my last post. I did not tell you to go to hell, I simply wrote that you'd end up there.

Rico: Yeah, me and 100,000 Missourians will be there with him. Oh, but you probably think only the 144,000 chosen are going to be raptured into heaven anyway. Let's check the facts: Illinois already had a law that protects a viable fetus born alive. Obama opposed the born alive bills because they were thinly veiled attacks on a woman's legal right to choose. He supported the same bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade. Incidentally, it was not very Christian of you to tell me to go to hell but I forgive you.

Rico - you and I finally agree on something - killing babies is murder. Regardless of residence status (inside the womb or outside).
.
As for opinions held by McCain and Obama on the subject, my concern is that they're both maintaining the stance that the Federal gov't has authority over the matter. Both are lying in order to manipulate voters who hold strong opinions. It's a state issue, not federal. You won't see any change until you can bring it into the state legislature.
.
FYI, the GOP candidate whom I supported is also a pro-life OBGyn. He was ridiculed by FOX broadcasters every time he warned about the pending economic collapse. That's what happens when a socialist owned media network has an agenda to lead viewers away from real conservatives.
.
But getting back to baby killing, here's the double standard that kills me: Clearly it's heinous and dispicable to murder a baby in the womb. Life is life, regardless of it's location. Yet there are millions of supposedly pro-life Americans who whole-heartedly support US military attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan that have killed 100's of thousands of children. They aren't pro-life. They're anti-abortion who have been propagandized into believing some life is good and some is bad. It's a double standard that holds no water when placed under legitimate scrutiny. .
Trust me on this one: if there's a special place in hell for those who abort and who support aborting babies (and I believe there is a special place), there's a very similar place for those who support or carry out foreign policy that has the same effect on the innocent. God has a no respect for borders or for policy differences. His creation of life has the same purpose in the Middle East as it does here in the US and His love for all is universal. Those who claim with words to believe in Him yet have consciously chosen to support policy that is 100 percent against Him are due for a very rude awakening when it comes time to face reality.

Hey, Tom, Barack thinks it's okay to kill a baby that survives an abortion. If you think it's acceptable for a woman to kill her baby if she decides she doesn't want him/her anymore, then I would love to know the cut-off time--one week?...one month? Just when do you think it's a life worth protecting?
And I love the arguments from the left who didn't care when we pulled out of Vietnam and millions were killed, both there and in Cambodia.
Pro-life or pro-choice, few among us think it's okay to kill a baby post-birth. If you, like Obama, do think that it's a woman's choice to kill her baby, then I'm sure there's a special place in hell for you. Make sure you get Barry's autograph when you see him there.

Agreed, TA. Nor, does it excuse the New York Times, NBC, Newsweek, etc. "Excuse" isn't even the word for me. Ideally, the Times and whomever can tilt however they like. Like the Star Editor Ryerson says, years ago we had a few newspapers per city, Demo & GOP. You subscribed to whom you wanted. You can choose your media today. But, most working families are busier today, and this theoretical wonderfulness of alternative media still requires the time to figure out the truth from several sources. If you don't have that time, it would be nice to be a "balanced" source. In most major cities in America, for newpapers and major networks- good luck. I'd take Obama if we could have two-sided journalism back. Right now it's Fox, talk radio, and I can't name a "conservative" major newspaper. If there was magical mandate to allow equal time on ALL media, for the sake of our country's discourse, I'd take it.

Nice Tom.
-
TA - Were you there when they vetted Sarah? Maybe her positives far outweighed the few negatives you like to focus on. You don't know they dropped the ball, you think they did because you don't like Sarah. Big diff. Again, you are missing the point - Obama wants to spread the wealth around. That's why Joe the Plumber is famous, because Obama was dumb enough to say out loud (to Joe) what he really wants to do. It's classic liberal / socialist agenda - hardly change. Robin Hood is nothing new. With that one comment from Obama, people are finally waking up and the polls are changing in front of your blind eyes. Keep harping on Sarah and Joe, TA, that will surely help Obama get back to a big lead!

Rico. Who do you think killed more babies; Obama, by allowing a woman to make a personal decision about her own body, or John McCain from the cockpit of his A-4 Skyhawk?

Jerry--I'll type this r-e-a-l- slowly so you won't get lost:

I said McCain brought up Joe. (Twice)
And he did. Trouble is, five minutes of staff work would've turned up the nonsense on Joe.

They didn't fully vett Sarah, and again, the staff is upside down on the (un)"plumber."

The "media in the tank" argument may or may not be true, but it is old, and it doesn't excuse Fox for being so far the other direction as to be laughable.

Overall, the media's in the tank. That's not good for a two-party system and even worse if your domineering party is sympathetic to the "globalists". My guess is things have to get worse before kids want to be investigative journalists again, reporting the "other side".

TA - I never said Obama brought up Joe, I said the "crazies" were talking about Joe versus "spreading the wealth" . . . you were the one who brought up negatives about Joe in this thread.

.....he'd be viewed as another...


maybe I should back off the pipe. Thanks, TA.

How does one go about vetting a random, middleclass guy in a crowd? He just happened to ask a question that revealed Barry's socialist agenda. When will you realize, TA, that the national media(with the exception of FOX) is actively campaigning for your guy? Drudge proved it the other night when he posted the talking points that were distributed to the media before the debate. I played a little game and counted the number of times the objective, unbiased media hacks used the lines Obama's camp gave them. It was incredible! I've always known them to be biased toward the left, but I never thought I would see the day where they working for a particular candidate. Even Hillary realized it during the primary. (Poetic justice, I think.) Did you not see Obama's condescending snicker when asking a crowd the other day'"....how many plumbers do you know who make $250,000?..."?-Another revealing moment!
By the way, the treasurer of Obama's campaign owes some back taxes, as well.
Admit it, without the national media propping up this empty suit, he'd viewed be another Jesse Jackson, and we all know him to be a man of substance! (How's the sarcasm, Abdul? Did I do okay?)

Rico and Jerry--try to back off the pipe and realize: the press went after Joe and his lies, not Obama.

If McCain's staff had vetted Joe well enough, they'd have known he wasn't licensed and had tax liens and the other assorted drivel. It was all a matter of public record. McCain is the one who raised this guy up--not Obama or the press. When is he going to insist on good staff work? At some point, that's a fair question to ask of a potential president.

But, we all know by now--they're not good at vetting, huh?

You're right about this much. Jerry: tax and budget policies are more important than Joe. Which is why McCain should've tried a factual approach, not one based on sloppy staff work and a wanna be business owner who can't pay his taxes.

These crazies are focusing on negatives about Joe the Plumber, to try and get focus off Obama's true colors that came out when he said he wants to "spread the wealth around." Why don't we get a head start and take TA's money and give it to Rico? Or take Abdul's hard earned money and give it to me? This is something 100% worthy of debate, but all we hear about is how Joe really isn't a plumber - not the point, pallys.

I stand by my prior compliment, but I think we have a unique Presidential election that challenges formerly hard or at least steadfast principals. It's forcing maybe more than a few voters to contemplate and prioritize issues like economics, race, origin, experience, education, and service in a difficult self-calculation perhaps not personally experienced before. I'm voting McCain to keep out a guy I consider wreckless in entitlement expansion, exactly when it's the worst time to do so. If Obama's elected, my hope is he pursues the tenents of sacrifice and responsibility by ALL, as he's somewhat verbalized. He has potential no other candidate has ever had. But, freebies alone won't save America.

Rico,

The only time I engage in hypocrisy is when I try to be humble.

I'm no stranger to sarcasm, Abdul. I'm also quite familiar with hypocrisy.
You happen to be quite adept at both.

Once again, TA, your comments are quite revealing. You're an elitist, just like your hero. Obama's a classless loser for attacking this man, tax liens or not. And you look up to that...?

And I suppose Sarah Palin is self-righteous for being pro-life and not a baby-killer like Obama. Have you ever actually listened to her words, or have you been too busy looking for grammatical errors?

I liked the woman just behind Governor Palin's left side the best.

The one in the red ski jacket, wearing her Sarah Palin glasses. Overdone hair. Heavily whitened teeth. Chewing gum and waving more at her friends out in the audience than really paying attention to the candidate.

Uh-huh. Being a Republican (wife) has been very, very good to me.

What a complete Non-Event. Palin was preaching to the choir. Gee golly willikers, how bright those handlers are with Palin's choreography. Of 92 counties in Indiana they chose Hamilton County, the most Republican county in the nation, for her to spew her diatribe from.
So much for courage to address the downtrodden.
I have to hand it to her though, she drew a larger GOP crowd than McCain would have.
Haven't seen much of McCain in Indiana. Maybe he'll show up at the Morgan County FOP fish fry before the election.

Abdul - are you sure you were at Verizon and not in West Chester, OH? Palin spoke at 11:30 yesterday outside of my office and her message was identical. But the crowd was about as large as a busy high school football game. I figure that if it was later in the day there might have been 5000 rather than 1500 attendees.
.
One of my co-workers came back afterwards and proclaimed "Now I KNOW that McCain's gonna win the election!" I said "Why? Do you think she changed anyone's mind out there?" The guy's smart enough to realize that he got caught up in the tempo and the 'feel good' hype. His response to me was "That's true".
.
If the McCain/Palin campaign were serious about winning, they wouldn't be prancing around demographically GOP districts in order to preach to the choir. They'd' be followig a script designed to awaken and attract new voters from non-GOP strongholds. As it stands, they're not running an election campaign. They're putting on a dog + pony show for the camera's so that it looks like any election campaign. The GOP towel was on the mat before the first round began, prior to the primaries.
.
Also, did anyone else see Letterman question McCain about his long-standing relationship with G. Gordon Liddy? It was classic. I wish he would have asked him about campaign donations from international arms smugglers who supplied the CIA's war in Angola, but Letterman's smart enough to know the difference between stirring the water and flushing his career down the toilet.

Give up Abdul. If you can accomplish that with Rico, you'd deserve combat pay.

Just for the record--what would be wrong with a Muslim endorsing Palin? Are all Muslims bad?

See what happens when you let candidates paint with such a broad brush?

At least you're not Arab. Geeeeesh. Thank God this self-righteous governor will be nationally irrelevant in 17 days. Don't believe me? Ask Joe the Plumber, er citizen, er, tax-dodger.

I wasn't there, but yeah - just the standard stump speech, by a standard female vice presidential candidate, who has fired up the base better than any politician I can remember, and is more exciting and in tune with the common man than any conservative since Reagan....yeah, just the standard stump speech. Is this a MSNBC website?

Rico,

I need to teach you how to recognize sarcasm as a literary device.

I realize that you've abandoned your conservative principles, Abdul. Have you also abandoned your faith?

Gee, Abdul, I thought you were a Muslim. Haven't you claimed that you are? Have I missed something?

I lose sight of that sometimes. You're right, Melyssa. He's the best we got.

And Abdul...it's a rotten shame you were not the one to introduce Governor Palin. In my opinion, you are, bar none, the BEST political journalist we've got.

Keep on doin' what you do for us.

I didn't go, but I heard it was electric...and PACKED!

Abdul, sorry I missed you. We attended and I really enjoyed the opportunity to see the Gov. But she did not sway me as you can see on my blog.

Peace+