@futurelaker88 -
First off it doesn’t seem you understand the difference between advocating for a particular action, and being against that same action but believing that a prescribed course of action to prevent it is structurally flawed. Everything you have posted on this has been produced by people with a clearly stated agenda to end all abortions in this country. What they have done is what right wingers have become experts at doing…they have seized upon a molehill and turned it into a mountain, DELIBERATELY misrepresenting the meaning of the actions of their political foes. Obama’s record is crystal clear, he wants to reduce the number of abortions, but he wants to keep safe legal abortions available for those who choose to have them, up to a certain point of neo-natal development. Essentially, he supported both the federal and Illinois state bans on “partial-birth” abortions, i.e. those abortions where a living fetus was delivered and then had to be killed. He has stated clearly and in no uncertain terms that he is against that, but his political foes want you to think otherwise. Consider that when the bill actually DID pass (and it DID while Obama was a State Senator), Obama voted FOR the ban. You get that, he voted FOR the ban on partial birth abortion. He did so because he does NOT believe in murdering infants who were born alive. All these organizations and political foes who want you to believe otherwise have going for them is the fact that he did NOT vote for it the first time it was introduced. He did NOT vote for it the first time because the first draft of the bill contained language that would have allowed future courts to define life as begining at conception, which is what Keyes and his cohorts WANT. But it’s not what America wants, that is a radical position which comes from religion, which is what btko was talking about. Radicalism…is religious radicalism any worse than social radicalism, or vice versa? That’s the point you missed completely there. Guys like Keyes are religious zealots who believe that life begins at conception and abortion should be illegal because it is not God’s will.
So what they do is they sieze upon the fact that Obama did not just vote yes on this bill the first time, and they ascribed a motive to his actions that did not ever exist. Instead of accepting that his motivation was to make the language in the bill less “spongy” so that a future court could not use it to strike down all abortions (which is clearly not what the people of Illinois who he represented would have wanted to happen), they essentially made up the lie that Obama supports infanticide. But who are you going to believe….the actual Illinois Senate (including the Republicans)? Obama himself now that he actually signed the bill into law essentially shitting all over this argument? Or someone who’s had his ass handed to him in not one, but TWO elections by Obama (first in his run for Senate in 2004 and again in the 2008 Presidential election where Keyes placed 7th)? This is nothing more than sour grapes from someone whose ideas have been rejected in elections not twice, but 6 separate times (3 for Senate runs and 3 for Presidential runs).
So you point out that he’s black, which should somehow mean something. Well, personally if a white person says something I don’t agree with, I don’t automatically take his opinion with more weight than I would if a black person disagreed with me…gee that seems like it would be racism! Other than the color of the pigmentation in their skin, what do Keyes and Obama even have in common? Certainly not political ideology. Certainly not culutral ideology. What would make Keyes’ words ANY more poignant than (or less racist) than those of Philip J. Berg? In case you don’t know, Berg is a white attorney who filed a lawsuit 3 months before Keyes did, alleging the same thing. His case is pending, but he has failed to convince even the most conservative members of the Supreme Court to delay the election or innauguration, his allegations have been called baseless by the court in fact, just like the allegations that he made a few years ago when he sued the Bush administration for orchestrating 9/11. Just like Keyes’, Berg is an opponent of Obama, having been an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter. And just like Keyes, his allegations have no basis in reality…there is simply not evidence, nor any witnesses who can demonstrate that Obama is not a natural born citizen in spite of his birth certificate, which Obama DID produce and DID have on his campaign website for quite some time, even if you don’t realize it.
What this brings up in my opinion is that anyone could claim that I wasn’t a natural born citizen if they wanted to, even though I can prove I am by providing my birth certificate. But if they wanted to, they could claim I was lying, they could claim it was a fake, they could tell the public that I didn’t provide it even if I did, they could cast aspersions, but you know what? It wouldn’t make me not a citizen, just like it doesn’t make Obama not a citizen when someone does this to him. This here is what I call a put up or shut up scenario. You can make any lunatic claim you want, but you have to PROVE IT. I personally think there’s plenty of evidence to say that Bush was not actually elected in 2000, and I personally did not call him President, I called him Resident Bush, but that didn’t make him not be the President now did it? So I say, give Berg and Keyes and any other nutjobs their day in court, let them PROVE their allegations, and when they fail, they’ll be exposed as sour grapes whiny bitches.
Until then, how about this. I’ll go around saying futurelaker88 is gay and likes to murder nuns, and my basis will be that I’ve never seen him kiss a girl or not murder a nun. Holds just about as much water. And if I did that, I would essentially be setting up an impossible task for you…because no matter what you did from here on out, even if you married a woman and had your entire life taped 24/7 so you could demonstrate that NOT ONCE were you filmed with a man (or murdering a nun), how do we know what you did BEFORE the cameras went on? You can’t just ask someone for evidence of something and then refuse the evidence they give you and make up your own evidence.
And one last comment re your last quip, what btko is saying is that that Keyes’ statements were consistent with a radical Christian ideology that says that abortion is wrong. Maybe he’s got other reasons, but those pushing this particular argument are the evangelical Christians, he’s using their arguments, so the statement about radical Christianity is more about the idea than the man. And the point is that radicalism is not what we want, period.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
