Obama as Hitler

[chefdennis]

Turtle, most all of that is your opinion, just like the authors..you can't prove them any more then they can in some of their instances. Just because you don't like their method, doesn't mean a **** thing, and there are 2 other articles, where are the lies in them?? And to say that no dr or nurse could be forced to perform any abortion, is like saying the US constitution is in good hands...we'd all like to believe it, but unfortunatly it ain't true and hasn't been for a long time.

Who would have thought that preachers would be arrested for hate speech for quoting bible scripture about homosexuality? But it has happened. But they have civil rights, they can't be taken to court for that, they have rights...Don't think for a minute when Barry has his "health care" system in place that if a doctor won't perform abortion on demand because of his beliefs that he doesn't find his government "funding" cut... all you would have to do is have 1 welfare mom go for an abortion and the dr say no based on his personal beliefs, she crys to some liberal group they go to the fed and "poof" the doctor no longer qualifies for his payments from the fed controlled board for medical compliance....(i have no idea what barrys borad will be called, i just made that up)

And as barry runs over the Constitution, you really think civil rights are going to help huh....??? LOL....right....

 

[aristotle]

Chef... doctors and nurses have free choice about what type of medical practice to engage in. If the federal government threatened to withhold federal payments to them, they can simply opt out of doing any work that depends on federal funding.

 

[cheri1122]

Turtle, most all of that is your opinion, just like the authors.
You seem to have a problem discerning the difference between fact & opinion, Chef..you can't prove them any more then they can in some of their instances. Just because you don't like their method, doesn't mean a **** thing, and there are 2 other articles, where are the lies in them??
If the lies could be refuted as easily as the copy & paste slapping up of the articles, they'd be refuted, every time. But there's only so much time anyone can devote to such a useless project. And to say that no dr or nurse could be forced to perform any abortion, is like saying the US constitution is in good hands...we'd all like to believe it, but unfortunatly it ain't true and hasn't been for a long time.
No Dr has ever been " forced" to perform an abortion, and any nurse who performed one would be subject to arrest for exceeding his or her scope of practice. As Turtle proved, with FACT, protection of a medical practitioner's right to follow their conscience has been in place for a long time, and no one is threatening or trying to change that. Period.

Who would have thought that preachers would be arrested for hate speech for quoting bible scripture about homosexuality? But it has happened. But they have civil rights, they can't be taken to court for that, they have rights...Don't think for a minute when Barry has his "health care" system in place that if a doctor won't perform abortion on demand because of his beliefs that he doesn't find his government "funding" cut... all you would have to do is have 1 welfare mom go for an abortion and the dr say no based on his personal beliefs, she crys to some liberal group they go to the fed and "poof" the doctor no longer qualifies for his payments from the fed controlled board for medical compliance....(i have no idea what barrys borad will be called, i just made that up)
Any Dr who doesn't want to perform abortions is free to refuse, without penalties. Any woman seeking an abortion is free to visit a clinic that will oblige - nobody needs to (sic) "crys to some liberal group" to obtain it, and nothing Obama has done changes that. The rest is just your own projection, and is nothing like the truth, as usual. BTW: specifying a "welfare mom" as one seeking an abortion just proves your agenda - do some research on who is in need of that procedure, and see how wrong your preconceptions are, huh?

And as barry runs over the Constitution, you really think civil rights are going to help huh....??? LOL....right....

Even for you, Chef, that's just a pathetic stretch of fantasy, and not worth answering.

 

[Pilgrim]

If Barack Hussein Obama has displayed Hitleresque tendencies, it would have more likely been his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that started when he was an IL state senator. Although it was hardly mentioned by the Republicans during the campaign, some of us should remember the issue. The following are a couple of quotes from an article by Carol Wilkins written in Aug. 2008:

"On March 30, 2001, Barack Obama stood on the Illinois Senate floor as the only opponent to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Essentially the bill stated that if a child were born alive due to a botched abortion, a doctor would be called in to care for the child. It was a straightforward bill, allowing doctors the opportunity to take a viable baby into care and give the child the opportunity at life..."

"The slope from infanticide is a slippery one. One cannot help but draw comparisons to Hitler's Germany. Once it was "okay" to deny the weak, the mentally ill, the unwanted to die without medical help then it was "okay" to go ahead and just "euthanize" them."

In no uncertain terms, Obama was in favor of letting a newborn child that had survived an abortion attempt die without benefit of any attempt from doctors to save its life. IMHO, this attitude is indefensible and barbarian to say the least. Considering his desire to impliment universal govt. controlled health care, it's not a stretch to conclude that this infanticide will become policy along with govt. provided abortions. To carry it one step further, suppose it becomes too expensive or impractical to care for elderly patients - what happens to them?

If the GOP had nominated a decent candidate, this outrageous position of Obama's would have been shouted to the rooftops. Instead, the McCain campaign chose to ignore it along with many other significant issues they could have effectively used against Obama.

Below is the link to the entire article, which very clearly outlines Obama's attitude toward abortion and perhaps gives us an insight to his view on human life in general:

Barack Obama Supports Infanticide - Associated Content

 

[chefdennis]

Even for you, Chef, that's just a pathetic stretch of fantasy, and not worth answering.

But you continue to answer and keep the thread alive!! It is all about Barrys action and policies on abortion, and yes people will be forced to perform procedures that they have strong personal beliefs and if you can, please print any articles saying that it hasn't and WON'T happen...not opinions (since these authors and myself aren't suppose to draw them, please use factual situations).

Chef... doctors and nurses have free choice about what type of medical practice to engage in. If the federal government threatened to withhold federal payments to them, they can simply opt out of doing any work that depends on federal funding.

I guess that like not hauling cheap feight...but the difference will be when it is socialized med that all payment comes from the government, once you a black listed for whatever reason and payment stops, it will stop for all procedures, and simply putting the dr or nurse out of business.

As for them not doing procedures, alot of them are not doing medicade or medicare stuff now, because of the cost out of their pocket to do them...don't think so, ask your own dr and see..... And you might check and see how many AMERICANS are going to med school to become new doctors, thse #'s are down also....this ain't our fathers country anymore, the government is not what it was suppose to be, and that isn't simply Barry, it is too big and a usurped too much power from the people, and it the not to distance future, the people will take back whats left.....and for me personally, that time can't come fast enough.....

 

[Turtle]

Pilgrim, that article is opinion, and is highly skewed in favor of an agenda. When Wilkins states, "Essentially the bill stated that if a child were born alive due to a botched abortion, a doctor would be called in to care for the child. It was a straightforward bill, allowing doctors the opportunity to take a viable baby into care and give the child the opportunity at life..." that's at best, misleading. The Illinois Bill didn't essentially say that at all, the bill attempted to redefine a fetus, viable or not, as a "child" and thus subject to Equal Protection laws in a blatant attempt at being anti-abortion legislation.

She references the Jill Stanek op-ed piece on the issue, which is in itself a highly biased article that twists many of the facts, and omits many others.

Mr. Cut-N-Paste was Johnny on the Spot with the article, references and comments, as well as the text of the Bill itslef.

My comments in the issues are here.


Chef, "Turtle, most all of that is your opinion, just like the authors..you can't prove them any more then they can in some of their instances."

Actually, out of all that I've written here, about 5 or 6 lines of it is opinion, and even that's backed up by some pretty solid observation, like my comments on why the Pro Lifers are using it in the manner they are, and that Bush's Order was badly written due to it having so many unintended consequences, plus my comments about what I think his Order should have said is also pure opinion. Other than that, there isn't a single thing that I wrote that can be construed as anything other than fact.

As for the lies in the other articles, that's a claim that I never made. You posted the additional articles to support the views of the Hitler, which they failed to do. In fact, the other two articles supports what I said, far more than it supports anything in the original Hitler piece. Granted, the MSM articles are incomplete, as they should have at the very least contained the full text of Bush's Executive Order so people can get the full picture of the entire issue, but instead they focus on the hot button issues and the sensational, because that's what the MSM does. They have their own agenda, too, it's just that they don't usually blatantly lie in order to persue it. They will omit certain things and give it their own slant, but everything they say is usually factually accurate.

The litmus test for many journalists is,
"Is that true?" ...
"No, but it's accurate."

That's how the mainstream media is able to slant the news while still reporting the facts, even when they leave some of the facts out of the story. Bloggers, on the other hand, aren't as picky about facts. They're all about conclusions that support their opinion and agenda. Bloggers and other op-ed writers will have a particular conclusion already in mind, an agenda to pursue, and will use whatever facts, partial facts, and factoids they can find, or create, which enables them to substantiate their conclusion. Facts that do not support their beliefs or conclusions are conveniently discarded.

The Hitler piece discarded all facts, with the exception of Rachel Maddow being less funny and a more butch version of Keith Olbermann. That's true.

 

[Turtle]

"It is all about Barrys action and policies on abortion, and yes people will be forced to perform procedures that they have strong personal beliefs and if you can, please print any articles saying that it hasn't and WON'T happen...not opinions (since these authors and myself aren't suppose to draw them, please use factual situations)."

For one, Obama hasn't taken any action on abortion, and has set no policy on it, other than he believes in the right of a woman to choose. You're all goofy about what you think his actions might be, and what his polices may become. You disagree with that, and that's fine, but just because he believes in the Right to Choose, does not mean that he believes in infanticide or forcing doctors to perform morally objectionable medical procedures. Those are merely fear-based, unsubstantiated accusations and conclusions with nothing to back them up other than fear and ignorance about the issues.

Second, when you state that people will be forced to perform abortions that are against their moral beliefs, that's a charge without anything to back it up, and you state it as stone cold fact, using the phrase "will be forced". That's something you'll have to prove. Even phrasing it as a possibility, using "could be forced" or "may be forced" would still be a charge that would require some evidence to substantiate it, particularly since the Civil Rights Act precludes the possibility of it happening. You may think that Obama can get around the Civil Rights Act, but that's just another unfounded fear based on nothing. The Civil Rights Act is far too ingrained in the fabric of daily life in this country, and anything that would diminish or undermine it would be quickly challenged, and overturned, in court. People much smarter than Obama have tried, and failed.

When you ask for articles that state that doctors performing procedures against their moral beliefs hasn't, or won't, happen, that's asking someone to prove a negative, which is a virtual impossibility. If you make the charge, you have to prove the charge. You can't just go around making accusations and then use the impossibility of proving a negative as proof that your charges are valid. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean people have written articles about it not happening. On the other hand, if it's happened, you can bet that there are articles out there about it, so let's see 'em, dood. Prove that people "will be forced" to perform morally objectionable procedures. Show an article that states where it has happened. Do keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act absolutely gives people the choice.

Also keep in mind that Cheri is an actual medical professional, a former nurse. I'm willing to bet that she knows more about this than you and me put together. (the fact that I know more about this than you and me put together is irrelevant)

Yes, we're keeping the thread alive. But it's taken a sinister turn towards the actual truth. Oh, the horror.

 

[layoutshooter]

You can spin anything you want, any way you want. My beleifs are solid, and will never change. That is how real MEN are. They have core beliefs, developed over years of study and life experience. Once a MAN forms a core belief he bases his life on them. Those beliefs are not formed lightly or easily, not based on shallow feelings. A real MAN is willing to give his life defending those beliefs. Many have and many will in the future.

I value human life above everything. I abhore the un-nessesary taking of innocent life. I believe that life begins at conception. The only known way to abort a baby is to KILL. It is a fact that you are ending life with an abortion. You might argue the spritual side of this, is there a soul or a God or whatever. Medically, that fetus is alive, that is a cold hard fact. Abortion kills that fetus. That is a fact. I find that repugnat. Killing a baby to avoid facing the results of your own actions. I can see this in cases of rape or incest. I think there are other options, but I can see it. I agree with abortion to protect the life of the mother. Killing a baby just because you don't have the time for it or it does not fit your plans is disgusting.

I find Obama's flippant remark, "That is way above my paygrade", when asked if he knew when life started is the sign of a very immature person. If a man does not have his beliefs on basic life issues formed by his age he never will. I find he is either an amoral or immoral person. I am repulsed by him and his lack of a moral backbone. There is no middle ground. There is right and there is wrong. It is a life requirement to know the difference. A man that is that wishy-washy on basic life issues has no business being in the position he is in.

I have no moral conflict between my outlook on war and national defense and abortion. I believe that conflict should be avoided and war is the LAST resort. Conflict should NOT be avoided at all costs. We did that in the late 1930's and that cost way more lives than if we had stopped Hitler before he had re-built his military. We knew it was coming. We did not stop the Soviets when they enslaved most of Europe and killed 10's of millions. When we go into a fight the United States does NOT use rape as a weapon. We have NO national policy to attack innocent women and children as Obama said. When my job was targeting our nukes I did everything possible to insure that damage was limited to military targets. Our enemy knew this. They often would move thier mobile missiles into areas that were surrounded by civilians. We do not do that. The policy of the U.S. military is to avoid loss of innocent life at the expense of our own.

My beliefs will not allow me to pay for the killing of un-born human life for ANY reason other than cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. That includes killing for stem-cell research. I will not accept a cure to save my own life if that cure involves killing another human. I will not accept jail or arrest when I stop paying taxes if those taxes are used to fund any of the things I have mentioned. The only way you will subdue me is to kill me. What are your beliefs? How many are you willing to kill to insure the killing of others?

Layoutshooter

 

[chefdennis]

Well turtle we could continue this as long as we both are to, and I'll be happy to, but the fact is if you don't agree with a person or their slant, its wrong, well guess what, I think your stance is wrong, based on my opinion , conjecture, made up horse crap and anything else i care to use or say.. Your fact and mine don't come to the same conclusion, but hey thats ok , i can live with with no problem at all. I can keep you busy all of your spare time if i cared to until you simply quit and I will laugh all the time i am doing it, because the info (no matter if it is deemed factual by you or not) is getting out there just as what you have to say too thats the beuaty of the internet, we both have the ability to post and share whatever we want, as long as it is legal...

As for Cheri knowing more about medical issues then me, the dog catcher knows more about stray animals then me also, so what......

As for your continued talk about the doctors and nurse having civil rights, as I said, peoples civil rights are violated daily, prove that no Doctor or nurse has never had theirs violated, you can't......

See turtle , you and i are much alike, i can debate with you as long as you want, i might not use the facts as you do, but i'll get my opinions, message, propaganda, and anything else i want to out there, and as you might say, facts be****ed, prove them wrong.... Oh and as for your statement a while back about proving myself an 8ass, lol I have proven much worse then an 8ass long before you came around, And again, i have no interest in inviting you around or spending time with you , so what you think really doesn't matter.

So post away, i'll be happy to offer my counter anytime, but remember as Barry steps on rights and the Constitution and the lives of babies, I told you so......but you enjoy your take on him and his policies and coming policies, you seen ok in defending his killing of babies and our rights.....

Oh and as for the thread taking a turn, yea, it has gotten hilarious and yes it does now include your version of the truth, which is fine with me, it still has info i orginally put out there included also...

 

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim, that article is opinion, and is highly skewed in favor of an agenda. When Wilkins states, "Essentially the bill stated that if a child were born alive due to a botched abortion, a doctor would be called in to care for the child. It was a straightforward bill, allowing doctors the opportunity to take a viable baby into care and give the child the opportunity at life..." that's at best, misleading. The Illinois Bill didn't essentially say that at all, the bill attempted to redefine a fetus, viable or not, as a "child" and thus subject to Equal Protection laws in a blatant attempt at being anti-abortion legislation.

Of course the article is opinion, but that's what this discussion is all about. Two things in the article jumped out at me: (1) Obama was the ONLY senator to oppose the bill (2) Obama based his claim on the argument that "the bill attempted to redefine a fetus...". To the contrary, I and a lot of others would argue that it was Obama himself that was trying to redefine a fetus to include a life form that is outside the womb and is thus still subject to the federal laws governing abortion. Every reasonable definition of a fetus - legal or otherwise - stipulates that it is a life form "in the womb or egg." It doesn't take a biology genuis to determine that once the human life form is outside the mother and is viable it's no longer a fetus - it's a young human being. This legislation was intended to provide this young human it's God-given constitutional rights of life, liberty, etc.

I don't want to wander too far off into the legal tall grass, or get into the inane wording of legislation. My point is that it appears Barack Hussein Obama's attitude toward life is rather cold and callous - consistant with his personality in general. If his govt. run health care program becomes reality, his attitude could carry over to the elderly, the sick, or to whomever else he and his lackeys deem "not worthy" of the effort and expense needed for their survival.

 

[Turtle]

Don't even pretend to know what my stance is on these issues, because you don't. And don't even pretend to think that you know how to debate. If you care to debate, I welcome it, but it will mean debating me in your own words, not the cut-n-pasted words of others. I don't think you can formulate a clear and rational thought that is developed enough to be a part of a debate, because you must first state your position, and then use the facts and reasonings of how you reached your conclusions. No one here has ever read any evidence of you being capable of doing that.

The issue at hand here is a perfect example of my facts being actual facts, which support an irrefutable conclusion, and your facts are pure fictions, created to support an irrational conclusion.

 

[chefdennis]

Pilgram wrote:

My point is that it appears Barack Hussein Obama's attitude toward life is rather cold and callous - consistant with his personality in general. If his govt. run health care program becomes reality, his attitude could carry over to the elderly, the sick, or to whomever else he and his lackeys deem "not worthy" of the effort and expense needed for their survival.

Well put Pilgram and this is certainly how it appears when you read everything that Daschle stood for and his involvment from the start as to his fail cabinet appointment and his input on this section of the porklus bill, how the Barry healthcare program appears to be headed and just his coming policies in general...his way or the highway, remember, "I won", he made sure the republicans knew that at one of their 1st dem/repub get togethers over the porkulus bill....

 

[Turtle]

It doesn't take a biology genuis to determine that once the human life form is outside the mother and is viable it's no longer a fetus - it's a young human being. This legislation was intended to provide this young human it's God-given constitutional rights of life, liberty, etc.

No, this legislation was not intended to do that. We already have legislation that does that. This legislation attempted to define a "child" (an infant) as being "at any stage of development" once it is removed from the womb by any means, and uses as one of the litmus tests for "born alive" to be the pulsating of the umbilical cord. That can happen with a stillborn baby at 10 weeks, where the umbilical cord continues to pulsate until it is cut. But the definition makes it so that even the doctors and medical staff must use any and all medical treatments available to keep the "child" alive, even if the doctor knows full well that it is not a viable fetus. It removes the medical judgment from the doctor, making the doctor subject to criminal charges if he refused to attempt to keep an inviable fetus alive, whether it was removed from the womb by abortion, cesarean section, natural or induced labor.

The legislation to redefine what a child is was conceived, written and introduced by Pro Lifers expressly for the purpose of making and end run around Roe v Wade, because this legislation would have eliminated the vast majority of abortions.

Incidentally, "Two things in the article jumped out at me: (1) Obama was the ONLY senator to oppose the bill..." You might want to let that one jump out at you again. If he was the only Senator to oppose the Bill, then it would have passed, hands down. It was defeated, twice, by a large margin. Quoting the article, emphasis mine: "Obama, the sole opponent ever to speak against BAIPA, stated on the Illinois Senate floor..." Obama was merely the only one who spoke out against it on the Senator Floor, but he was far from the only Senator to oppose the Bill.

 

[chefdennis]

LOL, state my position?? I guess that slipped by ya huh!?!? LOL!!

As for my opinion, I guess that got by you too huh? As for debating, I fine with using whatever fits my purpose, just as polictians do....

And what you think, doesn't mean a thing to me, not in the least...

 

[Pilgrim]

No, this legislation was not intended to do that. We already have legislation that does that. This legislation attempted to define a "child" (an infant) as being "at any stage of development" once it is removed from the womb by any means, and uses as one of the litmus tests for "born alive" to be the pulsating of the umbilical cord. That can happen with a stillborn baby at 10 weeks, where the umbilical cord continues to pulsate until it is cut. But the definition makes it so that even the doctors and medical staff must use any and all medical treatments available to keep the "child" alive, even if the doctor knows full well that it is not a viable fetus. It removes the medical judgment from the doctor, making the doctor subject to criminal charges if he refused to attempt to keep an inviable fetus alive, whether it was removed from the womb by abortion, cesarean section, natural or induced labor.

Yes, this legislation WAS intended to do that.

"Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Effective immediately."

Suppose, in the event of an apparent stillborn baby - regardless of the stage of development, the doctors are required to make efforts to resuscitate it. What's so unreasonable about that? It's not like the umbilical cord remains connected indefinitely. I'll admit that the inclusion of a pulsating cord as one of the life signs is a bit strange, since it would seem to be a condition controlled by the mother. Once it's cut and it becomes apparent there are no other life signs the process required thereafter would be pretty routine. However, if there are other signs of life as defined in the legislation it only seems reasonable and moral to give the newborn infant every chance possible to survive. This gets back to my original point - once the life form is outside the womb and is viable it's no longer a fetus, regardless of the stage of development. If it's not viable, nature will take it's course.

 

[Turtle]

LOL, state my position?? I guess that slipped by ya huh!?!? LOL!!

You're all over the place. You have no position on any issue, only radical ramblings that contradict rational thought and intelligence.

As for my opinion, I guess that got by you too huh?

Other than Obama=bad you don't seem to have very many opinions of your own. But rest assured, the few that you do have, have not gotten by me.

As for debating, I fine with using whatever fits my purpose, just as polictians do....

That's why you fail, utterly, at debating. You don't know how.

And what you think, doesn't mean a thing to me, not in the least...

Oh, it does. You just won't admit it. Your actions betray you.

 

[chefdennis]

LOL, believe me, i wouldn't know you if you walked in the room, and i certainly wouldn't go out of my way to meet you if you were in the same room, this is nothing personal, This is the internet. I have chatted here for over 12 yrs and i have not made a overt attempt to meet anyine from on line, it it happens, fine (and it has) but i do not go out of my way to meet anyone. So again, what you think of me doesn't matter at all.

One thing you have no idea about me is a have the ability to turn off compassion and empathy like a switch, so to care what you think about me, i'd 1st have to care about you......

 

[RLENT]

My point is that it appears Barack Hussein Obama's attitude toward life is rather cold and callous

One thing you have no idea about me is a have the ability to turn off compassion and empathy like a switch, so to care what you think about me, i'd 1st have to care about you......

Chef ..... sounds like you and Barry are really birds of feather .... you could be twin brothers.

So .... why dontcha just stop bein' a 'tard ?

 

[chefdennis]

Well 1st the cold and callous quote would be a good to compare my comments, but it didn't come from me, it came from Pilgram, now if you see me has cold and callous in me opinions of obama , say so, don't use anothers quote when he wasn't using it towards me, just step up and say it yourself about me, i mean with my syance on muslums, you certainly have enough ammo...and 2nd, abortion and the death of the unborn and even the born that Barry would let die, are something I have compassion and empathy for, thats one area I turn the switch on...

but as to birds of a feather, maybe, but only in a personally trait, not on any issues....And I will add that it is good that you recognize that trait in Barry , Me I admit it, he'll just lie and cover it up.......

 

[mjolnir131]

It's all about increments really.

Hitler did not start out as total evil.

We are giving it away very fast really ... This is how liberty dies

Really what is the difference between this Unser Hitler ist unser Lord

and this A happy Sunday in Venice

Shortly after the election i saw several pro Obama commercials on TV the just hit me wrong.

It not up to a single man to change the USA it the job of the people, the president works for us or is suppose to anyways.Getting all that exited about one man is very scary.especially when its our job in the first place, not his.That is how Hitler came to power in Germany people getting excited about letting one man take there responsibility for them.

Lets tap that EPIII clip one more time i think it has allot to say ... In case you did not watch it the first time