Why Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama

What on earth are you talking about here?:huh:
No name calling here but hey you could at least read and see what we're talking about?:redface:
Btw, it hasn't been proven that Obama represents the majority, we've never voted but that really should be another thread!

You fell off the deep end, I don't think you can recover.
You keep bringing the radical stuff up here and I'll keep pointing out Obama had a chance to save babies lives and didn't do it.
His voting record speaks for itself.
We aren't talking abortion, we are talking about what happens when a baby survives an abortion or is a baby not a baby?

You just don't get it.
The problem is Obama could've done something to save lives but didn't.
People should also know Obama's voting record before making that decision and I'm just reminding them of that fact.
Your rant just reminds me of others in this thread that seem to think that its ok because babies died because of the language of the bill.:huh:
Wow

 

So I should vote for a bill that has parts I fundamentally disagree with because it does some good at present? That mindset displays no foresight. Putting laws on the books shouldn't be taken lightly simply because it addresses one current issue. That is why the BCS sucks, because instead of employing sufficient foresight it simply tries to correct the latest blunder.

I think those in favor of seeing babies allowed to die are in the vast minority, and for you to argue otherwise simply makes me say...

 

Just so you know something about the author of this article, Jill Stanek, and why she is a nutcase not to be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ over 50...

First off, her claim in this article about infanticide were investigated by Pro-life Illinois AG Jim Ryan, who found no evidence to substantiate her claim.

She has advocated men beating their wives who are considering or have had an abortion.

She has claimed that the Chinese "eat their babies".

She compared an Illinois Senator to a pornstar because she has HPV.

She has railed against proponents of condoms being covered by health insurance as being "pro-aborts".

She has raised money for anti-condom ads in Africa.

She insisted that Terry Shiavo was fully alive and aware.

She has come out strongly against HPV vaccinations.

So yeah, if you look past the fact that this woman is a nutcase, the article makes alot of sense. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

No, you should vote that way in this circumstance because it would save a human life.
The problem you have is that you don't seem to see that a little innocent baby's life and future is at stake.
You can't seem to tell the difference between that and pork.

Comparing the BCS to this is simply not a good analogy.
It's too bad you don't see the difference between pork and a little human.Thanks for sharing.

 

What makes no sense is your little rant.
What also makes no sense is Obama's voting record on the subject.
So, let me get this straight, you are for the killing of innocent babies that survive an abortion?:huh:
Or do you believe that has ever happened?

 

Makes plenty of sense to me, its not even a slant, this is a bend and break to the right presented as being journalisitc objectivism.:hihi:

 

Seriously? And you're complaining about government bloat? I won't even get into my BCS analogy as you seem to think that I think college football is as important as a human life.

 

Values are values....

I would choose to save lives over pork anyday.
Pork will always be there as long as human beings are in charge.
That is why I prefer a smaller government, means less pork and less power for the ultra powerful, I hope!

I don't have to like either choice but I'll take saving lives of the innocent among us.
They didn't ask to be aborted or left to die after the abortion failed.
All Obama had to do was sign one out of three bills and he didn't do it.
I don't recall reading anywhere, where pork was present in the third bill but I don't think it matters.

Any of us reading this thread today, should be glad we haven't been aborted or died, its by chance we are here.

 

Thats the issue here, not abortion, or the right to, or not or if this woman is a nut case or not. Anyone who would have anything that resembles an issue with not leaving a baby to die because he/she survived the first attempt on its life is not even human. IMHO.

 

So if my "rant" makes no sense, then would you care to offer a counter-opinion, other than an ad-hominem?

Since you seem to be a little confused by my use of the english language, I will be more clear by stressing the first item of the list:

...her claim in this article about infanticide were investigated by Pro-life Illinois AG Jim Ryan, who found no evidence to substantiate her claim.

Read it slowly... It might sink in... THIS NEVER HAPPENED. Live babies were not left to die. It was investigated by a pro-life Attorney General. No evidence of this practice was found.


Quoting a known nutcase and liar to substantiate an argument is generally not a good idea.