"Independent voters are rejecting Romney"

[spence]

I think you're wrong.

The problem with the GOP isn't that they're having a great race, it's that all the candidates suck. At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you're wrong.

The problem with the GOP isn't that they're having a great race, it's that all the candidates suck. At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential."

Ah yes. Hilary is the "proven quantity". This is the same woman who claimed that on a visit to Sarajevo or somewhere, that she had to dive into an armored vehicle because of sniper fire. When footage of that incident showed that she lied, her excuse was that she didn't get a good night's sleep the night before. Spence, let me tell you something. I have 3 young boys, one was collicky, one had acid reflux. I have been as tired as a human being can get. And never, not once, did my exhaustion ever lead me to falsely believe that I was shot at. If a Republican told that lie, they would RIGHTLY no longer be viable contenders for the office as President. But it's OK when a democrat does it.

And Obama, the "unknown with great potential". This was a guy who was known for 2 things as a state senator in Illinois - voting "present", and for supporting the right of mothers to kill their babies afetr the babies were born and outside the womb. Then he had one half of one term as a US senator, where he accomplished exactly nothing of any significance. So I can only wonder on what you base your assumption that he had great potential...

[Jim in CT]

Some folks here are concerned about Santorum's position on abortion. As his position on abortion is radical, that's understandable. I respect that fact that even though Santorum knows that his views on abortion will turn off a lot of folks, he doesn't hold back. That's a lot more courageous, and a lot more honest, than Obama. When Obama was campaigning, and a reverend asked him when he thought life began, Obama answered "that's above my pay grade". That's called d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g, that's called lying. Everyone knows what Obama's position on that issue is. And if someone from the National Organization For Women asked Obama that same question, he would have given a substantially different answer.

So. The media is making a big deal of Santorum's radical pro-life stance. Why, I wonder, didn't the media make as big a deal about Obama's monstrous stance on abortion? Since I'm sure many don't know this (because it wasn't widely reported), when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a mom's right to kill her baby, after the baby was born and out of the womb. Sound too shocking to be true? Google Obama and the Infants Born Alive Protection Act.

In communist China, a truly barbaric place, they will force women to have abortions against their will. However, as they are dragging a woman off to perform an abortion, if the baby is born first, Chinese law demands that the baby be cared for, because even the Chinese realize that this is clearly an innocent, precious human life. In other words, Obama's position on abortion is more barbaric than the Chinese.

But the American media are telling me to be afraid of Rick Santorum? And some here are buying into that?

Go ahead Spence, tell me where that's even a little wrong.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Some folks here are concerned about Santorum's position on abortion. As his position on abortion is radical, that's understandable. I respect that fact that even though Santorum knows that his views on abortion will turn off a lot of folks, he doesn't hold back. That's a lot more courageous, and a lot more honest, than Obama. When Obama was campaigning, and a reverend asked him when he thought life began, Obama answered "that's above my pay grade". That's called d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g, that's called lying. Everyone knows what Obama's position on that issue is. And if someone from the National Organization For Women asked Obama that same question, he would have given a substantially different answer.

So. The media is making a big deal of Santorum's radical pro-life stance. Why, I wonder, didn't the media make as big a deal about Obama's monstrous stance on abortion? Since I'm sure many don't know this (because it wasn't widely reported), when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a mom's right to kill her baby, after the baby was born and out of the womb. Sound too shocking to be true? Google Obama and the Infants Born Alive Protection Act.

In communist China, a truly barbaric place, they will force women to have abortions against their will. However, as they are dragging a woman off to perform an abortion, if the baby is born first, Chinese law demands that the baby be cared for, because even the Chinese realize that this is clearly an innocent, precious human life. In other words, Obama's position on abortion is more barbaric than the Chinese.

But the American media are telling me to be afraid of Rick Santorum? And some here are buying into that?

Go ahead Spence, tell me where that's even a little wrong.

Sure, as usual you're pretty much wrong about everything.

First off, Obama wasn't "lying" when he said he didn't know when life began. A lot of people don't think it's at conception and a lot of people think it's before birth. Our laws are negotiated around an imperfect position here. It was a dodge, not a lie.

Secondly, Obama never supported a woman's right to kill her baby outside of the womb. The legislation he opposed was designed to eat away at Roe V Wade without adding any real value. Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable.

Obama also did support a virtually identical measure at the Federal level where it became law.

So your accusations, both of them, are clearly false.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure, as usual you're pretty much wrong about everything.

First off, Obama wasn't "lying" when he said he didn't know when life began. A lot of people don't think it's at conception and a lot of people think it's before birth. Our laws are negotiated around an imperfect position here. It was a dodge, not a lie.

Secondly, Obama never supported a woman's right to kill her baby outside of the womb. The legislation he opposed was designed to eat away at Roe V Wade without adding any real value. Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable.

Obama also did support a virtually identical measure at the Federal level where it became law.

So your accusations, both of them, are clearly false.

-spence

"Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable."

Absolutely, 100% false. You could not be more wrong. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was a proposed law that said that if a baby was born, doctors would be required to care for it. The bill was proposed SPECIFICALLY because babies that somehow survived abortions, were allowed to wither and die, if the moms told the doctors not to care for it.

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, insane as they are. You are not entitled to your own facts, and once again, you are making them up.

Obama twice rejected the bill, which allowed the practice of living abortions to continue, until a federal law was unanimously passed by the US Senate which forbid the practice.

Yuo go ahead Spence, you show us the law that existed BEFORE THEN, that made living abortions illegal. If that was the case, why did the US Senate feel the need to pass their own law?

You really just feel free to make it up as you go along, don't you?

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Let's see what you're made of Spence, this post is a defining moment for you. You either show me what law prevented living infanticide, or you admit that you made it up.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let's see what you're made of Spence, this post is a defining moment for you. You either show me what law prevented living infanticide, or you admit that you made it up.

Defining moment, ha!

Here's the original law that was proposed to be amended. It clearly states that in the case of an aborted baby being born alive the doctor by law must work to preserve the health of the fetus. This was used to argue that the amendment was not necessary.

720#^&ILCS#^&510/#^&#^&Illinois Abortion Law of 1975..

Considering that abortion is regulated by the states, an amendment that gave specific rights to a living aborted fetus was clearly designed to challenge Roe V Wade...when there was already law on the books giving the living baby legal protection in the state.

Sure, there's some politics at play here...but your accusation of infanticide is bogus.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Defining moment, ha!

Here's the original law that was proposed to be amended. It clearly states that in the case of an aborted baby being born alive the doctor by law must work to preserve the health of the fetus. This was used to argue that the amendment was not necessary.

720#^&ILCS#^&510/#^&#^&Illinois Abortion Law of 1975..

Considering that abortion is regulated by the states, an amendment that gave specific rights to a living aborted fetus was clearly designed to challenge Roe V Wade...when there was already law on the books giving the living baby legal protection in the state.

Sure, there's some politics at play here...but your accusation of infanticide is bogus.

-spence

Spence, did you read the factcheck link I posted? The irrefutable fact is this...babies who were born alive were denied care, and allowed to whither and die. The doctors were not charged with any crimes, because they broke no existing laws. This practice is what led to the proposed bill. You are the only person I have ever heard deny this.

"an amendment that gave specific rights to a living aborted fetus was clearly designed to challenge Roe V Wade"

Wrong again. If offering protection to living babies was designed to be a threat to Roe V Wade, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN why the federal law passed UNANIMOUSLY in the US Senate? There's a lot of liberal democrats in the Senate who admitted that what was happening in Illinois (what Obama supported) was not abortion, but infanticide.

Sorry Spence, you are really showing your true colors here, more than I've ever seen. You're really coming un-hinged.

"your accusation of infanticide is bogus."

Please tell me, specifically, how what was happening in Illinois (until teh feds stopped it) is different from infanticide. In that state, partly thanks to OBama, living babies, who were born alive, outside the womb, and in no way physically connected to the mother, were born alive but injured (because of the failed abortions). Screaming in pain, the cries of these babies were ignored at the wishes of the mother. The babies were put in a room alone, to eventually die of their wounds.

I don't care what one thinks of abortion...I don't see how any human being can be OK with this...but when a bill was proposed to require medical care to these babies, Obama (then a state senator) blocked the bill 3 times. Now, of course he didn't say that he was blocking the bill because he likes infanticide. He said he blocked the bill because he was afraid of threats to Roe V Wade. But regardless of his stated reasons, the fact remains that Obama's actions allowed the practice of infanticide to continue in Illinois, until the feds voted unanimously to stop it.

If Obama was such a gifted and talented legislator, and such a swell guy, why didn't he draft a state law (similar to the federal law) that would protect these babies and still uphold Roe V Wade? That's the type of decisive leadership that, in my opinion, warrants promotion from state senator, to US Senate, to president. How could he sleep at night, knowing what was taking place in those hospitals?

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Some folks here are concerned about Santorum's position on abortion.

Ah yes... just a matter of time before you got on the typical abortion kick . I think this completely unrelated tangent was created quicker than usual. This thread about Independent's lack of support for any of the GOP candidates just took a fun nosedive into the trash heap.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah yes... just a matter of time before you got on the typical abortion kick . I think this completely unrelated tangent was created quicker than usual. This thread about Independent's lack of support for any of the GOP candidates just took a fun nosedive into the trash heap.

Johnny, someone else posted that Santorum has a whacky position on abortion. All I did was claim, corrcetly, that Obama's view on abortion is at least as whacky, if not more so. Take a breath and calm down...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential."

Ah yes. Hilary is the "proven quantity". This is the same woman who claimed that on a visit to Sarajevo or somewhere, that she had to dive into an armored vehicle because of sniper fire. When footage of that incident showed that she lied, her excuse was that she didn't get a good night's sleep the night before. Spence, let me tell you something. I have 3 young boys, one was collicky, one had acid reflux. I have been as tired as a human being can get. And never, not once, did my exhaustion ever lead me to falsely believe that I was shot at. If a Republican told that lie, they would RIGHTLY no longer be viable contenders for the office as President. But it's OK when a democrat does it.

And Obama, the "unknown with great potential". This was a guy who was known for 2 things as a state senator in Illinois - voting "present", and for supporting the right of mothers to kill their babies afetr the babies were born and outside the womb. Then he had one half of one term as a US senator, where he accomplished exactly nothing of any significance. So I can only wonder on what you base your assumption that he had great potential...

Your personal opinions on two politicians you don't like aren't really relevant here. What's important is that the Democrats happened to like both Clinton and Obama...while the GOP is trying to figure out who's the least worst.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your personal opinions on two politicians you don't like aren't really relevant here. What's important is that the Democrats happened to like both Clinton and Obama...while the GOP is trying to figure out who's the least worst.

-spence

Spence, what I posted about Hilary and Obama was fact, absolute, objective, irrefutable fact. Because those facts made your political heroes look like the awful people they are, you dismiss those facts as "my personal opinions". That's the difference between a blind ideologue like you, and a rational person like me.

If one single thing I posted was wrong, please enlighten me.

To you, liberal always means right, conservative always means wrong, and you bend over backwards to regurgitate that message, and repeatedly ignore that which does not fit that simple-minded narrative. I see right and wrong on both sides, where it exists.

Here is the world according to Spence...when the 2008 Democratic primary kept bouncing back and forth between Hilary and Obama (up until the week of the convention by the way), it was NOT a sign of disarray, but rather, the inevitable result when faced with a choice of 2 such superb human beings. When the 2012 GOP primary goes back and forth (9 months before our convention), it's necessarily because all of the candidates stink.

Do I have that right Spence?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here is the world according to Spence...when the 2008 Democratic primary kept bouncing back and forth between Hilary and Obama (up until the week of the convention by the way), it was NOT a sign of disarray, but rather, the inevitable result when faced with a choice of 2 such superb human beings. When the 2012 GOP primary goes back and forth (9 months before our convention), it's necessarily because all of the candidates stink.

Do I have that right Spence?

Not completely...

I think the Dem's in 2008 saw two positive candidates and the issues you mentioned weren't considered as major factors by primary voters.

As for the GOP, every candidate running is flawed in the eyes of the establishment, so flawed in fact that they lack confidence any one of them can beat the person you think is the worst president in the history of the USA.

-spence