gadgetlady

To put it another way, Jack, life is an inalienable right and should not be denied any living human being. The rights to drink, drive, marry, etc. are not.

You are 100% correct; it is an issue of standing. My point is that legal standing for the right to life should be based on when life begins, not at some other arbitrary point in time -- just as black people, for biological reasons, should never have been defined as 3/5 of a person and been denied rights based on that analysis (interestingly, one of the rights they were denied was the right to life, as their "owners" had the right to kill them if they wanted to; had the basis for their legal standing been biological, they couldn't have been denied these rights).

I have to add one thing: I really hope Obama can defeat all of these charges, because the thought of the rioting in the streets that will occur should he be disqualified gives me a knot in my stomach.

I don't think we should try to employ a religious or spiritual definition in the case of when human life begins, precisely because religious and spiritual definitions are personally, not biologically, determined. We should not base the decision about when life begins on one's personal judgment, because a nebulous "what I believe" judgment isn't medical fact. If Person A believes life begins at conception, Person B believes it begins at 24 weeks, and Person C believes it begins at birth, they cannot all correct. Baby A, Baby B, and Baby C were all alive at the same point in development, regardless of what their mothers believed them to be. There is a point when life actually begins, despite the differences that people have as to when they believe it begins. And that point should be biologically determined, not spiritually. That is exactly my point. Just as black people weren't any different the day before the Dred Scott decision was overturned than they were the day after it was overturned, so also the unborn baby is the same at, say, 16 weeks in 2008 as he or she was at 16 weeks in 1908. The biological facts about the beginning of human life, the same ones we were taught in 6th grade biology, are quite clear. I agree that it is a great improvement, but it also serves to shine a light on the fact that an outside entity can't harm or kill an unborn baby; his or her mother is the only one with that "right."

I agree, and that's what makes me most curious about this whole thing. Here's an excellent summary of the whole thing (to date): 200810222308 | My Mother's Birth Certificate - And Obama's | / | Editorial (long but not tough to read), part of which says While Obama's camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was. (perhaps this is the original basis of the Snopes article that TheGh0st found? IDK) Here's an article just released today as well: Newsmax.com , which demonstrates that this is no longer a one-lawsuit-flash-in-the-pan: Lawsuits in Washington and Georgia are seeking state superior courts to force the states’ secretary of state, as the chief state elections officer, to require Obama to produce original birth records from Hawaii, or else decertify him as a candidate for the presidency.

Thanks, green. It is nice when people can take a clearly less-than-perfect situation and turn it around into a blessing. The birth mother is really treating this as a new start for her life, a positive way to get her life turned around by doing the right thing now and in the future as well.

I've heard the same theory, but on the "experience" issue -- that when people get into the voting booth, they'll just not be able to vote for someone with such limited experience, no matter how much of an orator the man is. We shall see . . .

Coffi, I think it's truly horrible that anyone would think that way, much less say it -- regardless of whom they're saying it in front of -- and regardless of your cultural background. However, to ascribe votes to McCain just because he's "white" could just as easily go the other way. Did you hear the Howard Stern interview of the people in Harlem who said they were voting for Obama, and when McCain's issue stances were ascribed to Obama (e.g. keeping the troops in Iraq and finishing the war, being pro-life, etc.), they didn't bat an eye? Then when the interviewer asked them, "What do you think about Obama's choice for VP, Sarah Palin -- do you think she'll do a good job?" and they all answered yes? If you haven't heard the clip on YouTube, lmk and I'll try to find it for you. I have posted it somewhere on LBT already. There are, unfortunately, idiots on both sides.

CUT COSTS. DRAMATICALLY. Agreed. The Republicans have indeed spent too much. But if they are drunken sailors, the Dems are . . . I can't even come up with an analogy for how out-of-control it is! The point is, the spending has to stop -- on BOTH sides!

The Secret Service says "kill him" hasn't been yelled out at rallies. Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded | Wilkes-Barre breaking news | timesleader.com - The Times Leader www.kansascity.com | 10/22/2008 | Secret Service looking into Obama threat at rally Listening to tapes of that rally, the Secret Service heard "tell him" or "tell them," but agents never heard "kill him," Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told The Associated Press on Wednesday. In both the Clearwater and the Scranton instances, the Service only learned of the alleged threats through media reports. Olbermann, as usual, is unhinged.

Yes, and again I say yes. I have similar stories -- several of them -- but I will tell one. And just so everyone knows, I am NOT trying to bring abortion back into this thread, but simply using it as an illustrative story. Many years ago, I was involved with Operation Rescue, which was a peaceful protest, civil disobedience movement in which hundreds of pro-lifers sat in front of abortion clinic to shut it down for the day (risking, and often getting, arrest). I was a videographer for these events. One day, we arrived at a clinic in Los Angeles before it opened for business. The doors were closed, lights were off, bars on the windows (it wasn't a great neighborhood), no cars in the parking lot. The pro-lifers blocked the door and, after negotiations and many, many hours of sitting there, were arrested, one-by-one. The clinic was closed for business the entire time. There was even a "closed" sign in the door. After the last person was arrested, at the end of the day (around 4:30pm on a Saturday, after business hours) I watched a news team direct three people huddled over, to walk up to the door of the clinic (doors still closed, lights out, "closed" sign still in the door) while the tv crew filmed them. I thought to myself, "I wonder what they're doing?" I was there at the clinic for at least another hour after the last arrest; there was no employee activity at all. By the time I left, it was dark. That night, I came home and turned on the news. The station reported on the protest, showed the pro-lifers sitting there, showed them getting arrested, and then showed the huddled-over trio approaching the door. The reporter said, "Despite the protesters, the clinic was open for business all day." My jaw dropped. Not only was it an outright lie, it was 100% staged! I do not trust the media one iota.

Nope. Very often they are the unsuspecting dupes of what the MSM believes or presents as "unbiased truth". It is literally pervasive, and often well-hidden.

Jack, as usual, you're spot on on everything you said in this post. The mainstream media, aka MSM, is incredibly biased -- and not everyone realizes it. Liberals tend to say, "but you have Hannity!" which is ridiculous because 1) Hannity is a self-described conservative, and 2) Colmes, a liberal, shares the show with Hannity. It is also the case that the right-wing commentators tend to dominate the radio. But again, they all clearly identify themselves for who they are.

I appreciate that you appreciate it I'm a big believer in looking at unbiased facts to come to a logical conclusion -- I don't much care for spin. I've always wondered what the political landscape of America would be were it not for the obvious and documented media bias.

Well, I just read that yesterday Berg filed a motion for a summary judgment in this case, because Obama didn't produce the documents by the deadline. According to Berg, constitutionally that means that he has admitted the allegations. Also, this apparently isn't just an issue of whether he was born in the US, but also if he forfeited his US citizenship when he lived in Indonesia. He also supposedly traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when it was a no-travel zone for Americans (and they weren't letting American citizens in) and he traveled under an Indonesian passport instead. As an interested observer of Constitutional Law, this is absolutely fascinating to me. Again, I doubt anything will come of it, but I'm really curious about the twists and turns the cases are taking. You can get more info at: The Corner on National Review Online Press Release: Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama The suit has also been filed against the DNC as well. The guy doing this is a Hillary supporter, so I wonder if he thinks if Obama is disqualified, the DNC would automatically move Hillary into his spot?

It's not that tough. The container has a very wide opening. The most difficult part is that, because you store it in the refrigerator, the container itself gets very cold. Then you pull it out and put it between your legs and {shiver} it's no fun. I would suggest, if you're going to do it, to do it in summer. It's probably very refreshing.

"Plastic gas can" is a great description. I called about 1/2 way through the day to ask what I did if I filled the container. They said, "most people don't fill it." Yes, but what if I do? "Oh, most people don't." OK, but what if I do? She got off the "party line" a bit and said, "Do you really think you will?" (Duh. Why do you think I'm asking over and over again?) Yes, I do. I picked up another container. Good thing, because I went over. Poor Donna: don't read this. I "produced" about 3400ml.

Good point! I wasn't necessarily talking about health insurance, but I definitely don't want my money's worth on any of those :wink_smile:

Here's an interesting map of confirmed reports of ACORN fraud: ACORN Fraud 2008 Map : Election Journal Interesting how they seem to center mostly around battleground states.

LOL! It's in an orange bottle and my dh JUST said: "I don't know what bothers me more: the fact that there's pee in the 'fridge, or the fact that when I open the door I think, 'Oh look! Orange juice!'" LOL! I have a lot of general malaise issues (I don't sleep well at night but I did a sleep study and I just barely don't qualify for apnea or restless leg; I have all of the classic symptoms of a thyroid issue but always test well within normal on thyroid function tests); the doctor is running a full panel of everything to see if he can figure out how to "fix" me. I can't stay away from politics, though -- it doesn't raise my blood pressure -- politics is IN my blood :smile:

As an aside, on the "born outside of the US" issue, in the 1980's I traveled with my family (parents and two brothers) to East Germany. Going through the checkpoint, I was the first in line. They looked at my passport and let me through immediately. But they stopped and detained the rest of my family for about 20 minutes (a little freaky for a teenaged girl now in East Germany waiting for them!). I've always wondered if it was because my passport indicated that I was born in Germany.

There were questions about the document number being blacked out, the seal not being there, whether the document was created in Adobe, the borders of the document not matching, and the characterization of his father's race, among other things. I'm sure Berg took these things into consideration before filing his suit (he is, after all, a Democrat). I don't want to be in the position anymore of defending something I don't necessarily believe in so that's all I'm going to say on the matter. We'll just see how it plays out in court. My sense is it will die a slow death, but, again, production of the documents to the court in which the case was filed could squelch it immediately.

Nope. I was born in Germany (on a military base) and have always had US citizenship. The same question was raised about McCain because he was born in Panama (on a military base); he produced his birth certificate and the issue died in its tracks. The issue is a Constitutional one, and while again it seems far-fetched to me, it's something Obama could squash fairly easily by producing his birth certificate.

Fascinating study from Pew Research just came out about positive and negative media portrayal of the candidates, called Canvassing Campaign Media: An Analysis of Time, Tone and Topics. If you don't read the report, you should at least look at the pretty graph: Pew Research Center: Canvassing Campaign Media: An Analysis of Time, Tone and Topics

Again, while I'm not convinced on this issue, I don't think an Obama website will necessarily provide the information "true believers" (or disbelievers, as it were) are requesting. It seems to me Obama can squash the rumors (if they are rumors) by just producing the documents for Berg's suit.