McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by The Edge

I don't need to dispute it. The burden of proof falls on you. If it were as you said, he would not even be running right now.

You start off trying to say he's guilty by association. That's weak, and you know it. Am I a thief because my friend used to shop lift at Wal-Mart? When Obama found out about this guy being corrupt, he donated the money he received from him to charity.

Then you link something trying to say he won by suing his competition. Do you have any idea about any of this stuff? The candidates had obtained false signatures and he investigated and busted them on corruption. It's not the way he wanted to win, but what was he supposed to do, ignore it?

And yes, all you are doing is using fear as your driving force, and no, that doesn't make it true. It really is quite old now.

I can't make it any NEWER, it remains the truth whether it's from five years ago to two decades ago. The burden of proof? Is this some kind of fucking TRIAL? This isn't some kind of secret but hey, the fact is I HAVE laid out the burden of proof over and over and over again around here:

Oh lol and let's take a look at the sort of FURTHERING Obama has done since he graduated from Columbia after rooming with a cocaine addict named Sadik.

Obama gets discovered by one of the most corrupt Arab powermongers in the country, Tony Rezko, who had been partnered with the son of Nation-of-Islam founder Elijah Muhammad. Gets a job at the firm that represented Rezko, proceeds to work on a Rezmar project that takes government money to rehab old senior homes and then "fails" without giving back the money.

Obama then shacks up with Bill Ayers, the leader of a terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon, murdered police officers and who believes he didn't do ENOUGH, from whose home---and with Rezko/Muhammad's money---Obama's political career was LAUNCHED. That's right, as if Obama's wacky pakistani radical friends in College weren't enough, he launched his career from the salon of an avowed TERRORIST.

Said "Political Career" was launched by Obama STEALING his very first elected office by "SUING" all his opponents off the ballot (including a REAL community activist, Alice Palmer), challenging their nomination petitions whether they were valid or not by sending lawyers in at the middle of the night during New Years. Obama even admitted that what he did was wrong but justified it by saying that Illinois got a "pretty good senator" in exchange.

But we didn't.

Obama then proceeded to become one of the worst senators in Illinois state history, having one of the worst attendance records, voting according to his personal advantage ONLY and refusing to show any political courage __AT ALL__. Obama failed to take a stance that would improve the lives of his constituents, yet never failing to shunt lucrative low-income housing development contracts to his arab powermonger friends. In fact, when community activists started protesting the delinquent construction practices of Obama's corrupt contractor buddies, OBAMA WROTE LETTERS TO THOSE ACTIVISTS TO CONVINCE THEM TO STOP RESISTING HIS FRIEND. This while Obama routinely shuffled lucrative contracts to his friends Rezko and Muhammad in addition to giving out plush state jobs for Rezko's friends.

During all this time Obama managed to write TWO books while failing to provide any meaningful legislation for his constituents. Not to say that Obama failed ALL his constituents, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam got a GREAT SENATOR out of Obama since Obama elevated TWO senior members of Farrakhan's hate group to his staff as Treasurer and Director of Constituent affairs.

Obama's clearly expressed the worst sort of judgment throughout his career, but most times it's obvious that it comes down to plain incompetence. Like when Obama said "OOPS I PRESSED THE WRONG BUTTON on critical legislation votes on the few times that he wasn't absent or voting "present". Was this just once? No, it was a repeated pattern of "pressing the wrong button" from 1996 to 2002. In one case Obama's mistake vote was the critical vote that denied funding to an inner-city youth center that would have taken vulnerable kids off the gang-blighted streets.

I haven't even BEGUN on Obama's collusion with Jeremiah Wright, who had toured the rogue state capitals of the world alongside Louis Farrakhan, but maybe you can help us illuminate where it is you and these "others have shown" an Obama career that resembles the man and the integrity you have placed so much faith on.

The federal prosecutor has already linked Obama in the expanded federal investigation that has already lead to Rezko's conviction and the indictment of the former bureau of health physicians and and several Democratic Party operatives.

These aren't "fear tactics" when it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE in Chicago and has been circulating nationally in several bestselling books including Dr. Jerome Corsi's The Obama Nation. Corsi has DARED the Obama campaign to sue him for any inaccuracy and the best they can do attempt brownshirt intimidation and harassment tactics against dissident voices.

As far as Obama "NOT" stealing his 1996 election, not ONLY was his method of doing it surreptitiously during a New Year's holiday, leaving no room for the opposing candidates to respond to the challenges before the ballots were made, Obama HIMSELF ADMITTED HIS WRONGDOING:

Originally Posted by Chicago Tribune

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

And then, as if to justify his wrongdoing, Obama says that "I think they ended up with a very good state senator.", by which he refers to himself, the worst senator in Illinois state history.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by tad10

Mmmmm. Okay.


1. Equates unexpected with unwanted and/or unloved. There is no way of knowing how the mother would feel about a child in a world sans legal abortion. Whether or not the child was concieved accidentally does not correlate to whether the child is raised as an 'unwanted' or 'unloved' child. More to the point, I'll suggest that in most cases an accidental pregnancy still results in a loved child.

We live in a world with legalized abortion. By choosing to have one (note the word choice, nobody is being forced) the mother shows that she doesn't want to have it.

2. Presumes that crime is the only rationale outlet for such children. Which has been shown to be wrong (see, e.g. in the article linked above the brief discussion of the (de)merits of crack dealing).

It doesn't presume that at all. It simply says they're statistically more likely to become criminals, which is true.

3. Ignores all the fun(?! -- who doesn't love the interrobang?) criminals who though 'wanted' are still fuckups. Where are Leopold and Loeb when you need them?

Never claimed it's a comprehensive way to eliminate crime. Simply that it reduces the occurrence thereof.

4. Is just flat out racist. Come on -- be honest.

How so? Wealthy, white people have abortions, too. They just don't depend on planned parenthood to pay for it.

5. Pretty much ignores the scientific method. Just because you 'feel' something doesn't mean it is true. I can honestly say that 'I feel God exists.' But I recognize that doesn't prove anything to the average atheist.

6. And in any case the article I linked debunked the theory that you 'feel' was correct.

Did you read the update? It has nothing to do with "feeling" something is true and the corrected analysis comes to the same conclusion.

There's also the "common sense" test that simply having fewer people born means you end up with fewer criminals.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Of course planned parenthood is serving more minorities than Caucasians. Their services are most needed in poor neighborhoods, which are disproportionally inhabited by minorities.

What's the argument here? Should poor women not have the same choice to get an abortion? Clearly this isn't about the money, as having one is much cheaper than welfare payments for the kid. For the woman, it's probably even the responsible choice. Evidently, she doesn't think she's in a position to raise a child.

And what is the ratio of whites to minorities again in this country? Hmm....

Sorry buddy (I'm not your buddy, friend, I'm not your friend, guy...) but as I suggested earlier you don't get to play ostrich with the effects of the policies you support.

Planned parenthood is responsible for the deaths of more blacks than any other 'single' cause since slavery. At least in the U.S. -- who the hell knows how many Africans were killed in the Belgian Congo or South Africa and etc. by the various colonial/white-only rulers during the 'good ol' days' [the last is sarcasm for any twits who don't get it].

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by tad10

Planned parenthood is responsible for the deaths of more blacks than any other 'single' cause since slavery.

Begging the question whether abortion constitutes death in all circumstances.

To wit: what constitutes life in the first place?

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by aychamo_aycono

What fucking retarded nonsense.

Edited to remove the link to not even give that garbage a 2nd look.

lol lighten up, Aych.

Definitely tongue in cheek, but only moderately more retarded than most of the Obama-Muslim bullshit spewed before on the forums and elsewhere.

Of course, Palin's religious views on book bannings and the war with Iraq are more acceptable to most because they're Christian, regardless of how fundamentalist they are.

However, at 8am on Sunday before my first cup of coffee, I found it rather humorous

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by tad10

Mmmmm. Okay.


1. Equates unexpected with unwanted and/or unloved. There is no way of knowing how the mother would feel about a child in a world sans legal abortion. Whether or not the child was concieved accidentally does not correlate to whether the child is raised as an 'unwanted' or 'unloved' child. More to the point, I'll suggest that in most cases an accidental pregnancy still results in a loved child.

Studies have shown that both unwanted AND unloved babies have a greater propensity for health, social, and pyschological problems. For some reason you think that Levitt was the first one to make this connection, he wasn't. Levitt is an economist simply using numbers and equations to prove a point. Studies have been done which produced the same results. Furthermore, there are more problems the younger the mother is.

The adverse health consequences of teenagers' inability to control their childbearing can be particularly severe. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer toxemia, anemia, birth complications, and death. Babies of teenage mothers are more likely to have low birth weight and suffer birth injury and neurological defects. Such babies are twice as likely to die in the first year of life as babies born to mothers who delay childbearing until after age 20.

Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems, even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources. A long term study of children born in 1961-63 to women twice denied abortion for the same pregnancy and pair matched control children born to women who did not request abortion showed significant differences, always in disfavor of the unwanted children. All the children were born into complete families with similar socioeconomic circumstances. Being 'born unwanted' carried a risk of negative psychosocial development, especially for only children who had no siblings. At age nine they did poorer in school (despite no differences on intelligence tests), were less popular with classmates, and were more frequently described by mothers and teachers as being difficult. By age 21 -23 they reported less job satisfaction, more conflict with coworkers and supervisors, and more disappointments in love. By age 35 they had experienced more mental health problems.

You are wrong on many counts, but I'll just link one of the articles that refutes your points. Feel free to check the sources and feel free to research the studies done by other countries.

Psychological Issues - When Pregnancies are Unwanted

[MrSpitz]

Abortion is a choice, whoever wants to use it should use it.

And one of the main reasons it is so goddamn prevalent in the 'inner city' which I can almost gaurantee you have never lived in or worked intimiately with is because that population chooses against using birth control. You can google the studies on that, I don't provide sources to you clamoring idiots.

Hence a large factor for the disproprtionality.

[UnchainedAcolyte]

Originally Posted by Jedah

Begging the question whether abortion constitutes death in all circumstances.

To wit: what constitutes life in the first place?

So hilarious, when conservatives argue against gun control laws, the response is "guns don't kill people; people kill people!"

Yet in the same situation with the availability of legalized abortion, Tad acts as though blacks are being lined up under threat of death to have an abortion.

Reduce unwanted pregnancies, and you'll have less abortions.

[Khorum]

LOL I guess the antics at MSNBC's coverage of the DNC, which culminated in this particular gem, didn't settle quite so well amongst MSNBC's brass:



I'm sure someone will miss Olbermann anchoring on that network.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Soriak

We live in a world with legalized abortion. By choosing to have one (note the word choice, nobody is being forced) the mother shows that she doesn't want to have it.

And the hypothetical is about a world w/o abortion. Right? Follow the argument. The end result is different when the starting conditions are different.

It doesn't presume that at all. It simply says they're statistically more likely to become criminals, which is true.

No. It isn't. Read the article I posted. Levitt is flat out wrong.

Never claimed it's a comprehensive way to eliminate crime. Simply that it reduces the occurrence thereof.

ditto.

How so? Wealthy, white people have abortions, too. They just don't depend on planned parenthood to pay for it.

Number of abortions by minorities is far out of proportion to their numbers in the population. When we're talking abortion and criminals we're talking minorities and criminals. This is one point I'm not going to argue again. If you can't face reality you're not worth dealing with.

Did you read the update? It has nothing to do with "feeling" something is true and the corrected analysis comes to the same conclusion.

Levitt = still wrong. Update and all.

There's also the "common sense" test that simply having fewer people born means you end up with fewer criminals.

This has nothing to do with the 'common sense' test and, last time I checked, China wasn't awash with a hundred million criminals. Nor is there a direct correlation with crime rates and population anyway.

United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


* * *
This debate is about the effect of abortion on particular minorities in particular soci-economic classes: poor blacks and (to a lesser extent) poor hispanics. That's it. You and Levitt think that if abortion hadn't killed off 11 million black and some X million hispanic children we'd have way more crime today. I and some other people disagree.

On a side note -- absent abortion Democrats would have undoubtedly won a majority (House/Pres and maybe Senate depending on what was up for grabs -- and where w/ respect to the Senate) in every election since 1991/1992 given eleven million more voters and the roughly 90/10 voting record of African-Americans. So good job on supporting the mini-genocide of your strongest voting block!

[Darus Grey]

Number of abortions by minorities is far out of proportion to their numbers in the population. When we're talking abortion and criminals we're talking minorities and criminals. This is one point I'm not going to argue again. If you can't face reality you're not worth dealing with.

Abortion rates follow a clear pattern of income(higher income, less births, and less abortions).

Poor people have more kids on average, again, income is the primary factor.

Minorities in America tend to be poorer.

Thus since minorities are generally poorer, and being poor, have more kids, it stands to logic they would have more abortions as the number of pregnancies rise.

You're painting this as a "Racial" issue when in fact it is an economic one, because you'll see the same pattern among poor whites.

[emoo]

Originally Posted by tad10

Levitt = still wrong. Update and all.

So this debate boils down to your willingness to accept the content of the research update. Fantastic.

[Mippo]

Originally Posted by tad10

And the hypothetical is about a world w/o abortion. Right? Follow the argument. The end result is different when the starting conditions are different.


No. It isn't. Read the article I posted. Levitt is flat out wrong.



ditto.



Number of abortions by minorities is far out of proportion to their numbers in the population. When we're talking abortion and criminals we're talking minorities and criminals. This is one point I'm not going to argue again. If you can't face reality you're not worth dealing with.



Levitt = still wrong. Update and all.



This has nothing to do with the 'common sense' test and, last time I checked, China wasn't awash with a hundred million criminals. Nor is there a direct correlation with crime rates and population anyway.

United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


* * *
This debate is about the effect of abortion on particular minorities in particular soci-economic classes: poor blacks and (to a lesser extent) poor hispanics. That's it. You and Levitt think that if abortion hadn't killed off 11 million black and some X million hispanic children we'd have way more crime today. I and some other people disagree.

On a side note -- absent abortion Democrats would have undoubtedly won a majority (House/Pres and maybe Senate depending on what was up for grabs -- and where w/ respect to the Senate) in every election since 1991/1992 given eleven million more voters and the roughly 90/10 voting record of African-Americans. So good job on supporting the mini-genocide of your strongest voting block!

This is only a debate because of the religious fanatics that are heavily anti-abortion. It has nothing to do with blacks or hispanics. This debate actually precedes our country because it is simply an extension of the nature vs nurture argument that has been going on for centuries.

The fact is that it has been scientifically proven that certain traits, such as humor, are learned.

Nurture Not Nature

The environment we grow up in plays a large part in who we are and who we become. In the case of an unwanted child, the environment is one that in most cases is not conducive to raising a child hence the abortion. If the parent or parents feel that not having the child is the best choice, it's likely true and the environment that child would be raised in will affect the personality of the child later in life. Studies have proven this, so I'm not really sure what you are debating here or if you just like debating proven science. Ironically, a lot of things used to be attributed to "God" before there were scientific explanations for them.

How the personality is affected obviously depends on the parents and the child but it's far more likely that an unwanted child will come out worse then a wanted one whether it be health, psychological, or socially so it makes sense for there to be a higher propensity for crime based on the psyhological reasons currently known as to why people commit crimes.

[Jedite]

Originally Posted by Khorum

LOL I guess the antics at MSNBC's coverage of the DNC, which culminated in this particular gem, didn't settle quite so well amongst MSNBC's brass:



I'm sure someone will miss Olbermann anchoring on that network.

He was wrong calling Joe out like that, however I totally agree with his statement about the 9/11 tribute video..

That fucking video wasn't a tribute, me and my friends lost friends at the Towers and felt sick to the stomach that the Republican party would use 9/11 for political gain like they did, to even insinuate Iran in that video was seriously distasteful.

A tribute video is about the people, not about terrorist. That fucking video was a mockery of the people who died, and the thousands of workers affected by the fumes at ground zero.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Jedite

He was wrong calling Joe out like that, however I totally agree with his statement about the 9/11 tribute video..

That fucking video wasn't a tribute, me and my friends lost friends at the Towers and felt sick to the stomach that the Republican party would use 9/11 for political gain like they did, to even insinuate Iran in that video was seriously distasteful.

A tribute video is about the people, not about terrorist. That fucking video was a mockery of the people who died, and the thousands of workers affected by the fumes at ground zero.

OK i've gone over that video twice and I must've glossed over where they talked about a 9/11 tribute video as a central cause for the whole "Get a Shovel" argument (which wasn't the cause for MSNBC's decision, just an example of the sort of behavior that precipitated it).

Ah it's in the article, nm. Should probably mention that Joe Scarborough has been a giant douchebag too.

Anyways, Obama "on the cuff" inadvertently lets slip about his "muslim faith":