Obama continues to misrepresent Born Alive vote

No Sunday funny today. There's nothing funny about Barack Obama's bold-faced lie to CBN's David Brody last night after the Saddleback Showdown, when he continued to maintain he did not vote against an identical bill as IL state senator to the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act:

Obama was obviously aware of the evidence provided last week by National Right to Life when making the statement. He not only continued to deny his vote in the face of 2 pieces of documentation showing otherwise but called the messenger a liar.

Again, here is Obama's March 13, 2003, vote in the IL State Senate Health & Human Services Committee, which anyone could obtain from the IL General Assembly archive (click to enlarge):

Thumbnail image for final vote.jpg

"DP#1" means "Do Pass Amendment #1." "DPA" means "Do Pass as Amended."

Here is the original bill. Here is Amendment #1. Here is the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

Obama first voted in favor of Amendment #1 and then voted against the Born Alive bill as amended. It couldn't be more clear. Furthermore, here is the Republican Senate Staff Analysis from that day, expressing the same understanding of the chain of events:

Thumbnail image for committe report.jpg

Senator Obama needs to show his own evidence that none of this is true.

[HT: moderators Jasper and Carder and pro-lifewitness.com]


Comments:

Obama has arrived.

This is his custom-made Lewinsky except that it's not a gorgeous babe he's denying, but a discarded newborn.

Can he do it, folks? Can he rise above the parted waters?

Posted by: carder at August 17, 2008 9:14 AM


I have to second Hisman, Jill. If you do get that appearance with Hannity, it has to be spelled out, step by step, the series of events. And that little committee action report needs to be front and center.

Posted by: carder at August 17, 2008 9:21 AM


Reporters like the one in the clip aren't asking the right questions and Obama cleverly evades the heart of the matter... as politicians learn to do. You can't let Obama get away with discussing the the bill that was introduced because I think that's where Obama can truthfully say "I opposed it because it lacked the language" yada-yada.

A reporter has to say, "Sorry, Senator, but I am not talking about the bill that was introduced. I am only referring to the amended bill. Why did you oppose THAT one?"

And then all Obama has left is, "Because there was already a law."

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 17, 2008 10:25 AM


The bold faced liar.

Posted by: Bethany at August 17, 2008 10:26 AM


Here is the best part....not many people care!!!!!!!!!!! Ha. If they did care, this issue would be front and center. It is not. Just like McCain killing more american soldiers...

Posted by: PeachPit at August 17, 2008 10:37 AM


Cranky Catholic, yes exactly. When is a reporter going to challenge him on it. What are they afraid of?

Posted by: Jasper at August 17, 2008 10:40 AM


Mr. Obama seems to be misrepresenting the National Right to Life Committee's allegation of misrepresentation of his position on the bill. He never even mentions the amendment, claiming that the two bills were completely different, and he somehow brings the Illinois Medical Society into the picture, as if they had something do with Mr. Obama's voting record and the final content of the bill. It's as if he's completely unaware of his own amendment that made the state bill almost identical to the federal bill.

And then he has the audacity to accuse the National Right to Life Committee of lying! Did he even read the pertinent material? If it's so far in the past--you know, perhaps he forgot what had actually happened--why doesn't he or someone in his campaign check out the details?

What don't I understand? And why doesn't Mr. Obama see a problem that he's going to have to address at some point? You know, if he's going to lie, he would be best off to think up some other reason that he voted against the amended bill.

Posted by: Jon at August 17, 2008 10:46 AM


Cranky 10:25 helped to answer my questions. I was preparing my comment when he submitted his.

Posted by: Jon at August 17, 2008 10:50 AM


Hal, this is just one more of the many, many lies told by Obama. Even if people don't care about the content of the bill, (which, honestly, I can't imagine...the media goes crazy when some teenager does the same thing that happens after these abortions)they should care about the fact that he is lying. I mean, be a man about and it and say "ya know what, I did vote against it and here's why" and have some integrity. Of course, Obama can't even be trusted to disclose his real name (Barry Saledo) so how can we trust him with anything else?

Posted by: lauren at August 17, 2008 11:03 AM


That should be Barry Soetoro I was going on memory instead of looking back at the article...sorry about that.

Posted by: lauren at August 17, 2008 11:26 AM


Paul Greenberg's recent article about Alexander Hamilton was good. "How It Was Once Done" was written for Mr. Edward's scandal, but the last paragraph certainly applies to Mr. Obama also:

It is hard, indeed almost impossible, to imagine so civilized an outcome in this time of 24/7 scandal when politicians, even on a presidential level, choose to lie about some personal weakness until they can no longer get away with it. And it's always the cover-up that is the greater offense against the public trust, and the soul.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 17, 2008 11:26 AM


"It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice ...." It's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly even after they know that they are wrong... and that's what's been happening."

What is wrong with this man? At the end of this conversation he's still calling abortion a "choice" ???? If Obama truly cared about babies dying, his position would be crystal clear. It's not. He doesn't.

Posted by: Janet at August 17, 2008 11:29 AM


No, Obama, *you're* the one intentionally misrepresenting YOUR beliefs.

Does he seriously think he can keep this up?

Posted by: lauren at August 17, 2008 11:33 AM


Jill:

Last night represents your curtain call. You can do it.

Jill, remember, there's always a cost to stand for the truth. Jesus gave His life. Don't be afraid for He is with you.

All pro-lifers, Jills's not revealing how mcuh pressure she's under right now and while we haven't talked or anything and I don't have any inside information, I can imagine what the pro-abort, leftists are doing and planning right now to discredit her. Please pray this edited Psalm 91 over Jill and pray it often"

Psalm 91, edited for Jill Stanek:
1 Those who live in the shelter of the Most High will find rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
2 This I declare about the Lord: He alone is Jill's refuge, her place of safety; he is Jill's God, and she trusts him.
3 For he will rescue Jill from every trap and protect her from deadly disease.
4 He will cover her with his feathers.
He will shelter her with his wings.
His faithful promises are her armor and protection.
5 Jill is not be afraid of the terrors of the night, nor the arrow that flies in the day.
6 Jill does not dread the disease that stalks in darkness, nor the disaster that strikes at midday.
7 Though a thousand fall at Jill's side,
though ten thousand are dying around her,
these evils will not touch her.
8 Jill opens her eyes, and sees how the wicked are punished.
9 If Jill makes the Lord her refuge,
if Jill makes the Most High her shelter,
10 no evil will conquer Jill;
no plague will come near her home.
11 For he will order his angels
to protect her wherever she goes.
12 They will hold her up with their hands
so she won’t even hurt her foot on a stone.
13 Jill will trample upon lions and cobras;
Jill will crush fierce lions and serpents under her feet!
14 The Lord says, “I will rescue those who love me. I will protect those who trust in my name.
15 When they call on me, I will answer;
I will be with them in trouble.
I will rescue and honor them.
16 I will reward them with a long life and give them my salvation.”

In the name of the Fahter and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.


Posted by: HisMan at August 17, 2008 11:35 AM


In the name of the Fahter and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.

Posted by: HisMan at August 17, 2008 11:35 AM

Amen.

Posted by: Janet at August 17, 2008 12:04 PM


Psalm 91 is certainly a good psalm, Hisman, especially appropriate for the Lord's day, but I would have left it unedited and merely suggested that it applied especially to Jill at this time.

It's an interesting application in the abortion context, but I don't think it all fits. "Though a thousand fall at Jill's side, though ten thousand are dying around her, these evils will not touch her." But of course they won't, because she's an adult, not a baby. And I think that the worst that her enemies can do to her is ignore her. But that's bad enough.

However, I'll read it again for my devotions--the unedited psalm, that is. I do wish Jill and other influential pro-lifers success as they expose the cover-up. And I'll mention them in my prayer.

And Mr. Obama claims to be so concerned about social issues and human rights! How can he be so blind? How wonderful if he would see the light!

I'm reminded of a novel that my previous pastor called pulp fiction. It probably is, but it's also fun and expressed much insight into our image-driven politics. Frank Peretti's THE PROPHET was about the abortion issue. "You will win the election, Mr. Obama, but by a smaller margin than you now expect..." Well, actually, there's a good chance that he won't win at all, but only God knows.

Posted by: Jon at August 17, 2008 12:07 PM


Thanks Janet and I made a mistake in misspelling Father. I am sorry Father, no disrepsect was intended, however, please help my dyslexic typing skills and improve the neuro-connection between my brain and fingers.

Jon:

Obviously Psalm 91 was written poetically and can be applied to anyone in any situation. Be it my son fighting in Iraq, someone battling cancer, or anyone needing God's pretection for any reason whatsoever.

And if you don't think pro-abort Liberals will use anything and everything against Jill, including slander and intimidation, well, you just haven't experienced much of life yet.

My edited version version of Psalm 91 stands and the prayer request is repeated specifically for Jill. God likes prayer specificity. If you want to pray it, pray it. Otherwise, please don't intellectualize a simple request.

Posted by: HisMan at August 17, 2008 12:25 PM


Sure, Hisman!--I'm happy to be wrong in this case.

I'm wrong in another case, too, at least according to Guy Benson, author of the recent article "Obama's Infanticide Disgrace". I was making a big point of the lie, which is a big point, but let's not lose sight of the bigger point which Mr. Obama is trying to hide. Here is Mr. Benson's final paragraph:

Whether it was Obama's radical policy preferences, blind partisanship, or some combination of the two that motivated his vote is unclear. Although it's offensive that Obama spun false excuses to try to justify his vote, what ultimately matters most is that he voted "no" on a bill that simply stated killing a living, breathing baby is not acceptable. That vote, in and of itself, is far worse than any political cover-up could ever be.

Posted by: Jon at August 17, 2008 12:33 PM


Jill this PUMA site has a youtube of you.


http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/

Posted by: lauren at August 17, 2008 1:01 PM


Jill, my prayers continue to be with you and our nation. Though our nation surely doesn't deserve God's mercy (just for the sin of legalized abortion alone), I am mindful that our Great God is ABOUNDING in love and mercy. Amen!

Posted by: LauraLoo at August 17, 2008 1:03 PM


Benson's article was excellent. He was able to state the case without inserting difficult-to-follow bill numbers and legalese. Superb.

Peachpit, before you go laughing into the sunset, consider for a moment to whom this issue would matter. Generally speaking, people who identify themselves as social conservatives who by and large suscribe to a biblical point of view. This particular group of people came out in droves in 2000 and 2004 to elect our current president.

Obama knows this. His party knows this. His appearance at Saddleback was in effect a way of communicating to those folks, "Hey, I'm one of you. Fear not, for even though we disagree on some fundamentals, I bring glad tidings of great relief for all Americans."

Obama could attempt to cover up about anything, really. But on an issue that even hard core prochoicers didn't oppose, it will give these undecided conservatives reason to pause.

Notice his reaction with the reporter. The man was fed up and really wants this issue to go away. It's not on the clip that Jill posted, but later that same reporter commented to the CNN correspondent (paraphrasing) that he has interviewed Obama several times, Obama usually keeps his cool, but this was an Obama that came across as frustrated.

Not good.

Like Jill says, if it's a lie on our part, prove it. If he is so confident that people will see it his way, then expose us.

Otherwise, be content with the fact the Lord does use the weak to confound the strong after all.

Posted by: carder at August 17, 2008 1:12 PM


Ho-hum, another extreme radical proabort lying through his teeth.... what's new about that? Oh yeah, this one is running for president of the country, I forgot about that. And did I mention he's in favor of infanticide?

Posted by: Doyle at August 17, 2008 1:22 PM


Jill, I will indeed join with Hisman and others to pray for you and yours, for your protection, wisdom and strength. There is a special need for spiritual warfare in this situation, because there will be an assualt by the pro-aborts and other radicals to smear anyone that will expose the radical stands of this candidate. The scriptural reference to putting on the whole armor of God is in Ephesians 6:10-18. Along with Psalms 91 pray for Jill (and ourselves) "to be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might, to stand against the devil's schemes. Our struggle isn't against flesh and blood but against the powers of this dark world and the spirtual, evil forces in heavenly realms. Put on the whole armor of God so that you may stand your ground firm with the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, feet fitted with the gospel of peace, the shield of faith to put out the flaming arrows of the evil one, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit which is the WORD OF GOD". Because there is so much at stake in this election especially the lives of more unborn babies, (Jill has posted previous articles that plays the video of what Obama promised PP once he is in office and his wife's letter fighting the ban on PBA), the promotion of PP's radical, sexual agenda for our teens (as if teenwire.com is not perverted enough, their new website takecaredownthere has hit a new low) and Obama has many promises to keep to them and his friends on the radical left. He is NO moderate, although he is trying to imitate one and to attack anyone like Jill who exposes him for the radical he truly is.
She saw him as he truly is in the IL. state legislature. "We are known by the company we keep" and Biblically it says "for the tree is known by his fruit" Matthew 12:33.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 17, 2008 2:44 PM


Just wanted to time-out everyone and comment on how well we're getting our points across.

I was reading some of politico.com comments on several threads, and I must say, that while there are a few who do manage to communicate intelligently, the majority seem to throw fluff instead of substance.

I would compare it to comic books vs. peer-edited journals.

Carry on.

Posted by: carder at August 17, 2008 2:50 PM


OK Jon, peace to you today.

Posted by: HisMan at August 17, 2008 3:03 PM


Praying for you, Jill.

Posted by: Carla at August 17, 2008 3:07 PM


Carder, I encountered the same problem with Benson's article at Townhall. A lot of fluff, little substance. Nobody was really responding to these dissidents:

DCR at 8:59 AM: "Well, State Senator Obama saw this legislation as part of the legal attack on abortion. The legislation is certainly politically motivated--how often does this happen really? Obama was justified in seeing this legislation as an attempt to give second trimester fetuses person status."

Phylo at 9:13 AM: "I hope everyone saw Obama confront this pack of lies in an interview with John Brody on CNN last night. Not that it would change the minds of some of you. Facts seem to be irrelevant to certain members of the religious right."

Lon at 3:23 PM: "Subject: In the unlikely event anyone cares. There is, of course, no way to tell if Benson is lying or has himself been deceived. But it is nonsense that infanticide was illegal either before or after this measure. The reason that Stanek's charges did not produce any criminal action is that she did not produce any evidence that they were true. Fortunately in this country advocates for one side of a political issue cannot get people on the other side arrested simply by accusing them of crimes without evidence.
These born again laws were designed as political tricks. They either did not change the law, or did in ways that were not clear in the wording. And pro-choice legislators basically decided to deal with these attempts to play tricks in the name of infants by voting for them if it was clear that they would do nothing, but not if they might do something. Obama's actions, along with all of the other democrats in Illinois, fits with this. It hardly shows that he was extreme that he voted in the majority on these measures.
But then the people trying to slime Obama need to lie since the whole point is to create a false picture.

Posted by: Jon at August 17, 2008 3:12 PM


Pro-lifer:

The PP web site you refer to should be considered pornographic. Does the governemnt know they are funding this?

Lord, please quickly destroy Planned Parenthood as you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis 19:

"23 Lot reached the village just as the sun was rising over the horizon. 24 Then the Lord rained down fire and burning sulfur from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah. 25 He utterly destroyed them, along with the other cities and villages of the plain, wiping out all the people and every bit of vegetation. 26 But Lot’s wife looked back as she was following behind him, and she turned into a pillar of salt.

27 Abraham got up early that morning and hurried out to the place where he had stood in the Lord’s presence. 28 He looked out across the plain toward Sodom and Gomorrah and watched as columns of smoke rose from the cities like smoke from a furnace.

29 But God had listened to Abraham’s request and kept Lot safe, removing him from the disaster that engulfed the cities on the plain."


Posted by: HisMan at August 17, 2008 3:17 PM


HisMan

I was informed of the Title X funding for this new PP website by a Jill Stanek article on this blog, I could not believe it. If this funding could be exposed I think most Americans would be outraged. How about a "did you know this is one of Obama's major contributors and backers campaign"? An idea: videos of him speaking with the PP logos and signs behind him and an expose of PP's immoral, preverted programs that they promote to teens, being run as an overlay. What do you think? The main problem most of their stuff is so bad and X rated you could not run it on mainstream media.

Posted by: Prolifer L at August 17, 2008 3:42 PM


Bible verse of the day:

Matthew 6:5-6

When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Posted by: Edyt at August 17, 2008 3:49 PM


Edyt:

So instead of being a pro-abort Liberal atheist, you are now a Bible thumping literalist who's just new at quoting Scripture out of context? Well that's a definite improvement and, it's forgivable.

Watch out for SoMG, Hal and Amanda now, they won't like you any more or give you any more of your much needed approval.

And this blog is now considered to be a synagogue or a street corner? That will be news to Jill.

Do you think that God was maybe questioning the motives of men's hearts and not the mechanics of prayer. I think what God was saying here Edyt was that we must pray for the right things and with the right heart and not for any reason, whatever it may be.

Personally, my only reasons for asking for prayer for Jill was that she needs it. Oh, and the atta boys I get from this site....out of this world. Have you heard SoMGs heart warming encouragements lately?

Perhaps your prejudicial and bigoted views towards Christianity and the inability to read Scripture correctly is a reason you're an atheist?

Posted by: HisMan at August 17, 2008 4:27 PM


Hey Cranky Catholic,

I was sitting in Panera just now, enjoying a salad, when I noticed a priest walk by in a robe, and I had to wonder if he likes to touch little boys.

Fair enough, right?

Posted by: Amanda at August 17, 2008 4:55 PM


HisMan, I am still waiting for you to tell me where in NYC you went to high school, and for you to identify one thing Planned Parenthood does TODAY that is motivated by racism or eugenics, and for you to identify one medical lie in any current or recent publication by PP.

Posted by: SoMG at August 17, 2008 4:59 PM


It is a sign of desperation when Obama resorts to calling people "liars" in order to cover up his own misrepresentations. He ought to come clean and apologize and get this behind him.

No doubt his answer plays well to his supporters who see him only through rose colored glasses, but he is digging himself in deeper and deeper with each denial. He looks rather flummoxed and discombobulated in the interview and every bit the political hitman as he complains about the supposed tactics of others even as he is engaging in those tactics himself.

Posted by: Jerry at August 17, 2008 5:05 PM


[I was sitting in Panera just now, enjoying a salad, when I noticed a priest walk by in a robe, and I had to wonder if he likes to touch little boys.]

1 in 6 priests has been convicted of child molestation....

Posted by: Ghost of Christmas Past at August 17, 2008 5:08 PM


Well, Amanda, if your exposure to Catholicism comes from mainly from the media, then I wouldn't blame you for thinking that way.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 17, 2008 5:12 PM


Ghost of Christmas Past (probably a friend of Amanda),

Can you post some statistics?

Posted by: Jasper at August 17, 2008 5:23 PM


Well CC, I guess my view (if I wasn't being sarcastic) would come from the same silly narrow minded ignorant place as your exposure to girls wearing tank tops in August.

Posted by: Amanda at August 17, 2008 5:32 PM


...combined with the way-too-short shorts, Amanda.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 17, 2008 5:42 PM


Shame on you Obama for dissing Justice Thomas. You are not fit to tie his shoe-laces.

Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia in a small Gullah-speaking community outside Savannah.He learned to speak the Gullah languages as a child, but purposely sought to downplay the language in favor of assimilation into his English speaking class.His father left his family when he was only two years old, leaving his mother Leola Anderson to take care of the family. When Thomas was seven they went to live with his mother's father, Myers Anderson, in Savannah. He had a fuel oil business that also sold ice; Thomas often helped him make deliveries.

His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance and would counsel him to "never let the sun catch you in bed in the morning."


At the College of the Holy Cross he graduated in 1971 with an A.B., cum laude in English. He then attended Yale Law School from which he received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1974.From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under then State Attorney General John Danforth. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. From 1982 to 1990 he was Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On July 1, 1991 President George H.W. Bush nominated Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall who had recently announced his retirement.

what have you done Obama?

Posted by: Jasper at August 17, 2008 5:48 PM


Jasper,

Do you know if Justice Thomas ever snivelled that people would pick on him because he looks different, has a funny name, and "oh, did we mention he's black?"
Despite being subjected to racial slurs his entire life, he was ridiculed as "America's blackest child" and told to "smile so we can see you", and the efforts made to portray him as a sexual deviate, I have never heard Justice Thomas snivel in self pity like I have Obama.

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2008 6:01 PM



What I find such fun to watch is the Clintons horning in on Obama's coronation. He better snivel less about those he assumes will pick on him for looking different and being black and keep a much eye on these two sleeping crocodiles.
Anyone who underestimates the Clintons does so at their own peril. These two have never gone quietly into the sunset.

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2008 6:08 PM


Well CC, I guess my view (if I wasn't being sarcastic) would come from the same silly narrow minded ignorant place as your exposure to girls wearing tank tops in August.
Posted by: Amanda at August 17, 2008 5:32 PM

Amanda, do you know of any women who wear too short shorts and tight tank tops that don't use birth control? I'm just curious cause...I don't know of any.
(I'm just trying to figure out why this has you so offended.)

Posted by: Bethany at August 17, 2008 7:53 PM


Bethany,

I must admit I saw a woman who had to be in her 70's, or pushing it, in too short shorts and a tight tank top. I'm sure she didn't use birth control but some dignity certainly would have been in order!

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2008 8:04 PM


Amanda, do you know of any women who wear too short shorts and tight tank tops that don't use birth control? I'm just curious cause...I don't know of any.
(I'm just trying to figure out why this has you so offended.)

Because it's a generalization, Bethany. And we all know how accurate those are. Like maybe the generalization that people who homeschool their children are just control freaks who are afraid to let their children see anything of the world that they disapprove of. THAT'S a generalization one could make too. And THAT I'm sure would offend you, just as the one's CC makes and you support are offensive. What does the way one dress have anything to do with whether or not they take BC? How would one possibly KNOW this either from a snap judgement made on the street?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 17, 2008 8:05 PM


Amanda...The reason it confuses me is mostly because you don't see a problem with birth control...so why would it matter if someone assumed someone was using birth control, which to you, should be a completely neutral thing?

I just don't understand what would be so offensive about this assumption.

(As for it being August, I've seen plenty of women who choose to wear more modest shorts in the summer, and somehow manage to survive. Having the bottom half of your hiney hanging out for the world to see isn't necessary to be cool. Right?)

Posted by: Bethany at August 17, 2008 8:09 PM


I must admit I saw a woman who had to be in her 70's, or pushing it, in too short shorts and a tight tank top. I'm sure she didn't use birth control but some dignity certainly would have been in order!

Egad, Mary! That sounds pretty scary! I once saw a probably 60-70 year old woman wearing a tube top and those incredibly short shorts...and believe me, that was well...shocking. I don't understand why a woman would choose to clothe like that, especially at that age. Dignity would be a good prescription, for sure!

Because it's a generalization, Bethany. And we all know how accurate those are. Like maybe the generalization that people who homeschool their children are just control freaks who are afraid to let their children see anything of the world that they disapprove of. THAT'S a generalization one could make too. And THAT I'm sure would offend you, just as the one's CC makes and you support are offensive. What does the way one dress have anything to do with whether or not they take BC? How would one possibly KNOW this either from a snap judgement made on the street?

Yes, but I expect it to happen, Elizabeth. If I saw a woman wearing a head covering, I might assume she's Amish...and she might be a Baptist for all I know. We all make generalizations...it's just part of being human, wouldn't you agree?


Posted by: Bethany at August 17, 2008 8:12 PM


I took CC to mean that he saw a girl dressed in short shorts and WONDERED if she was on birth control. SO? I see people all the time and wonder things too.

Posted by: Carla at August 17, 2008 8:14 PM


YES Carla, thank you! That is how I took it as well, and I felt that it was taken to an extreme it wasn't meant to be taken.

Posted by: Bethany at August 17, 2008 8:16 PM


I mean, it's bad enough when we're not allowed to talk without being preached at about political correctness...but then, being told what we are allowed to think and wonder in our heads? That is scary to me.

Posted by: Bethany at August 17, 2008 8:20 PM


Like if I saw SoMG walking would I wonder if he were more stupider than I?? HAHAHAHAHA

Couldn't resist that.

Posted by: Carla at August 17, 2008 8:22 PM


LOL!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 17, 2008 8:22 PM


Ok, let's just be honest for a second, short shorts and tube tops are no more "cool" than a light colored t-shirt and a lightweight skirt.

Trust me, I've lived in Texas for the past 10 years. I was 9 months pregnant during one of the hottest summers on record, and I somehow managed to survive.

Shorts are one thing, but shorts that would make a hooters girl blush are a whole different animal.

Posted by: lauren at August 17, 2008 8:34 PM


SoMG in short shorts would be stupider.

Posted by: Carla at August 17, 2008 8:43 PM


Lauren,

Aged women who think they are Hooter Girls are a whole different animal! :o

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2008 8:53 PM


Mary -- excellent posts! :D

Posted by: Eileen at August 17, 2008 9:02 PM


Eileen,

Thank you. Its good to see you on the blog.

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2008 9:10 PM


Jasper how old are you? Do you remember 1991? The main reason Thomas was appointed to replace Marshall was in order to make a public argument against affirmative action, and it has been a good one.

His resume as you have described it was indeed impressive for a lawyer but not Supreme-Court class by any stretch. That was part of the point. A Black Republican whose most outstanding characteristics were loyalty and obedience being deliberately promoted way above his qualifications.

He was originally appointed to the EEOC in order to prevent it from doing its job (stopping racist employment practices) and he did. Just as they appointed James Watt Secretary of the Interior in order to prevent that department from doing ITS job. Government regulation was the enemy and they were going to stop it any way they could, remember? Eight years of internal mission sabotage is not as impressive as it looks on a resume.

If you're only going to read two books about the Thomas Nomination: THE REAL ANITA HILL by David Brock and BLINDED BY THE RIGHT in which the same author apologises to her. They center around the confirmation hearings which makes them entertaining but they also fill you in on all the background you need and the motivations of the people involved.

Posted by: SoMG at August 17, 2008 10:08 PM


"Jasper how old are you? Do you remember 1991?"

I'm 40. Yes I do remember. Do you remember what your side did to Robert Bork before Thomas?

"The main reason Thomas was appointed to replace Marshall was in order to make a public argument against affirmative action, and it has been a good one."

Baloney.

"Eight years of internal mission sabotage is not as impressive as it looks on a resume."

Wow SoMG...that's out there.

David Brock has a vendetta. Quite a smear merchant there...now he runs media matters for George Soros. Haha.

Posted by: Jasper at August 17, 2008 10:25 PM


I think Justice Thomas put it best at his confirmation hearing:

"This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

Posted by: Jasper at August 17, 2008 10:28 PM


Bethany,

It doesn't really matter what people wonder or think about in their heads, but as we can all tell, and as I work at EVERY.DAY. things that pop into our heads shouldnt necessarily make it out our mouths or fingers when typing.

And I really do mean that is something that is a challenge for me in my life. Generally, if it comes into my head, it used to just come out of my mouth. Now, I think a weeee bit more about it before it comes out and decide if it's worth it or not. :)

But my brother's "girlfriend" is WAYYY worse about that than I ever was. It's hard to have a conversation with her, because a lot of the things she says make everyone so uncomfortable. And I mean EVERYONE. We frequently have to just smile politely and change the subject quickly when she is around. I mean really, no one wants to hear about your painful periods at Thanksgiving dear..especially the 5 guys we have in this family. Ick. But that's another story for another day!

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at August 17, 2008 11:27 PM


Lauren,

Aged women who think they are Hooter Girls are a whole different animal! :o

Posted by: Mary at August 17, 2008 8:53 P
.............................

I doubt if that was what Crank Case was lusting after. More likely you when you were young and unknowing of how you and your female body parts created sin/stupidity in men. CC is sick. Making excuses for his sickness is equally sick.

Posted by: Sally at August 18, 2008 12:23 AM


I never understood the conservative complaint against what was "done" to Bork. And I was in Connecticut at the time. His positions were discussed, sometimes unfavorably. Awwwwwwwww. Tsk tsk. Ronald Reagan though he could put anyone he wanted on the Supreme Court no matter how outrageous and he was wrong.

And the fact that Thomas was appointed as a replacement for Marshall in order to make a public statement against affirmative action is not baloney. Some insiders (I think Bill Kristol may have been one) were pretty open about it. There was another reason as well--Herbert owed the right wing a Justice after Souter, whom he appointed as a favor to a dear friend (Warren Rudman).

Nor is it "way out there" to point out that Thomas' role as Chairman of EEOC was mission sabotage. Reagan did something like that with all the regulatory departments. Government regulation was the enemy, at home and in its extreme Communist form abroad. Remember? He couldn't destroy the agencies but he could appoint their members.

How do you think David Brock ACQUIRED his vendetta? Suddenly the money from writing conservative best-sellers wasn't good enough? And his books are good for background.

Posted by: SoMG at August 18, 2008 5:12 AM


SOMG,

The whole Thomas fiasco was a disgusting farce.
Anita Hill, an attorney didn't know she could take legal action against the alleged "sexual harassment"? She was some snivelling helpless wimp who could only wring her hands while her boss talked dirty to her? Don't make me laugh.
By the way, did you ever hear Ms.Hill speak up in defense of the women who accused Clinton of sexual abuse? Did she express an iota of outrage? Certainly she of all people would have backed Paula Jones and the other women.
The hypocrisy of this whole situation was made very apparent when the antics of Bill Clinton, which included everything from exposing himself to rape, were overlooked by feminists.
I recall an article in Newsweek or Time, in fact I wrote them about it since I considered it so offensive, which stated it hoped Bush would pick a "real" black to the US supreme Court. I accused them of being racist and patronizing. I also asked for the definition of a "real" black.
Apparently this is a black person who thinks, like, you know, black people are supposed think. We all know all black people think alike.
God help any black person who strays off the liberal plantation.
Get real SOMG, Clarence Thomas was persecuted for his politics, not his alleged lousy pick up lines. The double standard of Clinton and Thomas makes that very plain.

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 6:51 AM


Jasper 10:28PM

I well remember the hearings and the Senate Judiciary Committee judging Thomas' character could better be described as the Harper Valley PTA. Talk about a bunch of clowns.
Mainly, we had Ted Kennedy, who at the time had to dip into the family fortune to bail his nephew out of a rape charge, an incident stemming from a night of tomcatting with Uncle Ted, who one would think a tad old to be out romping like a college boy. It was Uncle Ted's suggestion they hit the bars in the wee hours, and I'm sure they weren't out looking for a bible study group.
Feminists did nothing to support this alleged victim of rape, nor did they seem to have any problem with Ted Kennedy's looking for women to frolic with.

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 7:00 AM


I mean, it's bad enough when we're not allowed to talk without being preached at about political correctness...but then, being told what we are allowed to think and wonder in our heads? That is scary to me.

You can think whatever you want. We can think you're making gross generalizations.

Yes, I have known women who wore short shorts and tank tops who were not on birth control. I have known women who wore short shorts and tank tops who were not having sex. The idea that you can tell something about a woman's sexual choices just by looking at her is pretty creepy.

Posted by: Alexandra at August 18, 2008 7:14 AM


Alexandra: I have known women who wore short shorts and tank tops who were not on birth control.

I've known men who were the same way.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 7:31 AM


"Feminists did nothing to support this alleged victim of rape, nor did they seem to have any problem with Ted Kennedy's looking for women to frolic with."

Good point Mary, they didn't say a peep about Clinton either. ..because as long as these guys supported abortion, etc. It was a-Ok with them.

Posted by: Jasper at August 18, 2008 8:51 AM


SOMG. 10:08PM

I consider David Brock a man of zero credibility as well as character.
He writes a book deliberately trashing and lying about another human being and then writes a book apologizing to her. How very noble.
Does writing a book trashing "the right" suddenly turn him into a man of character and credibility?

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 9:17 AM


Doug, 7:31am

Men in tank tops and short shorts is in itself a great form of birth control.

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 3:11 PM


Mary, 3:11 PM,
Men in tank tops and short shorts is in itself a great form of birth control.

ALL natural too!

Posted by: Janet at August 18, 2008 3:19 PM


Janet and Mary,

I've also heard that really big beards work well too...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 18, 2008 3:22 PM


...hairy backs...

Posted by: Carla at August 18, 2008 3:24 PM


Carla,


..combined with bald heads...

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 4:01 PM


You're all killing me! lol

Posted by: Bethany at August 18, 2008 4:33 PM


SOMG 10:08PM

You neglect to mention that Thomas also sat for a year on the DC Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court.

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 5:52 PM


Too funny!
That is quite the vision of loveliness we have described!!

Posted by: Carla at August 18, 2008 6:19 PM


Carla,

You mean guys who are completely bald but otherwise look like orangutans?

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 6:25 PM


ARRRGH,

Add the short shorts and tank top....

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 6:27 PM


Aw man, I hope I'm not too late to get in on this.

Men in short pants with long black socks and street shoes.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 6:27 PM


Carla: ...hairy backs...

Hoo Aah. (Dale Earnhardt FOREVER!)

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 6:35 PM


Doug 6:35PM

Orangutan with a bald head!

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 6:38 PM


Oh yeah!! :O
Shorts, black socks and sandals...

Posted by: Carla at August 18, 2008 6:41 PM


Doug and Carla,

Complete the ensemble with a "grandpa" undershirt. Also, make sure the shorts are high waisted, the closer to the chin the better, with a belt. Remember Fred Mertz?

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 6:48 PM


Mary, in my wife's family, those undershirts - I assume you're talking about the ones with no sleeves - are called "wife beaters" in reference to movies from the 50's and 60's showing sometimes abusive guys in tenement houses wearing them.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 7:15 PM


Even long pants can look cool if you pull the waste up very high and have the bottom cuffs well above your ankles.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 7:17 PM


Bobby
I've also heard that really big beards work well too...

With small birds nesting inside .....

Posted by: Janet at August 18, 2008 8:48 PM


Doug 7:15PM

I see your point but I've never heard them called that. I just remember the old men who wore them as they sat on the porches of my childhood neighborhood. They were definitely not flattering!

Doug 7:17PM

Especially with white socks. You sound like a real fashion statement Doug!

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 9:03 PM


Love it, Mary - yeah, those white socks really seal the deal.

But why do you see me that way? ; )

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 9:11 PM


Whoa - the board softward did a "Janet" on me - cut the post off.

Mary, my wife jokes that I'll be the old guy on the porch, getting up out of his chair, pulling his pants up around his sternum, shaking his fist and yelling at the neighborhood kids.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 9:16 PM


I've also heard that really big beards work well too...

With small birds nesting inside .....

It's worse with a great big old stinky bird.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 9:18 PM


Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 9:32 PM


Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 9:35 PM


Doug 9:11PM

I don't. I already told you that you resemble a young James Cagney. I just thought you were giving some fashion advise :)

Doug 9:18PM

How well I remember those old geezers in my neighborhood! I remember a grouchy old man who lived in an upper flat. My best friend told me he had a gun and shot at the neighborhood kids. I used to be just terrified to walk past his place, or see him on his porch!

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 9:35 PM


OOOOH Doug 9:35PM

That could stir up a real hornet's nest!

Posted by: Mary at August 18, 2008 9:38 PM


Now that I have finished laughing! :) On a more serious note -- there is something to be said for modesty for both men and women. But since men are "visual" creatures, women who do not dress modestly are only going to draw attention from the wrong type of man. I suppose some want to get attention but I also think that some are truly unaware of the impact that their clothing or lack thereof, is making. It is discouraging to see what preteens and teenage girls are wearing but unfortunately their moms are wearing the same immodest things! I have heard that attempts to join style with modesty are being made because of the protests of some moms and daughters.

Posted by: Eileen at August 18, 2008 9:52 PM


Mary, on the "hornets' nest" - yeah, I wondered about that.

Tell you what - I ordered two shirts tonight, shirts that I wouldn't dare post pictures of here.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 10:49 PM


Eileen, no doubt, we men are "visual creatures." It's a real difference between most women and men, how we're "wired" that way.

But dress that you don't see as ":modest" may attract the "right type" of man as well as the wrong type.

On styles, fashion, hemlines, etc., there are always cycles at work. They are a study of human emotion going from one extreme to another. I know you think we're "way out there" in at least one respect, but there may be farther to go.

Afterwards, there will be a swinging of the pendulum back the other way.

Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 10:53 PM


Now that I have finished laughing! :) On a more serious note -- there is something to be said for modesty for both men and women. But since men are "visual" creatures, women who do not dress modestly are only going to draw attention from the wrong type of man.

........................................

What? Like men that aren't gay? Sociopaths looking for any exuse for their behavior?

.........................................

I suppose some want to get attention but I also think that some are truly unaware of the impact that their clothing or lack thereof, is making. It is discouraging to see what preteens and teenage girls are wearing but unfortunately their moms are wearing the same immodest things! I have heard that attempts to join style with modesty are being made because of the protests of some moms and daughters.

Posted by: Eileen at August 18, 2008 9:52 PM

...............................

Good grief! Flashback to the 70s. Same old refrain. Women and their bodies are evil and cause men to behave badly.
.....................................

Posted by: Sally at August 19, 2008 2:18 AM


Mary, you wrote: "You neglect to mention that Thomas also sat for a year on the DC Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court."

"Sat" is the right word for what he does on the Court.

Posted by: SoMG at August 19, 2008 5:26 AM


Eileen, Sally, and Doug,

I think a woman who dresses age appropriate and well can be far more attractive and alluring than some woman who looks like she belongs on a street corner.
I think nothing makes a woman more unattractive and even foolish than to dress age inappropriate.
I also think looking cheap or sleazy detracts from a woman more than anything, though some men seem very attracted to them.

Anyone who will assault or abuse a woman will do so no matter what. Certainly how a woman dresses does not cause, or excuse, abuse or assault. Our society is still in the Neanderthal era when it comes to victims of sexual assault. The woman "asked" for it or why would he rape someone that ugly?

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 6:20 AM


Doug 10:49PM

You must like to live dangerously!

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 6:22 AM


SOMG 5:26am

I don't care if he stood on his head. The fact remains he served a year on the DC Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court, a fact you did not mention.
Also if you are referring to the Supreme Court in you last sentence, he is a sitting judge, not one who "sat".

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 6:33 AM


SOMG 6:26am

Hilarious.(sarcasm)

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 7:45 AM


Mary, I'm not the one who posted his resume.

Anyway, we should all be referring to him by his correct name which is Long Dong Silver.

Posted by: SoMG at August 19, 2008 8:36 AM


SOMG 8:36am

In your 10:08 PM post you mentioned some of his credentials. I pointed out that you missed one of them.

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 8:49 AM


I said nothing about rape in the context of immodest dress. No woman asks to be raped!!! It stands to reason that if you are going to display a lot of skin then you are going to be attracting some attention from undesirables! Personally I want to be treated with respect by men so I behave and dress accordingly. If we lived in a perfect world then we could all walk around naked and be perfectly comfortable with each other. Sally go back to Psychology 101 -- men are influenced visually more than women. Though there are some who don't want to consider the religious slant, maybe some out there will appreciate this -- when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became ashamed of their nakedness and covered themselves. They covered themselves because lust entered the picture. What God had ordered rightly became disordered because of sin (disobedience). So blame Adam for it. He should have protected Eve from temptation by the devil, instead he was a coward and did nothing. Enter the "new Adam" -- Jesus. "Jesu Ufam Tobie"

Posted by: Eileen at August 19, 2008 8:56 AM


I think nothing makes a woman more unattractive and even foolish than to dress age inappropriate.

Wow, Mary, that really hit home with me. I just cringe inwardly at some of the stuff I see. Not that my or your opinion about this "has" to be the way for other people, since they can do what they want, but wow do I so agree.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 9:35 AM


Mary and Doug -- Dittos

Posted by: Eileen at August 19, 2008 9:51 AM


Eileen,

I was addressing Sally's post when discussing sexual assault, not yours.
Tragically assault victims are still ridiculed and humiliated. Nothing excuses, explains or justifies sexual assault.
If anything I agree more with you that age appropriate and modest dress can be more attractive and alluring than dressing like a streetwalker.

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 10:20 AM


On styles, fashion, hemlines, etc., there are always cycles at work. They are a study of human emotion going from one extreme to another. I know you think we're "way out there" in at least one respect, but there may be farther to go.

Afterwards, there will be a swinging of the pendulum back the other way.
Posted by: Doug at August 18, 2008 10:53 PM


I see what you mean, Doug. But I hope we won't be going any farther -- it's bad enough as far as I am concerned. I was thinking about fashion as a reflection of the current thinking or philosophy that is in the forefront of society and it seems that current fashion is reflective of the neo-paganism and nihilism that is so prevalent now. Current trends in art and music reflect it also. Obviously I am not an academic but that is what has occurred to me. Has anyone else noticed how the current style in maternity clothing is tight and very form-fitting? It is almost as if the designer wants to be in your face with a pregnant belly, yet, it is perfectly okay to dispose of a pregnancy if it is inconvenient. BTW, I have no problem with the pregnant form.

P.S. Mary, thanks! :)

Posted by: Eileen at August 19, 2008 12:57 PM


Mary and Eileen, re:

I think nothing makes a woman more unattractive and even foolish than to dress age inappropriate.

When I read that I got a really sad feeling. For young girls who dress "older," well that's one thing and it may look silly, (or even attract "scurvy dog" men) but to me that doesn't "feel" nearly as bad as older women dressing like they were much younger.

I don't mean to pick on older women, either. It's not fair the way society's perceptions go here - men get "distinguished" and don't lift a finger while to an extent women are expected to do things with cosmetics, dress, exercise, even surgery, all for appearance.

Once in a while I'll see an older woman, and it's like "Oh, you poor thing, you feel you have to do that?" Just my opinion, of course, and I reckon some feel they can't go out in public without some effort to look a certain way; it'd be undignified otherwise.

Yet to me it looks like a tragic loss of dignity.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 3:13 PM


Eileen, yeah - maternity clothes are right, and nude pregnant women are on magazine covers.

You are absolutely right about current trends being reflected in art and music. The movies, too, give evidence. In economic "good times" themes tend to be more upbeat and inclusionary, the good guys are the heros, and we even have stuff like 'Star Trek' and 'ET' ("aliens are people too"). "Bad times" bring darker themes, anti-heros, exclusionism, etc. Do you remember some of those movies from the 1970's? It's even been said that baseball is a "bull market sport," while football is for "bear markets."

I see the 1960's as an upward trend, then down for the 70's, and up for the 80's and 90's. Since the stock market top in 2000 and the 9/11 attack, I think we've been in a "bear market" as far as the social mood and cultural reflections. Within these broader trends are smaller cycles, i.e. 2004 through 2007 wasn't bad at all, the stock market rallied, the Iraq war had started out well, etc.

Now I think the downward trend has reasserted itself. The mortgage crisis, high energy prices, the Iraq war going on and on, people feeling an economic pinch. Yet unemployment hasn't really going up much, and for most people life has gone on fine, if perhaps with a little less disposable cash on hand.

Nobody has a crystal ball, but I don't think we've run the course of these "bad times" yet. Usually, there are 15 or 18 years in a cycle, something like that. The Great Depression until after World War II = "bad times." Then "good" until the late 1960's, "bad" to 1982, a long "good" to 2000 or perhaps even 2007? Even if we go with 2000 as a "top" that'd forecast another 7 - 10 years before the next "up" cycle begins. We shall see.

Posted by: Doug at August 19, 2008 3:44 PM


Eileen and Doug,

I think you would both enjoy the show "How Do I Look?". Its on the Style channel I believe. Anyway its a makeover show. Friends and/or relatives enter someone who's a fashion disaster for a makeover.
Good grief. One woman dressed like she was in Romper Room, another always wore plaid. Its just fun to watch and amazing that people don't realize just how awful or ridiculous they look.

Also, I can never fathom why Hollywood people, who certainly have access to stylists and fashion, not to mention money, will dress in what look like Halloween costumes or just ridiculous looking ensembles. Some look like they dressed right out of a laundry hamper or goodwill bag.
Do people really want to look ridiculous? I could take them to K mart and do a better job.

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 5:47 PM


Eileen,

I have to agree about maternity styles. I think short shorts with a belly hanging out underneath a brief top looks cheap and tacky.
Again, stylish, appropriate maternity clothes flatter a woman so much more.
When I think of the tents I wore! I wish some of the nicer styles were around back then! Luckily in my line of work, I could just put on the next size scrubs as the months progressed.

Posted by: Mary at August 19, 2008 9:35 PM


Mary, You remember Romper Room? I watched it almost every day! "I see Mary, and Lisa, and Robert, and.... Lol!

Posted by: Janet at August 19, 2008 10:35 PM


Per the "How do I Look" theme:

http://tinyurl.com/2xjll2


"The-15-worst-celebrity-plastic-surgery-disasters-you-will-ever-see."

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 6:46 AM


Are you moron's not getting that there IS a difference between paragraph C of the IL Bill and paragraph C of the Federal Bill. The Fed Bill DOES stipulate no encroachment upon the legal status of the infant prior to being born alive, while the other does not. Obama was right to vote against it, as all of it was already covered under other bills and the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment 14. Conservatives must be illiterate.

Posted by: Damien at August 20, 2008 3:04 PM


Damien, I've been told that while yes, the principle you mention from the 14th Amendment is there, it was felt that it needed to be codified into written statute since babies were not being cared for.

Of course Obama doesn't "want born babies to be killed," and some people are trying to demonize him just because he's pro-choice, but the Illinois bill really did cover the federal bill:

From the federal bill: (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this section.'.


From the Illiinois bill: (c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive, as defined in this Section.

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.     

(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter generally accepted medical standards.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 5:35 PM


You did an awesome job on Hannity and Colmes tonight Jill! This truth needs to get out about Obama! Go Bless You and your family.

Posted by: Katie at August 20, 2008 8:47 PM


Doug,

I have seen that site. What's sad is people were in no need of surgery to begin with. That "cat" woman is unreal. She was very attractive to begin with. She should have just taken her schmuck of a husband for all she could instead of trying to hold on to him, for who knows what reason, by mutilating herself.
Personally I consider cats in the wild to be beautiful and magnificent animals, but then they don't try to look like humans!

Posted by: Mary at August 21, 2008 8:17 AM


Jill, I'm sorry to say that you have your facts wrong. The 2003 version of the bill was not identical to the 2002 federal version. This was known at the time and resulted in six Democratic Illinois General Assembly HHS members voting down the bill in committee, which Obama chaired.

The bill could have altered state abortion laws in Illinois and therefor made it much different from a legal perspective than the 2002 federal version.

From a fact sheet on the 2003 Illinois bill published 2/28/03: “Although The Definition Is Similar To The Proposed Federal Legislation, Its Application Would Have A Different Impact On State Abortion Law. SB 1082 & SB 1083 are NOT the same as the so-called “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” which was recently passed in the U. S. House. The federal legislation is considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. It does not amend or change current Illinois law. Federal law does not regulate abortion practice. That is left to the states. Therefore, it is state legislation that would affect abortion practice in Illinois. The package of SB 1082 & SB 1083 creates new provisions in Illinois law. Although the definition is similar to the proposed federal legislation, its application would have a different impact on state abortion law.”

(http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php)

Now you have your reason, please stop the spread of this lie.

Posted by: bms at August 21, 2008 8:45 AM


Mary, have to laugh at the cats not trying to look like humans. No doubt.

It is a sad deal (heck, I don't even have a tattoo).

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 12:58 PM


Interesting, BMS, and I wonder what will be the reply?

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 1:00 PM


BMS, I think that the amendment that ended up being on the bill where the six people voted "no" as far as "Do pass as amended" meant that it would not affect abortion in Illinois.

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 1:16 PM


Now I think the downward trend has reasserted itself. The mortgage crisis, high energy prices, the Iraq war going on and on, people feeling an economic pinch. Yet unemployment hasn't really going up much, and for most people life has gone on fine, if perhaps with a little less disposable cash on hand.

Posted by: carisoprodol at September 13, 2008 4:01 AM