Obama and Freedom of Choice Act

As for government supporting birth control and family planning-- Supporting health and family planning--the Democratic direction--is not at all the same as regulating it--the Republican direction. The Democratic direction promotes individual health and well being and consequently better health and prosperity of the nation. The Republican direction interferes with individual people's private lives, with leading to poorer individual health and well being and consequently poorer health and prosperity of the nation. Sexual health and reproductive health are integral to overall health. The health of any nation's population is fundamental to its health and strength as a nation. Additionally, there happens to be a direct correlation between lower birth rates and higher standard of living--this is a phenomenon seen all over the world. When government supports family planning--not interfering with it, which is the Republican direction--the Democratic direction on this issue directly supports the health of our nation's population and, therefore, its health and strength as a nation among nations in the world. Providing for sexual and reproductive health is no different from providing for any other health category. Are you advocating doing away with Medicaid and government-supported childrens' health programs altogether? No cancer treatments for the poor, no vaccinations for children, no prescriptions, nothing? What about Medicare subsidies? Are you going to take away the subsidies on old people's heart medicines? What's the difference? Supporting sexual and reproductive health is not interference, not telling women what to do. That's the Republican direction, it is the Republican direction that advocates interference in personal lives. The Democratic direction says "we the people are the government, the government is us, it is what we, as a nation, are able to do together to make our lives better"--on this issue, that means supporting, not interfering with, the health of women, children, and families no matter what their personal choices are. To me, it is about personal liberty; the Democratic direction supports it, the Republican direction does not.

[QUOTE=paigeturner]Kiki, Perhaps I'm missing your point, but I have to point out that WA and OR tend to vote Democrat - in fact, I'd have to dig it up but its been something like 28 years since WA's electoral votes have gone to a Republican president. Not sure what hunting has to do with it, but most of the hunters that I know are voting Obama. They also raise us smart out here; I know very few straight ticket voters. You wrote "exagerrated stereotypes of Republicans, especially on this issue, is the true real-world reality that is on the ballot...if you don't like it, you'd best vote Democrat." The stereotype Lorraine comment on was gun-toting, Bible-thumping, war-mongering Republicans. I read this that you mean this stereotype is correct of GOP voters. I was merely pointing out that is not the case by citing the majority of the wars fought in the 20th century were begun under Democratic administrations and areas which traditionally have a large hunting population are traditionally Democrat. That was my take on it, and I merely meant to illustrate a counter point. I also received the impression you implied voters in your geographic location were more intelligent; but I see the post which addressed this and your rebuttal.

Would you like to elaborate? Including children in foster care in the abortion debate is a bit of a fallacy. One argument put forth by abortion proponents is abortion reduces the number of damaged, abused children in the system. Yet, despite 35 years of abortions, those numbers have skyrocketed. Mitigating factors may include more awareness and reporting, but still, there is a greater number of children in care despite access to abortions. Several years ago, there was also a report stating abortions had reduced the crime rate because it eliminated that population before birth. It was decried as racist. The child tax credit and subsidies are designed to create an incentive to adopt children in foster care, as well as increased interest in people becoming foster parents. Giving a tax credit for adoption, in my opinion, is far, far different than tax money to pay for an abortion. It is not a refund, but a credit. There is a difference. On a side note, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who noticed that each time the tax credit is raised, adoption agencies raise their fees.

- If you don't want to set those pit bulls loose with no hope of bringing them to heel again. Please elaborate. - If you believe in health care and education as the pillars and engines of a thriving society and economy. I don't believe health care is a "right." Health care is a vastly growing engine of the economy, but it cannot be the only one. We can spend a gret deal of time time on education, on which we will not agree. I removed all my children from public schools last year. I home school and send the younger ones to private school, which is more successful and has a far better program than any public school in my area. - If you are more interested in the strength and promise of "one nation" than in dividing people by race, religion, and class. I just love it when people completely ignore the very racist history of the Democratic party in this country.

Clinton, said that his cabinet would reflect America. Of the 29 men and women who served in the Clinton cabinet, only 8 were minorities (28%) and only 5 were women (17%). At the end of Clinton's term there were only 3. The highest position was Secretary of the Commerce held by Ron Brown and Norm Mineta. Compare this with the Bush cabinet. Of the 16 men and women to serve, 5 are minorities (31%) and 3 are women (18%). The top position is Secretary of State Colin Powell. Let's also not forget Condelezza Rice, African American female as National Security Advisor. Then again Clinton had Jocelyn Elders (and she had a pretty dismal record in Arkansas).

Who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The reality is that only 63% of the Democrats supported the amendment. It was actaully the Republicans with a higher percentage of 79%. It was the overwhelming support by the Republicans that helped push the Amendment over the 2/3rd majority. Al Gore, Sr. voted against this. proposed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that would have kept federal funds flowing to schools that defied court desegregation orders. It was defeated by a vote of 74-25. 23 Democrats and 1 Republican voted for it. In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their "overwhelming majority." He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Interesting, JFK also voted against it in 1957.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. Kings leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a ғtrouble-maker who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Bryd is still in office. JFK voted against civil rights in 1957

It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860Ԓs, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixons 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nationҒs first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Other points:

- Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000 Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs and derogatorily calling New York City Hymietown.Ӕ Jackson, a prominent self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of the same bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose. He recently commented to the effect the US will abadon our staunch ally, Israel, should Obama be elected.

Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the rumored candidates for the Democrat's 2004 presidential nomination, has a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called the store's owner a "bloodsucker" and declared an intent to "loot the Jews." A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store, resulting in the death of seven.

Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past affiliation with this group.

Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract" between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor.

Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton's former drug czar and Democrat mayor of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the runoff, Brown's campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the words "Anti-Hispanic." The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic undertones of Brown's reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the election. When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them. The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in Spanish, the word "Danger!" on them followed by Sanchez's name with a large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown's racially charged reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning 51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his campaign will take years to heal.

Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party, but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them," indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.

Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the same state. During his daughter's failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter's difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of anti-semitic sentiments, stating "This is all about the Jews" and spelling out "J-E-W-S." McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few weeks later.

I will so have to continue to disagree with you on that issue... particularly on the Rev. Wright/Michael Pfleger issue.

- If you want fewer abortions and fewer unwanted pregnancies and not just empty religious laws that cause more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, more deaths, and more injured and displaced children. Religious laws? Parental notification is a "religious" law? Counseling requirements are religious? Requiring medical treatment of "born alive" infants is religious?

Please tell me the "religion" involved in medical treatment for a baby born during an abortion?

A good percentage of the code of the US is based on "Judeo-Christian" tradition. Codes against stealing, murder, pedophilia (pedeastry was accepted in Greece and Rome) can also be considered "religious."

- If you want 95% of the American people to keep more of their hard-earned wages and 5% to bear more of their fair share of the burden Republicans supposedly favor the rich. A very infamous dictator said tell a big enough lie and people will believe you. Are you aware 40% of Obama's voting block does not pay taxes?

Here's some statistics:

Who Pays The Taxes

Income Group.........Share of Total Taxes..................Income Split Point

Top 1%.................................37.4%............... .........Above $313,469

Top 5%.................................56.5%............... .........Above $128,336

Top 10%...............................67.3%................ ........Above $92,114

Top 25%...............................84.0%................ ........Above $55,225

Top 50%...............................96.1%................ ........Above $27,682

Bottom 50%............................3.9%.................... ....Below $27,682

Source: Preliminary data, IRS (2000)

Now, aren't you glad to know that if you make $55,225 a year your are considered to be wealthy? You and the other 25% of Americans are paying 84.0% of the taxes in this country, but never mind, you can afford it because you are rich! Don't feel bad if you make less than that; as long as you make above $27,682 a year Democrats say you are still in the richest 50% of the population.

Democrats (for election reasons) want to reduce or take away the tax cuts from the people who pay the most in taxes and give it to those who pay the least in taxes. Democrats call it fairness - Economists call it redistribution of wealth - The rest of the world calls it socialism. As the current darling and poster child of the Democratic Party, Michael Moore, says, the government should take 70 percent of the income as its rightful share of the people who are most successful. Of course, he hasn't volunteered to give up his 70 percent.

Growing Share of People Who Pay No Taxes

Year...........................Number (in Millions)...........................Percent of All Filers

1980........................................18.6....... ....................................19.8%

1985........................................16.7....... ....................................16.5%

1990........................................21.5....... ....................................19.0%

1995........................................26.7....... .....................................22.6%

2000........................................29.9....... .....................................23.1%

2003 est..................................39.5.............. ..............................29.5%

Source: IRS Statistics of Income, 2003 Tax Foundation estimate.

If you want government to regulate the privateers on Wall Street and not spy on you, disappear you without warrant, or regulate your bedroom and personal life with no cause and no judicial oversight. All I can submit to you is "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand. It's a hard read, but quite prophetic. Rand was very much ahead of her time. Everything she wrote is coming to pass.

I'm way familiar with socialism in all it's glory. I had the pleasure of livng in Cuba, albeit, on the base. But, during my tour, I was able to meet some Cuban refugees, those who lived in the country proper and worked on the base, as well as some escapees. You cannot appreciate it until you have seen it close and personal. - If you want to stop the corruption that gave Bin Laden a green light into hiding so that profiteers could take the United States into an illegal, unprovoked war of aggression for corporate profit, Bin Laden goes back to the Clinton years.... and I didn't support going into Iraq the second time. Both DH and I are vets of the Gulf War, so we are familar with the culture. It is so complicated there, discussion is pointless. I don't think it's the US job to be the world policemen, but that's something both the Dem's and GOP have done... it was Kennedy and LBJ that sent us to Viet Nam.. similar charges of "corporate profit" were made then, as well. That was also an "illegal, unprovoked" war, and more people died there than in the entire 5 years in the Gulf. Not saying it's correct, just stating that blaming Republicans is somewhat pointless. Both parties are at fault. But, when my military brothers and sisters are at war, I believe in supporting them, period.

What do you think of Obama's comments on Pakistan? Civilian Security Force (shades of Gestapo there)? The entire notion concerns me. If you want all that because you are not "that kind of Republican," then please, please vote for THAT ONE today. I'm not Republican. But, I'd rather have a root canal without pain killers than vote for THAT ONE."

Sorry for the shameless pitch, but I really hope that before you vote for what you think your party should be about on this and other issues, you take a good long look at what it actually is --what it has done and said over the last eight years and the last six months of this campaign. If you're not "that kind of Republican," then please don't vote for them. I've followed the election very closely, considering the BROAD picture regarding both Obama and McCain. Obama is very distubring to me on so many levels, especially national defense and foreign policy.... there's too much to discuss on every issue. The economy cannot be laid squarely on the President. The factor's that got us here go back to the Clinton administration, or further. I don't agree with blaming a sitting president when there are 3 branches of government to be examined in all facets of issues. The economy is not solely Bush's fault.... I think he's a basically good man whose getting a bad rap (I think Clinton is a likable guy, too... a bit of a cad, but a charming one...).

No soy Republicano. :arrow: I don't own a gun. I am not a Bible thumper. I abhor war, but understand it's without a strong national defense, there is no peace. :battle:

Sorry for the long posts, but we are on opposite ends of a very complicated debate.

So, a big smile and a hug to you for putting up with my long-posts. :flower:

I'm really quite likable in person...:evilgrin:

I must say the politically we don't agree at all BUT I happen to LOOOOVE Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged changed my life!

Liked the book too. Unfortunately that philosophy led to the economic crisis....

I'm so inclined to disagree..... the entire point of the book is the opposite of what you stated.... Financial crisis: What Atlas Shrugged teaches us Financial crisis: What Atlas Shrugged teaches us Posted By: Shane Frith at Oct 10, 2008 at 10:51:16 [General] Posted in: Politics , Ways and Means Tags:Atlas Shrugged , Ayn Rand , financial crisis , John Galt If you know John Galt, the current financial crisis will be of little surprise. 51 years ago today, Ayn Rand published her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. In it she described a dystopian United States, where the answer to every perceived flaw and inequity in society was government regulation. When this regulation created more problems, the answer was ever more government intervention in society. Eventually, most of the population was either working for the government or responding to government edicts - few were actually producing anything. These few (represented by Mr Galt), shackled by the many, quit and the world stopped. The current financial crisis has its roots in interventionist government action: laws to promote home ownership for the poor (where the sub-prime loans came from); restrictions on executive pay (leading to bonuses as a loophole); anti-monopoly laws (preventing failing banks from being taken over by competitors); the prospect of government bail-outs (discouraging firms from accepting less attractive offers from market sources); government guarantees (encouraging people to accept the highest deposit rates, regardless of risk); and half the economy existing in the non-productive state sector (tying down the productive sector). As Ronald Reagan put it, government is not a solution to our problems, government is the problem. The interventions by governments around the world have achieved nothing but harm and the accumulation of debt by the British Government will shackle the economy for years to come. Moreover, the clarion calls for even further regulation will lead to unintended consequences, exacerbating the harm. We are suffering from government failure, not market failure. The world hasn't stopped, but it has been slowed by government. It is time the lessons from Atlas Shrugged were heeded and John Galt set free

It was me who said that Lorraine's "extreme stereotype" is a perfect match to the Republican presidential ticket, McCain/Palin are war mongering, gun totin', bible thumpin', etc. Republicans. I specifically said the comment was NOT directed at all Republicans, who can be a diverse bunch unto themselves. I don't really care whether anyone thinks health care or education are rights or not. Whether they are or aren't, it makes no sense to withold quality health care and universal public education unless you want to live in a backward, pauper nation--and that's where we're headed, I think, if there isn't an about-face on these two critical issues soon. What I actually said is that health and education are the pillars of a thriving society. Well, if you think a society can thrive without a healthy, well educated population, I'd like to see it. It is to everyone's advantage, rich and poor, individuals, families, and the nation as a whole, for these things to be both high quality and universal. You shouldn't have to home school your children or send them to private school for a good quality education. While doing so can be valuable for a few having a special interest, in general, those strategies are the refuges of a nation in severe decline. You shouldn't have to choose between going to the doctor and paying your electric bill or buying groceries. People shouldn't miss work or do their work badly because they are sick. Sick people are a drag on the economy. The United States once had an advantage in both these areas. Even before the health insurance system, we generally had more doctors and better access to better health care than other nations. We had universal education, including education for girls, a huge plus, and faster rising standards for public education than most other nations. Those are the things that propelled our country to the forefront in quality of life, prosperity, technology, etc. I believe our current economic troubles started with Reagan, Reagonomics, and a shift from "what's the best we can do" in public endeavors to "what's the cheapest we can do this for, I wanna keep as much of what's mine for me as I can" attitude. I know, I was there and watched that train wreck for 12 years...President Clinton gave us a brief respite, then W put us right back worse than we were. The difference between him and his Dad was that H.W. was smart enough not to kill the cow.... Cuba is Communist, and no one is talking about anything remotely resembling real-world Communist practice. No one is advocating full socialism, either, but, of course, the complete absence of any vestige of socialism would be sociopathy. I don't think we want that, do we? No, I am advocating for a common sense return to the rising tide that pushed America and Americans forward so well. I hope this election takes us at least some of the way there.

Wow - I have to say that is the most twisted perspective on the economic meltdown that I have seen. Laws to promote home ownership had nothing to do with the meltdown. That is a blatant right-wing attempt to shift blame away from the free market. Let's pick it apart. Laws to promote home ownership were implemented through responsible non-profits and through Ginnie Mae. Sub-prime and Alt-A loans and absurd adjustable rate mortgages were implemented through unregulated private markets. Banks that were part of the FDIC regulatory system were not part of these. The unregulated free market institutions were. It was also these unregulated free market institutions that then packaged these mortgages into unregulated financial instruments, which are part of what imploded. There are no restrictions placed on executive pay. The shift to stock options occurred when the capital gains tax decreased. And executive pay has galloped way ahead of any increases for anyone else in our society, making it hard to buy that one. Anti-monopoly laws. Maybe to some degree. On the other hand, anti-monopoly laws also protect us by maintaining free markets. You can't have that one both ways. Either you want a functioning free market or you don't. The prospects of government bailout is something no one thought would ever happen until a complete freeze of our banking system. No one was buying collateralized debt obligations or mortgage securities thinking that the government would step in. Government guarantees on deposits. I assume that means the FDIC because that is the only investment guaranteed (well there is equivalent in credit unions and other bank-type organizations). People have not been getting huge interest rates on that government-guaranteed deposit. So I don't understand what other guarantees you are talking about. And as to half the economy being in the "non productive sector", that simply isn't true. First off, government doesn't make up half the economy. Second, it is government that has been one reliable way of improving the lot of a broad range of people with relatively small investments. Highways and roads. Flood control. Water and sewer. Educated workforce. Public health. I could go on about the benefits of government but I will just end by saying that business should try operating without government and see how it goes. Reagan was wrong and the chickens are coming home to roost.

So much to agree with here, but this really rings. Business did try this and the result was that it totally tanked itself and had to be rescued and bought out by the people. We've strayed far from the op because all these things are so intertwined. I would just like to say, I am so grateful to this nation today. I am so grateful and impressed by Mr. McCain's gracious concession speech...that was the man we used to know. It is a relief to so many, especially Mr. McCain himself, I think, that the campaign act is over. I hope to see more of the gracious, constructive Senator McCain in the near future. In the meantime...wow, what a difference a day makes! What a leader we now have! YES WE CAN!

I, am too, so happy to be a part of historical events of this magnitude. We must remember now, that there is a lot of HARD work ahead of us as a nation. Obama has inherited a mess that has never in history been of this magnitude! He will , with no doubt, have to make some unpopular decisions and will have to do so with great opposition. I am happy that we have a chance to restore our moral integrity , here at home , but also with the world. The first time in many many months of hearing McCAIN concede with sincerity, was heart warming to say the least. Welcome back...to the REAL McCain we had respect for. And lastly...YES WE CAN:clap:

I agree, he inherited a mess, but disagree it's the first in history of this magnitude. Truman inherited quite a mantle of problems, as did Lincoln. It's unique to this time and place, but we've been in serious situations before.... Let's hope Obama can meet the bar set by his forerunners.....

I have faith and hope...as we ALL should have. P E Obama , will be able to do so, but it will take ALL sides to do so. He has INHERITED quite a mess from the past 8 yrs...it WILL NOT be done in the next 4. I do think everybody will agree this is a mess of great magnitude. The economy will get worse before it will get better. I have no doubts our grandchildren and possibly beyond will be paying for the Bush Admin.(Cheney..Bush..Rumsfeld..) and lets not forget Rove! Now that the election is over...it is a must we all continue to do what we can to survive this astronomical mess. I for one will not be buying Christmas gifts...I will donate food and money for our food banks, because it is the right thing to do...SO MANY have already fallen because of the past 8 yrs...I think we can all agree on 1 thing...we are ALL Americans and the American humane thing to do is help! So I will not be posting any further on Obamas' ability to be our president...HE is plain and simple, now we must unite and do all we can! :grouphug:

Ceta -- VERY WELL SAID. And I like your idea about Christmas gifts -- aside from our 4 children getting a couple of gifts each, adult relatives can buy what they need. It's gotten so way out of hand. This would be a very good time to donate time to a soup kitchen and encourage our children to do unto others.