Barack Obama takes heat for 'lipstick on a pig' remark about McCain

[Dale Mabry]

it would be funnier if you actually brought a roll of quarters and threw them one by one at the girls... ok maybe not really but think about strippers dancing on stage trying to duck quarters.. lol im an immature fuck sometimes, i know

That's my point, giving them an American dollar is like giving them a quarter, without the joy of getting to throw it at them.

 

[CG]

That's my point, giving them an American dollar is like giving them a quarter, without the joy of getting to throw it at them.

YAYY.. oh.. yeah.. where is the fun.. i wonder if theyre like the girls down here.. shake shake, dollar? shake shake, dollar? extra dollar for meeeeee?

fuck i hate strip clubs

 

[Dane Fletcher]

Ghetto code for I'd hit it!

 

[fufu]

I agree with Obama, McCain shouldn't be using pigs to test his cosmetic products!

 

[Crono1000]

yes but there were probably better choices, male and female, that got overlooked cuz they wanted, and deliberately chose, someone who'd make the stir she did.

I don't feel like continueing to read this thread but I stopped here and agree with this statement. I'm just gonna copy pasta the rest of my opinion

Neither candidate is picking the best VP for the country, just the best VP for the votes/polls. I can't stand Cheney, but he's actually doing stuff (bad stuff, but still stuff). Palin and Biden are nothing but counter-electives to the candidates' images, and it's so blatant it's offensive. Obama is black and has the reputation of being inexperienced, young, and elitist; so he gets a white, older guy that's in debt and grew up poor. McCain is old and has a penis; so he picks somebody who is young and has a vagina.

It's evil, and it's genius, but it's also detrimental to the country. After the clusterfuck prom-king drama that is VP choosing I have very little hope that either of these candidates are in this for the right reasons.

 

[Crono1000]

also, doublebase is so gay.

 

[Witmaster]

ugh.. yes i am fully aware of where stem cells come from, trust me, i am more intelligent than you presume. as for who to pay.. well, if not the tax payers, there are more than enough private funds out there to help this along, however, the issue will then become when something profound is discovered, then it will be marketed like a car or a new cell phone, instead of a public health issue/solution..
I presume nothing about how people feel about the distribution of tax dollars(when the fuck did i presume something about anyone?!?! it was a rhetorical question, jeez), i personally feel that there are millions and millions every year that essentially go to waste, but that is my opinion. the term "wholesale slaughter of unborn children " is really off key and fucked, but i guess thats your opinion..
also, i do not know what advocates you're speaking of, but me personally, and quite a few people will listen to your argument and ethics speech and all the other bs you can get mad and stomp your feet about, and simply rebut, and reply with our facts and opinions, as you just did. you have your opinions and i have mine.

from the looks of things you look at abortion as unethical, however, I personally feel that someone who is an unfit parent and beats, starves and/or sexually abuses their own children is acting beyond any code or standard of ethics and decency. I am not saying there are kids that would be better off dead, but ahh fuck it i dont know i agree with abortion and stem cell research 100%. It is how i feel and that is that, we can go back and forth until we are blue in the face (or fingers since we're typing) but what good does that do anyone? If i offended you with my little jab at palin (ok and maybe busylivin as well) I'm sorry, but honestly, do you know anyone who has had an abortion? Do you personally know anyone who could possibly benefit from stem cell research? (feel free to answer or ignore those 2)

Apology accepted. No worries, like everyone else I misread your response to be the typical, short-sighted intellectually vapid comenatry that we seem to see a lot of from time to time. This post certainly illustrates you have aptitude.

Now... let me try and address your retort, no... I'm not blue in the face.... yet, but this is bound to be a lengthy response so thanks in advance for your patience.

My whole reference to tax dollars was based upon the objection many people (including myself) have to THIER tax dollars being spent on abortions. Stem Cell research can be done without the need to kill and harvest babies from the womb, but for now, abortion seems to be the predominant source for stem cells. Every piece of proposed legislation I've seen has included clauses that allow for tax dollars to be spent on stem-cells aquired by abortion. That is unethical. I'm sorry if you think that is "bs". I pity you.

"Wholesale Slaughter" is far from off key. We harvest unborn children like the beef industry harvests cattle, to the tune of about 1.3 MILLION lives a year. We justify our actions by creating analogies like "sacrificing one child to save another". THAT is what is off key. It is murder. plain and simple. During abortions performed in the second and third trimester, Salt and other toxins are injected into the fetus prior to the procedure to ensure the baby is "born dead". This process was introduced because of the number of abortions performed where the baby actually survived the trauma of the prodecure and had to be killed outside the womb. It's sickening.

Then of course there is the arguement that some people are just not fit to be parents. That is undoubtably the one statement you and I can agree upon, however, that's hardly a solid arguement to justify killing the children. I mean, think about it. An unfit parent may abuse (physicaly, sexually, mentally) thier child and the answer is to KILL THE CHILD?!?

As we have illustrated in this exchange, It's impossible to debate the issue of "Stem Cell Research" without including the issue of Abortion. The arguement is, "do the ends justify the means?" Currently, the process of stem cell research requires the destruction of a human embryo. To many, this is an unacceptable cost.

And finally.... your 2 questions. Yes and yes.

I do know people who could benifit from stem cell research. In fact, I'm not against stem cell research, I'm opposed to the killing of the unborn for the sake of harvesting embryos. it has been shown in principle that adult stem cell lines can be manipulated to generate embryonic-like stem cell lines using a single-cell biopsy. This can be done without the need to kill the unborn. I'm all for it.

and Finally... Yes, I do know women who have had an abortion. One woman in particular struggles with it to this day even though she had the procedure nearly 20 years ago. She is a good friend and I love her dearly. I hold her and assure her that God has forgiven her, but she still can't forgive herself. The emotional scar, the sense of profound loss, the guilt.. all too deep. She sees mothers playing with thier children and she wonders what her baby would have been like? School plays and sports, summer vacations and time at the pool. All those priceless joys of parenthood lost forever - sacrificed on the alter of Roe V Wade.

And speaking of that landmark case. Whatever became of the woman who WON the right to have an abortion? Well Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) never did get that abortion. Instead she carried the child full-term and put it up for adoption. Sometime during the mid-90's she came full circle.

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!"

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about "products of conception." It wasn't about "missed periods." It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortionâ??????at any pointâ??????was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear." ~Norma McCorvey in her book, "Won by Love"

Now, having said and done all that, it wasn't my intent to turn this into an abortion debate. But like you said, You have your opinion and I have mine.

I happen to agree with Sarah Palin's position on Stem Cell Research and I whole heartedly applaud her Faith to bring little Trig into the world.

 

[CG]

Apology accepted. No worries, like everyone else I misread your response to be the typical, short-sighted intellectually vapid comenatry that we seem to see a lot of from time to time. This post certainly illustrates you have aptitude.

Now... let me try and address your retort, no... I'm not blue in the face.... yet, but this is bound to be a lengthy response so thanks in advance for your patience.

My whole reference to tax dollars was based upon the objection many people (including myself) have to THIER tax dollars being spent on abortions. Stem Cell research can be done without the need to kill and harvest babies from the womb, but for now, abortion seems to be the predominant source for stem cells. Every piece of proposed legislation I've seen has included clauses that allow for tax dollars to be spent on stem-cells aquired by abortion. That is unethical. I'm sorry if you think that is "bs". I pity you.

"Wholesale Slaughter" is far from off key. We harvest unborn children like the beef industry harvests cattle, to the tune of about 1.3 MILLION lives a year. We justify our actions by creating analogies like "sacrificing one child to save another". THAT is what is off key. It is murder. plain and simple. During abortions performed in the second and third trimester, Salt and other toxins are injected into the fetus prior to the procedure to ensure the baby is "born dead". This process was introduced because of the number of abortions performed where the baby actually survived the trauma of the prodecure and had to be killed outside the womb. It's sickening.

Then of course there is the arguement that some people are just not fit to be parents. That is undoubtably the one statement you and I can agree upon, however, that's hardly a solid arguement to justify killing the children. I mean, think about it. An unfit parent may abuse (physicaly, sexually, mentally) thier child and the answer is to KILL THE CHILD?!?

As we have illustrated in this exchange, It's impossible to debate the issue of "Stem Cell Research" without including the issue of Abortion. The arguement is, "do the ends justify the means?" Currently, the process of stem cell research requires the destruction of a human embryo. To many, this is an unacceptable cost.

And finally.... your 2 questions. Yes and yes.

I do know people who could benifit from stem cell research. In fact, I'm not against stem cell research, I'm opposed to the killing of the unborn for the sake of harvesting embryos. it has been shown in principle that adult stem cell lines can be manipulated to generate embryonic-like stem cell lines using a single-cell biopsy. This can be done without the need to kill the unborn. I'm all for it.

and Finally... Yes, I do know women who have had an abortion. One woman in particular struggles with it to this day even though she had the procedure nearly 20 years ago. She is a good friend and I love her dearly. I hold her and assure her that God has forgiven her, but she still can't forgive herself. The emotional scar, the sense of profound loss, the guilt.. all too deep. She sees mothers playing with thier children and she wonders what her baby would have been like? School plays and sports, summer vacations and time at the pool. All those priceless joys of parenthood lost forever - sacrificed on the alter of Roe V Wade.

And speaking of that landmark case. Whatever became of the woman who WON the right to have an abortion? Well Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) never did get that abortion. Instead she carried the child full-term and put it up for adoption. Sometime during the mid-90's she came full circle.



Now, having said and done all that, it wasn't my intent to turn this into an abortion debate. But like you said, You have your opinion and I have mine.

I happen to agree with Sarah Palin's position on Stem Cell Research and I whole heartedly applaud her Faith to bring little Trig into the world.

my lips are starting to turn blue.. nonetheless..

To sum it up, it is not the ends that bothers you so much as the means of the research. I agree that there are better ways to preform the research, and i do understand what you are saying about your tax dollars paying for abortions. It has become evident to me that our views on abortion differ greatly, as well as our complete views on stem cell research. I feel that at this point and time, if obtaining stem cells through the death of the unborn is our only option, it is better than no option. As for the direction of tax dollars, that is yet another topic which would take an eternity to finalize/discuss.

In reference to your murder allegation, murder is defined as the taking of a life, and life is not substained until the 22 weeks.Unless I am mis-informed, I do believe that embryonic stem cells are harvested well before this point.This debate correlates directly to my "sacrifice one to spare another" comparasin, like it or not. The main difference was that in my analogy, a choice was to be made between two living beings.. with stem cell research, the debate is save an embryo (which COULD become a child), or save a living, breathing child...

I am well beyond needing your pity, though it is greatly appreciated, but not needed, nor welcomed. The BS i was referencing was the rhetoric stating that life begins at conception. Until an embryo can survive outside of the womb at conception, it is not a life, and I am sorry if you disagree, but to a point that is scientific fact. Further, your take on abortion, it is nothing more than your opinion/views. Believe me, I am no godless heathen, nor am I a saint, but i do consider all things of the world when forming my own opinion on an issue such as abortion.
(*FUCK i really wanted to stay away from the abortion debate, but i guess it is inevitable in this discussion..)

Killing a child is wrong, however, spareing the misery of a child by terminating a pregnancy BEFORE 22 weeks when the embryo is still not a child (as stated before) is a completely different story.

For a woman, getting an abortion can be one of the most traumatic things they would ever experience, which is why I am behind each woman in their choice, to keep their baby, or to terminate the pregnancy. It is possibly the most difficult decision any woman would ever make, but I do feel that they should be able to choose what they do with their body, especially when the embryo would be unable to survive without them..

I would not expect or even want someone who knew there was a possible medical issue with their unborn child to have an abortion, that is not what I am saying. I believe that if Sara Palin did infact care, she would not trash stem cell research, rather try to turn people on to adult stem cell research..

simply:
Are there better ways? yes
Do i agree with current processes and research? yes
would i rather see an alternate route taken in the future? yes

 

[Witmaster]

So, where does this magical "22 weeks" come from? Is "Life" now defined by what level of developement the internal organs are developed and the fetus can survive outside the womb? is THAT "Life" is now being defined by?

 

[Big Smoothy]

The election has been a charade. It also have Rove's palm prints all over it.

The most serious issues are not even discussed, because there's no way to fix them.

Any changes coming in the gov will be mostly symbolic: new bureaucrats, new department heads, and a new Press Secretary to tell us what to think.

 

[busyLivin]

Obama's new ad rips on McCain for not knowing how to use a computer.. Good to see we are back on the important issues.

 

[CG]

So, where does this magical "22 weeks" come from? Is "Life" now defined by what level of developement the internal organs are developed and the fetus can survive outside the womb? is THAT "Life" is now being defined by?

Medically and scientifically.. YES..
Find me something fact based to refute that... please?

 

[Witmaster]

Medically and scientifically.. YES..
Find me something fact based to refute that... please?

Oh I'll not even try to refute the development cycle of the fetus. I'm just following your logic.

Sustain itself. That's the key then. So.....

Once the child is born, what do you suppose would happen if it were left completely alone to feed and fend for itself?

 

[CG]

Oh I'll not even try to refute the development cycle of the fetus. I'm just following your logic.

Sustain itself. That's the key then. So.....

Once the child is born, what do you suppose would happen if it were left completely alone to feed and fend for itself?

now youre just being ridiculous... you very well know what I mean..

is THIS what our discussion has boiled down to? an argument on the development of a fetus and the definition of life?

ok I guess so..

with all the care and nuturing and even to an extent medical miracles, a fetus before 22 weeks COULD NOT survive.

 

[Witmaster]

now youre just being ridiculous... you very well know what I mean..

is THIS what our discussion has boiled down to? an argument on the development of a fetus and the definition of life?

ok I guess so..

with all the care and nuturing and even to an extent medical miracles, a fetus before 22 weeks COULD NOT survive.

I'm not being rediculous at all. I'm simply illustrating the ludicrous position that science has taken in an attempt to clear its' conscious. Just because it is dependant on others to stay alive (regardless of age) doesn't make it any less alive.

And yes, it would seem that anytime you get into a discussion regarding abortion you inevitably land in a debate about the definition of "Life".

To the Pro-Abortion crowd, It's a race against time. If we abort the fetus before the magical 22 week mark then we can sleep better at night knowing it wasn't "Technically" a "Life".

To the pro-life crowd, It's a baby. Pure and simple. Just because you killed it before 22 weeks doesn't make it any less dead.

"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose." Jeremiah 1:5