President Obama.

...and the music he inspired was outstanding...Disraeli Gears. LOL

 

Heh. I think Disraeli was awesome. One of my favourite political quotes:

(Gladstone being the leader of the opposition)

 

Not that he didn't deserve it. If I was his family I'd do the same. But still, that does suck.

I pretty much agree with you on the rest of that whole thing though, lol. Except that taunting people with smoothies is not evry nice!

 

muahahahahaha XD

 

Well, Day 3(or 4, depending when you count) on the job and Obama has already given me another reason to doubt him. This guy seems to live to do that. Luckily, I can't say I am disappointed since my expectations were set low.

 

What did he do?

Thus far the only thing he's done I don't like is put a guy with even less experience than him in charge of the CIA.

 

I recall hearing him sign an executive order that calls for funding of abortions on a global scale. Our tax dollars at work. Sure some may think it's a good idea but I think it sucks. For a country that is supposed to be spending too much, why do we have to pay for women to get rid of their unwanted kids?

 

He also appointed an avowed anti-gun politician to "oversee" our second amendment rights...as Attorney General. One of his many campaign promises was to uphold the Second Amendment...more Obama BS. Of course, he doesn't really care about those midwestern hillbillys who cling to their guns and religion!

 

You recall hearing incorrectly then. What have you been watching, Fox News? He didn't call for funding of abortions in any places. All he did was lift the ban on funding for Family Planning organizations that supply abortions. The intent was to improve woman's health because these programs do other things than just abortions. In fact, several of the groups have nothing to do with abortions other than that they counsel woman ABOUT abortions. They also supply contraceptives and healthcare services to woman across the globe.

What's more, no funding was actually allocated anywhere. All the order says is that now, feasibly, money could be allocated to organizations which may possibly have a side-role in abortions. Woo.

Fox, unfortunately, has over-simplified the issue and made it sound like Obama actually is literally funding abortions. Which is just a lie.

 

If your main concern is money, think of it this way: What costs more, aborting a pregnancy if the mother can't or won't take care or the child properly, or a life time of social services helping that person overcome the side effects of a mother who won't care for him/her?

Darn it, posted too late. But regardless of who has the correct information, my point still stands.

 

If some, or all, of the funding pays for abortion, it is NOT a lie. It is a fact.

 

When does human "life" become important enough to protect?

 

Well, I personally don't care about them either. But that too is misinformation. He appointed Eric Holder to be attorney general. The attorney general has no power over the constitution so his gun stance is probably inconsequential. He doesn't trump the Supreme Court, he can only appeal to the Supreme Court.

I'm sure that his being anti-gun had nothing to do with Obama's appointment.

Also should be noted, I myself am pro-gun. But I really don't see this as a problem.

What's with all this? You guys can criticize Obama but at least pick on him for an actual reason. Even the things you're mentioning so far haven't affected anything! Sheesh!

 

No, I actually did not hear it on Fox. I don't watch Fox much.

 

No need to start this argument. I was simply making a point about costs because that was what the person I was responding to seemed to be most concerned about. Remember, I said, "If money is what you care about".

 

How about when it's actually alive? Let me think...number of people Bush has killed thus far...tens of thousands? And Obama has killed 0, since no abortions have even been funded yet? And even when an abortion is funded, it's really arguable whether that even counts.
I think we come out on top there, thanks.

None of the funding pays for abortions. The money goes to organizations. Those organizations counsel women about abortions, or provide contraceptives, or woman health services, or sometimes provide abortions.

But since the amount of money being allocated is $0 the amount of money being spent on abortions is $0 and EVEN IF it was $10,000 or 100,000 I wouldn't care one bit. Well maybe a bit, it's wasteful, but it's honestly not an important issue by any stretch of the imagination.

EDIT: And if we care about saving lives here, what about all the woman that will die if they don't get the health services provided by these organizations? Do they not count for anything at all?

 

Saving a buck, is not my concern. I don't think your point really stands.

 

Except for here where your concern clearly is for your tax dollars...

But I guess you changed your mind at some point?

Sigh. Whatever. I hate these internet debates. I'm just bowing out.

 

Like I said, I was talking about money ONLY. Primary and seconary prevention, which abortion falls under, is less expensive than tertiary, e.g. caring for unwanted or abused children in this case. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And to clarify what I mean, for those who have not studied in social services,

Primary prevention: education etc to keep a problem from happening all together e.g. teaching kids that smoking/drugs are bad

Seconary prevention: helping people who are at-risk e.g. programs that help people quit smoking before they get sick or becomes a serious addiction and provding alternatives to dangerous addictions

Tertiary prevention: helping people recover from the problem and keep it from happening again e.g. lung cancer/addiction research and treatment programs

 

Nope, I just don't support tax dollars going to such places. I mean, I'm sure it'd be cheaper to go around and eliminate other inconvenient people but it doesn't mean I want my tax dollars going there. I don't like killing to save money.

 

It's all about "spin" now, isn't it? Obama supporters refuse to view his actions with any criticism, while Obama detractors will continue to point out their pespective. The real truth lies somewhere in between.

Personally, I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative athiest. I HATE most of the socialist agenda of that slick politician, Obama, so I will dutifully resist him for the next four years until this country can correct its mistake.

 

I read about that but yeah Noodle's right. He was signing something to reverse a ban put in during Bush's tenure (one that got a stupid vote from me because it was too broad).

Noodle's right about the Attorney General thing too. He's just the governments head of law enforcement he can't make policy. If there were a Supreme COurt case he could represent the government in the case but normally that's the job of the Solicitor General's office. Be pro-gun or anti-gun seems kind of pointless in his job.

Thus far everything he's done I don't care to much about (except for the people he appointed as heads of the CIA and NSA being completely unqualified for their jobs). I stay out of the abortion debate now. I think it's wrong but that whole things a crap shot no body wins. My only problem with is is taxpayer dollars paying for social programs. Can these planned family groups not fund themselves or something? There's something wrong with their business model if they need tax dollars to stay afloat.

 

Since I am anti-gun and pro-choice...I haven't found anything to criticize yet.

 

Apparently, nobody can run a business without tax dollars these days.

 

These places aren't businesses. Places like Planned Parenthood and Pregnacy Support Group etc are there to provide care to women who can't afford healthcare. They aren't in the business of making money. They need government funding to provide care for people who can't otherwise get it.