Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.wheresgeorge.com/showthread.php?t=114374&mode=lin...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
James Dobson's Show about Obama - Where's George?/Where's Willy? Discussion
Evangelical leader James Dobson called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obamas views on abortion and the Constitution a fruitcake interpretation in a radio broadcast Tuesday.
Dobsons segment largely focused on Obamas 2006 religiously-themed Call to Renewal Speech and took particular issue with Obamas refusal to support the Partial Birth Abortion Act as an Illinois State Senator.
The bill would have given medial protection to babies who miraculously survived abortion.
Dobson played several audio portions of Obamas speech, pausing to criticize certain passages.
Obama, who maintains he is personally pro-life but has a 100 percent voting record from abortion lobbyists, said, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will.
I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
What the senator is saying there, in essence, is that I cant seek to pass legislation for example, that bans partial birth abortion because there are people in the culture who dont see that as a moral issue and if I cant get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture.
That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.
As you can see Ive managed to raise my blood pressure here, Dobson remarked to his co-host Tom Minnery, Focus Vice President of Public Policy.
Dobson also discussed Obamas relationship with his controversial former pastor Rev.
Jeremiah Wright during the broadcast.
|
|
Quote: : in PA Obama, who maintains he is personally pro-life but has a 100 percent voting record from abortion lobbyists, said, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will.
I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. That is awesome.
What a refreshing change.
Not using some book of ancient lies to pass legislation with.
Huzzah!
Dobson can take his fruitcake anti-woman, anti-gay tax-exempt agenda and stick it.
D.
|
|
I see nothing wrong with what Obama has said.
It is one of the many reasons that I support him.
Personal freedoms are what make the United States great.
And if anything, the Republican's view of the Constitution is a "fruitcake" interpretation.
For the past 8 years Bush has violated any part of the Constitution that has gotten in his way, and I expect the same from McCain.
I think it is about time we have a president who will actually follow their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution.
Edit: To add, I also agree with Furbelly.
Its nice to see a candidate that actually understands the Establishment Clause.
|
|
Quote: : For the past 8 years Bush has violated any part of the Constitution that has gotten in his way, and I expect the same from McCain.
Which parts of the Constitution has he violated?
How did he violate them?
|
|
Quote: : in Tucson Which parts of the Constitution has he violated?
How did he violate them?
Oh, just warrantless wiretapping, suspension of Habeas Corpus, torture.
|
|
Quote: : Oh, just warrantless wiretapping, suspension of Habeas Corpus, torture.
Then start the impeachment proceedings.
You have him. Let's go!
|
|
I don't guess a Democratic violation of the Constitution will fit here.
Congress passes the laws.
The current Senate leadership is investigating baseball for steroids and having hearings about Scott McLellan's book.
No violation there, unless you consider investigation and law enforcement to be a constitutionally mandated job of the Legislative Branch.
Since Dems are a majority, the Patriot Act (with which I disagree) had to have Democratic votes in order to pass.
Do the math.
|
|
Quote: : in PA Evangelical leader James Dobson called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obamas views on abortion and the Constitution a fruitcake interpretation in a radio broadcast Tuesday.
Dobsons segment largely focused on Obamas 2006 religiously-themed Call to Renewal Speech and took particular issue with Obamas refusal to support the Partial Birth Abortion Act as an Illinois State Senator.
The bill would have given medial protection to babies who miraculously survived abortion...
Not to blow this whole charade or anything, but this one was already handled a few weeks ago in this thread.
Since no-one recycling this story then was able to answer the critical question asked at that time, I'll pose it again, although I'm sure that it will be quietly skirted by every conservative once more...
Up to and including Dobson.
Was this legislation, as presented, well written?
"Section 10
Induced labor abortion;
Actions. If a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which the child was born may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees, against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth.
Any damages recovered shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child.
If the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund."
We're all aware of how badly-constructed bills are often thrown down onto the floor of some chamber for a vote in an effort to 'corner' a particular politician as being 'pro' or 'against' something, but the intent was never to see the legislation actually pass, because if it did, it would be bad law.
This is one of those cases.
If this idea was so good, then why hasn't the bill been re-presented, but written well enough to not leave gaping legal loopholes such as no cap on damages, nor any time limit on them...
'till death, maybe 80 years later?
Conservatives continually scream about legislation that 'steals' their tax dollars.
Look at this one and tell me how you feel about supporting it, as written.
Don't all jump in at once.
|
|
In my opinion, legislation should be written in plain, ordinary English.
Nobody should have to be smarter than a fifth grader to read and understand it.
Each piece of legislation should also stick to one issue, and one issue only, and not have other stuff tacked on.
|
|
Quote: : In my opinion, legislation should be written in plain, ordinary English.
Nobody should have to be smarter than a fifth grader to read and understand it.
Each piece of legislation should also stick to one issue, and one issue only, and not have other stuff tacked on.
Do you realize how many fail on "Are you smarter than a 5th Grader"?
|
|
Quote: : In my opinion, legislation should be written in plain, ordinary English.
Nobody should have to be smarter than a fifth grader to read and understand it.
Each piece of legislation should also stick to one issue, and one issue only, and not have other stuff tacked on.
An excellent idea, and why I phrased my question in such a straightforward way.
Any opinion on the question?
|
|
Quote: :
Was this legislation, as presented, well written?
"Section 10
Induced labor abortion;
Actions. If a child is born alive after an induced labor abortion or any other abortion, a parent of the child or the public guardian of the county in which the child was born may maintain an action on the child's behalf for damages, including all costs of care to preserve and protect the life, health, and safety of the child, punitive damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees, against any hospital, health care facility, or health care provider who harms or neglects the child or fails to provide medical care to the child after the child's birth.
Any damages recovered shall be used to pay for the cost of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child.
If the child does not survive, the balance remaining after the costs of preserving and protecting the life, health, and safety of the child are paid shall be deposited into the Neonatal Care and Perinatal Hospice Fund."
the bill say that if the abortion doctor screws up & the baby takes a breath, everyone involved can be sued by the parents.
It would seem to be pro abortion in that it wouls insure that the doctor makes sure the fetus is dead before a breath can be taken vs the patient being stuck with a kid she didn't want.
Is it normal for caps on lawsuits in the jurisdiction?
|
|
As to the original question (sorry, I was on the phone with my pregnant dd, who is also the mom of a 19 mo old boy), I think the legislation is horrible.
It's badly written, and wrongly written.
The Supreme Court case Roe v Wade should never have been heard at all.
Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it simply is not constitutionally madated subject for debate by the Judicial Branch.
Abortion was not illegal in all 50 states in 1973.
Therefore, federal legislation based on wrongly heard and decided Supreme Court cases is bad legislation, any way they write it.
When Roe v Wade was decided, the states had no choice but to allow abortion.
The state role became one of regulation, which is a state right.
But this whole thing is not based on state law.
It's based on a US Supreme Court decision, with a whole bunch of federal garbage that followed, and it's still bad.
For this specific legislation, I would think the whole thing is moot because a pre-birth termination is a surgical procedure and would fall under other legislation having to do with medical negligence.
At best, it was unnecessary legislation.
|
|
Quote: : the bill say that if the abortion doctor screws up & the baby takes a breath, everyone involved can be sued by the parents.
It would seem to be pro abortion in that it wouls insure that the doctor makes sure the fetus is dead before a breath can be taken vs the patient being stuck with a kid she didn't want.
Is it normal for caps on lawsuits in the jurisdiction?
Was this legislation, as presented, well written?
|
|
Quote: : As to the original question (sorry, I was on the phone with my pregnant dd, who is also the mom of a 19 mo old boy), I think the legislation is horrible.
It's badly written, and wrongly written.
The Supreme Court case Roe v Wade should never have been heard at all.
Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it simply is not constitutionally madated subject for debate by the Judicial Branch.
Abortion was not illegal in all 50 states in 1973.
Therefore, federal legislation based on wrongly heard and decided Supreme Court cases is bad legislation, any way they write it.
Thanks for your opinion.
This is a reason why it should not be enacted.
I understand the debate about abortion.
But, attempting to railroad a politician for not supporting a terribly-written law just to satisfy a particular personal faith belief is, in my opinion, disingenuous and not mindful of the facts.
If the idea was worth crafting lousy legislation before, certainly it is worth crafting well-written legislation in order to address it properly.
Until that time, the badly-written stuff should not be supported.
I'm sure that we'll see this one trotted out again in another couple of weeks, after our memory of the facts dims a bit.
|
|
Quote: : Thanks for your opinion.
This is a reason why it should not be enacted.
I understand the debate about abortion.
But, attempting to railroad a politician for not supporting a terribly-written law just to satisfy a particular personal faith belief is, in my opinion, disingenuous and not mindful of the facts.
If the idea was worth crafting lousy legislation before, certainly it is worth crafting well-written legislation in order to address it properly.
Until that time, the badly-written stuff should not be supported.
Certainly Dr. Dobson is framing his argument his audience--to people of faith--and that is the perspective from which he addresses it.
(All free speech advocates, please feel free to comment on why Dr.
Dobson should not address an audience on his own radio show.) However, I would suggest that the Constitutionality of the issue does not present any conflict to people of faith.
With regard to faith, Obama does not seem to behave in accordance with his stated faith positions on a whole lot of issues.
If he's such a great leader and wants to make an impact, perhaps he should step and own some of this, and maybe write legislation that is both Constitutional and well written.
I'm sure he had plenty of opportunity to have input with regard to the wording of the particular piece questioned, so why didn't he?
And why didn't he give the clarity of the wording as the reason not to support the bill?
|
|
Quote: : Certainly Dr.
Dobson is framing his argument his audience--to people of faith--and that is the perspective from which he addresses it.
However, I would suggest that the Constitutionality of the issue should certainly be addressed by people of faith as well.
Granted, but it behooves Dobson - as a representative of that faith who commands a large audience - to be truthful about the circumstances that he wishes to use as example.
His standard to uphold is that much greater.
Although a ridiculous example, we could suppose what might happen to a bill that mandated that a mother having chosen to have a partial-birth abortion be put to death upon the failure of that abortion to achieve the desired results, if the child lived, while guaranteeing the 'rights of the child'.
Voting against such legislation does not conveniently brand someone as being against the rights of the child.
Quote: : With regard to faith, Obama does not seem to behave in accordance with his stated faith positions on a whole lot of issues.
If he's such a great leader and wants to make an impact, perhaps he should step and own some of this, and maybe write legislation that is both Constitutional and well written.
A reasonable conclusion, but again, with a significant problem.
A legislator should not derive the content of his or her sponsored legislation solely on their faith.
This is a large and diverse country, and the true duty of a politician is to do the very antithesis of partisanship - it is to strike a balance.
These words would have me burned at the stake by the throngs on either side of the political fence that would rather see an agenda that affirmed only their own religious opinions or narrow attitudes...
But the founding principle of this nation - to exercise free will and have a freedom to choose one's religious values - should not be challenged by simple mob rule or the religious fiat of one sect over another.
The better part of the last decade has been a case where one party - having garnered 50.1% of the vote - believes that it has a mandate to decide what is best for all Americans based on its own agenda, as opposed to striking that balance that seeks to accommodate a greater majority.
I think that this is inherently un-American.
Obama may have specific beliefs on abortion - just as I do - that may or may not jive with current law, but the law exists as it does to allow the choice by the individual based upon their own faith...
Not upon the mindset of a politician, or an especially vocal voting block.
And although some find the whole notion of abortion abhorrent, there is no Biblical mandate for opposition (regardless of the 'I knew thee' verse) from conception (and beyond that, what of faiths outside Christianity?), even as it's obvious that a third-trimester child has the most excellent chance to survive outside the womb in this day and age.
It stills boils down to faith, and that is first and foremost a personal matter, not something for your government to decide for you.
|
|
Good work on the research, n/4 but remember the source- Dobson the Christian Bigot/Hater.
It is hard to argue against idiocy.
Joe
|
|
Quote: : A legislator should not derive the content of his or her sponsored legislation solely on their faith.
You did see what I said about Constitutionality, right?
Dr.
Dobson has a Constitutional right to say what he wants to say on his own show.
He is only bound by the standards of the FCC and the Board of Directors of Focus on the Family.
I just think Sen.
Obama should say what he thinks and why, and get it over with.
He's free to say it, and he ought to.
He has the highest standard of all because he's running for President of the United States of America.
If he wants people to vote for him, he needs to speak clearly and honestly to the issues the voters feel are important.
Sen. Obama opened this book because he put himself out there.
I would just ask him to please state his position and take ownership of it.
|
|
Quote: : You did see what I said about Constitutionality, right?
Dr.
Dobson has a Constitutional right to say what he wants to say on his own show.
He is only bound by the standards of the FCC and the Board of Directors of Focus on the Family.
As a person (and leader) of the Christian faith, he has an obligation to be truthful about what he says or implies.
Quote: : I just think Sen.
Obama should say what he thinks and why, and get it over with.
He's free to say it, and he ought to.
He has the highest standard of all because he's running for President of the United States of America.
If he wants people to vote for him, he needs to speak clearly and honestly to the issues the voters feel are important.
Sen. Obama opened this book because he put himself out there.
I would just ask him to please state his position and take ownership of it.
A person of Christian faith has the obligation to be truthful about what he says or implies.
He has the obligation to offer his faith as a path to others to follow.
He does not have any mandate to legislate that faith onto the population as a whole.
|
|
Quote: : As a person (and leader) of the Christian faith, he has an obligation to be truthful about what he says or implies.
A person of Christian faith has the obligation to be truthful about what he says or implies.
He has the obligation to offer his faith as a path to others to follow.
He does not have any mandate to legislate that faith onto the population as a whole.
Maybe he is truthfull and someone else isnt?
|
|
|
Quote: : Maybe he is truthfull and someone else isnt?
Nice try, but the record of legislation presented doesn't lie, and what you see above is what's in it.
|
|
Quote: : Maybe he is truthfull and someone else isnt?
Some pastors think otherwise.
|
|
Quote: : As a person (and leader) of the Christian faith, he has an obligation to be truthful about what he says or implies.
A person of Christian faith has the obligation to be truthful about what he says or implies.
He has the obligation to offer his faith as a path to others to follow.
He does not have any mandate to legislate that faith onto the population as a whole.
And just where do you get that?
On what basis do you make such a statement, and why would you accuse someone of not being truthful for stating an opinion?
It seems to me that you're bringing something else to this based on your opinion about the legislation in question.
Barak Obama only voted.
He is not on record for saying he voted against the bill because of grammar.
You are the one who thinks he should have voted as he did for the reason you stated.
Senator Obama is not on record for having said anything of the kind.
This vote was no different than any other he has cast on this issue.
He has always voted to support unrestricted abortion, including at the time of birth.
I've followed Dr.
Dobson's career for a while.
I've read 7 or 8 of his books and quite a few other publications.
I think Dr. Dobson tells the truth.
His message has been the same for over 30 years.
The doctor has never claimed to be anything but a clinical psychologist, author, and radio commentator.
He can say whatever he wants to an audience who wants to listen.
Although Dr. Dobson did serve on the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, he has never claimed to have any power to legislate anything.
He's always taken a pro-life position.
He's on record with books, articles, and broadcasts to a niche market.
As much as some people on this forum don't like it, people of faith do vote, and they have the same access to their senators and representatives as everyone else.
If that is upsetting to some, well, too bad.
That's the way the Constitution was written.
Everyone gets to vote, and everyone can send a letter and call to give their opinion.
And I'm going to say this again: Barak Obama needs to spit it out.
He needs to state his positions and own them.
He's in the Senate now, and he wants to be President of all the people.
I think the onus is on him to stop trying to take both sides of an issue.
He doesn't have much of a track record at this point, so what he says is everything.
If the Senator didn't agree with the wording on a bill, he should have said so.
But he didn't say that.
He's the one who made this about faith.
If someone asked him why he didn't support the legislation he could have said, "I thought the bill was badly written, and it didn't clearly express what the provisions of the bill actually are." That would have been it.
But no, he comes out with a long mushmouth bunch of nonsense about how he issupposedly pro-life but he can't vote his conscience on the issue because of blah blah blah.
Make up your mind, Pal, and let's get on with it.
Like it or not, unrestricted abortion is a major issue for a lot of people.
If Dr. Dobson has an opinion about it, and he wants to express it on his own show, the Constitution gives him unrestricted right to say it.
On the other hand, in just a few months, America is going to be asked to make a choice for President.
The voters deserve to know where the candidates stand on the issues.
If I hear something on a radio or tv show, I can go look it up on my own.
In this case, Senator Obama has not said a single thing to make me think he thinks the Constitution guarantees a right to life.
In fact he has said and done a whole lot to make me think he probably wants to stick to the side that believes unrestricted abortion should be available.
I'll tell you something.
I'm getting pretty tired of Senator Obama wanting to be President, not clearly stating his positions, and both him and his supporters getting upset when his public life or positions are called into question.
Like it or not, he is the one who has to answer for what he says and does.
I was interested in him when he first announced his candidacy for President, but he has not said one single thing yet to make me want to vote for him.
As far as I'm concerned, it's game over.
|
|
Quote: : I'll tell you something.
I'm getting pretty tired of Senator Obama wanting to be President, not clearly stating his positions, and both him and his supporters getting upset when his public life or positions are called into question.
Like it or not, he is the one who has to answer for what he says and does.
I was interested in him when he first announced his candidacy for President, but he has not said one single thing yet to make me want to vote for him.
As far as I'm concerned, it's game over.
Your last paragraph (Quote: d above) tells it all!
Thanks for expressing my thoughts on this issue.
|
|
|
|