Fixed_News (anonymous) says...

Racism rears its ugly head in Emporia once again. All you think is that Obama is black and is going to treat all of the elderly people the way whites thought blacks did in the old days. This is not a society like in the Giver.

September 8, 2008 at 4:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

What's it got to do with race?????

September 8, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rcakmon (anonymous) says...

Virginia...are you kidding? What does his vote on this bill have to do with the elderly? I guess I've missed his speeches regarding the elderly not being worthy to live. Care to share that link with us?

September 8, 2008 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Technically, (I posted this on another thread), Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs. Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro).

I will vote for or against a candidate based on the issues, their character, what they stand for, etc... not what color their skin is, their lineage, or their gender.

Just an FYI for Fixed since he is fixated on color. Personally, I couldn't care less what color skin he has. That has nothing to do with my decision on who to vote for. Period.

September 8, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Fixed_news: What planet are you posting from? No where in Ms. Pester's comments did I see anything that even remotely hinted at racism. The only racist comment I saw was yours!

September 8, 2008 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

UsayULoveGod (anonymous) says...

He is Black due to if he tried to catch a cab in New York a cab would not stop to pick him up or if he was driving a nice car on Highway 35 he would be stopped to check if he was a drug dealer

September 9, 2008 at 1:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

That's strange. I've spent quite a bit of time in New York. I've stood there and watched cabs pick up plenty of people that flagged them down, of all ethnicities & skin colors. Guess you must have been in one of those parallel universe New Yorks, because it certainly wasn't the one I have visited on the east coast of the USA....... which NY ARE you talking about? Oh, that's right, now I recognize your screen name. You're the one who likes to yell "racist" every chance you get..... never mind....

September 9, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Observation: Very good observation.

USayULove God: You say it, but do you believe it? Your posts tend to be mean-spirited, biased, racist, judgemental, and barely literate enough to understand.

September 9, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yes, I find it very curious that someone with a handle like USayULoveGod, who has posted in the past about how we're all a bunch of uncaring, ungodly racists, supports not extending medical care to a baby that is living outside it's mother's womb. Seems somewhat of a contradiction, but then again so does using the word racist in every other sentence. USay, are you sure you have the right handle to fit you?

September 9, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hogan77 (anonymous) says...

Fixed_News: If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world. Good Lord... can we all just drop the racism crap and grow up already? Who cares what color Obama's skin is.....

September 9, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_mind (anonymous) says...

The Gazette's job is to inform us about political issues, not try to influence and persuade us to vote one way or another. They haven't been doing a very good job of that lately. The articles regarding McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden have been quite biased lately and the writers need to take it down to the essentials, not their opinions.

September 9, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Most of these articles have been on the op/ed page though. That page of the newspaper is specifically designed for bias and opinion. So it seems fitting to me. The rest of the newspaper does a fairly good job of just reporting the wheres and whens and interpretation of recognized authorities.

September 9, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

How To Save the Government $5 Million

A president's pension currently is $191,300 per year, until he is 80 years old.

Assuming the next president lives to age 80. Sen. McCain would receive ZERO pension as he would reach 80 at the end of two terms as president. Sen. Obama would be retired for 26 years after two terms and would receive $4,973,800 in pension.

Therefore it would certainly make economic sense to elect McCain in November.

How's that for non partisan thinking???

September 9, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Wyse_guy

That notion is a fallacy.
You are perpetuating an Urban myth. A creative and common sense urban myth, but one that is untrue nevertheless..

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain...

September 9, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...

Basically presidential pensions are lifelong. They do not expire when someone reaches a certain age.

September 9, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Yeah, Olbermann & Matthews found out what happens when you get so biased you can't report the news fairly. Seems to me even on an op/ed page, you could have some reporters that represent views from both sides, not just one. Might even help your circulation.

McCain would still probably save us money in the long run, though, since he's closer to the end of his average life expectancy than Obama - LOL

September 9, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

McCain, being 72 years old and married to Cindy, will most certainly die long before Obama. However, Obama, being married to Michelle, will most likely be much more willing to die.

September 9, 2008 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Bjnemp!!!

Plus, if things DID go south for McCain's marriage, at least his wife owns a beer distributorship, so blessed inebriation would be close at hand.... .LOLOLOLOLOL

September 9, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Midwestern_girl (anonymous) says...

This is not about race, this is not about taxes, this is not about pension. Let's get back to the real issue. Obama voted against this for a reason: he is PRO-CHOICE. This means that a woman gets to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy or not, and apparently gets to choose if a baby, who somewhat made it through a late-term abortion, can live or die. That is her choice and hers alone. I don't like the rule, but Obama wasn't out to be cruel or barbaric, he just understands womens' choices. It breaks my heart to think that all of this goes on, but I do what I choose with my body, and so do other women.

September 9, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Mid, I think that's the point everyone questions about where the slippery slope ends: Ok, you have a valid point, your own words, with what you choose to do with your body. With YOUR BODY. Ok, once the baby has been removed, it is NO LONGER a part of your body. If it is surviving, OUTSIDE of your body, in my mind, it is no longer a part of your body. It once was, now it is no longer. So, we have a surviving infant, living outside its mothers body, breathing, and.... Obama wants to deny it medical care - presuming that it will expire soon. So where, exactly, is the line drawn? If a woman wants a baby, and has birth normally, and then 5 minutes later changes her mind, does the same rule still apply? Can she now tell the doctor to not give the baby medical care because the baby is not wanted? Is that the only determination once the baby is outside the womb and still living, whether the mother wants it or not?
I'm not arguing about early-term abortion here. I am only trying to make a point about partial-birth or late-term abortions, in cases where the infant survives outside the womb....... just my thoughts.....

September 9, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Right, Observation. I love your first comment about alot of mothers having misgivings about the child well into the child's teenage years. Except, in my experience, most of the misgivings BEGIN once they reach the teenage years.... LOL

Here's another scenario: A woman decides to have a late-term abortion. She schedules the abortion for Friday afternoon. Friday morning she wakes up and starts having labor pains, the child somehow got wind of what was up and is trying to make its getaway several months premature. She calls a cab but not in time, the child is born in the backseat of the cab before she can get to the clinic (It Does Happen!). Okay - what's the call once she reaches the hospital? After all, she was going to have an abortion in a few more hours anyway....
I know I'm dramatizing here, but children are surviving earlier & earlier premature births all the time. And yes, we've all heard plenty of stories about mother's who's labor was super-fast and the kids were born in the cab on the way. I'm just painting a moral dilemma picture here for thought.....

September 9, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I meant to say mid - to - late term abortion above.

September 9, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MelissaE (anonymous) says...

Okay, let me get this straight:

It appears (and I may be wrong) that most of the "pro-life" posters are male.

Where, exactly, did you guys(males) put your vaginas? I missed that part.

And, since when, are "Obama supporters" considered "anti-life" as was stated in the article? I'm alive, my kids are alive, so why would I be considered "anti-life"? Because I believe that any decision I make should be between my physician and myself? That actually sounds educated to me.

Should I add that I am a career-military wife? Does your mind change if I tell you I was in the military? Does it make you think again if I tell you my husband supports Obama?

So, regardless if you are voting for one or the other, never judge a book by its cover.

M

September 9, 2008 at 9:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Midwestern_girl (anonymous) says...

I guess I didn't address that as well as I meant to. If you understand the born-alive act that Obama has opposed, you will understand that these children are born with problems due to an incomplete or "botched" abortion. These are not perfectly healthy kids. Don't get me wrong, I do not like the idea of abortion and I can't believe that late term abortions take place and sometimes the abortions don't go as planned and leave a suffering child.

But as a mother of 2, if my children were suffering, and I had to make the call on if they should be resuscitated or revived, my spouse and I had better be the ones making the decisions, not the hospital, and certainly not the government.

The same applies to the infants that have gone through the "botched" abortions and are in-between. The woman who had the abortion and now has a child in a life or death situation, must make that call to extend care or cease it.

September 9, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

MelissaE: I am amazed when pro-abortion supporters make statements like yours that males should have no voice in this debate. Come on. Some of us believe that this practice is murder, murder of the most innocent among us, murder of the totally helpless. We believe that this practice has stained our nation worse, by far, that Hitler's Germany in its practice of killing Jews. If there was a group that suggested that all forms of murder should be allowed, not just the murder of the pre-born, would you say that males should have no voice in the debate? I believe that at some time in the future, generations from now, people will look back at this period of our history in horror and disbelief that a whole society allowed its babies to be murdered. We will be seen as living in the true dark ages. It will by far overshadow Hitler and all the other blood thirsty despots of this time and before. How many of us have ever taken just a few minutes to think about the absolute barbarism of this practice. Obviously, not many, or there would be an overwhelming cry to end this horror.

September 9, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

MelissaE - I really don't understand most of your post. Back when we were discussing the issue of Somalian FGM, and it spilled over onto male circumcision, which quite a few women posted very heated opinions on, it never crossed my mind to ask a woman where she put her (male anatomy) for having any opinion about something to do with men, I guess. And if you go back and re-read the article, you will not find one single thing said about Obama SUPPORTERS, as you stated. Only about Obama himself. But I do thank you for you and your family's military service.
Midwest: Thank you for further clarifying your position. What I was attempting to do, with my scenario, was to ask questions about where this constantly moving line should be drawn as we steadily slide further and further down the slippery slope. I do understand your position about a suffering infant. The same case can be made about someone in a vegatative state. But I am trying to find where the line is drawn. Many WANTED babies are born with serious health problems - at what point do we stop trying to help the infant? Whenever the mom decides they don't want it? Up until how many hours after birth? Or days, weeks, months? I understand that the "botched abortion" baby that lives is most likely very seriously injured, and has only a very slim chance of survival, and possibly only then with permanent injuries. What if the 'botched abortion" child is NOT seriously damaged or suffering? At least not in a way that would prevent it from ever having any chance whatsoever at a decent life? (Such as maybe just missing some fingers). Or totally healthy, like the taxicab scenario I offered above? Once the baby is outside the womb, and able to live on its own, for whatever reason - who makes the determination about its level of health and chances for survival? If it is 100% healthy, like the taxi case, do we still kill it if the mom doesn't want it anymore? Does the dad get a say, now that it is no longer part of the woman's body? MelissaE, this is going to sound very crude, and I don't really mean it to sound that way, but since you brought it up, I think it is the best way to describe it - regarding your comment about where men put their vagina. Just how far outside of your body does your vagina extend? If that baby is fairly healthy, whether the abortion was botched, or it was born in the taxi on the way to the abortion, just when does your decision to kill it end? I'm not saying one way or the other that you do or don't have the right of an abortion - I'm merely asking, at what point does that right over your childs life end, and the childs rights begin? We've moved from conception, to first trimester, now to late-term & partial-birth. What's next? I'm simply asking, at this current time, where is the line drawn?

September 10, 2008 at 12:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Senator Obama said that he would have voted for Illinoise Senate bill 1082 (the "born alive" bill) if it had had a protection built in to ensure that the tenets of Roe v. Wade were secure. In truth, the bill did have such protection, titled amendment 101.

I'm pro-life. I've been through the marches, debated on college campuses, etc. Over the years I've changed. While I'm still pro-life, I am also realistic enough to see that, as conservative Chief Justice John Roberts put it, Roe v. Wade is settled law. I think in saying that he was signalling that his court would not take up challenges to Roe.

I understand that. In the nineties Bill Clinton said that he, and the Democratic Party, wanted to ensure that abortion was safe, legal, and rare. Abortion is legal. I'm not a medical expert, but it appears to be "safe." But it is far from rare.

I wrote to the Obama campaign early on, believing his word that he wanted to reach out to pro-life citizens. But, the more I read about his position on SB 1082 the less I believed him. There is absolutely no way that I could construe his vote on a bill that protected Roe and also afforded protections to a born child as reaching out.

I suppose other pro-lifers can disagree with me on the settled nature of Roe, but I believe we are in one accord on a child born.

I would like to think that pro-choice citizens would find a way to agree with pro-lifers on this. If not, we are truly heading down the slippery slope. If the argrument that the suffering of the born infant justifies the refusal to allow the child to live, God help us. It opens up all sorts of avenues. What about the eight year old suffering with spina bifada? What about the teenager with severe autism? What do we do when the cost of care for these children becomes prohibitive?

I don't think any of us can say that the answers to these questions and the others raised by Senator Obama's failure to vote for SB 1082 are easy. But I'd like to think that could find some common ground. If not, we will almost certainly go down that slippery slope and when we do it will be Katie bar the door. If we cannot come together and decide that a "born" child has the same inalienable right to life the rest of us do, then there is no avenue of discourse. We will simply have to choose and accept the consequences of our collective action.

September 10, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

MelissaE: You asked, "Where, exactly, did you guys (males) put your vaginas?" Well, most guys put them up in apartments on the other side of town, or in other towns, so their wives don't find out. I know that answer sounds stupid and sexist, but so did your question.

September 10, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

MelissaE: Thank you and your family for your military service. I noticed that you made a point that, as a military family, you are supporting Obama. I suspect that the reason that you did so is because so very few military families support Obama, thereby making your case noteworthy. Most military families (like mine) by far support John McCain. America's military is a cross section of this nation, and I think that it is very telling that this cross section strongly favors McCain. They do so mostly on national security reasons. Likewise, most people who attend church support McCain, mostly on moral issues. Most people who favor gun rights support McCain, mostly on 2nd Amendment issues. Most people vote their concerns. Therefore, if you are pro-abortion, you should support Obama. Likewise, if you are pro-life, you should support McCain.

September 10, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

As Jayhawker mentioned, most military men and women support McCain. This video does a fantastic job of explaining why. Be sure to watch the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9...

September 10, 2008 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hellfirebluefish (anonymous) says...

At least Palins daughter was able to CHOOSE. She CHOSE life. This does not make her pro life, it makes her PRO CHOICE.

September 11, 2008 at 10:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

hellfirebluefish: I have heard your argument before, and it makes sense if you accept that we should have the choice of killing an innocent, helpless child.

September 12, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I just watched something I thought was pretty incredible on Hannity & Colmes tonight. They had an abortion survivor on - a young woman, very pretty, intelligent, & articulate. She was burned in the womb for 18 hours while they tried a saline abortion. She was born alive weighing about 2 lbs. She suffers from cerebral palsey due to the time she was without oxygen, but until she mentioned it I would have never known. She stated that luckily the abortion doctor was not there when she was delivered, had he been, she would have been strangled or whatever method they would have used to kill her. She ended her talk by saying something to the effect that we all understand about the woman's rights - but at what point to her rights begin...... hope some here either got to see it or can view it on the web sometime.....

September 15, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )