Where Everybody Knows You're Numb

My Turn · Senior Member

RE: "Not My Priority"

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

i was sorry to see that bristol palin has been on the media trail as the abstinence spokesperson. i thought she was far more effective when she was candid.
Yeah, I'll cop to some (frankly) pretty cynical thinking about that whole thing.

Psych Lit · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Eighth Annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy Takes Place May 6, 2009

For ideas on how you can help promote the National Day, please visit http://www.TheNationalCampaign.org/national. Gator

good site thanks! i hadnt realized that teen pregnancy rates had gone down that much. its good to know things are working. i was sorry to see that bristol palin has been on the media trail as the abstinence spokesperson. i thought she was far more effective when she was candid.

Date: Wed May 6 4:58 PM, 2009

Eighth Annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy Takes Place May 6, 2009

For ideas on how you can help promote the National Day, please visit http://www.TheNationalCampaign.org/national. Gator

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Yeah, and too, you can't sign something you don't have. FOCA never made it through Congress TO the president to either sign into law or veto. As a matter of fact, there ISN'T a FOCA now -- it expired with the last Congress, and hasn't even been reintroduced yet.

yeah thats true. i wonder why the effort was even made at that time? i would think it a given that bush would have vetoed it?
That hasn't stopped, or slowed the Catholic church, though, who mounted a full scale assault on the Freedom of Choice Act, and continues it with the same vigor and commitment the Mormon church had with Prop 8 in California, gaining a lot of momentum last summer. TONS of money has been pumped into the campaign to fight FOCA, with all kinds of publicity, crammed full of scare propoganda, and campaigns via mass mailings and phone calls, urging people to contact their federal legislators and tell them they don't want this (past) bill to become law, and it's working.
and this i think makes it a good reason to revisit the tax exempt status of some of these churches. that was big for a bit last year but has seemingly died down.

The privacy issue you brought up Psych and, the Church campaign you brought up Owl has to do with something I have been wondering about. The hate crime bill is being attacked with the claim it will erode privacy and freedom of speech.

Do they say HOW? I ask, because for the life of me, I can't see it at ALL. The legislation even specifically SAYS it won't do that -- CAN'T do that.

i think its a misrepresentation, really. hate speech as a rallying point. privacy when taken back to liberties and viewed as freedom from govt interference is probably what they are referring to tho im really not sure. the stuff ive seen misrepresents all by telling people that certain things will happen that never would. but the more that you wedge that constitutional area where whats not the given of the feds belongs to the state the more likely you are to have something unexpected happen.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

My Turn wrote:

then help me out here......why do we need the pro-life camp and pro-choice camp to reach a consensus? why not sign the bill that: "would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion," thereby putting the decision to or not, back in the actual hands of the women themselves and out of the hands of the government and lawmakers?

i think there are several reasons why consensus might be desired. weve become a very divided society and those divisions have sprung up around a few key issues and this is one of them. there is a lot of complexity to this issue both in the substance of it and in the law surrounding it. what happens on this issue may effect what happens with the other divisive issues by creating a backlash effect if people feel it was rammed down their throats. and sooner or later the political tables may turn and precedents set here may someday come back to bite. specifically my worry has to do with the 14th and 10th amendments. the progress made on abortion issues has to do with the protection of liberty which has been interpreted in earlier court decisions as having to do with privacy. this is why privacy and its invasions has been such a big deal over the last 8 years. eroding the meaning of privacy would erode the legal underpinnings of abortion law. the other aspect of this has to do with which liberties the constitution specifically protects and traditionally those things not specifically mentioned in the constitution have been left to the states to decide either by vote or by the legislature. the defense of marriage act for example might be contested on the basis that 4 states now do not define marriage in that narrow way and back when inter racial marriage was an issue the reverse happened when the sc ruled that states do not have the power to determine who one might marry. so im thinking that opening this door might have unintended consequences with respect to those liberties. when we are on the sunny side of this it seems like a no brainer but what if the situation were reversed and the political climate were more conservative. what acts might get thru as a result of the passage of this? maybe none maybe a whole lot. im open to hearing what others think about these things. maybe im misinterpreting. shrug but thats why id like to think about it a bit longer.

Yeah, and too, you can't sign something you don't have. FOCA never made it through Congress TO the president to either sign into law or veto. As a matter of fact, there ISN'T a FOCA now -- it expired with the last Congress, and hasn't even been reintroduced yet.
That hasn't stopped, or slowed the Catholic church, though, who mounted a full scale assault on the Freedom of Choice Act, and continues it with the same vigor and commitment the Mormon church had with Prop 8 in California, gaining a lot of momentum last summer. TONS of money has been pumped into the campaign to fight FOCA, with all kinds of publicity, crammed full of scare propoganda, and campaigns via mass mailings and phone calls, urging people to contact their federal legislators and tell them they don't want this (past) bill to become law, and it's working. That puts pressure on the Congresspeople to avoid mounting the fight again to get the bill out of committee, up for a vote, and then on to Obama for his signature. You have to stop the bleeding where the cut is, and in this case, it's with those people working so dilgently to keep the bill from ever seeing the light of day, or the White House lawn. Barbara Boxer introduced the bill back in ... I think it was 2004 -- Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor. Obama himself was a co-sponsor a couple of years ago.

The privacy issue you brought up Psych and, the Church campaign you brought up Owl has to do with something I have been wondering about. The hate crime bill is being attacked with the claim it will erode privacy and freedom of speech.

Do they say HOW? I ask, because for the life of me, I can't see it at ALL. The legislation even specifically SAYS it won't do that -- CAN'T do that.

Date: Sun May 3 8:31 AM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Psych Lit wrote:

My Turn wrote:

then help me out here......why do we need the pro-life camp and pro-choice camp to reach a consensus? why not sign the bill that: "would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion," thereby putting the decision to or not, back in the actual hands of the women themselves and out of the hands of the government and lawmakers?

i think there are several reasons why consensus might be desired. weve become a very divided society and those divisions have sprung up around a few key issues and this is one of them. there is a lot of complexity to this issue both in the substance of it and in the law surrounding it. what happens on this issue may effect what happens with the other divisive issues by creating a backlash effect if people feel it was rammed down their throats. and sooner or later the political tables may turn and precedents set here may someday come back to bite. specifically my worry has to do with the 14th and 10th amendments. the progress made on abortion issues has to do with the protection of liberty which has been interpreted in earlier court decisions as having to do with privacy. this is why privacy and its invasions has been such a big deal over the last 8 years. eroding the meaning of privacy would erode the legal underpinnings of abortion law. the other aspect of this has to do with which liberties the constitution specifically protects and traditionally those things not specifically mentioned in the constitution have been left to the states to decide either by vote or by the legislature. the defense of marriage act for example might be contested on the basis that 4 states now do not define marriage in that narrow way and back when inter racial marriage was an issue the reverse happened when the sc ruled that states do not have the power to determine who one might marry. so im thinking that opening this door might have unintended consequences with respect to those liberties. when we are on the sunny side of this it seems like a no brainer but what if the situation were reversed and the political climate were more conservative. what acts might get thru as a result of the passage of this? maybe none maybe a whole lot. im open to hearing what others think about these things. maybe im misinterpreting. shrug but thats why id like to think about it a bit longer.

Yeah, and too, you can't sign something you don't have. FOCA never made it through Congress TO the president to either sign into law or veto. As a matter of fact, there ISN'T a FOCA now -- it expired with the last Congress, and hasn't even been reintroduced yet.
That hasn't stopped, or slowed the Catholic church, though, who mounted a full scale assault on the Freedom of Choice Act, and continues it with the same vigor and commitment the Mormon church had with Prop 8 in California, gaining a lot of momentum last summer. TONS of money has been pumped into the campaign to fight FOCA, with all kinds of publicity, crammed full of scare propoganda, and campaigns via mass mailings and phone calls, urging people to contact their federal legislators and tell them they don't want this (past) bill to become law, and it's working. That puts pressure on the Congresspeople to avoid mounting the fight again to get the bill out of committee, up for a vote, and then on to Obama for his signature. You have to stop the bleeding where the cut is, and in this case, it's with those people working so dilgently to keep the bill from ever seeing the light of day, or the White House lawn. Barbara Boxer introduced the bill back in ... I think it was 2004 -- Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor. Obama himself was a co-sponsor a couple of years ago.

The privacy issue you brought up Psych and, the Church campaign you brought up Owl has to do with something I have been wondering about. The hate crime bill is being attacked with the claim it will erode privacy and freedom of speech. And, it seems they are intermingling abortion and the hate crime bill legislation with other not so favorable / substantial rhetoric. I think this is important reason why bringing the two sides together in discussions like teen pregnancy as exampled is important. Gator

My Turn · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Yeah, and too, you can't sign something you don't have. FOCA never made it through Congress TO the president to either sign into law or veto. As a matter of fact, there ISN'T a FOCA now -- it expired with the last Congress, and hasn't even been reintroduced yet.

ah ha...ok...thx.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Psych Lit wrote:

My Turn wrote:

then help me out here......why do we need the pro-life camp and pro-choice camp to reach a consensus? why not sign the bill that: "would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion," thereby putting the decision to or not, back in the actual hands of the women themselves and out of the hands of the government and lawmakers?

i think there are several reasons why consensus might be desired. weve become a very divided society and those divisions have sprung up around a few key issues and this is one of them. there is a lot of complexity to this issue both in the substance of it and in the law surrounding it. what happens on this issue may effect what happens with the other divisive issues by creating a backlash effect if people feel it was rammed down their throats. and sooner or later the political tables may turn and precedents set here may someday come back to bite. specifically my worry has to do with the 14th and 10th amendments. the progress made on abortion issues has to do with the protection of liberty which has been interpreted in earlier court decisions as having to do with privacy. this is why privacy and its invasions has been such a big deal over the last 8 years. eroding the meaning of privacy would erode the legal underpinnings of abortion law. the other aspect of this has to do with which liberties the constitution specifically protects and traditionally those things not specifically mentioned in the constitution have been left to the states to decide either by vote or by the legislature. the defense of marriage act for example might be contested on the basis that 4 states now do not define marriage in that narrow way and back when inter racial marriage was an issue the reverse happened when the sc ruled that states do not have the power to determine who one might marry. so im thinking that opening this door might have unintended consequences with respect to those liberties. when we are on the sunny side of this it seems like a no brainer but what if the situation were reversed and the political climate were more conservative. what acts might get thru as a result of the passage of this? maybe none maybe a whole lot. im open to hearing what others think about these things. maybe im misinterpreting. shrug but thats why id like to think about it a bit longer.

Yeah, and too, you can't sign something you don't have. FOCA never made it through Congress TO the president to either sign into law or veto. As a matter of fact, there ISN'T a FOCA now -- it expired with the last Congress, and hasn't even been reintroduced yet.

That hasn't stopped, or slowed the Catholic church, though, who mounted a full scale assault on the Freedom of Choice Act, and continues it with the same vigor and commitment the Mormon church had with Prop 8 in California, gaining a lot of momentum last summer. TONS of money has been pumped into the campaign to fight FOCA, with all kinds of publicity, crammed full of scare propoganda, and campaigns via mass mailings and phone calls, urging people to contact their federal legislators and tell them they don't want this (past) bill to become law, and it's working. That puts pressure on the Congresspeople to avoid mounting the fight again to get the bill out of committee, up for a vote, and then on to Obama for his signature. You have to stop the bleeding where the cut is, and in this case, it's with those people working so dilgently to keep the bill from ever seeing the light of day, or the White House lawn. Barbara Boxer introduced the bill back in ... I think it was 2004 -- Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor. Obama himself was a co-sponsor a couple of years ago.

Psych Lit · Guru

My Turn wrote:

then help me out here......why do we need the pro-life camp and pro-choice camp to reach a consensus? why not sign the bill that: "would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion," thereby putting the decision to or not, back in the actual hands of the women themselves and out of the hands of the government and lawmakers?

i think there are several reasons why consensus might be desired. weve become a very divided society and those divisions have sprung up around a few key issues and this is one of them. there is a lot of complexity to this issue both in the substance of it and in the law surrounding it. what happens on this issue may effect what happens with the other divisive issues by creating a backlash effect if people feel it was rammed down their throats. and sooner or later the political tables may turn and precedents set here may someday come back to bite. specifically my worry has to do with the 14th and 10th amendments. the progress made on abortion issues has to do with the protection of liberty which has been interpreted in earlier court decisions as having to do with privacy. this is why privacy and its invasions has been such a big deal over the last 8 years. eroding the meaning of privacy would erode the legal underpinnings of abortion law. the other aspect of this has to do with which liberties the constitution specifically protects and traditionally those things not specifically mentioned in the constitution have been left to the states to decide either by vote or by the legislature. the defense of marriage act for example might be contested on the basis that 4 states now do not define marriage in that narrow way and back when inter racial marriage was an issue the reverse happened when the sc ruled that states do not have the power to determine who one might marry. so im thinking that opening this door might have unintended consequences with respect to those liberties. when we are on the sunny side of this it seems like a no brainer but what if the situation were reversed and the political climate were more conservative. what acts might get thru as a result of the passage of this? maybe none maybe a whole lot. im open to hearing what others think about these things. maybe im misinterpreting. shrug but thats why id like to think about it a bit longer.

My Turn · Senior Member

ok...someone please help me out if i am misinterrupting what i am reading here....if this is a true statement of obamas position during the campaign:

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion.

and obama states now:

OBAMA: The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

and yet, after basically saying that women are in a better position to make their own choices on abortion than the members of congress or the president.....he then states:

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

then help me out here......why do we need the pro-life camp and pro-choice camp to reach a consensus? why not sign the bill that: "would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion," thereby putting the decision to or not, back in the actual hands of the women themselves and out of the hands of the government and lawmakers? confuse

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials.< BD

I'd disagree. No matter if he says it's looking like rain today, I'd rather have a president to SPEAKS TO the American people with consistency than one who holes up in the White House with the blinds drawn.

-----------------------

The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

I agree it's time for him to more strongly begin actualizing some of his campaign rhetoric.

I dunno. i think i need to think this through a little more. im reading what hes said above and thinking that his position is consistent with what he said during the campaign and what hillary said as well and my understanding of that position is that this decision is one that should be made by women and their physicians and that its rarely a decision entered into lightly and that finding ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies as a way to reduce the need for abortion was an important piece of finding a solution to the polarization thats occured around this issue. i think this thinking is shared by the majority of people in the us including most of the pro choice folks and is pretty much in line with my own thinking on this. i am pro choice but i am not pro abortion and i also believe that this decision is one best made by a woman and her doctors not by any legal body and one of the effects of the rampant polarization around this is that there really are few unbiased counseling services for women who find themselves in this situation. women need good information to make good decisions and not scare tactics or religious zealotry or on the other end someone minimizing the finality or the consequences of this choice or what the decision might mean to them later

the other part of this that makes me want to roll it around in my head is that, and correct me if im not understanding this, this act takes the decision from the state level and places it at the federal level overriding state laws. even the heinous doma left the decision to the states. i wonder what possible precedents are set here that may come back to bite in 4 or 8 years if we are once again in a conservative mood as a nation? maybe nothing, maybe something. really i dunno.

and finally, i think its important to remember that its only been 100 days here. his approach seems to me to be to try and find areas of consensus. the big three issues here that are seemingly stalled are this, marriage equality and dont ask dont tell. if we are 2 or 3 years down the road and he hasnt managed to find those places of consensus to make these things happen then a pox on him yanno? when people go to their various corners nobody benefits and gridlock happens. for now im keeping watch with a lets wait and see philosophy.

one thing that has surprised me is that ive seen many articles this month about obamas shift to the left. i find the guy to be rather conservative. a lot more so than i would have expected. if people think hes a big lefty i think i need to rethink the mood of the nation:)

Psych Lit · Guru

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion,
I presume he was thinking of Barbara Bush?

Ha!

Psych Lit · Guru

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion,
I presume he was thinking of Barbara Bush?

lol

wow. i wonder if that was a transcription typo or some unconscious slip. mebbe hes having one of those be careful what you ask for moments.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials.< BD

I'd disagree. No matter if he says it's looking like rain today, I'd rather have a president to SPEAKS TO the American people with consistency than one who holes up in the White House with the blinds drawn.

-----------------------

The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

I agree it's time for him to more strongly begin actualizing some of his campaign rhetoric.

He is expecting FREE airtime. Monthly now. There are a multitude of conflicts in interest in that. These shows are not of breaking news issues, or of state of the union genre. They are press gatherings to canoodle and josh with the fan club.

Well, FOX had opted out, so they'll keep their ad revenue.
I just sort think that in light of our action in wars on at least two geographic fronts, the state of the economy, and now "state of emergency" being declared by state(s) due to the swine fly epidemic, which seems to be pretty much the first thing people are talking about any more, and the World Health Organization invoking for the first time the level 5 alert on a scale of 1-6, that maybe it might be a good time to hear from our president about what's going on in and out of our country, and what our government is doing about it. I really don't see this as a "joshing with the fan club" sort of thing or time. I admit, though, that it will probably take some time for this country to get beyond having a president who, during the middle of the Katrina disaster avoided public statements and instead flew to Arizona to share some birthday cake with John McCain.

If we DO hear from our president once a month in a live broadcast, is that a BAD thing? I remember so well, when Nixon holed up in the White House and watched football rather than speaking to us. I sort of like the idea of a president who touches base with the American people from time to time. Prefer it, actually.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Thursday 30th of April 2009 10:36:56 AM
To say that FOX opted out is a gross misrepresentation. "They" did not. A branch of FOX did. And, it is (currently) still their business to do so. Right? Hell, there's no ad revenue if nobody is buying the time. I don't believe it was a pol statement as much as a decision to continue running their business the way they see fit.

Why are you getting so defensive about Fox? It was an observation. I never said it was a political decision. They did the same with Bush once.

The ONLY FOX CHANNEL WHICH COMES INTO MY HOUSE has decided to not run the presidential speech."

That okay?

Date: Thu Apr 30 11:04 AM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials.< BD

I'd disagree. No matter if he says it's looking like rain today, I'd rather have a president to SPEAKS TO the American people with consistency than one who holes up in the White House with the blinds drawn.

-----------------------

The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

I agree it's time for him to more strongly begin actualizing some of his campaign rhetoric.

He is expecting FREE airtime. Monthly now. There are a multitude of conflicts in interest in that. These shows are not of breaking news issues, or of state of the union genre. They are press gatherings to canoodle and josh with the fan club.

Well, FOX had opted out, so they'll keep their ad revenue.
I just sort think that in light of our action in wars on at least two geographic fronts, the state of the economy, and now "state of emergency" being declared by state(s) due to the swine fly epidemic, which seems to be pretty much the first thing people are talking about any more, and the World Health Organization invoking for the first time the level 5 alert on a scale of 1-6, that maybe it might be a good time to hear from our president about what's going on in and out of our country, and what our government is doing about it. I really don't see this as a "joshing with the fan club" sort of thing or time. I admit, though, that it will probably take some time for this country to get beyond having a president who, during the middle of the Katrina disaster avoided public statements and instead flew to Arizona to share some birthday cake with John McCain.

If we DO hear from our president once a month in a live broadcast, is that a BAD thing? I remember so well, when Nixon holed up in the White House and watched football rather than speaking to us. I sort of like the idea of a president who touches base with the American people from time to time. Prefer it, actually.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Thursday 30th of April 2009 10:36:56 AM

To say that FOX opted out is a gross misrepresentation. "They" did not. A branch of FOX did. And, it is (currently) still their business to do so. Right? Hell, there's no ad revenue if nobody is buying the time. I don't believe it was a pol statement as much as a decision to continue running their business the way they see fit.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

Anonymous wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials.< BD

I'd disagree. No matter if he says it's looking like rain today, I'd rather have a president to SPEAKS TO the American people with consistency than one who holes up in the White House with the blinds drawn.

-----------------------

The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

I agree it's time for him to more strongly begin actualizing some of his campaign rhetoric.

He is expecting FREE airtime. Monthly now. There are a multitude of conflicts in interest in that. These shows are not of breaking news issues, or of state of the union genre. They are press gatherings to canoodle and josh with the fan club.

Well, FOX had opted out, so they'll keep their ad revenue.
I just sort think that in light of our action in wars on at least two geographic fronts, the state of the economy, and now "state of emergency" being declared by state(s) due to the swine fly epidemic, which seems to be pretty much the first thing people are talking about any more, and the World Health Organization invoking for the first time the level 5 alert on a scale of 1-6, that maybe it might be a good time to hear from our president about what's going on in and out of our country, and what our government is doing about it. I really don't see this as a "joshing with the fan club" sort of thing or time. I admit, though, that it will probably take some time for this country to get beyond having a president who, during the middle of the Katrina disaster avoided public statements and instead flew to Arizona to share some birthday cake with John McCain.

If we DO hear from our president once a month in a live broadcast, is that a BAD thing? I remember so well, when Nixon holed up in the White House and watched football rather than speaking to us. I sort of like the idea of a president who touches base with the American people from time to time. Prefer it, actually.

-- Edited by Nightowlhoot3 on Thursday 30th of April 2009 10:36:56 AM

Date: Thu Apr 30 10:17 AM, 2009

Anonymous wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.
As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."
Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.
(LAUGHTER)
Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?
OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.
I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
OBAMA: The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.
So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.
Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.
Jeff Zeleny.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

me:

The most important thing he can do here is "TAMP DOWN" the anger? Truth is, Cali Pageant girl, like her answer or not, had a tougher question and a more coherent (like it or not) answer. He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials. The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

Firstly, I'm not being argumentative. :) I don't understand how anyone can not see the parallel of teen pregnancy and the right to choose. The power that issue has in finding consensus between the two parties and, him driving home that fact was effective IMO. . One would think planning is something they can agree on but, we all know how even educating the youth gets attacked from conservatives. The importance of that issue forcing his opposition to a more constructive stance other than staunch opposition to choice. He clearly stands on the side of choice and, as he said, currently the two sides are discussing it. Giving those opposed a chance to be a part of the solution instead of blocking sex education which does force some teens into the reality of possibly aborting or having a child they are not ready for. I think last night was timely and assuring for those who are freaking out with the pandemic talk. If you don't like watching him you had the choice of watching Fox. I'm glad I had the choice to watch him on ABC. Gator

You don't? While they are both intensely important matters concerning a womans body, among other things, the state of pregnancy and the possibility of becoming pregnant are in NO WAY the same, or even similar circumstances. I DO mean to argue this point. A woman entering a particular stage of pregnancy has a uniquely harsh set of decisions that are currently being decided largely be the government, which is largely made up of Christian men. It has not one single thing to do with an unplanned teenage pregnancy. His transcript is available from NBC, MSNBC and any other number of softballers out there, if that's the limit you draw to in your individual news search.

Not to mention, rape.

BD

Date: Thu Apr 30 9:12 AM, 2009

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials.< BD

I'd disagree. No matter if he says it's looking like rain today, I'd rather have a president to SPEAKS TO the American people with consistency than one who holes up in the White House with the blinds drawn.

-----------------------

The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

I agree it's time for him to more strongly begin actualizing some of his campaign rhetoric.

He is expecting FREE airtime. Monthly now. There are a multitude of conflicts in interest in that. These shows are not of breaking news issues, or of state of the union genre. They are press gatherings to canoodle and josh with the fan club.

But, the Barbara Bush thing IS funny. Hope whoever whipped up that transcript lost their job. There's no such thing as a "wanted" presidency. It's a necessary evil no matter how I look at it.

Date: Thu Apr 30 5:56 AM, 2009

nesea wrote:

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion,
I presume he was thinking of Barbara Bush?

lol

that was a good one and very very funny. i laughed hard. thanks Gator

Date: Thu Apr 30 5:36 AM, 2009

boxdog1031 wrote:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.
As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."
Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.
(LAUGHTER)
Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?
OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.
I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
OBAMA: The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.
So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.
Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.
Jeff Zeleny.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

me:

The most important thing he can do here is "TAMP DOWN" the anger? Truth is, Cali Pageant girl, like her answer or not, had a tougher question and a more coherent (like it or not) answer. He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials. The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

Firstly, I'm not being argumentative. :) I don't understand how anyone can not see the parallel of teen pregnancy and the right to choose. The power that issue has in finding consensus between the two parties and, him driving home that fact was effective IMO. . One would think planning is something they can agree on but, we all know how even educating the youth gets attacked from conservatives. The importance of that issue forcing his opposition to a more constructive stance other than staunch opposition to choice. He clearly stands on the side of choice and, as he said, currently the two sides are discussing it. Giving those opposed a chance to be a part of the solution instead of blocking sex education which does force some teens into the reality of possibly aborting or having a child they are not ready for. I think last night was timely and assuring for those who are freaking out with the pandemic talk. If you don't like watching him you had the choice of watching Fox. I'm glad I had the choice to watch him on ABC. Gator

nesea · Senior Member

Nightowlhoot3 wrote:

boxdog1031 wrote:

The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion,
I presume he was thinking of Barbara Bush?

lol

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

boxdog1031 wrote:

He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials.< BD

I'd disagree. No matter if he says it's looking like rain today, I'd rather have a president to SPEAKS TO the American people with consistency than one who holes up in the White House with the blinds drawn.

-----------------------

The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.

I agree it's time for him to more strongly begin actualizing some of his campaign rhetoric.

Nightowlhoot3 · Guru

boxdog1031 wrote:

The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion,

I presume he was thinking of Barbara Bush?

smile

boxdog1031 · Veteran Member

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.

As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."

Now that you've been president for 100 days, obviously, your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator.

(LAUGHTER)

Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?

OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue.

I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

OBAMA: The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day. And I think they are in a better position to make these decisions ultimately than members of Congress or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their doctors, with their clergy.

So -- so that has been my consistent position. The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is I would like to reduce the number of unwanted presidencies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion, or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.

And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.

Jeff Zeleny.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.

me:

The most important thing he can do here is "TAMP DOWN" the anger? Truth is, Cali Pageant girl, like her answer or not, had a tougher question and a more coherent (like it or not) answer. He should not be receiveing free airtime for these monthly infomercials. The discussion about unwanted, unplanned, prgnancy teen or not is a worthy cause and concer, It, however, has absolutely NOTHING to do with women currently facing this issue.

Pretty much status quo, like closing GITMO, someday, maybe.