Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Obama on Abortion-"Above My Pay Grade"

Much has been written already about Obama/McCain grudge match at Saddleback Church this past weekend, but not enough has been said about this comment. It's been stuck in my head since Barry O said it.



RICK WARREN: "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?"

OBAMA: "Well, uh, I uh ah think that, whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective, or a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is is uh above my pay grade."
Let that percolate a moment ... "above my pay grade."

Senator Obama wants desperately to be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA the most powerful country and the most influential nation that has ever existed in all of history, and he can't answer one of the most important questions of the 20th and 21st centuries because it's above his pay grade.

Barry Os pay grade must be very low indeed. Like most folks, I am underpaid, but I've decided elective abortion is murder. It is certainly not above my pay grade to decide. The best Barry O could do was, 'not my job', 'not my table', 'above my pay grade." Pitiful, pitiful, pitiful.

If or when this country is attacked again, "above my pay grade", won't be acceptable. If the dollar collapses, "above my pay grade", will be wholly inadequate. Should the Yellowstone caldera erupt during and Obama presidency, "above my pay grade", cannot bring the relief required.

John McCain was asked the same question. His answer was simple, straight forward, to the point, no equivocation, "At the moment of conception."

Not above McCains pay grade.

The Presidency of the United States of America is above Obamas pay grade.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

17 comments:

dcat said...

The real issue are the thugs in our country! Otherwise we all will be aborted!!! What an idiot!

Hey I know lets go after dead beat parents! Now that is a novel idea!

John McCain was asked the same question. His answer was simple, straight forward, to the point, no equivocation, "At the moment of conception."

I'm with you I like frank talking people not beat around the mulberry tree fluff!

Obama thinks his shit doesn't stink! I can't stand "I'm better then you" folks! What fakes! Obama is just another one of those!

Indigo Red said...

I agree about Obama being a fake. He doesn't get it.

I actually disagree with McCain. My answer is at the moment the kid is just a twinkle in the parent's eye.

suek said...

I understand his position - he was answering the question "when is a fetus alive" and attempted to make it a theological issue. As a theological issue, his answer is one that is "humble" - some questions are not up to us.

Except...

The question was "when does a fetus acquire human rights?". That's not a theological issue. That's a legal issue, and even as a state senator in Illinois, well within his "paygrade" to decide.

He was dancing and dodging...again. Don't take a position and they can't pin you down..!

>>My answer is at the moment the kid is just a twinkle in the parent's eye.>>

You must be one of those primitive people who think that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children...!!!

dcat said...

Hey suek!
You are an idiot! Did you know or do you need folks to keep reminding you!

What business and who made you God?

FYI I have you in another category. "Busybody"!

Hey moron it is up to that person and God! The rest need to stay the hell out of it! We have bigger issues! God will decide if that person asks for forgiveness! It isn't up to us.

And if you were raised with the belief that God is all merciful you too may some day get the picture you finger pointer you!

I say fie on all the finger pointers!

Just for the record I love my life and chose wisely! :D

Indigo,
Did you hear this one! LOL chuckle etc...

"The Chosen One": “[Barack Obama is] a leader that God has blessed us with at this time.”

Of coarse this was the bullshit said by one and only House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...etc...

dcat said...

LOL oh ok suek I got ya now hehehe.

Wine with dinner and a few words here and there get me going...um this is not an apology I don't do those :D

Um if I like don't get back here maybe Indigo you can warn suek about me :) ;) :D

Indigo Red said...

"I understand his position - he was answering the question "when is a fetus alive" and attempted to make it a theological issue. As a theological issue, his answer is one that is "humble" - some questions are not up to us."

Since you broughht up theology... God created life. By the Commandment, thou shalt not kill (murder) and the injunction that "Judgement is mine" said God, then one cannot argue that abortion i.e. killing a human baby, is not up to us. Therefore, abortion is murder and that is forbidden by God.

However, I am Atheist so I need another reason. It's wrong. Period. Otherwise, all murder can be justified as retroactive abortion. As attractive as that option often seems, it would also be available to others against me and I'm against that.

No suek. I believe the primary purpose of marriage is manifold. The tradition provides mental, emotional, financial, and physical security. It has been shown to extend the lives of the participants. Married people have been shown to be happier and healthier than singles and never-marrieds.

The creation of children increases the bonds and happiness factors particularly in the first six to seven years of the child's life. Family creation is termed a biological imperative. If it was not, the human species would have died out long ago.

Truth in advertising: I have never been married and niether do I have children.

I see nothing primitive in any of those reasons, but if that's how you want to interpret millions of years of marriage tradition - okay.

Anonymous said...

Oh boy cat fight Oh boy Oh boy!

dcat said...

I agree and if dead beat parents would bat at the plate there probably would be less killing!

I think its because of fear of responsibility.

People are weird!

Glad I didn't get coaght up in getting knocked up! I had a life to live and no time for that crap! It's too bad that people can't decide what they want!

I did :)

I do believe in the death penalty! Yes that is killing but criminals should be put down just as fast as animals are!

I don’t want some creep destroying my life and getting away with it! I am sick and tiered of liberals crying for the losers in prison! They got what they sought out for and I also think strike one is enough of a chance!

As for abortion I never had to think about it. I can’t make a judgment for another woman. Fickle isn’t my game. I don't understand people that can't see the consequence.

No cat fight Don just the facts ;)

suek said...

>>I believe the primary purpose of marriage is manifold>>

So...all purposes of getting married are equal? If not, then one is _primary_. Not _only_, but primary.

>>The tradition provides mental, emotional, financial, and physical security.>>

But marriage is both religious and legal...you don't need either for the above.

>>Family creation is termed a biological imperative.>>

True, but you don't need marriage to make babies. Some 40% of babies today are born outside of marriage.

So...what is the _primary_ purpose of the social contract?

suek said...

Oh yeah...and did you know that it is against the law to destroy the egg of a Bald Eagle???

Want to guess why???

Indigo Red said...

suek, What's your point? I have an opinion and it seems you don't agree. I just don't care what your opinion is or is not. Neither of us are going to change anything. If you have a point beyond simply disagreeing, make it, and move on.

dcat said...

You tell em Indigo!

suek said...

Well actually...

I was looking for a bit of discussion.

You are undoubtedly aware that the question of gay marriage is on the horizon...so in any discussion of this sort, the question comes up of just what _is_ the purpose of marriage.

Your position is _not_ that it's primarily for raising children, you don't have a religious view of marriage, so I'm just asking why thoughtful people might think gay marriage was a good thing - or a bad thing - which means to me that I have to first find out what people think is the _purpose_ a society might have to support marriage as a social institution.

Your answer on when life begins was pretty clear...I thought it might be because you thought procreation was a function of marriage. If not, then .... well...then the question is still an open one.

dcat said...

I am really having problems with islamic muslim thugs not who is sleeping with whom or popping out rug rats! I am more interested in my security in a free country! I am more interested in my welfare and why should my hard earned tax money pay for dead beats!

Listen suker,
I don’t care if you keep phishing I think I know your origin so like Indigo said move on little doggie!

Indigo Red said...

Ahhh, that's a different situation then, suek.

I believe in the traditional defintion of marriage because it has served well for a very long time. The purposes of marriage within that definition as marriage between 1 man/1 woman are the same - physical, emotional, and financial security. It's also common, especially in arrainged marriages, the marriage links families to increase familial fortunes. Usually, procreation is a major factor.

As we know, many marriages are marriages of convenience - 'if we don't marry someone by the time we're 30, we'll get married' deals. More common than most folks will say. Marriage for financial gain is still very common.

Now gay marriage comes along and upsets the applecart. Not so much that homosexuals join as one family unit because they have done that for millenia, but now gays want to force the civil right to be married in churches, the quintessential private organization, that disapprove of homosexual practices. By marrying, gays obtain access to the over 1100 laws that apply the marrieds, but not singles.

Gay marriage changes all the rules. In the senior community, the widowed are marrying to combine retirement and Social Security incomes, avoid the lonliness of aging, and for the securiity of another person in case of accident. Why then would it not be possible for two men, non-homosexuals, to marry to obtain the marriage benefits, in essence, game the system?

Because the basic rule of marriage, one man/one woman no longer applies, why not any combination? Since I am single, I would then experience discrimination because I am banned from those 1100 rights granted to marrieds. If any combination of sexes and numbers may be possible, could I marry myself?

Ridiculous? That's what was said about gay marriage not five years ago. In Israel, a woman married a porpoise. With the US courts recognizing international rights, will people be allowed to married outside their species and still collect the benefits of the marrigae laws?

Or do we just scrap all marriage traditions and laws? No one will be held responsibe for the monetary obligations entered into while a couple...or trio, or whatever. We have a very big problem with deadbeat parents who do not pay for the children they already have. The changing or abandonment of marriage laws, would actually encourage parentage without responsibilty. The welfare program has shown us how well that works.

I object to state participation in marriage beyond contract law. But, for centuries the state has regulated marriage and much of our laws relate to marriage. Marriage should never have become a civil right, but remained only a religious rite. Contract law should have governed the rest.

But, that's not the case and it's too late to change things simply by changing a few laws. Gay marriage, however, will become a reality and we shall see what happens and whose prognastications are correct.

dcat said...

The thing is that we are here for a very short time and I want the best of this world!

I think one has to work for it!

If you find someone to love or be with I think it’s great!

I don’t care about building a “family fortune” or what the hell ever and neither is my mate!

We are in it for a good time and to enjoy!

It’s just that simple.

I really don’t give a grass ass what others do as long as it doesn’t effects me and my life style.

I can have what I want with or without a man! He knows that too! :)

I don't get the rest of the world Indigo they all drive me nuts!

Loved the Maxine cartoons Don sent me :D :D :D

suek said...

>>I think I know your origin>>

?????

>>Since I am single, I would then experience discrimination because I am banned from those 1100 rights granted to marrieds.>>

I think you're right. Which is why I'm trying to give the matter long consideration. One side says "what's the difference" and the other side says "what's the point".

So...why do gays want to be able to marry - nothing stops them from living together or arranging other legal matters to their satisfaction...it has to be the bennies...and that's where you get left out. Thus arises the question of what is the benefit of marriage to _society_, that benefits should be given to encourage it.