• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Has Spent $23 Million Backing Pro-Abortion Kenya Constitution

iliveonramen said:
Yeah! It's ridiculous! The only way to influence a country is by 10 years of occupation and regime change!
Click to expand...

And thousands of dead cilvilians! Don't forget the dead civilians!
 
Peter Grimm said:
You're right, they should give abortions away with happy meals at mcdonalds. Get a big mac, off a baby...
Click to expand...

Do you realize the core logic of your argument is if a sitting president, who does not control the purse strings, presides over the expenditures of money by Congress which could in the most contrived, most strained and most unreasonably viewed way have influenced abortion, then that President is to blame for it?

Do you now know why we are laughing at you?
 
Peter Grimm said:
You convinced me, I'm pro abortion now. Now let's play the "who should have been an abortion" game...

If only we had a time machine so I could go back and talk to your mother...
Click to expand...

Why? Like every other woman you haven't raped, she'd reject you too. :shrug:
 
Peter Grimm said:
In summary, Obama used YOUR tax dollars to INTERVENE in another country to get them to CHANGE THEIR CONSTITUTION to allow abortion.

This is the left, folks.
Click to expand...


Good for him. Excellent cause.
 
obvious Child said:
Do you realize the core logic of your argument is if a sitting president, who does not control the purse strings, presides over the expenditures of money by Congress which could in the most contrived, most strained and most unreasonably viewed way have influenced abortion, then that President is to blame for it?

Do you now know why we are laughing at you?
Click to expand...

So the President is in no way responsible? If true, I question him as a leader.
 
Twenty three million? Haha. Do you know what 23 million is to this administration? A weekend trip for Michelle.

Obama wasting money is hardly "breaking news". You'd have to be blind, deaf, dumb, or a Kool-aider to not know that these bastards spend tax money like water.
 
Peter Grimm said:
This.

Even if you're not pro-life, we can at least agree that what Obama is doing here is way overstepping the bounds of what the Federal Government ought to be up to.
Click to expand...

Only if you agree that GW Bush should be imprisoned for war crimes stemming from his illegal invasion of Iraq. If spending a trillion dollars and losing 4500 American lives is not "overstepping" then this issue is pure poppycock.
 
Peter Grimm said:
So the President is in no way responsible? If true, I question him as a leader.
Click to expand...


If Obama is responsible for this $23 million being spent, does that mean Bush is responsible for the 8 billion dollars lost in Iraq that is unaccounted for?
 
iguanaman said:
Only if you agree that GW Bush should be imprisoned for war crimes stemming from his illegal invasion of Iraq. If spending a trillion dollars and losing 4500 American lives is not "overstepping" then this issue is pure poppycock.
Click to expand...

The people of America elected Bush. We have a representative government. In fact, we re-elected him.

BTW, I'm not a Bush fan. The whole "Bush committed war crimes" thing is right up there with the birth certificate thing in the realm of kooky radical ideas.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
If Obama is responsible for this $23 million being spent, does that mean Bush is responsible for the 8 billion dollars lost in Iraq that is unaccounted for?
Click to expand...

Yes. That is why I don't like Bush. He's not Conservative. Simple enough.
 
Peter Grimm said:
So the President is in no way responsible? If true, I question him as a leader.
Click to expand...

You really want to go there? You are moving down the path that anything that happens that the government influenced is the fault or credit of the sitting President.

Take a second and think about just how insane that will make you look.
 
obvious Child said:
You really want to go there? You are moving down the path that anything that happens that the government influenced is the fault or credit of the sitting President.

Take a second and think about just how insane that will make you look.
Click to expand...

Well, let's add a little realism and perspective to your slippery slope. The sitting president isn't uniquely and solely responsible for everything that happens under his watch, but at the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere. And it stops with him.

A true leader takes responsibility for all the successes and failures that happen under his watch.

A president that tries to pass the blame around is a sad sight. And that goes for both parties.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Well, let's add a little realism and perspective to your slippery slope. The sitting president isn't uniquely and solely responsible for everything that happens under his watch, but at the end of the day, the buck has to stop somewhere. And it stops with him.
Click to expand...

True, but only a perverted hack with no sense of maturity would go so far as to bash him for things like this. Contrary to the very ignorant beliefs of many fools here, the President does not spend money. Congress does. Furthermore, expenditures like this one are wrapped into huge bills that no reasonable president will ever veto merely to stop a tiny expenditure for something he probably has no idea what it's for.

A true leader takes responsibility for all the successes and failures that happen under his watch.
Click to expand...

So how many Presidents have taken responsibility for the overuse of toilet paper by Federal employees? So how many Presidents have taken responsibility for the wasted time of Federal employees eating their boogers? Seriously, the further down this path you go, the more and more insane you appear. I can keep making more and more examples that honestly have more of an impact then your little pathetic attempt at a rant here.

A president that tries to pass the blame around is a sad sight. And that goes for both parties.
Click to expand...

Except that your argument requires that a President know everything that the government is doing at every second of every day and its their responsibility to stop the little things partisan hacks like you will pounce on for no other reason then you dislike Obama.

I was on Whistlestopper during the worst of the Bush years. And I never saw someone levy something as stupid as this at Bush.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
True, but only a perverted hack with no sense of maturity would go so far as to bash him for things like this. Contrary to the very ignorant beliefs of many fools here, the President does not spend money. Congress does. Furthermore, expenditures like this one are wrapped into huge bills that no reasonable president will ever veto merely to stop a tiny expenditure for something he probably has no idea what it's for.
Click to expand...

Of course Congress holds the purse strings, but the President sets the agenda.


obvious Child said:
So how many Presidents have taken responsibility for the overuse of toilet paper by Federal employees? So how many Presidents have taken responsibility for the wasted time of Federal employees eating their boogers? Seriously, the further down this path you go, the more and more insane you appear. I can keep making more and more examples that honestly have more of an impact then your little pathetic attempt at a rant here.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about toilet paper, unless it's gold plated, diamond studded, and going for around 23 million big ones.

obvious Child said:
Except that your argument requires that a President know everything that the government is doing at every second of every day and its their responsibility to stop the little things partisan hacks like you will pounce on for no other reason then you dislike Obama.

I was on Whistlestopper during the worst of the Bush years. And I never saw someone levy something as stupid as this at Bush.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Something like this should have caught his attention.
 
Gipper said:
Twenty three million? Haha. Do you know what 23 million is to this administration? A weekend trip for Michelle.

Obama wasting money is hardly "breaking news". You'd have to be blind, deaf, dumb, or a Kool-aider to not know that these bastards spend tax money like water.
Click to expand...

Bitterness towards the government is no excuse for racism. It is still disgusting.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Of course Congress holds the purse strings, but the President sets the agenda.
Click to expand...

Except that the President does not write laws. By your stupid measure, everything that went bad from 2001 to 2009 is Bush's fault. Not even the most whacked out leftist here would agree with that.

I'm not talking about toilet paper, unless it's gold plated, diamond studded, and going for around 23 million big ones.
Click to expand...

Considering the number of Federal workers, toilet paper costs easily run into the double digit millions for the year.

No, it doesn't. Something like this should have caught his attention.
Click to expand...

Now this is insane. In a budget of $2.7 trillion or so, not to mention all of the off balance sheet financing that occurs, you expect him to search for what amounts to a rounding error?

Furthermore, the allocation was for the Constitution as a whole. You really expect someone with that busy of a schedule to ask exactly what MIGHT happen with the money?

That kind of partisan horse **** makes you not worth discussing anything with. Not even the most whacked out leftist here would hold Bush to that standard.
 
obvious Child said:
Except that the President does not write laws. By your stupid measure, everything that went bad from 2001 to 2009 is Bush's fault. Not even the most whacked out leftist here would agree with that.
Click to expand...

I said the President sets the agenda, I never said he writes laws.

Furthermore, any policy that originated with or was signed in to law by the White House in 2001 to 2009 is absolutely attributable to President Bush, directly or indirectly.

obvious Child said:
Considering the number of Federal workers, toilet paper costs easily run into the double digit millions for the year.
Click to expand...

If president Obama signed a law ordering millions to be spent on toilet paper, or if he appointed an agency or tzar to authorize regulations that required the purchase of 23 million dollar toilet paper, then Obama would be ultimately responsible.

obvious Child said:
Now this is insane. In a budget of $2.7 trillion or so, not to mention all of the off balance sheet financing that occurs, you expect him to search for what amounts to a rounding error?

Furthermore, the allocation was for the Constitution as a whole. You really expect someone with that busy of a schedule to ask exactly what MIGHT happen with the money?

That kind of partisan horse **** makes you not worth discussing anything with. Not even the most whacked out leftist here would hold Bush to that standard.
Click to expand...


My concern is not with the amount of money spent. My concern is with the implicit assumption that the United States Government has the moral authority to directly influence a foreign nation in such a way as to alter their constitution, and that we would then abuse this moral authority in such a way that we would use it to add provisions to their constitution which allow abortions to be performed.

You see, it's clearly a question of ethics, not spending.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I said the President sets the agenda, I never said he writes laws.

Furthermore, any policy that originated with or was signed in to law by the White House in 2001 to 2009 is absolutely attributable to President Bush, directly or indirectly.



If president Obama signed a law ordering millions to be spent on toilet paper, or if he appointed an agency or tzar to authorize regulations that required the purchase of 23 million dollar toilet paper, then Obama would be ultimately responsible.




My concern is not with the amount of money spent. My concern is with the implicit assumption that the United States Government has the moral authority to directly influence a foreign nation in such a way as to alter their constitution, and that we would then abuse this moral authority in such a way that we would use it to add provisions to their constitution which allow abortions to be performed.

You see, it's clearly a question of ethics, not spending.
Click to expand...

It's not an "implicit assumption."
 
Peter Grimm said:
What concerns me the most is that 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States since Roe v Wade. How many of those were done because the mother's life was legitimately in danger? Very few....

.
Click to expand...

Many, many women's lifes were in danger before Roe, before legal, safer abortions were an option in the US the women used illegal abortions. They were often done either by the patient herself or by an abortionist — often unknowing, unskilled and in an
unsanitary setting.

from a MD's Essay:

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe
The worst case I saw, and one I hope no one else will ever have to face, was that of a nurse who was admitted with what looked like a partly delivered umbilical cord. Yet as soon as we examined her, we realized that what we thought was the cord was in fact part of her intestine, which had been hooked and torn by whatever implement had been used in the abortion. It took six hours of surgery to remove the infected uterus and ovaries and repair the part of the bowel that was still functional.

It is important to remember that Roe v. Wade did not mean that abortions could be performed. They have always been done, dating from ancient Greek days.

What Roe said was that ending a pregnancy could be carried out by medical personnel, in a medically accepted setting, thus conferring on women, finally, the full rights of first-class citizens — and freeing their doctors to treat them as such.
Click to expand...

Essay - Doctor Recalls Abortion Complications Before Roe v. Wade - NYTimes.com
 
Last edited:
TheLastIndependent said:
Bitterness towards the government is no excuse for racism. It is still disgusting.
Click to expand...

Great. Show me the racism in my post. Otherwise, you prove my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom