AcesFull

No, I am refusing to cut and paste information that you should be able to find yourself. I laid out the case against Obama in a previous thread and as a courtesy to you, I posted a link as you requested. If you want to dispute my conclusions, then perform a search, read the posts that you evidently skipped previously, and then respond in that thread. Would you like my to find that thread for you and bring it to the top?

I posted a link to the White Paper, which contains links to other documents, including the bill itself. Having already documented these details once in a dedicated thread, I am not going to reassemble them here for your convenience. Just follow the links or wait until McCain decides to run an ad or raises it in a debate.

Follow the link. I started a thread not long after the National Right to Life released the marked up bill and the committee vote tally.

The Illinois Senate passed the same bill that Obama killed in committee the previous year. Obama has been claiming for at least the entire campaign that he would have supported the bill had it contained the language that he claimed was missing. The bill did contain the language that he claimed was missing and he voted against it. Guilty as charged. He had three opportunities to support a bill requring potentially life saving medical treatment to newborn babies who had been victimized by a botched abortion procedure and he opposed it three times. The excuse that he gave matched the facts for the first two votes but he got caught lying about the content of the final version of the bill that he helped kill. I am not accusing Obama of committing infanticide, just failing to prevent it when he had the chance. 98 US Senators showed good judgment on this issue. Obama did not.

Obama voted against the bill containing the language that, until recently he had claimed was missing and cited as the reason that he opposed the bill. The language was missing the first two times that he voted against it (or "present") but it was included the third time that he voted against it and the bill was defeated in committee by a 6-4 vote. Here is a link containing details. Please do not complain about the source. As I said in my previous post, after accusing his critics of lying, the Obama campaign has dropped Obama's original defense. In other words, Obama blatantly and repeatedly lied about this issue until Nation Right to Life released proof that he had been lying. National Right to Life White Paper: Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -– and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion

The bills are virtually identical and even the Obama campaign has given up on the explanation that Obama opposed the Illinois version because it lacked the language of the federal law. The campaign's new explanation, adopted after a copy of the Illinois bill surfaced along with a record of the committee vote, is that Illinois already had a law that required hospitals to provide medical care to infants. I have already posted links in a previous thread comparing the Illinois bill with the BAIP act. I understand that many Obama supporters simply avoid what they view as Obama "bashing" threads but this will become a major issue before election day and Obama knows it. That is probably why his campaign is putting so much effort into destroying Palin instead of focusing on the top of the Republican ticket. If you believe that the two bills are different, then please make your case by comparing and contrasting the last bill that Obama helped defeat in his committee to the federal law that passed the Senate by a 98-0 vote. Please, show me where I am wrong. (I have already posted the bill, so the ball is in your court.)

Yes, he did answer the question. As for the second part of your question, Running an ad accusing McCain of saying that $5 million was the defining line for being "rich" is one example. The house question was another. Those ads have nothing to do with real issues. The constant attempt by Obama to paint McCain as a Bush clone are also pretty dishonest. McCain has been a thorn in the Bush administration's side and Obama has voted with Harry Reid over 95% of the time. Complain all you want about McCain's ads. Lately they have been much more effective than Obama's ads but the tone and veracity of Obama's ads have been no different than McCain's ads. The difference is that McCain is more experienced and has grown a thicker hide than Obama. I have never heard a presidential candidate whine and attempt to play the victim card as often as Obama has done.

Delete.

Me too. I would like to remind him that in a response to one of my posts that he said his chances of being John McCain's running mate were just a little worse than Sarah Palin's. :lol:

What percentage of the American people support infanticide? The US Senate voted 98-0 to require hospitals to provide medical treatment to living, breathing newborn babies who are victims of unsuccessful abortions. Obama voted against an identical bill in the Illinois Senate. This is the man who wants to foist his version of national health on this country. When McCain decides to educate the general public on this issue through paid political ads, I am guessing that the number of people who will be appalled at Obama's action will be substantially higher than 40 percent. Infanticide is not just another surgical procedure.

Obama and Biden voted for the bridge twice. Obama has managed to add an average of more than $1 million per day of his own earmarks for each day that he has been in office. This is not a winning issue for Obama and he is just taking the bait that the McCain campaign is dangling. McCain will gleefully debate earmarks with Obama - if Obama ever stops focusing his attacks on the bottom of the ticket. If Obama wants to shake up Washington, then he better shake up his campaign staff soon. What a horrible campaign Obama is running! :lol:

Do you think most voters will see the fact that Biden and Obama are criticizing Palin, who canceled the plans for the bridge, voted for the project twice and never voted against it will find these facts irrelevant, or just the far left Democrats who would never vote for McCain anyway? I think that Barack Earmarks Obama would be wise to drop this issue and return to the platitudes that have gotten him where he is.

You are right. The other threads are still open. (Chirp! Chirp! Chirp!) No need to start a new one. Palin killed the bridge project. Biden and Obama voted for it twice. What were you saying about hypocricy? :lol:

McCain is running an unconventional campaign by making so many joint appearances with Palin. The adoring crowds project an image of momentum and energy that benefits McCain. I would not be surprised to see Obama and Biden follow suit to give Biden a little more attention. Otherwise, Palin will look more and more vice-presidential while many people will continue to aks, "Joe Who?"

To be fair to Biden, Obama's fall in the polls has more do to with his own poor performance than anything Biden has done.

I love the selective moral outrage of the Obama boosters. I am still waiting for somebody on the left to condemn Obama for explicitly and repeatedly lying about the reason for his active opposition to the Illinois state version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. ("Chirp! Chirp! Chirp!" saith the crickets) :lol:

Here is McCain's complete answer. Note the bolded text. McCain expected Obama to distort his words and Obama did not disappoint.

McCain made it clear that he was joking and did address the question seriously. Obama distorted the statement and ridiculed McCain's joke as if it was delivered as a serious response. Obama also distorted McCain's response on the house question. Obama ran ads for days ripping McCain for being out of touch because he wanted to accurate in his reponse rather than fast. I recall John Kerry claiming that he did not own any SUVs in response to a similar question. He later explained that his wife owned the SUVs. Had McCain given such a weasly answer, he would have rightly been ridiculed. Instead, he gave an honest answer for which he was unjustly ridiculed. Obama cannot claim the moral high ground when it comes to political ads. He set the tone early in this campaign and McCain has simply responded in kind. As I have said many times, Obama cannot win a mud fight with McCain.

Great point, LBC. You are exactly right about Obama taking McCain's $5 million comment out of context. I doubt that McCain will be running Obama's "Muslim faith" out of context but if he did it would be exactly the same thing that Obama did with McCain's joke about what he considered rich.

There is really nothing about Joe Biden's Senate career that distinguishes him from a host of other Senators in a good way. Seniority is not in and of itself a qualification for the presidency and seniority is Biden's best argument for being ready to serve as president. On that basis, Robert Byrd is far more qualified. :lol:

:lol: There is always 2012. Beginning with the decision to put Biden on the ticket, Obama has been running one of the worst campaigns that I can remember and his blunders have been moving the poll numbers. Do you still think Joe Biden was a better VP pick than Sarah Palin?

OK, I found that Obama credited Toles during his appearance on Countdown. Still, using the words without attribution on a later date was a major gaffe and will remind people that he picked a plagiarist as a running mate.

That sounds a little like Biden's defense of using Bobby Kennedy.'s speeches without attribution a few years ago. Did Obama cite the Toles cartoon in this particular speech and do you have a quote or a video clip to support the assertion that Obama credited Toles earlier? I am not accusing Obama of anything but using somebody else's words without attribution after putting Biden on the ticket is pretty sloppy politics, IMO.

Interesting... From the Washington Post on 9/5/08: