Nobel Prize goes to Obama...

[Gandalf]

Who said Obama deserves the Nobel peace prize more than me? That's an outrageous thing to say!

I am a very peaceful man, but I'm not willing to allow people to walk all over me. Whence my confrontations with those that cause intense noise pollution and those that try to rip me off by telling blatant untruths. I just won't tolerate it. I most certainly do not climb trees.

I would much rather the prize went to someone like Chomsky tbh. Someone who has been advocating practical solutions to the middle east problem and has been a keen critic of U.S. foreign policy for many years.

[Kev]

Who said Obama deserves the Nobel peace prize more than me? That's an outrageous thing to say!

I am a very peaceful man, but I'm not willing to allow people to walk all over me. Whence my confrontations with those that cause intense noise pollution and those that try to rip me off by telling blatant untruths. I just won't tolerate it. I most certainly do not climb trees.

I would much rather the prize went to someone like Chomsky tbh. Someone who has been advocating practical solutions to the middle east problem and has been a keen critic of U.S. foreign policy for many years.

He got it purely because the Norweigen Commitee wanted to show solidarity with Obama and his policies on Europe, Israel (specifically) and other socialist issues. Have a google of exactly who comprised the Norweigen committee and it all starts to become clear........

[Gandalf]

Who said Obama deserves the Nobel peace prize more than me? That's an outrageous thing to say!

I am a very peaceful man, but I'm not willing to allow people to walk all over me. Whence my confrontations with those that cause intense noise pollution and those that try to rip me off by telling blatant untruths. I just won't tolerate it. I most certainly do not climb trees.

I would much rather the prize went to someone like Chomsky tbh. Someone who has been advocating practical solutions to the middle east problem and has been a keen critic of U.S. foreign policy for many years.

He got it purely because the Norweigen Commitee wanted to show solidarity with Obama and his policies on Europe, Israel (specifically) and other socialist issues. Have a google of exactly who comprised the Norweigen committee and it all starts to become clear........

That evidently seems to be the case. Like I've said elsewhere, I actually quite like Obama but really don't think that he has done anything concrete. It's all just been rhetoric so far. Israel continues to build settlements, the US continues to possess more nuclear weapons than everyone else, Afghanistan is corrupt as hell and falling to pieces and Iraq is still full of soldiers who were fed lies to get them out there.

Obama inherited a horrible situation, so I don't blame him for not having done more. But he has hasn't really contributed subtantially to world peace as of yet. His Israeli policy has so far been very dissapointing.

[JazMerkin]

Well, Bilbo I actually did watch all of that & sorry to tell you I still think it's all bollocks. The fact is outside of Fox News (who whilst in the US I saw put up a montage of Obama's first 100 days in office to Carmina Burana) & LaRouchePac, no one is peddling this shit. Even Rush Limbaugh thinks some of the stuff being said about him & Emanuel is going too far.

Anyway, the sources you've given me are Fox (which is effectively part of the US' problem with propaganda news networks, rather than a stream of impartial media sources), whilst the Washington Examiner is a heavily Conservative free newspaper. I mean, you don't see me posting up London Lite sources.

Otherwise it's LaRouchePac, who are basically an insane political cult. Some of their fantastic ideas to improve our lives.

We should colonize Mars, ensuring the survival of our species (eh)

Isolation of all those carrying Aids, & treatment involving directing powerful energy beams on them (wha..)

The Eurasian Land Bridge, a super fast rail system that stretches across Europe & Asia, which will replace most other methods of transport. This will solve economic problems by creating enough new jobs & an economic boom to solve mass unemployment (Wait, hold on a minute...)

So forgive me, if I'm just a little sceptical, to have LaRouche criticizing someone for wanting to kill off the weak, when he in fact said in the 80s that people killing Aids carriers might one day be considered patriots, is just laughable.

The whole basis of Emanuel being pro-euthanasia comes from Betsy McCaughey misinterpreting some of his work, which the LaRouche movement was quick to jump on. Heavy academic work almost always throws theoretical scenarios about & looks at every solution to an issue which appears to be what Emanuel did.

In fact, having looked at some of his work on the net today, he even goes as far as to clarify that he is against euthanasia or any manner of a doctor choosing a patient's fate, in fact arguing that those prone to wanting to be euthanized are often suffering from some sort of mental illness such as depression that leads them to want this. This kind of hypothesizing is fairly common in almost every academic work, where the authors will look at almost any scenario no matter how abhorrent to them it is, even if only to debunk it. I think this is the same with Holdren. I doubt either agrees with controlled abortions or euthanasia, although no doubt they both believe abortion & contraception should be available to all, the former of which you clearly are against.

It seems to me that almost all of this was begun by a sub-par historian high in the LaRouche network, who has blown this up into what it now is. Btw, this is not the first time, they've decided to compare a new US Govt to the Nazis, they did it about 8 years ago.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2001/jan_3_webcast_qanda.html

It's funny that they keep comparing everyone to the Nazis given some of their own rather questionable attitudes to Jews. Anyway as for the Obama quotes, he seems to be talking more about the situation we already have in Britain, where doctors will explain the options available to a patient & the likely outcomes of each. I know this, because this basically happened to my Nan over the last year, before her death 6 months back. I know from experience that doing this in no way means the doctors won't do everything they can to save an elderly person's life.

I'm sorry, Bilbo, I think this is all a pile of shit. Obama is not going to start destroying the world, he's done nothing for the Nobel Peace Prize, although I suspect it's more a reaction to him being mixed-race & more importantly not having the surname Bush. There's plenty I'd like to see him do, but I'm also a realist, closing Gitmo & universal healthcare are a good start for me. If he does become this maniac you predict than, hell, I will wire you all the money I have, but I'm 100% confident that will never come about.

Oh, & as for abortion, whilst I'm against it for myself, I have no right to decide other people's lives for them. Whatever they do, they do for their reasons & if there are consequences they live with them. Banning abortions, would lead to back-alley ones, or private doctors doing them on the sly. They didn't just come about with Roe vs Wade as Kirkland says.

[Majesty]

Well, Bilbo I actually did watch all of that & sorry to tell you I still think it's all bollocks. The fact is outside of Fox News (who whilst in the US I saw put up a montage of Obama's first 100 days in office to Carmina Burana) & LaRouchePac, no one is peddling this shit. Even Rush Limbaugh thinks some of the stuff being said about him & Emanuel is going too far.

Anyway, the sources you've given me are Fox (which is effectively part of the US' problem with propaganda news networks, rather than a stream of impartial media sources), whilst the Washington Examiner is a heavily Conservative free newspaper. I mean, you don't see me posting up London Lite sources.

Otherwise it's LaRouchePac, who are basically an insane political cult. Some of their fantastic ideas to improve our lives.

We should colonize Mars, ensuring the survival of our species (eh)

Isolation of all those carrying Aids, & treatment involving directing powerful energy beams on them (wha..)

The Eurasian Land Bridge, a super fast rail system that stretches across Europe & Asia, which will replace most other methods of transport. This will solve economic problems by creating enough new jobs & an economic boom to solve mass unemployment (Wait, hold on a minute...)

So forgive me, if I'm just a little sceptical, to have LaRouche criticizing someone for wanting to kill off the weak, when he in fact said in the 80s that people killing Aids carriers might one day be considered patriots, is just laughable.

The whole basis of Emanuel being pro-euthanasia comes from Betsy McCaughey misinterpreting some of his work, which the LaRouche movement was quick to jump on. Heavy academic work almost always throws theoretical scenarios about & looks at every solution to an issue which appears to be what Emanuel did.

In fact, having looked at some of his work on the net today, he even goes as far as to clarify that he is against euthanasia or any manner of a doctor choosing a patient's fate, in fact arguing that those prone to wanting to be euthanized are often suffering from some sort of mental illness such as depression that leads them to want this. This kind of hypothesizing is fairly common in almost every academic work, where the authors will look at almost any scenario no matter how abhorrent to them it is, even if only to debunk it. I think this is the same with Holdren. I doubt either agrees with controlled abortions or euthanasia, although no doubt they both believe abortion & contraception should be available to all, the former of which you clearly are against.

It seems to me that almost all of this was begun by a sub-par historian high in the LaRouche network, who has blown this up into what it now is. Btw, this is not the first time, they've decided to compare a new US Govt to the Nazis, they did it about 8 years ago.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2001/jan_3_webcast_qanda.html

It's funny that they keep comparing everyone to the Nazis given some of their own rather questionable attitudes to Jews. Anyway as for the Obama quotes, he seems to be talking more about the situation we already have in Britain, where doctors will explain the options available to a patient & the likely outcomes of each. I know this, because this basically happened to my Nan over the last year, before her death 6 months back. I know from experience that doing this in no way means the doctors won't do everything they can to save an elderly person's life.

I'm sorry, Bilbo, I think this is all a pile of shit. Obama is not going to start destroying the world, he's done nothing for the Nobel Peace Prize, although I suspect it's more a reaction to him being mixed-race & more importantly not having the surname Bush. There's plenty I'd like to see him do, but I'm also a realist, closing Gitmo & universal healthcare are a good start for me. If he does become this maniac you predict than, hell, I will wire you all the money I have, but I'm 100% confident that will never come about.

Oh, & as for abortion, whilst I'm against it for myself, I have no right to decide other people's lives for them. Whatever they do, they do for their reasons & if there are consequences they live with them. Banning abortions, would lead to back-alley ones, or private doctors doing them on the sly. They didn't just come about with Roe vs Wade as Kirkland says.

Right Wings are very willing to post their sites or opinions from sites or sources that they don't expect someone to do research on. If people did research on the stuff rather then just believing the television they'd see it's just as bollocks. Jim Cornette did a very awesome rant against the Right Wings people should listen to but I doubt many would listen to facts rather then listen to blown up opinions of what they feel with no background.

[El Kabong]

Right Wings are very willing to post their sites or opinions from sites or sources that they don't expect someone to do research on. If people did research on the stuff rather then just believing the television they'd see it's just as bollocks. Jim Cornette did a very awesome rant against the Right Wings people should listen to but I doubt many would listen to facts rather then listen to blown up opinions of what they feel with no background.

....the Wrestling....I mean "Wrasslin" manager??

Wow, that'll put those right wingers in their place

"Look out Rush, he's got his 'loaded tennis racket'!!!"

[Kev]

Well, Bilbo I actually did watch all of that & sorry to tell you I still think it's all bollocks. The fact is outside of Fox News (who whilst in the US I saw put up a montage of Obama's first 100 days in office to Carmina Burana) & LaRouchePac, no one is peddling this shit. Even Rush Limbaugh thinks some of the stuff being said about him & Emanuel is going too far.

Anyway, the sources you've given me are Fox (which is effectively part of the US' problem with propaganda news networks, rather than a stream of impartial media sources), whilst the Washington Examiner is a heavily Conservative free newspaper. I mean, you don't see me posting up London Lite sources.

Otherwise it's LaRouchePac, who are basically an insane political cult. Some of their fantastic ideas to improve our lives.

We should colonize Mars, ensuring the survival of our species (eh)

Isolation of all those carrying Aids, & treatment involving directing powerful energy beams on them (wha..)

The Eurasian Land Bridge, a super fast rail system that stretches across Europe & Asia, which will replace most other methods of transport. This will solve economic problems by creating enough new jobs & an economic boom to solve mass unemployment (Wait, hold on a minute...)

So forgive me, if I'm just a little sceptical, to have LaRouche criticizing someone for wanting to kill off the weak, when he in fact said in the 80s that people killing Aids carriers might one day be considered patriots, is just laughable.

The whole basis of Emanuel being pro-euthanasia comes from Betsy McCaughey misinterpreting some of his work, which the LaRouche movement was quick to jump on. Heavy academic work almost always throws theoretical scenarios about & looks at every solution to an issue which appears to be what Emanuel did.

In fact, having looked at some of his work on the net today, he even goes as far as to clarify that he is against euthanasia or any manner of a doctor choosing a patient's fate, in fact arguing that those prone to wanting to be euthanized are often suffering from some sort of mental illness such as depression that leads them to want this. This kind of hypothesizing is fairly common in almost every academic work, where the authors will look at almost any scenario no matter how abhorrent to them it is, even if only to debunk it. I think this is the same with Holdren. I doubt either agrees with controlled abortions or euthanasia, although no doubt they both believe abortion & contraception should be available to all, the former of which you clearly are against.

It seems to me that almost all of this was begun by a sub-par historian high in the LaRouche network, who has blown this up into what it now is. Btw, this is not the first time, they've decided to compare a new US Govt to the Nazis, they did it about 8 years ago.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2001/jan_3_webcast_qanda.html

It's funny that they keep comparing everyone to the Nazis given some of their own rather questionable attitudes to Jews. Anyway as for the Obama quotes, he seems to be talking more about the situation we already have in Britain, where doctors will explain the options available to a patient & the likely outcomes of each. I know this, because this basically happened to my Nan over the last year, before her death 6 months back. I know from experience that doing this in no way means the doctors won't do everything they can to save an elderly person's life.

I'm sorry, Bilbo, I think this is all a pile of shit. Obama is not going to start destroying the world, he's done nothing for the Nobel Peace Prize, although I suspect it's more a reaction to him being mixed-race & more importantly not having the surname Bush. There's plenty I'd like to see him do, but I'm also a realist, closing Gitmo & universal healthcare are a good start for me. If he does become this maniac you predict than, hell, I will wire you all the money I have, but I'm 100% confident that will never come about.

Oh, & as for abortion, whilst I'm against it for myself, I have no right to decide other people's lives for them. Whatever they do, they do for their reasons & if there are consequences they live with them. Banning abortions, would lead to back-alley ones, or private doctors doing them on the sly. They didn't just come about with Roe vs Wade as Kirkland says.

There's no need to apologise for not believing any of it Jaz it's your opinion mate.

It's strange that you are more interested more in what media agency or television network reports the news than the actual news content itself however.

Every single article and piece of evidence I quoted is 100 percent factual and correct, irrepsective of what network reports it.

John Holdren IS Obama's head advisor of Science and technology and he really did publish a book advocating forced sterilisation programs, forced abortions, selecting who is allowed to breed etc as responses to population control. You can buy the book on Amazon if you wish.

Of course he will say he is misquoted now and aides will seek to play it down, what else would you expect?


Regarding Obama and euthanasia again it's absolutely part of Obama's reform plan. They just don't the E word, instead they use the term 'withdrawal of care'. Ezekiel for example has written against euthanasia that is true, but he is 100 percent and vocally in favour of withdrawal of care, which is exactly the same thing.

Look at Obama's reform plan. He actually plans for the elderly and infirm to attend a meeting regarding their dying every five years, and more frequently in case of terminal patients.

What exactly do you think they will be discussing at these meetings? He wants (and has openly admitted) to try and pursuade your mum (his own words on live interview) to not have that operation which probably won't save her anyway but instead just have the painkiller instead.

What would you call this Jaz? He wants to save billions of US dollars by cutting expenditure on the terminal, the elderly, those requiring the most money to keep alive and nurse etc. He has said this openly.

His plan is to pursuade these people (through his five yearly death review meetings) to accept palliative care rather than cure treatments, and in the case of the elderly and very infirm, the withdrawal of care (read euthanaisa) and their deaths to save money.

This is all entirely factual and not in any way conspiracy talk.

As for Obama going all 'manic' no he won't. You completely miss the point here. He's not suddenly going to be revealed or exposed as a eugenist. Rather gradually public opinion, through the media and government indoctrination will be converted to this viewpoint.

In twenties years if Obama and his aides get their way, when your grandparents or parents are elderly and sick it will be standard practice for them to and others to have their care withdrawn, allowing them to die with dignity. It's euthanasia under a different name. But most of you will accept it because you will accept the way they sell it to you, just like you think it's wrong to judge someone who has an abortion even though you yourself think it would be wrong for you to abort your own child.

It's the erosion of tradtional ethics and moral values by indoctrination and the vast majority of people will blindly accept it.

[Kirkland Laing]

Well, Bilbo I actually did watch all of that & sorry to tell you I still think it's all bollocks. The fact is outside of Fox News (who whilst in the US I saw put up a montage of Obama's first 100 days in office to Carmina Burana) & LaRouchePac, no one is peddling this shit. Even Rush Limbaugh thinks some of the stuff being said about him & Emanuel is going too far.

Anyway, the sources you've given me are Fox (which is effectively part of the US' problem with propaganda news networks, rather than a stream of impartial media sources), whilst the Washington Examiner is a heavily Conservative free newspaper. I mean, you don't see me posting up London Lite sources.

Otherwise it's LaRouchePac, who are basically an insane political cult. Some of their fantastic ideas to improve our lives.

We should colonize Mars, ensuring the survival of our species (eh)

Isolation of all those carrying Aids, & treatment involving directing powerful energy beams on them (wha..)

The Eurasian Land Bridge, a super fast rail system that stretches across Europe & Asia, which will replace most other methods of transport. This will solve economic problems by creating enough new jobs & an economic boom to solve mass unemployment (Wait, hold on a minute...)

So forgive me, if I'm just a little sceptical, to have LaRouche criticizing someone for wanting to kill off the weak, when he in fact said in the 80s that people killing Aids carriers might one day be considered patriots, is just laughable.

The whole basis of Emanuel being pro-euthanasia comes from Betsy McCaughey misinterpreting some of his work, which the LaRouche movement was quick to jump on. Heavy academic work almost always throws theoretical scenarios about & looks at every solution to an issue which appears to be what Emanuel did.

In fact, having looked at some of his work on the net today, he even goes as far as to clarify that he is against euthanasia or any manner of a doctor choosing a patient's fate, in fact arguing that those prone to wanting to be euthanized are often suffering from some sort of mental illness such as depression that leads them to want this. This kind of hypothesizing is fairly common in almost every academic work, where the authors will look at almost any scenario no matter how abhorrent to them it is, even if only to debunk it. I think this is the same with Holdren. I doubt either agrees with controlled abortions or euthanasia, although no doubt they both believe abortion & contraception should be available to all, the former of which you clearly are against.

It seems to me that almost all of this was begun by a sub-par historian high in the LaRouche network, who has blown this up into what it now is. Btw, this is not the first time, they've decided to compare a new US Govt to the Nazis, they did it about 8 years ago.

http://larouchepub.com/lar/2001/jan_3_webcast_qanda.html

It's funny that they keep comparing everyone to the Nazis given some of their own rather questionable attitudes to Jews. Anyway as for the Obama quotes, he seems to be talking more about the situation we already have in Britain, where doctors will explain the options available to a patient & the likely outcomes of each. I know this, because this basically happened to my Nan over the last year, before her death 6 months back. I know from experience that doing this in no way means the doctors won't do everything they can to save an elderly person's life.

I'm sorry, Bilbo, I think this is all a pile of shit. Obama is not going to start destroying the world, he's done nothing for the Nobel Peace Prize, although I suspect it's more a reaction to him being mixed-race & more importantly not having the surname Bush. There's plenty I'd like to see him do, but I'm also a realist, closing Gitmo & universal healthcare are a good start for me. If he does become this maniac you predict than, hell, I will wire you all the money I have, but I'm 100% confident that will never come about.

Oh, & as for abortion, whilst I'm against it for myself, I have no right to decide other people's lives for them. Whatever they do, they do for their reasons & if there are consequences they live with them. Banning abortions, would lead to back-alley ones, or private doctors doing them on the sly. They didn't just come about with Roe vs Wade as Kirkland says.

There's no need to apologise for not believing any of it Jaz it's your opinion mate.

It's strange that you are more interested more in what media agency or television network reports the news than the actual news content itself however.

Every single article and piece of evidence I quoted is 100 percent factual and correct, irrepsective of what network reports it.

John Holdren IS Obama's head advisor of Science and technology and he really did publish a book advocating forced sterilisation programs, forced abortions, selecting who is allowed to breed etc as responses to population control. You can buy the book on Amazon if you wish.

Of course he will say he is misquoted now and aides will seek to play it down, what else would you expect?


Regarding Obama and euthanasia again it's absolutely part of Obama's reform plan. They just don't the E word, instead they use the term 'withdrawal of care'. Ezekiel for example has written against euthanasia that is true, but he is 100 percent and vocally in favour of withdrawal of care, which is exactly the same thing.

Look at Obama's reform plan. He actually plans for the elderly and infirm to attend a meeting regarding their dying every five years, and more frequently in case of terminal patients.

What exactly do you think they will be discussing at these meetings? He wants (and has openly admitted) to try and pursuade your mum (his own words on live interview) to not have that operation which probably won't save her anyway but instead just have the painkiller instead.

What would you call this Jaz? He wants to save billions of US dollars by cutting expenditure on the terminal, the elderly, those requiring the most money to keep alive and nurse etc. He has said this openly.

His plan is to pursuade these people (through his five yearly death review meetings) to accept palliative care rather than cure treatments, and in the case of the elderly and very infirm, the withdrawal of care (read euthanaisa) and their deaths to save money.

This is all entirely factual and not in any way conspiracy talk.

As for Obama going all 'manic' no he won't. You completely miss the point here. He's not suddenly going to be revealed or exposed as a eugenist. Rather gradually public opinion, through the media and government indoctrination will be converted to this viewpoint.

In twenties years if Obama and his aides get their way, when your grandparents or parents are elderly and sick it will be standard practice for them to and others to have their care withdrawn, allowing them to die with dignity. It's euthanasia under a different name. But most of you will accept it because you will accept the way they sell it to you, just like you think it's wrong to judge someone who has an abortion even though you yourself think it would be wrong for you to abort your own child.

It's the erosion of tradtional ethics and moral values by indoctrination and the vast majority of people will blindly accept it.

The five year thing has been part of healthcare legislation in the States sine 1991. It's part of Medicare, the system 99% of over-65 Americans have for their healthcare system. It was signed into law by George Bush's dad. It's just a consultation to see how people want their end-of-life care to be handled but when the exact-same legislation was included in the healthcare bill it's been blown up by the GOP into "death panels" etc. It's just scaremongering and bs.

There's already death panels, withdrawl of care and denial of care in America, it's just done by private insurance companies. They denied healthcare to a baby recently because the baby was really big. If effective healthcare legislation is passed in America there'll be much less denial of healthcare than there is now.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of the post or watch the videos, that's all really loopy stuff you've got there.

[JazMerkin]

There's no need to apologise for not believing any of it Jaz it's your opinion mate.

It's strange that you are more interested more in what media agency or television network reports the news than the actual news content itself however.

Every single article and piece of evidence I quoted is 100 percent factual and correct, irrepsective of what network reports it.

John Holdren IS Obama's head advisor of Science and technology and he really did publish a book advocating forced sterilisation programs, forced abortions, selecting who is allowed to breed etc as responses to population control. You can buy the book on Amazon if you wish.

Of course he will say he is misquoted now and aides will seek to play it down, what else would you expect?


Regarding Obama and euthanasia again it's absolutely part of Obama's reform plan. They just don't the E word, instead they use the term 'withdrawal of care'. Ezekiel for example has written against euthanasia that is true, but he is 100 percent and vocally in favour of withdrawal of care, which is exactly the same thing.

Look at Obama's reform plan. He actually plans for the elderly and infirm to attend a meeting regarding their dying every five years, and more frequently in case of terminal patients.

What exactly do you think they will be discussing at these meetings? He wants (and has openly admitted) to try and pursuade your mum (his own words on live interview) to not have that operation which probably won't save her anyway but instead just have the painkiller instead.

What would you call this Jaz? He wants to save billions of US dollars by cutting expenditure on the terminal, the elderly, those requiring the most money to keep alive and nurse etc. He has said this openly.

His plan is to pursuade these people (through his five yearly death review meetings) to accept palliative care rather than cure treatments, and in the case of the elderly and very infirm, the withdrawal of care (read euthanaisa) and their deaths to save money.

This is all entirely factual and not in any way conspiracy talk.

As for Obama going all 'manic' no he won't. You completely miss the point here. He's not suddenly going to be revealed or exposed as a eugenist. Rather gradually public opinion, through the media and government indoctrination will be converted to this viewpoint.

In twenties years if Obama and his aides get their way, when your grandparents or parents are elderly and sick it will be standard practice for them to and others to have their care withdrawn, allowing them to die with dignity. It's euthanasia under a different name. But most of you will accept it because you will accept the way they sell it to you, just like you think it's wrong to judge someone who has an abortion even though you yourself think it would be wrong for you to abort your own child.

It's the erosion of tradtional ethics and moral values by indoctrination and the vast majority of people will blindly accept it.

Here's a point you're wrong on. Emanuel has actually argued against the withdrawal of care as being at odds with the hippocratic oath. Like I said his books are largely academic theory, but he himself has argued against it. There will be no 'withdrawal of care'. I've seen nothing that leads me to believe this will happen. What they will do is exactly what happens in this country, where they explain to a patient the realities of what they are facing. There will never be a point where public opinion comes round to it.

He has not said this openly, if he had I'm sure you would of been able to produce definitive footage of it & any President saying something like that openly would get called on it. What he said in the interview is that patients should have all choices presented to them, not just promised something that almost certainly won't work & should they die on the table have their loved ones left with mountains of debt. If you hunt down the pure footage of that, not the one on the Fox News clip on a blog, you will see that.

There is no 'death panel' of five year 'death review'. His proposal, which is supported by the American Association of Retired Persons, is that senior citizens will get free access to a professional medical counsellor who will talk to them about issues regarding preparing a living will & other issues facing the elderly.

Like, you say look it up, this is what's factual.

Holdren hasn't said he was misquoted, what he said was that the chapter in question was not one that he had written, but even so that none of the authors to his knowledge was in favour of enforced abortions. It's theoretical research, you can't discuss something academically without exploring all the possible reasons & solutions.

Bilbo, it is all conspiracy talk. After watching & reading all the sources you put up last night, I went to Senate House library in London, to actually read these books, partly because I had nothing to do today & my interest was piqued, regardless of the quality of your sources. There's nothing there that suggests to me that these people advocate any of this. I would honestly suggest doing the same rather than relying on bloggers to give you 'summaries' of what they have heard the work to be about. Betsy McCaughey said that she read these books & was shocked & felt it needed to be an issue. Well, if she's not in it with an agenda & is the expert in this field she claims to be, why wasn't she after them years ago, but only now when they're in the Obama administration.

The reason I picked on your sources is because of the quality of their reporting & their history. This is important as it reflects heavily on how they present news. It's the same as expecting MSNBC to be objective on Bush. Well, that's the case with Fox & the Washington Examiner. As for LPac Tv, well that is basically propaganda for the people who began this idea to begin with. So sorry that doesn't count. It is not 100% factual & correct, it is conspiracy propaganda. I think I've fairly dealt with the content addressed in both my posts, but the reason I focus on the sources, is that I'm a trained journalist & the first thing they tell you is that 'you're only as good as your sources'. These ones are just no good at all.

As for your final point about them making me believe that it's ok for abortions, well no that's not going to happen. My opinion on abortions used to be stronger, but like my opinions on homosexuality, I've matured & just feel that I don't have the right to tell someone else how they should live their life as if I'm their moral superior. I used to think it was morally wrong, but I've learnt morals are often about conditioning & environment. I probably hold some values on particular issues that you would find reprehensible, whilst you wank off to stuff that I find completely disgusting & sick. Does that give me the right to act as if I am your moral better??