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.

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'!!!"

[Cortez The Killer]

I'm not judging/dismissing/ or dissing Obama.

But I thought the nobel prize was supposed to go to someone who did something. like something that is physical in nature, or has literal real-world implications

Maybe I'm missing something.


Shit I have hope in somethings'. give me the prize.

And I wouldn't waste the prize money on charity either

[Kev]

I'm not judging/dismissing/ or dissing Obama.

But I thought the nobel prize was supposed to go to someone who did something. like something that is physical in nature, or has literal real-world implications

Maybe I'm missing something.


Shit I have hope in somethings'. give me the prize.

And I wouldn't waste the prize money on charity either

I think you're confusing the Peace prize with the other categories, for example the Nobel Prize for Chemistry etc. I think there are five prizes in all, the peace prize being the most vague.

Obama's win isn't really that unusual considering many of the previous winners, many politicians and a couple Presidents have won it before.

Generally the award doesn't mean a whole lot, although of course its hugely publicised and politically powerful.

Obama's international policies especially and attitudes towards Europe are very much in line with the President of the Norweigen Committee (those who decide the awards) who is also the President of some international socialist party crap. He obviously sees Obama as a political ally.

In Norway itself many of the political leaders have demanded his resignation but in reality Obama's win is no worse than Kissinger's and a host of others.

[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??

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Actually I disagree, Obama the 'man of peace', is the most militant pro abortionist ever to hold office. He has even denied legal rights to children born alive as a result of botched abortions so a child survives an abortion attempt (which happens often) that child will get murdered outside of the womb, seperate from its mother,in other words infanticide.

He also wants to use abortion as a birth control measure to get families above of the poverty line.

He also wants us to accept a 'death culture' where the terminally ill are allowed the right to die with dignity rather than be kept alive in pain and suffering, which sounds reasonable but is only the first step of the process to on the way to euthansasing the elderly, sick and infirm to save billions of US dollars, if that sounds far fetched, then just read the published works of his own elected science team.

Millions more will now die as a result of Obama's presidency but the public likely will not care as those to die won't be the headliners, civilians in war etc, but the true innocents, unborn babies, and the elderly and infirm.

Thanks for that Glenn Beck

Well roll your eyes if you want but I what I am saying is true.

Mother Theresa, an actual deserving Nobel Prize winner said that 'Abortion is the great destroyer of peace', now she was a prize winner I can respect.

America alone aborts around 1.2 million children annually, well over 50 million American unborn terminated since the Roe vs Wade case in 73.

I find any talk of 'peace' to be laughable in all honesty.......

Since you are never going to get pregnant or to ever have to face that decision you can shut up. You and the penguin virgin prune faced everything is a sin nun.

My body, my choice. Keep your hands off.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Watch this vid as well Jaz.

Listen to the words of Obama himself, about two thirds of the way into the video.

Deo Gratias!: President Obama & Euthanasia - Latest Updates

Tell me HONESTLY like you don't think this is leading towards withdrawal of care for certain patients, which IS euthanasia.......

you worried about your own neck with regard to a retrospective abortion?

[Howlin Mad Missy]

Withdrawl of care already happens in the UK.

[AdamGB]

Thanks for that Glenn Beck

Well roll your eyes if you want but I what I am saying is true.

Mother Theresa, an actual deserving Nobel Prize winner said that 'Abortion is the great destroyer of peace', now she was a prize winner I can respect.

America alone aborts around 1.2 million children annually, well over 50 million American unborn terminated since the Roe vs Wade case in 73.

I find any talk of 'peace' to be laughable in all honesty.......

You aren't ever have to face that decision, you can shut up.

So does the father share any of the responsibility for the child or the desicion? From conception or just when it comes to child support?

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying about abortion, but I would like to think that outside of the physical process of the 9 months of pregnancy that the father shares an equal part of the ethical responsibility and decision making... it is, after all his child too.

I don't necessarily agree with what Bilbo's posts, but I think it's a bit harsh writing off a man's opinion because we're not incubators.

[JazMerkin]

Withdrawl of care already happens in the UK.

Only for people on life support with no realistic chance of recovery or consciousness again. Slightly different to what Bilbo is alleging Obama will do.

[Kev]

Withdrawl of care already happens in the UK.

Only for people on life support with no realistic chance of recovery or consciousness again. Slightly different to what Bilbo is alleging Obama will do.

First off, very good post you wrote earlier mate, I'm impressed you actuallu went to the library to read the original sources.

I personally think much of what they are discussing is a slippery slope, and is very similar to what the Nazi's said, you disagree, that is fine but I certainly accept your opinion.

Regarding abortion I guess it depends on what you consider life. Does life begin at conception or does life only begin at birth?

The generally held opinion these days it seems is that life only begins at birth.

Fo rme though life begins as soon as a feutus is created. Once it's in there, growing, living, to me it IS a human being. It's not going to exist at some point in the future, it's not only existing in some abstract alternative universe or so kind of third dimension, it exists, and is alive, right here and right now in our universe.

It's a human being, alive inside another human being. To me any discussion of abortion is the mother or parents, government etc basically saying we are going to kill this person because of......

It's just not justafiable in my world view at all, its infanticide and I don't see it as personal choice whatsoever.

If a person killed a baby born a few week premature they would be charged with murder and locked up.

But bizarelly if that same baby was still in the womb (still the same age, still the same person) it can be scraped out of the womens uterus and the only people in the wrong would be those who tried to put guilt on those involved. To me that's just baffling and completely illogical.

To be honest the wishes of the parents or the mother to me don't come into it at all. If a woman was struggling to care for her elderly parent and her life was miserable as a result she would (at least in theory at the present time) be committing murder if she decided to kill her.

Life is sacred and not for other people to take.

That is my opinion and I also believe that those who believe the same as me have not just the right but also the duty to speak up.

If euthanasia and withdrawal of care did become the norm (and I know you think it won't) would people be wrong to object to it in say 50 years time even if the world's majority accepted it?

Ultimately it is all to do with the sanctity of human life and how you view it. If human life is sacred then abortion, euthanasia etc are clearly and self evidently wrong. If we are just evolved pond slime and life is meaningless then of course abortion and euthanasia are not just ok but actually beneficial to society and the human species, it's natural selection after all.

So ultimately it comes down to your world view, as I believe in God then these things are clearly wrong to me, as most don't believe in God these things are clearly acceptable.

There is no middleground I don't believe which is why the secular media push so hard to advance evolution and the liberal agenda.

You see it in even little things. Whenever a news reports on the abortion issue, they always refer to the anti-abortion lobby as the 'powerful' anti abortion lobby, subtly hinting at some kind of sinister movement that we must fear whereas it's abundantly clear that the pro-choice (not pro abortion that wouldn't sound nice) is the far far more powerful lobby group of the two, to the point where now if a girl goes for an abortion its considered 'pressure' to ask her if she has considered the alternatives or that she may feel guilty in future.

And I believe Obama has also now removed the rights of babies who survive abortion (as some do) and they can be murdered at birth guilt free.

He's also restored Us funding to international family planning which will probably be put to quick use increasing abortions in China.

From a humanistic viewpoint these things make sense, we have to control population growth etc somehow and measures such as abortion are sensible but from the point of view of life being sacred it's just infanticide on a worldwide scale, millions being aborted every year, no different from the Egyptians ordering the slaughter of the first born Israelites and Herod killing all the infants in Bethlehem.