Obama Doesn’t want Daughters to be Punished by a Baby
Wow. When Obama gets off script, he can be downright scary.
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
“Punished with a baby?” Punished?
James T. Harris sees this coming back to bite Obama… and it should.
Can you see the attack ad? A bunch of kids born to teenage mothers asking “Am I a punishment, Senator Obama?” Wow.
This is pretty stupid, even for you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 0714 hrs
I think for a lot of teenage mothers a baby does feel like a punishment.
Perhaps that sounds horrible to a lot of republicans.
I think to anyone who isn’t prepared and in a personal and financial position to handle a baby, a baby could feel like punishment.
This is not to say that this “punishment” was not of their own making, and its not even to say that you can’t feel like something is a blessing AND a curse at the same time.
I think certainly a baby could be that.
Aside from all this… Obama is a rampant socialist. I need not read into what he (or Hillary) says, or decide if its a ‘misspeak’ or not.
I don’t need to know whether he hates america because he doesn’t wear his lapel pin or doesn’t hate america. Wether his wife hates america, or wether his preacher is a racist.
Isn’t what he willfully and freely SAYS he wants to do with this country every and all the reason in the world to not want to see him president.
I just think that trying to bury a guy based on subjective interpretation of comments like this is a distraction.
I mean sometimes when you are trying to tell if someone is telling the truth, you look at other things they say to see what their real intentions or real beliefs are.
But we don’t need to do that with Obama (or clinton)... he’s a socialist. He admits it, his platform confirms it. If elected, there is no doubt in my mind he has every intention in the world of implimenting his stated soclialist policies (and then some)
If we can’t convince people that Obama is a bad idea because socialism is a bad idea than we lose.
The problem with these character analyzation/assinations is that they are all completely subjectiv and a matter of perception/interpretation. People who like Obama will not be phased. They’ll take his comments differently. People who don’t like Obama will say he’s a horrible guy because of it.
The dumb ass swing voters who sit in the middle with their thumbs up their ass watching tv commercials and wondering wtf is going on will continue to flip flop back and forth between candidate a or b depending on some silly perception of who’s a ‘better person’
This is junk, and its the easy way out.
At some point we (people of freedom) need to be educating the swing voters on just what socialism is and why its going to ruin america. Not on trying to sway their votes with character assasinations (wether valid or not)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1003 hrs
When Obama gets off script, he can be downright scary.
If those were his exact words, and you “parse” those words, it is rather “scary” since part of the Obama attraction has been his communication & articulation skills - no “Bushisms” to speak of. It would be a shame if that image is contrived. “I got two daughters”. At least he didn’t say, “I gots two daughters”.
I see a future for Lena Taylor if she loses County Exec race today - she can be Obama’s communications director.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1022 hrs
How would it feel if your dad gave a speech and said that having kids was punishment. Misspeak or not thats gonna leave a mark. But then again…I am just a typical white person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1116 hrs
Perhaps Obama mean “consequence” because that’s a reasonable word for what happens if a teenage girl has sex before she’s ready for motherhood. Because - even with birth control - pregnancies happen.
For Obama, the solution then is simple: abortion.
And we’re supposed to believe *anything* a Democrat like Obama does “for the children” is really “for the children”?
When it’s pretty clear he sees all children who are not the result of carefully planned, perfectly excuted pregnancies designed to fit into the lives of their parents as “punishments”...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1118 hrs
I would say this is indicative of a certain mindset that devalues life or places higher value on one life over another. Similar to a “report” that came out the lack of women in public office and attributing it to females being “encumbered” with child rearing.
I’m old fashioned and simplistic thinking that my wife and I raise our daughter together and neither of us is “encumbered” by her. We made a choice - a favorite word of the left with a completely different meaning - to have a child. To claim we are now encumbered by her is to devalue her life.
ANY thinking that says a child is a punishment (maybe he just “mis-spoke?” - more likely a Freudian slip) shows how little respect a person has for others, much less themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1135 hrs
It’s really great how people wilfully misread Obama’s statement. It’s pretty clear in the context of his entire remarks that Obama is talking about reducing teen pregnancy and greater parental involvement and responsibility. If anyone here thinks that more teens having children at a younger age is a good thing for either the young parent or the child, please raise your hand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1204 hrs
Owen,
Do you always bank on people not reading the link and playing the sound bite.
“This is a very difficult issue, and I understand sort of the passions on both sides of the issue,” he said. “I have two precious daughters — they are miracles.”
But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves, he said.
“This is an example where good people can disagree,” the Illinois senator said. “The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option.”
The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
I will grant you that “punished” was a poor choice of words but we have to look no further than our own metropolitan area to see the effects of babies having babies.
xxp actually did a good job of putting it in perspective.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1207 hrs
Consider my hand not raised Steve-O
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1209 hrs
Perhaps Obama mean “consequence” because that’s a reasonable word for what happens if a teenage girl has sex before she’s ready for motherhood.
Oh yes, that’s what’s wrong with this country. We’re not doing enough to protect people from consequences. We need to shield the unfortunate and weak from their choices.
This isn’t directed at you Amy, just using your words to further your point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1229 hrs
Anyone remember Dan Quayle getting ripped a new one for saying this in May of 1992?
“I believe the lawless social anarchy which we saw is directly related to the breakdown of family structure, personal responsibility and social order in too many areas of our society,” Quayle remarked. He went on to criticize society’s increasingly permissive attitude toward out-of-wedlock childbearing, pointing specifically to the treatment of the issue in the television sitcom Murphy Brown. “It doesn’t help matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown—a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman—mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice.’”
And, if digging deep enough for quotes from the 80’s, could probably find some “conservative”, “right-wing”, “religious zealots” that used similar words (like “punishment”).
By the way, PJR, thanks for the additional Obama quotations - I tried to locate the speech and gave up too easily.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1232 hrs
Oh yes, that’s what’s wrong with this country. We’re not doing enough to protect people from consequences. We need to shield the unfortunate and weak from their choices.
Happen to catch what Treasury and the Fed have been doing for those unfortunate and weak guys in the banking and financial industry, Jason?
Those damn liberals!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1239 hrs
Seriously, if the GOP has any notion of winning this fall you must recognize the public is full up to their ears with this type of stuff. So much so they could puke. If you think stuff like this has legs you are dreaming…...there is a war raging….a recession at home…...a health care crisis…...oil price hikes…....and you think that this is a topic/issue/idea….please.
Posted by Gregory on April 01, 2008 at 1257 hrs
“those damn liberals” - well they sure as hell ain’t conservatives. Republicans sure (I actually don’t know Mr. Fed Chairman’s politics) but not conservatives.
If that is really what they think we need right now. then yes, Damn those liberals - because the policy is about a statist as one can be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1302 hrs
Happen to catch what Treasury and the Fed have been doing for those unfortunate and weak guys in the banking and financial industry, Jason?
Yes, and I completely disagree with it. Got a point, or are you just trying to deflect?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1308 hrs
Jason lighten up, we agree that this action by the Fed & Treasury is
not a policy we agree with.I was just having a little fun with the usual assignment of all things absurd and/or negative as being the result of the actions of liberals.
And Joe since when isn’t the Bush Administration considered conservative? Both these guys are presidential appointees..
Now back to the subject of the post.
Got a point, or are you just trying to deflect?
My point would be
The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.
I don’t see how providing a complete and thorough education about the consequences of sexual activity is a bad thing.
If you want to hold people accountable for their choices I think you should provide them with as much information as possible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1622 hrs
I was just having a little fun with the usual assignment of all things absurd and/or negative as being the result of the actions of liberals.
Hey, reread my post, there’s no mention of liberals or assignment to them. Fuck off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1703 hrs
How does guaranteeing that a girl can have an abortion prevent her from getting an STD? Since many have no known cures, many STD can’t be aborted. Good grief Obama can’t be that dumb.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1708 hrs
pjr,
Sorry about that last sentence, I just got a bad phone call while replying and added that. You don’t deserve that. My sincere apologies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1810 hrs
Jason,
accepted. Thanks for the thought.
I wasn’t referring to anything in your post at all.
Just a generalization.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 1827 hrs
If you really want to “put into context” Obama’s ‘punishment’ remark, then you must recall the context of Terri Schiavo (he was sorry that he couldn’t hasten her death) and his vote in the Illinois legislature AGAINST the ‘born-alive’ act.
Sorry, boys and girls, I think he actually meant exactly what he said.
Posted by dad29 on April 01, 2008 at 1946 hrs
Sorry dad,
You are a papist ningcumpoop.
ps: I was raised by the Jebbies
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2008 at 2001 hrs
That gives me the hebby Jebbies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2008 at 0922 hrs
Your claim to have ‘been raised by the Jebbies’ qualifies you for…what, exactly?
NOT a spelling contest, as the word is “nincompoop.”
About 60 years ago, that phrase actually meant that one had the capacity for intellectual dialogue. Now it means nothing in particular.
Posted by dad29 on April 03, 2008 at 0947 hrs
Now it means nothing in particular.
So it’s about the same as being Catholic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 1056 hrs
Or pjr…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 1057 hrs
Finally catching on T?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2008 at 1101 hrs
Total Entries: 19642
Total Comments: 129731
Most Recent Entry: 02/07/2012 09:25 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/08/2012 12:44 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 135
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/08/2012 12:57 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).