Best protest sign at the DNC

This protest sign has been confirmed to be in the next edition of The Guinness Book of World Records. See www.ARTLaction.com...

Great sign btw i wonder how long it took to make

congrats to all the people who made that.

thanks Gorriler for the thread.

And quite true. Not a single Pro-choicer can argue with anything about it.

Originally posted by sos37
And quite true. Not a single Pro-choicer can argue with anything about it.

Because you don't go a clinic for an abortion, you go to the DNC.

Give me a break.

that would be the DuNC

that doesnt make any sense.

its a large sign, but just more proof that people dont have opinions of their own - and have to resort to calling Democrats "BABY KILLERS!"



here's my protest sign for the RNC (i learned how to do it from that sign)

big oil suppo R ting
brow N nosing old farts who
C ant remember how many houses they own






[edit on 8/29/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 8/29/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by sos37
And quite true. Not a single Pro-choicer can argue with anything about it.

Because you don't go a clinic for an abortion, you go to the DNC.

Give me a break.

You know damn well what the context of the sign means, you're just being a typical shill for the Democrats by skirting the issue. Please, you're just making yourself look foolish in this case.

Originally posted by sos37
You know damn well what the context of the sign means, you're just being a typical shill for the Democrats by skirting the issue. Please, you're just making yourself look foolish in this case.

I'm not the one making a giant sign calling Democrats baby killers, and then patting them on the ass and saying, "Yes of course it all makes sense! "

Anyone who is against abortion should be required to take care of all the babies that cant be aborted along with the mother's medical bills. Plain and simple. SOMETIMES IT IS WARANTED.

Best? I don't know about that.

The worst I saw on Weds. night was "Drill for questions, not oil."

Okay, shouldn't is be "Drill for answers, not oil"? I mean, we have enough questions; in fact, I am drowning in them.

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by sos37
You know damn well what the context of the sign means, you're just being a typical shill for the Democrats by skirting the issue. Please, you're just making yourself look foolish in this case.

I'm not the one making a giant sign calling Democrats baby killers, and then patting them on the ass and saying, "Yes of course it all makes sense!

"

Majority of Democrats = Pro Choice. What about it don't you understand?

Originally posted by MockedUnicorn
Anyone who is against abortion should be required to take care of all the babies that cant be aborted along with the mother's medical bills. Plain and simple. SOMETIMES IT IS WARANTED.

I would have to agree, like when the life of the mother is put at risk. But one situation I could never agree with is late-term abortion (partial-birth abortion). Obama supports late term abortion.

reply to post by sos37


I dont believe in partial birth abortion either. I am glad we see eye to eye on the situation. What I think is absurd though is when you mention the circumstances where abortion would be okay, and the Anti-Abortionists (or Pro-lifers or whatever) scratch their head and say "Yeah, that would make sense". But if they made abortion illegal for EVERY situation, you make it illegal for the ones with a legitimate concern.

I am pro-choice because if you trace life back far enough, even using a condom can be considered abortion.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by sos37
You know damn well what the context of the sign means, you're just being a typical shill for the Democrats by skirting the issue. Please, you're just making yourself look foolish in this case.

I'm not the one making a giant sign calling Democrats baby killers, and then patting them on the ass and saying, "Yes of course it all makes sense!

"

Majority of Democrats = Pro Choice. What about it don't you understand?

What about loaded words don't you understand?

Pro-life and Pro-choice are are words used to invoke an emotion on someone.

I am "Pro-choice" but I don't want to see unborn children aborted, I am all for reducing abortions, but I don't think restricting a woman's choice on what she can/cannot do with her body is the way to go about it. Lets start with the joke that is sexual education in this country.

reply to post by sos37

You know damn well what the context of the sign means, you're just being a typical shill for the Democrats by skirting the issue. Please, you're just making yourself look foolish in this case.

And expecting people to argue a sign is even more foolish. Provide some more information about what position the sign has and maybe someone will take you up on it.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by Multiple Junkie]

Originally posted by sos37
I would have to agree, like when the life of the mother is put at risk. But one situation I could never agree with is late-term abortion (partial-birth abortion). Obama supports late term abortion.

False.

Maybe if you'd read a bit more:

Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source

Take your blinders off.

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by sos37
You know damn well what the context of the sign means, you're just being a typical shill for the Democrats by skirting the issue. Please, you're just making yourself look foolish in this case.

I'm not the one making a giant sign calling Democrats baby killers, and then patting them on the ass and saying, "Yes of course it all makes sense!

"

Majority of Democrats = Pro Choice. What about it don't you understand?

What about loaded words don't you understand?

Pro-life and Pro-choice are are words used to invoke an emotion on someone.

I am "Pro-choice" but I don't want to see unborn children aborted, I am all for reducing abortions, but I don't think restricting a woman's choice on what she can/cannot do with her body is the way to go about it. Lets start with the joke that is sexual education in this country.

That's just it - being pro choice, you can't have it both ways. You can't be pro choice AND support the rights of the unborn. In this case the choice each individual makes is whether the woman's right to choose outweighs the unborn's right to be born once conception has begun. It's easier to make that decision in favor of the woman's right to choice, since the woman has a voice; the baby on has their heartbeat at that point.

I'm can understand pro-choice for cases of rape and incest and definately where the mother's health is at risk. I'm pro-life once the fetus reaches the point where it could live on it's own if delivered. An abortion at that time would partial birth abortion and the only time I could ever support a mother's decision to do that is if her own life is at risk.

When your debating abortion, your dealing with a two edged sword. If your religious then abortion is murder. If your not then abortion is probably not. All those here who jump the first time anyone mentions controll of anything in our daily lives and are anti-ablortion might want to consider that should the total control of our lives actualy come to pass, do you actualy think you will have choice either way? China is controlling birth right now. Don't you think that when we become the "OneWorld" that is thought to be true that population controll will be persued by the elite to cul the masses? How are you going to feel when your procreation is dictated to you by a government entity? These are things we have to acknowledge if we are going to debate this in a civil manner. Right now Christian Religion is trying to have it one way when, in actuality its a two way, maybe three way street!!

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
When your debating abortion, your dealing with a two edged sword. If your religious then abortion is murder. If your not then abortion is probably not. All those here who jump the first time anyone mentions controll of anything in our daily lives and are anti-abortion might want to consider that should the total control of our lives actualy come to pass, do you actualy think you will have choice either way? China is controlling birth right now. Don't you think that when we become the "OneWorld" that is thought to be true that population controll will be persued by the elite to cul the masses? How are you going to feel when your procreation is dictated to you by a government entity? These are things we have to acknowledge if we are going to debate this in a civil manner. Right now Christian Religion is trying to have it one way when, in actuality its a two way, maybe three way street!!

Zindo

Originally posted by davion

Originally posted by sos37
I would have to agree, like when the life of the mother is put at risk. But one situation I could never agree with is late-term abortion (partial-birth abortion). Obama supports late term abortion.

False.

Maybe if you'd read a bit more:

Obama's record in Illinois represents that of a pragmatic progressive, who pushed for moderate reforms and opposed right-wing legislation. In the IL legislature, voting "present" is the equivalent of voting "no" because a majority of "yes" votes are required for passage. Many IL legislators use the "present" vote as an evasion on an unpopular choice, so that they can avoid being targeted for voting "no." During the 2004 Democratic primary, an opponent mocked Obama's "present" vote on abortion bills with flyers portraying a rubber duck and the words, "He ducked!".

In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source

Take your blinders off.

I suggest you read this:

www.nysun.com...

Apparently Obama has been caught misrepresenting his record on the Abortion issue.

Mr. Johnson said the version Mr. Obama voted down clearly applied only to fetuses that emerged from the womb alive. In addition to the outrage from abortion opponents, a five-minute YouTube video now making the rounds highlights Mr. Obama's opposition to the legislation. The clip, which has been viewed more than 230,000 times, features a testimonial from Jill Stanek, a former nurse who spearheaded the push for the bill in Illinois after witnessing a live infant discarded and left to die at the hospital where she worked.

Originally posted by sos37
I suggest you read this:

www.nysun.com...

Apparently Obama has been caught misrepresenting his record on the Abortion issue.

Mr. Johnson said the version Mr. Obama voted down clearly applied only to fetuses that emerged from the womb alive. In addition to the outrage from abortion opponents, a five-minute YouTube video now making the rounds highlights Mr. Obama's opposition to the legislation. The clip, which has been viewed more than 230,000 times, features a testimonial from Jill Stanek, a former nurse who spearheaded the push for the bill in Illinois after witnessing a live infant discarded and left to die at the hospital where she worked.

I read the article and am looking at other websites like FactCheck and NRLC, though NRLC is significantly more biased in their coverage.

I will at least admit that he did appear to be caught misrepresenting, I'm not someone that is so pro-Obama that I wouldn't admit that he's spotless.

What I will say is it seems there's deception going on on both sides. Reading over the bill that he voted against appears to have been an amendment for the definition, which regardless of if it passed or failed wouldn't have had an affect on partial birth abortions in any way. So it's sort of deceptive to claim that he is against partial birth abortion in this instance when what he's really voting against is a simple definition. The bill from Illinois that he voted against and even the federal bill that was passed a year priot aren't bills that tell anyone what should or shouldn't be done to babies, but simply define what "baby" means in this instance.

Obama's campaign appears to be trying to cover its tracks in other ways, by trying to downplay what he said about voting for the bill if it made clear that it wouldn't overturn anything, but other than that there doesn't appear to be anything to accuse him of. So yeah, you could scorn him of misrepresenting, but saying he's in favor of killing born alive babies because he voted down a bill that was only a definition is a stretch.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]