NARAL doesn't want to punish B O with a baby

[Jhhnn]

I read the OP, troll that it is. You offered-

I'm not looking for an abortion debate because frankly I don't care and it's been beaten to death on here. Just questioning the endorsement timing and reasoning.

Figuring that you might, for a change, have an honest question, I linked NARAL's discussion and explanation of their timing and reasoning. I'll do it again, just for emphasis-

http://chat.prochoiceamerica.o...interview/detail/1664/

Apparently, however, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, namely that you actually wanted an answer. Your reply indicates that's not the case at all, but rather that you're just trying to stir the sh!t with a paddle...

Another term for it is, uhh, trolling...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I read the OP, troll that it is. You offered-

I'm not looking for an abortion debate because frankly I don't care and it's been beaten to death on here. Just questioning the endorsement timing and reasoning.

Figuring that you might, for a change, have an honest question, I linked NARAL's discussion and explanation of their timing and reasoning. I'll do it again, just for emphasis-

http://chat.prochoiceamerica.o...interview/detail/1664/

Apparently, however, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, namely that you actually wanted an answer. Your reply indicates that's not the case at all, but rather that you're just trying to stir the sh!t with a paddle...

Another term for it is, uhh, trolling...

Uhhhh... I had already read their reasoning so try again. It just didn't make political sense when I posted. Like I have said - I can understand the need for a younger generation - THAT make sense - as does jumping on the winning team - but it doesn't really answer the timing question. But continue to place your assumption in place of what I've posted.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
After further discussion with CAD and with other mods, I did make an assumption and a false accusation. Since my accusation was public, I want my apology to be clear and public as well. The question of whether the Obama threads are "trolling" is a separate matter.

Why are you singling out Obama threads as potential "trolling?" Seems to me like you are not objective on the subject. I question the benefit of having open Obama supporters use their powers as moderators to declare Obama threads "trolling," and stifling discussion of their candidate, especially a thread like this that relates to a specific issue. There is plenty of discussion of Obama's hope and change, and on the other hand of campaign tactics, racism, "nameism," media, etc. But there is very little discussion wrt actual issues, so to have moderators with known biases intimidating the OP is disconcerting in a thread where an actual issue is being discussed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
After further discussion with CAD and with other mods, I did make an assumption and a false accusation. Since my accusation was public, I want my apology to be clear and public as well. The question of whether the Obama threads are "trolling" is a separate matter.

Why are you singling out Obama threads as potential "trolling?" Seems to me like you are not objective on the subject. I question the benefit of having open Obama supporters use their powers as moderators to declare Obama threads "trolling," and stifling discussion of their candidate, especially a thread like this that relates to a specific issue. There is plenty of discussion of Obama's hope and change, and on the other hand of campaign tactics, racism, "nameism," media, etc. But there is very little discussion wrt actual issues, so to have moderators with known biases intimidating the OP is disconcerting in a thread where an actual issue is being discussed.

Let it go please... atleast in here. I believe there is a place for commentary/questions like this - it's ---> that way.

 

[Dari]

why are you so fucking obsessed with Obama's fucking middle name? You left a blank space between his first and last initials. Do you fantasize about it?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I read the OP, troll that it is. You offered-

I'm not looking for an abortion debate because frankly I don't care and it's been beaten to death on here. Just questioning the endorsement timing and reasoning.

Figuring that you might, for a change, have an honest question, I linked NARAL's discussion and explanation of their timing and reasoning. I'll do it again, just for emphasis-

http://chat.prochoiceamerica.o...interview/detail/1664/

Apparently, however, I jumped to an unwarranted conclusion, namely that you actually wanted an answer. Your reply indicates that's not the case at all, but rather that you're just trying to stir the sh!t with a paddle...

Another term for it is, uhh, trolling...

Uhhhh... I had already read their reasoning so try again. It just didn't make political sense when I posted. Like I have said - I can understand the need for a younger generation - THAT make sense - as does jumping on the winning team - but it doesn't really answer the timing question. But continue to place your assumption in place of what I've posted.

Anyone with any political knowledge at all can answer the timing question. So what is it you are looking for from this thread?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dari
why are you so fucking obsessed with Obama's fucking middle name? You left a blank space between his first and last initials. Do you fantasize about it?

:roll: So I'm damned if I do....damned if I don't put the "H" in there? Sheesh.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Dari
why are you so fucking obsessed with Obama's fucking middle name? You left a blank space between his first and last initials. Do you fantasize about it?

I swear that I never thought of Obama's middle name in this thread until you mentioned it. :Q

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari
why are you so fucking obsessed with Obama's fucking middle name? You left a blank space between his first and last initials. Do you fantasize about it?

:roll: So I'm damned if I do....damned if I don't put the "H" in there? Sheesh.

Just call him Barack Fitzgerald Obama.

 

[RichardE]

Well to aid in your tunnel visioned view of the world. They are waiting, just like John Edwards waited (though he had a secondary reason) to back the nominee who is going to win the nomination. So since they are sure they can get in saying "see we backed you" with minimal risk to being wrong. So when they need a favor in 1-2 years they can say "Man it was good our X amount of members voted for you last November, there were a few close races...by the way, I wanted to bring this up.."

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Dari
why are you so fucking obsessed with Obama's fucking middle name? You left a blank space between his first and last initials. Do you fantasize about it?

I think the Rove slime machine has sent out the orders to their sheep to include reference to Obama's middle name as often as they can in as many places as possible to raise the paranoia level among the uninformed and stupid. It's the same as repeatedly raising the "question" whether Obama's a Muslim, secret or otherwise. It's just malicious bullshit.

 

[Jhhnn]

From my link to NARAL, CSG-

Senator Obama needs an organization like ours to help close the identification gap with key voting constituencies before the fall campaign begins in earnest and people?s opinions are already formed about the two candidates. We can help ensure a pro-choice victory in November, but only if we act now.

If that doesn't answer your begging the question with obtusity, nothing will...

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
After further discussion with CAD and with other mods, I did make an assumption and a false accusation. Since my accusation was public, I want my apology to be clear and public as well. The question of whether the Obama threads are "trolling" is a separate matter.

Why are you singling out Obama threads as potential "trolling?" Seems to me like you are not objective on the subject. I question the benefit of having open Obama supporters use their powers as moderators to declare Obama threads "trolling," and stifling discussion of their candidate, especially a thread like this that relates to a specific issue. There is plenty of discussion of Obama's hope and change, and on the other hand of campaign tactics, racism, "nameism," media, etc. But there is very little discussion wrt actual issues, so to have moderators with known biases intimidating the OP is disconcerting in a thread where an actual issue is being discussed.

We have rules about how you address issues like this. You are in violation of those rules. I am not taking action, because I don't want to appear that I am using authority to silence a member who disagrees with me. But consider this a warning, and please make sure you are familiar with where and how to question a moderator's actions before you comment again.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
CSG does a very good job of trolling, of seldom crossing over into the territory of being an obvious shill. That doesn't change the reality of it, however.

Of course NARAL was going to endorse the Democratic candidate for president. If there's one area where McCain can't be represented to be "moderate", it's on the issue of reproductive rights-

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://secure2.convio.net/cho...&id=457&autologin=true"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://secure2.convio.net/choice/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=457&autologin=true">https://secure2.convio.n.........autologin=true</a></a>

As for the reasons for the endorsement of Obama at the present time, get it from the source-

http://chat.prochoiceamerica.o...interview/detail/1664/

Hey look, another person who didn't read the OP.

I didn't even remotely suggest NARAL wouldn't/shouldn't support the Dem candidate. My question was about the timing and reasoning. Sheesh.... try to keep up and calm the knee.

Those who question NARAL?s endorsement of Obama at this time lack, I think, a fundamental understanding of what interest groups are in the business of doing.

Interest groups don?t exist to support a particular candidate, or even to help a particular candidate get elected. They exist solely to further the best interests of their constituencies in this case, those who are pro-choice and pro-women?s rights.

In giving Obama a reason not just to acknowledge their support, but to be beholden to them for the timing of it, they have ensured that, if and when there is a President Obama, NARAL and the interests/constituency they represent will have a better seat at the table - one that is closer to the President?s ear. This is exactly where their supporters should want them to be.

Although, the timing of the endorsement has been a betrayal to many womans rights groups that believe Clinton is the better choice for womans rights. They feel disrespect, believeing Clinton, has worked harder than Obama for reproductive rights and they jumped the gun in not letting the primaries play out.

Objectively, it would appear that Clinton was a better choice in terms of choosing a candidate that supports and will fight for abortion rights. NARAL, however, made a political decision to endorse Obama.