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

[CADsortaGUY]

So my question is why did it take so long for them to endorse him and did his "punished with a baby" comment help seal the deal? The reason I ask is because from what I've seen, Hillary is much more extremist on this than B O and has a longer record of supporting their issues(ie abortion on demand).

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.

 

[fskimospy]

They endorsed Obama because he is now nearly certain to win the Democratic nomination.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
They endorsed Obama because he is now nearly certain to win the Democratic nomination.

So why endorse at all right now?

 

[jpeyton]

They did it to increase his support among white Democratic women, an area where Hillary had a slight edge.

Every little bit helps in November.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So why endorse at all right now?

It's impossible to know unless you know someone close to NARAL or the Obama campaign.

One motive I've heard discussed is that NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) was formed in 1968, their membership is aging, and they want to attract younger women to their ranks.

Obama is almost certain to win the Democratic nomination, and he's stronger than Hillary among younger women. Both Obama and Hillary are pro choice. Endorseing Obama, now, gives them the publicity they want while supporting their pro choice agenda. Look for them to keep McBush's anti-abortion stance in the spotlight, including his stated preference for Supreme Court justices in the mold of those appointed by your Traitor In Chief.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
They endorsed Obama because he is now nearly certain to win the Democratic nomination.

So why endorse at all right now?

Because endorsements are a two way street. Obama gains from NARAL's endorsement, particularly as they will probably ease the transition of Hillary voters back into his fold. (I'm in some ways pulling this out of my ass, but I have a feeling like people who care a lot about women's issues/abortion are more likely to be Hillary supporters then Obama's) NARAL in exchange will gain some influence over Obama because now they've given him something, so they might feel like they can gain some access to him in the future after he wins.

 

[miketheidiot]

the op title is a bit of a troll imo but i agree with most of the sentiments here already, naral gets a pro-choice candidate w/o political risk, helps coalesce some sort of political consensus around the candidate, and partially opens themselves up to a generation that has not tied into the feminist rights movement as much as past generations

 

[senseamp]

Since when is abortion on demand extremist?
It's been legal for at least 30 years now.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
They endorsed Obama because he is now nearly certain to win the Democratic nomination.

So why endorse at all right now?

Because endorsements are a two way street. Obama gains from NARAL's endorsement, particularly as they will probably ease the transition of Hillary voters back into his fold. (I'm in some ways pulling this out of my ass, but I have a feeling like people who care a lot about women's issues/abortion are more likely to be Hillary supporters then Obama's) NARAL in exchange will gain some influence over Obama because now they've given him something, so they might feel like they can gain some access to him in the future after he wins.

I can see that. Thanks for the reply.

 

[manowar821]

Well, if you don't care about the abortion "debate", then why does the endorsement bother you?

Nothing wrong with abortion, nothing wrong with an abortion group endorsing Obama. The only thing wrong here is a social conservative getting his panties in a twist over yet ANOTHER thing that bothers him about free and open society. Maybe you'd be better off in a cave? I mean, the real reason why the endorsement bothers you is because abortion bothers you, and it bothers you for no good reason, too.

This entire thread is a fantastic example of cry-baby dinosaurs who should've been born in the dark ages.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Well, if you don't care about the abortion "debate", then why does the endorsement bother you?

Nothing wrong with abortion, nothing wrong with an abortion group endorsing Obama. The only thing wrong here is a social conservative getting his panties in a twist over yet ANOTHER thing that bothers him about free and open society. Maybe you'd be better off in a cave? I mean, the real reason why the endorsement bothers you is because abortion bothers you, and it bothers you for no good reason, too.

This entire thread is a fantastic example of cry-baby dinosaurs who should've been born in the dark ages.

Wow, talk about not reading/understanding the OP. Sheesh.

 

[Red Dawn]

I didn't even know NARAL existed and what theywere about before this thread and I really couldn't care less and I bet 99.9% of those voting this November don't either. Well maybe those looking to smear Obama do but that's just out of desperation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: manowar821
Well, if you don't care about the abortion "debate", then why does the endorsement bother you?

Nothing wrong with abortion, nothing wrong with an abortion group endorsing Obama. The only thing wrong here is a social conservative getting his panties in a twist over yet ANOTHER thing that bothers him about free and open society. Maybe you'd be better off in a cave? I mean, the real reason why the endorsement bothers you is because abortion bothers you, and it bothers you for no good reason, too.

This entire thread is a fantastic example of cry-baby dinosaurs who should've been born in the dark ages.

Wow, talk about not reading/understanding the OP. Sheesh.

I told you long ago that bigots are blind to their bigotry. You can't see past your feelings that you support life and the good that adhere to that. Your self satisfaction with that good blinds you to the evil your absolutism creates. You go through life swinging at piñatas imagining you see what you're swinging at.

 

[Rio Rebel]

How many threads like this are you going to post?

Stop flooding the forums with anti-Obama threads, or you're going to find that you're no longer able to start any threads. We have seen ENOUGH. Feel free to post in any threads you want, and discuss any topic you want, until it becomes clear that you are posting thread after thread on the same subject. Find a way to express yourself about Obama in ONE thread.

 

[senseamp]

I don't remember seeing a thread on Obama and NARAL endorsement before. Maybe you can post a link. Or is it another one of those things we can't talk about Obama?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
How many threads like this are you going to post? You got busted for trolling by Harvey, whined to Derek, and here you are back again.

Stop flooding the forums with anti-Obama threads, or you're going to find that you're no longer able to start any threads. We have seen ENOUGH. Feel free to post in any threads you want, and discuss any topic you want, until it becomes clear that you are posting thread after thread on the same subject. Find a way to express yourself about Obama in ONE thread.

Are you posting this as a moderator? (yes that is a legit question and I do request a legit answer)

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
How many threads like this are you going to post? You got busted for trolling by Harvey, whined to Derek, and here you are back again.

Stop flooding the forums with anti-Obama threads, or you're going to find that you're no longer able to start any threads. We have seen ENOUGH. Feel free to post in any threads you want, and discuss any topic you want, until it becomes clear that you are posting thread after thread on the same subject. Find a way to express yourself about Obama in ONE thread.

Are you posting this as a moderator? (yes that is a legit question and I do request a legit answer)

Does it not seem obvious?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
How many threads like this are you going to post? You got busted for trolling by Harvey, whined to Derek, and here you are back again.

Stop flooding the forums with anti-Obama threads, or you're going to find that you're no longer able to start any threads. We have seen ENOUGH. Feel free to post in any threads you want, and discuss any topic you want, until it becomes clear that you are posting thread after thread on the same subject. Find a way to express yourself about Obama in ONE thread.

Are you posting this as a moderator? (yes that is a legit question and I do request a legit answer)

Does it not seem obvious?

Would I have asked if it was "obvious"?

 

[Rio Rebel]

I may have made an assumption about "crying to Derek". If so, I apologize.

But the rest of the comment stands. You are flooding P&N with thread after thread about Obama. And yes, I was commenting as a moderator.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So my question is why did it take so long for them to endorse him and did his "punished with a baby" comment help seal the deal? The reason I ask is because from what I've seen, Hillary is much more extremist on this than B O and has a longer record of supporting their issues(ie abortion on demand).

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.

He has been for pro-choice for a while now and stated as much in both books he wrote and when he was working in Illinois. Just because you chose to ignore and not understand the candidates does not mean that the candidates have done nothing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So my question is why did it take so long for them to endorse him and did his "punished with a baby" comment help seal the deal? The reason I ask is because from what I've seen, Hillary is much more extremist on this than B O and has a longer record of supporting their issues(ie abortion on demand).

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.

He has been for pro-choice for a while now and stated as much in both books he wrote and when he was working in Illinois. Just because you chose to ignore and not understand the candidates does not mean that the candidates have done nothing.

I didn't state he has done nothing, I was curious since Hillary seems to be a better fit for their agenda. However, as has been posted in this thread - their agenda may be to now go after a younger generation which BHO gives them.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I may have made an assumption about "crying to Derek". If so, I apologize.

Thanks. My discussion with Derek had nothing to do with this thread and was suggested by the other party.

 

[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-

https://secure2.convio.net/cho...&id=457&autologin=true

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/

 

[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/choice/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=457&autologin=true">https://secure2.convio.net/......457&autologin=true</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.

 

[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.