Why I'm voting Democrat

[Thing 2]

Originally Posted by lord_feldon

If it's bad, then I've done a bad thing, too.

Me too. Like the recent Elizabeth Dole "godless" ad about Kay Hagan.

My roommate made me a button that says: Bleeding-heart, tree-hugging, teva-wearing, tie-dyed, NPR-listening, Obama-voting, Unitarian, fact-checking, PC LIBERAL! I love it.

Growing up in Boulder seriously twisted my political conceptions; I think of myself as slightly left of center, and most people see me as a socialist.

[Johnny Slick]

mods plz add the following to the original post:

I'm voting Democrat because I want a Muslim who is an Arab as my next President!!!!

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Barbara

Interesting order issuing from someone who's neither the owner of the site nor a moderator of these boards.

I am truly sorry. And that is without snark or irony.

[Amigone201]

I'm voting Democrat because I think it's okay if Ken marries Jim, or Sue marries Mary, or Sue marries both Ken and Mary.

Interesting! So am I!

[Tarquin Farquart]

I'm voting Democrat because I want to pay taxes for free day care and pre-school for all children, even if I don't have any small children of my own, and even though most workers at those places will be lesbian leftists determined to brainwash the children into Marxist doctrine.

This is my favourite. Not just some workers but most of them are lesbian leftists.

I'm willing to bet the person who wrote this doesn't know what a Marxist is. Or a lesbian. Or, come to think of it, a child.

[Johnny Slick]

My experience this election cycle is that 90% of right wingers have no idea what the words "socialist", "Marxist", or "communist" mean.

[Sister Ray]

Originally Posted by Goober

I have read at least one account of a nurse who comforted a Down's Syndrome baby for 6 hours after it was aborted, while it fought for life through undeveloped lungs.

Do you know the child was actually "aborted" and not just born extremely prematurely? Almost all hospitals have a policy that a neonate must weigh five hundred grams (one pound one ounce) to be resuscitated. Some smaller than that do live for several hours, but at that size they are basically non-viable and won't live even with treatment.

Personally, I'm voting for Mr. Rhythm.

Sister "yes I have been listening to ella fitzgerald all day, why do you ask?" Ray

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

My experience this election cycle is that 90% of right wingers have no idea what the words "socialist", "Marxist", or "communist" mean.

Well that's easy: all of them are exactly equivalent to the Democratic party.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Goober

Think again. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08020408.html

That's in England. An excerpt from the article for those without enough time to read it entirely:

"once a child slated for death by abortion is born alive, no medical help is offered him. On the contrary, guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists offered doctors the recommendation that babies over 22 weeks old who survive abortion be killed by lethal injection." Emphasis mine.

Are you maybe referring to this? "According to the guidelines, after 22 weeks and beyond, if there are signs of major fetal abnormality and the patient has requested an abortion, the patient should be offered feticide, where a lethal injection is administered. The patient has every right to refuse this course of action."

If this is what is meant, that is a major misrepresentation. The lethal injection is gven in utero, not to fetuses that survive abortion, and is intended to be more humane than the alternative late-term abortion methods. In fact, the guidelines go on to say: "If the fetus has had a lethal injection, it will normally die. However, there are some instances when there are signs of life at birth. All babies must be treated with dignity and respect. Palliative care should be provided till the baby dies where relevant. "

Why do you think the site you quoted misrepresented things so badly?

Similar types of things occur here in the US. Partial birth abortions often require the doctor to "stab" the baby's brain stem with either scissors or a scalpel, and then use them to open the hole up enough to insert a suction tube, so they can suck the baby's brain out, which allows the skull to collapse in on itself and makes the procedure more easy. These babys would likely have survived for a period of time afterwards if not for this.

No, they wouldn't, because the alternative method requires cutting the fetus into pieces to pass through the cervix. That's very difficult to survive.

Babies actually quite often survive late-term abortions, and as horrible as it may sound, many doctors do simply leave them to die in hospital trays.

Do you have a cite for this? Other than lifesitenews? Because I wonder about them.

The item in the OP dealt with Senator Obama's failure to vote for the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" or some such in the Illinois senate. His reason for doing so was not because he wanted babies to die on hospital trays, but because he was worried that the act would confuse the current status quo on fetus viability, etc. I have read at least one account of a nurse who comforted a Down's Syndrome baby for 6 hours after it was aborted, while it fought for life through undeveloped lungs.

Was it also from "lifestenews"? Because, honestly, they don't seem too reliable, do they?

Look, guys, this part of the abortion discussion makes me sick and sad. I won't go on anymore, because I am upset even writing this. There has to be some sort of middle ground that respects a woman's right to choose, but still protects these babies from dying cold and alone in a janitor's closet.

There is. Illinois law already required care, hence the reason why there was opposition to additional grandstanding.

I won't even go there on the rest of the OP, just trying to clear up a misconception that was flitting about in this thread.

I can provite citations for everything I've said in this thread on request, and would have done so as I went if I thought the discussion would go any further.

ETA: I see you're new, and welcome, goober. Some of us are sometimes blunt here about our commitment to accuracy, but we try to keep that in check. Please don't let it put you off.

I'm voting Democrat because the author of this list is clearly not really a Democrat, and I want to distance myself from him/her as much as possible.

Sheesh. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to choose one party or candidate over the other, why resort to this scare-tactic garbage?

I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech should be limited to what offends no one else.

People really think Democrats are anti-freedom of speech? I mean I am aware of the perceptions about "political correctness" and hate speech. But overall, for me, part of being politically liberal is fiercely protecting freedom of speech. Maybe I need to get out more...

I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us for certain whether it will rain three days from now can nevertheless tell us with confidence that the polar ice caps will melt to nothing in 10 years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I do think this is a funny statement, though it shows the author is either very uninformed about the global warming issue, or doesn't mind taking liberties with the truth to get a laugh. But seriously, TV meteorologists are absolutely not the same set of people who are publishing evidence of global warming. Never mind the other problems with that statement.

I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whoever or whatever I want; I've decided to marry my horse.

That's pretty annoying. If you think the government should disallow same-sex couples to marry, then give some real reason, not this "why don't I marry my horse" crap. It's a really lazy argument.

I'm voting Democrat because I want to pay taxes for free day care and pre-school for all children, even if I don't have any small children of my own, and even though most workers at those places will be lesbian leftists determined to brainwash the children into Marxist doctrine.

This was another "whaaa?" moment for me. In my experience, it is a whole lot easier to find child care run by Christians than any other group. (I'd say compared to lesbian Marxists, but that's not fair since there are a lot more Christians total than lesbian Marxists.) I'll admit my experience is limited to having lived in only 4 states and never having had a child of my own, but it is something I have noticed.

I'm voting Democrat because I like the idea of blocking the construction of new nuclear power plants that we will need so that we can plug in all those electric cars we've been hearing about for 40 years.

Democrats are anti-nuclear power? I didn't know that... most that I know are interested in looking into a whole range of alternative energy options. And if this list is directly referring to Obama, I've barely followed the campaign lately but I have heard him say that nuclear energy was on the table.

I'm voting Democrat because I like the idea of requiring employers to give workers up to 12 weeks of paid time off for "family leave" and I don't think that would make it more difficult for American businesses to compete in the global economy.

Riiiight. Because Americans work so few hours/days compared to other countries. Darn Puritans were so lazy.

I'm voting Democrat because I like the idea of a national health care plan where illegal immigrants can get the best medical care my tax dollars can provide, and because I like the idea of doctors leaving the profession after the government reduces their fees in an effort to keep the program from going bankrupt.

Are we really at risk of running out of doctors? Because I know loads of students who want to be doctors but are turned away from medical schools. I do worry about the medical profession growing less and less attractive, though... mostly I worry that only kids from wealthy families will have the resources to make it.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe in equal pay for the sexes, that pre-school teachers should be paid the same as high-rise construction workers, that all men should be paid the same as Oprah and all women should be paid the same as Bill Gates.

The Oprah and Bill Gates part was really, really lame.

I'm voting Democrat because I want to put an end to racial profiling; I don't think it's fair for the police to know that the guy who robbed the liquor store is a young black guy with a beard, and that the police are more likely to apprehend him if they also have to stop and question old women, whites, and Hispanics who don't have beards.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.


Bee

[lord_feldon]

Originally Posted by Bee

People really think Democrats are anti-freedom of speech? I mean I am aware of the perceptions about "political correctness" and hate speech. But overall, for me, part of being politically liberal is fiercely protecting freedom of speech. Maybe I need to get out more...

To the people who wrote this, "freedom of speech" means "freedom to act obnoxious and not be called out by others, all while having my views and my views only represented in the government and the country at large."

[Photo Bob]

I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whoever or whatever I want; I've decided to marry my horse.

Everytime I hear this argument (no matter what the animal mentioned) I always think, "this guy is talking about Ken marrying Jim so no one will notice that he's having a relationship with his horse".

You know, the old cover him in mud so no one will see you're dirty routine.

Photo "I'm voting Democratic and Republican as well as some Independents" Bob

Originally Posted by Chloe

ETA: I see you're new, and welcome, goober. Some of us are sometimes blunt here about our commitment to accuracy, but we try to keep that in check. Please don't let it put you off.

No "put off" taken from anything in any of these posts.

I love a good discussion. As much as I love my wife dearly, she isn't much for deep, intellectual discussion, so I miss that and pick it up posting on various internet forums.

That being said, I posted the first link that came up when i googled the item. I don't remember what references my family member who is in the trade showed me when discussing this once, but what I do remember is her saying that she tries as hard as she can to be gone whenever a partial birth abortion is performed. Basically, to risk FOAF-ing you all, she didn't necessarily disagree with anything in the linked article.

And finally, whether you or anyone else on here will admit it or not, I do see a lot of close-mindedness (new word?) on this board when it comes to things that folks here feel to be "englightened" on. Kind of a "hands over the ears LA LALALALALA" type feeling when things that you may not agree with come out. Not pointing fingers, denigrating, or in any other way singling anyone out here, because I have a lot of respect for the minds that post here. It is just kind of a general feeling that the intellects on this board are superior to anywhere else, so dissenting opinions and views are ridiculed instead of pondered for what they may be.

All due respect intended, extended, and hopefully accepted, because I am the newb here, so I don't really want to make huge waves.

And finally, to finish up, I understand that i owe a decent rebuttal here, but I am at work and don't really feel comfortable firing up a research project at my desk. I'll try to post something up with a few more references tonight, if my back will allow it (fighting a bit of back pain right now with two ruptured discs and a cortisone injectiont hat just ain't cutting it...)

[lyra_silvertongue]

Originally Posted by Goober

That being said, I posted the first link that came up when i googled the item. I don't remember what references my family member who is in the trade showed me when discussing this once, but what I do remember is her saying that she tries as hard as she can to be gone whenever a partial birth abortion is performed. Basically, to risk FOAF-ing you all, she didn't necessarily disagree with anything in the linked article.

That's interesting because "partial-birth abortion" is not a medical term. Late-term abortions are generally not done willy nilly and are generally only done when the mother's health is at risk or if the fetus is dead or severely disabled. We had a lengthy discussion about late-term abortion last year on this thread:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread...s+like+killing

There is a lot of good information in there as well as links to a number of sites, including stories of women who have had to abort wanted pregnancies in the third trimester.

You may feel that a lot of us have our fingers in our ears over this issue and maybe you're right - but what we're ignoring is the continued propagation of silly myths and rumors and distorted language regarding a topic that not many people are very well informed about.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Goober

I don't remember what references my family member who is in the trade showed me when discussing this once, but what I do remember is her saying that she tries as hard as she can to be gone whenever a partial birth abortion is performed.

What "trade" is she in, preytell? And where? And how long? And for what organization?

Look. "PABs" are gross. No doubt. So is heart surgery. But, unless she knows every single bit of the circumstances behind that PAB, I'd take her with a grain of salt.

And, frankly, with all the scrutiny under which anyone who offers abs operates, I really doubt that there is a great deal of untoward practice in the US>

And finally, whether you or anyone else on here will admit it or not, I do see a lot of close-mindedness (new word?) on this board when it comes to things that folks here feel to be "englightened" on. Kind of a "hands over the ears LA LALALALALA" type feeling when things that you may not agree with come out.

Perhaps so, but, on this issue? Nope. Most of us are really well informed on this issue.

[Chloe]

Originally Posted by Goober

No "put off" taken from anything in any of these posts.

That's good. Some of us can be abrasive (not always excluding myself here), and I get concerned that we are drowning out alternative voices at times.

That being said, I posted the first link that came up when i googled the item. I don't remember what references my family member who is in the trade showed me when discussing this once, but what I do remember is her saying that she tries as hard as she can to be gone whenever a partial birth abortion is performed. Basically, to risk FOAF-ing you all, she didn't necessarily disagree with anything in the linked article.

You mean, about the guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? Or something else?

And finally, to finish up, I understand that i owe a decent rebuttal here, but I am at work and don't really feel comfortable firing up a research project at my desk. I'll try to post something up with a few more references tonight, if my back will allow it (fighting a bit of back pain right now with two ruptured discs and a cortisone injectiont hat just ain't cutting it...)

Ouch! I look forward to reading your rebuttal, but don't hurt yourself...

Hello, Bee!

Originally Posted by Bee

People really think Democrats are anti-freedom of speech?

I think that this is a far more common sentiment than you may realize. The answer is yes; there are many people on all sides of the political spectrum that feel as though left-leaning individuals are very much about censorship and denying them the right to say things that they want to.

I mean I am aware of the perceptions about "political correctness" and hate speech.

You just nailed it. That is where the anti-FOS ideas come from. For example, if I were to say the following statements:

1.) In several peer-reviewed studies, African Americans, on average, have shown to have lower IQ numbers than Caucasians, on average;

2.) There are several studies indicating that male homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle. Homosexual men have been shown to be less healthy, and tend to have shorter life spans than heterosexual men;

What would your response be?

The response from quite a few left-leaning individuals was to quash any discussion of the matters, and in the case of the African-American study, a professor lost his job (I believe his name was Watson). All he did was report the unbiased findings of his study. What about the president of that University (help me out here, folks, which one was it?) that lost his job last year for saying that "studies have shown that women simply do not perform as well as men in math and science". This, also, was backed by a study, but he was fired for basically speaking the truth.

Do with it what you will, but in my humble opinion, when a study says something is true, and you quote the study in a statement, that isn’t hate speech. It is the truth. If you state the same thing without quoting the study, and just pass it off as fact, it isn’t hate speech, it is opinion. Granted, in some cases, it may be a bigoted opinion, but I believe that people have the right to be as bigoted and a-holey (another new word!) as they feel necessary. Understand that I am referring to “hate speech” in the lawful term, meaning that you can be prosecuted for saying these things, as many left-leaning individuals are on record as supporting. In other words, I support a person’s right to say ugly, hateful things without fear of LEGAL sanction, but that doesn’t mean that private individuals cannot respond to the ugliness in any legal way they see fit, including demonstrating, etc. It is just that “hateful” has been stretched to fit a lot of things, including dissent from left-leaning individual’s ideals and beliefs. For instance, when I spoke out against a government-controlled healthcare system, I was accused of being hateful just the other day. There was no hate in my words, only a caveat against allowing the government, which is a monument of ineptitude, bureaucracy, and uncaring detachment to control your and my healthcare options. How was that hateful? (Of course, that same individual then accused me of being against universal access to healthcare, which I am NOT, so maybe he doesn’t count).

Saying these things may also be considered “politically incorrect” but I think the suppression of truth through “political correctness” is a cancer on our society that is hurting us in ways that we may not know about for years. Assertive dispensation of truth is good for everybody. When someone is doing something bad, but cannot be told that it is bad because it isn’t PC, who benefits? No one I can think of. The perpetrator continues to be secretly maligned by everyone around them, and is given no chance to fix the situation, while the “victims” continue to build resentment of the perpetrator, with no recourse or outlet for their frustrations. What good is that? It is “FALSE FEEL GOOD;” a phrase I use to describe a lot of things, like drug use, for instance.

But overall, for me, part of being politically liberal is fiercely protecting freedom of speech. Maybe I need to get out more...

It used to be, for sure, and may still be for many people; for many others, though, it is not. In fact, entire blogs are kept quite busy railing on about the efforts by political left-leaners trying to quash speech that they disagree with. Again, I'm sure it is all with the best of intentions, but censorship by any other name is still censorship, even if it is well-intended.

Defense of speech has become more of a libertarian art form than liberal, and that is due in no small part to "hate speech" and "political correctness", both of which were founded with good intent, but have moved past good intent and into the realm of censorship in the eyes of many.

I hope that this helps you to understand why the OP writer feels as though hir free speech is threatened by left-leaning individuals, and therefore, Democrats. Sorry so long!

For the record, let me first begin by saying that I am against any law or legislation that would prevent a woman from having an abortion. For a myriad of reasons, I believe that the government’s place does not include legislating on this issue. Real quick synopsis:

1.) The law would be unenforceable. In my most ludicrous reductio ad absurdum moments, I picture federal “birthing agents” following pregnant women around, checking up on them periodically to ensure that they are still pregnant, and requiring a Certificate of Live Birth or “Certification of Miscarriage” from a licensed doctor to prove that her pregnancy had terminated naturally;
2.) The law would set a dangerous precedent, allowing governmental authority over our bodies;
3.) Due to the current way that we teach our kids to be totally, and completely TERRIFIED of having a baby, women are so terrified of having babies that they will find a way to get an abortion, whether legal or not. If that include a rusty hangar in a back alley tenement, then the risk is worth not having your life ruined, or being punished with a child. Adoption never enters her mind.
4.) And finally, out of one side of our mouths, we say “TEACH ABSTINENCE ONLY” and out of the other, we wonder why we have a huge teenage pregnancy issue.

Additionally, I find it quite strange that Christians the world over, instead of offering HELP to the young women, and providing alternatives to abortion, like adoption, for instance, focus on demonizing and haranguing people associated with abortion, and attempting to pass laws outlawing it. They apparently didn’t understand what Jesus said when he directed us to “render unto Caesar.” A law against abortion is the exact opposite of “rendering unto Caesar” and it confuses me when that is forgotten.

Onwards and upwards…

First off, I don’t want to post personal information about my family member. I don’t even want to post how she is related. I’ve made a promise to my family to leave them out of my blog life, and so I fear I should never have brought her up in the first place. Let us forget that she exists, shall we?

Unfortunately, in doing so, I have disallowed you good folks the ability to impeach her story, and therefore, in the spirit of fairness, I have rendered her testimony on the issue as null and void; I am basically starting back at square one.

So, to begin…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_...and_extraction

This describes the process of puncturing the child’s brain with forceps, opening the wound, then sucking the brain out. The baby is presumably still alive when the implement is stabbed into their brain stem. That the alternative method is to cut the fetus up is irrelevant. My point was that babies at this stage of gestation can be viable. That is, at least partially, the purpose for the incision and suction, to ensure that babies do not survive the process. The other purpose is to more easily get the baby’s head past the cervix.

And secondly, to babies surviving the procedure laid out above (for whatever reason, as I can think of very little reason a baby would survive having it’s brain sucked out)… It does happen.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle597136.ece

I swear, I couldn’t find a damn thing about this from any un-biased US source, and that was the standard that Chloe charged me with here, so I probably fail in that regard. Apparently, newspapers on the continent don’t want to touch the issue. However, in the brave old UK, I found the above article, lethal injections and all. There was the one quote where the man essentially said that if a baby is born alive, and you let it die, that you are guilty of murder. So apparently, they lethally inject it before it comes out, in most cases, but also apparently, not always, since it seems at least 50 babies survived last year, and their fates are seemingly unknown (although at 20 weeks, the chances of survival are pretty grim).

In any case, I don’t think it is that big a logical jump to conclude that aborted babies have survived outside the womb for periods of time subsequent to the procedure. Rather medical attempts to prolong the life would be futile or not is another matter, but the argument was that babies are dying outside the womb after basically being discarded. If a doctor determines that there is no chance of resuscitation, can’t he decide to not try? Can’t he simply discard the baby like he would have with my leg had I actually succeeded in cutting it off with that chainsaw last summer?(long story, for another date.)

I guess the whole point of my original post was to point out that some of you were pooh-poohing something that does, indeed, seem to happen, and is, indeed, a pretty wretched and horrible thing. It isn’t really even an issue that is that near and dear to me, to be honest, it was more a response to the quickness that folks on here went to making fun of the OP instead of truly analyzing the content. Some of it is valid. It is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.

It is always easier to deride someone in opposition to you as being wrong. It is not nearly so easy to truly look at what they say and explain WHY they are wrong.

Oh, and Chloe, never fear disagreeing with the Goobster. So long as it is kept civil and logical, I am very thick skinned. Unlike many, I don’t take disagreements on issues personally, I simply reply logically. Thanks for the discussion!

PS, my NFBSKing back is killing me….

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

Originally Posted by Goober

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle597136.ece

Abortion on demand is allowed in Britain up to 24 weeks

That's not true for a start, so the article may not be as unbiased as you think.

[Natalie]

Originally Posted by Goober

What about the president of that University (help me out here, folks, which one was it?) that lost his job last year for saying that "studies have shown that women simply do not perform as well as men in math and science". This, also, was backed by a study, but he was fired for basically speaking the truth.

You're probably thinking of Larry Summers, who was the president of Harvard. I will note, though, that your memory of his resignation is missing a few key details:

- Summers wasn't fired, he resigned.
- Summers didn't just assert that men and women perform differently in math or science careers. He suggested that there were reasons other than socialization to explain that difference, i.e. that men are inherently more gifted in math and science. This position is not supported by scientific research.
- He didn't resign just because of that particular incident. In 2001 and 2002 he attracted news attention for different statements he had made without thinking.