The OFFICIAL United States Presidential Election Thread! IV

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Every other operation undertaken by a minor requires parental consent.

Secondly, if a young girl is abused by her father, do you see that abortion helps cover up the abuse? If the young girl gets pregnant, than that is an indication, that abuse may be present. No pregnancy, no indicator of abuse.

Abortion doesn't help cover up the abuse, you can still gain DNA evidence of what is going on. What it does allow is for the abused teen to avoid having to give birth to a spawn of abuse and incest.

For some things minors are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions. Perhaps there should be an age requirement, but this would probably be something like 14 years old or even lower. Wether or not they want to carry a child to term is such a life-affecting decision they should be able to make it without having to get parental consent; especially in extreme cases such as incest.

In any case, my original point that Kerry would support a ban on partial-birth abortions still stands, and it still stands that most people think he is for them because of Bush.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



Because most of us who talk this way (myself included) are not communists.

Mr. Fun, you leave. Come on. You are a moderate in my view. You and people like you have to assert yourself in the Dem party and push out the socialists.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun
Edwards has very LITTLE support in the South, unfortunately in spite of his roots.

Agreed.

But then, why another Northern liberal like Hillary?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True dat. Only 80% of the voters who listed 'morals' as an important part of their vote voted for Dubya.

Right, because if you are happy with the morals in this country, you aren't going to list it as a primary reason. That is simple human nature. "Moral Values" is a bit of a misnomer anyhow, since a lot of policy decisions can have moral overtones, such as how the war in Iraq is going and economic policy.

I assure you, many of the supporters of Kerry stand quite different on the "moral value" front than the religious right, and the right certainly has absolutely no exclusive claim on morality.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Bush won the misinformation war, and that is why he won the campaign.

Kerry doesn't support all abortions all the time; they bring up his vote against partial birth abortion a lot, but they misrepresent it. Kerry would have voted for the bill if it allowed you to get an abortion without parents being informed (for extreme cases like incestual rape). The Bill mandated parents being informed.

Kerry is not an extreme liberal either; he is simply a little to the left of the average democrat. Factcheck.org goes over this.

Kerry *is* fiscally responsible. He broke with his party many, many times throughout his career to support responsible spending. Bush successfully painted his record as a reckless spending. In reality Kerry is much better than Bush.

Bush successfully got most of his support to think Iraq had WMDs when we went into it. He sucessfully got most supporters to think Iraq highly supported Al Qaeda or was involved in 9/11. All intelligence reports and the 9/11 comission have shown these things to simply not be true.

As I have said, my problem with the election is that the candidates were so miscast on their issues that people didn't understand who they were voting for well. There are a lot of reasons why this was able to happen (campaign problems with Kerry, Karl Rove, the media, etc), but it did happen.

-Drachasor

Drach, Kerry was a Viet Cong flag waver, the man who equated the US Army to the pillaging army of Ghenghis Khan, the man who in the 1980s voted for a nuclear freeze, against deployment of the Pershing missle, against Star Wars and who also criticized our support of anti-Communist freedom fighters across the globe, the man who voted against every major weapon system we have, the man who voted against ejecting Saddam from Kuwait, the man who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and in favor of killing viable fetuses. Kerry also supported/supports the estate tax and taxing the rich. He supports unions over business. He believes that high taxes and strong unions brings jobs and prosperity.

You call such a man only moderately left?

What would a radical support that Kerry did not?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


I hate to break it to you, Ned, but it's not just the "radical left" that identifies with that map.

I sent it around the office (not to EVERYONE, of course), and the reaction was overwhelming. People up here LOVE that map, because it sums up our frustration perfectly. And we are NOT radical leftists, Ned, no matter how many times you say we are.

I do loath religion, though. I make no bones about it. I am willing to tolerate it, however - a significant difference between me and the religionistas. They do not understand tolerance.

-Arrian

Tolerate it?

Ok, what is your position on Christmas?

[Ned]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

21st, actually.

I just went thru the list myself and counted only 13. Perhaps you are contining VPs that were elected in their own right in the 21?

[Ben Kenobi]

Abortion doesn't help cover up the abuse, you can still gain DNA evidence of what is going on. What it does allow is for the abused teen to avoid having to give birth to a spawn of abuse and incest.

Why not put the child up for adoption, and make sure the girl is removed from the abuse?

Right now, what happens, is that the clinics refuse to make any information available even if abuse is suspected. So they have no reason to obtain DNA evidence, because they are complicit in concealing the abuse.

They will never turn away an 11 year old client from the clinic.

For some things minors are perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions. Perhaps there should be an age requirement, but this would probably be something like 14 years old or even lower.

Fine. Would you agree with me that all 13 year old girls need parental consent before they can have an abortion?

Wether or not they want to carry a child to term is such a life-affecting decision they should be able to make it without having to get parental consent; especially in extreme cases such as incest.

How many of these cases involve incest? I tell you, the majority will be from abuse, not from a parent, but from an older man. A majority of the pregnancies of young teens are fathered by men much older than these girls.

So, if most of the pregnancies are due to abuse, then it stands to reason that most of the abortions done to this age group will be a result of abuse too.

What this means, is that there are many young girls who suffer, not only from the abuse, but suffer unnecessarily because the clinics refuse to report the abuse.

In any case, my original point that Kerry would support a ban on partial-birth abortions still stands, and it still stands that most people think he is for them because of Bush.

You lie, Kerry's position is that he wants a health clause added to the bill. What this means is that all partial birth abortions will become justified under this clause.

This is why the senate committee spent so long establishing that there is no medical condition that requires a partial birth abortion.

Finally, consider this. Even if the woman, in a partial birth abortion, did not want her child, there is not need to cut the skull and vacuum out the brains. All you need to do is perform an emergency c-section, and then you will save both the mother and the child.

So why, if there are people willing to take care of these children, do we resort to the one solution that strives to kill a baby?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Arrian

Oh, and I would add about the religion-thing. Most moderates don't care for making right-wing religious values that even the religious are divided upon law. The religious right does not have a monopoly on morality nor does it have a monopoly on religion.

-Drachasor

When you stop calling people of faith "religious right" or "fundamentalists," then people will begin to believe that what you just said was true.

[Gangerolf]

British newspapers today

[Ned]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
I think the thing you US Democrats should be most scared of is that people like Ned are starting to take control of your country...

Soon the USA will be the Nedaverse!

Mobius, I think you socialists really do not understand a pro-business type at all. You appear to think than anyone who supports free enterprise is a radical fascist. Right?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


If that really starts to happen I shall go to Europe. If America becomes more and more isolationist I shall also go to Europe. I want to be part of a country that can look beyond itself, and the EU and how it brings more and more countries into it is quite appealing to me (there are, of course, other reasons as well).

-Drachasor

Please, Drach. Leave at once. Otherwise, get real and really listen to what Republicans have to say as opposed to the what the conspiracy mongers (Michael Moore, for example) say they say.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, Kerry was a Viet Cong flag waver,

This is simply a lie, and your basis for this is based on "Kerry was around a person in a crowd that person went and did this." Ludicrous. He talked to Viet Cong diplomats only about releasing POWs and trying to find a way to peace. Nothing unreasonable.

Originally posted by Ned
the man who equated the US Army to the pillaging army of Ghenghis Khan

The U.S. army did real wrongs in Vietnam including killing women and children. They needed to be discussed.

Originally posted by Ned
the man who in the 1980s voted for a nuclear freeze,

We had enough nukes, especially with the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Originally posted by Ned
against deployment of the Pershing missle,

Not needed given the downfall of the Soviet Union; this was an expensive nuclear delivery system and we simply had more than enough nukes.

Originally posted by Ned
against Star Wars

Star Wars didn't work, was hideously expensive, and wasn't likely to work well in the foreseeable future. Why not vote against it?

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned
and who also criticized our support of anti-Communist freedom fighters across the globe,

Originally posted by Ned
the man who voted against every major weapon system we have,

Another lie, the only weapon system he voted against that wasn't part of a huge bill was the B-2 bomber, which was having major problems and designed as a nuclear delivery system.

His overall voting record has supported the military, and you are trying to act like he and everyone else wasn't cutting the military at the end of the Cold War....hey, I think we cut down on military expenses at the end of WWII too! Those traitors, how dare they demobilize!

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned
the man who voted against ejecting Saddam from Kuwait

Originally posted by Ned
the man who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act and in favor of killing viable fetuses.

Ooo, is Ned afraid of gays kissing each other? That's a serious complaint?

I already addressed the abortion issue, it was taken out of context.

Originally posted by Ned
Kerry also supported/supports the estate tax and taxing the rich.

How dare they tax the rich! WTF! And the Estate Tax helps makes things stay competetive by making everyone find their own way more.

Originally posted by Ned
He supports unions over business.

So he defends the working man, so what?

Originally posted by Ned
He believes that high taxes and strong unions brings jobs and prosperity.

He's been a strong deficit hawk, and has encourage the government to spend well. He has voted for a heck of a lot more tax decreases than tax increases. He believes that a middle class with money can help the economy grow really well. The nobel price is Economics this year agrees.

Originally posted by Ned
You call such a man only moderately left?

Yes!

Originally posted by Ned
What would a radical support that Kerry did not?

Welfare without responsibility or job encouragement. No military. No war. All abortions legal. High taxes on everyone. Government ownership of everything, etc, etc, etc.

-Drachasor

[Ben Kenobi]

Right, because if you are happy with the morals in this country, you aren't going to list it as a primary reason.

Why would the group devoted to relativism, vote for any moral?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
When you stop calling people of faith "religious right" or "fundamentalists," then people will begin to believe that what you just said was true.

Are you dense? I am calling people that are the religious right the religious right.

People of faith are a much broader category and include people like the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

-Drachasor