Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Proof that John Kerry is Unfit for Command -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (24896)	11/7/2004 8:44:25 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27181

"What I'm not sure of is how Rove managed to tag Kerry as "liberal" rather than moderate and make it stick. " Easy - Senate voting record - especially as revealed by a non partisan rating organization. Then - the hippie stuff after Vietnam. The tag was an easy stickon. He would have been far better of by claiming the label proudly. He could not even do that. PS: Can anyone explain why Edwards was picked? In retrospec that was a terrible choice.

To: cirrus who wrote (24896)	11/8/2004 12:14:09 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27181

His view on the hot-button issue of partial birth abortion was that is was a "no" unless the mother's life was in danger That is the popular bullshit answer to that incredibly horrific act. The child is delivered feet first through the birth canal. A difficult and stressful delivery and in itself the great risk to the mother if ill. I can also be delivered in the traditional and natural direction, but they have found too many times the baby's foot kicks out and then, due to their semantics, they are killers when they dispatch it. A small portion of the child is left in the birth canal and an instrument is forced into the back of the baby skull and the brains are mangled. They are then sucked out, collapsing the head and the "birth" is completed. Now what possible risk would occur if they simply delivered the child but didn't kill it? Does killing it transfer some great living energy to the mother? Does allowing it to live sap the mother magically of her life's energy? Why not just attempt to save the fetus and if it doesn't survive, all well and good, but if it does, all the better. Is it a fear of a hopsital bill for neonatal care? My x-wife delivered our daughter 6 weeks early. She was tiny....she could be held in one hand. She is now 5'9" attractive and manages a restaurant in California. I am tired and possibly this could have been written in better order, but there is simply no "risk to the mother" that is avoided by killing the child. I would love to hear a scenario where it is. Now the risk to the mother of continuing to carry the child may be the reason for the procedure. But the reason for killing the child remains a matter that has never been adequately explained. That is why I react to the statement in such a way. It is absolutely incorrect and deceptive. Plus Kerry has never been anythng but VERY liberal.... ;)