Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Why would anyone object to you delivering your own son at home? That's absurd.
Fear-mongering.
"What if something goes wrong? What if the cord was wrapped around the neck? What if?"
I tried to explain the difference between our hospital delivery in 2007 in which my wife needed stitches and bled for six weeks after the doctor pulled out the afterbirth. Here at home, she bled ten days, was up walking around within that same hour of delivery, and needed no stitches.
What I tried to get across to her was this: There are two kinds of people, really. There are those who consistently do their job well, and those who do not. The thing is, almost all of us fall into that latter category. No matter how much schooling and training you've had, and no matter how many books you've read, you're still a human being. There will be days when you're cranky, tired, upset over something, distracted, or just eager to get home- some days when a half-assed job is "good enough."
Our country, in our "us and them" fashion, makes a sharp differentiation between "professionals" and laypersons. It's one or the other, but I don't see it that way. I can deliver a baby, but I cannot perform a kidney transplant (doesn't mean I never could- again, doctors are just people who learned how to do something).
Apparently PA has tightened also but without resources being spent there I think that is highly unlikely to flip.
When I read this, I at first thought you were talking about the Prog Archives vote. It is true that neither campaign has put much money into flipping Prog fans over to their side.
Oh this is no swing state. PA is blue as the sea...
Though ironically PA overall probably leans much more towards Red! Well more like socialist so pink I guess?
Pennsylvania is a funny state. Philly and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between. While almost every state is not really "blue" or "red" but divided... PA is very much so. It probably wont flip because, well it doesn't really make sense. Blue will stay blue, red will stay red, there's not much middle ground to be flipped.
I spent a few years in "Pennsyltucky" and honestly its not an area that Democrats seem to target I personally saw one Obama commercial, and it was just some country looking guy saying "I like guns but Im voting for Obama" that was the extent of their effort!
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: October 28 2012 at 11:58
Epignosis wrote:
I did find it bizarre, though, that a person who is (presumably) pro-choice would castigate our decision to deliver our third son at home.
I actually find that bizarre too. I disagree with you about just about everything, but your decision to deliver your third son at home is a personal decision between you and your wife. It's rather silly for someone who is supposedly liberal to take exception to your own personal decisions. But ah well, some people really are not as liberal as they think they are. I also find doctors to be highly overrated. So, good for you.
However, I will not be scheduling kidney transplant surgery with you anytime in the near future.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 775
Posted: October 28 2012 at 13:07
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I disagree with Obama on abortion, but I think he is moral for coming at it with a viewpoint that what is immoral does not necessarily equate to what should be illegal, and I am disgusted by the Christians out there who imply that you can't be a Christian and hold that viewpoint. I am disgusted by Billy Graham who hems and haws around Obama's Christianity (even after Obama told him personally that he was) and says things like "well, I can't say for sure that he's not a Muslim", and then turns around and removes statements from his website that say that Mormonism is a cult when the Republican candidate is a Mormon. And finally, I don't think there's much likelihood that Roe Vs. Wade is going to be overturned even IF Romney became president - I think saying "I'm against abortion" is the easiest thing to do as a Republican, and doesn't really mean much. It's like saying "if I had a gazillion dollars, I'd end poverty." It's not gonna happen! So why should I make that the issue that I base my vote 100% on?! Add to this the fact that people like Paul Ryan have basically been committing legal treason against the country for the last four years, and it makes no sense that Christian Republicans act all self righteous about holding the moral high ground in politics. I'd rather vote for someone I disagree with on some occasions who is actually trying to help than to vote for an evil two-faced liar who has been sabotaging the country in order to try to make Obama look bad because the #1 priority has been to get him out of office.
Abortion will never become illegal... but at my duty to Christ I have to stand up for what I believe. As the infamous quote said, "it's evil when good men do nothing" or something like that...
I did find it bizarre, though, that a person who is (presumably) pro-choice would castigate our decision to deliver our third son at home.
I actually find that bizarre too. I disagree with you about just about everything, but your decision to deliver your third son at home is a personal decision between you and your wife. It's rather silly for someone who is supposedly liberal to take exception to your own personal decisions. But ah well, some people really are not as liberal as they think they are. I also find doctors to be highly overrated. So, good for you.
However, I will not be scheduling kidney transplant surgery with you anytime in the near future.
Abortion will never become illegal... but at my duty to Christ I have to stand up for what I believe. As the infamous quote said, "it's evil when good men do nothing" or something like that...
So you would vote for someone who essentially committed treason against our country just because he believes the same way you do on that ONE issue, rather than vote for someone who is trying to help the country and you disagree with....
How far do you take that? Where is the line drawn? If Obama was running against Hitler, and Hitler was anti-abortion, you'd vote for Hitler? How evil does a candidate have to be before you say "ok, this one issue isn't going to decide my vote any more"?
Abortion will never become illegal... but at my duty to Christ I have to stand up for what I believe. As the infamous quote said, "it's evil when good men do nothing" or something like that...
So you would vote for someone who essentially committed treason against our country just because he believes the same way you do on that ONE issue, rather than vote for someone who is trying to help the country and you disagree with....
I am sure AlexDOM differs from Obama on more than one issue.
Authorizing the indefinite detention of US citizens without a trial or assassinating US citizens without a trial really sings, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."
If dtguitarfan is a fan of Obama like he is of Mike Mangini, I tell you this debate is leading nowhere
I like Obama. I don't think he's the messiah. But I like him, and think he was a better choice than McCain, and definitely think he's a better choice than Romney. I think choosing a president is like choosing someone to fill any other job, and I think to many people hyper-emotionalize the issue, and one of the reasons I don't like the Republican party as a whole any more is that they participate in this hyper-emotionalization way too much - they loose all sense and simply demonize on every single issue, no matter what, and in the end look like a bunch of idiots.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: October 28 2012 at 14:10
I just think it's funny that you are apparently blind to the fact that the Democratic party does the exact same thing. Heck, their entire platform is based on hyper-emotion.
I just think it's funny that you are apparently blind to the fact that the Democratic party does the exact same thing. Heck, their entire platform is based on hyper-emotion.
To some extent, I'd agree with you, but I don't think Obama participates in it and that's one of the things I respect about him. And I do think that the Republican party seems to do it more these days at least. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the fact that a Democrat has been president for the last four years - I do recognize that. But try going to Politifact, and checking the "pants on fire" feed. You'll go through pages and pages of nothing but anti-Obama pants on fire lies, and very few coming from the other side. And if you read the text of the lies, it's very demonizing.
I think lately the Republican party has shown a "win at all costs" philosophy, and they don't care how much harm they do as long as they're also harming Obama's image, and it disgusts me.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: October 28 2012 at 14:27
dtguitarfan wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I just think it's funny that you are apparently blind to the fact that the Democratic party does the exact same thing. Heck, their entire platform is based on hyper-emotion.
To some extent, I'd agree with you, but I don't think Obama participates in it and that's one of the things I respect about him. And I do think that the Republican party seems to do it more these days at least. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the fact that a Democrat has been president for the last four years - I do recognize that. But try going to Politifact, and checking the "pants on fire" feed. You'll go through pages and pages of nothing but anti-Obama pants on fire lies, and very few coming from the other side. And if you read the text of the lies, it's very demonizing.
Yeah, that's because Politifact (which I read daily) is from the St. Petersburg Times, a very left-wing newspaper. Their articles are pretty fair if yo actually read them, but the claims they choose to rate and a lot of the ratings themselves are quite biased. They often rate Republican claims false or mostly false when they are "technically true, but misleading" whereas they give more leeway to Democrats.
An example is the apology tour bit, which they rated pants on fire multiple times (I can't think of other times they've repeatedly rated the same claim.) They said it was a lie because Obama didn't use the word "apologize" or "sorry," but that's an incredibly narrow definition of apology. Websters defines an apology as "an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret." That is exactly, unequivocally what Obama did overseas. To repeatedly rate this claim "pants on fire" is evidence of their bias.
I just think it's funny that you are apparently blind to the fact that the Democratic party does the exact same thing. Heck, their entire platform is based on hyper-emotion.
To some extent, I'd agree with you, but I don't think Obama participates in it and that's one of the things I respect about him. And I do think that the Republican party seems to do it more these days at least. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the fact that a Democrat has been president for the last four years - I do recognize that. But try going to Politifact, and checking the "pants on fire" feed. You'll go through pages and pages of nothing but anti-Obama pants on fire lies, and very few coming from the other side. And if you read the text of the lies, it's very demonizing.
Yeah, that's because Politifact (which I read daily) is from the St. Petersburg Times, a very left-wing newspaper. Their articles are pretty fair if yo actually read them, but the claims they choose to rate and a lot of the ratings themselves are quite biased. They often rate Republican claims false or mostly false when they are "technically true, but misleading" whereas they give more leeway to Democrats.An example is the apology tour bit, which they rated pants on fire multiple times (I can't think of other times they've repeatedly rated the same claim.) They said it was a lie because Obama didn't use the word "apologize" or "sorry," but that's an incredibly narrow definition of apology. Websters defines an apology as "<span ="ssens">an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret</span>." That is exactly, unequivocally what Obama did overseas. To repeatedly rate this claim "pants on fire" is evidence of their bias.
But he doesn't apologize - he negotiates. As they've pointed out on Politifact, he has often used the tactic of pointing out American mistakes but countering that with praise of American ideals. He presses the point of moving past the mistakes of the past and working together - why is this something worthy of attack? I think that pressing this "apology tour" lie is telling, because it basically implies that Romney would be a stuck up jerk to other countries and would never use diplomacy - is that who you really want leading?
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: October 28 2012 at 14:51
dtguitarfan wrote:
But he doesn't apologize - he negotiates. As they've pointed out on Politifact, he has often used the tactic of pointing out American mistakes but countering that with praise of American ideals. He presses the point of moving past the mistakes of the past and working together - why is this something worthy of attack? I think that pressing this "apology tour" lie is telling, because it basically implies that Romney would be a stuck up jerk to other countries and would never use diplomacy - is that who you really want leading?
It isn't a lie! It is the dictionary definition of an apology! Whether you agree with what he said is not the issue. My point is that the fact that Politifact has rated this statement seven times, but has ignored Joe Biden saying that Republicans want to put black people back in chains, or Chris Matthews saying that Romney's abortion position is like Sharia law shows you that they can not be trusted as a source of which party is worse about lying.
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: October 28 2012 at 15:01
You know who I hate more than politicians? Weathermen! They are the worst liars of all.
This morning weather.com said there was a 100% change of rain where I live at 1:00pm. One rolls around, no rain. How can it be 100% chance if there is a chance it will not rain? Then it said 100% change of rain at 3:00PM. Three comes, no rain. Then it's 100% chance at 5:00PM. It's 4:00 now, and they've dropped that prediction to 40%. Now they say 100% chance of rain at 9:00PM.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: October 28 2012 at 15:12
thellama73 wrote:
You know who I hate more than politicians? Weathermen! They are the worst liars of all.
This morning weather.com said there was a 100% change of rain where I live at 1:00pm. One rolls around, no rain. How can it be 100% chance if there is a chance it will not rain? Then it said 100% change of rain at 3:00PM. Three comes, no rain. Then it's 100% chance at 5:00PM. It's 4:00 now, and they've dropped that prediction to 40%. Now they say 100% chance of rain at 9:00PM.
It's not a 100% chance if it could change!
Why does anyone pay these people money?
In Italy they imprison weathermen (well, geologists anyway) who make faulty predictions.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
Posted: October 28 2012 at 15:16
dtguitarfan wrote:
smartpatrol wrote:
That's hilarious, thanks for sharing!
FYI, RE: "Go follow the Klan, Ann."
The KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. It's a little tiresome to be constantly labelled racist by the repetition of false history.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.633 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Political discussion thread
Topic Options
thellama73 wrote:
