Is the League of Women Voters really nonpartisan?

[MooseNSquirrel]

Here in California the LWV had positions on several Propositions and spent huge amount of dollars advertising and lobbying for these Propositions. They also had political forums where their questions and interviews of candidates were blatantly pro-Democrat and anti-Republican. I have no problem with them being a Democrat organization, but they're not a "non-partisan" group nor should they be considered one.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/0...es-resigns-in-protest-of-anti-scott-brown-ad/

Propositions != political party

Nor do their actions viewed through your biased monocle make them partisan.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

From what I can gather glancing at this thread, it seems they independantly came up with their platform, but they're very careful not to back a particular party. I have a hard time calling them partisan considering that. It's not surprising that they butt heads with many parts of the republican platform considering the degree republicans antagonize women, nor is it surprising considering the average women's disposition that many parts of their platform are of the for the greater good type ideas.

 

[ShawnD1]

So what you are saying is that Democrats are supporting eugenics?

I think most pro-choice people see it as an individual issue - my body my choice (to kill). I might be the only person who sees the bigger picture and how it affects overall society. I totally support self-eugenics. At this time, I have no intention of having kids because I think it would be cruel to pass my medical problems on to another generation. Sarah Silverman said she doesn't want kids because she has struggled with depression for much of her life and she wouldn't want her kids to go through the same struggle.

It seems really weird that conservatives are mostly pro-life. Conservatives complain about deadbeat mothers who live on welfare and have 8 kids, but then in the next sentence they say that abortion should be illegal and deadbeat women should be forced to have 8 kids instead of aborting them. wtf? It just doesn't make sense to me.

And democrats want to leave important life choices up to pregnant teenagers (clearly because they have demonstrated such good judgement).

Or they could adopt my position - actively encourage people to have abortions. If a person can't even figure out how a condom works, it's better for all of us if they don't reproduce at this time. With a public campaign to encourage abortion, we could make my dream a reality. Look how effective the anti-smoking campaign was for discouraging smoking.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Women's reproductive rights are, by and large, a women's issue, and when they have morons on the Republican side calling women "sluts" for daring to advocate in favor of their own personal freedoms, the only once to blame for the LWV siding with Democratic causes is the Republicans themselves.

Rush was out of line for calling her a slut but I didn't realize that having someone else pay for your family planning was a personal freedom. Frankly using the work freedom in this context makes a mockery of the word itself.

 

[ShawnD1]

Rush was out of line for calling her a slut but I didn't realize that having someone else pay for your family planning was a personal freedom. Frankly using the work freedom in this context makes a mockery of the word itself.

You're missing her point. It's not about her freedom to have sex without children. It's your freedom to not be attacked or robbed by those unwanted children.

According to this church, people in jail are really messed up.

In the state of Ohio penal and correctional
facilities the following applies:
• 67% come from a broken or dysfunctional
home
• 95% of men in prison had no father figure
• 67% have prior prison records (recidivism)
• 75% have drug/alcohol abuse issues
• 80% of female inmates have been physically,
mentally, sexually, or emotionally abused
• 50% of male inmates have been physically or
mentally abused
• 40% are below the literacy rate that would
allow them to function normally in society

Subsidizing whore monal birth control for skanks has the following negatives:
-your taxes increase by an extremely small amount

Not subsidizing birth control and pro-abortion legislation has the following negatives:
-welfare queens with 8 kids
-contributing to the 95% of men in jail who didn't have a father
-shitty high crime parts of town that need to be avoided at all cost
-guys like Al Sharpton saying that the shitty parts of town deserve more government handouts
-women dropping out of school to have a child instead of going to med school and contributing something to society

 

[trenchfoot]

I find it only natural and logical that the LWV objectives are similar to the Dems when it's the Repubs that have openly stated their position on how they want to get rid of planned parenthood, the unbelievable positions they've took on issues concerning rape and even getting rid of children's programming on public TV among other things.

In my mind, the only matter of substance that keeps more women from abandoning the Repub Party is fundamentalist religious doctrine.

The Repub party over the last four years have been quite dispassionate and disrespective of women and their wants and needs, whereas Pres. Obama has made his position quite clear in championing women's rights.

In this light, isn't it pretty obvious what party's platform is more representative of important issues that the LWV are in favor of?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

You're missing her point. It's not about her freedom to have sex without children. It's your freedom to not be attacked or robbed by those unwanted children.

According to this church, people in jail are really messed up.


Subsidizing whore monal birth control for skanks has the following negatives:
-your taxes increase by an extremely small amount

Not subsidizing birth control and pro-abortion legislation has the following negatives:
-welfare queens with 8 kids
-contributing to the 95% of men in jail who didn't have a father
-shitty high crime parts of town that need to be avoided at all cost
-guys like Al Sharpton saying that the shitty parts of town deserve more government handouts
-women dropping out of school to have a child instead of going to med school and contributing something to society

That's a utilitarian argument and has nothing to do with personal freedom. If you want to argue that subsidizing birth control is good policy because it will save me money go ahead, but don't belittle the concept of freedom by pretending pretending that it is in any way related. (BTW I'll completely concede the utilitarian side of the abortion debate)

 

[shira]

But when you beliefs and advocacy on a multitude of issues "just happen" to line up with one particular party...

You seem to think that it's a given that the beliefs of liberals and the beliefs of conservatives have equivalent "truth value." This is the same invalid assumption that leads to the "he said, she said" style of reporting.

There may be two (or more) sides to every argument, but that doesn't mean that each side is equally valid. The obvious point that you conveniently overlook is that the beliefs of the Republican party are consistently, demonstrably WRONG. THAT's why the LWV agrees with most of the positions of the Democratic party.

 

[monovillage]

From what I can gather glancing at this thread, it seems they independantly came up with their platform, but they're very careful not to back a particular party. I have a hard time calling them partisan considering that. It's not surprising that they butt heads with many parts of the republican platform considering the degree republicans antagonize women, nor is it surprising considering the average women's disposition that many parts of their platform are of the for the greater good type ideas.

No, in fact one of the links I posted shows where the President of a LWV chapter resigned when they went out on the partisan limb. They spend huge amounts of money lobbying for various issues such as taxation, school funding, death penalty and redistricting.... etc. These would not be considered "women's issues" but they are standard Democrat issues and positions.
Just because they claim "we're non-partisan" in order to take advantage of tax laws and campaign finance laws doesn't make them non-partisan in reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Remember that the League of Male Imbeciles is the Republican party. Anybody of that ilk is going to see the League of Women's Voters as biased because they will be looking at the issue through a big eyeball sticking out of their ass.