US Presidential Elections

[Pop]

I'm something of a pragmatist when it comes to this. None of this pregnancy stuff is at all relevant to the election, that much is obvious. But then, neither is Barack Obama's religious background, neither is his propensity for wearing American flag regalia, and both of those things have been tried (and both failed) against Obama by the Repubs and their homeboys at Fox. I like to think of how this all would have played out were it not "Bristol Palin" but "Chelsea Clinton". It would be an unmitigated ****storm. All us liberal types go on and on about "running a better sort of campaign" than the Republicans, but it's all smoke. Voters respond to negative ads. They make decisions based on sound bites and irrational slogans and slanders. That's why the Republicans seem to be so much better at politics. ****, this isn't even on the same level as the rumours that Bill had 23 people murdered.

 

The dems needs to start throwing punches, mercilessly. They can't expect any less from their opponents. The High Road is going to get us nowhere. The only trick of it will be doing it entirely through the DNC and keeping Obama's image clean, which I think is certainly doable. All advantages must be exploited. Repub lawyers will have boned up on election law come November, hoping to negate as many democratic votes as possible for minor infractions or by simple bullying. For ****'s sake, this election is a matter of global security. Either we continue the last 8 years of policy or we don't. Either we make Iraq a permanent holding or we don't. 4 more years of republican executive power has got to result in at least another 15 years of blowback in the Middle East. Dignity and self-respect are small sacrifices in the face of so much potential suffering.

 

Also of note, the Oscar-nominated documentary No End In Sight is streaming for free on Youtube until 11/5 (the day after the election). By most accounts it's the best of the Iraq-centric documentaries to have come out so far.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Pop

[Humodour]

Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reports: At a press avail in Monroe, Mich., Barack Obama on Palin: "Back off these kinds of stories."

 

"I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn

[Volourn]

"For ****'s sake, this election is a matter of global security."

 

No, it isn't.

[Volourn]

Except if you think the US gov't foreign policy will change so dramatically depending which is voted into office, you are sadly mistaken.

 

And, oh, just to let you know... the US President unlike actual dictators doesn't have full control of anything. Your personal attacks side, you should that.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Personally I don't care about Palin's pregnant daughter. That is a private family matter and is irrelevant. What is relevant is her view on various issues of state and her judgment. The one major issue that reflects her goals and aims is her work with the Alaskan Independence Party. This is a political party whose soul purpose to get Alaska to secede from the Union and be its own country. Alaska is one of the richest sources of natural resources we have and we cannot have a candidate who will be one heartbeat away from the presidency who wanted to take it away.

[themadhatter114]

Palin spoke with her obstetrician before flying back to Alaska. A relative of mine's water broke right before she went to bed and she waited until morning to go to the hospital. The only problem she had was that she got there too late to get an epidural. The baby is perfectly fine. Of course morons like Alan Colmes think that "poor prenatal care" can result in genetic disorders.

 

People who are framing this election as a referendum on doing a good job but it's a dishonest tactic. George Bush has frequently alienated the base of the Republican party and hopefully he will change the course a little bit. As for Sarah Palin, she is definitely NOT a neo-con. She's a social conservative, yes, but she has ties to Alaska's Libertarian Party.

 

And in case you are unaware, the end to the Iraq war will be exactly the same whether we elect Obama or McCain. George Bush has already negotiated a timeline for withdrawal which is unlikely to be improved upon by McCain or Obama, and Obama capitulated in finally conceding that he would actually listen to the situation before demanding an immediate withdrawal. Troops are retreating from the cities and major combat zones already.

[themadhatter114]

Personally I don't care about Palin's pregnant daughter. That is a private family matter and is irrelevant. What is relevant is her view on various issues of state and her judgment. The one major issue that reflects her goals and aims is her work with the Alaskan Independence Party. This is a political party whose soul purpose to get Alaska to secede from the Union and be its own country. Alaska is one of the richest sources of natural resources we have and we cannot have a candidate who will be one heartbeat away from the presidency who wanted to take it away.

 

This is a lie. The Alaskan Independence party was founded by the same man who founded the Alaskan Libertarian Party. The Alaskan Independence party's platform is that the original vote on Alaska's statehood was illegal. They want a re-vote with 4 options. Among those options is the decision to remain a state. Membership in the party does not imply a position on which of the 4 options you prefer.

 

So perhaps before you comment on their sole purpose you should research them a little bit.

 

The other lie is that she ever worked with the Alaskan Independence Party. They claim she was a member 12 years ago but there's no record of that. She did address their convention, showing support for their role in the democratic process and support for their standard of personal freedom.

 

I'd personally respect her more if she actually were a member of the Libertarian or Alaskan Independence Party. Regardless, it's a total non-controversy.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Sorry, but my view on her stands. I have done quite a bit of research on her on various news sites, and she is definitely not a person I want anywhere near the White House.

[Meshugger]

People, people. The whole baby-gate,being a bad parent, her daughter's future husband being a red-neck, highschool dropout, or whether her church is run by a bunch of cuckoo's are just pot-shots from people, like me, that have already long before decided that she is definately not the best choice as a VP.

 

This is just the icing of the cake, having some fun, like how 'conserned' conservatives were about reverend Wright, or Michelle's 'for the first time, i am proud to be an american. Like they would've voted for the guy anyway. Any grown-up understands this, right?

 

Again, i wouldn't vote for candidate, whose VP is:

 

- Anti-abortion, even if the woman was raped.

- Pro-Creationism, as it is a perfect theory to be alongside evolution.

- Anti-stemcell research.

- Pro-drilling, like that would solve any problems. This is just cheap-points for 'conserned conservatives'.

- Promotes abstinence-only for sexual education.

 

Even if she doesn't have any political power to set any of those principles in motion, there's the one simple rule: She doesn't represent me, or anything remotely to my views.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Meshugger

[themadhatter114]

Sorry, but my view on her stands. I have done quite a bit of research on her on various news sites, and she is definitely not a person I want anywhere near the White House.

 

Yes, of course, and you likely weren't going to vote for her anyway. That doesn't justify lying about her membership in a party and lying about that party. I'm glad that you dodged the issue of spreading a lie about her and then just stated that you weren't voting for her, which is not an argument. I'm sure you approve of the Obama campaign's attempts to link her to anti-Semitism.

 

I am a conservative/libertarian, and I'm not voting for Obama because I don't agree with him on any issue, but I don't spread lies about him.

[themadhatter114]

People, people. The whole baby-gate,being a bad parent, her daughter's future husband being a red-neck, highschool dropout, or whether her church is run by a bunch of cuckoo's are just pot-shots from people, like me, that have already long before decided that she is definately not the best choice as a VP.

 

This is just the icing of the cake, having some fun, like how 'conserned' conservatives were about reverend Wright, or Michelle's 'for the first time, i am proud to be an american. Like they would've voted for the guy anyway. Any grown-up understands this, right?

 

Again, i wouldn't vote for candidate, whose VP is:

 

- Anti-abortion, even if the woman was raped.

- Pro-Creationism, as it is a perfect theory to be alongside evolution.

- Anti-stemcell research.

- Pro-drilling, like that would solve any problems. This is just cheap-points for 'conserned conservatives'.

- Promotes abstinence-only for sexual education.

 

Even if she doesn't have any political power to set any of those principles in motion, there's the one simple rule: She doesn't represent me, or anything remotely to my views.

 

Of course, it makes you no more mature than those who rag on Obama for things unrelated to his (in my view) terrible policies.

 

But, you seem to be confused, anyone who is pro-life who thinks that a rape changes the rights of the unborn is likely being disingenuous because it's an incoherent belief. Though there are indeed plenty of people that think the accused have less rights when it comes to a rape accusation, so there probably really are people who think that an unborn child has rights but not so if his mother was raped.

 

Sarah Palin did not make an issue of creationism, and she vowed to not use it as an issue to judge Board of Education members that she would appoint. Intelligent Design is actually on the Republican platform in Alaska and she actually distanced herself from that but not too much.

 

You likely don't have any clue about what drilling would do for this country. There is no reason for us not to tap the oil resources that we have in this country and liberal talking points about how it won't help are ridiculous considering that they don't have better alternatives.

 

My issue with "comprehensive" sex education is that it's dishonest. Sex educators, in order to push their agenda, overstate the effectiveness of birth control and of condoms. They don't want kids to know that condoms don't protect remarkably well against HPV. They lie about AIDS statistics. They refuse to tell people how much more likely you are to get AIDS through anal intercourse. Then they laugh and say "Abstinence-only education doesn't work!" when most studies have simply shown that it's not more effective than "comprehensive" sex education. Have you seen a study that shows that it's less effective? Do you know any teenagers that don't know what a condom is?

 

I don't advocate drilling abstinence into the skulls of kids in schools. I don't advocate drilling sexual values into kids in schools. I advocate NOT lying to them about the risks that they take even when using contraception. I advocate giving them facts and letting them decide. I advocate letting parents teach values to their children.

Edited September 3, 2008 by themadhatter114

[SteveThaiBinh]

[Meshugger]

Of course, it makes you no more mature than those who rag on Obama for things unrelated to his (in my view) terrible policies.

 

But, you seem to be confused, anyone who is pro-life who thinks that a rape changes the rights of the unborn is likely being disingenuous because it's an incoherent belief. Though there are indeed plenty of people that think the accused have less rights when it comes to a rape accusation, so there probably really are people who think that an unborn child has rights but not so if his mother was raped.

 

Abortion is a non-issue, or atleast it should be. When does the fetus become a person? Should we criminilize doctors and women who do it? When does life exactly begin? Hell, life maybe even started billions of years ago, and i haven't seen any signs of it stopping, an abortion certainly doesn't cancel it.

 

Point being, there's no universal truth in that matter, and all that i see is cynical politicians using it as a bait to get the christian right out of their churches and into the voting, only to be duped time after time.

 

Sarah Palin did not make an issue of creationism, and she vowed to not use it as an issue to judge Board of Education members that she would appoint. Intelligent Design is actually on the Republican platform in Alaska and she actually distanced herself from that but not too much.

 

Too vague. Considering her own comments about the issue before, i want to see her advocating separation between the church and the state, which ID and creationism is trying to erase.

 

You likely don't have any clue about what drilling would do for this country. There is no reason for us not to tap the oil resources that we have in this country and liberal talking points about how it won't help are ridiculous considering that they don't have better alternatives.

 

You are clearly mistaken me on this issue, if the situation mandates that alaskan oil will save the united states for all eternity, or atleast 50-100 years, then sure, why not? As it is now, I rather focus more on renewable or alternative sources of energy that would make the whole world less dependent on the arab oil.

 

My issue with "comprehensive" sex education is that it's dishonest. Sex educators, in order to push their agenda, overstate the effectiveness of birth control and of condoms. They don't want kids to know that condoms don't protect remarkably well against HPV. They lie about AIDS statistics. They refuse to tell people how much more likely you are to get AIDS through anal intercourse. Then they laugh and say "Abstinence-only education doesn't work!" when most studies have simply shown that it's not more effective than "comprehensive" sex education. Have you seen a study that shows that it's less effective? Do you know any teenagers that don't know what a condom is?

 

I don't advocate drilling abstinence into the skulls of kids in schools. I don't advocate drilling sexual values into kids in schools. I advocate NOT lying to them about the risks that they take even when using contraception. I advocate giving them facts and letting them decide. I advocate letting parents teach values to their children.

 

What hell....? Where do get this info from? Sex educators with a seperate agenda? And what is this agenda exactly? Making the youth f*** more and get all kinds of STD's for their amusement? Who gains amything from this? Satan?

 

Where i live, the sex education was done by the biology teacher, who brought up all the very points that you claim that they do not do. While the class was really boring, since it was done from a biologist POW, it worked, since there was no morale behind it. And i certainly didn't see any "PRO-F***", or "PAYED BY THE CONDOM-FACTORY"-pin on him. Hell, he even brought up several myths about 'not getting pregnant without using a condom' as well. And finally, he added: "Condom's may break, and there's a single-digit procentage that they didn't worked on that particular time, and birth-control pills don't work against STD's at all. You can all just skip it all and don't have sex at all. But we are humans after all, and i expect you to have good judgement in a mature manner when the time comes."

 

And what studies have you seen again? In Europe, where sex in general is handled in a much more mature way, studies have shown that the introduction of sex education has dropped abortion rates considerably, and the same with STD's as well. Look at Ireland's total lack of sex education in the 80's. Thousands of kids had to take the boat to Great Britain to perform the procedure. And guess what happened when they introduced some normal sex-ed? I leave that to you.

[Hurlshort]

These are politicians, people, they aren't going to come out and say what their true beliefs are. Palin, in many ways, was simply pandering to here majority with her stances on creationism and drilling.

 

Her views on abortion and sex ed. are pretty clear though. That abstinence policy seems super effective ;-)

[Pop]

We're on a mission from God.

 

Also, The Daily Show is always at its best during the conventions (scroll down for video)

[themadhatter114]

Of course, it makes you no more mature than those who rag on Obama for things unrelated to his (in my view) terrible policies.

 

But, you seem to be confused, anyone who is pro-life who thinks that a rape changes the rights of the unborn is likely being disingenuous because it's an incoherent belief. Though there are indeed plenty of people that think the accused have less rights when it comes to a rape accusation, so there probably really are people who think that an unborn child has rights but not so if his mother was raped.

 

Abortion is a non-issue, or atleast it should be. When does the fetus become a person? Should we criminilize doctors and women who do it? When does life exactly begin? Hell, life maybe even started billions of years ago, and i haven't seen any signs of it stopping, an abortion certainly doesn't cancel it.

 

Point being, there's no universal truth in that matter, and all that i see is cynical politicians using it as a bait to get the christian right out of their churches and into the voting, only to be duped time after time.

 

That's not the point. You are the one that is criticizing Palin because she believes life begins at conception and because she doesn't compromise that belief by making an exception for women who claim to be rape victims. I don't care how many abortions anyone has, kill all the born or unborn babies you want as long as you stay away from mine. But I don't think abortion is a right and I don't think it deserves federal funding and I don't think think that the federal judiciary can just create an incoherent right to abortion by invoking "privacy."

 

These "cynical" politicians are the ones who appoint judges who will actually make rulings based on the Constitution and let the people and not the courts decide the laws. They are also the ones who confirm those judges. If the people of America want abortion to be legal, they should vote in their local elections and not expect the federal government to protect their non-right.

 

Sarah Palin did not make an issue of creationism, and she vowed to not use it as an issue to judge Board of Education members that she would appoint. Intelligent Design is actually on the Republican platform in Alaska and she actually distanced herself from that but not too much.

 

Too vague. Considering her own comments about the issue before, i want to see her advocating separation between the church and the state, which ID and creationism is trying to erase.

 

She doesn't have to campaign against it. She merely has to express what she will do as governor to keep the issue out of her office. She's actually a pretty savvy politician and isn't going to trash the views of those who elected her.

 

You likely don't have any clue about what drilling would do for this country. There is no reason for us not to tap the oil resources that we have in this country and liberal talking points about how it won't help are ridiculous considering that they don't have better alternatives.

 

You are clearly mistaken me on this issue, if the situation mandates that alaskan oil will save the united states for all eternity, or atleast 50-100 years, then sure, why not? As it is now, I rather focus more on renewable or alternative sources of energy that would make the whole world less dependent on the arab oil.

 

Obviously we need to develop alternative sources of energy, but we need to tap the resources we have. Saying "we have to research other energy to the exclusion of the ones we already have" is like saying that the solution to overpopulation is that we have to focus all of our money on making Mars habitable rather than on using our land and resources on earth more efficiently and conservatively.

 

My issue with "comprehensive" sex education is that it's dishonest. Sex educators, in order to push their agenda, overstate the effectiveness of birth control and of condoms. They don't want kids to know that condoms don't protect remarkably well against HPV. They lie about AIDS statistics. They refuse to tell people how much more likely you are to get AIDS through anal intercourse. Then they laugh and say "Abstinence-only education doesn't work!" when most studies have simply shown that it's not more effective than "comprehensive" sex education. Have you seen a study that shows that it's less effective? Do you know any teenagers that don't know what a condom is?

 

I don't advocate drilling abstinence into the skulls of kids in schools. I don't advocate drilling sexual values into kids in schools. I advocate NOT lying to them about the risks that they take even when using contraception. I advocate giving them facts and letting them decide. I advocate letting parents teach values to their children.

 

What hell....? Where do get this info from? Sex educators with a seperate agenda? And what is this agenda exactly? Making the youth f*** more and get all kinds of STD's for their amusement? Who gains amything from this? Satan?

 

Where i live, the sex education was done by the biology teacher, who brought up all the very points that you claim that they do not do. While the class was really boring, since it was done from a biologist POW, it worked, since there was no morale behind it. And i certainly didn't see any "PRO-F***", or "PAYED BY THE CONDOM-FACTORY"-pin on him. Hell, he even brought up several myths about 'not getting pregnant without using a condom' as well. And finally, he added: "Condom's may break, and there's a single-digit procentage that they didn't worked on that particular time, and birth-control pills don't work against STD's at all. You can all just skip it all and don't have sex at all. But we are humans after all, and i expect you to have good judgement in a mature manner when the time comes."

 

And what studies have you seen again? In Europe, where sex in general is handled in a much more mature way, studies have shown that the introduction of sex education has dropped abortion rates considerably, and the same with STD's as well. Look at Ireland's total lack of sex education in the 80's. Thousands of kids had to take the boat to Great Britain to perform the procedure. And guess what happened when they introduced some normal sex-ed? I leave that to you.

 

Obviously you don't understand what I am talking about by the "agenda." Public health officials and AIDS activists want to be politically correct, so they lie about AIDS (I was an AIDS peer educator in high school and we were fed the most BS statistics about HIV that we were to pass along to the other students). Public health officials want people to have safe sex, therefore want to understate the failure rate of contraceptives.

 

And what studies are you talking about? I'm talking about comparing education programs that stress abstinence as the only 100% sure choice, as opposed to those which overstate the effectiveness of contraception. I honestly don't know what education kids need about the matter besides 1. What causes pregnancy and what causes STDs, and 2. How effective different contraceptive methods are. What more is there to add? Sex education in school should take all of one day and be a couple pages in your health book. Do teenagers need their biology teacher to give a lecture about the hormonal changes that come about by taking the pill? Do they actually need to demonstrate how to put on a condom? Are kids really that stupid? Do you honestly think that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter didn't know what a condom was, and you don't know that she wasn't practicing safe sex, anyway, as it is clear that millions of women get pregnant every year despite practicing safe sex. People who want to use a single pregnancy as a referendum on sex ed are practicing a clear logical fallacy. Many also don't seem to be aware that parents can teach their kids what they want.

[samm]

Public health officials and AIDS activists want to be politically correct, so they lie about AIDS (I was an AIDS peer educator in high school and we were fed the most BS statistics about HIV that we were to pass along to the other students). Public health officials want people to have safe sex, therefore want to understate the failure rate of contraceptives.

What were you told by the "officials", and what are the true figures? Sources please, otherwise it's all FUD

 

And what studies are you talking about? I'm talking about comparing education programs that stress abstinence as the only 100% sure choice, as opposed to those which overstate the effectiveness of contraception.

Because there's no education program here (that I know of) that promotes abstinence. That abstinence is a 100% safe way to not get pregnant is probably mentioned, or probably not, because it's just too obvious.

I honestly don't know what education kids need about the matter besides 1. What causes pregnancy and what causes STDs, and 2. How effective different contraceptive methods are. What more is there to add? Sex education in school should take all of one day and be a couple pages in your health book. Do teenagers need their biology teacher to give a lecture about the hormonal changes that come about by taking the pill?

Oh, there's a lot to know. Hormonal changes are significant to different bodily functions as well as the psyche. They can change relationships. The female cycle is another theme for example. STDs are another theme (fungi, viruses, bacteria, parasites: what protects from them, what they do with your body, how to get rid of them).

Do they actually need to demonstrate how to put on a condom? Are kids really that stupid?

No.

Do you honestly think that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter didn't know what a condom was, and you don't know that she wasn't practicing safe sex, anyway, as it is clear that millions of women get pregnant every year despite practicing safe sex. People who want to use a single pregnancy as a referendum on sex ed are practicing a clear logical fallacy. Many also don't seem to be aware that parents can teach their kids what they want.

What has the last sentence to do with anything? We don't need math at school becuase parents could teach it too? I'll let you figure out what's funny about the supposed locial fallacy on your own :D

[Humodour]

This madhatter guy is hilarious but he also makes me sad because a lot of Americans think like that.

[Pop]

Hey look, the AP undertook some analysis for once!

[themadhatter114]

Public health officials and AIDS activists want to be politically correct, so they lie about AIDS (I was an AIDS peer educator in high school and we were fed the most BS statistics about HIV that we were to pass along to the other students). Public health officials want people to have safe sex, therefore want to understate the failure rate of contraceptives.

What were you told by the "officials", and what are the true figures? Sources please, otherwise it's all FUD

 

A few years ago there was a controversy because the government didn't want people to know that condoms don't do a good job of preventing HPV. So instead of letting us know that we're likely to get HPV even if we use a condom, now they're trying to tyrannically force an HPV vaccine on any girl entering the 6th grade in public schools. So they get to lie and lie and then try to take away our freedom. They're trying to pass laws to do it, but in the meantime they're aggressively pressuring every high school and junior high school girl to get it. Now they're trying to force insurance companies to cover it.

 

AIDS activists get to do presentations in schools and play up memes like "AIDS does not discriminate" when anal sex is astronomically more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex. AIDS incidence in Africa has been grossly overstated by the media and those compiling the numbers for several years.

 

And what studies are you talking about? I'm talking about comparing education programs that stress abstinence as the only 100% sure choice, as opposed to those which overstate the effectiveness of contraception.

 

Because there's no education program here (that I know of) that promotes abstinence. That abstinence is a 100% safe way to not get pregnant is probably mentioned, or probably not, because it's just too obvious.

 

Well, clearly that shows that you did not demonstrate that programs that promote abstinence are worse, duh.

 

I honestly don't know what education kids need about the matter besides 1. What causes pregnancy and what causes STDs, and 2. How effective different contraceptive methods are. What more is there to add? Sex education in school should take all of one day and be a couple pages in your health book. Do teenagers need their biology teacher to give a lecture about the hormonal changes that come about by taking the pill?

 

Oh, there's a lot to know. Hormonal changes are significant to different bodily functions as well as the psyche. They can change relationships. The female cycle is another theme for example. STDs are another theme (fungi, viruses, bacteria, parasites: what protects from them, what they do with your body, how to get rid of them).

 

The hormonal changes with regard to birth control are probably best discussed with the doctor who is going to prescribe it to you. Or learning about the experiences from women in your family who've taken it. Not something I expect to be taught in school.

 

Nothing about an abstinence-only program precludes teaching about the various STDs. Obviously you can tell what protects from them if you have such statistics, but how many health teachers do you think will ignorantly tell teenagers that condoms will protect against something that it actually won't?

 

Do you honestly think that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter didn't know what a condom was, and you don't know that she wasn't practicing safe sex, anyway, as it is clear that millions of women get pregnant every year despite practicing safe sex. People who want to use a single pregnancy as a referendum on sex ed are practicing a clear logical fallacy. Many also don't seem to be aware that parents can teach their kids what they want.

What has the last sentence to do with anything? We don't need math at school becuase parents could teach it too? I'll let you figure out what's funny about the supposed locial fallacy on your own :D

 

What are you talking about? You don't respond at all to the point I was making and respond instead to an off-hand comment I was making. If you want to discuss what I think the role of schools should be, we can have that discussion, but I'll simply say that if I can manage it I would rather home-school my kids.

 

It's not a "supposed" logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy to use a single instance to make an argument about whether something works or doesn't work when you don't have statistics. And it's dishonest when you have no clue whether Sarah Palin's daughter used contraception or not, and you have no idea whether or not she knew the risks, and no one outside her family knows, so no one can make a conclusion based simply on the fact that she got pregnant.

Edited September 4, 2008 by themadhatter114

[Pop]

Keep going, keep going, this is too fun!

 

DAMN YOU PAGEBREAK

Edited September 4, 2008 by Pop

[themadhatter114]

This madhatter guy is hilarious but he also makes me sad because a lot of Americans think like that.

 

Yeah, it's so sad that some people don't like being lied to by the media, the government, and the public school system. That there are people who don't want schools trying to teach their kids values and would rather that they simply them the facts and how to read and write.

 

It's also sad that there are a lot of Americans that think that you can't make a determination about whether or not someone used contraception based entirely on the fact that she got pregnant, and that using a single instance in place of statistical analysis is logically unsound.

 

It's sad that there are Americans who think it's dishonest and despicable to pick up lies from political blogs and simply spread them when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

It's sad that there are people who understand how incomprehensible it is for someone to claim that the unborn have rights, but that those rights become obsolete if the mother claims to have been raped.

 

Or was it something else that makes you sad? Care to explain?

[Humodour]

Abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both infections and pregnancy.

 

Or was it something else that makes you sad? Care to explain?

 

Hmm, I guess it's the whole bat**** crazy religious conservative thing that gets me down a bit. Don't worry about me, though - I'll cheer up.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Krezack

[Pop]

The Department of Health and Human Services found that abstinence-only education is ineffective as a deterrent against teen sex. Data seems to indicate that oral sex increases with abstinence ed, and that's only reasonable, as either kids are smart enough to know that oral doesn't get you pregnant or just dumb enough that they don't think oral sex "counts". It's a safe bet that Bristol Palin was not taught safe sex, her mother being a rather strict social conservative and promoter of abstinence education. The father of the child was vocal about his being a "redneck" who "doesn't want kids". Given that they're not married it's probably an accident. Anybody who's lived in a college town with fraternity chapter houses knows that this sort of thing happens all the time.

 

But, given that Bristol Palin is white and not living in an inner city she didn't really make a "bad choice" so much as "mistake". In true conservative fashion there's a shotgun wedding on the way. I give it three years, assuming Palin takes office, otherwise I'm putting money on one year.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Pop

[Humodour]

The Department of Health and Human Services found that abstinence-only education is ineffective as a deterrent against teen sex. Data seems to indicate that oral sex increases with abstinence ed, and that's only reasonable, as either kids are smart enough to know that oral doesn't get you pregnant or just dumb enough that they don't think oral sex "counts". It's a safe bet that Bristol Palin was not taught safe sex, her mother being a rather strict social conservative and promoter of abstinence education. The father of the child was vocal about his being a "redneck" who "doesn't want kids". Given that they're not married it's probably an accident. Anybody who's lived in a college town with fraternity chapter houses knows that this sort of thing happens all the time.

 

But, given that Bristol Palin is white and not living in an inner city she didn't really make a "bad choice" so much as "mistake". In true conservative fashion there's a shotgun wedding on the way. I give it three years, assuming Palin takes office, otherwise I'm putting money on one year.

 

He does have a point, though: Palin's daughter is irrelevant to the politics of this. To think otherwise is to let inconsequential trivialities overshadow the more disturbing plans and stances of McCain and Palin.