Salanis wrote: Ah, this is a better forum for this. Another sort of dichotomy in conservative thinking came to mind when I read this. Generally the same people who tout abstinence-only sex-ed, bans on abortions, etc, are the same camp who also want to cut social services for people like the single mothers that these policies would result in.
It makes perfect sense to them, they think what they're doing reduces the number of single mothers. It's ironic though.
I never had a problem abstaining from sex in high school. I can't take all the credit for that though, the girls I went to school with deserve some as well.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html
Wow, talk about a poor choice...
Flounder
Fluke are better
Something smells fishy, I am just reporting the news.
Wally wrote: Fluke are better
Do your flounder suffer from flukes?
I can't afford a fluke. They are expensive
I have one just like that one.
Republlican elitist
John Brown wrote: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html Wow, talk about a poor choice...
If you're accusing her of being an elitist, then you hate America.
I do hate America, that band sucked... like most folk/rock trash of the 1970s.
I don't think it is BAD that the McCains can afford the baubles, I think it was poorly thought out to exhalt in excess while your husbands campaign staff is gaining ground in the fact that he is an every-mans-man.
I got over the 7 houses thing but this pushes my vote the wrong way if it is true.
Flukes are good, no doubt, but Simpsons are as close to indestructable as you can get.
John Brown wrote: I do hate America, that band sucked... like most folk/rock trash of the 1970s. I don't think it is BAD that the McCains can afford the baubles, I think it was poorly thought out to exhalt in excess while your husbands campaign staff is gaining ground in the fact that he is an every-mans-man. I got over the 7 houses thing but this pushes my vote the wrong way if it is true.
Well, I trust the AP:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gI9Ht91lF_RgXRDxKD6HKcH2lx8wD930G6GO0
Plebian.
John Brown wrote: I got over the 7 houses thing but this pushes my vote the wrong way if it is true.
You're kidding, right? Your vote is based on what dress the woman wore?? 
Or is it how impressed you are with the fact that Vanity Fair decided to guess the value?
Michelle Obama wore a different designer dress every night of the DNC convention. She topped it off on the final night with not one, not two, but a trio of Erickson Beamon broaches.
Vote for me. I usually wear shorts and tee shirts accessorized with fashionable steel-toed work boots and several coffee stains down the front.
GregTivo wrote:HiTempguy wrote:I am not joking in the slightest. I don't define choice the same way that conservatives define it and sex is one of those risk/reward decisions that is programmed inately to result in more humans. That we resist it and have societal restrictions to reduce it happening between certain people is impressive in itself. If you wish to argue about it, atleast understand this is how I see it and I invite you to convince me that one of the most powerful urges in our biology is as easy to overcome as teaching your child not to steal, lie or hurt others... Maybe she tried to prevent it by using contraceptives, but I'm basing my argument on the assumption that she did not have access or teaching of how to use them, so when she and her boyfriend were escalating the relationship, she made the risky decision to go for it and hope nothing happened. What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the absolute worst consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work. The religious arguement is outweighed by the utilitarian aspect of mitigation IMO. I don't see any problem with giving my children the advice they need to avoid making poor choices, but also provide them with the tools they need to mitigate those choices. There is no escalation up from sex as far as risk is concerned. I'd rather have them suffer the emotional stress of poor relationships than both the emotional and financial and societal stress of a poor relationship resulting in a child.Hormones can defeat even the most strenuous of upbringings.Please, please tell me you are kidding me? Everybody has a choice *insert red pill blue pill joke here* In the end she decided she wanted to go have some fun. Not her hormones.
Wow. Now that is an honest, educated, experienced and reasonable statement. I wholeheartedly agree.
Do as a i say..... not as I do..
anyone found it ironic that MCcain is all about change and using the change word now....
kinda makes all the "keep your change" shirts worthless now....
ignorant wrote: Do as a i say..... not as I do.. anyone found it ironic that MCcain is all about change and using the change word now.... kinda makes all the "keep your change" shirts worthless now....
Irony, not so much. Its' now a choice for the kind of change - more of the same, with a markedly more liberal slants vs. less of the same with a conservative slant.
Perhaps you can keep the shirts, underline "your" and add the image of your candidate's face.
oldsaw wrote: Irony, not so much. Its' now a choice for the kind of change - more of the same, with a markedly more liberal slants vs. less of the same with a conservative slant.
Do you honestly believe that McCain is that different of a Republican candidate than any other we've had recently? Do you really think either candidate will bring any sort of change to the political landscape of this country?
How many political candidates have not said that voting for them will Open New doors, take the country in a new direction, blah, blah, blah? How many of them have actually changed things?
I will not vote or not vote for a political candidate based on them throwing around the same sort of popular words/phrases that every other politician does. I will not vote/not vote for a candidate because they're rich. I will not vote/not vote for a candidate based on what clothes their wife wears.
I will base decisions on their stand on social issues, economic plans, and the track record of their party. Yes, which party they belong to matters to me, because nobody gets to be a presidential candidate without the firm support of their party, and that means they all fall strongly within party lines. Colin Powell will never receive a presidential nomination despite being the biggest political badass in this country. He's too liberal for the Reps and too conservative for the Dems.
Redhornet wrote:GregTivo wrote:Wow. Now that is an honest, educated, experienced and reasonable statement. I wholeheartedly agree.HiTempguy wrote:I am not joking in the slightest. I don't define choice the same way that conservatives define it and sex is one of those risk/reward decisions that is programmed inately to result in more humans. That we resist it and have societal restrictions to reduce it happening between certain people is impressive in itself. If you wish to argue about it, atleast understand this is how I see it and I invite you to convince me that one of the most powerful urges in our biology is as easy to overcome as teaching your child not to steal, lie or hurt others... Maybe she tried to prevent it by using contraceptives, but I'm basing my argument on the assumption that she did not have access or teaching of how to use them, so when she and her boyfriend were escalating the relationship, she made the risky decision to go for it and hope nothing happened. What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the absolute worst consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work. The religious arguement is outweighed by the utilitarian aspect of mitigation IMO. I don't see any problem with giving my children the advice they need to avoid making poor choices, but also provide them with the tools they need to mitigate those choices. There is no escalation up from sex as far as risk is concerned. I'd rather have them suffer the emotional stress of poor relationships than both the emotional and financial and societal stress of a poor relationship resulting in a child.Hormones can defeat even the most strenuous of upbringings.Please, please tell me you are kidding me? Everybody has a choice *insert red pill blue pill joke here* In the end she decided she wanted to go have some fun. Not her hormones.
I'm not sure that the "absolute worst consequences of their decision" a teenager can face is having a baby. I know a lot of women, and several men, who years later are still suffering from the realization that they killed their child.
I would never force someone to have the baby. But it is a very unfair distortion to suggest that the worst thing that can happen to a person is to have a baby. Give them all the facts (including the emotional scarring they are likely to be effected by long term) before they make their decision. It is not a decision that should be based on short term convenience.
oldsaw wrote:ignorant wrote: Do as a i say..... not as I do.. anyone found it ironic that MCcain is all about change and using the change word now.... kinda makes all the "keep your change" shirts worthless now....Irony, not so much. Its' now a choice for the kind of change - more of the same, with a markedly more liberal slants vs. less of the same with a conservative slant. Perhaps you can keep the shirts, underline "your" and add the image of your candidate's face.
How do you justify saying less of the same with a more conservative slant when he's voted with bush 90-95% of the time in his tenure in congress. Not trying to pick a fight, just want to know the reason.
edit one more question. Please if you can detail a change to major policy that mccain will enact.. I'll start with one, carbon credits... Now.. please how would he change economic policy or enviromental policy(beyond drilling)...
SVreX wrote: I would never force someone to have the baby. But it is a very unfair distortion to suggest that the worst thing that can happen to a person is to have a baby. Give them all the facts (including the emotional scarring they are likely to be effected by long term) before they make their decision. It is not a decision that should be based on short term convenience.
But it is a decision that the standard Republican platform says that women should not be allowed to make for themselves.
Salanis wrote:SVreX wrote: I would never force someone to have the baby. But it is a very unfair distortion to suggest that the worst thing that can happen to a person is to have a baby. Give them all the facts (including the emotional scarring they are likely to be effected by long term) before they make their decision. It is not a decision that should be based on short term convenience.But it is a decision that the standard Republican platform says that women should not be allowed to make for themselves.
Are you suggesting they make this decision with or without a proper informed perspective that includes facts on the likely negative emotional consequences?
You mean themselves, like without input from the man? Or a doctor? Or their parents (when they are minors)? How about from other women? Women who have had abortions?
The Republican platform says no such thing. It affirms the unborn child's fundamental right to life, affirms the Born Alive Infant's Protection Act, seeks to protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification act, recognizes a national moral obligation to assist, not penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy, and calls for every effort possible to work with women considering abortion to enable them and empower them to choose life.
Read it yourself:
I'm not reading 67 pages.
A significant portion of the Republican party has been doing their darndest to slowly erode Roe v. Wade and to illegalize abortion. There is a definite push to put as many roadblocks in the way as possible.
I am suggesting that it is an erosion of personal freedoms to state that the government or populace should have the ability to control an individuals right to self determination because of a specific moral tenet that is not held universally.
Sure, receiving counseling and consultation is a good thing. I don't think anyone will say abortion is "good", but it is sometimes necessary. It is not the government's place to make that decision or put limitations on a woman's ability to make that decision herself.
SVreX wrote: I'm not sure that the "absolute worst consequences of their decision" a teenager can face is having a baby. I know a lot of women, and several men, who years later are still suffering from the realization that they killed their child. I would never force someone to have the baby. But it is a very unfair distortion to suggest that the worst thing that can happen to a person is to have a baby. Give them all the facts (including the emotional scarring they are likely to be effected by long term) before they make their decision. It is not a decision that should be based on short term convenience.
I don't think you meant to set this strawman on fire, but just so you know, I was not talking about abortion. That is an issue I am not going to debate here and while it may be intertwined with some sex-ed, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about concerning abstinence only vs. mitigation/prevention sex-ed (contraception and protection based education).
You'll need to log in to post.
