Okay, so her point is that liberals use apparent victims to support an opinion, making it so others cannot criticize the opinion because nobody wants to criticize a victim.

Well, she criticized the victims. So I guess her point isn't so valid after all.

[Edited on June 19, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : sss]

6/19/2006 4:41:35 PM

^^no he just made a big point to repeatedly stress how if someone didnt word everything carefully he wouldnt even listen to what they have to say

but he's a big boy, he can answer for himself...do you hold his dick when he pees?

^you completely dropped the ball on that one...that MAKES her point...it doesnt invalidate anything...thanks for proving my point for me bridget

6/19/2006 4:42:24 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Okay, so Ann Coulter's point is that liberals use apparent victims to support an opinion, making it so others cannot criticize the opinion because nobody wants to criticize a victim. Well, she criticized the victims. So I guess her point isn't so valid after all."

^She outrageously criticized the victims and was criticized for it herself. You can't say shit without getting shit. I'm sorry, what was her point again?

[Edited on June 19, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : sss]

6/19/2006 4:45:21 PM

her point was that democrats use victims to spread falsehoods...you dont typically bash victims because it would be seen as mean and insensitive

she bashed victims to bash the falsehoods...the dems cant keep up with their tactics is what she pretty much said

but again, all anybody cares about is political correctness

6/19/2006 5:34:23 PM

Only an idiot would try and defend a bat shit woman because he feels his ideals are somehow being attacked when someone says "God damn, that woman is bat shit"

6/19/2006 7:07:30 PM

She ain't bat-shit crazy. She's just a demagogue who takes enjoyment in and has become famous for making outrageous, politically incorrect statements.

6/19/2006 7:10:46 PM

and she gets paid to do it

hooray beer

6/19/2006 7:13:23 PM

Quote :

"her point was that democrats use victims to spread falsehoods...you dont typically bash victims because it would be seen as mean and insensitive she bashed victims to bash the falsehoods...the dems cant keep up with their tactics is what she pretty much said"

You cant complain about not being to bash victims, then turn around and BASH VICTIMS. That pretty much invalidates her point.

6/19/2006 7:14:16 PM

she's not complaining about not being able to bash victims

she is complaining about using victims to make a point when its assumed that you wont bash victims because its "mean" and "not politically correct"...she is bashing victims in an effort to tell some democrats that "you cant hide behind your victims as your political pawns, they arent invincible and off limits"

but again, the way she worded things got more attention than the point she was making...because political correctness has pussified our society...its pathetic

6/19/2006 7:33:10 PM

convenience and instant gratification pussified our society

6/19/2006 7:38:47 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: she is complaining about using victims to make a point when its assumed that you wont bash victims because its "mean" and "not politically correct"...she is bashing victims in an effort to tell some democrats that "you cant hide behind your victims as your political pawns, they arent invincible and off limits""

Okay, so she critcized this group of outspoken widows, which I think negates her "point," but you disagree--either way, I don't care.

Now...I know these widows endorsed John Kerry and pushed for an independent commission to examine what happened before 9/11. But how are they pawns of the Democratic party? And what exactly is Coulter criticizing about the widows? She doesn't like them being outspoken against the current administration?

You wanna talk about pawns of politics? Terri fucking Schiavo, bitch, and she wasn't even conscious. There's a true pawn. Republicans used her to the very end.

Let's be honest: Ann Coulter wrote what she did...not to make a point but to elicit outrage, which spawns publicity, which boosts her book sales.

[Edited on June 19, 2006 at 8:28 PM. Reason : sss]

6/19/2006 8:21:53 PM

Ann Coulter, is a moron.

FIN

6/19/2006 8:41:14 PM

Quote :

"Now...I know these widows endorsed John Kerry and pushed for an independent commission to examine what happened before 9/11. But how are they pawns of the Democratic party? And what exactly is Coulter criticizing about the widows? She doesn't like them being outspoken against the current administration?"

She doesn't like them being outspoken against the current administration, and then hiding behind the fact that they are widows. It's almost as if they are "untouchable" so-to-speak, because it would be politically incorrect to criticize a widow. Coulter believes that once they enter the political realm and begin to speak about things other than the circumstances surrounding their husbands death, that they should be fair game for scrutiny of their public political opinions. What is so wrong with this? What if president bush came out and told everyone that he knows what's best for the country as a president, since his daddy was a president? Would he be able to hide behind that mask without scrutiny? I highly doubt it.

6/19/2006 10:15:54 PM

Quote :

"TaterSalad: She doesn't like them being outspoken against the current administration, and then hiding behind the fact that they are widows. It's almost as if they are "untouchable" so-to-speak, because it would be politically incorrect to criticize a widow. Coulter believes that once they enter the political realm and begin to speak about things other than the circumstances surrounding their husbands death, that they should be fair game for scrutiny of their public political opinions. What is so wrong with this? What if president bush came out and told everyone that he knows what's best for the country as a president, since his daddy was a president? Would he be able to hide behind that mask without scrutiny? I highly doubt it."

I get that. I showed that I got it right here:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Okay, so her point is that liberals use apparent victims to support an opinion, making it so others cannot criticize the opinion because nobody wants to criticize a victim. Well, she criticized the victims. So I guess her point isn't so valid after all."

Now that you know that I understand her point, I'd like you to ask yourself: did she scrutinize their opinions, or did she just call them witches who enjoy their husbands' deaths?

I'd also like you to respond to this (because otherwise, you're just stating the obvious and making a very lame comparison between GWB and four widows):

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: You wanna talk about pawns of politics? Terri fucking Schiavo, bitch, and she wasn't even conscious. There's a true pawn. Republicans used her to the very end. Let's be honest: Ann Coulter wrote what she did...not to make a point but to elicit outrage, which spawns publicity, which boosts her book sales."

[Edited on June 19, 2006 at 11:35 PM. Reason : sss]

6/19/2006 11:30:21 PM

I don't have much to comment, but thanks everyone for their constructive criticism. I like hearing it from both sides and not things just along the lines of "YOU FUCKER I SAID SHE FUCKING SUCKS YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER!" etc.

6/19/2006 11:32:55 PM

she is a really ugly bitch
that's all i have to add that hasn't already been said enough

6/19/2006 11:42:31 PM

Quote :

"Now that you know that I understand her point, I'd like you to ask yourself: did she scrutinize their opinions, or did she just call them witches who enjoy their husbands' deaths?"

not that I have read her book, but I've heard the "Coultergeist" speak long enough to know she has some fairly informed comments to make about the Murtha-type democrats stance on the war, hence yes she does scrutinize their opinions as well.

Quote :

"You wanna talk about pawns of politics? Terri fucking Schiavo, bitch, and she wasn't even conscious. There's a true pawn. Republicans used her to the very end."

Well one main difference is that Terri never got any $$ and now she's dead. And I don't think debating with her was ever really an option in contrast with the Jersey girls. After all that, if standing up for not killing people who are inconvenient to soceity is something that gains republicans politcal ground then I still have hope for the future.

6/19/2006 11:58:44 PM

Quote :

"because political correctness has pussified our society...its pathetic"

No, see this here isnt political correctness...this is called COMMON DECENCY, and its one of the few things worth fighting for. The two women have common decency, Coulter does not.

Quote :

"she is complaining about using victims to make a point when its assumed that you wont bash victims because its "mean" and "not politically correct"...she is bashing victims in an effort to tell some democrats that "you cant hide behind your victims as your political pawns, they arent invincible and off limits""

How dare they trick those women into wanting closure for the loss of their loved ones. TRICKSY LIBERALS. Ann Coulter sure showed them. No matter how low they can stoop, she can stoop lower.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 2:30 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 2:22:05 AM

Quote :

"Well one main difference is that Terri never got any $$ and now she's dead. And I don't think debating with her was ever really an option in contrast with the Jersey girls. After all that, if standing up for not killing people who are inconvenient to soceity is something that gains republicans politcal ground then I still have hope for the future."

I was just listing a true pawn, and the fact that she physically could not share an opinion makes it even worse. If I recall correctly, both Democrats and Republicans got in on that. I'm saying that the use of seemingly infallible individuals to further agenda and careers is common to both parties. I thought of another good attempt at an infallible image: the stoic American Indian with the single tear slipping down his cheek...

Anyway, even given the potential for this tactic, it's not clear that that is what is happening here with the outspoken, politcally active widows.

(AHA, I've attacked this issue from three different angles so far...)

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 4:41 AM. Reason : sss]

6/20/2006 4:32:14 AM

What if Ann Coulter was a sports writer:

Quote :

"Muhammad Ali might have been a good boxer but I'll never call him the greatest anything except maybe the Greatest Traitor. I'm getting tired of how he hides behind this Parkinson's disease thing so we can't criticize him. Frankly, I wish George Foreman had hit him so hard he suffered permanent brain damage back in Zaire and couldn't leave Africa and we would never have to listen to him again."

Quote :

"I see Hollywood has another darling, that autistic high school basketball manager who scored 20 points when he finally was allowed into a game. Apparently, they're going to make an 'inspirational' movie about him. Inspirational? Right. 'Hoosiers' is an inspirational movie; this is just a story about a ball hog who refused to pass to any of his teammates and shot nothing but long-range shots in the final few minutes even though his team was already up by 30 points. Coach Norman ('Five passes') Dale would have benched a player for such selfish, unsportsmanlike play. But because the kid is 'autistic,' the liberals not only won't let us criticize him but turned him into a national 'hero.' I'm sorry, but the only lesson I took from that game is that the opposing team simply sucked on defense. And how do we know he's really autistic? Maybe he's just faking it like in the Farrelly brothers movie 'Ringers.' ...""

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/060619

6/20/2006 7:41:41 AM

Quote :

"No, see this here isnt political correctness...this is called COMMON DECENCY"

whats it called when the new jersey widows say President Bush murdered their husbands?

6/20/2006 9:18:16 AM

Democracy

6/20/2006 1:35:43 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: whats it called when the new jersey widows say President Bush murdered their husbands?"

Did they say that? Link?

6/20/2006 1:38:33 PM

Quote :

"You Mr. Bush should be held responsible and liable for any and all acts that were committed to aid in any "cover up" of the tragic events of September 11, 2001"

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0311/S00262.htm

Quote :

""I watched my husband murdered live on TV. . . . At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn't even an attempt made." --Monica Gabrielle"

Quote :

""Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch." -- Kristin Breitweiser "

http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

and if you want to convince yourself that those quotes dont demonstrate that they are claiming bush murdered their husbands, look at this http://nancho.net/911/mariani.html ...they literally file a lawsuit charging bush with abetting the murder of their husbands

lemme guess though...you were fully aware of what ann coulter wrote about the women, but you had no idea what the women did in the first place?

6/20/2006 2:30:11 PM

^No, I knew that the widows said something like that. I also knew that there was no way they said, "Bush murdered our husbands." So when you claimed that they said it, I had to ask what you were talking about.

6/20/2006 2:36:36 PM

so filing a lawsuit accusing bush of murdering their husbands doesnt convince you that they accused bush of murdering their husbands

uh huh

6/20/2006 2:37:18 PM

^She thinks President Bush knew about 911 and did nothing to stop it and then tried to cover it up. She's not alone in that belief.

To be honest, as far as the lawsuit goes, I think a lawyer is taking advantage of a woman who is desperate for closure and understanding.

6/20/2006 2:44:01 PM

she thinks bush knew about 9/11 - ok, fair enough...although i also think he "knew" about lots of potential attacks that never happened

she thinks he did nothing to stop it....again, we hadnt had a terrorist attack on US soil since the first WTC attack a decade earlier...in that decade, Bush (and Clinton in his years as President during that decade) both got tons and tons of intelligence information...much of it was not specific, much of it turned out to be either false alarms or the attack attempts were thwarted one way or another...but i dont agree that the government and its various intelligence agencies on a whole did something different with this information than they would do with any other information

she thinks he tried to cover it up...cover up WHAT?

and as far as a woman desperate for closure and understanding, sure...anyone who loses a loved one would feel those things...but a lawyer is not taking advantage of the woman...the members of the Democratic party are taking advantage of the 4 women as a part of their campaign to continually and negatively attack the President in any ways they can

6/20/2006 3:40:08 PM

I don't listen to bitches unless they got big titties. All good neocon women know the best place for them is on by diiack!

6/20/2006 3:50:25 PM

PS thanks fox news for censored amature porn flashing up when ever bill o'riely needs to make a point about "lesser" females and plenty of stories about getting it on with your teacher.

6/20/2006 3:52:22 PM

the teachers might not have to resort to banging their students if some guys there age were around instead of posting on tww all day

6/20/2006 3:55:07 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Okay, so her point is that liberals use apparent victims to support an opinion, making it so others cannot criticize the opinion because nobody wants to criticize a victim. Well, she criticized the victims. So I guess her point isn't so valid after all."

She didn't say you flat out can't criticize anyone. You can criticize whomever you want. Her point was to say that with these 4 women, political correctness frowns upon criticizing them because their husbands died in a national tragedy. If they want to say that enough preventive measures were not taken by the government to prevent 9/11, then they should be allowed to stay under that protection (from public scrutiny) of grieving widows. But if they want to try and use that protection from public scrutiny to make political statements about israel, immigration, or whatever else they feel the need to complain about besides the specific tragedy that gave them that halo, then they are open for criticism just like anyone else. She does not say that they cannot be criticized at all.

Quote :

"I'd also like you to respond to this (because otherwise, you're just stating the obvious and making a very lame comparison between GWB and four widows): [quote]BridgetSPK: You wanna talk about pawns of politics? Terri fucking Schiavo, bitch, and she wasn't even conscious. There's a true pawn. Republicans used her to the very end. Let's be honest: Ann Coulter wrote what she did...not to make a point but to elicit outrage, which spawns publicity, which boosts her book sales."

[/quote]

I think mathman hit the nail on the head in response to this one. These poor women are either being used by the far left for very evil purposes, or they are using their husband's deaths as their ticket to outrageous politcal statements without consequence. In either case, I think it is a sad thing, along with schiavo. I think that that case was blown pretty far out of proportion by everyone, and ultimately hurt her family.

In my opinion, I agree with coulter's points. I do, however, think that she probably could've left off the whole divorcing thing from that. Furthermore, I find it very laughable that this is the only part of that book that liberals are flipping out over. I mean, she called you guys "Godless" and it seems to have had no effect on you.

6/20/2006 5:20:35 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9fQAQenllo

6/24/2006 11:54:48 AM

godless:
1. Recognizing or worshiping no god.
2. Wicked, impious, or immoral.

first definition describes me.
second definition is funny. it's pathetic that not worshiping a god is associate with being wicked or whatever.

And, to be honest, I don't give a fuck if someone points out that I support the separation of Church and State.

"Man, those liberals walking around, not using religion to manipulate public opinion. How immoral!!!"

6/24/2006 1:01:48 PM

Except the liberal concept of religion is the manifestation of the nanny state according to their own set of "morals" or lack thereof.

6/24/2006 1:18:32 PM

^AHA, that post establishes your worthlessness...GG

6/24/2006 1:24:14 PM

Why do you people think you're being intelligent when you're called out?

It's perfectly fine to teach kindergardeners about safe sex but don't mention the dreaded "G" word because that might offend somebody. I find it to be deliciously ironic that the people who are all "OMG like stay out of my bedroom, k?" are the ones who want to be in the bedroom giving children pointers on what to do and how to do it.

Sadly, what you fail to realize is that my rights are just as important as yours, and yet you feel the necessity to box in my beliefs because they do not fit yours.

Worthlessness is not having the guts to admit that people like yourself, Bridget, are forcing your concept of values down our throats through the schools and courts.



[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2006 1:32:59 PM

Quote :

"It's perfectly fine to teach kindergardeners about safe sex but don't mention the dreaded "G" word because that might offend somebody. "

I actually wasn't going to respond to you forever, but meh, I'm weak...

Kindergarteners are not just learning about sex. They're learning about tolerance, sexual health, and general health. Do not behave like we're just popping in gay pornos and leaving them alone to see what happens. Furthermore, this is not required. Nobody is forcing this on anybody; they can opt out of the sex education if they want to. And in the majority of the country, sex education is not taught to kindergarteners.

Teachers can mention fucking God if they want to. We don't allow teachers to lead the class in a prayer, and we don't allow kids to start prayer clubs that require school funds or fundraisers. Why? Because that would be fucking stupid.

Quote :

"Sadly, what you fail to realize is that my rights are just as important as yours, and yet you feel the necessity to box in my beliefs because they do not fit yours."

What rights of yours am I trampling on? The right to pray in school? You can do that shit if you want to. It's a fucking free country. The right to not learn about sexual health? You can opt out of that shit if you want to.

[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 1:58 PM. Reason : sss]

6/24/2006 1:51:48 PM

last i checked we didnt want the "G word" in school to avoid forcing beleifs on people and/or promoting one religion over another, not cuz it is overly offensive. it isnt like christians are in the minority and feeling trampled on because we're outlawing their beloved school prayer.

6/24/2006 1:57:23 PM

Quote :

"Teachers can mention fucking God if they want to. We don't allow teachers to lead the class in a prayer, and we don't allow kids to start prayer clubs that require school funds or fundraisers. Why? Because it's fucking stupid."

Teachers get paid to teach so how can they mention God under your little "funds" clause?

You're right, teachers shouldn't be leading classes in prayer, and neither should they be showing children how to put on condoms. Very few things are more private than one's sexual life but somehow that is a prudent use of my taxpayer funds, which is reinforcing lifestyles that are contradictory to the morals and values of many in this county. By the way, how have these programs worked so far? Has the spread of STDs gone up or down? How about the illegitimate rate?

At least we're coming to a conclusion - your values > everybody who disagrees with you

How...un-American of you.

Quote :

"we don't allow kids to start prayer clubs that require school funds or fundraisers. Why? Because it's fucking stupid."

This is wrong. It is not legal to restrict their rights to peacefully assemble, to practice free speech, or religion. Afterschool prayer groups are legal. Sorry to disappoint but the freedom of religion is still alive and well in this country no matter how hard you try to supress it.

Again, you think that prayer groups are stupid and therefore should be illegal but you do not have a problem with supposed voluntary classes to teach kids about sex, so it's perfectly fine to abuse my tax dollars to fund programs that only you support. Yeah, no double standard there.

6/24/2006 2:05:06 PM

Quote :

"Federal court's contempt for parents' rights Reporter Editor: TheReporter.Com The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overruled circuit in the country. For off-the-wall liberalism, it has no peer. And Judge Stephen Reinhardt often plays ringmaster to this out-of-control circus. Judge Reinhardt thinks "under God" in the Pledge of Alleggance is unconstitutional, but sex surveys of 7-year-olds are not. The circus has now ruled that the Palmdale school district can ask first-, third-, and fifth-graders intrusive questions about "touching my private parts too much," "getting scared or upset when I think about sex," "can't stop thinking about sex," and so on. Parents in the Palmdale school district were not informed that such sexually offensive questions would be asked of their little children. When they brought suit, Judge Reinhardt brought down the gavel on them. "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children," Reinhardt ruled. Further, he wrote, "parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools ..." It is hard to imagine that any of those sitting judges who issued this infamous ruling ever had a 7-year-old child. This outrageous and offensive result must be overturned. It is one more horrible example of what happens to parents' rights when liberal judicial activists are unchecked. Whatever happened to the child's right to be a child? The U.S. Supreme Court in 1925 recognized parents' rights in the landmark case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters. There, the high court said: "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Those who "nurture" the child and "direct his destiny" are commonly called parents. Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court showed great respect for parents' rights. Today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals showed nothing but contempt."

6/24/2006 2:13:54 PM

Quote :

"somehow that is a prudent use of my taxpayer funds, which is reinforcing lifestyles that are contradictory to the morals and values of many in this county. By the way, how have these programs worked so far? Has the spread of STDs gone up or down? How about the illegitimate rate?"

i dont pay taxes to enforce my beleifs on you nor does the majority opinion get automatically enforced.

linking STD rates and illegitimacy rates to school programs alone is absurd as well.


that said, she said supporting prayer groups with funds is dumb. i think think she's right, especially, because they should cost next to nothing to run and neednt be supported by the state. im not saying prayer groups or christianity should be suppressed, but that NO religion should be supported.

sexuality is a bigger issue because that affects others, unlike ones religious beleifs. you may not be fond of the current programs, but not talking about sexuality in school seems equally if not more harmful (especially given our changes in society over the past few decades). ignorance is never the answer. id wager that most kids being taught sex-ed are not in kindergarden as well (i know they start earlier nowadays, but guess what...it is cuz kids get bombarded with those messages elsewhere and are having sex).



^ and whats the point of this. it is the most overruled court in the country according to the article and is considered extremist. lets let the extreme case characterize the majority

[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2006 2:44:16 PM

Play the game! Hitler vs. Ann Coulter! Who said what?

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html

(This is pure genius.)

6/24/2006 4:36:14 PM

Quote :

"linking STD rates and illegitimacy rates to school programs alone is absurd as well."

The only way to measure the success or failure of these programs is to look at the statistics that directly correlate to sex education. These programs are set up to enlight our children about sex and health education, correct? Well then, are children today more likely to engage in sexual activities? How does the STD rate measure up among teens? Or teen births?

Saying on one hand that these programs are designed to eliminate or control these problems and then ignoring the data on the other is, well, retarded, and would only further illustrate the probable ineffectiveness of said "educational" programs.

Quote :

"sexuality is a bigger issue"

To you it is, perhaps. To many others, their religious beliefs far outweigh getting a piece. Why are you forcing your values down my throat while suppressing those of others?

Quote :

"that said, she said supporting prayer groups with funds is dumb. i think think she's right, especially, because they should cost next to nothing to run and neednt be supported by the state. im not saying prayer groups or christianity should be suppressed, but that NO religion should be supported."

What separates a religious club from any other afterschool club, especially when they are all voluntary to begin with? You are doing exactly what you claim you do not want to do, which is to suppress other people who do not agree with you.

Quote :

"^ and whats the point of this. it is the most overruled court in the country according to the article and is considered extremist. lets let the extreme case characterize the majority"

It goes to show what happens when you have extemists who legislate from the bench. The 9th Circuit Court is a liberal court, and their rulings get to the heart of the real leftist agenda, which is a nanny state that usurps the responsibility of educating children according to their own values while suppressing those they disagree with. Freedom of expression and speech are squelched in favor of more "tolerable" viewpoints.

[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : more]

6/24/2006 4:41:00 PM

Quote :

"By the way, how have these programs worked so far? Has the spread of STDs gone up or down? How about the illegitimate rate?"

Down, you fool. You think people support comprehensive sex education because they like talking to young teens about sex?

People who support comprehensive sex education support it because it works.

People who don't support comprehensive sex education don't support it because they don't think it's "moral" or they think it belongs in the home.

I mean, seriously, do you think so little of our young people? You think they're such impetuous horndogs that, with or without sex education, they're gonna go knockin boots and makin babies left and right?

Sex education works. Data support it. But we don't even need data. We already know the benefits of education and have for a billion years.

But whatever, here's a link:

http://www.umaine.edu/MCSC/MPR/Vol11No2/King_Marks.htm

[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 5:45 PM. Reason : sss]

6/24/2006 5:44:59 PM

Quote :

" I mean, seriously, do you think so little of our young people? You think they're such impetuous horndogs that, with or without sex education, they're gonna go knockin boots and makin babies left and right?"

Yes, the unprotected sex abounds even though we all know we shouldn't. Just because you and I aren't doing it, doesn't mean no one else is. Ask around to your friends and then remember its hard to tell the truth about something like that.

The illegitimacy rate might have dropped, but that's probably just due to increased abortions, not safer sex.

6/24/2006 6:21:25 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the unprotected sex abounds even though we all know we shouldn't. Just because you and I aren't doing it, doesn't mean no one else is. Ask around to your friends and then remember its hard to tell the truth about something like that. The illegitimacy rate might have dropped, but that's [/b]probably[b] just due to increased abortions, not safer sex."

"probably" So, according to you, Maine is just the abortion capital of the world.

Table 1: Teen Birthrates (per 1,000 women, aged 15-19) United States and Maine, Selected Years, 1970-1999

U.S. Maine
1970 66.0 65.0
1980 53.0 47.0
1985 51.0 42.0
1990 59.9 43.0
1991 62.1 44.0
1992 60.7 40.0
1993 59.6 37.0
1994 58.9 36.0
1995 56.8 34.0
1996 54.4 31.0
1997 52.3 32.0
1998 51.1 30.4
1999 49.6 29.8

[Edited on June 24, 2006 at 6:40 PM. Reason : sss]

6/24/2006 6:37:56 PM

Quote :

"Freedom of expression and speech are squelched in favor of more "tolerable" viewpoints."

Just like freedom of natural sexual expression would be squelched in favor of repression if the religious conservatives had their way?

6/24/2006 6:57:35 PM

Quote :

"To you it is, perhaps. To many others, their religious beliefs far outweigh getting a piece. Why are you forcing your values down my throat while suppressing those of others?"

or perhaps because it affects people of all genders, religions, sexual preference, etc. on top of that, the consequences of sex (which you yourself listed: pregnancy, std, etc) are much more tangible. again, quit trying to act like im anti-religion...im not.

Quote :

"What separates a religious club from any other afterschool club, especially when they are all voluntary to begin with? You are doing exactly what you claim you do not want to do, which is to suppress other people who do not agree with you."

plenty of clubs dont deserve state backing. i never said they couldnt have a club, nor did anyone else, just that they shouldnt be endorsed by the state.

Quote :

"It goes to show what happens when you have extemists who legislate from the bench. The 9th Circuit Court is a liberal court, and their rulings get to the heart of the real leftist agenda, which is a nanny state that usurps the responsibility of educating children according to their own values while suppressing those they disagree with. Freedom of expression and speech are squelched in favor of more "tolerable" viewpoints."

find an ultra-right wing judge and you'll find equally appalling judicial record. thats why we generally dont like extremists to end up in office or in the courts.

6/24/2006 7:34:51 PM

This thread has again confirmed my conviction that limiting and ultimately reducing the size and role of government in our life is a crucial component to maintaining true religious freedom for the future. In fact, truth be told I would be less opposed to your "progressive" policies if they were not hand in hand with "separation of church and state".

6/25/2006 1:16:35 AM