Quote :

"mathman: 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"."

How do they go hand in hand? The only reason we've been discussing them together is that Wlfpk4Life sees them that way:

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: 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."

6/25/2006 3:00:55 AM

Quote :

"ROSEN: Ann Coulter -- our guest. Her latest book, Godless, The Church of Liberalism. You were doing an interview with John Hawkins, who's on a website called Right Wing News. And that he did some -- a stream-of-consciousness exercise with you. Rattled off some names and asked you for a word or two. He said Cindy Sheehan. You said "the Dennis Rodman of the peace movement." He said Joe Wilson, you said the world's most -- "the world's most intensive -- intensely private exhibitionist." Michael Moore: "Rumors of his depth -- his depth are greatly exaggerated." George Bush: "my Commander In Chief." John McCain: "war hero, let's leave it at that." Alec Baldwin: "our main source of so-called greenhouse gases." And then John Murtha, and you said "the reason soldiers invented fragging." You've taken a lot of heat for that. In context, this -- these are just off-the-top-of-your-head remarks regarding a whole list of people. What -- what's been your reaction to the criticism that you've taken for the Murtha comment? COULTER: I wasn't aware I'd taken criticism, but I'm glad some of my best lines are getting out. ROSEN: You don't have any reservations about that line? COULTER: No. ROSEN: You're not -- COULTER: No. In fact, I can save you a lot of time. ROSEN: Yeah. COULTER: You can quote anything I've said back to me and ask me if I have reservations, if I would have done it differently, if I would have said it differently -- do I have any regrets? The answer is no. Now, we may move back to the book. ROSEN: All right, but you're not -- you're not suggesting that anybody should off John Murtha? COULTER: It is what it is."

[Edited on June 25, 2006 at 3:20 AM. Reason : http://mediamatters.org/items/200606220013]

6/25/2006 3:19:43 AM

I really can't believe so much attention is being lavished on this woman.

She's so radical she's not going to convert anyone. So I don't see why everyone gets so worked up about her. She's just entertainment.

6/26/2006 1:52:18 AM

Quote :

"she's just entertainment"

yeah. entertainment. her and Rush Limbaugh both. what a couple clowns. heh.







[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 3:25 AM. Reason : ]

6/26/2006 3:22:53 AM

Quote :

"she said on leno that it was funny that she calls liberals godless, yet they choose to only focus on her comments about the new jersey widows, as if they dont care that they are called godless...had a point there too"

Godless is a compliment.

Also: I love how conservatives/religious folk try to equate beliefs of others to "religions" such as to apply the same standard of seperation of church and state. Educating kids about sex/drugs/life/other things is a good thing. Educating them about god violates seperation of church and state. Get over it.

Quote :

"We already know the benefits of education and have for a billion years."

Heresy. The Earth is 6000 years old and don't you tell me any different. It's a shame the truth isn't taught in schools.

6/26/2006 9:55:06 AM

My sister has read one of Coulter's books, and I think she liked it. I don't bother with extremists, but I can't stand Michael Moore so I could definitely see how people can't stand Coulter if they both make similarly extreme assumptions.

6/26/2006 10:16:46 AM

Why do people assume that people who hate Coulter don't similarly hate Moore?

6/26/2006 10:24:33 AM

i hate coulter and moore

6/26/2006 10:42:51 AM

the moore i think about it, the moore i hate coulter.

6/26/2006 12:12:23 PM

Quote :

"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."

Actually, what has led to the drop in the illegitimate rate is:

Quote :

"Increased abstinence accounted for most, and in some cases all, of the declines during the early 1990s in pregnancy rates and birthrates among women aged 15-19. Source: Mohn JK, Tingle LR and Finger R, An analysis of the causes of the decline in non-marital birth and pregnancy rates for teens from 1991 to 1995, Adolescent and Family Health, 2002, 3(1):39-47. "

Which just goes to show that the best way to prevent the spread of STDs and to keep down the illegitimate rate is good ol' abstinence education, not showing kindergardeners how to put condoms onto bananas.

Quote :

"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."

You're damn straight. And yet you want to force your morals on me and others who disagree with your methods of "prevention." If religion belongs exclusively in the home then why shouldn't sex remain in the home as well?

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?"

Why yes I do. Kids are fickle, bright eyed, short sighted, and irresponsible. And yet you want to give them a loaded gun by basically giving them permission to engage in sex by giving them a false sense of security in the name of sex education when in fact more promiscuousness no matter how good the protection can and will lead to unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs

Quote :

"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."

Seems like the data suggests that an upsurge in abstinence education has played a major role in the dropping illegitimate rates.

6/26/2006 3:36:12 PM

Quote :

"mathmanThis 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"

Quote :

"BridgetSPK How do they go hand in hand? "

So glad you ask Bridget. My concern has two facets,

1.) The government is getting larger and controlling more and more aspects of our daily life. Certainly it is the goal for many liberals or progressives wish for the government to provide all the necessities of life so that no one goes without basic needs. I don't have any moral problem with that goal, I actually wish the same for humanity. Basic needs are what though? What should the government provide? It's really a matter of choice at some level, modulo questions of efficiency, we conservatives think the private sector should have more $$ to spend directly whereas liberals tend to like the government to take the $$ and then give it back to you or somebody else.

2.) Whenever government $$$ are spent we are told we cannot involve any specific religion. This criteria is not applied uniformly at the current time so usually when I make this point I recieve a bunch of anecdotal replies like "my highschool wasn't that way" but the fact remains that the ACLU and similar minded people are working very hard to remove any sort of Christian influence government. The "separation of church and state" is lauded as the highest principle of our government, even if it infringes on the religious free speech of individuals working government jobs.

Now extrapolate into the future, if current trends continue then nearly all jobs will be at least in large part government funded. But, if you take that money you cannot practice Christianity to openly otherwise someone will complain and get you fired. Essentially what this limit accomplishes is to make public expression of Chrisitianity illegal in a large fraction of our daily existence. This I cannot support, because I think that Christianity should be an integral part of my daily life and indeed all those who take it seriously ( not to say I'm like the best, far from it , not even the point)

I hope I've eulicidated my idea here, commence the trolling.

6/26/2006 3:55:43 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: You're damn straight. And yet you want to force your morals on me and others who disagree with your methods of "prevention." If religion belongs exclusively in the home then why shouldn't sex remain in the home as well?"

Parents can opt their children out of sex education if they want to. So what's the problem? You don't want other people's kids, learning about sex, while your kid is out of the room, doing worksheets? That sounds like you forcing your beliefs on others.

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: Why yes I do. Kids are fickle, bright eyed, short sighted, and irresponsible. And yet you want to give them a loaded gun by basically giving them permission to engage in sex by giving them a false sense of security in the name of sex education when in fact more promiscuousness no matter how good the protection can and will lead to unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs"

They already have the loaded gun. I'd like them to know how to use the safety.

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: Which just goes to show that the best way to prevent the spread of STDs and to keep down the illegitimate rate is good ol' abstinence education, not showing kindergardeners how to put condoms onto bananas."

AHA, no, you missed a beat. Of course abstinence decreases the spread of STDs and cuts down the illegitimate rate. That's common knowledge.

But what you haven't proved is that abstinence education brings about abstinence. You seem to think that, with comprehensive sex education, our teens are leaving the classroom to test out their condom skills. Why can't learning about STDs, how to use condoms, condom failure, potential emotional consequences of sex, what being a parent entails, etc...inspire abstinence?

Here's a follow-up on your information that includes your source:

Quote :

"Thus 67 percent of the reported decline in teen pregnancies was due to increased abstinence and 35.3 percent may be attributable to increased contraceptive use and/or less frequent sexual activity."

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/soc/2004/pd011404e.html

It says that 67 percent of the reported decline in teen pregnancies was due to increased abstinence.

It does NOT say that 67 percent of the reported decline in teen pregnancies was due to increased abstinence education.

Nice try though.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 4:13 PM. Reason : Did I just blow your mind?]

6/26/2006 4:07:24 PM

I see that you completely ignored by earlier source which clearly stated that the rise in abstinence education has almost exclusively led to the decrease in teen birth rates.

Anyhow, here's somemore information for you to ignore:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm461.cfm#_ftnref9

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03B1

Quote :

"In addition to the influence of their parents, teens are also affected by the messages on sex and abstinence that they receive in school. Unfortunately, the majority of schools teach "safe sex," "comprehensive," or so-called "abstinence plus" programs, believing that it is best for children to have all the information they need about sexuality and to make their own decisions about sex. Source: Tina Hoff and Liberty Greene et al, "Sex Education in America: A Series of National Surveys of Students, Parents, Teachers, and Principals," Kaiser Family Foundation, September 2000, 16. "

Hmm, why would teens actively participate in abstinence programs if they aren't even being instructed about its ultimate effectiveness in these safe sex classes?

Quote :

"Choosing the Best, an abstinence program based in Marietta, Georgia, and started in 1993, has developed curriculum and materials that are used in over two thousand school districts in 48 states. Students in public or private schools are taught abstinence by their teachers, who have been trained by Choosing the Best's staff. Appropriate for 6th through 12th graders, the curriculum teaches students the consequences of premarital sex, the benefits of abstaining until marriage, how to make a virginity pledge, refusal skills, and character education. Choosing the Best involves parents in their children's lessons and teaches them how to teach abstinence to their children. Longitudinal studies conducted by Northwestern University Medical School in 1996 and 1999 found many positive results among students who participated in classes using Choosing the Best's curriculum. In 1996, 54 percent of the teens who were recently sexually active before participating in the program were no longer sexually active one year later. The 1999 study revealed positive changes in teens' attitudes toward sex. On the pretest administered before the abstinence classes, 58 percent of the teens agreed with the statement, "A teen who has had sex outside of marriage would be better off to stop having sex and wait until they are married," while 71 percent agreed on the post-test. Also, agreement with the statement "The best way for me to keep from getting AIDS or some sexually transmitted disease is to wait until I am married before having sex" went from 71 percent before the course to 84 percent afterwards. Source: John T. Vessey, "Choosing the Best Abstinence-Centered Curriculum," Longitudinal Study 1995-1996, Northwestern University Medical School and Project Reality News Release, "Middle School Students Respond to Pro-abstinence Message: Adolescents Show Desire to Defer Sex Until Marriage," May 17, 1999,"

There are plenty of other examples of abstinence only curriculums that have had similar positive effects all over the country.

6/26/2006 4:33:50 PM

^I didn't ignore your information. I just pointed to the fact that you didn't make a connection between abstinence education and abstinence. I think education in general is effective. But "Don't do it." is not education, but even if it is more than that, what about the students who aren't interested in abstinence?

Don't you see that you're the one who's forcing your beliefs on the rest, by denying them information?

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 4:40 PM. Reason : sss]

6/26/2006 4:36:57 PM

i saw some doc about abstinence only programs that were implemented in texas. and the towns that they followed had some of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country (and they were increasing after these programs had been implemented)

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 4:37 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/26/2006 4:37:00 PM

shhh, god is testing them

6/26/2006 4:39:29 PM

Don't do it IS education because all things being equal, the only true way to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is to abstain from sexual activity.

Why do you want to gloss over and ignore the only truly effective way to prevent disease and illegitimacy?

6/26/2006 4:40:07 PM

Don't you see that you're the one who's forcing your beliefs on the rest, by denying them information?

6/26/2006 4:42:02 PM

DON'T EAT THE FRUIT FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE!

DON'T THROW ME IN THAT BRIAR PATCH!

6/26/2006 4:42:39 PM

As opposed to you forcing your beliefs on children that aren't even yours by teaching them that irresponsible behavior is a-ok.

6/26/2006 4:43:54 PM

sarijoul, I'm highly skeptical of the information that WlfPk4Life is sharing with us too.

^They can opt out of it. How many times do I have to tell you that? You're like a stubborn dog.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : sss]

6/26/2006 4:44:45 PM

The truth has that effect on some people.

6/26/2006 4:45:06 PM

Quote :

"Don't do it IS education because all things being equal, the only true way to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is to abstain from sexual activity. Why do you want to gloss over and ignore the only truly effective way to prevent disease and illegitimacy?"

because being against abstinence only education means you don't want them to teach abstinence

6/26/2006 4:46:20 PM

I'm coming with common sense and data.

Wlfpk4Life, you're coming with religion and data.

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

Maine is a model for effective comprehensive sex education and family planning, and I don't see how you can argue with those statistics unless you're opposed to premarital sex altogether and want the government to encourage abstinence only, in which case you should just go ahead and move to Iran, Wlfpk4Life.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 5:02 PM. Reason : sss]

6/26/2006 4:50:55 PM

^Bridget, I do agree about Maine as a model - I speak from experience of living there. It has one of the highest (or the highest, I can't remember) high school graduation rates. In essence, teenagers in Maine are going places. But that usually means out of the state. And from who I knew - the girls getting pregnant were the skanks who won't leave the state anyway.

6/26/2006 5:12:52 PM

Bridget, I'm not claiming that its not a good model, because I don't know. I suspect you may be right, but do you also have base statistics for Maine and the US over that time period in other factors that affect the teen birth rate (like income, education quality, number of abortions, etc.)

Just think it might be easier to tease out what part of it is the education.

6/26/2006 5:19:01 PM

bgmims, this is just a bit of the information; I posted the link on the previous page, but I didn't post it with the table--this where I got the table. I've bolded portions that directly address the things you asked about.

Quote :

"Race, Region and Income In this section, we continue to explore the economic hypothesis by adding region and race/ethnicity as complicating factors. Maine's population, like that of New Hampshire, Vermont, Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota, consists mainly of non-Hispanic whites. In the United States, although teenage birthrates have decreased dramatically for African Americans and Hispanics in the past decade (Ventura et al. 2000), these rates have not declined to the level of non-Hispanic whites. In part, this is because the rates of higher educational attainment for African Americans and Hispanics continue to lag behind the rates for non-Hispanic whites. Earlier, we saw that Maine counties in which more high school seniors intend to pursue a higher education are statistically more likely to have lower teen birthrates. However, on the national level, Maine as a whole does not compare well to other states in higher educational attainment. As shown elsewhere in this issue, Maine lags 18% behind the national average for attaining a bachelor's degree. However, when comparing non-Hispanic whites, Maine lags behind the national average by 26%; and when comparing Maine only to the rest of New England, Maine lags behind by fully 37% (Trostel 2003). It follows that a more realistic assessment of how Maine is currently doing in lowering teen births requires a comparison of Maine's white teenage birthrate with the same population of teenagers in other states. In 2000 only four states had teen birthrates lower than Maine's (Ventura et al. 2002), and we saw earlier that the decline in births among Maine's teens between 1991 and 2000 likewise appeared to be dramatic, exceeded only by the declines in three other states. However, when limiting the comparison to non-Hispanic white teens, Maine's success is not as remarkable. In 1998, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 17 states had lower rates than Maine (Ventura et al. 1999). Table 3 shows that when we further limit the comparison to Maine's regional neighbors, Maine's non-Hispanic white teenage birthrate was not only the highest among the six New England states but it was also higher than that of every other state in the Northeast corridor except Delaware. Why does Maine continue to lag behind its regional neighbors? One possible reason is that Maine's population is poorer than the other northeastern states and, in keeping with the economic hypothesis discussed earlier, less affluence and more poverty may result in fewer perceived alternatives to early childbearing as a road to a meaningful adult life. To explore this possibility, a good measure of economic standing is median household income. Table 3 shows that of the 11 states in the northeast corridor, Maine ranked last in its median household income in 2000. When one compares the median household incomes of non-Hispanic whites, regional economic disparities become even more striking. For example, median household income for non-Hispanic whites in New Jersey, the state with the lowest white teen birthrates, is $60,600; this is compared with Maine's $37,405. When we switch our focus from state-by-state birthrates to state-by-state rates of decline of birthrates, a lingering question remains: Why has Maine, a relatively poor state, had a larger decline in teenage fertility than its wealthier regional neighbors? Table 4 shows the rates of decline for the 11 Northeast states from 1991 to 1998, again confining the analysis to non-Hispanic whites. It is obvious that every state has shown a decline in teen birthrates, typically a substantial one; nevertheless, Maine's decline of 30.9% was larger than that of every Northeast state except Vermont. Perhaps the economic boom of the nineties had some impact on lowering the teen rates within Maine, but we find no consistent evidence that the economic upturn in Maine was greater than elsewhere (U.S. Census Bureau 2002b). We believe that a closer scrutiny of Table 4 provides an answer to the puzzle of why a poor state could show a more dramatic rate of decline than its neighbors. In 1991 all of Maine's neighbors were already reporting much lower rates of white teenage fertility than Maine. Put simply, Maine had more "catch-up" to accomplish. If the rates of decline for these other states over the seven-year period to 1998 were not as steep as Maine's, perhaps it is because they had less distance to travel to bring their rates closer to zero. For example, the decline in Massachusetts of 21% appears less impressive than Maine's 31% decline, until we recognize that Massachusetts's decline brought it all the way down to 20 births per 1,000 teenagers, while Maine's decline brought it down to 30 per 1,000."

Quote :

"Lower rates of childbearing have been mirrored by a similar downward trend in abortion rates, both in Maine and nationally. The teen abortion rate in Maine has fallen more sharply than in the nation as a whole. In 1985 the abortion rate for Maine women age 15-19 was 36 per 1,000, but it fell to 18 per 1,000 in 1996 (nationally, the rate went from 44 to 29 [Alan Guttmacher Institute 1999]). If birthrates are thus falling along with abortion rates, then fewer Maine teens are getting pregnant in the first place."

Teenage Births in Maine: Positive Trends But More to Be Done
http://www.umaine.edu/MCSC/MPR/Vol11No2/King_Marks.htm

There's a whole ton of data and analysis at that link if you're curious.

Maine is a poor state with lots of rural areas that are harder to reach (but thank goodness for the rural areas; Maine is beautiful!). It's a very complicated issue that the table I posted can't encompass, and, like the title says, there's more to be done.

[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 5:54 PM. Reason : sss]

6/26/2006 5:54:30 PM

Quote :

"As opposed to you forcing your beliefs on children that aren't even yours by teaching them that irresponsible behavior is a-ok."

When did you become the final authority on how children should be collectively raised? Actually, I should rephrase that. When did Christian Doctrine become the official syllabus for public education? While it ought to be the responsibilty of PARENTS to raise their children and inform them about sex, the reality is that most parents fail miserably and it becomes society's burdon. If you don't like the way public schools bombard your OWN innocent and ignorant children with messages about sex, you are free to homeschool them yourself or send them to a private school- or have them sit out of public sex ed if you're too lazy to inform them, I know a few kids in my class did.

Sexuality is a public health concern regardless of its purported 'sanctity. Go ahead and make sex the forbidden fruit all you want, but when your kids do the unthinkable and have unprotected pre-marrital sex, it will be YOUR fault, not the public school system's. Practicing 'Safe-Sex' may not sit well with your moral compass, but 'Abstinance Only' completely undermines the consequences and importance of accepting personal responsibility for one's behavior. We do not live in a theocracy, despite how overwhelmingly Christian this country happens to be by choice. Sorry that may pose some sort of inconvenience, but if you want something done right you sometimes have to take some responsibility and do it yourself.

6/26/2006 7:43:42 PM

Quote :

"If you don't like the way public schools bombard your OWN innocent and ignorant children with messages about sex, you are free to homeschool them yourself or send them to a private school"

sure, then soceity ought to do what is reasonable and refund us the money we are not spending through the public schools through a voucher program. Otherwise, for the poor among us it simply isn't possible to raise our children as our morality dictates. So in this way you are forcing your morality ( or lack of it in this case ) on the poor. Unfortunately not everybody can just drop everything and homeschool.

Quote :

"Practicing 'Safe-Sex' may not sit well with your moral compass, but 'Abstinance Only' completely undermines the consequences and importance of accepting personal responsibility for one's behavior."

Why is it so hard for you to understand that not having sex as a teenager is accepting personable responsibility.

6/26/2006 7:54:34 PM

Bridget, thank you for looking into that for me.

I have to say that, baring anything else that we're overlooking, it looks like comprehensive sex-education worked pretty well at lowering the teen pregnancy rate over that time period.

I'm not really sure what the difference is in theirs than ours though. Maybe you already covered it, but my sex-ed class talked about condom use as the best way, other than abstinence, to protect against STDs and pregnancy (not sure why they overlooked the pill for pregnancy). Either way, it worked on me, I was abstinent by choice for a while and then chose to have safe sex. Even though I've had sex, fall-down drunk, I've never not been safe.

I guess it worked on me too.

6/26/2006 8:25:56 PM

Quote :

"Otherwise, for the poor among us it simply isn't possible to raise our children as our morality dictates. So in this way you are forcing your morality ( or lack of it in this case ) on the poor. Unfortunately not everybody can just drop everything and homeschool."

Here's a hint: Don't have children if you can't raise them according to your own moral standards AND don't have them if you're not happy with the way the government picks up the slack when youre completely incompetant as a parent. I guess that's too much responsibility to ask though...

Quote :

"Why is it so hard for you to understand that not having sex as a teenager is accepting personable responsibility"

Using your own definition of personal responsibility, how can you assume teens will be responsible and remain celebate if it's the only thing you've taught them, when you've already assumed that teens aren't responsible enough to practice safe sex?





[Edited on June 26, 2006 at 8:45 PM. Reason : logic]

6/26/2006 8:42:20 PM

I didnt bother to read all this garbage, but did anyone actually try to suggest that a liberal person cannot worship a abrahamic god?

6/27/2006 5:53:50 PM

perhaps they would say such a thing about an Abrahamic God. I wouldn't, I think people are capable of holding inconsistent beliefs sincerely, even liberals.

6/27/2006 6:54:08 PM

I'd rather be a liberal, than a self-righteous and pompous hypocrite

6/27/2006 7:25:32 PM

Hello,

I will be posting my opinions on why abortion is wrong, and why abstinance-education is the only option for a school curriculum.

I will be supporting my opinion with "research" cited by:

The Heritage Foundation

and

The Family Research Council.

If you do not agree with me, then you are obviously flying in the face of purely scientific, unbiased research, and therefore are a retarded fucknob liberal turd.

thank you, and good night.

6/27/2006 8:19:51 PM

aha

6/27/2006 8:43:31 PM

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

6/27/2006 9:08:58 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather be a liberal, than which makes me a self-righteous and pompous hypocrite"

6/28/2006 5:39:35 PM

Quote :

"I will be supporting my opinion with "research" cited by: The Heritage Foundation and The Family Research Council."

joe_schmoe: Are you suggesting that, for instance, the Heritage Foundation put a gun to the heads of the test sponsors at Northwestern University in order to skew the findings in their favor?

Reading comprehension - to some it's simple, but to the simpleminded, it's like a monkey doing a math problem.

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : ]

6/28/2006 5:47:53 PM

Quote :

"U.S. Threatens North Korea With Ann Coulter Launch Rabid pundit deployment could destroy entire Korean peninsula, UN warns Andy Borowitz The Borowitz Report Rabid pundit deployment could destroy entire Korean peninsula, UN warns Updated: 2:50 p.m. ET June 27, 2006 June 27, 2006 - In an act of retaliation for North Korean president Kim Jong-Il's plan to test a long-range missile that could reach California, the U.S. today threatened to launch conservative pundit Ann Coulter in the direction of North Korea. President George W. Bush announced the plan to weaponize Coulter in a nationally televised address. "If North Korea intends to test the most deadly weapon in its arsenal, we will have no alternative but to use the most deadly weapon in ours," Bush said. "And that weapon is Ann Coulter." Mr. Bush did not indicate how and when Coulter could be fired toward Pyongyang, but most military experts believe that she has already been loaded onto a nuclear submarine and could be launched at any moment. At the United Nations, an emergency session of the Security Council was convened to discourage the U.S. from deploying Coulter, who is seen by many in the international community as the ultimate doomsday weapon. Fears abound that if Coulter were fired toward Pyongyang, she would spew noxious fumes that could lay waste to the entire Korean peninsula and might even destroy Japan and parts of China. A spokesperson for Coulter today acknowledged that her client had the power to destroy large areas of Asia, but said that she was "stoked" about the mission. "If destroying Asia will help Ann sell more books, she's up for it," the spokesperson said. Elsewhere, a new study shows that while a person using a cell phone during a thunderstorm could be struck by lightning, a person using a cell phone during a movie should be struck by lightning. "

6/28/2006 5:56:52 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather be a liberal, than which makes me a self-righteous and pompous hypocrite"

and you expect people who identify themselves as "liberal" to even entertain your musings and evidence?

let me guess, "tit for tat" or some equally hypocritical garbage. no one takes you seriously. im a moderate, and your self-righteous attitude gets on my nerves.

ok, im a social liberal, but i really do think these things through. really.

wait, im i getting you confused with the other boisterous catholic? this whole birth controll thing reeks of pope-ness.

[Edited on June 28, 2006 at 9:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2006 9:18:48 PM

wait, were you talking to me, or Pack4Life?

i was being a smartass by replying to mathman and he took it a step further, saying that all liberals are self righteous hypocrites

i wouldn't even label myself as a liberal, im way more of a libertarian

but it's easy to throw the word out whenever someone is socially permissive or disagrees with conservative ideology

i mean is it really a surprise that Pack4Life supports Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, just because they happen to be Republicans?

6/28/2006 10:37:26 PM

^^

Quote :

"wait, im i getting you confused with the other boisterous catholic?"

So you get your pink panties in a wad when I diss liberals but you refer to my religious affiliation as if it's a point of condemnation. Hypocrite much?

Quote :

"let me guess, "tit for tat" or some equally hypocritical garbage. no one takes you seriously. im a moderate, and your self-righteous attitude gets on my nerves. ok, im a social liberal, but i really do think these things through. really."

HAHA if you're a moderate then I'm a moderate.

What's funny is that you are speaking as if you're some kind of authority on who is to be taken seriously and who isn't, as if anybody asked you to begin with.

I know you're a drive by troll and all, but geez, at least try to add something if you're going to go out on a limb and embarrass yourself.

[Edited on June 29, 2006 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/29/2006 7:05:07 PM

Quote :

"i mean is it really a surprise that Pack4Life supports Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, just because they happen to be Republicans?"

You must show me that talking out of your butthole trick that you do so well. Strangely, based on your loosely and incoherent thoughts, I'd wager you hate Rush and Coulter because they are Republicans.

I like Rush because he's entertaining and informative. I like Coulter because she isn't afraid to beat the left at their own game. More importantly, both speak their minds and do not mask their idealogy, which I think are admirable qualities. I am a Conservative 1st, Republican distant 2nd. Your futile attempts to pigeonhole me are cute in a retarded sort of way.

6/29/2006 7:12:28 PM

First of all, I don't hate anyone- it's not a very Christian thing to do. You of all people should know that.

Secondly, the reason I dislike Rush Limbaugh is that he is a total hypocrite, not because he's a Republican. I can't even muster the strength to dislike Ann Coulter because she's nothing but a shrill pot-stirrer who would make a better gossip columnist than a political commentator.

I don't have a problem with Republicans, I have a problem with hypocrites and facists.

6/29/2006 8:18:38 PM

Wlfpk4Life is gone, man. Lost to the world.

It's funny that he doesn't think he should be pigeonholed when he's the ideal candidate.

I know nothing about computers but I could probably take a class or two and with that limited knowledge, write a computer program that would perfectly mimic his posts on TWW. It wouldn't be very complex at all.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is he shouldn't complain about being in a box when he was the one who climbed into the box and labeled it himself. He decided that thinking was hard and opted to let other people do it for him. It's a nice and simple life, but it means that you can't get upset when nobody takes you seriously.

6/30/2006 4:31:26 PM

If you want to pigeonhole me at least be accurate about it and not make crap up.

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life is gone, man. Lost to the world. "

You probably do not realize it, but in an ironic twist this is probably the best compliment anybody could pay me.

7/1/2006 2:48:14 AM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life: You probably do not realize it, but in an ironic twist this is probably the best compliment anybody could pay me."

And this attitude totally affirms my assertion. Enjoy your world.

7/1/2006 2:51:55 AM

Haha you speak as if "my world" is such a bad place.

In my world, kindergardeners would learn how to color within the lines, not how to masturbate.

In my world, school students would say the pledge of allegience every morning and learn essential life skills that will prepare them for higher education and the real world, not how to put condoms on bananas.

In my world, every child would be a wanted child, where 2 parents lovingly raise their children to become responsible adults who positively contribute to society.

Such a terrible place, I know. But it beats your world any day of the week.

7/1/2006 3:39:58 AM

Quote :

"In my world, school students would say the pledge of allegience every morning and learn essential life skills that will prepare them for higher education and the real world, not how to put condoms on bananas."

explain to me how use of condom is not an essential life skill

if

Quote :

"every child would be a wanted child"

since we KNOW for a FACT that people have sex, a lot of sex, a lot of premarital sex, how exactly would that work without forms birth control? exclusively anal and oral sex or gay sex?

thats what your world is?

[Edited on July 1, 2006 at 7:03 AM. Reason : ok....]

7/1/2006 7:01:39 AM