NationStates Jolt Archive

:mad: he just can't stop shoving his bullshit religion down the throats of the rest of us? He realizes, of course, that... wait. This is George W. Bush we're talking about. He doesn't realize shit. He's far too stupid. This, of course, won't hurt all you rich, middle or working class people. This was just something GW decided to do for the poor.

President George W. Bush might have taken a "thumping" in the election last week, but that hasn't exactly made him humble when it comes to presidential appointments. First he renominated a handful of controversial judicial nominees who couldn't even get confirmed when the Senate was in GOP hands. Then he made a controversial appointment that doesn't require congressional approval: Today, the administration named Dr. Eric Keroack deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. Though it's not a high profile job, the post oversees the nation's family planning program, making sure low-income women get access to birth control.


That might be an odd fit for Keroack. He is medical director of five Boston-area "crisis pregnancy centers" that use ultrasounds to convince women not to have abortions. The centers, called A Woman's Concern, also emphasize abstinence and are participating in a campaign for the "Sanctity of Human Life Month." Keroack is also on the medical advisory council of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. Not surprisingly, his appointment didn't go over well with the family planning crowd. "The appointment of anti-birth control, anti-sex education advocate Dr. Eric Keroack to oversee the nation's family planning program is striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation's priorities," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards emailed in a statement. According to a spokesperson at the office of population affairs, Keroack is due to start work on Monday.

http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/default.asp?item=283480

He'll never get the message. At least now he has to face a hopefully hostile Congress when he makes these idiotic appointements and needs them confirmed. Hell, man--he sent Bolton back.

Well it's good for the economy. Loads of poor kids lower wages resulting in lower costs being passed on to consumers. If we can make the poor breed enough we might be able to bring wages down to third world levels and then we can sell cheap patio furniture in Chinese wall mart stores rather than buying it from them.

So what? Just because he has a different set of beliefs than you doesn't make him an idiot. People have a right to hold varying views on things, and still hold the right to hold any job. He shouldn't be banned from some jobs because some don't like his views. Once we start doing that we go down the road to oppression.



FYI, Anti-ABortion doesn't mean religion, not all against it are religious. You need some tolerance lessons.

could America be slipping back into anti-abortion times!

and this technique of using ultrasound to brainwash women sounds interesting...

So what? Just because he has a different set of beliefs than you doesn't make him an idiot. People have a right to hold varying views on things, and still hold the right to hold any job. He shouldn't be banned from some jobs because some don't like his views. Once we start doing that we go down the road to oppression.



FYI, Anti-ABortion doesn't mean religion, not all against it are religious. You need some tolerance lessons.
Your beliefs should prevent you from holding certain jobs. Imagine if a neonazi was made head of the JDL or if a creationist was given the job of choosing the science curriculum for a school district. Wouldn't work out too well, would it?

:mad: he just can't stop shoving his bullshit religion down the throats of the rest of us? He realizes, of course, that... wait. This is George W. Bush we're talking about. He doesn't realize shit. He's far too stupid. This, of course, won't hurt all you rich, middle or working class people. This was just something GW decided to do for the poor.



http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/default.asp?item=283480

OMG CAN IT BE.... a real live flaming los angeles liberal...CAN I HAVE YOUR AUTOGRAPH???

So what? Just because he has a different set of beliefs than you doesn't make him an idiot. People have a right to hold varying views on things, and still hold the right to hold any job. He shouldn't be banned from some jobs because some don't like his views. Once we start doing that we go down the road to oppression.



FYI, Anti-ABortion doesn't mean religion, not all against it are religious. You need some tolerance lessons.

Bullshit. The guy is anti-birth control and is was just appointed to head the Federal agency that oversees the distribution of birth control. He can have his views, but his views mean he shouldn't have this job.

So what? Just because he has a different set of beliefs than you doesn't make him an idiot.

that’s debatable

People have a right to hold varying views on things, and still hold the right to hold any job. He shouldn't be banned from some jobs because some don't like his views

well being Anti-abortion and Anti-sex education isn't the best thing if your in control of family planning is it? (and remember this is politics views are important)

He'll never get the message. At least now he has to face a hopefully hostile Congress when he makes these idiotic appointements and needs them confirmed. Hell, man--he sent Bolton back.

Unfortunately he doesn't need Congressional approval for this one.

So he's in favor of attempting to get pregnant women to re-think having abortions. How is that bad? Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, I don't see how there could be a problem with that, especially since there are plenty of health risks associated with abortions and many women end up regretting the decision later. Your paranoid anger is absurd.

And heaven forbid that you encourage teenagers to keep their legs shut. *rolls eyes*

Your beliefs should prevent you from holding certain jobs. Imagine if a neonazi was made head of the JDL or if a creationist was given the job of choosing the science curriculum for a school district. Wouldn't work out too well, would it?

so Christians shouldn't hold public office because of the seperation of church and state?

I mean if I believe in God shouldn't that preclude me from participating in secular government?

So what? Just because he has a different set of beliefs than you doesn't make him an idiot. People have a right to hold varying views on things, and still hold the right to hold any job. He shouldn't be banned from some jobs because some don't like his views. Once we start doing that we go down the road to oppression.



FYI, Anti-ABortion doesn't mean religion, not all against it are religious. You need some tolerance lessons.

Sorry, but you don't get your own "beliefs" when it comes to matters of science. This is a guy who's claiming that sex causes people to go through oxytocin withdrawals and therefore prevents people from bonding in relationships. It's ludicrous.

So what? Just because he has a different set of beliefs than you doesn't make him an idiot. People have a right to hold varying views on things, and still hold the right to hold any job. He shouldn't be banned from some jobs because some don't like his views. Once we start doing that we go down the road to oppression.



FYI, Anti-ABortion doesn't mean religion, not all against it are religious. You need some tolerance lessons.

I've yet to meet an anti-choicer who is not religious.
Would you make someone head of police who had shown himself to be a strong believer in white supremacy?
Would you make someone minister of economics who has been known to be bribeable?
Would you make someone minister of defence if you knew that the person has a pathological aversion to uniforms?

So why put someone who who thinks women have an obligation to breed in charge of the free distribution of contraception?

So he's in favor of attempting to get pregnant women to re-think having abortions. How is that bad? Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, I don't see how there could be a problem with that, especially since there are plenty of health risks associated with abortions and many women end up regretting the decision later. Your paranoid anger is absurd.

There are more health risks associated with carrying the pregnancy to term and forcing poor women into having unwanted kids while government cuts welfare benefits is pretty fucked up. Also there is evidence that the drop in crime in the nineties may be because women had the option to abort unwanted kids.

so Christians shouldn't hold public office because of the seperation of church and state?

I mean if I believe in God shouldn't that preclude me from participating in secular government?
Depends--are you going to use your position to require that all non-christians be converted? Or can you do your job without impressing your preferred brand of christianity on those you're working for? (I'm not talking about you personally, Smunkee, mind you--it's a rhetorical you.)

so Christians shouldn't hold public office because of the seperation of church and state?

I mean if I believe in God shouldn't that preclude me from participating in secular government?

Belief in god doesn't preclude you from participating in secular government, but if you believe that you should use the power of government to convert others to your faith in god, no, you shouldn't be in public office.

Bullshit. The guy is anti-birth control and is was just appointed to head the Federal agency that oversees the distribution of birth control. He can have his views, but his views mean he shouldn't have this job.

Or else he should shove his views and do the job of giving pills, condoms and diaphragms to the poor.

so Christians shouldn't hold public office because of the seperation of church and state?

I mean if I believe in God shouldn't that preclude me from participating in secular government?


It's clear some people on the left support the idea that we should live in a country where they..not you them...Get to pick and choose what jobs some types of people can and cannot hold. Nobody should be denied jobs based on personal beliefs...Thats called discrimination. So yes, all Christians should be banned for public office.

Depends--are you going to use your position to require that all non-christians be converted? Or can you do your job without impressing your preferred brand of christianity on those you're working for? (I'm not talking about you personally, Smunkee, mind you--it's a rhetorical you.)

Belief in god doesn't preclude you from participating in secular government, but if you believe that you should use the power of government to convert others to your faith in god, no, you shouldn't be in public office.

do either of you have proof that he intends to use this position to further his 'agenda' ?

(not a rhetorical question, I really would like a source if you have one)

There are more health risks associated with carrying the pregnancy to term and forcing poor women into having unwanted kids while government cuts welfare benefits is pretty fucked up. Also there is evidence that the drop in crime in the nineties may be because women had the option to abort unwanted kids.

I wasn't saying that abortion should be banned; I am simply stating that there is nothing wrong with letting women know exactly what they are doing and encouraging them to carefully consider their actions.

As for the crime drop, there is more evidence that it was economical, but that's another discussion.

It's clear some people on the left support the idea that we should live in a country where they..not you them...Get to pick and choose what jobs some types of people can and cannot hold. Nobody should be denied jobs based on personal beliefs...Thats called discrimination. So yes, all Christians should be banned for public office.

Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but get your mind reading skills checked out. You got my message all wrong.

Or else he should shove his views and do the job of giving pills, condoms and diaphragms to the poor.


Sorry, he doesn't get that chance to prove he can do what he was hired to do. Some people do jobs that they disagree with because they need money.

so Christians shouldn't hold public office because of the seperation of church and state?

I mean if I believe in God shouldn't that preclude me from participating in secular government?

Considering one of your veiws is also that your beliefs apply to yourself and not us, no, it wouldn't preclude you.

Thanks for speaking on my behalf, but get your mind reading skills checked out. You got my message all wrong.



Don't flatter yourself, I wasn't talking about you. In fact I didn't even read your post until AFTER I posted mine.

As for the crime drop, there is more evidence that it was economical, but that's another discussion.

Kids are pretty economic...

do either of you have proof that he intends to use this position to further his 'agenda' ?

(not a rhetorical question, I really would like a source if you have one)

I don't have that proof, but what happens when he does promote useless "abstinence only" programs and makes it more difficult for women to get birth control? Can we get rid of him? Nope. He gets to fuck up for at least two years. If he's been appointed there isn't anything I can do about it except complain, but I will complain. I'm kind of a whiner sometimes.

I don't have that proof, but what happens when he does promote useless "abstinence only" programs and makes it more difficult for women to get birth control? Can we get rid of him? Nope. He gets to fuck up for at least two years. If he's been appointed there isn't anything I can do about it except complain, but I will complain. I'm kind of a whiner sometimes.
I promise to complain loudly as well.

And heaven forbid that you encourage teenagers to keep their legs shut. *rolls eyes*

I think you misunderstand the anti-sex education meaning basically it means at most you tell kids "do not have sex" which too be honest doesn't work especially when educating children on STI's, puberty, pregnancy, contraception as well how to use it and telling kids where to go to check things out

And there is the fact that if you tell kids to never ever do something what do you think they are going to do?

Kids are pretty economic...

I was referring more broadly to growths and recessions... you know, those things you learn about in high school.

Don't flatter yourself, I wasn't talking about you. In fact I didn't even read your post until AFTER I posted mine.

Smunkeeville quoted me when asking those questions. Seems to me that she was asking me, not you. Not that you don't have the right to speak, but it does seem like you were trying to answer for me.

I don't have that proof, but what happens when he does promote useless "abstinence only" programs and makes it more difficult for women to get birth control? Can we get rid of him? Nope. He gets to fuck up for at least two years. If he's been appointed there isn't anything I can do about it except complain, but I will complain. I'm kind of a whiner sometimes.


I got an original idea! Wait and see how well he does instead of assuming he is going to suck.

Smunkeeville quoted me when asking those questions. Seems to me that she was asking me, not you. Not that you don't have the right to speak, but it does seem like you were trying to answer for me.

Well I wasn't. I can't answer for you or anyone else. I can only answer for me.

I think you misunderstand the anti-sex education meaning basically it means at most you tell kids "do not have sex" which too be honest doesn't work especially when educating children on STI's, puberty, pregnancy, contraception as well how to use it and telling kids where to go to check things out

And there is the fact that if you tell kids to never ever do something what do you think they are going to do?

And it isn't just teenagers either. Married couples get pregnant on accident too.

Sorry, he doesn't get that chance to prove he can do what he was hired to do. Some people do jobs that they disagree with because they need money.

"I didn't have a choice, how many jobs could I get with a doctorate?"

I think you misunderstand the anti-sex education meaning basically it means at most you tell kids "do not have sex" which too be honest doesn't work especially when educating children on STI's, puberty, pregnancy, contraception as well how to use it and telling kids where to go to check things out

And there is the fact that if you tell kids to never ever do something what do you think they are going to do?

I know where your coming from. Although, from the article, I didn't notice anything saying that this man was against any other kind of sex-education. Other than the ranting of a commentator, anyway. Forgive me for taking that with a grain of salt.

I got an original idea! Wait and see how well he does instead of assuming he is going to suck.

Well, considering the fact that in the private sector this guy did his level best to discourage sex ed, contraception and abortion and that he was appointed by a president who shares his point of view, I think it's a pretty safe bet that he'll continue to discourage sex ed, contraception and abortion in his new public sector job.

Imagine if a person on the board of Handgun Control Inc. was appointed to head the BATF by an anti-gun president. Wouldn't you assume he's going to try to take your guns?

I got an original idea! Wait and see how well he does instead of assuming he is going to suck.

Then do we get to say "I Told You So"?

I got an original idea! Wait and see how well he does instead of assuming he is going to suck.

He's a Bush appointee. He's bound to suck. Look at Bush's track record, for fuck's sake. Factor in that he's a liar about things for which there is scientific evidence to refute him, and that he's willing to openly misstate scientific findings to back up his own arguments, and the chances of his sucking rapidly approach 1.

Dr. Just-Say-No
By moiv Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:03:45 AM EST
topic: Reproductive Rights section:Front Page email story print

Meet Dr. Eric Keroack.
He's a favorite guest speaker at meetings of the National Right to Life Committee.

He's on the Medical Advisory Council for the notorious Leslee Unruh's National Abstinence Clearinghouse, whence he expounds on such topics as the Physical and Emotional Consequences of Premarital Sex.

He teaches that there is a physiological cause [pdf link] for relationship failure and sexual promiscuity -- a hormonal cause-and-effect that can only be short-circuited by sexual abstinence until marriage. [ editor's note: the following images, except when otherwise noted, are from the powerpoint presentation described and linked to above ]

He's the full time medical director for A Woman's Concern, a chain of Boston-area crisis pregnancy centers where he spreads all the usual lies about abortion, and uses ultrasound scans as a tool to influence the decisions of women who might be considering abortion.

He was one of the "experts" who determined that federally funded abstinence education programs must mention contraceptives only in relation to their failure rates and promote abstinence until marriage.

Now, in what has been characterized as a "stealth" appointment by the Bush administration, we hear that Keroack is set to assume a new post as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs. The DASPA oversees a number of Health and Human Services programs, including the Office of Family Planning.

Dr. Eric Keroack works his heart out for the Christian right. And it appears that, as of Monday morning, he'll be working for us, too.

http://www.talk2action.org/

FYI, Anti-ABortion doesn't mean religion, not all against it are religious. You need some tolerance lessons.

According to the news item, he run's the clinics called "A Woman's Concern"

According to The United Way (http://www.volunteersolutions.org/lancaster/org/2439873.html)


The goal of A Woman's Concern is to reflect the love of Christ by providing alternatives to abortion through support, education and practical assistance to those in need, enabling them to make informed decisions regarding their lives and the lives of their unborn children.


You need some research lessons....

According to the news item, he run's the clinics called "A Woman's Concern"

According to The United Way (http://www.volunteersolutions.org/lancaster/org/2439873.html)



You need some research lessons....


You need reading lessons. Did I say he wasn;t religious? NO! I just said anti-abortion doesn't always mean religion. Learn to read.

Well, considering the fact that in the private sector this guy did his level best to discourage sex ed, contraception and abortion and that he was appointed by a president who shares his point of view, I think it's a pretty safe bet that he'll continue to discourage sex ed, contraception and abortion in his new public sector job.

Imagine if a person on the board of Handgun Control Inc. was appointed to head the BATF by an anti-gun president. Wouldn't you assume he's going to try to take your guns?


I wouldn't assume anything. Assuming only leads to oppression as you can't judge a book by it cover, you just can't attack people based on the assumption they MAY do something...I thought you were against that...Iraq...

He's a Bush appointee. He's bound to suck. Look at Bush's track record, for fuck's sake. Factor in that he's a liar about things for which there is scientific evidence to refute him, and that he's willing to openly misstate scientific findings to back up his own arguments, and the chances of his sucking rapidly approach 1.Damnit, Nazz, you stole my thunder.

It's clear some people on the left support the idea that we should live in a country where they..not you them...Get to pick and choose what jobs some types of people can and cannot hold. Nobody should be denied jobs based on personal beliefs...Thats called discrimination. So yes, all Christians should be banned for public office.Yes, people should be denied jobs based on personal beliefs. It depends on the relevancy. Liking the color blue should not be grounds for denying someone a job whereas disliking work and wanting to do nothing all day long is.

You need reading lessons. Did I say he wasn;t religious? NO! I just said anti-abortion doesn't always mean religion. Learn to read.

No, you castigated someone for assuming that the person was religious, and called them intolerant, without bothering to find out for yourself if MAYBE the person was right.

And maybe they knew that because they had taken a moment to google the place too.

People don't, after all, have to link EVERY source to justify every statement made in a post.

You, believe it or not, are free to find a dissenting source before jumping to your own conclusions and attacking the poster instead of the subject - which is exactly what you did.

I wouldn't assume anything. Assuming only leads to oppression as you can't judge a book by it cover, you just can't attack people based on the assumption they MAY do something...I thought you were against that...Iraq...Not assuming leads to lead poisoning ;)

OMG CAN IT BE.... a real live flaming los angeles liberal...CAN I HAVE YOUR AUTOGRAPH???

Let's see...

I'm for sending 20,000 border patrol agents to the border, I'm against ceilings on gas prices and thing the market should determine the price, I'm against affirmative action, I'm against pork barrel spending and think the government should be spening money on the military, law enforcement, our infrastructure and not much else, I'm againts gun bans... voted for Schwartzenneger...

See, it's not that I'm liberal, I'm more of a libertarian, I'm just against stupid, arrogant assholes that mascarade as conservatives... especially when they are in a position to destroy my country.

Yes, people should be denied jobs based on personal beliefs. It depends on the relevancy. Liking the color blue should not be grounds for denying someone a job whereas disliking work and wanting to do nothing all day long is.

I don't like work, I would love to do nothing all day, however I have quite a few jobs...I am good at them too.

belief /=/ action (or inaction in your example I guess)

I wouldn't assume anything. Assuming only leads to oppression as you can't judge a book by it cover, you just can't attack people based on the assumption they MAY do something...I thought you were against that...Iraq...

I was against Iraq. I assumed they weren't actually a threat to the USA based on what I knew. We all assume a lot of things to get along in life. Imagine if you had a known crack addict in your house. Would you leave him there unsupervised while you went out for an hour or so? Of course not. You have to assume a crackhead will steal something to sell for his next hit.

When selecting someone for a job, their hard skills are just as important as their soft skills. Candidates being selected for a position that affects the public should be able to act in a secular manner and comport themselves as such, even if they hold firm religious beliefs.

I can think of one where this was true. Former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin is Catholic. His liberals tabled Bill C-38 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?Parl=38&Ses=1&ls=c38), which legalised homosexual marriage. The Vatican attempted to exert pressure on the PM because he was acting against the beliefs of the church he was a member of. He explained he was doing this because the homosexual citizens of Canada had the same constitutional rights as any other.

Point? You can have someone religious hold public office, but when their beliefs get in the way of them being able to competently conduct their job and do what is necessary to keep the public safe, in this case oversee proper sex education and distribution of contraceptives.

In the case of this Bush appointee, if it;s obvious the person has a clear bias against sexual contact outside of marriage, contraceptives and abortions without reasonable grounds, this person is likely unfit for the job because not everyone is a Christian and not every Christian is a moronic bible-thumping hard-liner with the vision of a small-minded gnat.

I don't like work, I would love to do nothing all day, however I have quite a few jobs...I am good at them too.

belief /=/ action (or inaction in your example I guess)Yes, good point.
We should look at people's past actions. If they are lazy, perhaps they are not suited for work. He has a track record that makes him unsuitable for the job.

No, you castigated someone for assuming that the person was religious, and called them intolerant, without bothering to find out for yourself if MAYBE the person was right.

And maybe they knew that because they had taken a moment to google the place too.

People don't, after all, have to link EVERY source to justify every statement made in a post.

You, believe it or not, are free to find a dissenting source before jumping to your own conclusions and attacking the poster instead of the subject - which is exactly what you did.


Again learn to read. I called him intolerant for hinting he should not be allowed to have the job because of his beliefs.

SO?


Yes they do, they have to source their claims to prove they are indeed correct. That is only thrown away when it is a personal opinion being stated. Remember when you make a claim the burden of proof is on you and people have a right to demand it.


Dissenting on what? There was nothing to search for. I refuted his claims he was going to suck and force religion down peoples throats. You don't need a link to disagree with someone.

For a more in-depth look at this person (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/17/abortion_foe_to_lead_on_family_planning/)


When the American Medical Association recommended against using any "unproven" sex education approach in 2004 -- a reference to abstinence programs -- Keroack criticized the AMA in The Washington Times.

"Abstinence education is the first mechanism that has actually made a positive impact on the devastation caused by the errant sexual education programs of the 1970s and 1980s," he said.

In a 2003 presentation to the International Abstinence Leadership Conference in Las Vegas, Keroack wrote in a PowerPoint item that "PRE-MARITAL SEX is really MODERN GERM WARFARE." The presentation outlined a purported scientific basis for how premarital sex ruins later relationships.

Keroack said teenage sexual activity blunts the brain's ability to develop emotional relationships. Comparing sex to drug use, he said the hormone produced by the brain after orgasm, oxytocin , will eventually diminish a person's ability to form emotional attachments. Keroack said premarital sex can lead to overproduction of oxytocin .

In the 2001 paper for Abstinence Medical Council that he co authored with Diggs, the two doctors concluded: "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual. . . . Just as in heroin addiction . . . the person involved will experience 'sex withdrawal' and will need to move on to a . . . new sex playmate."

Yes, good point.
We should look at people's past actions. If they are lazy, perhaps they are not suited for work. He has a track record that makes him unsuitable for the job.
With the right training, anyone can do any job. Who will get that job? The person with the right attitude and personality for it who has the skills.

Let's see...

I'm for sending 20,000 border patrol agents to the border, I'm against ceilings on gas prices and thing the market should determine the price, I'm against affirmative action, I'm against pork barrel spending and think the government should be spening money on the military, law enforcement, our infrastructure and not much else, I'm againts gun bans... voted for Schwartzenneger...

See, it's not that I'm liberal, I'm more of a libertarian, I'm just against stupid, arrogant assholes that mascarade as conservatives... especially when they are in a position to destroy my country.

You have to understand. From Amadeinjad's point of view, anyone who dares question Dear Leader is by default a flaming liberal.

I was against Iraq. I assumed they weren't actually a threat to the USA based on what I knew. We all assume a lot of things to get along in life. Imagine if you had a known crack addict in your house. Would you leave him there unsupervised while you went out for an hour or so? Of course not. You have to assume a crackhead will steal something to sell for his next hit.


I did have a crack head living in my house. My sister was one and she didn't steal anything from me.

As for Iraq, Bush assumed Iraq was a threat based on what he knew..did he not?

Keroack said teenage sexual activity blunts the brain's ability to develop emotional relationships. Comparing sex to drug use, he said the hormone produced by the brain after orgasm, oxytocin , will eventually diminish a person's ability to form emotional attachments. Keroack said premarital sex can lead to overproduction of oxytocin .
Can this moron have his license to practice any type of medicine rescinded?

You have to understand. From Amadeinjad's point of view, anyone who dares question Dear Leader is by default a flaming liberal.
*looks around and sees a good number of NS Liberals on fire, casually walking around*

Yep, they're flaming all right... must be because they walked under his radar...

For a more in-depth look at this person (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/17/abortion_foe_to_lead_on_family_planning/)

This man seems rather silly. I mean, calling sex "germ warfare"? Yeah, I can see him sucking at his job.

its ok, its ok, Bush has less than 2 years left. Then he's gone forever. FOREVER! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHA! :sniper:

I got an original idea! Wait and see how well he does instead of assuming he is going to suck.

Funny, you keep going off on this religious thing. I never mentioned it. My objections was purely about having someone who has a moral problem with birth control appointed to head the fedarl government's birth control programs. That's just a clear conflict of interest. That would be like appointing a communist to the SEC.

Again learn to read. I called him intolerant for hinting he should not be allowed to have the job because of his beliefs.

SO?If the man's beliefs are harmful and he is put in a position where he is meant to serve people, then the intolerance is justified. It's not an intolerance of people with those beliefs then, but an intolerance of incompetence or harmful decisionmaking.

I did have a crack head living in my house. My sister was one and she didn't steal anything from me.

As for Iraq, Bush assumed Iraq was a threat based on what he knew..did he not?


And this, folks, kinda reeks of someone pulling something out of their ass..for the sake of an argument they're clearly losing...

I did have a crack head living in my house. My sister was one and she didn't steal anything from me. Must not have been much of a crack habit. I've had friends steal from me. I have one friend who's sister stole from him and from their father. She stole some cash from me before as well. I wouldn't trust a crackhead again.

As for Iraq, Bush assumed Iraq was a threat based on what he knew..did he not?
Nope. There is evidence that he was planning to attack Iraq from the beginning of his presidency and disregarded any intelligence that undermined his assertion that Iraq was a threat.

You have to understand. From Amadeinjad's point of view, anyone who dares question Dear Leader is by default a flaming liberal.

Yeah, there's a lot of that going around. *cough MTAE cough*

And this, folks, kinda reeks of someone pulling something out of their ass..for the sake of an argument they're clearly losing...


Care to prove me wrong? Can you prove me wrong? No you can't, so STFU. Nobody was flaming until you came in here.

Again learn to read. I called him intolerant for hinting he should not be allowed to have the job because of his beliefs.

SO?



Actually, your exact statement, in a separate paragraph all on its own was:


FYI, Anti-ABortion doesn't mean religion, not all against it are religious. You need some tolerance lessons.

Anyone reading it as presented would assume my interpretation. If it was not what you MEANT to say, then it is your writing problem, not my reading one.

However it is clear that your "debating style" is a confrontational, personal one over use of anything substative like, say, facts. A cheap style if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

And I will simply note your preference for further reference.

Care to prove me wrong? Can you prove me wrong? No you can't, so STFU. Nobody was flaming until you came in here.

So who's flaming you? Disagreeing with you and introducing evidence that you're wrong isn't flaming.

Must not have been much of a crack habit. I've had friends steal from me. I have one friend who's sister stole from him and from their father. She stole some cash from me before as well. I wouldn't trust a crackhead again.
Nope. There is evidence that he was planning to attack Iraq from the beginning of his presidency and disregarded any intelligence that undermined his assertion that Iraq was a threat.


She was a pretty big crackhead, either I didn't have anything she wanted or she was happy to steal from my mother. But either way she didn't have to steal, for some reason my mother gave her money...I later found out she claimed it was for food...It was not.


Bush also had intelligence stating Iraq did pose a threat...It went both ways.

I don't care what that man believes as long as he has a secular nation in mind.


(waits for laughter to stop)

Well, it could happen, right?

Actually, your exact statement, in a separate paragraph all on its own was:



Anyone reading it as presented would assume my interpretation. If it was not what you MEANT to say, then it is your writing problem, not my reading one.

However it is clear that your "debating style" is a confrontational, personal one over use of anything substative like, say, facts. A cheap style if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

And I will simply note your preference for further reference.

On another note, I never mentioned his religion. I mentioned Bush's religion, but not the doctor's. As stated earlier but ignored by UnHoly so far, my problem is with the clear conflict of interest in appointing a person who has a moral problem with birth control to head the federal government's birth control program. That's like appointing a retired bull fighter to head the Humane Society.

She was a pretty big crackhead, either I didn't have anything she wanted or she was happy to steal from my mother. But either way she didn't have to steal, for some reason my mother gave her money...I later found out she claimed it was for food...It was not.


Bush also had intelligence stating Iraq did pose a threat...It went both ways.

What intelligence? The fake yellowcake thing?

Actually, your exact statement, in a separate paragraph all on its own was:



Anyone reading it as presented would assume my interpretation. If it was not what you MEANT to say, then it is your writing problem, not my reading one.

However it is clear that your "debating style" is a confrontational, personal one over use of anything substative like, say, facts. A cheap style if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.

And I will simply note your preference for further reference.



Its your reading not my writing. I clearly stated not all people against it are religious. Now you are trying to twist my words around to save yourself. My statement was correct as not all people against abortion are religious as the OP seemed to hint at. Learn to read please.

Your beliefs should prevent you from holding certain jobs. Imagine if a neonazi was made head of the JDL or if a creationist was given the job of choosing the science curriculum for a school district. Wouldn't work out too well, would it?

I do not think those kind of people would get involved in the sort of tasks/professions which would require them to do things they did not at all support.

UnHoly Smite - you smell of Corneliu

any relation?

belief /=/ action (or inaction in your example I guess)

True, but when a person has made their mark as a leading proponent and activist of a certain point of view, one is hard pressed to assume that they will abandon that which they seem most passionate about when it directly impacts their job.

Which is to say that they might indeed not have their viewpoint influence their decisions, however if someone had appointed Jane Fonda to oversee military deployments in '68 I think it might have been fair for people to assume what her position would have been then too......

Care to prove me wrong? Can you prove me wrong? No you can't, so STFU. Nobody was flaming until you came in here.

And if you'rwe going to debate in here I wish you'd stop dodging the subject because you're way off of it. I'll need to see you defend appointing a person to head the federal governments birth control program who is morally against birth control. His religion has nothing to do with it. Bush's religion does, but not the doctor's.

I do not think those kind of people would get involved in the sort of tasks/professions which would require them to do things they did not at all support.No but they might get involved in those sorts of things in order to undermine policies they personally disliked, which is what will likely happen in this case. It's a standard practice for Bush--put a coal industry lobbyist in charge of mine safety. Put a logging industry person in charge of the Dept. of the Interior. There are plenty of examples of this behavior.

I do not think those kind of people would get involved in the sort of tasks/professions which would require them to do things they did not at all support.
This reminds me of those pharmacists who refused to dispense drugs because they didn't believe in birth control or anything like that even though the woman had her prescription from her doctor.

Its your reading not my writing. I clearly stated not all people against it are religious. Now you are trying to twist my words around to save yourself. My statement was correct as not all people against abortion are religious as the OP seemed to hint at. Learn to read please.
And, pray tell, where did you quote someone that stated that all people that are anti-abortionists are religious?

UnHoly Smite - you smell of Corneliu

any relation?An unreligious Corneliu? :confused:

On another note, I never mentioned his religion. I mentioned Bush's religion, but not the doctor's. As stated earlier but ignored by UnHoly so far, my problem is with the clear conflict of interest in appointing a person who has a moral problem with birth control to head the federal government's birth control program. That's like appointing a retired bull fighter to head the Humane Society.


You said Bush's religion and that he was using that guy to force his views on us. Therefore assuming the other guy was religious too and assume that anti-abortion meant religious. See how things connect? I also never clearly stated if i was for him or against him, I just corrected you and said anti-abortion doesn't = religion. Which you ignored.

UnHoly Smite - you smell of Corneliu

any relation?


No.

Its your reading not my writing. I clearly stated not all people against it are religious. Now you are trying to twist my words around to save yourself. My statement was correct as not all people against abortion are religious as the OP seemed to hint at. Learn to read please.

*yawn*

OK, now you're getting boring.

There is no twisting your statement where you directly tied calling the OP intolerant to the assumption regarding religion. It is in a single paragraph.

The only thing twisted here is what you are trying to do to the subject of the thread through your cheap, personal tactics.

And, pray tell, where did you quote someone that stated that all people that are anti-abortionists are religious?


The OP clearly pointed in that direction. Read his first post again to understand how some may see it that way....Something I have yet to see him deny.

True, but when a person has made their mark as a leading proponent and activist of a certain point of view, one is hard pressed to assume that they will abandon that which they seem most passionate about when it directly impacts their job.

Which is to say that they might indeed not have their viewpoint influence their decisions, however if someone had appointed Jane Fonda to oversee military deployments in '68 I think it might have been fair for people to assume what her position would have been then too......

this is pretty much where I stand on this topic as well.

I am so glad that Bushs ability to do damage has been minimized. I kind of have a feelign that this appointment was made to get Dems riled up and hopefully do or say something stupid so that the Republicans dont look so much worse by comparison, but really this just makes the Republicans look really bad and the Dems sane for having an objection to it.

You said Bush's religion and that he was using that guy to force his views on us. Therefore assuming the other guy was religious too and assume that anti-abortion meant religious. See how things connect? I also never clearly stated if i was for him or against him, I just corrected you and said anti-abortion doesn't = religion. Which you ignored.

Of course he ignored it. Because your GENERALIZATION has sweet f-all to do with a SPECIFIC case where, as noted, this person IS RELIGIOUS.

To illustrate by way of example:

Generally, people aren't intellectually dishonest.

Specifically, you seem to be.

See the difference?

*yawn*

OK, now you're getting boring.

There is no twisting your statement where you directly tied calling the OP intolerant to the assumption regarding religion. It is in a single paragraph.

The only thing twisted here is what you are trying to do to the subject of the thread through your cheap, personal tactics.

:headbang:


Forget it. Just forget it. The only cheap personal tactics being done here are by you. I need some advil, you gave me a headache.

An unreligious Corneliu? :confused:

Just the debating style seems so very... Cornish

UnHoly Smite - you smell of Corneliu

any relation?

C'mon,man-thats how you deal with an opposing view?

You said Bush's religion and that he was using that guy to force his views on us. Therefore assuming the other guy was religious too and assume that anti-abortion meant religious. See how things connect? I also never clearly stated if i was for him or against him, I just corrected you and said anti-abortion doesn't = religion. Which you ignored.

I ignored that because it is immaterial. What I am offended by is that Bush is trying to force his religious views down the throats of the public by appointing someone who is against birth control to head our governments birth control services. The religion of the doctor is immaterial and wasn't mentioned by me and, after looking back, wasn't even mentioned in the article. Bush doesn't like people having sex, people, mind you, not just teenagers - the vast majority of people who use Planned Parenthood are adult people with low income. So what he does is put a guy in charge who will likely enact policies limiting poor people's access to birth control.

Of course, I would have no problem hiring a Christian to work here at my work. :)

The OP clearly pointed in that direction. Read his first post again to understand how some may see it that way....Something I have yet to see him deny.

The OP:

he just can't stop shoving his bullshit religion down the throats of the rest of us? He realizes, of course, that... wait. This is George W. Bush we're talking about. He doesn't realize shit. He's far too stupid. This, of course, won't hurt all you rich, middle or working class people. This was just something GW decided to do for the poor.

Now where, specifically, does this post in any way suggest, state, hint, or otherwise that "all those who oppose abortion are religious".

Anything beyond that was in the quoted article, which also makes no such assertion.

You said Bush's religion and that he was using that guy to force his views on us. Therefore assuming the other guy was religious too and assume that anti-abortion meant religious. See how things connect? I also never clearly stated if i was for him or against him, I just corrected you and said anti-abortion doesn't = religion. Which you ignored.


you seem to be the one doing most of the assumign here.

you assume that PD assumed Bushs appointees religion when this guy is well known for his religious ties. So why do you assume that PD didnt know the apointees religion?

And anti-abortion does most often seem to come from religious beliefs.

This reminds me of those pharmacists who refused to dispense drugs because they didn't believe in birth control or anything like that even though the woman had her prescription from her doctor.There was a case not long ago where a woman was denied access to emergency contraception because she wasn't married. By the time she got it, it was too late, and she wound up having to get an abortion. Now, who's responsible for that abortion--the fuckhead doctors who refused to give her the treatment she requested for their own personal "moral" reasons or the woman whose contraception failed and who tried to take care of the situation but was denied access?

this is pretty much where I stand on this topic as well.

I am so glad that Bushs ability to do damage has been minimized. I kind of have a feelign that this appointment was made to get Dems riled up and hopefully do or say something stupid so that the Republicans dont look so much worse by comparison, but really this just makes the Republicans look really bad and the Dems sane for having an objection to it.

The Dems didn't get a chance. There's no congressional approval needed for this appointment.

C'mon,man-thats how you deal with an opposing view?

what?

no thats how I ask someone if they are the person they remind me of that I haven't seen around for a while.

Is that how you usually see me deal with opposing views?

you seem to be the one doing most of the assumign here.

you assume that PD assumed Bushs appointees religion when this guy is well known for his religious ties. So why do you assume that PD didnt know the apointees religion?

And anti-abortion does most often seem to come from religious beliefs.


If he did know he should have provided proof of it instead of hinting at it. There is a connection he made between religion and anti-abortion, which I clearly stated wasn't always true.

The Dems didn't get a chance. There's no congressional approval needed for this appointment.


I know, but that doesn't stop people from objecting to the appointment.

what?

no thats how I ask someone if they are the person they remind me of that I haven't seen around for a while.

Is that how you usually see me deal with opposing views?


The "smell" comment seemed deliberately condescending to me,if it wasnt, I'm sorry.

If he did know he should have provided proof of it instead of hinting at it. There is a connection he made between religion and anti-abortion, which I clearly stated wasn't always true.

Wow, headache taken care of quickly. You should see a doctor about that, it doesn't seem normal.

There was a case not long ago where a woman was denied access to emergency contraception because she wasn't married. By the time she got it, it was too late, and she wound up having to get an abortion. Now, who's responsible for that abortion--the fuckhead doctors who refused to give her the treatment she requested for their own personal "moral" reasons or the woman whose contraception failed and who tried to take care of the situation but was denied access?
Simple answer? The doctor because that doctor performed it as a result of another doctor's 'moral dilemma' which caused the woman to seek the abortion in the first place instead of providing her with a pill that would be easy to take, and take less time and be less of a drain on medical resources.

The OP clearly pointed in that direction. Read his first post again to understand how some may see it that way....Something I have yet to see him deny.All I see is him condemning a specific person for seemingly impressing their views, which said person, George Bush, admits are religious, on those that disagree.

If he did know he should have provided proof of it instead of hinting at it. There is a connection he made between religion and anti-abortion, which I clearly stated wasn't always true.

Not only did I not hint at that, I wasn't even focusing on the abortion part of the story. I don't know his religion and I didn't mention it because I don't care. I do know Bush's and if you need me to prove what his religion is you need to get out from the rock you're under. I stated clearly what my objection was above, but you ignored it so here it is again:


I ignored that because it is immaterial. What I am offended by is that Bush is trying to force his religious views down the throats of the public by appointing someone who is against birth control to head our governments birth control services. The religion of the doctor is immaterial and wasn't mentioned by me and, after looking back, wasn't even mentioned in the article. Bush doesn't like people having sex, people, mind you, not just teenagers - the vast majority of people who use Planned Parenthood are adult people with low income. So what he does is put a guy in charge who will likely enact policies limiting poor people's access to birth control.

Of course, I would have no problem hiring a Christian to work here at my work.

If he did know he should have provided proof of it instead of hinting at it. There is a connection he made between religion and anti-abortion, which I clearly stated wasn't always true.Care to prove that Bush's anti-abortion views aren't rooted in religion?

All I see is him condemning a specific person for seemingly impressing their views, which said person, George Bush, admits are religious, on those that disagree.

Now - Don't go using facts in your arguments. I hear that they cause headaches....

:p

If he did know he should have provided proof of it instead of hinting at it. There is a connection he made between religion and anti-abortion, which I clearly stated wasn't always true.

Why should he provide proof to something that is clear to most people?

It's like me saying that the sky was blue and not posting proof. I would expect that to be a given except for the smartasses that say "I'm looking at the sky now and its completely gray" or "hmm, all I see is blackness and some white dots, but no blue."

Thats the beauty of a message board... someone makes a post about something they believe and because we cant preemptively guess the complaints all the responders will have, we wait for those replys and respond to them later.


YOU would have done better to ask if he was makign an assumption to the guys religion and seeing what he says rather than make an assumption yoruself about what he may or may not have been assuming.

For a more in-depth look at this person (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/17/abortion_foe_to_lead_on_family_planning/)
That's the most harebrained theory I've ever heard of. If that were true, then having sex repeatedly with your spouse would be just as harmful as having multiple partners. And how would a marraige license effect your hormones?

That's the most harebrained theory I've ever heard of. If that were true, then having sex repeatedly with your spouse would be just as harmful as having multiple partners. And how would a marraige license effect your hormones?

The same way wedding rings protect you from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, magic.

That's the most harebrained theory I've ever heard of. If that were true, then having sex repeatedly with your spouse would be just as harmful as having multiple partners. And how would a marraige license effect your hormones?


Well, it might explain why married people are supposedly to stop having sex. It's to preserve their relationship!

Damn...... I must be headed towards divorce...... lol.

That's the most harebrained theory I've ever heard of. If that were true, then having sex repeatedly with your spouse would be just as harmful as having multiple partners.

if having sex with someone creates a brain connection then you would be more connected to your spouse because all of your connections would be with them.... not spread out among mulitple partners.

He'll never get the message. At least now he has to face a hopefully hostile Congress when he makes these idiotic appointements and needs them confirmed. Hell, man--he sent Bolton back.


But hes gotten the message - FROM GAWD!!!!!!!!!!

And he wasnt even high at the time...maybe....

The "smell" comment seemed deliberately condescending to me,if it wasnt, I'm sorry.

I was just trying and failing at being clever with words :p

The same way wedding rings protect you from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, magic.

:eek: So the abstinence teachers were right! :eek:

In all seriousness, I'm a fourteen year old virgin and I knwo more about sex than this idiot.

But hes gotten the message - FROM GAWD!!!!!!!!!!

And he wasnt even high at the time...maybe....

Methinks Bush should lay off t3h crack. *nod*

if having sex with someone creates a brain connection then you would be more connected to your spouse because all of your connections would be with them.... not spread out among mulitple partners.

That would be true, however that was not the assertion made in the theory:

Keroack said teenage sexual activity blunts the brain's ability to develop emotional relationships. Comparing sex to drug use, he said the hormone produced by the brain after orgasm, oxytocin , will eventually diminish a person's ability to form emotional attachments. Keroack said premarital sex can lead to overproduction of oxytocin

Apparantly - acoording to Keroack - the production of oxycotin in and of itself, regardless of partner, diminsihes the ability to form emotional attachments. Thus regular sex with your spouse should also diminish your ability to maintain your attachment.

Personally, I find that hard to believe.

:eek: So the abstinence teachers were right! :eek:

In all seriousness, I'm a fourteen year old virgin and I knwo more about sex than this idiot.

Bush should appoint you to that post........





That would be so awesome, NS would have a voice in the White House.

Bush should appoint you to that post........





That would be so awesome, NS would have a voice in the White House.

PANCAKE FOR PRESIDENT IN....

in....

Ummm....

lesse....carry the 2...

2028!

Keroack is also widely known for promoting abstinence before marriage, and once compared premarital sex to drug use.

Ok in moderation? Not during the working week? Be generous when rolling?

Keroack said teenage sexual activity blunts the brain's ability to develop emotional relationships. Comparing sex to drug use, he said the hormone produced by the brain after orgasm, oxytocin , will eventually diminish a person's ability to form emotional attachments. Keroack said premarital sex can lead to overproduction of oxytocin .

Oddly the scary ones are always the ones that try to use science to justify their shite..

That would be true, however that was not the assertion made in the theory:



Apparantly - acoording to Keroack - the production of oxycotin in and of itself, regardless of partner, diminsihes the ability to form emotional attachments. Thus regular sex with your spouse should also diminish your ability to maintain your attachment.

Personally, I find that hard to believe.

meh, I don't agree with him anyway, just offering some sort of explaination.

http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_health_bonding

interesting article though.

if having sex with someone creates a brain connection then you would be more connected to your spouse because all of your connections would be with them.... not spread out among mulitple partners.
I don't think my hormones know the difference between the guy I slept with five years ago and anyone I might meet now. At least not in that way. Please tell me you don't give this idiot theory any credence. I may not always agree with you, but I respect you. But no more if you actually believe this load of crap. It's total psuedo-science in the service of ideology.

I don't think my hormones know the difference between the guy I slept with five years ago and anyone I might meet now. At least not in that way. Please tell me you don't give this idiot theory any credence. I may not always agree with you, but I respect you. But no more if you actually believe this load of crap. It's total psuedo-science in the service of ideology.

I don't believe his "theory" I was just trying to think of what might be the answer to your question.

edit: also according to what he said about oxytocin not letting you bond, then the more orgasms I have the less I like my husband :confused: how about the more kids I have (more labor) the less I bond with them ?!

:eek: So the abstinence teachers were right! :eek:

In all seriousness, I'm a fourteen year old virgin and I knwo more about sex than this idiot.

Sounds like you qualify to me. Better to know you don't know than think you know and know fuck all at the same time.

That would be true, however that was not the assertion made in the theory:



Apparantly - acoording to Keroack - the production of oxycotin in and of itself, regardless of partner, diminsihes the ability to form emotional attachments. Thus regular sex with your spouse should also diminish your ability to maintain your attachment.

Personally, I find that hard to believe.
Actually, according to the bit you quoted, then masturbation would have the same effect. It's having many orgasms that does it, not having many orgasms with different (or the same) partner(s).

meh, I don't agree with him anyway, just offering some sort of explaination.

http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_health_bonding

interesting article though.

It is that. If anything, based on all the proven medical benefits of oxytocin noted, you would think that he would suggest that we all go out and f-ck our brains out to stay healthy!

His only defense of his spin is his anecdotal bit at the end which is NOT based in science but rather in BS generalizations that never once indicate via empirical study that the decline in axytocin production at the end of one relationship will carry over to future relationships. Nowhere did I see any specific research to that effect whatsoever.

Rather, his explicit statement that dopomine released from sex depresses oxytocin and causes emotional distance seems to indicate that his preference should not just be for a ban on pre-marital sex, but also for marital sex.

I want to see him selling to kids that they should hold off for marriage so that they can then hold off for death!

lol.

meh, I don't agree with him anyway, just offering some sort of explaination.

http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_health_bonding

interesting article though.
That's nice to know. Like many of Bush's appointees, I consider him a quack.

Actually, according to the bit you quoted, then masturbation would have the same effect. It's having many orgasms that does it, not having many orgasms with different (or the same) partner(s).Egads! I'll never bond again.

Actually, according to the bit you quoted, then masturbation would have the same effect. It's having many orgasms that does it, not having many orgasms with different (or the same) partner(s).

Exactly. According to this person, orgasms of any kind are the death knell of success in relationships.


So, one then has to ask oneself.... why bother waiting for marriage if you're just going to ruin that too by finally becoming sexually active?


Or, you might just consider that this person is full of something.....

Egads! I was right!

Another article by another member of the group on that same site suggesting just that. That you would be better off not having orgasms at all.... for health reasons. (http://www.reuniting.info/science/dopamine_separation_after_orgasm)


Now, I take my health seriously all things considered.


But not THAT seriously!!!!!


Life is, after all, to be lived.

Egads! I'll never bond again.
I know.

Actually, according to the bit you quoted, then masturbation would have the same effect. It's having many orgasms that does it, not having many orgasms with different (or the same) partner(s).

actually that would work out just fine for him if that logic followed because not only would you stop masturbating, but you probably wouldn't have sex with your spouse (for the sake of the relationship) unless you were intending to have a child, which would mean that there would be no unplanned pregnancy, no need for birth control and no market for abortion.

Egads! I was right!

Another article by another member of the group on that same site suggesting just that. That you would be better off not having orgasms at all.... for health reasons. (http://www.reuniting.info/science/dopamine_separation_after_orgasm)


Now, I take my health seriously all things considered.


But not THAT seriously!!!!!


Life is, after all, to be lived.A life without orgasm may well be considered a life not worth living.

Egads! I was right!

Another article by another member of the group on that same site suggesting just that. That you would be better off not having orgasms at all.... for health reasons. (http://www.reuniting.info/science/dopamine_separation_after_orgasm)


Now, I take my health seriously all things considered.


But not THAT seriously!!!!!


Life is, after all, to be lived.
You know, I find the title of that article to be rather silly. Despite the stereotype of guys running off and hating cuddling, I've never encountered a guy who actually did that or who objected to cuddling. To the contrary, I've encountered guys who liked to cuddle almost as much as they liked the sex, who would lie in bed with me for hours talking... The only pulling away after sex is generally to get rid of the condom. I've also never had sex and felt bad about it afterwards or found it to be detrimental to my relationship... these people are silly and apparently have no real life relationship experience.

I'm also not sure if they did the study of hormone levels in people or rats, they mention rat levels or prolatin and then say "this is why partners..." which doesn't specify species...

so Christians shouldn't hold public office because of the seperation of church and state?

I mean if I believe in God shouldn't that preclude me from participating in secular government?

You know better than that. No one said that, and you know it.

You know better than that. No one said that, and you know it.

I was asking questions for my own clarification, when someone says "beliefs should keep you from getting certain jobs" I have to ask what they mean....

actually that would work out just fine for him if that logic followed because not only would you stop masturbating, but you probably wouldn't have sex with your spouse (for the sake of the relationship) unless you were intending to have a child, which would mean that there would be no unplanned pregnancy, no need for birth control and no market for abortion.
Yeah, but then everyone would be all sexually frustrated and pissy.

I was asking questions for my own clarification, when someone says "beliefs should keep you from getting certain jobs" I have to ask what they mean....

OK, but come on. It should have been clear from the post what was meant. Although maybe it wasn't. I need to go back and check.

You know, I find the title of that article to be rather silly. Despite the stereotype of guys running off and hating cuddling, I've never encountered a guy who actually did that or who objected to cuddling. To the contrary, I've encountered guys who liked to cuddle almost as much as they liked the sex, who would lie in bed with me for hours talking... The only pulling away after sex is generally to get rid of the condom. I've also never had sex and felt bad about it afterwards or found it to be detrimental to my relationship... these people are silly and apparently have no real life relationship experience.

I'm also not sure if they did the study of hormone levels in people or rats, they mention rat levels or prolatin and then say "this is why partners..." which doesn't specify species...


Near as I can tell, they are only ever exrapolating rat data to human behaviour - which is suspect science at best.

Ugh - Condoms.

Now there's something I don't miss.... lol.

Yeah, but then everyone would be all sexually frustrated and pissy.



And then they'd have all that free time to write up bad science on reasons to convince you why you should be frustrated and prissy too!

:D

Near as I can tell, they are only ever exrapolating rat data to human behaviour - which is suspect science at best.
No it isn't. Extrapolating hormone levels of a small population of humans to the rest of the species is what science does best. Assuming we're the same as rats in our mating behaviours is just plain retarded. If anything, they should be comparing us to primates more...

Ugh - Condoms.

Now there's something I don't miss.... lol.
Well, they keep me nice and baby-free, so I'm not going to complain about them. Plus they catch all the mess. :)

Yeah, but then everyone would be all sexually frustrated and pissy.

just.like.him.

see a method to his madness?

No it isn't. Extrapolating hormone levels of a small population of humans to the rest of the species is what science does best. Assuming we're the same as rats in our mating behaviours is just plain retarded. If anything, they should be comparing us to primates more...


Well, they keep me nice and baby-free, so I'm not going to complain about them. Plus they catch all the mess. :)

Not saying that condoms don't serve several important functions that I equally required over much of my life. Just saying that I don't miss 'em! lol.

Married + kids + fixed makes them superfluous items to my current requirements.

just.like.him.

see a method to his madness?
Ah, yes.

I still think the world would be a better place if everyone had an orgasm every day. (or several ;) )

Not saying that condoms don't serve several important functions that I equally required over much of my life. Just saying that I don't miss 'em! lol.

Married + kids + fixed makes them superfluous items to my current requirements.
Ah, that does work then.

Ah, yes.

I still think the world would be a better place if everyone had an orgasm every day. (or several ;) )

I know my world seems better because of it.

So what? Just because he has a different set of beliefs than you doesn't make him an idiot.

It does when his views conflict with his job and he is put in an semi-important position.

PANCAKE FOR PRESIDENT IN....

in....

Ummm....

lesse....carry the 2...

2028!


You mean I'll have to wait till I'm 36? :(

Shame 14 year olds can't work in the government....
:mad:

:mad: he just can't stop shoving his bullshit religion down the throats of the rest of us? He realizes, of course, that... wait. This is George W. Bush we're talking about. He doesn't realize shit. He's far too stupid. This, of course, won't hurt all you rich, middle or working class people. This was just something GW decided to do for the poor.



http://www.talk.newsweek.com/politics/default.asp?item=283480

Oooo...the guy is pro-life. Big deal. He can't force abortion clinics to close and he can't stop pregnant poor women from getting abortions. The worst that can happen is that they will have to search out for Planned Parenthood offices by themselves (since the government has a policy to not pay for abortions).

Don't worry. The holy right of a woman to have casual sex and "end her pregnancy" out of convenience (it's much easier than giving the child up for adoption/foster care) will be preserved.

Oooo...the guy is pro-life. Big deal. He can't force abortion clinics to close and he can't stop pregnant poor women from getting abortions. The worst that can happen is that they will have to search out for Planned Parenthood offices by themselves (since the government has a policy to not pay for abortions).

Don't worry. The holy right of a woman to have casual sex and "end her pregnancy" out of convenience (it's much easier than giving the child up for adoption/foster care) will be preserved.

There should be a law passed that "crisis pregnancy centers" should distinguish themselves from LEGITAMITE Planned Parenthood places, and should not give misleading information to pregnant women who are emotionally or financially unable to care for a child. And all anti-sex education classes should be illegal. Those are VERY misleading.

Oooo...the guy is pro-life. Big deal. He can't force abortion clinics to close and he can't stop pregnant poor women from getting abortions. The worst that can happen is that they will have to search out for Planned Parenthood offices by themselves (since the government has a policy to not pay for abortions).

Don't worry. The holy right of a woman to have casual sex and "end her pregnancy" out of convenience (it's much easier than giving the child up for adoption/foster care) will be preserved.

All you needed to do was take a tertiary glance at my posts in the thread. Just glance at them to not sound like an ass. :confused:

Ah, that does work then.
...usually. babies still occur occasionally, if the operation reverses.

I don't see this appointment as an enormous problem, but i am unfamiliar with the department. it doesn't sound too damaging. leastways, not compared to appointing his religious fiends to the Supreme Court.

I mean friends. Yes, religious friends.

This is just politics, pure and simple. As a politician, he's entitled to further any agenda he and his affliates believe in to the extent those beliefs do not offend US laws and civil protections. Bush & Co want to end the right of a woman to chose to terminate unwanted pregnancies. I don't view abortion as a legitimate political issue, but that's just my opinion.

If the pro-choice types (and I'm of them) want to curtail Bush & Co, go to the polls during the upcoming elections. Write your congressional reps and let them know in advance you'll be voting against any state and federal office candidate who supports efforts to end legal abortion in the United States. If we keep reinforcing this point often enough, abortion will eventually move out of the spectrum of political ideas and into the arena of social debate where it belongs (and yes---those are two different things.)

Oh, and Bush is an idiot for reasons that have nothing to do with his religioius beliefs or stance on the war. Just thought I'd help clear up THAT issue.

This is just politics, pure and simple. As a politician, he's entitled to further any agenda he and his affliates believe in to the extent those beliefs do not offend US laws and civil protections. Bush & Co want to end the right of a woman to chose to terminate unwanted pregnancies. I don't view abortion as a legitimate political issue, but that's just my opinion.While many in here did mention abortion, I never did. What caught my eye more than anything else is that the guy is against birth control and is now in charge of the nation's chief birth control organization. Planned Parenthood is where most poor women go to get the pill, for example, and this guy is against the pill. He doesn't belong in this post and his position there may end up causing more abortions in the end.

If the pro-choice types (and I'm of them) want to curtail Bush & Co, go to the polls during the upcoming elections. Write your congressional reps and let them know in advance you'll be voting against any state and federal office candidate who supports efforts to end legal abortion in the United States. If we keep reinforcing this point often enough, abortion will eventually move out of the spectrum of political ideas and into the arena of social debate where it belongs (and yes---those are two different things.)

Oh, and Bush is an idiot for reasons that have nothing to do with his religioius beliefs or stance on the war. Just thought I'd help clear up THAT issue.

Yeah, he's an idiot for any number of reasons.