Senator Al Franken

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:35 am

And Obama is on the cover of time for the 13th time in a year. Who here really expects the press to high-lite Obama's failings like they did Bush. How many SNL skits will there be lampooning Obama. How many \"leaks\" from the CIA or the NSA will appear telling us of the secret things Obama's administration is trying to do?
Dam few I bet.
Already you see Obama's Sec. of Treasury pick and the none payment of taxes as being a \"Honest Mistake\". It is funny how many different news commentators used that description as though they all got a play book telling then what words to use. When was the last time a republican pick that got caught in a tax dodge, reported as having a honest mistake problem. The very worst thing this country can have happen is a press that is so openly in favor of one party or another. Unfortunately that is what is happening now. Couple this with the \"Fairness Doctrine\" being brought up and you eventually you will have a press corp that is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the liberal democrats. Pravda anyone?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:42 am

Just look at Sarah Palin if you want an example of the bias. she gets crucified for virtually nothing while they dig into her personal life laying it open for the world to see, yet, people like Sandy Berger who put top secret documents down his pants, and he gets off with nothing. not even questioned by the media, just an OH WELL. and now the Obama Treasury appointee WHOOPS its just an Honest mistake, and gets a Presidential elect pardon. those are just 2 of the literally Hundreds of disparaties in the way the so-called main stream news reports the news.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:53 pm

Bush's final news conference, LOL! The man can't admit to most of the mistakes he's made during his presidency and you expect softball questions. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure! With a 27% approval rating, they'd have to be idiots NOT to ask the questions they did. But when I refer to the right-wing news slant though, I'm talking about the three main network news anchors, opps, I mean WAY overpaid egotistical personalities, like Williams, Couric, Gibson, Cooper,etc. I consider Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow to be lefties.

I agree Obama's been on magazine covers way too much. A little over the top. GAH! As for his Sec of Treasury pick, there might be a problem here, but have any of you done your own taxes and tried to get a straight answer on a question concerning filling out your taxes when you called the IRS? Ten times out of ten, you'll not get the same answer. My point is that the tax code is sooo complicated that anyone can make a mistake, even the upcoming Sec of Treas. pick. The problem comes in if he dodged his taxes on purpose. Then he's tainted and should be rejected. I'm sure the Republicans will see to it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD95MULMO1

As for Srah Palin not getting a fair shake, both the Couric and Gibson interviews showed what an idiot she really was. If she really knew her stuff or how to even prepare, she wouldn't have looked so bad during those interviews. She even blew the Supreme Court question from Couric that she should have had knowledge about as the Gov. of Alaska, the Exxon Valdez spill lawsuit. But, it's apparent she's an airhead and it shows in her whining about the press. She blames everyone but herself for looking stupid on camera. Birdbrain!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:54 pm

Cuda is right about Portland being ultra-liberal. Several years ago, and anti-child porn bill came up for the city of Portland and it was shot down from behind the guise of \"Free Speech\". What utter non-sense.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:36 pm

What difference does the political leanings of the anchor/talking heads make? They say what they are told to say. (most of their “reporter” days are long over) Actually, I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that most of the talking heads on TV News are socially conservative, (suit & tie thing, proper English…and such) but are “politically” liberal.

But if you want, you can check the voting record of this particular group. (someone has posted it in the past)

And, lol, I find it kind of funny that you consider someone conservative because they work for a big corp. and wear a suit & tie…Grin…

And as far as “softball questions” no, I wouldn’t expect those kinds of questions at the end of any presidents term. But if the press is as you say, the questions would have given the prez the chance to highlite the positive aspects of his term, such as his AIDs program in Africa, and the enhancements of the volunteer programs…etc. (instead of beating him over the head, all the way out of the door)

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:53 pm

tunnelcat wrote: As for Srah Palin not getting a fair shake, both the Couric and Gibson interviews showed what an idiot she really was. If she really knew her stuff or how to even prepare, she wouldn't have looked so bad during those interviews. She even blew the Supreme Court question from Couric that she should have had knowledge about as the Gov. of Alaska, the Exxon Valdez spill lawsuit. But, it's apparent she's an airhead and it shows in her whining about the press. She blames everyone but herself for looking stupid on camera. Birdbrain!

SO I'm guessing that its just fine with you that the news media was right to delve into her personal life. namley her teen daughters pregnancy, looking into the history of the father of the baby and the fathers family also, and that they questioned if her Downs syndrom baby was really hers and not her daughters, not to mention diggin up a DUI of her husbands not even her own from 20+ years ago. what the Media did was disgraceful and they should be ashamed. this is not about the Interviews they stand or fall on their own merit. this is about trying to destroy someone personally. you will NEVER see this kind of investigating at ABC,CBS, OR NBC, where any liberal is concerned

and I'll bring up another incident of left wing Bias of the Media. Joe the plummer. the left media dug into his backround trying to find ANYTHING they could to destroy his credibility so he couldn't tarnish the annointed one. This man was in HIS neighbourhood infront of HIS house when the "Black Moses" (as he has been called by the grandchild of a former slave)came through. asking a Presidential candidate a TOTALY Valid question on his policy and look what happened.

tunnelcat wrote:I agree Obama's been on magazine covers way too much. A little over the top. GAH! As for his Sec of Treasury pick, there might be a problem here, but have any of you done your own taxes and tried to get a straight answer on a question concerning filling out your taxes when you called the IRS? Ten times out of ten, you'll not get the same answer. My point is that the tax code is sooo complicated that anyone can make a mistake, even the upcoming Sec of Treas. pick. The problem comes in if he dodged his taxes on purpose. Then he's tainted and should be rejected. I'm sure the Republicans will see to it.

well I guess that would be true if it wasnt for the fact the the IRS DID contact him about being deliquint on his taxes and yet his still did nothing about it. and that it wasnt until he was about to be nominated by the Obama administration that they somehow miraculously got paid

I guess Ignorance is bliss as they say

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:00 pm

Spidey wrote:But if you want, you can check the voting record of this particular group. (someone has posted it in the past)

YA me,

I can look it up again if needed. its was actually quite amazing how left leaning the Voting records of the mainstream media actually is

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:06 pm

Spidey, you think I'm left leaning so don't you think that if I consider the main network news anchors right leaning that others may see them that way also? I also think that if you are paid millions to work for a large corporation, said large corporation would want to hire people to tow the company line, which is usually a conservative one. So what they report verses how they vote makes no difference. Most CEO's want to project their conservative ideals and what a better way to do it than through a hired, highly paid talking head. A LOT of people in this country listen to these 'talking heads' and believe what they say, so don't dismiss them altogether. However there may now be a shift since Obama has been elected and since most corporations are mercenary and have no soul, they see the leftward shift in the country and will suck up to whoever they think will watch their commercials. Money talks.

Also, the AIDS program in Africa is just a smoke-screen to allow Christian proselytizing of the locals, largely Muslims, by so-called church run missionaries. In fact, HIV may be spreading more due to this program since all they advocate is 'abstinence only', no condom use to prevent HIV transmission. So it's just another failed Bush faith-based taxpayer money pit.

http://www.epinions.com/content_4909670532

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:12 pm

That’s just dead wrong…most of the funding has gone to medications. (I have seen more PBS reports on this than you could shake a stick at)

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:28 pm

Well, it's a money pit then because they aren't allowed to promote condoms as a prevention method, abstinence only is what they're pushing. So the local people still spread HIV, because we all know how well abstinence works and WE as taxpayers pay for the medication to slow it down. Job security in perpetuity! Nice! No one does that for people in such large numbers in this country! Oh that's right, it's the homos over here that have AIDS.

Since it's a faith-based program, you know full well that they're going around proselytizing Christian values. That's the Evangelical mantra.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:31 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Spidey, you think I'm left leaning so don't you think that if I consider the main network news anchors right leaning that others may see them that way also? I also think that if you are paid millions to work for a large corporation, said large corporation would want to hire people to tow the company line, which is usually a conservative one. So what they report verses how they vote makes no difference. Most CEO's want to project their conservative ideals and what a better way to do it than through a hired, highly paid talking head. A LOT of people in this country listen to these 'talking heads' and believe what they say, so don't dismiss them altogether. However there may now be a shift since Obama has been elected and since most corporations are mercenary and have no soul, they see the leftward shift in the country and will suck up to whoever they think will watch their commercials. Money talks.

Also, the AIDS program in Africa is just a smoke-screen to allow Christian proselytizing of the locals, largely Muslims, by so-called church run missionaries. In fact, HIV may be spreading more due to this program since all they advocate is 'abstinence only', no condom use to prevent HIV transmission. So it's just another failed Bush faith-based taxpayer money pit.

http://www.epinions.com/content_4909670532

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:40 pm

So, the government is allowed to run a faith based program? Didn’t know that.

JFTR, if you have been keeping up with the program, you would know they have been backing off of the “abstinence only” thing for a while now.

But anyway, your right tc…everything Bush has done is a complete failure. And I can’t wait to revel in Obama’s failures, and please remind me again why I should help “this” administration Succeed?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:06 pm

tunnelcat wrote:.....

Also, the AIDS program in Africa is just a smoke-screen to allow Christian proselytizing of the locals, largely Muslims, by so-called church run missionaries.....

I put that logic right down there with "blacks run faster and jump higher because they have an extra achilles tendon".

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:11 pm

No, Will, they run faster and jump higher because their knee grows......

....................*crickets*....

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:55 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Well, it's a money pit then because they aren't allowed to promote condoms as a prevention method, abstinence only is what they're pushing. So the local people still spread HIV, because we all know how well abstinence works and WE as taxpayers pay for the medication to slow it down. Job security in perpetuity! Nice! No one does that for people in such large numbers in this country! Oh that's right, it's the homos over here that have AIDS.

Since it's a faith-based program, you know full well that they're going around proselytizing Christian values. That's the Evangelical mantra.

uh.. because real Christain values are a bad thing? I know some bankers that would do better by them.

I'm not talking about the stuff you see on TBN or what that chip on your shoulder is telling you.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:35 am

Will Robinson wrote:"blacks run faster and jump higher because they have an extra achilles tendon".

....you learn something new every day.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:31 pm

Come on guys, I'm not against Christianity. A few of this country's bankers and Wall Street types need to get a good dose. But what I am against is using taxpayer dollars for the hidden agenda of Christian proselytizing in other countries that are mainly non-Christian. You know that's going on in this program since most of it is church sponsored or 'faith-based', meaning mainly Christian run. It's the Evangelical main moral call. Rick Warren's in the middle of it. What would happen, if say, Muslim nations started their own worldwide AIDS eradication program and used conversion to Islam as a sly side project within Christian nations? Oh how there would be an outcry in this country amongst the Evangelicals when they figured it out. On top of all that it seems is the lining of the pockets of the big Pharmaceutical companies by controlling the types of drugs used for AIDS treatments. It's big business and we're paying for it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... 0830.story

If PEPFAR is to be lauded for helping in the effort to stop HIV transmission, then their ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, Consistent use of Condoms) strategy needs to really become CAB, with the main emphasis on condoms, then abstinence, which has has a poor track record in this country with our own young people. Humans are sexual animals and it's hard to override hormones as a means of disease prevention. Slow the transmission first, that should be the main goal, then work on sexual promiscuity. PEPFAR also needs to address the sex worker trade that likes to hide under the rug or be ignored. Here is the PDF list of concerns by several Senators they hoped would be addressed in the reauthorization of PEPFAR. I can't find out if these changes were ever implemented though. How the heck did this thread morph into this anyway?

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphot ... .10.08.pdf

CUDA, you're chimp picture better applies to those who think that Bush's little AIDS project is the best thing since sliced bread. I also happen to believe it's a grand idea, but with a few warts around the edges that need addressing.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:16 pm

So TC you are saying it is better to have no program than a faith based one?

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:01 pm

TC, I'm about as anti-christian as it gets, but I have to disagree on this one. I say let them procelytize as much as they want as long as they're helping people out. Going through the motions is better than doing nothing at all. (Which makes me a big ★■◆●ing bastard I guess)

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:26 pm

woodchip wrote:So TC you are saying it is better to have no program than a faith based one?

Hell No, liberals LOVE programs, But I’m sure she would prefer an atheist run program, that simply dispenses loads of condoms, and never mentions the root cause of the spread of HIV. (promiscuity) And would rather the only information given to the people be, “AIDS was invented by the CIA to get rid of all the homosexuals and black people.

“How the heck did this thread morph into this anyway?”

“You” turned this thread into a discussion on PEPFAR, I simply mentioned it in passing as something positive about the Bush administration, but you couldn’t let it be, you have to challenge every little thing, because of your hatred of Bush. I’m surprised you didn’t debase the other thing I mentioned as well.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:04 pm

While we are at it lets vilify Bush for giving federal money to US faith based groups as he believed faith based groups were better able to dispense aid to US citizens than the federal bureaucracy was.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:16 pm

Back on topic. Al Franken sucked as a comedian, perhaps he's finally found his calling.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:49 pm

They wouldn't let Steve Colbert run and that upset me.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:56 pm

TC, is money sent to Pepfar the only money the United States has spent to fight AIDs in Africa?
Because if it is only one of the many things we have funded you and that LA Times editorial writer are really are going to look stupid for trying to spin it that way....

The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease in human history. When the President launched this initiative in 2003, approximately 50,000 people in all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment.

* Ahead of schedule, the United States has fulfilled the President's commitment to support treatment for two million people. As of September 30, 2008, PEPFAR supported life-saving antiretroviral treatment for more than 2.1 million men, women, and children living with HIV/AIDS around the world, including more than 2 million people in sub-Saharan Africa.

OK...so before Bush did his evil deed there were only 50,000 people getting the drugs they need to fight AIDS.
After Bush did his evil deed over 2,000,000 were getting it!

Lets see what other evil crap he has been up to:

* As of September 30, 2008, nearly 9.7 million people affected by HIV/AIDS in PEPFAR's focus countries had received compassionate care, including nearly 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. Globally, the United States is supporting care for more than 10.1 million people, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children.
* Nearly 240,000 babies have been born HIV-free due to the support of the American people for programs to prevent mothers from passing the virus on to their children.

* In July, President Bush signed into law H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act. This legislation will expand access to lifesaving antiretroviral drugs, prevent millions of new HIV infections, and provide compassionate care to millions of people affected by HIV/AIDS. Under this legislation, the next phase of the American people's generous commitment to those suffering from HIV/AIDS will support:
o Treatment for at least 3 million people;
o Prevention of 12 million new infections; and
o Care for 12 million people, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children.

PEPFAR supports a comprehensive prevention portfolio. In addition to the balanced, evidenced-based ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, and correct and consistent use of Condoms) approach, the United States also supports programs that address mother-to-child transmission, blood safety and safe medical injections, male circumcision, injecting drug users, HIV-discordant couples, alcohol abuse, and other key issues.

In 2007 G-8 leaders made a commitment to complement U.S. efforts so that together G-8 nations will support treatment for a total of five million people, prevent 24 million new infections, and care for 24 million people, including 10 million orphans and vulnerable children.

The United States is also working through multilateral organizations in the global fight against HIV/AIDS. The United States is the largest contributor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, providing more than $3.3 billion since 2001.

What an evil bastard he is!

As for politicians pushing the product of their campaign contributors stop being so damn selectively outraged because if you weren't so drunk on democrat Kool-aid you would be ashamed to try to go down that road considering all the money the democrats get from similar if not the same sources and they of course do the very same thing with legislation supporting their campaign donors.

Now on to using faith based workers to implement some of the programs. Personally I'm glad we have people so confident in their after life reward that they will go live and work among savage idiots who think screwing a virgin will cleanse their blood of the virus and try to teach them the values that include abstinence and monogamy etc.
You have to have some seriously faith augmented testicular fortitude to face down machine gun toting warlords with nothing but a smile and an open hand.

Bottom line is Clinton had 8 years and what you surely think was a smarter and more compassionate approach, yet he only managed to see 50,000 in Africe get help and drugs. Bush has increased the bottom line by over 40 times and for that all you can do is whine and ★■◆●! Well....thanks for doing your part. Your party is surely appreciative.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:35 pm

Will, I'm no fan of Clinton. In fact, all he did was get into the White House, drink, play and party around and get BJ's on the side. That's why I originally voted for Bush in 2000 (big mistake now), so I'm not a solid lefty.

And there is nothing wrong with 'faith-based' groups helping out in the world. They do a lot of great work. What I am against is using religious morality as a first line basis for fighting disease, ie., 'abstinence only', instead of having a PRIMARY emphasis on more proven forms of disease prevention, ie., promoting condom use. Only recently has emphasis shifted more towards condoms as a means of prevention in PEPFAR (after they figured out that you can't stop people from having sex). And they need to quit giving welfare to the Pharma Companies with my tax dollars when cheaper and just as effective drugs are out there that can treat HIV.

As for 'proselytizing' by Christian groups, I think that they should be free do the Lord's work, but not be able to use public funds to teach their message. That money should go to actually HELP people with whatever problem they're facing, as per the fund's mandate and stated purpose. Church groups are free set up a place of worship and preach with their OWN private donations if the country in which they operate doesn't object. That's what church groups have done in the past and quite well too. Only with the new Bush policies have the public/private church monies question been BLURRED.

THESE are my only points here, public money used for promoting a religion in a foreign country, using ineffective religious moral code as a 'cure for disease' and more subsidizing of big Pharma. with our tax dollars. Bush's 'evil deeds'.

As for Al Franken, I hope he prevails. The Senate could use some stirring up and it might be a little entertaining. If he effs up, Minnesotans can vote his rear end out of office post haste. But hey, they elected Jesse Ventura!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:59 pm

tunnelcat wrote:What I am against is using religious morality as a first line basis for fighting disease, ie., 'abstinence only', instead of having a PRIMARY emphasis on more proven forms of disease prevention, ie., promoting condom use.

Actually, abstinence has EXACTLY the same flaw that condom use does. It only works if you use it 100% of the time.

And, of course, given that requirement is met, abstinence has a significantly lower failure rate than condoms.

It's all about brains and choice. The smart decision is to avoid exchanging bodily fluids with anyone who's sexual history you are uncertain of. Duh! Many people feel that a condom provides an adequate amount of protection. Not enough for my comfort level. That's like saying it's safe to eat food you got out of the dumpster, just so long as you microwave it real well. A 2% failure rate is just too high FOR ME. Your mileage may vary.

You have sex with one partner, who's had sex with three partners, each of them has had sex with several partners, even in the unlikely case that no one in the list has had more than three partners, it's a B-Tree, and they grow VERY fast. That one partner connects you to a very large crowd's viruses and germs.

To me, sex outside of marriage is like letting everyone at your college spit in your mouth. I guess I'm just naturally monogamous, because it just doesn't interest me.

That said, I am NOT opposed to condom education. My child has certainly had them explained to him a bit, and he'll get more info as he gets older. It's much smarter to decide not to let the entire class spit in your mouth, but if you have already decided to do it, mouthwash IS a good idea.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:38 am

very nice analogy Kilarin
some people choose to not think issues through. the Gov supports allot of religious activities, but its only the Christian ones that people want to complain about.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:25 pm

Kilarin wrote:It's all about brains and choice.

It's much smarter to decide not to let the entire class spit in your mouth, but if you have already decided to do it, mouthwash IS a good idea.

LOL. Golden example!!

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:56 pm

You have a good analogy Kilarin and it's a example of typical human sexual behavior (multiple sex partners) overriding logic, choice and common sense. Sure, abstinence is 100% effective when the higher front brain is able to override the lower basal animal brain and hormone combination. But the sex drive in humans is very strong and will invariably override our frontal brain's ability to inhibit that desire. Desires are emotions, at times difficult to control and as we know all too well, logic and inhibition sometimes fail, more so in uneducated people. So technically, abstinence is not always 100% percent effective when it comes to human sexual behavior. If all humans were monogamous to a fault, we'd be in a lot better shape, but the tendency for multiple sexual partners is unfortunately wired into our basal brains. It's a trait even found in animals that were once thought to be monogamous for life.

Given this human predilection, preventing body fluid transmission between sex partners should have been the PRIMARY focus of HIV transmission prevention while abstinence and monogamy should have been a more secondary long term solution. I would think that teaching condom use for all sexual activities would be much easier task to accomplish than trying to inhibit the human sex drive as an effective disease control measure. That's my only beef.

What's really scary is even in the educated U.S., abstinence programs amongst teens may be contributing to the spread of STI's. You know how? Well, it seems that a lot of teens only consider vaginal sexual intercourse as 'real sex'. That means that in order to remain a 'virgin' young girls are resorting to having sex in other 'orifices' (use your imagination), because to them, it's not really sex and so they're not losing their virginity. And they're doing these activities with no prophylactic use at all, thanks to incomplete sex education!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:48 pm

Tunnelcat

Although my religious friends here mean well, they won't let logic move to the top of the Christian ladder of knowledge. You have it right TC, you have it exactly right.

Bettina

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:09 pm

Bet, that's because logic isn't the epitome of understanding.

...even Spock knew that.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:47 pm

tunnelcat wrote: What's really scary is even in the educated U.S., abstinence programs amongst teens may be contributing to the spread of STI's. You know how? Well, it seems that a lot of teens only consider vaginal sexual intercourse as 'real sex'. That means that in order to remain a 'virgin' young girls are resorting to having sex in other 'orifices' (use your imagination), because to them, it's not really sex and so they're not losing their virginity. And they're doing these activities with no prophylactic use at all, thanks to incomplete sex education!

well aparently then in the "educated U.S." the "educated" teachers that teach the sex-ed class's dont teach it correct now do they? Now I realize I'm an old fart and I grew up in the 70's when there was little or no sex-ed classes but I knew that anytime I took Mr. Johnson out of my pant for anything other than to pee it was probably going to be for a sexual activity. I guess old Billy Bob Clinton said it best "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" when the whole world knew he did. hell if the man at the top will blur the lines of Sex what would make you believe that ANY teenager wouldn't do the same. any of us here that are parents know that if you give a teen an inch they'll take it and tons more.

education

its self discipline and accountability that matters. something this country is sorely lacking

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:03 pm

tunnelcat wrote:But the sex drive in humans is very strong and will invariably override our frontal brain's ability to inhibit that desire.

Yes, sex drive is VERY strong. But it does NOT invariably drive everyone to have sex outside of marriage. MANY people make the decision to wait. I did. It wasn't an EASY decision, but it was a good one.

tunnelcat wrote:So technically, abstinence is not always 100% percent effective when it comes to human sexual behavior.

But neither are condoms. Condoms fail 2% of the time when you use them correctly. But they fail FAR more often for the exact same reason that abstinence does. People fail to use them or fail to use them correctly. Especially teenagers. The EXACT same people who fail at abstinence because they let their emotions rule over their logic, fail at using condoms because they let their emotions override their logic.

tunnelcat wrote:Given this human predilection, preventing body fluid transmission between sex partners should have been the PRIMARY focus of HIV transmission prevention while abstinence and monogamy should have been a more secondary long term solution

Basic health science indicates a reversal of that order. Anything else would be considered criminally stupid in ANY other area of health science.

For example, how would you feel about a health science class that told kids "In order to avoid catching colds you should wipe off the rim of a glass before you drink after someone else. A few people decide not to drink out of others glasses, but that is a personal choice."

HOPEFULLY, the author of such a "health science" book would be run out of town on a rail. OBVIOUSLY you should teach children: "In order to avoid colds you should never drink out of someone else's glass", followed by, "If you choose not to take that simple and obvious advice, at LEAST wipe off the rim, it might reduce the number of germs you are being exposed too, but it only reduces the risk, it is NOT safe"

tunnelcat wrote:it seems that a lot of teens only consider vaginal sexual intercourse as 'real sex'.

We are in complete agreement on this point. It's an insane point of view that, in my opinion, shortchanges people on SEVERAL levels.

CUDA wrote:its self discipline and accountability that matters. something this country is sorely lacking

Sadly, very true.

Bettina wrote:Although my religious friends here mean well, they won't let logic move to the top of the Christian ladder of knowledge.

Please note, I am in favor of extensive and detailed sexual education for children. I don't think that ignorance helps them or that knowledge harms them.

I participate in a religious/philosophical literature discussion group with some friends. My son attends with us. Once when he was late seven or early eight the conversation turned towards abortion. My son jumped in and presented his points of view on abortion and sex. They were rather simplistic, but not ignorant.

Afterwards one of the adult participants said to me, "I certainly didn't know that much about sex at his age!" My wife replied, "How can we NOT educate them? If we don't teach them what we believe about sex, they will CERTAINLY pick up inaccurate and immoral information from the world."

My son is almost ten now. He knows where people should and should not touch him. He understands the basic mechanics of sex and reproduction. He knows that people have sex because it feels good and to feel close to each other. He knows that sex is more than just vaginal intercourse. He knows the basics of birth control. And, of course, he knows my viewpoints on sex outside of marriage and WHY I believe the way I do. If he didn't understand the WHY, then the rule would be unlikely to last even while he lived under my roof, and would certainly collapse as soon as he got out on his own.

So I am VERY much in favor of sexual education. Full, complete and ACCURATE. I don't think it is in any way denying logic or promoting ignorance to insist that ACCURATE sexual education includes not ONLY detailed information on condoms and how to use them, but a clear and unequivocal statement that using condoms does NOT make sex outside of marriage SAFE. It only reduces the risk factors.

TheCope · Post by **TheCope** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:32 pm

Ok.
Some jackass used the metaphor \"Kool-aide\". I can read any online newspapers' comments section and see \"Kool-aide\" from one side or another.

Go research YOUR \"blogs\" that lead you to the conclusion you already had but need a source to support it. Blah blah. I wouldn't give 2 squirts from a dogs nut for your opinions you copy and pasted.

It's like... play descent or something since you don't play descent. I'm snoring.

BAHABAHABAHABABBAHAHAHHABAHAHAHHHABABBAHAHAHAHBABBABBAHAHAHHAHABBAHAHAHABBAAHAHABABBAHAH

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:42 am

TheCope wrote:It's like... play descent or something since you don't play descent. I'm snoring.

Why do you keep tormenting yourself with things you don't enjoy? Seriously?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:08 pm

Thanks Bet, at least SOMEBODY gets my logic.

Kilarin, you make all valid points and it would be nice if people could control their sex drive all the time and save it for marriage AND all parents would give their kids the proper sex education so we didn't have to do it in school. But it doesn't always happen in this less than perfect world. At the present, there is no better physical way to keep fluids from mixing during sex than the condom. The only other way is to not have sex at all as you've pointed out. Throw alcohol in the mix and kiss your inhibitions goodby. Parents are the best educators to teach their children abstinence AND to not do alcohol or drugs as the primary way to not get pregnant or worse, STI's before marriage AND to teach them the pro's and con's of condom use for their own protection if impulse ever takes over. I did not say that condoms were 100% effective, just that they were the best way to prevent body fluid exchange during sex. Of course, they are not foolproof. I agree that 'no sex' is 100% effective, it's just not always possible given imperfect human impulse control mixed with drugs, alcohol and hormones.

But how many parents actually teach the mechanics of sex and STI provention to their own children? Most sadly, are just too prudish or uninformed to do it. Health courses can give children the knowlege they need to protect themselves if they fail to control their impluses and believe me, hormones can very powerful inhibition breakers. Parents can also teach them that most measures are NOT 100% effective and there will always be risks asociated with any sexual contact and that disease or pregancy are always going to be a result of that failure. Health Science courses are NOT there to teach morality and impulse control, but by hopefully teaching the knowlege of what can happen with unprotected sex, that will encourage abstinence and self control. I would sure hope that Health Sciences had progressed beyond wiping drinking glasses to prevent colds. I think that they're teaching covering your mouth when you cough and washing your hands are the best but not perfect way to prevent colds at the moment.

I grew up in a family that wasn't very religious and both of my parents were too prudish to even mention anything about sex. In fact, my mother was soooo prudish, she never EVER let my dad see her naked, AT ALL! Not in the bathroom, shower or bed. All sex was done under the bedcovers with a nightgown on. I didn't find this out until she was dying from cancer and didn't want my dad to see her or help her whenever she was naked and needed assistance. THAT'S the fifties for you. But what I'm getting at is that despite no parental mention of sex and the paltry Biology classes that were the subsitute for any sex ed in the late 1960's, I stayed abstinent until marriage, even through college. On the other hand, my sister whored around, did drugs and got into all sorts of trouble. But I think that the little amount of sex ed we had did do some good because she never got pregnant or any STI's. She had no impulse control whereas I did, all from the same family upbringing. Human behavior is widely variable.

Back to Bush's AIDS contribution to PEPFAR. Given that most humans often fail at inhibition or sex impulse control, I still think that teaching condom use would get better results than teaching impulse control in preventing the spread of AIDS and I would rather that my tax dollars went to a more reliable solution, maybe not a perfect one, but a quicker short term one. In the long term, abstinence may give a more reliable result, although I wouldn't count on it given human's abysmal track record of impulse control. If people REALLY want to keep going on this thread string, please start a new one. I'm sorry I opened this can of worms here.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm

Tunnelcat wrote:But how many parents actually teach the mechanics of sex and STI provention to their own children? Most sadly, are just too prudish or uninformed to do it.

Unfortunantly, very true. And just in case I haven't been clear on the point, I think schools SHOULD be teaching sex ed. I just think that by the time kids GET to sex ed in school, they should have already been thoroughly educated by their parents. The schools should mainly be catching the unfortunantly very large group that have NOT learned enough from their parents.

Tunnelcat wrote:Health Science courses are NOT there to teach morality and impulse control, but by hopefully teaching the knowlege of what can happen with unprotected sex, that will encourage abstinence and self control.

I think we are in agreement! With the following small adjustment:

tunnelcat wrote: I still think that teaching condom use would get better results than teaching impulse control in preventing the spread of AIDS and I would rather that my tax dollars went to a more reliable solution, maybe not a perfect one, but a quicker short term one.

I'm in favor of BOTH. Make it clear to the kids that abstinance is safest by far. And ALSO make it clear that if you are going to have sex anyway, at LEAST use a condom.

tunnelcat wrote:I'm sorry I opened this can of worms here.

I'm not. It's an issue that NEEDS to be talked about and I thank you for bringing it up. But I'm done now.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:32 pm

Kilarin wrote:I'm in favor of BOTH. Make it clear to the kids that abstinance is safest by far. And ALSO make it clear that if you are going to have sex anyway, at LEAST use a condom.

I agree but I would still be concerned if too much focus is directed toward abstinance and not enough toward condom use. We all agree that both should be taught but I think in different degrees. Is that so?

Kilarin wrote:
TheCope wrote:It's like... play descent or something since you don't play descent. I'm snoring.
Why do you keep tormenting yourself with things you don't enjoy? Seriously?

No kidding...

Bee

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:58 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
Kilarin wrote:I'm in favor of BOTH. Make it clear to the kids that abstinance is safest by far. And ALSO make it clear that if you are going to have sex anyway, at LEAST use a condom.
I agree but I would still be concerned if too much focus is directed toward abstinance and not enough toward condom use. We all agree that both should be taught but I think in different degrees. Is that so?

I'd agree as well, and I suspect we'd differ somewhat in degree -- but it's hard to say, since we're all working from different baselines. If I say we need more focus on abstinence, remember I'm speaking from the perspective of the information I was given in Denver 15 years ago or from the perspective of what I've seen recently in Seattle. In both of those cases, abstinence was given a token mention -- "the best thing is not to do it, but since you all will, here's the details on how to use condoms etc." I think that's far too little -- but I also think abstinence-only teaching is far too much the other way.

Kids need to be taught that sex exposes you to all sorts of risks: pregnancy, disease, and yes, emotional vulnerability. The emotional and disease risks are substantially reduced by only having sex within a mutually committed, exclusive relationship, where neither partner has had prior sexual experiences (and the "risk" of pregnancy changes character when you have a stable family/financial/home situation in which to raise a child. The percentages don't change, but the costs do.) The pregnancy and disease risks can also be substantially reduced by the proper use of condoms, after marriage too (people sometimes overlook that in their "abstinence only" arguments.)

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:16 pm

Bettina wrote:I would still be concerned if too much focus is directed toward abstinance and not enough toward condom use. We all agree that both should be taught but I think in different degrees. Is that so?

Yep. We agree on the important point that BOTH abstinence and condom usage should be taught, but still have a small difference on which should receive the emphasis. Or, to be more accurate, I feel that the way condom usage is being taught (as far as I have been exposed to modern campaigns) is inaccurate and dangerous. I agree with tunnelcat 100% that it is NOT the place of a public school (or government sponsored) health science course to be teaching morality. But I feel that this is an issue of proper health science, not morality. Teaching that condom use equals safe sex is bad health science. It only equals safer sex.

In the first place, condoms must be used PROPERLY, and they frequently are not. The same teenagers who don't have the self discipline to abstain from sex, don't have the self discipline to abstain when they forget the condom. When they do remember them, boys often have a strong resistance to them. Even when the condom is there and everyone has agreed to use them, condoms must be put on at the right time, and in the right way. A common mistake (especially by two teenagers groping in the dark) is to accidentally try to put the condom on upside down. As soon as that doesn't work, they flip it over and put it on the right way. But now the OUTSIDE of the condom could be contaminated with sperm, viruses, and bacteria. Condoms must also be removed at the right time.

To give the worse case of condom misuse that I'm aware of, a young couple once informed me that they had only been able to afford ONE condom for an entire weekends worth of sex. So they had just used the same one over and over and washed it out in between. Yikes! I know you are thinking right now, I did NOT want to know that! When I was told this, I wanted to pour gasoline into my ears and set them on fire in a vain attempt to erase the memory of the words! BUT, I tell this story, not JUST because misery loves company, but because I think it is important to realize that it is easy to reduce or eliminate the advantages of condoms by not using them correctly.

Of course, the point of education is to reduce this misuse, and I heartily approve of that. But just as it is unrealistic to assume all teenagers will be abstinent, it is ALSO unrealistic to assume most of them will take the time and effort to use condoms PROPERLY, even if educated.

And, even if they DO use them properly, 100% of the time, condoms still have a 2% failure rate. If someone using condoms has sex once a week, they can expect about one broken condom a year. If their rate is higher than that, they can expect more breaks. Or to put the same statistic another way, if you took a sample of 200 random couples using condoms for their first sexual experience, you could expect two of those couples to have the condom break on the first attempt. And, of course, a broken condom offers NO protection against pregnancy or disease.

I think any responsible health science course MUST be honest enough to say that outside of a long term mutually monogamous relationship, abstinence is the only SAFE course. If you choose to ignore that advice, then you should use a condom to REDUCE the risk. It is NOT safe, but it is certainly a lot safer than going without.

Lothar wrote: I also think abstinence-only teaching is far too much the other way.

Yep. They need to know what their options are.

Lothar wrote:Kids need to be taught that sex exposes you to all sorts of risks: pregnancy, disease, and yes, emotional vulnerability. The emotional and disease risks are substantially reduced by only having sex within a mutually committed, exclusive relationship, where neither partner has had prior sexual experiences

Well put!

Senator Al Franken

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: