DescentBB

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:That's why I said Guiliani. He doesn't appear to be much different from Obama, but he is.

of course he is.....Rudy is a demonstrable crook, for starters, not to mention a self-aggrandizing blowhard.

Hmmmm...I wonder how much money goes into Obama's re-election campaign fund from the executive's of Solyndra ?

woodchip wrote:And what kind of society allows schools to give contraceptive methods to 13 year olds?

A smart, responsible society does. Teens will have sex, with or without their parents knowledge or consent. Teens will even have older, trusted friends get contraception for them; again with or without their parents knowledge or consent.

A smart, responsible society recognizes that you can't stop kids from having sex, but teen pregnancy and STDs are damaging to culture as a whole, putting an unnecessary burden on everyone. Having contraception available reduces medical costs and abortions. You want to reduce abortions, right?

If you want to stop kids from having sex, the only way to do that (besides imprisonment) is making them completely scared of sex. And that, my friends, is exactly the society we have in the Middle East. You want to be more like the Middle East, right?

And finally, if you don't want you kids to have access to contraception in schools, home-school them.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:And what kind of society allows schools to give contraceptive methods to 13 year olds?

A smart, responsible society does. Teens will have sex, with or without their parents knowledge or consent. Teens will even have older, trusted friends get contraception for them; again with or without their parents knowledge or consent.

A smart, responsible society recognizes that you can't stop kids from having sex, but teen pregnancy and STDs are damaging to culture as a whole, putting an unnecessary burden on everyone. Having contraception available reduces medical costs and abortions. You want to reduce abortions, right?

If you want to stop kids from having sex, the only way to do that (besides imprisonment) is making them completely scared of sex. And that, my friends, is exactly the society we have in the Middle East. You want to be more like the Middle East, right?

And finally, if you don't want you kids to have access to contraception in schools, home-school them.

My only disagreement with what you've said is that if the schools are going to give out contraceptives, the parents need to be in on the process. Teens are still minors in the eyes of the law, and as such, under the jurisdiction of their parents, as it should be.

EDIT: Obama caved and Santorum's an unprincipled liar.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obam ... 00694.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/live ... 19063.html

flip wrote:I guess your love and affection for elected officials only carries so far as glorious leader.

I view elected officials as my civil servants, deserving of respect, but kept on a short leash. That includes Obama. I merely give him props for 'getting it', far more than most, and honestly trying to break the ideological gridlock that has killed our functionality for over a decade.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:That's why I said Guiliani. He doesn't appear to be much different from Obama, but he is.

of course he is.....Rudy is a demonstrable crook, for starters, not to mention a self-aggrandizing blowhard.

Hmmmm...I wonder how much money goes into Obama's re-election campaign fund from the executive's of Solyndra ?

precious little out of the big picture, and it would be welcome relief to most readers if you could resist stupid attacks based on
hate of Obama at every turn.

well, we have(as I suggested) the workaround, and it didn't require action by Congress(thankfully). It would seem that the insurers came to the rescue and picked up the tab. Why? All one has to do is go back to the points Vision attempted to make to the haters. It is not only responsible to provide access to contraception, but for a society and an insurance company, it is CHEAPER.
Remember, part of the goal of healthcare reform is to make medical costs to society drop, or at least arrest the inflation. It is far less costly to provide relatively cheap medications, as opposed to paying for prenatal care and screening, childbirth, newborn care and the extra children in an overcrowded society. Just because the Catholic Church hierarchy refuse to see this, most Catholics(over 90% use birth contol) get it.

callmeslick wrote:
precious little out of the big picture, and it would be welcome relief to most readers if you could resist stupid attacks based on
hate of Obama at every turn.

Precious little?:

"Kaiser (Solyndra investor) personally donated $53,500 to Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. Ben Bierman, executive vice president of operations donated $5,500 to Obama, and Karen Alter, senior vice president of marketing gave $23,000, just to name a few."

Now who's stupid.

Just because the Catholic Church hierarchy refuse to see this, most Catholics(over 90% use birth contol) get it.

Perhaps 90% have used birth control, but that doesn't mean that 90% actively use it, or more importantly, that 90% would agree that using it is a good thing. I've seen a couple of comments over the past few days from Catholics who had used birth control, yet acknowledged it as sinful behavior, and disagreed that Church-run institutions should have to essentially cover their sin. (There's also my earlier point that there's a big difference between calling yourself Catholic and being Catholic.) There's nothing that the Church hierarchy "refuses to see" here: ends not justifying means is a pretty fundamental principle of the faith.

All of that aside, I'm conservatively encouraged by Obama's change of course on this matter, though I'm still a bit curious on how the mechanics of it will work out.

vision wrote: A smart, responsible society does. Teens will have sex, with or without their parents knowledge or consent. Teens will even have older, trusted friends get contraception for them; again with or without their parents knowledge or consent.

So you approve of pediophilia? Sex crimes? Because thats what you are allowing and approve of.

vision wrote: You want to reduce abortions, right?

Straw-man statement

vision wrote: If you want to stop kids from having sex, the only way to do that (besides imprisonment) is making them completely scared of sex. And that, my friends, is exactly the society we have in the Middle East. You want to be more like the Middle East, right?

I guess back in the 50's and 60's when I went thru school, America and the school system were more like the middle ages. Of course back then even the boys were scared of getting a girl pregnant. I guess with you growing up in the new permissive society, allowing children to have sex instead of being scared to is preferential in your book.

I think it's the out of wedlock sex that causes Illegitimate and unwanted children that is the actual sin here. Contraceptives lessen the overall collateral damage caused.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: A smart, responsible society does. Teens will have sex, with or without their parents knowledge or consent. Teens will even have older, trusted friends get contraception for them; again with or without their parents knowledge or consent.

So you approve of pediophilia? Sex crimes? Because thats what you are allowing and approve of.

LOL! Ok, please explain how allowing teens access to contraception is advocating pedophilia and "sex crimes." Oh man I can't wait, this is going to be hilarious...

woodchip wrote:...allowing children to have sex instead of being scared to is preferential in your book.

First off, the middle ages are regarded as a time of gross ignorance in society, especially the "dark ages" (dark because of a lack of enlightenment). So yeah, if we've moved past that thinking in the 50's/60's then it's definitely a good thing.

We don't allow kids to have sex in our culture. It's highly frowned upon and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Boys and girls are still worried about pregnancy and STDs. But kids nowadays have more knowledge and more resources available to them (including birth-control) and that goes a long way in reducing unnecessary fear about sexuality. That's a good thing. We want kids to be smart about sex because they are going to do it anyway whether society allows them too or not.

allowing children to have sex instead of being scared to...

you can't imagine how much I laughed at that.

i'm suuuuure you can scare kids away from boning each other. they're just gonna do it behind your back no matter what you try.

vision wrote: LOL! Ok, please explain how allowing teens access to contraception is advocating pedophilia and "sex crimes." Oh man I can't wait, this is going to be hilarious...

So lets see....you wouldn't have problems with teens being given access to carry firearms if they live in a rough neighborhood as a means of protecting themselves? Giving underage minors the safety of going out to practice illegal sex is in some ways aiding and abetting them. Just who is the 13 year old going to have sex with? It is a crime if she does it with with any boy no matter the boys age. It would be a interesting legal case if in court the girl testifies that the only reason she had sex with the older guy is because a teacher gave her contraceptive drugs. Is it still hilarious vision? If I was the parent you can bet if it were my daughter in court because of this, I would get a very good attorney and start dropping civil lawsuits involving anyone and everyone.

vision wrote:First off, the middle ages are regarded as a time of gross ignorance in society, especially the "dark ages" (dark because of a lack of enlightenment). So yeah, if we've moved past that thinking in the 50's/60's then it's definitely a good thing.

Yeah we moved past the 50's for sure:
" In the 1950’s, less than a third of first births to teen mothers were conceived out of wedlock.
By the 1980’s, close to two-thirds of all Caucasian teen mothers were unmarried when they became pregnant.
And almost all (97%) of African American teen mothers were single at the time of conception in the 1980’s. "

Still laughing vision?

woodchip wrote:I guess back in the 50's and 60's when I went thru school, America and the school system were more like the middle ages. Of course back then even the boys were scared of getting a girl pregnant. I guess with you growing up in the new permissive society, allowing children to have sex instead of being scared to is preferential in your book.

My experience would roughly coincide, both time-wise and in terms of what you observed. However, bear in mind that things changed radically with the introduction of oral contraceptives for women. Futher, the limits of parental wrath over pregnant daughters had less bounds in those days, at least in most of the nation. Thus, we live in a far different world, for better or worse, and thus have to make our society as best as it can be within that world. You cannot force, at least in a short period of time, the mores of a previous era onto the present day.

flip wrote:I think it's the out of wedlock sex that causes Illegitimate and unwanted children that is the actual sin here. Contraceptives lessen the overall collateral damage caused.

that is not the way the Catholic Church and some others see it. It would be both sinful to have out-of-wedlock sex or to do something to impair one's natural fertility. You certainly can't see any Christian doctrine that finds illegitimate(out of wedlock) children to be inherently sinful, can you?

You certainly can't see any Christian doctrine that finds illegitimate(out of wedlock) children to be inherently sinful, can you?

Not sure I understand what's being asked here. A whole slew of social problems and dysfunction comes from having unprotected, casual sex. At least with contraceptives, the burden is left on the shoulders of those engaging in such practices and not spread throughout society.

woodchip wrote:"Kaiser (Solyndra investor) personally donated $53,500 to Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. Ben Bierman, executive vice president of operations donated $5,500 to Obama, and Karen Alter, senior vice president of marketing gave $23,000, just to name a few."

Now who's stupid.

I'll leave that for others to decide, but will publicly thank you for fleshing out my argument for me. Obama raised nearly 750 million dollars in that campaign. You figures indicate the donation of less than .01 % of the total.
........which, in my view, is 'precious little'

750 million is alot of money.

woodchip wrote:Bunch of hypothetical nonsense...

I started to reply to your post then realized you were just making a bunch of crazy 5hit up, letting all your fears and worries out. It seems the world changed when you weren't looking and you are having a hard time adjusting. It's too bad. I guess if you want to keep mourning "the good old days" then go right ahead. The rest of us will keep marveling at how awesome today is and tomorrow will be.

flip...

This is a result of the mind washing that happens when you get people overly concerned on percentages, instead of total dollars…

The same applies to taxes, one person can pay 10 times or maybe even 100 times the amount of the average person, but still not pay their “fair share” because they may have paid a lesser percentage.

(no…this does not imply the tax system doesn’t need fixing) I’m just saying.

......................

Speak for yourself vision…everything going on today as compared to the past is not so great.

I don’t know about you, but I still have a problem with an underage girl being sexually active, and getting birth control from the state…there is just something wrong with that.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:Bunch of hypothetical nonsense...

I started to reply to your post then realized you were just making a bunch of crazy 5hit up, letting all your fears and worries out. It seems the world changed when you weren't looking and you are having a hard time adjusting. It's too bad. I guess if you want to keep mourning "the good old days" then go right ahead. The rest of us will keep marveling at how awesome today is and tomorrow will be.

What was made up?

Spidey wrote:Speak for yourself vision…everything going on today as compared to the past is not so great.

I don’t know about you, but I still have a problem with an underage girl being sexually active, and getting birth control from the state…there is just something wrong with that.

What do you consider to be underage Spidey?

The age of consent has varies depending on what country you look at. Some countries in Africa, it's age 12. But many nations have the age of consent at the start of menses, or many used to at least, as the age of consent, which can be around 12 or 13 years of age.

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

But during those good old days in the U.S., circa 1880, the age of consent was as low as 7 in Delaware and around 10 to 12 for the rest of the states. Ick!

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24

I vote for what we're doing in the good new days.

It's like all of you forgot what it's like to be a kid. Ironic, on an old video game forum. Everyone weighed down by all these ridiculous worries about teen sex. Oh my! How horrible that children should be smarter about exploring their world with resources and knowledge we didn't have!

http://imgur.com/QYrFR

I see it differently Vision. You yourself said the Dark Ages was a dismal time in history. It's more accurate to say we are in another decline.

Yeah Spidey, I was just pointing out to Slick that his argument was full of ho's.

tc, I was using underage to mean immature in this context, not a legal status, sorry I should have used immature instead.

flip wrote:It's more accurate to say we are in another decline.

That would be interesting to try and prove.

Sorry for being an optimist.

vision wrote:It's like all of you forgot what it's like to be a kid. Ironic, on an old video game forum. Everyone weighed down by all these ridiculous worries about teen sex. Oh my! How horrible that children should be smarter about exploring their world with resources and knowledge we didn't have!

http://imgur.com/QYrFR

HARDLY. What we do know is
that as kids we all made incredibly stupid decisions, and looking back in many cases it was the wisdom of our parents that saved us from serious problems in our lives. In other words we got wiser

CUDA wrote:What we do know is that as kids we all made incredibly stupid decisions, and looking back in many cases it was the wisdom of our parents that saved us from serious problems in our lives. In other words we got wiser

You sound like one of the lucky ones. Or rather, maybe it was me who was lucky. I didn't do anything stupid as a kid and I didn't have any parental wisdom handed down to me. My school and local library taught me how to take care of myself. I guess that's why I support decisions like offering contraception in schools because I know there are a lot of parents out there who are completely ignorant of their children and the world around them.

Unless you didn't have parents and raised your self, then you had parental wisdom handed down to you. It would be the arrogance of youth
to think other wise.

CUDA wrote:Unless you didn't have parents and raised your self, then you had parental wisdom handed down to you. It would be the arrogance of youth
to think other wise.

I bet you think I'm exaggerating. But really, I had a guardian (not a biological parent) who provided me with basic necessities (shelter, food in the refrigerator), but nothing else. Yes I received parental wisdom, but it certainly wasn't at home. It was at school. It was in my neighborhood. And this is the crux of the argument for birth control (and even sex-ed) in schools. Sometimes the teachers, principals, and BOE members (who are parents themselves) know better than some parents what is best for their kids. I know, because I was one of those who didn't have wise, loving parents to raise me. So there, now you know where I get my optimistic worldview, haha.

woodchip wrote:What was made up?

Your fantasy about the underage sex case and your eventual legal rampage, haha.

woodchip wrote:It would be a interesting legal case if in court the girl testifies that the only reason she had sex with the older guy is because a teacher gave her contraceptive drugs. If I was the parent you can bet if it were my daughter in court because of this, I would get a very good attorney and start dropping civil lawsuits involving anyone and everyone.

woodchip wrote:So lets see....you wouldn't have problems with teens being given access to carry firearms if they live in a rough neighborhood as a means of protecting themselves?

Equating birth control with firearms. Nice analogy... Not! But seriously, if kids had equal chance of having sex as engaging in deadly violence, then yeah, something would have to be done. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, hopefully never.

woodchip wrote:Is it still hilarious vision?

Yes.

Foil wrote:
To me, it makes sense. If Catholic institutions are getting federal tax dollars, they need to play by federal rules.

Am I missing something?

Foil, I'm quoting you only because you post was short and concise. And Yes, it seems that the larger ramifications have been missed and what it will mean.


If it were JUST a federal money issue, it would be no trouble. The catholic church would throw it back in their laps in a heart beat.

BUT if they still don't comply, they get still refuse comply ....or ANY organization... they get fined $2000 per employee. This will impact not only the Catholic church but EVERY christian organization that does not follow the law. That means no church staffing, schools (the private schools that are now ran by Churches), soup kitchens, emergency food box services, no homeless shelters, greatly reduced free medical clinics, counseling services, adoption agencies, prison services... and the list goes on.

The fact is that the Christian community does more in the of human services within cities and rural areas, no one is going to be able replace them on the scale (or significant fraction) that they now exist.

Will all Christian organizations oppose this law? no. But many will. These folks, the Portland rescue Mission does a ton for Portland's inner city. And I seriously doubt that the whole "Keep Portland weird" crowd wants to pick up the tab when they close their doors. They can barely keep them open now. And also These guys. Northwest Medical Teams. They provide services all over the world where ever disaster strikes.

While you might believe in God, and most here don't, The work that's being done by the "church" on the whole can not be replaced by the "state", nor will it.

For those that "poo-foo" the whole "trampling on religious rights", you should listen. Obama has been gunning to take down the Catholic services division for a couple of years now. He just found a slightly more sublime way of doing it. He won't stop there. He has more Czar's than any other pres to date. (40 something the last I heard) and we're talking about an individual that is on record as saying that the Constitution is outdated and needs to be re-written. Sounds like he's trying to do it all on his "own".

Well, it's not like condoms are not already readily available. They are sitting right at the front counter in most places. It is a big step to force everyone into a single-minded compliance and you also wonder if one of the effects will be increased promiscuity.
We all know how these things turn out at the local level. It gets dropped into somebodys lap who is ill-prepared and already over-worked. To end their responsibility quickly, you will end up with "Condom Dispersion Days" with long lines of people being handed bags of condoms being pulled out of big cardboard boxes. On a mass scale it "could" end up subverting a whole generation of young people. I can't be as optimistic any more Vision. I am more a pragmatic realist at this point.

flip wrote:On a mass scale it "could" end up subverting a whole generation of young people.

Yawn.

Been there, done that. In the 60's most recently and in other movements preceding it in Western culture. Sure it "could" subvert a whole generation. It also "could" keep a national dialogue open so children get more information and are able to make better decisions about their love lives.

Yes, teenagers are capable of making decisions. Yes, they know what love and sex is, and they can tell the difference. No, they shouldn't be afraid to get involved with either, or sheltered from information about.

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that contraception is being forced onto kids. It's being made available. That's a huge difference. Parents who are nervous about the availability of such things should have faith that they taught their children the values they hold dear -- and love and accept their children if they later reject those values. That's called "parenting."

flip wrote:750 million is alot of money.

how Mitt of you!

Duper wrote:For those that "poo-foo" the whole "trampling on religious rights", you should listen. Obama has been gunning to take down the Catholic services division for a couple of years now. He just found a slightly more sublime way of doing it. He won't stop there. He has more Czar's than any other pres to date. (40 something the last I heard) and we're talking about an individual that is on record as saying that the Constitution is outdated and needs to be re-written. Sounds like he's trying to do it all on his "own".

it would be tough to find a bigger pantload of crap in one paragraph:
1.How, dare I ask, has Obama been gunning to take down Catholic Services division?
2. He won't stop there? How the feck would you pretend to know what his plans are?
3. He has more 'czars' because, and only because, the Senate has chosen to block the appointments of
over 80% of his administrative positions. 'Special advisors'(czars) don't require Senate approval.
4. Find me the quote where Obama says(on record) that the Constitution is outdated. I dare you. And yes, I am calling you a liar.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:I guess your love and affection for elected officials only carries so far as glorious leader.

I view elected officials as my civil servants, deserving of respect, but kept on a short leash. That includes Obama. I merely give him props for 'getting it', far more than most, and honestly trying to break the ideological gridlock that has killed our functionality for over a decade.

Yep, he's really setting himself apart.

Left to interpretation

Flip what was the point of resuscitating that old chestnut?


oh, I get it.....you were demonstrating the depths of stupidity that has come to pass for political discourse. I see. And, right you are,
I do support a President that knows this sort of 'debate' over absolute drivel serves no purpose other than averting the focus of the nation away from real issues.

Lol.

It goes towards the argument that he doesn't hold the Constitution or American ideals in very high regard. He's progressive .