PDA

View Full Version : States spurning abstinence funds



S0Noma
12-16-2007, 01:06 PM
At least 14 tell federal government they'd rather teach comprehensive sex education

Rob Stein, Washington Post


The number of states refusing federal money for "abstinence-only" sex education programs jumped sharply in the past year as evidence mounted that the approach is ineffective.

At least 14 states have either notified the federal government that they will no longer be requesting the funds or are not expected to apply, forgoing more than $15 million of the $50 million available, officials said. Virginia was the most recent state to opt out.

Two other states - Ohio and Washington - have applied but stipulated they would use the money for comprehensive sex education, effectively making themselves ineligible, federal officials said. Other states are considering withdrawing as well.

Until this year, only four states had passed up the funding.


"We're concerned about this," said Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the program. "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out."

The number of states spurning the money has grown even as Congress considers boosting overall funding for abstinence-only education to $204 million, with most of it going directly to community organizations.

The trend has triggered intense lobbying of state legislators and governors around the country. Supporters of the programs are scrambling to reverse the decisions, while opponents are pressuring more states to join the trend.

"This wave of states rejecting the money is a bellwether," said William Smith of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a Washington-based advocacy and education group that opposes abstinence-only programs. "It's a canary in the coal mine of what's to come.

"We hope that it sends a message to the politicians in Washington that this program needs to change, and states need to be able to craft a program that is the best fit for their young people and that is not a dictated by Washington ideologues," Smith said.

Smith and other critics said they hope that if enough states drop out, Congress will redirect the funding to comprehensive sex education programs that include teaching about the use of condoms and other contraceptives.

But supporters said they plan to fight for the programs state by state.

"We're talking about the health of millions of youth across the United States," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Huber disputed criticism that the programs are ineffective or overly restrictive.

"Our critics would have governors believe that these programs are just somebody standing in front of the class wagging a finger and saying, 'No. No. No. Don't have sex.' That's not what these classes entail," Huber said. "They are holistic. They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception."

Congress is considering boosting the $176 million in annual funding for abstinence programs by $28 million. State governments can apply for portions of a $50 million fund, which they use for a variety of purposes, including school classes, community groups, state and local health departments, and media campaigns. But the money is restricted to efforts focused on promoting abstinence.

The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials have reported that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appears to have reversed.

"This abstinence-only program is just not getting the job done," said Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "This is an ideologically based program that doesn't have any support in science."

The program was started as part of the 1996 welfare reform. California, however, dropped out in 2000, forgoing more than $7 million it was eligible to receive, and Maine opted out in 2005, giving up $161,000. Most states, however, did participate. New Jersey decided to opt out last year, rejecting more than $900,000 in funding, and others followed.

The reasons given for passing up the federal money vary from state to state. Some governors publicly repudiated the programs. Others quietly let their applications lapse or blamed tight budgets that made it impossible to meet the requirement to provide matching state funds. Still others are asking for more flexibility.

"The governor supports abstinence education," Keith Daily, a spokesman for Ohio Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland. "What he does not support is abstinence-only education. We are asking to put the money toward abstinence in the context of a comprehensive age-appropriate curriculum." web page (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/16/MNJFTVEPE.DTL)

wolfdancer
12-16-2007, 06:16 PM
It's going to become a f*****g disaster

llotter
12-16-2007, 08:38 PM
The disaster is the abject failure of ‘sex education’ since it was initiated over forty years ago. Whether measured in the obvious, like disease, unwed mothers, abortions or the less obvious manifestations of corrupted values, broken families and disrespect for tradition, the failure is on a grand scale. Any small attempt to stem the tide of our cultural decay is mocked those who believe they can remain free without a common values.

hondo
12-17-2007, 07:42 AM
So what do you suggest? It definitely appears that
kids are going to f**k.

DickLeonard
12-17-2007, 09:32 AM
Sonoma this is like asking a Republican not to take a Bribe, it can't be done. We have to get Religion out of government or were going back to the middle ages.####,#### hehe I just had a little dick

llotter
12-17-2007, 08:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> So what do you suggest? It definitely appears that
kids are going to f**k. <hr /></blockquote>

Kids will do mostly what adults teach them to do, especially if some good values are part of the lessons. If the schools spent more time on teaching the academic subjects, just maybe we wouldn’t have to keep adjusting up the SAT scores to compensate for poor performance.

LWW
12-18-2007, 09:26 AM
Why should the feds be involved in this issue at all?

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-18-2007, 10:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Kids will do mostly what adults teach them to do, especially if some good values are part of the lessons. <hr /></blockquote>

Ha ha ha...who told you that?

There are two things that have turned an already suffering educational system into a complete disaster, George Bush, and his No Child Left Behind Program. Religious interference into sex education, and family planning, is completely out of order, IMO, and has further worsened the situation. The former Secretary Of Health, I believe it was Health, Education and Welfare, left her position to protest this administration's policies against teaching sex education, and interferring with family planning programs. The statistics she presented showed that abstinence programs don't work. If you think horny teenagers listen to what adults tell them to do, regarding sexual experimentation, I'd like to know when and where you grew up.

I grew up in the fifties, and believe me, we didn't have the stimulus in the media, and everywhere else, to deal with like today's kids do, and I can certainly assure you that teenagers are not going to stop experimenting with sexual activities because of what ANY adult, OR pastor, or anyone else, "Tells" them, but they sure as hell will take precautions against getting caught, if they have some education on the subject.

Mind if I ask you how old you are?

Abstinence programs don't work, period, nor does anything else, if we're talking about expecting kids to control their urges. A certain number of kids are going to do it, no matter what any adult tells them, the question is, do you want them to do it with, or without protection from didease and unplanned pregnancy?

BTW, the girls from Catholic School, were the wildest in town, when I was growing up.


Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-18-2007, 10:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Any small attempt to stem the tide of our cultural decay is mocked those who believe they can remain free without a common values. <hr /></blockquote>

Define common values, if you will. Is that translation anything close to religious dictatorship?

Stemming the tide of cultural decay? Define cultural decay, also, if you will.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-18-2007, 10:37 AM
LOL, now this is the very kind of thing that irritates me so much about the Republican Party, and their religious supporters. We don't know what the statistics might have been, without Sex Education, so how the hell do they make statements like this?


Apparently we should turn to the priests, and the pastors to teach sexual restraint to teens, in the backroom, I suppose? LMAO!

Unbelievable! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

DickLeonard
12-18-2007, 10:56 AM
Gayle I resent that, as a young Catholic boy growing up in the early 50s I never met any wild Catholic girls. Oh wait I was in the dance and poolhalls.

My favorite dance partner, Barbara Rysendorf towered over me, toes to toes it was heaven. We danced the night before my wedding, what fun we had..Now I am going down Memory Lane.####

LWW
12-18-2007, 10:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> There are two things that have turned an already suffering educational system into a complete disaster, George Bush, and his No Child Left Behind Program.

Gayle in Md.<hr /></blockquote>
Really?

How about explaining to us why test scores have plummeted since we put a Dept of Ed in place?

LWW

wolfdancer
12-18-2007, 05:37 PM
are you implying that 14 states told the Fed. Government to
"F**k off" ?
I think there is a hidden reason behind all this. Now on one hand we have the sons and daughters of the conservative Christian Republicans, following, for the most art, the dictates of their parents, who in turn believe GWB has a hot line to the Almighty, and therefore abstinence is the way to go....it's sort of like when the Pope speaks about theology. So while those kids are saving themselves by abstaining....someone looked around and noticed all the young ****** Democrats, and realized that some 19 years down the road, they would be hopelessly outnumbered by,now of voting age, Democrats.
So this is in reality a signal for the young Republicans to
"get it on" (we'll look the other way) Get your 7 virgins now....and "score" for the party....
I don't know if they are offering any bonus yet for impregnations...but, they have lost some ground....

Gayle in MD
12-18-2007, 07:28 PM
That's funny, Dick, all my partners towered over me too.

I was never the gal in the back seat, either. I was on the dance floor, either dancing with chums from school, or dancing on a stage somewhere. We used to do six shows a day on the Steel Pier in this little theater, and then after the finale, we'd take our tap shoes off, and put on our street shoes, and a change of clothes, and we'd run all the way to the end of the Pier to dance to the music of the big bands until our next show started. It was all about dancing. No drugs, no liquor, (Not for the girls, anyway) and no sex, so I thought! Just plenty of sneaking around to smoke a cigarette, probably worse than any of the former three mentioned. If we were dancing, we were happy.

That reminds me, you owe me a dance! But you'll have to be my leader. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Love,
Gayle

llotter
12-18-2007, 08:13 PM
The truth is just about the opposite, conservatives have bigger families and liberals. But now that you mention it, maybe a penalty should be imposed on those who don't have enough kids to pay for thier old age instead on placing the burden on the young Republicans. Those lefties in Europe aren't even close to replacing their own population so they have to import a lot of laber, mostly Muslim. I wonder how long before they will have to become accustomed to sharia law.

I think the lefties just get abortions so eventually they will just go away.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/17/INGEJL45D11.DTL&amp;hw=haddock&amp;sn=001&amp;sc=1000

LWW
12-19-2007, 05:33 AM
Dick doesn't like to be confused with factual data. Propaganda and innuendo are his preference.

Before he claims to be a victim, those are his claims not mine.

LWW

llotter
12-19-2007, 08:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Any small attempt to stem the tide of our cultural decay is mocked those who believe they can remain free without a common values. <hr /></blockquote>

Define common values, if you will. Is that translation anything close to religious dictatorship?

Stemming the tide of cultural decay? Define cultural decay, also, if you will.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

I think you know full well what is meant by 'common values'...It is a set of values that are commonly accepted, i.e. by maybe 90 or 95 percent of the population. This general acceptance is essential if a society wants to be both free and civil. Just what set of values that society plays under is somewhat open but, because of our success here, I would vote for the Judeo-Christian value set that underwrites our culture. As a child of the '50s, Gayle, when that fact was more broadly accepted than it is today, I am sure you wouldn't describe that joyful period as a religious dictatorship, would you?

It has been since the '60s, when more sophisticated, intellectual theories of social design began to take root that the decay went into high gear. Starting probably with Marx, representing the economic babble school, Freud, representing the psycho-babble school, Skinner, representing the behaviorist babble school, all mixed in the the rationalist babble school and lo and behold, we find ourselves in Babble Utopia. Everything is centered around pleasuring the self with the least effort. Crime is way up but I'm in a gated community. Divorce rates are up...so where's the problem? Illegitimacy is up...who cares? Broken families, big deal! Drug usage...whatever makes you feel good can't be bad. Education standards dropping...hey, ignorance is bliss, what's the problem?

This is your world, Gayle, and your welcome to it. As for me, I choose those tried and true Christian values every time.

S0Noma
12-19-2007, 09:16 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> Dick doesn't like to be confused with factual data. Propaganda and innuendo are his preference.


LWW <hr /></blockquote>

Oh dear, do you mean like your absurd notion that ALL forest fires, no matter where they occur and no matter if there were ANY ENVIRONMENTAL LAWSUITS involved, can be laid at the doorstep of the 'econuts'? Is that the kind of 'Propaganda and innuendo' unsupported by factual data that you're referring to?

Just wondering.

Sonoma &lt;-- still trying to understand how El Dumb can compute that 24% enviro lawsuits = 100% responsibility for all forest fires (that's El Dumb's math folks, not mine).

Gayle in MD
12-19-2007, 09:50 AM
My world? LOL. Hey, the divorce rates are highest in the bible belt, FYI. Drug and alcohol abuse crosess all social, religious, non religious, and economic groups, along with pedofelia, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, teen sex, and infidelity.

Values are important. Too bad that not enough parents value their kids enough to teach them to love themselves, and to remain in concert with their goals, and education enough to keep them excited about their abilities, and talents. Religious values and organized religion are not required in order that people make their kids their most important interest in life. What they need is our time, and our unconditional love, not brainwashing and guilt.

None of the societal ills you mention, are indicative of the left, or the right, the religious, or the non-religious, they are a result of people being out of touch with themselves, and not valuing themselves enough to aim for their own best interests. Teaching children to do that requires love, time, and attention, and enough self-love and knowledge to understand how to guide and encourage young people, and believe me, filling them with guilt, and calling them sinners, is about as effective as looking to Barney to let us know when it's time to change course.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
12-19-2007, 01:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote S0Noma:</font><hr>Sonoma &lt;-- still trying to understand how El Dumb can compute that 24% enviro lawsuits = 100% responsibility for all forest fires (that's El Dumb's math folks, not mine).<hr /></blockquote>
That's because you are an idiot making an argument against an argument that I never presented.

Now, explain to your toady underlings how not properly husbanding the forests and allowing them to overgrow by a factor of 5 does nothing to contribute to the severity or regularity of forest fires.

Of course you can't because:

A-It isn't true.
B-You lack the intellectual skills to make a cogent point if you had one ... which you don't.

In lieu of that you may not enter into a howling moonbat rant about logging and blah blah blah blah bull shiite blah blah blah.

Better yet, let me save the forum some bandwidth and condense your thinking on every issue to it's essence ... B-B-B-B-BUT BOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!

See, wasn't that much simpler than getting your underoos all up in a wad you insolent prepubescent twit.

LWW

llotter
12-19-2007, 01:17 PM
What I don't think you appreciate quite enough is the role of religion in providing that common value system. It is really the function of religion to provide some stability in the society's understanding of moral values. It is the Left that has been trying to marginalize the affect of religion in our society and I think they have been all too successful in that effort. The priests and ministers and rabbis are the experts in the realm of morality and, traditionally, people used to consult these trained experts in matters of what's right and what's wrong, and rightly so. Without this level of continuity, the tradidtional value system begins to fall apart.

If religion is delegitmized, who does anyone go to now to discuss their own moral problems? What institution is going to provide the contintuity and commonality in this new world we are building? Let me suggest that the answer is, there is none. Every individual, community, group is free to adapt any ad hoc system they choose for the moment and they are free to change it as the situation arises, in other words, stituational ethics. No continuity, no commonality and I think this results has resulted in the obvious cultural decay which I see as continuing on down into the abyss.

You say in your own cute way, in an earlier post ...

LOL, now this is the very kind of thing that irritates me so much about the Republican Party, and their religious supporters. We don't know what the statistics might have been, without Sex Education, so how the hell do they make statements like this?

It totally predictable that if you take away the referees and judges, the game will break out in chaos. You are saying that the game might be in even more chaos if the refs remained in place. Religion in society act as the referees and judges to help bring order and rules the the game of human activity. Plus, you know I am not a Republican.

LWW
12-19-2007, 01:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> What I don't think you appreciate quite enough is the role of religion in providing that common value system. It is really the function of religion to provide some stability in the society's understanding of moral values. It is the Left that has been trying to marginalize the affect of religion in our society and I think they have been all too successful in that effort. The priests and ministers and rabbis are the experts in the realm of morality and, traditionally, people used to consult these trained experts in matters of what's right and what's wrong, and rightly so. Without this level of continuity, the tradidtional value system begins to fall apart.

If religion is delegitmized, who does anyone go to now to discuss their own moral problems? What institution is going to provide the contintuity and commonality in this new world we are building? Let me suggest that the answer is, there is none. Every individual, community, group is free to adapt any ad hoc system they choose for the moment and they are free to change it as the situation arises, in other words, stituational ethics. No continuity, no commonality and I think this results has resulted in the obvious cultural decay which I see as continuing on down into the abyss.

You say in your own cute way, in an earlier post ...

LOL, now this is the very kind of thing that irritates me so much about the Republican Party, and their religious supporters. We don't know what the statistics might have been, without Sex Education, so how the hell do they make statements like this?

It totally predictable that if you take away the referees and judges, the game will break out in chaos. You are saying that the game might be in even more chaos if the refs remained in place. Religion in society act as the referees and judges to help bring order and rules the the game of human activity. Plus, you know I am not a Republican. <hr /></blockquote>
DING DING DING

LWW

Folks, we have a winner.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-21-2007, 06:11 AM
What I don't think you appreciate quite enough is the role of religion in providing that common value system. It is really the function of religion to provide some stability in the society's understanding of moral values. <font color="red">Not in this country it isn't. </font color> It is the Left that has been trying to marginalize the affect of religion in our society and I think they have been all too successful in that effort. <font color="red">No, it was the founding fathers who marginalized religion, not the left. In fact, this country was founded by people who were escaping religious prosecution, in the interest of living where they would not be subject to religious dictatorship and prosecution. </font color> The priests and ministers and rabbis are the experts in the realm of morality and, <font color="red"> BULL@@@@! </font color> traditionally, people used to consult these trained experts in matters of what's right and what's wrong, and rightly so. <font color="red">Your opinion on the matter is not THE opinion, and I dare say, given recent disclosures, their credentials on the subject of morality are at an all time low. </font color> Without this level of continuity, the tradidtional value system begins to fall apart. <font color="red">Continuity? Morality? You're not suggesting that organized religion take charge of our laws, our government, our private lives, are you, because that's how you sound. </font color>

If religion is delegitmized, <font color="red">Deligitmized? Not a word. </font color> who does anyone go to now to discuss their own moral problems? <font color="red">If you are having moral problems, I suggest you see a psychologist. </font color> What institution is going to provide the contintuity and commonality in this new world we are building? <font color="red">Didn't know the wrold was being re-built? Seems like the same old world I was born into, to me. </font color> <font color="red">Continuity, commonality, these words you are using reveal what many are beginning to understand, that you folks from the religious right, are not satisfied with just a seat at the table, your true aim is domination, dictatorship, and the opportunity to impose you own subjective religious interpretations about moreality upon all others. Fascist and unamerican, to say the least. </font color> Let me suggest that the answer is, there is none. <font color="red">We have laws in this country, and a Constitution, and unless you religious nuts succeed, we have freedom to determine our own moral values. </font color> Every individual, community, group is free to adapt any ad hoc system they choose for the moment and they are free to change it as the situation arises, in other words, stituational ethics. <font color="red">The Constitution gives authorty to the States, to write their laws, and direct their business, you seek to change that? Situational ethics? Man oh man, you really are OUT THERE, friend. </font color> No continuity, no commonality and I think this results has resulted in the obvious cultural decay which I see as continuing on down into the abyss. <font color="red">Yeah, lets drag out the abyss, when all else fails. LOL, continuity, commonality, would you also like some burkas, and some exciting stoning in the streets? I think you'd love Saudi Arabia, why not round up the nutty fundalmentalist right wing nuts, and fly yourselves over there, where you can indulge in your dramas on a daily basis, bring back the salem witch hunts, slavery and the scarlet A? </font color>

You say in your own cute way, in an earlier post ...

LOL, now this is the very kind of thing that irritates me so much about the Republican Party, and their religious supporters. We don't know what the statistics might have been, without Sex Education, so how the hell do they make statements like this?

It totally predictable that if you take away the referees and judges, the game will break out in chaos. <font color="red">Silly statement to make when one is living in a nation of democratic principles, with courts, judges, policemen, and jails, don't you think? </font color> You are saying that the game might be in even more chaos if the refs remained in place. Religion in society act as the referees and judges to help bring order and rules the the game of human activity. <font color="red"> Wrong again, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, and individual states, do not require any input from organized religion in order to maintain a free, safe society. </font color> Plus, you know I am not a Republican. <font color="red">I don't know a damn thing about you, except that you have some very strange and unamerican, unhealthy ideas. </font color>


Larry in VA...Without responsibility, people will act irresponsibly.

S0Noma
12-21-2007, 07:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> The disaster is the abject failure of ‘sex education’ since it was initiated over forty years ago. Whether measured in the obvious, like disease, unwed mothers, abortions or the less obvious manifestations of corrupted values, broken families and disrespect for tradition, the failure is on a grand scale. Any small attempt to stem the tide of our cultural decay is mocked those who believe they can remain free without a common values. <hr /></blockquote>

Your opinion(s) notwithstanding, the 14 States who are 'dropping out' aren't doing so because they wish to mock "Any small attempt to stem the tide of our cultural decay"

They are doing so because they have good reason to believe the Federally sponsored "abstinence-only" sex education program isn't working.

wolfdancer
12-21-2007, 03:31 PM
why are you trying to introduce logic into the discussion?

wolfdancer
12-21-2007, 05:20 PM
Doesn't abstinence make the heart grow fonder???
I'm afraid that you have an non winnable argument there with Larry. He believes that only the left is responsible for the moral decay of our country....that view, seems to me, is saying that only the Godless, are Democratic. He's neatly packaged left Vs right, as God fearing Vs atheists...then further adding that without religion to guide one, they would have no moral values. No conscience
but
"Secular views of conscience

Modern day scientists in the fields of Ethology, Neuroscience and Evolutionary psychology seek to explain conscience as a function of the human brain that evolved to facilitate reciprocal altruism within societies. As such it could be instinctive (genetically determined) or learnt.
Even we Catholics are allowed a little wiggle room in forming a moral decision that conflicts with Dogma...internal forum...lets us act with good sense...."

It's amazing to me that voting for one candidate over another, you end up supporting terrorism,illegal immigrants,etc and let's not forget them stem cells that possess a soul, that the Godless want to butcher. Ooops, I fergots....non support of our troops, and by extent the private mercenaries over there...Blackwater.

Gayle in MD
12-22-2007, 08:31 AM
Those who sought to censor this forum, and/or shut it down, are from the right. Does that mean they are fundamentally against free speech? Fundamentally, being the key word.

Abstinence was the only form of birth control, for how long? I think the results were well established long before any of us were around, don't you? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

The right is only behind policies that don't work. The last seven years have surely proven that! Every effort to accomplish anything valuable, reasonable, or effective in dealing with failing policies, has been blocked by Republicans, and blamed on Democrats. Bush, and the Republicans, play politics with everything, even the needs of our troops, and the health of our children. /ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

IMO, it's up to "We the people" to keep hammering away at the reality of the results, in order to keep the truth out there, free of Madison Avenue styled brain washing. Remember, the sheep are dumb, and they stink! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

LWW
12-22-2007, 09:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Those who sought to censor this forum, and/or shut it down, are from the right. <hr /></blockquote>
And that is the biggest lie I have seen here.

You and your brownshirt fascists have done everything you can to foment hate and silence any opposition ... of course that is what good little jihadis do.

Now, face the facts ... NONE of you on the moonbat left here have the courage of your convictions or the nerve to step from your little coccoon and see the world that you helped create.

Shame on you.

LWW

S0Noma
12-22-2007, 06:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote LWW:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Those who sought to censor this forum, and/or shut it down, are from the right. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue">And that is the biggest lie I have seen here.</font color>

You and your brownshirt fascists have done everything you can to foment hate and silence any opposition ... of course that is what good little jihadis do.

Now, face the facts ... NONE of you on the moonbat left here have the courage of your convictions or the nerve to step from your little coccoon and see the world that you helped create.

Shame on you.

LWW <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Really? The BIGGEST LIE?? I wonder how that could be what with you being so full of $hit and all? Seems like you could do better than that. Biggest lie? Do tell how is it 'the biggest'?

In point of fact, how is it a lie at all?

Maybe it's you that's lying? That would be much closer to the truth. </font color>

LWW
12-22-2007, 06:47 PM
I stand by the statement and present you and your swainish behavior as a key piece of evidence.

The known reality of all but a handful of members here who make the most posts is that you are common web thugs who run in a pack.

Now that your reign of teeny town terror has been stood up to you are all whining like little school girls.

If you want a peaceful forum then act in a peaceful manner.

LWW

llotter
12-23-2007, 10:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> What I don't think you appreciate quite enough is the role of religion in providing that common value system. It is really the function of religion to provide some stability in the society's understanding of moral values. <font color="red">Not in this country it isn't. </font color> It is the Left that has been trying to marginalize the affect of religion in our society and I think they have been all too successful in that effort. <font color="red">No, it was the founding fathers who marginalized religion, not the left. In fact, this country was founded by people who were escaping religious prosecution, in the interest of living where they would not be subject to religious dictatorship and prosecution. </font color> The priests and ministers and rabbis are the experts in the realm of morality and, <font color="red"> BULL@@@@! </font color> traditionally, people used to consult these trained experts in matters of what's right and what's wrong, and rightly so. <font color="red">Your opinion on the matter is not THE opinion, and I dare say, given recent disclosures, their credentials on the subject of morality are at an all time low. </font color> Without this level of continuity, the tradidtional value system begins to fall apart. <font color="red">Continuity? Morality? You're not suggesting that organized religion take charge of our laws, our government, our private lives, are you, because that's how you sound. </font color>

If religion is delegitmized, <font color="red">Deligitmized? Not a word. </font color> who does anyone go to now to discuss their own moral problems? <font color="red">If you are having moral problems, I suggest you see a psychologist. </font color> What institution is going to provide the contintuity and commonality in this new world we are building? <font color="red">Didn't know the wrold was being re-built? Seems like the same old world I was born into, to me. </font color> <font color="red">Continuity, commonality, these words you are using reveal what many are beginning to understand, that you folks from the religious right, are not satisfied with just a seat at the table, your true aim is domination, dictatorship, and the opportunity to impose you own subjective religious interpretations about moreality upon all others. Fascist and unamerican, to say the least. </font color> Let me suggest that the answer is, there is none. <font color="red">We have laws in this country, and a Constitution, and unless you religious nuts succeed, we have freedom to determine our own moral values. </font color> Every individual, community, group is free to adapt any ad hoc system they choose for the moment and they are free to change it as the situation arises, in other words, stituational ethics. <font color="red">The Constitution gives authorty to the States, to write their laws, and direct their business, you seek to change that? Situational ethics? Man oh man, you really are OUT THERE, friend. </font color> No continuity, no commonality and I think this results has resulted in the obvious cultural decay which I see as continuing on down into the abyss. <font color="red">Yeah, lets drag out the abyss, when all else fails. LOL, continuity, commonality, would you also like some burkas, and some exciting stoning in the streets? I think you'd love Saudi Arabia, why not round up the nutty fundalmentalist right wing nuts, and fly yourselves over there, where you can indulge in your dramas on a daily basis, bring back the salem witch hunts, slavery and the scarlet A? </font color>

You say in your own cute way, in an earlier post ...

LOL, now this is the very kind of thing that irritates me so much about the Republican Party, and their religious supporters. We don't know what the statistics might have been, without Sex Education, so how the hell do they make statements like this?

It totally predictable that if you take away the referees and judges, the game will break out in chaos. <font color="red">Silly statement to make when one is living in a nation of democratic principles, with courts, judges, policemen, and jails, don't you think? </font color> You are saying that the game might be in even more chaos if the refs remained in place. Religion in society act as the referees and judges to help bring order and rules the the game of human activity. <font color="red"> Wrong again, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, and individual states, do not require any input from organized religion in order to maintain a free, safe society. </font color> Plus, you know I am not a Republican. <font color="red">I don't know a damn thing about you, except that you have some very strange and unamerican, unhealthy ideas. </font color>


Larry in VA...Without responsibility, people will act irresponsibly.

<hr /></blockquote>

As usual, Gayle, you are wrong on every point, aside from the critique of 'delegitimized' not being a word, but I like it so much that I have used it in the hope that it get adopted some day.

The idea of the Founders clearly understood that if freedom was to be secured, the powers of government must be strictly limited...hence, the Constitution. If freedom is ever lost, it is lost to government with its police powers and that is the reason government's power must be kept at minimum. The Founders also clearly understood that if men are to be free, with minimal govenment oversite, they will need good values that are widely shared. You rightly state that many fled their homeland because of religious persecution but it wan't because they were non-religious but because their religion was the one being persecuted. Nearly 100% of the early arrivals, including the Founders, were very religious. I could lay out quote after quote of the Founders illustrating how importance they attached to religion to maintaining a civil society without excessive government but you can research that for yourself.

What you are inviting in so willingly is exactly the opposite of the Founders vision, a police state. As our society has drifted away from religion as the source of our moral understanding, we can see the uncivil behavior gaining, accompanied by ever increasing government oversite. While I don't know the numbers, I would bet that the number of laws, lawyers, police, fines, jails, etc. have increased dramatically in the last fifty years because the citizens feel less safe now than a couple generations ago. With enough laws on the books, it becomes an oppressive tactic to control behavior through threat and intimadation with real consequences. You say religion is the threat but I think the real threat is the police state that you are inviting.

Sid_Vicious
12-24-2007, 12:55 AM
As usual, Gayle, you are wrong on every point

All I need to read to know you're Full-of-The-Chimp's-Dung. That woman's never been wrong with facts, so now I've found yet another poster to flip past and not read. You guys are like the cows Monty Python tossed over the wall...dead all over, heads down to your utters...sid

wolfdancer
12-24-2007, 04:28 AM
Once he added "this is your world...." he destroyed any sound reasoning behind his post. Your marriage and your business are both successful, your volunteer work, shows that you care about others.....but because you don't share his Christian beliefs....he is lumping all of society's ills upon you????
Matthew 7:2-5:
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

LWW
12-24-2007, 05:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> As usual, Gayle, you are wrong on every point

All I need to read to know you're Full-of-The-Chimp's-Dung. That woman's never been wrong with facts, so now I've found yet another poster to flip past and not read. You guys are like the cows Monty Python tossed over the wall...dead all over, heads down to your utters...sid <hr /></blockquote>
And now we have a new "biggest delusion of the year" just in the nick of time!

If this were the case then you, she, and the other bots would have no problem with a discussion.

Instead all that resides here on the left are blackhearted buffoons who cower in fear at anything and everything which cracks a little light into the land that reality forgot.

Merry Christmas.

LWW

bamadog
12-24-2007, 12:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>

That woman's never been wrong with facts, so now I've found yet another poster to flip past and not <hr /></blockquote>

If you believe that, then you are as delusional as Gayle.

Here are just a few of the lies Gayle repeatedly calls "facts".

1. Valerie Plame was a covert agent, covered by the statute.
2. Joe wilson told the truth in his NYT op ed.
3. Plame was outed by the White House.
4. President Bush ordered Clarke to allow the Saudis to leave the US after 9/11
5. President Bush is in League with the Bin Laden Family.
6. Clinton never had the opportunity to kill or capture Bin Laden.
7. Clinton was never accused of rape.
8. Bush lied us into the war.
9. Petraeus is a liar.
10. The surge has failed.
11. Sandy Burglar was stuffing secret documents down his pants at the National archives to save the evidence of Clinton's resolve against Al Qaeda from the Republican shredders.

And you consider Gayle credible!?

LWW
12-24-2007, 01:36 PM
Don't forget the one about how the Bushies ran roughshod over the dembots in an effort to torture people ... and the truth is that the Bushies were the voice of reason while Nazi Pelosi and others wanted much stricter measures used.

Does Gaylie, houndo, SODumba, Qlueless, or WolfPrancer have the testicular/ovarian fortitude to face the fact that they have been pimped by the neolibs in congress?

Nope. They sit silently in denial.

They will suffer the public humiliation of having their naked hypocrisy placed on public display before they will allow the slightest crack of reason to penetrate their shields of willfill ignorance.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-26-2007, 02:30 PM
If I cared what you thought I would take the time to lead you to the many statements that were made by Athiests, who were also contributors to the founding of this country.

Freedom, was the issue, Freedom, and self determination, without the interference of an overly powerful government, OR an overly 0powerful Chruch.

[ QUOTE ]
If freedom is ever lost, it is lost to government with its police powers and that is the reason government's power must be kept at minimum. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Freedom can be lost in many ways, but if your concern is that government may become too powerful, you must be terrified after seven years of George Bush, and the Republican obsticles to oversight, intrusions into private family decisions, politization of the Department of Justice, illegal spying on Americans, removal of Habeas Corpus, illegal search and seizure, just to name a few of the ways that the Bush/Republican policies threaten our freedom, and yes, hence, the Constitution, which has been called , "Just a piece of paper" by Bush, and which many strict constitutionalists in this country, and legal authorities, are furiously debating, and contemplating all the ways in which this administration has weakened the Constitutionally insured powers of oversight, and congressional law. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
The Founders also clearly understood that if men are to be free, with minimal govenment oversite, they will need good values that are widely shared. You rightly state that many fled their homeland because of religious persecution but it wan't because they were non-religious but because their religion was the one being persecuted. <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red">Religions, attacking one another, through monarchy's and other instruments of power, Christians playing a huge role in the violence, FYI. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
The Founders also clearly understood that if men are to be free, with minimal govenment oversite, they will need good values that are widely shared. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">They understood that every person has the right to form their own values, shared values, dictated by whom? Values are a personal issue, not a government issues. Clearly, you don't understand what this country was founded for, the ideals of self determination, are the antithesis of shared values. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
Nearly 100% of the early arrivals, including the Founders, were very religious. <font color="red">LMAO, </font color> I could lay out quote after quote of the Founders illustrating how importance they attached to religion to maintaining a civil society without excessive government but you can research that for yourself.
<font color="red">I could lay out quote after quote which would prove that religious zealots were their main concern, and religion interferring with government, or the opposite, and the importance of a complete, and perfect separation of the two. Your 100% calim, is too silly for words, along with your attempt to link law, and religion, since the purpose of the law, is to maintain the peace, protect citizens, from crime, and from the interference into the individual's rights of privacy, self determination and safety, shared values has nothing to do with freedom and safety. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red"> </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
What you are inviting in so willingly is exactly the opposite of the Founders vision, a police state. <font color="red">No, I'm afraid it's rather obvious to the majority of Americans that no habeas corpus, no rights to privacy, and a government and administration which justifies spying on it's citizens, and even into their private personal finances, using fear as their tool of justification, is what YOU have invited in your support of this fascist regime in the White House, along with the stated goals and political intentions of the Christian Coalition. </font color> As our society has drifted away from religion as the source of our moral understanding, we can see the uncivil behavior gaining, accompanied by ever increasing government oversite. <font color="red">This statement is too convoluted to even respond. Government oversight, IOW, oversight of the government, WAS the goal of the founding fathers, and uncivilized behavior, again, has nothing to do with organized religion, however, it was pretty uncivilized for George Bush to illegally detain five thousand American citizens, lock them up in jails, and we have not a single conviction, or indictment resulting. </font color> While I don't know the numbers, I would bet that the number of laws, lawyers, police, fines, jails, etc. have increased dramatically in the last fifty years because the citizens feel less safe now than a couple generations ago. <font color="red">Another illigical statemtent. </font color> With enough laws on the books, it becomes an oppressive tactic to control behavior through threat and intimadation with real consequences. <font color="red">I think you have this a bit backwards. Threats, intimidation, are the tools used by fascist regimes, and "When fascism comes, it comes with a smile, carrying a cross." </font color> You say religion is the threat but I think the real threat is the police state that you are inviting. <font color="red"> Religion is no threat to me, I just don't like it when organized religion seeks to dictate to all others through legislative means what they may or may not do in their private, personal lives, and decisions. Again, if you want religious rule, then don't live in a country which has been founded on democratic principles. The intention of our founding fathers was to separate Church and State. Separation of Chruch and State, and the opportunity for self-determination, was the reason why they came here, not to create another country where they would have to fight wars over people arguing about whom God was, what He wanted, and which God was The God. Organized religion is often the excuse used for inhumane behavior, and the founders knew that, hence, we are not a religion ruled society, nor shall we ever be. The goal was the right to worship as one pleased, or not worship at all. I suggest you read the letters of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and a few others, and perhaps you will understand that organized religion does not have the power to control the workings of our government, nor was it ever intended to have that power. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>