Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Republicans: do as I say, not as I do 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 6:40 p.m. GregTivo Reader

  SVreX wrote:

  I'm not sure that the "absolute worst consequences of their decision" a teenager can face is having a baby. I know a lot of women, and several men, who years later are still suffering from the realization that they killed their child.

  I would never force someone to have the baby. But it is a very unfair distortion to suggest that the worst thing that can happen to a person is to have a baby. Give them all the facts (including the emotional scarring they are likely to be effected by long term) before they make their decision. It is not a decision that should be based on short term convenience.

  I don't think you meant to set this strawman on fire, but just so you know, I was not talking about abortion. That is an issue I am not going to debate here and while it may be intertwined with some sex-ed, it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about concerning abstinence only vs. mitigation/prevention sex-ed (contraception and protection based education).

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 8:38 p.m. gamby UltraDork

  You need to have the kid no matter what, but social programs to support said kid if mommy isn't running for VP be damned.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 8:39 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  You used the sentence, "What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the absolute worst consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work."

  I reached the conclusion that you were suggesting the absolute worst thing that could happen to a teenager was to become pregnant. Other "consequences" are rarely discussed as they relate to successful birth control (ie: the emotional impact of relations before being mature, etc.)

  If the worst thing that could happen to a teenager is to become pregnant, then abortion would be a better option.

  Was there a way to interpret that other than the conclusion I reached?

  My apologies if I misinterpreted.

  For the record, I would agree on the difference between "abstinence only" education vs. contraception and protection based education. Problem is, I'm not convinced there is any such thing as "abstinence only" education. I've never seen a program such as that. I think it is a myth dumped on us by people who want to maintain contraception and protection based education.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 8:44 p.m. oldsaw New Reader

  oldsaw wrote:

  Irony, not so much. Its' now a choice for the kind of change - more of the same, with a markedly more liberal slants vs. less of the same with a conservative slant.

  Do you honestly believe that McCain is that different of a Republican candidate than any other we've had recently?

  >>> In a word, yes. <<<

  Do you really think either candidate will bring any sort of change to the political landscape of this country?

  >>> Obama has a better chance, more so if he has a Democrat-controlled congress. McCain, not so much. But if elected, I do believe he would use the bully-pulpit very effectively. With congressional rating less than half of those of than the current administration, a "President" McCain could take the fight to fight to the living rooms of voters not affiliated with either party. <<<

  How many political candidates have not said that voting for them will Open New doors, take the country in a new direction, blah, blah, blah? How many of them have actually changed things?

  >>> Lincoln, T/FD Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and more than a few others??? <<<

  I will not vote or not vote for a political candidate based on them throwing around the same sort of popular words/phrases that every other politician does. I will not vote/not vote for a candidate because they're rich. I will not vote/not vote for a candidate based on what clothes their wife wears.

  >>> As well it should be. <<<

  I will base decisions on their stand on social issues, economic plans, and the track record of their party.

  >>> Two out of three ain't bad! <<<

  Yes, which party they belong to matters to me, because nobody gets to be a presidential candidate without the firm support of their party, and that means they all fall strongly within party lines.

  >>> in a perfect world, I'd say you have a point. Where's the perfect world you live in? <<<

  Colin Powell will never receive a presidential nomination despite being the biggest political badass in this country. He's too liberal for the Reps and too conservative for the Dems.

  >>> Where does Colin Powell enter into this issue? <<<

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 8:51 p.m. GregTivo Reader

  SVreX wrote:

  You used the sentence, "What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the absolute worst consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work."

  I reached the conclusion that you were suggesting the absolute worst thing that could happen to a teenager was to become pregnant. Other "consequences" are rarely discussed as they relate to successful birth control (ie: the emotional impact of relations before being mature, etc.)

  If the worst thing that could happen to a teenager is to become pregnant, then abortion would be a better option.

  Was there a way to interpret that other than the conclusion I reached?

  My apologies if I misinterpreted.

  For the record, I would agree on the difference between "abstinence only" education vs. contraception and protection based education. Problem is, I'm not convinced there is any such thing as "abstinence only" education. I've never seen a program such as that. I think it is a myth dumped on us by people who want to maintain contraception and protection based education.

  You're being pedantic with my phrasing. There is nothing else in my comment to lead you to think was being absolutely literal in my statement.

  If you want me to redefine that statement so as to remove the artictistic hyperbole, then I'd say:

  "What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the rather stressful and possibly life upending consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work."

  ...and if "abstinence-only" education is a myth, what are the people trying to maintain contraception and protection based education trying to fight? I didn't go to a school with an abstinence-only class, but I can tell you the standard class isn't going out of its way to promote condom wearing students go out and screw like rabbits. They made it a point to say what the stats are on condoms and point out that no one ever got an STD alone.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 8:53 p.m. Dr. Hess UberDork

  Salanis wrote: I'm not reading 67 pages.

  So, what you're saying, then, is that you refuse to read the Republican platform because it is 67 pages but have no problem making assumptions based on complete made up bull E36 M3 that you hear on TV. Is that correct? You're saying that your too berkeleying ignorant to bother researching anything that your talking about, is that correct? Or is it that your attention span is only good for about 4 lines of text?

  Oh, and who's grandpa voting for?

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 8:55 p.m. ignorant UberDork

  I agree with hess.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 9:06 p.m. GregTivo Reader

  Dr. Hess wrote:

  Salanis wrote: I'm not reading 67 pages.

  So, what you're saying, then, is that you refuse to read the Republican platform because it is 67 pages but have no problem making assumptions based on complete made up bull E36 M3 that you hear on TV. Is that correct? You're saying that your too berkeleying ignorant to bother researching anything that your talking about, is that correct? Or is it that your attention span is only good for about 4 lines of text?

  Oh, and who's grandpa voting for?

  Rather than tell him he's incorrect and that he'd know that if he read page 32, paragraph 12, why don't you quote it and show him he's wrong. Telling people they are ignorant because they don't want to spend time looking up a document to win an internet argument is really just petty.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 9:24 p.m. oldsaw New Reader

  ignorant wrote:

  oldsaw wrote:

  ignorant wrote:

  Do as a i say..... not as I do..

  anyone found it ironic that MCcain is all about change and using the change word now....

  kinda makes all the "keep your change" shirts worthless now....

  Irony, not so much. Its' now a choice for the kind of change - more of the same, with a markedly more liberal slants vs. less of the same with a conservative slant.

  Perhaps you can keep the shirts, underline "your" and add the image of your candidate's face.

  How do you justify saying less of the same with a more conservative slant when he's voted with bush 90-95% of the time in his tenure in congress. Not trying to pick a fight, just want to know the reason.

  edit one more question. Please if you can detail a change to major policy that mccain will enact.. I'll start with one, carbon credits... Now.. please how would he change economic policy or enviromental policy(beyond drilling)...

  So, you're stating that Bush is not a conservative? On fiscal issues, I can pretty much agree with that view. McCain demands a "lessen-ing" of spending and more governmental financial accountability.

  If McCain agrees with Bush on 90-95% on issues, so what? They are both Republicans and follow similar, basic principles, at least in theory. In extension, Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller and even Cynthia McKinney all agree(d) with their Democrat counterparts at least 90-95% of the time.

  It's the 5-10% disagreement areas that are crucial.

  And, hey, if I had the clairvoyant powers to detail how a McCain presidency could initiate "change", believe me, I wouldn't be responding to your question.

  With that kind of power, I'd be saving the world, or dominating it.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 9:25 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  GregTivo: Actually pretty unnecessary. I already lifted the essential points, but if he doesn't believe me, he's welcome to read it himself.

  Hess has a point. Not only did Salanis say he wasn't interested in reading 67 pages, he didn't even look at it. There is a contents which would point him to the right section and clear headings when he gets there. The subject would have taken 2 or 3 minutes of research. He refused to try.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 9:36 p.m. GregTivo Reader

  SVreX wrote:

  GregTivo: Actually pretty unnecessary. I already lifted the essential points, but if he doesn't believe me, he's welcome to read it himself.

  Hess has a point. Not only did Salanis say he wasn't interested in reading 67 pages, he didn't even look at it. There is a contents which would point him to the right section and clear headings when he gets there. The subject would have taken 2 or 3 minutes of research. He refused to try.

  SVreX,

  I hadn't read all of the conversation up to that point from Salanis, it just struck me that Dr. Hess was playing the "well why should I bother to debate you if you won't read the dissertation", a rather high handed statement assuming alot about the opposing author. It contributed no additional information to the thread and looked like Dr. Hess was just hopping on high horse to show how much better he was. Sorry, I just don't like those tactics, even if it was a fair criticism.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 9:47 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  While I doubt any of us would rush to give Dr. Hess the "Mr. Tactfulness" award for the year, it appears to me (and perhaps ignorant as well?) that he was factually correct this time, for which you accused him of being petty.

  Salanis had all the info he needed for a well reasoned response. He refused to read it, favoring instead the factually incorrect garbage that he offered initially.

  Whose petty?

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 9:54 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  GregTivo wrote:

  SVreX wrote:

  You used the sentence, "What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the absolute worst consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work."

  I reached the conclusion that you were suggesting the absolute worst thing that could happen to a teenager was to become pregnant. Other "consequences" are rarely discussed as they relate to successful birth control (ie: the emotional impact of relations before being mature, etc.)

  If the worst thing that could happen to a teenager is to become pregnant, then abortion would be a better option.

  Was there a way to interpret that other than the conclusion I reached?

  My apologies if I misinterpreted.

  For the record, I would agree on the difference between "abstinence only" education vs. contraception and protection based education. Problem is, I'm not convinced there is any such thing as "abstinence only" education. I've never seen a program such as that. I think it is a myth dumped on us by people who want to maintain contraception and protection based education.

  You're being pedantic with my phrasing. There is nothing else in my comment to lead you to think was being absolutely literal in my statement.

  If you want me to redefine that statement so as to remove the artictistic hyperbole, then I'd say:

  "What good can come from letting these teenagers suffer the rather stressful and possibly life upending consequences of their decision when we have mitigations out there that work."

  ...and if "abstinence-only" education is a myth, what are the people trying to maintain contraception and protection based education trying to fight? I didn't go to a school with an abstinence-only class, but I can tell you the standard class isn't going out of its way to promote condom wearing students go out and screw like rabbits. They made it a point to say what the stats are on condoms and point out that no one ever got an STD alone.

  Greg:

  Please show me one real example of an educational system offering an "abstinence only" program. I'm not being argumentative, I'd really like to know.

  I don't believe they exist.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 10:14 p.m. billy3esq Dork

  ignorant wrote:

  I agree with hess.

  It's the end of the world as we know it.
  

  /R.E.M.

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 10:18 p.m. SVreX UltraDork

  That must have been really hard to choke out!

• 

  Sept. 7, 2008 10:38 p.m. MrJoshua SuperDork

  Sex ed in my school may as well have been "Abstinence only" training. It went something like this:
  -Heres the anatomy of your parts
  -Heres what they do and why the sometimes do it at inappropriate times.
  -Here are the likelihoods of you getting pregnant, diseased, dieing, or generally getting shunned by any reasonable person.
  -Heres a bunch of GIANT FULL COLOR PICTURES showing you what happens if you get an STD. (Which of course were the kind of pictures you find in medical books that are examples of the worst, long untreated, superbug version of that STD ever found)

  I swear I can still see those damn pictures in my head to this day.

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 6:26 a.m. ignorant UberDork

  http://www.2008electionprocon.org/summarychart.htm

  Thats a really good page and it seems most of the data is pretty good.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm <--- posted that just so you know I'm still the same guy.
  

  Phil Gramm.. Chief Econonic Advisor to McCain and Architect of the Subprime crisis... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/06/opinion/06herbert.html

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 7:16 a.m. ignorant UberDork

  http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm <--- good tax plan summary.....
  

  Looks like for the middle class obama will save more money, and charge it to the super rich.

  but In the end.. they both look like long term losers, with McCains costing 1 trillion more in the long run..

  Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

  The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 8:23 a.m. gamby UltraDork

  SVreX wrote:

  Please show me one real example of an educational system offering an "abstinence only" program. I'm not being argumentative, I'd really like to know.

  I don't believe they exist.

  Florida: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115561.php

  W pumped extra $$ into those programs: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/17_02/Abst172.shtml

  http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/842 One-third of public secondary schools in the United States teach an "abstinence only until marriage" curriculum,

  Canton, OH http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/webwatch/2006/08/post_4.html

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 10:55 a.m. Salanis Dork

  SVreX wrote:

  While I doubt any of us would rush to give Dr. Hess the "Mr. Tactfulness" award for the year, it appears to me (and perhaps ignorant as well?) that he was factually correct this time, for which you accused him of being petty.

  Salanis had all the info he needed for a well reasoned response. He refused to read it, favoring instead the factually incorrect garbage that he offered initially.

  Whose petty?

  That platform is a giant dissertation. This is an internet debate that, enlightening though it may be at times, and as entertaining as it normally is, I am not going to read a 67 page document to answer a single point.

  To turn things around, there are a number of people on this board that make comments that are equally or more disparaging about the Democratic party. Have these people read the Democratic platform? I doubt they have.

  The Republican VP is a staunch social conservative who wants abstinence-only sex-ed and holds similar views on other reproductive issues. That speaks to the mindset of the McCain campaign. There is a strong social conservative movement that wants to make abortion illegal. The Republican party represents and caters to this demographic.

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 11:23 a.m. ignorant UberDork

  salanis..

  Procon.org link that I posted earlier has the distilled version of the abstinence only edumacation deal...

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 11:31 a.m. ignorant UberDork

  one more great article..

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122083202593108477.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

  ugh...

  both knuckle heads supporting saving for profit industries...

  wonderful.. so much for cutting the pork.

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 11:36 a.m. Salanis Dork

  ignorant wrote:

  salanis..

  Procon.org link that I posted earlier has the distilled version of the abstinence only edumacation deal...

  Thanks. Good link. I'm surprised this hasn't been posted earlier.

  According to the link above, which gathers its information from quotes from the candidates. It does appear that Obama favors upholding Roe v. Wade and is opposed to abstinence-only sex ed. It appears that McCain favors overturning Roe v. Wade and eventually leading a push to illegalize abortion, and is also in favor of abstinence only sex-ed. However, the McCain quotes on these issues aren't as clear or explicit as Obama's.

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 12:17 p.m. Dr. Hess UberDork

  Anyone have a link to The Great Abortion Thread in the archive? That was a good discussion. Newbies should read that one.
  

  Ya know, having been around "a few" pregnant women, I can not ever recall one asking or talking about her "fetus." I do distinctly recall a lot discussing their "baby."
  

  Not heard: What sex is my fetus? Heard: Is my baby a boy or a girl?

  Not heard: Please kill my baby.

  Is it acceptable to give a pregnant woman drugs that artificially induce labor, wait until the baby's head is coming out, cut the head open, stick a vacuum cleaner into the skull and suck out the baby's brain, killing the baby? Is that an OK thing to do in order to "not mess up the life of the mother?" Who stands up for those that can't defend themselves? That baby won't be able to support itself for probably 16 years, give or take, so should it be OK to kill the baby at any time up to 16 because it can't live on it's own?

  Those of you who are parents, think of your child and tell me that you think it would be OK to murder him or her, as long as it's done when they are young.

• 

  Sept. 8, 2008 12:30 p.m. aircooled Dork

  I do find it interesting that Dr. Hess is against the government being involved in almost anything, especially person issues, and yet is fully supportive of the government telling women what they can do with there cell collection / fetus / baby / future world leader.

  In regards to bailing out GM and such: LET THEM DIE! (not related to above comment) If they cannot survive, lets just build Hondas in the US until someone figures it out!

  This thread is a MESS!
  [throws shovel full of excrement on pile]

  [runs away as Dr Hess gets in D9 Cat Bulldozer]

You'll need to log in to post.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jump to
• Top
• Grassroots Motorsports
• Off-Topic
• Sprockets
• $200X Classifieds
• Classic Motorsports