Hannity falsely claimed Obama was "talking about the issue of abortion" when he made "punished with a baby" comment
SUMMARY: Fox News' Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "made a statement over the weekend talking about the issue of abortion. If people make a mistake, quote, 'I don't want them punished with a baby,' unquote." In fact, according to CNN, Obama was responding to "a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls," and replied by talking about the need for effective sex education.
On the March 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while discussing the 2008 presidential race with Fox News political analyst Karl Rove, co-host Sean Hannity falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama "made a statement over the weekend talking about the issue of abortion. If people make a mistake, quote, 'I don't want them punished with a baby,' unquote." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Obama made the comment in response to what CNN reported was "a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls." Indeed, as video of the March 29 campaign event, broadcast by CNN, shows, Obama was discussing sex education, not abortion, when he made the comment Hannity highlighted.
As Media Matters documented, on the March 31 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell also falsely suggested that Obama was discussing abortion when he made the "punished with a baby" comment.
From the March 29 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl 2008:
SNOW: Welcome back to CNN's edition of Ballot Bowl. This is a chance for you to hear directly from the candidates. I'm Mary Snow in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where Senator Barack Obama is holding a town hall meeting right now, taking questions from the audience. Let's go straight to Senator Barack Obama; he just was asked a question about how his administration, if he's elected, would deal with the issue of HIV and AIDS and also sexually transmitted diseases with young girls. Here's Senator Barack Obama.
OBAMA: -- or we give them really expensive surgery and we don't spend money on the front end keeping people healthy in the first place. So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.
But we should also provide better treatment. And we should focus on those sectors where it's prevalent and we've got to get over the stigma because understand that the fastest growth in HIV/AIDS is in heterosexuals, not gays. And so, we've got to get out of that stigma that we still have around it. It's connected also to drug use. So, one of the things we have to do is to start thinking about better substance abuse treatment programs around drugs and not just treat it as a criminal justice issue. Treat it as a public health issue as well.
So -- but this all is connected to the idea of prevention and so my health care plan says, you know what? I don't want kids in the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma. I want them to get a primary care doctor and have regular check-ups and, you know, if we decreased obesity rates back to the rates that existed back in 1980, we would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars -- one trillion dollars because that's what's accounting for huge spikes in heart disease and diabetes and all kinds of preventable illnesses.
So we've got to put emphasis on that. Let me say one last thing, though. I'm going to use the presidential bully pulpit to start talking about people taking responsibility. We were talking about education earlier. It doesn't matter how good the job the schools are doing, if parents, you don't turn off your TV sets and put away your video games and make your kids do your homework and meet with the teachers, it won't make any difference. And the same is true on health care. I mean, some of us just have bad luck, and -- or genetically, are predisposed to certain diseases.
But, you know, if we're not all making some effort to get exercise and, you know, eat properly and not smoke and, you know, and I know -- I've had my own little battles. You know, I used to sneak a few cigarettes once in a while. My wife cut me off at the pass. She announced on 60 Minutes, she said, you know, "Yeah, he used to smoke once in a while, and he promised me. So if you catch him, anybody out there" -- but that was good. I think we all have to take some responsibility for these issues as well. That's going to be important. All right, I've got time for one more question.
From the March 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Karl, it's Sean. Let me follow up on that here, because he certainly had to weather the Reverend Wright issue that is out there. But there's a story in the Politico today that he's actually been hiding his true liberalism. We know he's the number one liberal -- National Journal -- in the United States Senate, and more importantly, he made a statement over the weekend talking about the issue of abortion. If people make a mistake, quote, "I don't want them punished with a baby," unquote.
ROVE: Right. That's why it's probably better --
HANNITY: Those have the potential --
ROVE: Well, yeah, to hurt him in a general election, yes, but that's -- again, that's my point, is the longer the primary goes on -- look, Hillary Clinton is not going to stand up and say to him, look, you were way far left-wing when you ran for the state senate and when you ran for the United States Senate.
Umm...no, Hannity was right on target.
How is it that MMFDNC can take a "in context" quote from Obama, that says he doesn't want his daughters punished with a baby, and suggest that Obama didn't say that? You're telling me that Obama didn't say what you clearly state that Obama said.
Do you people at MMFDNC think we're stupid? Do you think that we don't actually read your "evidence" of right-wing "wrongdoing"?
So, which part of the word "contraception" do you not understand?
Thanks for playing.
So, which part of the word "contraception" do you not understand?
Thanks for playing.
There seems to be a lot that BQAG does not understand. Especially if he/she sides with a known liar like Sean Hannity.
BQAG04, you are right on.
The Obama camp, their allies in the media, and sites like this are desperately trying to do damage control over Obama's latest gaffe.
And, remember. This is a man, who as a state senator in Illinois, refused to support a bill that would protect live, born babies who survived late-term abortions. Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill.
(Before you get started: Please spare me the ridiculous "It-would've-underminded-Roe V. Wade argument. That is simply a lie. The bill was all about stopping infanticide, the killing of BORN babies.)
How can I trust a man who won't even protect the most vulnerable to protect me?
Shoes, that's a pretty outrageous claim. Got any evidence to back it up?
Excuse me, but when people ask me to back something up, I do it!
The following have links to the Illinois state government web site, including the text of Obama's speech against the bill:
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/top-10-reasons.html
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html
There you go!
Shoes -
Illinois Review is a conservative site, and Jill Stanek is an anti-abortion blogger who testified in favor of the bill that Obama voted against. She has an axe to grind.
How about finding something from a LEGITIMATE source?
What makes you think you'll be able to post here much longer? I don't know about anyone else, but I've already flagged several of your posts for moderator action.
Buh-bye!!!
Hey, wzwriter. You're committing what's called the "genetic fallacy," where you simply dismiss information because of the source.
Read the info, and then you can get back to this, if you wish.
Hey, wzwriter. You're committing what's called the "genetic fallacy," where you simply dismiss information because of the source.
No, Shoes - I'm using common sense. When sources are proven to be agenda-driven (like those that say "conservative" or "liberal" right in the top banner) or have a past history of providing unreliable information (like NewsMax or World Nut Daily), I see no reason to trust anything on them and will not waste my time reading them.
Now - if you can provide a link to a LEGITIMATE source - such as a radio or TV station web site, general-circulation newspaper or magazine (NOT the Washington Times) - that backs up your claims, then maybe I'll read them.
Or better yet - use the link I posted above to learn the TRUTH about that deceptive bill in the Illinois State Senate.
My mstake, Shoes - the link I was talking about is below this message.
I'll repost it here for your convenience:
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/80556/
WZWRITER: "When sources are proven to be agenda-driven ... I see no reason to trust anything on them and will not waste my time reading them."
(To echo BQAG04 ...) Of course MM is agenda-driven! Even their mission statement says that they are!
Look. I read your link. Now will you read mine?
My response to AlterNet. There is a complete contradiction in the article:
AlterNet writes, "Of course, the idea that otherwise viable babies are regularly 'born alive' during abortions is an invention of the anti-choice movement."
I don't think anyone ever said that they are "regularly" born alive. But the BAIPA was proposed to protect those infants in the instances that they are! (Even AlterNet acknowledges that this does happen: "So the only abortion procedure that could ever result in an intact fetus outside the uterus is the extremely rare dilation and extraction." And AlterNet is almost correct on that. There have been cases where fetuses have survived other procedures as well.)
Now ... How about checking out my links?
WZWRITER: "I read [the links], Shoes. I found nothing of value there."
Wow ... That's pretty surprising, considering it covers the very issue that we're talking about. I guess it also means you "found nothing of value" in Obama's speech. A little strange, I must say ...
All I found was a hodge-podge of extra stuff intended to confuse the reader, cloud the issue, and make it appear that they're making a point. It's a standard ploy employed by many conservative organizations. Too bad they've been able to put things past you, Shoes.
Now - can we get back to the ORIGINAL POINT of this thread? That in this particular instance, Barack Obama was NOT talking about abortion, yet Sean Hannity said he was? Can't you agree that this is yet another case of Conservative Misinformation?
Or has your loyalty to the anti-abortion agenda slapped a set of blinders on you?
With all due respect, I'm a little concerned about news from Alternet.org as they also appear to have an agenda as noted on their 'About' page. http://www.alternet.org/about/ Granted, they may not be as skewed as some other sites but it is something to take into consideration.
In regard to Shoe's post, I believe he might have been referring to Illinois Senate Bills 1661-1663 ("Born Alive" package). Bill 1663 was the third component of the "Born Alive" package and basically stated that a child born under any circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice. Obama voted nay along with 12 other senators. Here is a link to the actual transcript from the Illinois State Senate. The discussion starts on page 28.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdfRegards,
lkenyon
In regard to Shoe's post, I believe he might have been referring to Illinois Senate Bills 1661-1663 ("Born Alive" package). Bill 1663 was the third component of the "Born Alive" package and basically stated that a child born under any circumstances would receive all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice. Obama voted nay along with 12 other senators.
I'm not familiar with procedures in the Illinois State Senate, but it's quite possible that since these bills formed a "package", that you had to vote "yes" or "no" on all three. I believe there were some constitutional issues involved here - mostly a de facto granting of citizenship rights to the unborn. That is probably why Obama voted "no".
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
MMFA isn't agenda driven :)
.................\|||/
...............(o o)
,----ooO--(_)------.
|.....Please.............|
|...Don't feed the...|
| .....TROLL... !.......|
'--------------Ooo--'
.............|__|__|
...............||... ||
............ooO Ooo
Good advice.
Obama supporters need to learn a little restraint.
I think it's pretty obvious who's "underminded" here.
The Obama camp, their allies in the media, and sites like this are desperately trying to do damage control over Obama's latest gaffe.
That's funny--since Hillary created MMFDNC, I'd figure they'd just keep quiet on the Obama controversies. But maybe they have to throw him a bone to apppease the Obamapologists.
Here's the proof:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/01/hillary-clinton-told-yearlykos-convention-she-helped-start-media-matt
There you go.
And, remember. This is a man, who as a state senator in Illinois, refused to support a bill that would protect live, born babies who survived late-term abortions. Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill.
(Before you get started: Please spare me the ridiculous "It-would've-underminded-Roe V. Wade argument. That is simply a lie. The bill was all about stopping infanticide, the killing of BORN babies.)
How can I trust a man who won't even protect the most vulnerable to protect me?
Shoes - it looks like you've only read the propaganda the right wing and anti-abortion folks want you to read about this issue in teh Illinois State Senate. If you'd care to read the FACTS about why Obama voted the way he did, follow this link. I'd like to particularly draw your attention to the final five paragraphs:
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/80556/
I notice that Shoes has not responded to this post that proves him/her wrong.....
I've noticed that neither Shoes nor Bqag or whatever his name is has responded to anything that has proven them wrong. And if they did respond, it was with some extra point that they didn't bring up earlier that usually contradicts their first point.
Man, it's getting really easy these days. even "regnarts eht" provided more of a challenge than this.
"The Obama camp, their allies in the media, and sites like this are desperately trying to do damage control over Obama's latest gaffe."
That's complete nonsense. I'm no big fan of Obama, but this is a phony issue. He was clearly talking about teen problems. If this were about pro-abortion, then why would he cite teen pregnancy as a problem? It wouldn't be!
In case you missed it above, this is what Barack Obama said:
So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.
Show us where he said anything about abortion.
Obama doesn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby. So, what do you think he would have his daughters do if contraception fails? Does Obama believe that unwanted pregnancies are "burdens"? How many people in this country carry a "burden" to term and are ashamed of once considering an abortion?
The fact that Hannity confused contraception with abortion is a moot point. People do make mistakes---look at the Florida/Michigan mess, or the 2006 elections!
The point is that this statement from Obama is a hint to his feelings on abortion, which raises more questions than it answers. He should have been asked to clarify his statement.
After 7 plus years of vague platitudes on every subject and changing reasoning for committing our military into this quagmire in Iraq, you now want clarification.
Sorry, it's kind of hypocritical for the right to suggest that anyone should clarify anything until they come clean themselves.
Do you really believe that President Al Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq? Or that the Katrina response would have been better? You think we'd be members of Kyoto, or that we'd have universal health care? Maybe Pres. Gore/Kerry could have prevented the "recession"?
Politicians are beaurocratic hacks---both the left and the right. You are blind if you think the left is as clean and pristine as the driven snow.
The reason why everyone is pissed off in this country is because the Democrat party has been splitting the American people apart in a sad attempt to win elections. All I ever hear from them is "blah blah blah" Bush administration, "blah blah blah" illegal and immoral war, "blah blah blah blah" blood for oil.
If anything, the voted for the war in 2002 exactly so they could vote against it if things got bad.
"Do you really believe that President Al Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq?"
Holy crap yes. A thousand times over. The other stuff is too nuanced, but there is no way that Gore would have stuffed his cabinet with war-hawks who would have seen our enemy in Afghanistan and thought "wow, we need to invade Iraq too."
So yes, we would not be in Iraq if Gore had been our President. Period. End of story.
And for clarification, I was all for the war in Afghanistan, because that's where the guys were WHO ATTACKED US. Of course, that's where they still are, because Bush doesn't "spend that much time on (Bin Laden.)"
"The reason why everyone is pissed off in this country is because the Democrat party has been splitting the American people apart in a sad attempt to win elections. All I ever hear from them is "blah blah blah" Bush administration, "blah blah blah" illegal and immoral war, "blah blah blah blah" blood for oil."
You have got to be joking. the Democratic Party didn't label Republican's "traitors" for public dissent. That's fascist, and it's anti-democratic.
If the democrat leadership didn't act like traitors, then they wouldn't be labeled as such.
I call them traitors because I am still pissed off about when the Iraqi president came to speak on capitol hill a few years ago. The democrat party WALKED OUT OF THE ROOM!! They literally turned their backs on the man that 4,000 American soldiers died to place into power! And they did it while we still have boots on the ground!
That is not respectful dissent, it is treason. What would you call it?
I was going to say something along the same lines.
It's now treason to walk out on a foreign leader when he/she is speaking if you don't agree with what they're saying? Wow... Your intellect is trying dizzying. I'm sure you'd be OK if say, the Iranian President came to speak in Washington and everyone walked out on him right?
You're proving my point---your side claims that they support the troops, but not the war. Fine, out of respect for the troops, can they listen to a man that represents the government that the troops have fought and died to prop up?
What issues do the democrat party have to disagree with an Iraqi official? He didn't ask for this war---he is a product of it.
Technically, your side's blunders in the 70's are responsible for the Ayatollahs. There's no comparison there.
i did remember him speaking to congress, but i was pretty sure i would have remembered a walkout by the democrats.
Maybe he got it backwards, and was thinking about the Republican's walking out on the farm bill.
Because that's toootally a legitimate reason to walk out.
Technically, your side's blunders in the 70's are responsible for the Ayatollahs. There's no comparison there. - bqag04 / Tuesday April 1, 2008 1:11:45 PM EDT
Gee, and I thought the Ayatollahs coming to power had something to do with our CIA overthrowing Iran's democratically elected prime minister in the 1950s, and propping up the Shah so we and the British could control access to Iranian oil.
Technically your stupidity is astonishing. Your ignorance is world class. You MIGHT even be stupider than Hannity though that is almost impossible to comprehend. No the Ayatollahs are NOT due to anything the left did. I would explain it to you but since you are so stupid you cant even get the name of the largest political party in the United States right it would be a waste of electrons. I am amazed you dont just keel over being so stupid you forgot to breathe.
The delusion of a bedwetter.
I'm more interested in the thinking behing Bvag##s( whatever) brand of patriotism. The type that justifies sacrificing 4000 lives to complete a coup and install a new head of state in a foreign country.
Maybe he should be the one risking his life propping up a dictator somewhere.
So let me get this straight. If you don't agree with the current administration, you're a traitor in this difficult time of "war" and all right? Is that about it? If you don't go along 100% with everything they want, you're a traitor? Hmm, sounds kind of fishy. Should I bring up the quotes from republican members of Congress when Clinton took us into Kosovo, and how they railed against him time and again. Are they being traitorous as well? Because if you say that democrats are, then republicans fall in there as well. Oh, and how about when republicans were decrying when Clinton tossed some cruise missiles at Bin Laden, and how INCENSED they were about that. Is that traitorous as well?
The above described actions were not. Neither are what the members of Congress did either actions of traitors. See, here's the thing chief. When members of Congress, and the executive, and the judiciary get sworn into office, they swear an oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States. Not the leader of the country. Not the Congress. Not the courts. But the document that binds us all into America, and from which springs forth our laws. The Constitution. Disagreeing with the current administration is neither traitorous, or treasonous, and it's people like you who purport that myth that make your own party look ridiculous.
So let me get this straight. If you don't agree with the current administration, you're a traitor in this difficult time of "war" and all right? Is that about it?
No, that's not what I'm saying. The democrat party can disagree with a war (that they voted for) without acting treasonous. The problem is the way they go about dissenting.
When you say "we support the troops" but then you don't support the government that the troops are fighting to defend, what would you call it?
I wasn't suprised. Iraq has to have relations with it's neighbors, so it was probably good that A-jad spoke there. The thing is, A-jad says alot of crap, like 'there are no homosexuals in Iran'---I wonder why that is?
Is his claim true? I don't know, but I doubt it.
"When you say "we support the troops" but then you don't support the government that the troops are fighting to defend, what would you call it?"
When you say "we support the troops" and then you don't give them the proper medical care when they come home, the proper equipment when they're in Iraq, or SIGN THEIR FAMILY'S SYMPATHY LETTERS WITH AN AUTO-PEN, what would you call that?
When you say "we support the troops" and then you don't give them the proper medical care when they come home, the proper equipment when they're in Iraq, or SIGN THEIR FAMILY'S SYMPATHY LETTERS WITH AN AUTO-PEN, what would you call that?
I'd call that the result of democrats cutting war funding to appease their base.
So far you've don't nothing but rant and rave and probably drooled all over your keyboard while doing it.
"The democrat party "
There's no such party. (This is fun!)
Now, you can go and stick your head back up Rush Limbaugh's butt.
You know what, I believed that Bush lied for a while myself. In fact, I was against this war from day 1 because the evidence seemed flimsy, and I didn't believe that the American people wanted to stick it out through a long conflict if things didn't go as planned. I never imagined I'd be right.
I cannot believe that Bush lied because it's too fantastic a claim. As your side constantly reminds us, Bush is not the brightest bulb in the box (we can at least agree on this). He gets his intel from the CIA, DOD, etc. If those agencies claim that there is a WMD threat, and their confidential evidence seems sound, then, isn't it possible that Bush was mislead with bad intel? It wouldn't be the first time that intelligence has failed political/military leaders.
5 years ago, Iraq had a "stable" government, run by a thug and his two thug sons (which was a crime against humanity, but that's a topic for another thread). Today, Iraq is suffering from a power vacuum because of our removal of Saddam. If we leave prematurely, Iran will attempt to fill that hole. Who knows where that will lead, since the Sunni west fears a greater Shiite Iran--especially since there is a Sunni minority in Iraq who was responsible for supporting Saddam. Leaving cannot be a responsible option.
"So?"-- Dick Cheney
You know what, I believed that Bush lied for a while myself. In fact, I was against this war from day 1 because the evidence seemed flimsy...
I cannot believe that Bush lied because it's too fantastic a claim...
- bqag04 / Tuesday April 1, 2008 2:20:30 PM EDT
So you believed that Bush lied and that the evidence for the war seemed flimsy, but you "cannot believe that Bush lied"?
First, there is no "democrat party." Those who refer to this mythical party are showing their ignorance.
Secondly, a majority of the members of the Democratic Party in congress voted against the authorization for use of force.
"When you say "we support the troops", but then don't support the government that the troops are fighting to defend, what would you call it?' - BQ
Basic intelligence.
So, you're seriously arguing that it is an act of treason for Americans to not support A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? Should we also be required to swear an oath of allegiance to these foreign governments? And just what sort of dissent should we be allowed... the kind in which we shut up and keep our damned opinions to ourselves?
Just one more question: how many more years until you get to enter high school?
The problem is the way they go about dissenting.
That, my friend, IS a treasonous statement.
Why do you hate America so much?
"I call them traitors because I am still pissed off about when the Iraqi president came to speak on capitol hill a few years ago. The democrat party WALKED OUT OF THE ROOM!!"
Ayad Allawi addressed Congress in September of 2004. It's funny, my own account of the speech doesn't include any Democrats walking out, neither does that of the New York Times, neither does the AP, neither does BBC.
Seems to me that a mass "democrat[sic] walkout" on a foreign president would be big news, but I just can't find any archives that corroborate it.
"They literally turned their backs on the man that 4,000 American soldiers died to place into power! And they did it while we still have boots on the ground!"
September 2004 marked the 1000th U.S. casualty in Iraq, so your numbers are a little off.
"That is not respectful dissent, it is treason. What would you call it?"
I would call your story of a "democrat[sic] walkout" a right-wing fairy tale, presumably lifted from an anonymous e-mail you received.
Your original claim was that they walked out. you called this treason. Now you say you actually saw it on CNN etc. and they were just absent.
How can you make that leap? You watched it, they were absent and you try selling it as a treasonous walkout.
I think you need a refresher course on the truth.
Being absent and walking out are two different things.
You may want to place the goal posts a little more carefully next time, since there are people that frequent MMFA who love to call bull$#&* when they see it.
If the democrat leadership didn't act like traitors, then they wouldn't be labeled as such.
Since you used the improper "democrat" instead of the proper "Democratic", it's obvious you're nothing but another brain-dead dittohead troll.
Begone. Your ignorance has no power here.
What's democratic about them? Look at Florida and Michigan.
I really do hope that your candidate is 'selected not elected' by your superdelegates. Talk about irony.
You obviously didn't read the link. Sorry, I'll try to find one more on the lelvel of "my pet goat" so you can keep up.
And be sure to tell Bagboy hold his computer screen right-side-up - not like Bush did with that book in the classroom......
"The democrat party "
Never heard of 'em.
There are NO members of the "democrat party" in Congress. Got quite a few members of the DEMOCRATIC Party, however.
Which side said that you're either with us or the terrorists?
Which side had been using the flag and patriotism as a club against dissenters?
Which side has chosen religion over science at every turn?
"The point is that this statement from Obama is a hint to his feelings on abortion, which raises more questions than it answers. He should have been asked to clarify his statement."
my response:
"The fact that Hannity confused contraception with abortion is a moot point."
If Hannity confused contraception with abortion, are you not doing the same thing?
He doesn't want his children punished with a child because they didn't have a good, comprehensive sex education.
Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. The best way to prevent abortions is to educate the populace on how to prevent pregnancies.
And saying "just don't have sex" doesn't cut it. It's in our nature, and it's an internal drive that nearly every human needs fulfilled. Abstinence pledges don't work.
Abstinence-only education has been proven to not work.
You do know what propaganda actually means don't you? Here, let me refresh your memory of what it actually means because I don't think you really know what it means:
Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.
Now, if this site is, as you say, some sort of propaganda site, then the people responsible for spreading said propaganda, are no doubt, some of your heroes, since this site posts their own words, and then disproves them through research, and or rebuttal information that can be independantly verified.
How hard it must be for you to be wrong, so often.
No...this site twists other people's words to mean things that they didn't intend. I don't like it when it happens on my side either.
A careful reading of most posts on this site exposes it to be a propaganda mouthpiece of the DNC. They've sucked people like yourself in by appealing to your political biases.
"No...this site twists other people's words to mean things that they didn't intend. I don't like it when it happens on my side either. "
Really? Prove it.
They provide the entire transcript of what they take issue with. Could you say the same for Freeper? or Newsbusters?
"They've sucked people like yourself in by appealing to your political biases."
*Zombie hate Republicans. Zombie love BRAAIIINNNSSS*
Nice try. Of all the sites I've posted on, this is by far the most balanced, as far as ratio of intelligent conservatives to intelligent liberals. Obviously there is a mass appeal to the moderate base of the American populace that this site produces.
But go ahead and keep listening to what Bill O'Reilly tells you about this site.
As others have said. Prove it.. You can't, that's your problem. Providing full transcripts, and sometimes audio and video it's hard to refute that they're taking words out of people's mouths to further their cause, whatever it may be.
As others have also said, this site provides for good debate, sometimes, if people so choose. Some, such as yourself, come in often rebuked and debunked talking points as facts, and when you start of calling the Democratic party, the "democrat" party, we already pretty much know where you're coming from.
People do make mistakes---look at the Florida/Michigan mess, or the 2006 elections!
Or the fact that someone sold this moron a computer.... :-)
"So, what do you think he would have his daughters do if contraception fails?"
Well, he did say "punished with a baby", which would indicate a pregnancy brought to term. That would more easily suggest that he's against abortion on a personal level but supports it on a societal level.
If you know he's pro-choice then that's all the clarification you really need. This particular statement was obviously about contraception.
It is quite a stretch to say Obama was referring to abortion here, of course Hannity scrapes the bottom of any anti-Obama barrel for his analysis......Obama made some excellent points, but it appears in this context of not being "punished with a baby", he was rather referring to contraception, not abortion.
It's up to the parents how and what they want to teach their children, abstinence only, or educate them about contraception - the government isn't the educator in this regard.
During my public school health classes, parents had to give signed permission to the school for their kids to receive comprehensive sex education. Any kids who did not show up with that document were given a different curriculum in a different room.
I don't know if any of that has changed, or what the curriculum is or was elsewhere.
I don't think anything has changed...
Tommy, I agree it's up to the parents, but the state can help to facilitate that role. Remember, a lot of parents are parents because they didn't have that comprehensive sex education. If it's only up to them to teach their kids about sex, then that's just an ignorance spiral that will continue to hurt both the individual families and the state, in the pocketbook and in their health.
I think comprehensive sex ed should be taught in schools, as well as the pro's of abstinence.
I just wish more teens would get an "A" in this area in actually implementing what they learn.
"but it should be up to the parents what their children are taught regarding this issue."
Not when it becomes a public health issue, which it has become.
That's right, 1 in 4 girls between the ages of 14 and 19 have an STD.
I agree the parents should have oversight, which is why having signed permission for comprehensive sex education is necessary.
However, most parents are still ignorant about sexual education and safe sex practices. If it's only left up to them, then these problems will continue to grow, continue to cost you and I money (unwanted pregnancies breed criminals and neglected children, and STD's are expensive to treat, and more and more of those young children with STD's qualify for state or federal health insurance,) and continue in the rise of abortions.
My point is parents should have the final say as to what their children are taught regarding their sex education. If they abdicate this responsibility and don't give a damn, then that is another matter, I don't deny that. But I believe every opportunity should be given the parents to be involved and make this decision for their own children.
It is a difficult issue for sure, and no easy answers or solutions.
Let people that want to keep their children in ignorance simply home school them.
During my public school health classes, parents had to give signed permission to the school for their kids to receive comprehensive sex education. Any kids who did not show up with that document were given a different curriculum in a different room.
I don't know if any of that has changed, or what the curriculum is or was elsewhere.
It would also be interesting to find out how many of those kids sent to the other room by their parents' desire for them to remain ignorant wound up with out-of-wedlock kids of their own.....
BQAG,
When Tommy says it's a stretch, it's a stretch.
Right-Wing Noise Machine Powers, ACTIVATE!
Dazed, you may be right. Hannity may not have known about these things until he was smitten with the Clenis.
Oh christ.
Now I KNOW you're a wingnut troll.
Sandy Berger? Honestly?
The Sandy Berger who took copies (not originals) of documents. The Sandy Berger who took documents that "in no way" affected the investigation of the 9/11 Commission (according to commission chair Thomas Kean, a Republican.)
Sandy Berger fessed up to his mistake in removing the documents. He paid a hefty fine, and lost his security clearance and his job. He took his punishment.
He's twice the man Karl Rove is.
Yup..in a cell right next to Sandy Berger
Is that the best you can do, Truthseeker? You used to make better argumenrs - equally wrong, but better nonetheless - when you used to troll here as JusticeTruth.
bqag04, you're fuul of $#!+.
Once agian Obama nails the issue on the head 100% and the RW noise makers muck it up.
And the RW war on science and accurtate inforamtion continues...
And people wonder why I've been voting Democrat. Uh... I'm EDUCATED? (Education has a liberal bias you see...)
Eric Alterman was on the Colbert Report last night, saying that he's liberal because he believes in truth...and that a vast majority of American's hold liberal stances on some issues too (just look at Bruce1ace's post from earlier, he supports comprehensive sex education in schools, and from what I've gathered he's at least a mild conservative.)
" The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack." -KO
Guess which classification the Bush administration falls into.
In some respects, yes. In some respects, no. I think it's more this administration than conservatives in general, as some arguments are completely valid in the conservative field, such as being thrifty with your money.
But these words have been given worlds of subtext. "Conservative" writers and pundits have been working very hard to make "liberal" just mean evil. Frontpage Magazine's recent "Hitler was a liberal" piece was quite illuminating.
So conservatives are conservatives because they have no regard for the truth? Only liberals do?- tommy
Tommy, I think you're having a breakthrough...oh, wait, those are question marks, not exclamation points. never mind. ;0)
Col. If you keep talking like that I am going to stop going to KFC to visit you.
How any one can talk about liberals and the truth is beyond me. I have to be careful however, I fear their is a sniper in my office, and I may have to cover soon....no time to talk to a smiling child on the way out. Also, I have to explain why my hand written answers are on a list of questions I never saw. So hard to be a liberal and keep all the lies straight.
Brilliant work, POV ! The only problems with your satire are
A. citing one example(and a politician at that) as representative of millions of people, and
B. thinking that Hillary Clinton is a liberal.
aside from that, very nice.
Please Col. Educate me. I will enjoy my extra crispy wings as you do.
1. If Hillary is not a liberal, what is she? A Progressive? A progressive is a liberal who wants a more clean name with out all the baggage.
2. How many more examples do you need? To in any way imply that liberals have a claim to the truth any more than conseratives is simply ridiculous.
I hope you can convince me, as I would hate to stop going to KFC. The dinner buffet is nice.
POV
This is where the candidates' positions lie.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
I can guarantee you that this is 100% accurate. The middle has been moved so far to the right that moderate conservatives are now considered "left."
No the current White House administration and their supporters are where they are because they have no regard for the truth. If they did, they'd either quit or be in jail by now.
Conservatives as a whole used to be honest, they were just wrong. ;) The perversion of conservatism that is currently used to destroy America has no regard for the truth.
Exactly...in fact there's a term for it. It's called a Rovism. Whereas an Orwellian remark means the opposite of what is stated, a Rovism makes a different reality, and then states that reality as truth.
Look it up, Rovism is an actual term now. (may be slang, but it's out there.)
That's funny, the reason I'm NOT a 'liberal' is because I believe in the truth. It's also the reason I'm not a 'conservative'. I'm proud to be an independent thinker in a polarized nation, even if it means giving up my right to vote.
Dbeden,
Thanks for the compliment!
The "mistake" is having sex.
Obama is talking about birth control.
Oops you're right... I should have included "unprotected".
NERZOG you are right about the PILLSBURYDOUGHBOY ROVE. His little buddy SHEER INSANNITY should have a sighn permanently fixed to him saying FAR RIGHT WING LIAR AND GASBAG.
I don't care for the sort of name calling that you're doing, Hurricane... refering to Rove as PILSBURYDOUGHBOY.
The correct term for Rove is Turd Blossom.
"This just in, Obama says 'is.' We've got the tape! Is Obama trying to sound like Bill Clinton (cue BC saying definition of 'is' is)."
A-holes!
Look, abstinence should absolutely be part of the sex-ed equation. Abstinence is the only 100% control against unwanted pregnancy and STD's.
That having been said, you would think that people (including myself) who find abortion to be unjust and a blemish on society would be able to weigh the options in their mind and allow access to and education about birth control options to teens and the poor. This isn't the case, however.
Your main purpose seems to be giving a pass to people like Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
You're an apologist for idiots.
I see plenty of them in my line of work out in the back alley, so I don't need to watch them on TV.
This is of course insane. No one wants more abortions to take place...but it helps their kind to paint their "enemies" as evil.
"I do have an issue with rewarding irresponsible parents who bring children into this world that they cannot feed or clothe by subsidizing the lousy choices they made"
So...you belive in punishing the children for the sins of their parents I take it?
August, I am not advocating we abandon children who have irresponsible parents, or let them twist in the wind on their own.....but I do not believe in rewarding irresponsible behavior by adults who can't fight some feeling and act accordingly. And then act like some victim when they knew full well the remifications of their behavior. We need to promote responsibility, I think it is absolutely immoral to bring children into this world if you cannot properly care for them, I can think of nothing worse. People that do this don't get my pity, or some rationalization for their behavior. Obviously there are exceptions, i.e. rape/incest, etc - but I am talking about adults who engage in reckless behavior and then look to someone else to bail them out.
"People need to know that with poor choices come accountability, sorry."
So you DO believe in visiting the sins of the parents on the child? What "poor choice" did the CHILD make?
Doggone,
This is slightly off topic but that is exactly the argument that pro-lifers make regarding abortion. We sentence the unborn child to death for the sins of the parents.
Ahh, but AA, when is that child a child and not a fetus? I believe before the first trimester, you can not physically call it a child.
This argument gets old though, and gets us nowhere. I could say "If a woman miscarries, is that murder?" What if the egg is fertilized, but it doesn't cling to the wall of the uterus? As most anti-abortion activists believe, it's a child at conception. So technically, that's murder.
Like I said, Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Comprehensive sex education is the best tool to prevent abortion (and yes, including abstinence as the preferred model.)
A bumper sticker I saw "You think education is expensive? Try ignorance."
DB,
I guess you don't understand that a miscarriage can happen for a number of reasons. It is simply the unborn baby dying before being delivered. It can happen anytime during the nine months, although most are the first trimester. Nobody anywhere says a miscarriage is murder.
You may not realize it but by the the 10th week the unborn child The fetus is now the size of a small strawberry. The feet are 2mm long (one tenth of an inch). The neck is beginning to take shape. The body muscles are almost developed. Baby has begun movement. While still too small for the mother to feel, the little one is wriggling and shifting.
All of the organs, muscles, and nerves are in place and beginning to function. As the hands and feet develop fingers and toes, they have lost their paddle like look. The touch pads on the fingers form and already have fingerprints. The jaws are in place. The mouth cavity and the nose are joined. The ears and nose can now be seen clearly. Fingerprints are already evident in the skin. Nipples and hair follicles begin to form.
That is two weeks before you start calling it a "child". Sorry, the term child is not a medical term that starts at a point in time. I don't know where you get your information, but you are obviously have some severe misconceptions (pardon the pun).
"This is slightly off topic but that is exactly the argument that pro-lifers make regarding abortion. We sentence the unborn child to death for the sins of the parents."
Except that it is, of course, a false argument. Abortions do not kill "unborn children" ... they terminate the existence of a foetus. Just exactly the same as when a women has a spontaneous abortion. A foetus is not an "unborn child" until it is capable of viability outside the womb WITHOUT artificial assistance. And in that case, it's not an abortion at all...but an induced delivery.
dog,
An interesting definition. Is it yours?
A foetus is not an "unborn child" until it is capable of viability outside the womb WITHOUT artificial assistance.
So if you have to preform CRP on a newborn, you're actually doing it on a fetus. No iron lungs. No defibrillator. That's cheating. Thanks for clearing up the semantics. Out of mere goodheartedness, after birth the fetus is given a 72 hour grace period to learn how grow a garden, hunt, and operate a loom all by itself so it can become a real boy! If only fetuses had a Blue Fairy and liberals had a Jiminy Cricket. (Hooray for Disney quotes!)
August,
Teaching abstinence effectively would break the cycle of poverty of single mom's. I know that in some school districts that having a baby is a badge of honor among the girls.
The problem with contraceptives is that they have unacceptable failure rates and leave the false impression that they prevent stds. Another problem is that 1/3 of the kids who say they use contraceptives say they don't always use them.
We have to get back to the idea that sex although wonderful, is for procreation. It needs to be reserved for committed, long term relationships. If one engages in casual sex, the results can seriously affect one's health and future.
We have to get back to the idea that sex although wonderful, is for procreation (AA)
I hope by "we", you mean you. I'd as soon say eating is for defecation. I denounce and reject your hateful rhetoric! ;0)
Sex is for procreation?
Tell that to all the post-menopausal women in the room.
Another wingnut lie repeated ad-infinitum.
Where is this room?
I'm going on break in a few minutes & looking for a little fun ;-)
Found it. Thanks.
This place is crawling with some pretty hot post-menopausal women...
Hey there's an open bar here too :-)
Only the bartender. But she's only 28 ;-)
The problem with you idea is that "teaching abstinence effectivly" isn't possible on the majority of kids. Every time they try abstinence only crap there is a significant rise in teen pregnancy. Abstinence only education is "just say no" for sex. It didn't work for drugs and it doesn't work for sex.
Just to clarify I do think they should stress not having sex is the best choice in sex ed. Some kids do listen and use there heads, just not most.
dazed,
Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that abstinence only sex education always raises the teen pregnancy rate?
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=11767
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsbush.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/14/3167/
There you go AA.
Thanks. I'll take a look.
Here's a study I found.
A study by Dr. Robert Lerner published in the Institute for Youth Development’s peer-reviewed journal Adolescent & Family Health bolsters the case for the effectiveness of abstinence programs in reducing teens’ high-risk behaviors, including sexual activity, smoking, and alcohol and drug use. The study evaluates the effectiveness of the Best Friends abstinence education program and finds that students in it are significantly less likely than their peers to engage in any of these high-risk behavior. This important research joins ten other evaluations that have also showed positive effects of abstinence programs.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/wm738.cfmA link from the Heritage Foundation? Yeah, OK... They NEVER twist anything around to fit their rigidly conservative agenda...
Mags,
They simply list the study. You can find it anywhere on the web if you look.
Looking at that article, it doesn't mention any reduction in teen pregnancies related to abstinence only programs. It DOES mention a reduction in teen pregnancies when abstinence increases (wow, I'm shocked! :D), but it does not say anything about that abstinence being related to abstinence only education.
Try again.
Also, the data referred to for decline in teen pregnancies is from 1991-1995 and "The 90's" (based on the titles of the footnote sources). 17 year old data might not be that relevant to current abstinence education programs.
The truth is of course that the best way to have lower teen pregnancy rates is the same as for dealing with EVERY OTHER SINGLE PROBLEM IN SOCIETY: create a society where a multiple of education options are offered to our young, and where they grow up in a nurturing environment that is TRULY pro-family (not the right-wing version, which is ONLY a code word for "anti-abortion"). Real pro-family policies would include minimum mandated vacation time, health care for everyone, a secure job market and affordable, good education.
This is not anything that the right wing is interested in doing - they want to, as usual, bury their heads in the sand and pretend the problem is that the kids know too much.
fawlty,
It looks to me like you are trying to argue that being pro-family means you must be either a progressive or socialist. I think your correlation is a bit stretched. But I am glad you are pro-family. :-)
Except for the "mandated" part, there is nothing there that means you have to be a progressive. Many large corporations are already striving to provide their employees with these truly pro-family basics. All it takes is a real belief in the value of family.
They specifically make no mention of its effect on pregnancy rates. I find it hard to believe that was an oversight, as they specifically mention OTHER data that links declines in sexual activity to a decline in pregnancy rates, although that does not seem to have been tied to abstinence only education.
According to the study, released in April 2005, states that middle school-aged girls who participated in the Best Friends program, when compared to their peers who did not participate, were Six-and-a-half times more likely to remain sexually abstinent.
One can see that this program reduces the chance of pregnancy in middle school girls by increasing abstinence rates 80% over the Youth Risk Behavior survey of similar aged girls.
So I guess the decrease in pregnancy rates is inferred. But you make a good point.
Dazed,
The Kaiser study included both comprehensive sex education and abstinence only education programs in higher risk African American and Hispanic populations. It doesn't prove your point at all.
The second link is simply a bunch of quotes from comprehensive sex education proponents. It is not a study but simply talking points.
The third is a politically progressive website linking the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Hardly an unbiased study. Although interesting, it is simply a polemic for pro-choicers.
Next time if you are going to post multiple links to prove a point, do some research first. I think most of us appreciate you cutting out the significant parts and then linking them. It seems to me you didn't read them first.
You sort of call me out for calling out a link that you posted from the Heritage Foundation, and then call out Dazed for using a NARAL link? Hmm, pot, meet kettle.
I wouldn't base my opinion on either group in this case, since they both have their very highly biased opinions about things.
mags, I don't argue the link. I only point out it is a pro-abortion polemic. It did not prove your point. As I mentioned earlier, the Heritage Foundation link only printed the study. It was conducted elsewhere.
In my opinion you did not prove your point at all by simply listing the websites.
Your right about that link AA. I should not have included it, I could only quickly skim the articles. I didn't have alot of time my boss expects me to do some work sometimes, the nerve.
I'm not sure where you've picked up the "badge of honor" line, but I'm sure it's not true.
I'll put that in the same category as those who've said for years that some women keep having children for the welfare benefits.
Neither is true, but both are often repeated on wingut radio.
Who's the father? (Just kidding!) Congratulations! Is it your first? I believe children are God's greatest gift and not the punishment that Obama so inarticulately stated.
TMI regarding your queston between you and your spouse. :-)
Again, congratulations.
ps. I would have said 'primarily for procreation' in my original statement except that I thought it understood that there are some women who will not get pregnant due to their age or other factors. Sex should be reserved for the institution of marriage. Feel free to disagree.
We have to get back to the idea that sex although wonderful, is for procreation. It needs to be reserved for committed, long term relationships. If one engages in casual sex, the results can seriously affect one's health and future.
LOL
Sorry AA, I'm old but I'm not dead. ;-)
Pearlene,
You are indeed young at heart. I do not believe you should ever quit trying to have kids. :-) But watch out or I'll tell your mother. :-)
Hannity doesn't understand the "punished" part of the quote because where he's from pregnancies are planned and there is support for a woman if she needs.
Hannity doesn't understand the "punished" part because to him, he starts fantasizing about Ann Coulter in a dominatrix costume with a whip......
The word "punished" was in poor taste.
The word "punished" was in poor taste.
That's the most rational conservative response I've seen so far on this topic. It's entirely a matter of personal perspective, but at least it makes sense.
August, there are many ways to catch an std. Some contraceptives might help some, but the HIV virus is 50 times smaller than the microscopic holes found naturally in condoms. Large one celled sprem can't pass through but the HIV virus can. I read somewhere the HIV virus getting through the condom it is like tossing a golf ball through a basketball hoop. That being said, there is other skin-to-skin contact that is not protected.
The pill stops no stds. Condoms over time have a 15-19% failure rate for pregnancy. The pill up to 9% because girls don't take it the same time every day or they miss two or more times a month. It looks to me that your analogy of car dealers are that there are some that will steal your future.
AA wrote:
>>Some contraceptives might help some, but the HIV virus is 50 times smaller than the microscopic holes found naturally in condoms. Large one celled sprem can't pass through but the HIV virus can. I read somewhere the HIV virus getting through the condom it is like tossing a golf ball through a basketball hoop. That being said, there is other skin-to-skin contact that is not protected.
Well, you read propaganda. There was a study done a long time ago that tracked partners in which one partner had AIDS and the other didn't. They used condoms and had sex on a regular basis. None of the partners got AIDS. Condoms are very, very effective against AIDS, so much so that it is very unlikely for you to get AIDS when using a condom.
Unfortunately, the fundamentalists put out propaganda about how condoms are not 100% effective (I have sat in classrooms listening to such propaganda) in order to convey the impression that they aren't effective at all. Then teens don't use them and they end up with AIDS. That is immoral.
funny,
Not that I doubt your recollection but do you have any link or proof of your assertion regarding these people with aids and their sex partners? Sorry but you simply writing about this study doesn't really convince me.
However You make a good point with regards to the HIV virus penetrating the condom barrier. I did see some links that said condoms were effective barriers. I also notice that these studies did not say that condoms were 100% effective.
In fact I saw one, dated in 2000 -P16/17 of US Centre for disease control report on condoms HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)/AIDS, that said researchers determined the following. "Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users."
An 85% reduction, although good, does not lead to much confidence that condoms will prevent one from getting the HIV virus if engaging in sex with people already infected.
"The pill up to 9% because girls don't take it the same time every day or they miss two or more times a month. It looks to me that your analogy of car dealers are that there are some that will steal your future. "
Your knowledge on this is outdated, I'm sorry to say. The newer versions of the pill can even be skipped a day and still be 99% effective.
But yeah, sex is dangerous, especially in today's climate. Doesn't mean that people aren't going to do it, and it especially means that teenagers aren't going to do it.
There's no way to stop the spread of STD's, only contain it. People will still get AIDS until we find a cure. But a realistic plan that helps to stem the tide by educating the populace is the only way to contain the virus.
DB,
Do you know the statistics for those who miss taking the pill more than one day a month. My research that discussed the 9% failure rate was based on two or more times per month.
I think it should be noted that there can be mild to sever side effects from taking the 'pill'. I've read some have died.
I've also read that when compared to teens who are not sexually active, teenage boys and girls who are sexually active are significantly less likely to be happy and more likely to feel depressed.
When compared to teens who are not sexually active, teenage boys and girls who are sexually active are significantly more likely to attempt suicide.
So there are a whole host of reasons beyond whether the girl gets pregnant or not that argue in favor of abstinence.
Saying the kids will do it anyway shows the level of contempt most have for kids and their ability to understand what is at stake. In addition the subject of morality needs to be brought back into the picture. Having pre-marital sex is wrong. Too many things that have serious life altering consequences can take place that hurt the teens and those around them. The immorality of premarital sex needs to be retaught.
Simply saying abstinence is the best policy but here are some contraceptives is foolish and has led many kids down paths of poverty, illness, infection, single parenthood, depression, loss of opportunity and other problems that can follow the kids the rest of their lives.
AA,
I had more time to find the study I was looking for this time. Not even Fox could spin these results.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265940,00.html
Apparently you skimmed again.
"I really do think it's a two-part story. First, there is no evidence that the programs increased the rate of sexual abstinence," said Chris Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica who oversaw the study. "However, the second part of the story that I think is equally important is that we find no evidence that the programs increased the rate of unprotected sex."
Trenholm said his second point of emphasis was important because some critics of abstinence programs have contended that they lead to less frequent use of condoms.
----------------------------
Again, this link fails to prove your point. Next time cut and paste the relevant parts so we both know to what you are referring.
So far, in my humble opinion, you are 0-4.
I do hereby nominate one bqag04 as TOTD (Troll of The Day) for 1-Apr-08. Or it could just be that he/she is pulling an elaborate April Fool's prank on us by acting like a total and complete ignorant unintelligent human being. As someone else said, if he were hooked into the good Col's jingometer, his readings would be off the charts. He/she has everything down pat. Let's look at the list of transgressions:
1. Calls the democratic party the "democrat" (sic) party. Check!
2. Calls all democrats treasonous and traitors to their country. Check!
3. Says that in spite of history telling us otherwise that somehow Carter was responsible for the revolution in Iran. Check!
4. Says he supports the troops without any real proof, and I'd hazard to believe that he has a yellow ribbon magnet on his SUV. Check!
5. Any moment now, he/she will start telling us about the famous people that he/she has met. Check!
6. Something will inevitably be Clinton's fault. Check!
I think he/she takes the cake for Troll of the Day. What say you all?
"Aye", with the provision that I get hooked up to Abortion on Demand Premium Channel.
I hope you have hardwood floors. The Abortion Dn Demand Channel can really mess up a good wall-to-wall carpet. :-)
bqag04 will soon be operating an on-demand radio show at WACO in Waco, Texas. So far no demands for his on-air voice, so they are substituting silent dog whistles.
It's so groovy that he and other cons here think that they should weigh in about teenage girls getting pregnant. They so obviously care.
correction,
It's "everything will eventually be Clinton's fault."
Yah sure, he could use a little seasoning though.
Now back to UNFINITY and ARROUND!!
Flat Earther: Did you see the earth? Did it look round?
Well know idiot:Yah but it didn't see me.
An observation concerning MMFA reader responses to network reporting on the same Obama's "punished with a baby" remark:
Major network NBC's Mitchell cited by MMFA yesterday, 51 comments
Cable network Fox News' Hannity cited by MMFA a little over 6 hours ago, 224 comments so far.
I just found a link to a Reuters story about this whole abstinence-only debate. Hope thie helps:
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTON47250120080324