Originally Posted By DlandJB Why so much vitriol? Because this is the tip of an iceberg whereby it shows an out of touch admin that is playing to ideology rather than reality. >>> And you are only just seeing this for the first time? This administration has been doing that since it first took office. We've already seen a lot more than the tip of the iceberg.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You want to keep in mind that there are those of us who are paying exorbinate amounts in Federal taxes." Oh my god, yes. And it is infuriating to see the government waste it on something like this. Particularly when there are so many other things that can be done, and when this is done so ineptly such that full disclosure as to people's choices are not discussed. "But there are times when all of us have felt that we are the only sane person in the room. I think jonvn feels that way here at the moment." Nail on the had time. I am stunned by some of the responses here. "And you are only just seeing this for the first time?" No, of course not. I am simply pointing out yet one more thing these people are doing absolutely incorrectly due to their blundering incompetence. This particular one is yet another outrage in a series of utterly out of touch and feeble attempts to impose their faulty religious doctrine onto the rest of us.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By jonvn "Who cares?" Well, you should care, because they are fouling up things at every level. Such large scale problems are going on, that yes, this may seem small. But the truth is that it shows a pervasive lack of common sense on just about every single issue they are dealing with.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I am stunned by some of the responses here. << I think that's because half of the time in this thread, you were reacting not to what people said, but what you wanted them to say. RoadTrip said it well. Maybe my 'outrage meter' has run out with this administration that I can't get all worked up about this.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think that's because half of the time in this thread, you were reacting not to what people said" Perhaps because they were reacting to something I wasn't actually saying. My outrage meter is still running. The reason? We don't want another set of people like this in power under any circumstances. Sure, these people messed up the war, the economy, all that. But there might be others around who could SOUND reasonable on the war issue, yet still put out things like this. You can't allow yourself to get weary. You have to realize that when you put into office someone like Bush and his friends who think they are doing God's work, that it is not just things around the world that get damaged, but ourselves here at home who also really suffer.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom What this is about is that this is a clear cut example of when there is a legislated Social Policy in place, ie social welfare programs. And then someone is appointed to a top Federal position that can't change that social program but is going to use the power of their political position to create more/ modify those social programs. Which only functions to further the religious rights key components of their politically motivated religious agenda. All under the disguise of "its for the health of the nation". Well, it certainly doesn't hurt thier the religious rights political agenda either. This religious right couldn't indoctrineate this targeted group of Americans when this group were children since a more Liberal orientated ( so to speak ) Administration was in control of the Federal Government at the time. So now the religious right want to indoctrinate their religious beliefs with this targeted group while they are still impressionable young adults. DANGER Will Robinson DANGER
Originally Posted By DlandJB Maybe my 'outrage meter' has run out with this administration that I can't get all worked up about this. That's how I feel. And since there is light at the end of the tunnel in 2008, I just figure they are running down the clock.
Originally Posted By jonvn Unless, of course, someone just like them tries to run again, and this is just a good reminder, not just the war in Iraq, as to why these sorts of people are simply unfit to govern.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip There is ONE THING I have absolutely never given even one second of thought to in my entire life. And that is what any politician thought I should do with my sex life. Once again, WHO CARES?? So it may be wasting some money. Probably one of the smallest wastes in the federal budget. You would rather it went to Halliburton?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom No I would rather it went to a worthy cause that will actually have an impact on our nations health and safety. Instead of creating "classes" to indoctrinate a religious groups political agenda to modify the nations sexual behavior. The Federal Government is not a "blank check". Someone untimately is going to have to pay for all of this Federal Spending. Kind of reminds me of a song. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGmsYxCF49c&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =fGmsYxCF49c&mode=related&search=</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Oh my God. Here we are in World Events, and I had a post redlined for saying "screw". Go figure. Bolt, nut, bolt, nut.
Originally Posted By bboisvert Why have the cutoff at age 30?? <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2690251&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Nightlin e/story?id=2690251&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312</a> <snip> With their full, active and busy lives, today's older adults want a partner to share it with. That also means having a robust sex life well into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s. It also means confronting a harsh reality of the modern world: sexually transmitted diseases. "I see older people who think sexually transmitted diseases are for the young," says Dr. Hilda Hutcherson, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University Medical Center in New York. "We don't get gonorrhea, we don't get chlamydia, we don't get HIV," her patients tell her. However, Dr. Hutcherson says that's a fallacy. Patients often are too shy to ask their doctors difficult sexual questions — so doctors need to ask them directly, she says. "I say, 'How's your sex life?' and then wait for the answer. And that normalizes and makes it much easier for an older woman to say, 'Well, there are some issues that I want to talk to you about.'" Author of "What Your Mother Never Told You About S-e-x" and a columnist who writes for Essence and Glamour magazines, Dr. Hutcherson is blunt about asking her patients if they're practicing safe sex. It could save their lives. Statistics show that although the highest number of new HIV cases is in people in their thirties and forties, there are now more patients being diagnosed in their fifties than in their twenties.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Who cares!" I simply find it repugnant that our government is trying to tell adults to not have sex. And that it simply indicates how basically worthless they have become. Millions spent. Think of the food that would have bought for some hungry kids in this country. Yes, the government does waste a lot of money, but this is particularly offensive to me in many, many ways.
Originally Posted By jonvn "well into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s." Obviously, the best thing the government can tell the entire population to do is to stop having sex altogether, no matter what your age. I think that's a completely reasonable and realistic approach to solving STD problems.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut the government has put their stamp of approval on alot of mindless topics including this one. Its no difference. Its not like they are going to have sex police walking around and asking for ID before one can get it on. They say what they think, you blow it off if you want. No biggie. Just move on. Not sure why THIS particular situation is so different than others unless you listen to everything the govt says which I know for a fact you do not.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Its not like they are going to have sex police walking around" No, it's like they are not telling people who are engaging in normal activity how to best protect themselves, and instead are giving advice that no one will find useful or relevant. Apparently, the Bush Admin wants the USA to turn into Africa. "Not sure why THIS particular situation is so different than others" Because it is ignorant, stupid, and dangerous? Because there is more than just the Iraq war that the government does? Because if you let things like this slide, you face a government becoming more inherently hostile to the people of the country? Because it further makes us a laughing stock around the world? Those aren't good enough reasons? People here seem to think this is something that can be just blown off, as it were. But it is not. It is a matter of an important public health policy and with AIDS being an incurable disease, people need to be treated like adults and not twelve year olds.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>they are not telling people who are engaging in normal activity how to best protect themselves<< Why would they listen to that info? Someone posted that the numbers of folks in the 40s, 50s and 60s are the fastest growing group of new AIDS cases. They haven't heard in all this time what causes AIDS and how to have safe sex? I doubt that. I think like most people, they feel AIDS is something that only is a problem for someone else. Can a government-sponsored message change that attitude anymore than one that promotes abstinence?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan sorry -- not 'someone -- bboisvert. I was being lazy, thinking you posted the stats several pages back, not just right above.
