Thank you Laura…finally…a voice of reason and logic in the White House.
And clearly not pundit driven, but from the heart…spoken like a mother of two daughters…got it George? Wake up George! Helloo!

All the puritanical thinking from New England seems to have been sold off like an old rug to the South–which bought puritanism hook, line, and sinker. Smart move by New Englanders, typically dumb for Southerners…who can now say that their political philosophy comes from NEW ENGLAND *grin* That ought to make their head spin and explode, so we can remake the South in our own image.

On abstinence: Sure, GO FOR IT. Anyone who supports abstinence-only policy should live what they preach…permanently…with no exceptions for marriage…INCLUDING their 2nd, 3rd, or 7th marriage. No breeding allowed, period. Abstinence-only will die off like the Shakers. End of story.

On boiling brats in beer: Let’s just forget that “brat” is short for “bratwurst”….and let’s boil as many BRATS–preferably Bush brats or generic Repugnantcan brats–as we can, in their own beer. THAT would not be a waste of beer!

BREAKING: Al Gore’s Son. Bust With Drugs.”

Exactly why would anybody think that Al Gore III’s arrest is a significant issue that ThinkProgress needs to cover?
As far as I can tell, the arrest of Al Gore’s adult son (he is 24) has nothing to do with anything.
Al Gore is a public figure, but Al Gore III, so far as I know, is not. It is unfortunate that he seems to have some fairly substantial problems of substance abuse (which his father has discussed quite openly in the past) but his problems are really not relevant to any current public policy discussion — no more than George Bush’s daughters’ problems with alcohol are.
—–
Whereas Mrs. Bush’s comments on AIDs prevention education ARE relevant to an important public policy issue.
Mrs. Bush is just recently returned from an official trip to Africa, where she visited AIDs education centers. As an official representative of the US during that visit, her views on such topics are politically relevant.

It’s just jealousy and fear of losing control – Remember these are the folks who believe they’re in danger of hellfire for every sexy thought. Huckabee wants to ban mini skirts because they call attention to the ‘private parts’. And pot puts you on the slippery slope to uncontrollable addiction…

Europe and the UK are much more laid back and open about sexuality because they shipped all the Puritans over here.

Here in Europe, we do have excellent aids prevention educational programs advocating the use of condoms.

What makes us ex-Pats and Europeans so cynical about U.S.morality is that the “double standard” also creates all sorts of “alienated sexuality” things….. We notice where “table top dancing comes from” (Mormon Utah, for example) and that while the U.S. industry is incapable of manufacturing goods that can be exported to Europe, a good part of the measly U.S. exports to foreign countries primarilly consists of porno films, one of which is completed every 36 minutes in the U.S. (the shadow side of “puritan
ethics.”

Hell, even our German Pope Benedict XVI has eased the Catholic ban on contraceptives and now advocates the use of condoms to prevent AIDS.

Really. This restriction on U.S. aids prevention to “no sex”…. is costing the health and lives of millions of people which could be saved by the simple
distribution of condoms.

The policy is cruel, heartless and inhumane. I sincerely bid Bush a long life after he leaves office back on his ranch where he can get his jollies off by watching pig and cattle and cattle breeding. However, his obvious
delight in human cruelty covered up by psuedo moralism is not going to do him any good in the life hereafter. God, being merciful, will let him and Cheney set up a white house……. or outhouse, to exercise power and control over others.

And all the angels in heaven who don`t give a hoot about power and possession will be blissfully unawares of their machinations, I guess.
Of course, the POTUS IN THE AFTERLIFE will tremble at the
threatenings of protestant pastors in the afterlife, playing with the thunderbolt of “you`re going to go to hell”.

I don`t have to vote for them in this life, and am not particularly worried about ever meeting them in the life hereafter. And since there is no
“death penalty” in hell, Bush will not be able to enforce one, or commute sentances of other convicted felons like Scooter Libby.

The psychopath delights in cruelty to people socially, physically, and
and financially weaker than he is…… His AIDs policy as well as Iraq
only reflects that delight stemming from his sick “Lust of dominion”
“Herrsucht” or Power Addict in German.

Laura shows some sense of human compassion in contradicting that
cruel, borderline psychopath.

Good for her. I feel sorry for her co-alcoholic position she got herself in when she married the man. May she attend many more CoDa and Al Anon meetings to establish her own “Declaration of Independence.”

all the best to the sane humanists out there.
of social ostracism and

At what point does anyone [adult or child] get a break from the “idea” of having SEX? It’s everywhere! TV, music, cartoons, commercials…yet someone has the idea that kids are not going to have sex if you tell them “Wait until you’re married, it’s the right thing to do”. HA! More than 3/4 of us didn’t wait and more than that didn’t marry their first or fifth partner. Face it people, we can’t place legislative restrictions on human nature/behavior and threatening to deprive someone of resources unless they comply is inhumane. Even if that’s what ought to be done, we know it won’t.

If we’re going to place restrictions on “legislated resources” lets start at our local Child and Family Services (Welfare) offices. Not all people on public assistance are “slaves” to it, but there are generations of women who have child after child and never become independent of the system nor do they feel they have to. I would vote to put “a cap” on the number of children a woman can have who’s receiving public assistance, as well, to require MANDATORY academic and health-based education for pregnancy prevention and STDs and establish a program committing them to “give back” and become mentors to help others get off assistance. In such situations, I would agree with a stipulation of sorts, but you’ve got a better chance at seeing a pig fly or throwing a snowball across the banks of the River Styx before getting an abstinence-only policy approved.

And yet they will remain ignorant….

The purpose of the abstinance-only policy *is not* to prevent pregnency.
The purpose of the abstinance-only policy *is not* to prevent the spread of STIs, including but not limited to HIV.

No.

The purpose of the abstinance-only policy is to *stop people from having sex with anyone other than their married partner*. Its that simple. Its an inherently morality driven policy. Those who push it believe, for a variety of religious and social reasons, that *sex* is inherently evil – it must be permitted only by married heterosexual couples, and even then kept hidden behind closed doors and never spoken of in polite company. It is their view that sex before or outside of marriage is the real plague on society. Preventing pregnency and STI transmission is a welcome side effect, but the real objective is to save the failing sexual taboo, and return to the days when chastity was not only a cherished virtue, but a social demand.

The big problem with this is that social engineering is very hard, and that telling people not to have sex is about as effective as telling them not to eat. Good luck getting them keep it up for any length of time.

Comment by upright left — July 4, 2007 @ 9:55 pm

Um, WTF? The links (which actually refer to the same article) confirm exactly what ThinkProgress says in the paragraph. Did YOU actually READ the article? I’m guessing you didn’t.

Let’s take what you quoted:

“Last month, the House rejected the policy”. In this case the “policy” refers to this point: “Contraceptives prevent abortion, plain and simple,” said Terri Bartlett, vice president for public policy and Population Action International. “Cutting off the flow of contraceptives to women and couples in impoverished countries makes no sense at all.”
His group said that since Bush reinstated what opponents call the “gag rule” in 2001, shipments of U.S.-donated contraceptives have been stopped to 20 developing countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.” So, the House DID reject the “gag rule” policy. I’d say ThinkProgress got it right. TP-1, UL-0

“…passing legislation that would allow Bush and future president to waive the abstinence-only provision.” From the article, “The bill, in another swipe at a favorite administration program, gives Bush and future presidents the right to waive current law that requires that one-third of U.S. aid for HIV/AIDS prevention be spent on abstinence programs.
Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., who helped draft the original abstinence language, said he was confident that the current administration would continue to promote it. But he warned that the country will get a new president in 2009 who could overturn the program.” So, again ThinkProgress got it right. (Note: The word “waive” means “to relinquish voluntarily”, “to refrain from pressing or enforcing”, or “to postpone”. In other words, the President–either now or in the future–can choose to enforce the abstinence-only policy or not, as he chooses. As Rep Weldon noted, Bush would likely choose to enforce the policy but another President might not.) TP-2, UL-0

“In response, Bush threatened a veto, claiming ‘he would veto any legislation that weakens current policy and laws on abortion’.” From the article, “Republicans disagreed and cited a letter to Democratic leaders from President Bush last month warning that he would veto any legislation that weakens current policy and laws on abortion.” Let’s see, Bush sent a letter to Democratic leaders saying he would threaten a veto. I’d say ThinkProgress got that quite right (that part was directly quoted from the article in the TP piece). TP-3, UL-0

Maybe you should refrain from criticizing something that YOU haven’t read. You went to bat and struck out, 1-2-3.

Comment by celtic cynic — July 4, 2007 @ 5:27 pm

ha!!! – best comment so far!! – nice one dude

What’s your point, CT?

There’s more to morality than one’s sexual behavior — which is Al’s point.

C’mon guys. If you’re gonna try to get away with putting pieces like this together, at least leave out the links so there is some possibility that people will fall for it. On second thought, it was only meant to be believed by radical lefties so it’s ok. Nevermind. ;)

Anyway, Abstinence-only programming sucks. I’m glad Laura is standing up for that. Maybe she’ll finally register a disproval of his performance… heheheh.