"HK" wrote in message
...
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On May 9, 8:35 pm, DK wrote:
HK wrote:
President Obama vs. Bristol Palin on Abstinence-Only Education
May 08, 2009 7:44 AM
Unwed teenage mother Bristol Palin might be out there talking about
abstinence, but President Obama isn't buying abstinence-only
education.
Two $100 million programs from his predecessor's budget pushing
abstinence only are casualties in President Obama's $3.55 trillion
budget proposal.
The President is replacing them with $110 million “for teenage
pregnancy
prevention programs that have been proven effective through rigorous
evaluation," as spelled out on pages 490 to 495 of the budget
appendix.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., applauded the move, saying "eliminating
funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs is a win for
science.
The Obama budget proposal invests in programs that are effective and
based on sound science, rather than wasting millions of dollars on
efforts that have been proven to be ineffective at best."
Palin, meanwhile, told GMA's Chris Cuomo that "regardless of what I
did
personally, I just think that abstinence is the only way you can
effectively, 100 percent foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy."
She didn't have an answer readily available when pressed on how her
personal story squares with the abstinence only campaign she's
pushing.
"I'm not quite sure, I just want to go out there and promote
abstinence
and say, this is the safest choice," she said. "This is the choice
that's going to prevent teen pregnancy and prevent a lot of
heartache."
*A recent study in the journal Pediatrics indicated that teenagers
who
make "virginity pledges" to remain chaste until marriage are no less
likely to engage in premarital sex but significantly less likely to
use
birth control.*
"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any
sexual behavior," Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health told the Washington Post. "But it does seem
to
make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that
is
quite striking."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...ent-oba-3.html
- - -
How long are you going to dwell on Palin, WAFA?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
It's the big brave progressive, picking on little girls and other
helpless foe's...
Bristol Palin simply engaged in premarital sex and got pregnant. If
there is blame in that family, it should be placed at the feet of her
mother, who did not properly educate her daughter and quite possibly
forced young Bristol to not get an abortion.

You refuse to admit that education is not necessarily reduced to practice
by the recipient.


Young unwed girls are impregnated every day by their boyfriends. There's
no news in that. Bristol's former beau admitted during a TV interview that
sometimes the couple practiced safe sex and sometimes they did not. That
sounds about average.

As I stated previously, I do not fault Bristol Palin for engaging in teen
sex. Most teens are sexually active, especially by the time they are close
to finishing up high school. That was true when I was in high school and
if anything it is *more* true today.

Neither Ms. Palin nor her boyfriend seem to be very bright, but I can only
base that on their few appearances on television. There's no evidence
either teen was "educated" properly in matters sexual. In fact, it is
unlikely Bristol received any pragmatic sex education from her mother.

The former boyfriend also stated in interviews that Sarah Palin was aware
her daughter was sexually active before the girl got pregnant. A smart,
concerned mother would have taken a daughter aside and made sure she was
practicing safe sex. Somehow, I have the feeling Sarah Palin did not do
this. I also have the feeling that when Bristol found out she was
pregnant, she probably wanted to get an abortion, but mama said no. It
wouldn't be easy for a young girl like Bristol living in Alaska to obtain
an abortion on her own.

I also get the feeling the Palins are very casual about certain matters.
Sarah Palin at her age had no business getting pregnant, especially since
she already had a full brood of rugrats. When an amniocentesis
early in her pregnancy showed she was carry a fetus with Downs syndrome,
she made the wrong choice. Casual. I don't for a NY second believe her
sense of "morality" intervened, because she certainly is not a person of
high moral character.


Several times above you say your "feelings". That's pure speculation based
on no first hand knowledge. It's the way you "wish" the facts to be.

A wise old man said, "when you don't know, you don't know".

On May 12, 6:57*am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On May 9, 8:35 pm, DK wrote:
HK wrote:
President Obama vs. Bristol Palin on Abstinence-Only Education
May 08, 2009 7:44 AM
Unwed teenage mother Bristol Palin might be out there talking about
abstinence, but President Obama isn't buying abstinence-only education.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:33:25 -0400, HK wrote:



We should not be differentiating among "enemy combatants," "enemy
soldiers," and "terrorists." What is needed is one consistant standard
of treatment for all. The Bush Administration's fudging with language
and standards was a great disservice to this country.

None of that was ever the issue with torture. Such arguments were
used regarding detention, and due process.
The argument for torture has always been "the ticking time bomb."
Preventing mass casualties. National security.
As in "we know this guy has info."
Bull****. You "know" squat. Only Dirty Harry is omniscient.
Because that what the script says.
Maybe Keith Olbermann tells Obama that Rush has gone off his meds and
is a threat to national security.
Janeane Garofalo verifies this, and just to be certain Michael Moore
is interviewed and he provides the critical third verification.
Sometimes you only need 2 pieces. Depends on how the gov "authority"
feels that day.
It's all top secret, so nobody knows what's up anyway.
So Rush gets the waterboard, kicks off due to heart failure, and they
later find out he knew nothing. It was the liberals setting him up.
Or Hannity.
YOU DON'T GIVE THE GOV THE RIGHT TO TORTURE.
We are a country of law.
I don't trust a gov working outside the law.
Why the hell the right-wingers want to give Obama clearance for
torture is beyond me.

--Vic

On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:56:45 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

Or Hannity.
YOU DON'T GIVE THE GOV THE RIGHT TO TORTURE.

I'm still waiting for Hannity to be waterboarded, but, I guess, no
surprise, he's chickening out.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04...nteers-to-get-
waterboarded/

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009 12:33:25 -0400, HK wrote:


We should not be differentiating among "enemy combatants," "enemy
soldiers," and "terrorists." What is needed is one consistant standard
of treatment for all. The Bush Administration's fudging with language
and standards was a great disservice to this country.

None of that was ever the issue with torture. Such arguments were
used regarding detention, and due process.
The argument for torture has always been "the ticking time bomb."
Preventing mass casualties. National security.
As in "we know this guy has info."
Bull****. You "know" squat. Only Dirty Harry is omniscient.
Because that what the script says.
Maybe Keith Olbermann tells Obama that Rush has gone off his meds and
is a threat to national security.
Janeane Garofalo verifies this, and just to be certain Michael Moore
is interviewed and he provides the critical third verification.
Sometimes you only need 2 pieces. Depends on how the gov "authority"
feels that day.
It's all top secret, so nobody knows what's up anyway.
So Rush gets the waterboard, kicks off due to heart failure, and they
later find out he knew nothing. It was the liberals setting him up.
Or Hannity.
YOU DON'T GIVE THE GOV THE RIGHT TO TORTURE.
We are a country of law.
I don't trust a gov working outside the law.
Why the hell the right-wingers want to give Obama clearance for
torture is beyond me.

--Vic





Agreed, but there are still those, some right here in this newsgroup,
who think torture is ok.

"HK" wrote in message
m...


We should not be differentiating among "enemy combatants," "enemy
soldiers," and "terrorists." What is needed is one consistant standard of
treatment for all. The Bush Administration's fudging with language and
standards was a great disservice to this country.


I agree, however it's only my opinion, just like it is yours.
"We should not be" isn't law.

That's the heart of the controversy.

Eisboch

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:56:45 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

Or Hannity.
YOU DON'T GIVE THE GOV THE RIGHT TO TORTURE.

I'm still waiting for Hannity to be waterboarded, but, I guess, no
surprise, he's chickening out.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04...nteers-to-get-
waterboarded/


According to Harry and others he can't.

It's illegal.

Eisboch

On May 12, 8:33*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message

...



Several times above you say your "feelings". *That's pure speculation
based on no first hand knowledge. *It's the way you "wish" the facts to
be.

A wise old man said, "when you don't know, you don't know".

I regard this as being a dishonest way of "spinning" opinions into truths..
Repeat it often enough and long enough and it becomes "fact" in the minds of
some.

An example. *But first, this is not a statement for or against the issue of
water boarding. *It is simply an example of how spin can distort truth.

A few months ago there was a great debate as to if the practice of water
boarding is torture.
Many viewpoints were given in the media and here in rec.boats.
Bush's JD team obviously advised that it was not.
Obama has declared that it is.

But, to the best of my current knowledge, the issue has not been addressed
in a court of law.
So, the question remains subject to various opinions.

However, the subject has been sufficiently spun to cause some to demand the
prosecution of Bush administration officials, including Bush and Cheney
themselves, because water boarding "is" torture. * General public consensus
has been influenced by the spin. * *But, it still has not been legally
challenged or determined.

If indeed water boarding was a crime *when* is was used during the Bush
administration, prosecution is justified.
If a new legal determination or legislation is passed to formally make water
boarding a crime, Bush's administration cannot be retroactively charged.

My bet is that charges against Bush or his administration will never happen,
because there's no legal basis for a crime being committed. * Lots of
opinions and spin, but no legal basis.

And Obama won't want to open that can of worms unless he absolutely has to.
There have already been activities occurring on *his* watch that conceivably
could expose him and his administration to potential legal action if the law
is ignored.

Eisboch

Well said, Richard!