All the evidence points towards President Bush having more individual contributors.
You should be suspicious of that claim. A certain member of my family works for a company often nicknamed the Evil Empire and he gets the kind of "Thank You" mail from Bush's campaign that contributors would receive. But there's no way in Hell that he would donate to the RNC. We've suspected for a very long time that his employer was using his name to make campaign donations.
In a separate action, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and attorney Cliff Arnebeck of the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy have asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider the election results, accusing Bush's campaign of "high-tech vote stealing."
Jackson said the challengers noticed Bush generally received more votes in counties that use optical-scan voting machines and questioned whether the machines were calibrated to record votes for Bush.
It should be clear to Jackson what is going on. I mean liberals say Bush voters are stupid. It is obvious that optical scanners assist them in casting votes that otherwise would go uncounted.
A recent Zogby poll shows that 91 percent of parents want their children to receive a clear-cut abstinence message. And many school districts nationwide have gotten the message and ditched their “safe-sex” and “abstinence-plus” programs for true abstinence ones.
Now we’re hearing a growing chorus of liberal voices claiming the abstinence-only programs that parents say they want their children to receive are misleading, naïve, ineffective and damaging. These programs, critics say, leave innocent teens to face sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), pregnancy or worse without proper knowledge of how to use the almighty condom.
Now we’re hearing a growing chorus of liberal voices claiming the abstinence-only programs that parents say they want their children to receive are misleading, naïve, ineffective and damaging.
well no shit sherlock. they're the ones who realise that just because the schools are preaching abstinence only doesn't mean that's what teenagers are going to do.
 The scientific evaluationsshow that abstinence programs work. You have rejected that out of hand. It is clear to me that you have bought into the dogma of the left and won't question it one little bit.
60% of the "scientific studies" cited have not been peer-reviewed, and the author tells us not what the studies themselves demonstrate, but what Robert Rector says they demonstrate.
Also, 91% of parents wanting their children to "receive a clear abstinence message" does not equal overwhelming support for abstinence-only "sex education."
The articles on Free Repulic and other conservative sites attacking Henry Waxman's report on the misinformation taught in abstinence-only classes was classic ad hominem stuff. None of which dealt with the substance of his report, which detailed the teaching of untruths such as touching the genitals of someone of the opposite sex can cause pregnancy and that as many as 10% of women who have abortions become sterile.
The problem with teaching kids things that are untrue is that once they discover that some of the things they were taught aren't true, a significant percentage assume that everything they were taught about that subject is a lie.
The problem with teaching kids things that are untrue is that once they discover that some of the things they were taught aren't true, a significant percentage assume that everything they were taught about that subject is a lie.
BERLIN, Germany Â— California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested in a German newspaper interview published Saturday that the Republican Party should move "a little to the left," a shift that he said would allow it to pick up new voters.
What is untrue? Let me guess. It is anything you don't like.
I'd say you're projecting again, jethro. For you, "I don't believe it" proves something false.
A number of things that are untrue are being taught in some abstinence-only programs. One example is that pregnancy can result from touching another person's genitals. Another is that condoms fail to protect against HIV transmission over 30% of the time. The criticisms of Waxman's report boil down to "He's a liberal" "He takes money from the condom lobby" and "OK, we made a couple of mistakes, but we have really good intentions."
 For you, "I don't believe it" proves something false. This shows how little you know. There are lots of things that I don't believe that are "true" at least to the extent that it is current reality. For instance, I don't believe that the US Constitution protects abortion as a right. While I know that is true I also know that the law of the land at the present time is that the federal courts say so. So what is "true" is that abortions are legal. Same applies to prayer in school, expect that prayers are illegal.
A number of things that are untrue are being taught in some abstinence-only programs. One example is that pregnancy can result from touching another person's genitals. You'd have to prove that is being done.Another is that condoms fail to protect against HIV transmission over 30% of the time. Idon't know what the number is but the fact is condoms fail. The criticisms of Waxman's report boil down to "He's a liberal" "He takes money from the condom lobby" and "OK, we made a couple of mistakes, but we have really good intentions." No, criticism of Waxman and his ilk comes from common sense. Abstinence works and Condoms fail. But you don't care about any of that. There is also other factors involved that I am sure you reject out of hand.
So no one who practices abstinance ever fails at it?
Sure they do. That means they failed, not that abstinance failed.
Don't you want to discuss issues with something besides cliches and catchphrases, JT?
You're just now noticing that I don't put a whole lot of effort into my posts? :-)
But seriously, I don't have a problem with my kids learning about condoms.
From Pieters post: Also, 91% of parents wanting their children to "receive a clear abstinence message" does not equal overwhelming support for abstinence-only "sex education."
I guess it must have been money well-spent to them.
[Edited by on Dec 12, 2004 at 01:12pm.]
the rat wrote: Howard Dean thought much the same thing. Their arrogance will be their undoing, too.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141387,00.html
I wonder just how many more ballots they will "find?"
You should be suspicious of that claim. A certain member of my family works for a company often nicknamed the Evil Empire and he gets the kind of "Thank You" mail from Bush's campaign that contributors would receive. But there's no way in Hell that he would donate to the RNC. We've suspected for a very long time that his employer was using his name to make campaign donations.
Easy to find out. Go hereand type in his/her name and see what comes up.
Fun link. Boy is George busy. ;-)
Bush, G W
11/2/2004$200.00
Springfield, MO 65801
Ozarks Gas & Appliances/President -[Contribution]
NATIONAL PROPANE GAS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE -PROPANEPAC
BUSH, G. F MR. III
10/23/2003$500.00
MAKAWAD, HI 96768
RETIRED -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
Bush, George
10/5/2004$1,000.00
Houston, TX 77024
Retired/Retired -[Contribution]
CHARLIE SUMMERS FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
BUSH, GEORGE A MR. JR.
7/3/2003$1,000.00
LOUISVILLE, KY 40207
RETIRED -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
BUSH, GEORGE H MR.
6/10/2003$2,000.00
HOUSTON, TX 77024
RETIRED -[Contribution]
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC
http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml
Sort of related.
I got my invite for the inauguration today.
Only $5,000 per person.
Hey! All you Twin Cities guys are loaded. Fork over the 10 g's.
Hey! All you Twin Cities guys are loaded.
That's what my kids think. :-)
Fork over the 10 g's.
If I had 10 g's laying around, I wouldn't use it to attend the inauguration. I'd give it to my PAC.
Given any thought to dumping that bald head picture, JT?
Hey! All you Twin Cities guys are loaded.
Their all drunk?
Given any thought to dumping that bald head picture, JT?
What's wrong with my picture?
Now you're assuming that I think there is something wrong with it.
It's kinda creepy :) I had the screen minimized the other day and many you should have seen what it looked like ;)
Your guy has a menacing grin on his face, and flinty stare, Rob.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 15, 2004 at 11:54am.]
Yea but he's well caffeinated and seemingly quite happy about his steamy beverage.
In a separate action, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and attorney Cliff Arnebeck of the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy have asked the state Supreme Court to reconsider the election results, accusing Bush's campaign of "high-tech vote stealing."
Jackson said the challengers noticed Bush generally received more votes in counties that use optical-scan voting machines and questioned whether the machines were calibrated to record votes for Bush.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141611,00.html
It should be clear to Jackson what is going on. I mean liberals say Bush voters are stupid. It is obvious that optical scanners assist them in casting votes that otherwise would go uncounted.
The democrats are going to steal it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141744,00.html
A recent Zogby poll shows that 91 percent of parents want their children to receive a clear-cut abstinence message. And many school districts nationwide have gotten the message and ditched their “safe-sex” and “abstinence-plus” programs for true abstinence ones.
Now we’re hearing a growing chorus of liberal voices claiming the abstinence-only programs that parents say they want their children to receive are misleading, naïve, ineffective and damaging. These programs, critics say, leave innocent teens to face sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), pregnancy or worse without proper knowledge of how to use the almighty condom.
...............
But Robert Rector and Melissa Pardue, two scholars at The Heritage Foundation who research these policy areas thoroughly, say 10 scientific evaluations (four of them peer-reviewed) have found abstinence programs effective both at reducing teen pregnancy and at reducing sexually transmitted diseases.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/rh20041217.shtml
Now we’re hearing a growing chorus of liberal voices claiming the abstinence-only programs that parents say they want their children to receive are misleading, naïve, ineffective and damaging.
well no shit sherlock. they're the ones who realise that just because the schools are preaching abstinence only doesn't mean that's what teenagers are going to do.
they're the ones who realise that just because the schools are preaching abstinence only doesn't mean that's what teenagers are going to do.
10
scientific evaluations (four of them peer-reviewed) have found
abstinence programs effective both at reducing teen pregnancy and at reducing sexually transmitted diseases
. It is clear, ares, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe. That is par for you.
 It is clear, ares, you are going to believe whatever you want to believe. That is par for you.
as are you,
jackassjethro. The scientific evaluationsshow that abstinence programs work. You have rejected that out of hand. It is clear to me that you have bought into the dogma of the left and won't question it one little bit.
The scientific evaluations show that abstinence programs work......
that were funded by a seemingly conservative organisation.
next!
that were funded by a seemingly conservative organisation.
next!
Just like I said you have bought into the dogma of the left and won't question it one little bit. You just keep proving it over and over.
60% of the "scientific studies" cited have not been peer-reviewed, and the author tells us not what the studies themselves demonstrate, but what Robert Rector says they demonstrate.
Also, 91% of parents wanting their children to "receive a clear abstinence message" does not equal overwhelming support for abstinence-only "sex education."
The articles on Free Repulic and other conservative sites attacking Henry Waxman's report on the misinformation taught in abstinence-only classes was classic ad hominem stuff. None of which dealt with the substance of his report, which detailed the teaching of untruths such as touching the genitals of someone of the opposite sex can cause pregnancy and that as many as 10% of women who have abortions become sterile.
The problem with teaching kids things that are untrue is that once they discover that some of the things they were taught aren't true, a significant percentage assume that everything they were taught about that subject is a lie.
[Edited by on Dec 18, 2004 at 06:09pm.]
The problem with teaching kids things that are untrue is that once they discover that some of the things they were taught aren't true, a significant percentage assume that everything they were taught about that subject is a lie.
BERLIN, Germany Â— California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested in a German newspaper interview published Saturday that the Republican Party should move "a little to the left," a shift that he said would allow it to pick up new voters.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141972,00.html
Of course the party would lose voters on the right.
Where would they go?
Where would they go?
Exactly.
Both parties could profit from being more moderate.
Republican and Republican Lite would certainly be convenient for your side.
Republican and Republican Lite would certainly be convenient for your side.
How so?
Like I said, both sides could profit from being more moderate.
The extreme Lefty's aren't going to vote for a Republican any more than the extreme Righty's will a Democrat.
It's those in the middle they should try to go after.
[Edited by on Dec 20, 2004 at 08:51am.]
I'd say you're projecting again, jethro. For you, "I don't believe it" proves something false.
A number of things that are untrue are being taught in some abstinence-only programs. One example is that pregnancy can result from touching another person's genitals. Another is that condoms fail to protect against HIV transmission over 30% of the time. The criticisms of Waxman's report boil down to "He's a liberal" "He takes money from the condom lobby" and "OK, we made a couple of mistakes, but we have really good intentions."
Where would they go?
Somewhwere else. I am not sure right now where. But enough conservatives went to Pat Buchanan that it hurt G.H.W.B.
It did hurt Bush, but didn't they also hurt themselves?
 For you, "I don't believe it" proves something false. This shows how little you know. There are lots of things that I don't believe that are "true" at least to the extent that it is current reality. For instance, I don't believe that the US Constitution protects abortion as a right. While I know that is true I also know that the law of the land at the present time is that the federal courts say so. So what is "true" is that abortions are legal. Same applies to prayer in school, expect that prayers are illegal.
A number of things that are untrue are being taught in some abstinence-only programs. One example is that pregnancy can result from touching another person's genitals. You'd have to prove that is being done.Another is that condoms fail to protect against HIV transmission over 30% of the time. Idon't know what the number is but the fact is condoms fail. The criticisms of Waxman's report boil down to "He's a liberal" "He takes money from the condom lobby" and "OK, we made a couple of mistakes, but we have really good intentions." No, criticism of Waxman and his ilk comes from common sense. Abstinence works and Condoms fail. But you don't care about any of that. There is also other factors involved that I am sure you reject out of hand.
It did hurt Bush, but didn't they also hurt themselves?
I'm guessing attempts at abstinance fail sometimes. Then a condom might work.
I'm guessing attempts at abstinence fail sometimes. Then a condom might work.
I doubt if you are guessing. Could it be from personal expierence?
Mind your own business, jethro.
It is you liberals that keep saying things like "you have to experience something before your opinon on a topic is worth squat."
 Idon't know what the number is but the fact is condoms fail.Â
as is evidenced by the fact that you are wasting perfectly good oxygen.
I'm guessing attempts at abstinence fail sometimes. Then a condom might work.
Abstinence works 100% of the time.
So no one who practices abstinance ever fails at it?
Don't you want to discuss issues with something besides cliches and catchphrases, JT?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Dec 20, 2004 at 10:51am.]
I wonder what the failure rate is for abstinence for those who try it as comapred to the failure rate of condoms?
So no one who practices abstinance ever fails at it?
Sure they do. That means they failed, not that abstinance failed.
Don't you want to discuss issues with something besides cliches and catchphrases, JT?
You're just now noticing that I don't put a whole lot of effort into my posts? :-)
But seriously, I don't have a problem with my kids learning about condoms.
From Pieters post:
Also, 91% of parents wanting their children to "receive a clear abstinence message" does not equal overwhelming support for abstinence-only "sex education."
I wonder what the failure rate is for abstinence for those who try it as comapred to the failure rate of condoms?
I'm guessing the failure rate of condoms is much less.
I wonder what the failure rate is for abstinence for those who try it as comapred to the failure rate of condoms?
:: wonders how jethro managed to father children, since its painfully obvious he's never had sex ::
There are lots of things that I don't believe that are "true" at least to the extent that it is current reality. - bodine
says it all
 since its painfully obvious he's never had sex ::
what is painfully obvious is that you are dip s**t.