>> ^ghark:

... Line of thought:
Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).


But we knew or should have known Obama. Its like dating a man with a Porsche that you picked up at a bar. He promised you everything and left you with an STD. Paul, on the other hand, has promised jack-shit in monetary wealth; he just promises comfort and support... That's not really a great speech, that's a necessary speech that most people fall asleep to.

The fact that those two can even be suggested as potentially doing the same thing once elected shows how far America has fallen into the realm of stupid skepticism. Would Paul fail in half the things he did because Congress is in the pocket of corporations? Of course... but he is better than the snake behind a smooth speech.

Nice guys always finish last for a reason I guess.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^hpqp:
@apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side

Pfft...
It seems your opinion was considered very popular back in 1971. I had no idea.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/385.full


Did you read the part about cultural bias? The article you linked starts off promisingly:

"The American public remains resolute in its support of newborn circumcision despite negative recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)." Oh, so if the majority wants it...

The writer of the article: Edgar Schoen, Jew, maintainer of medicirc.org and member of the "Hill of Foreskins" society (Gilgal society). Noooo bias whatsoever there.


As for the actual "medical benefits" of circumcision, give me a f*cking break. "Prevents phimosis"? That's exactly like saying removing your toes prevents ingrown toenails. Phimosis is not only rare, but usually easily cured, as are most cases of UTI (btw, all the other fancy names that follow phimosis in the article are variations of the same thing). No need for mutilating your baby.


The most horrible and aberrant argument is the one concerning STDs and HIV... seriously, wtf?

Kids should not be having sex before the age of consent*; argument null!

(*that includes not being sucked off by some herpes-infested mohel.)



After that, it comes down to three things: hygiene, condoms and choice. Personal choice, not parental or communal pressure.

If it's all about prevention (a big effing lie), why not take out their tonsils? Or appendix? Or cut off the earlobes? Why not sterilize anyone who already has HIV? See where this goes?

@apologists: you have NO ethical nor medical arguments on your side; you irretrievably mutilated a* child. Worse: the child's sexual organs. Worser still: for the sake of an ancient, barbaric tradition. It is an ethno-cultural branding that that child will never be able to reverse. It is worse than tattooing your name on the child's buttcheek, because at least those are removable (tattoos, not buttcheeks).

If an adult wants to get circumcised, retighten her vagina or change sexes altogether, may they feel free to do so. BUT KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OF CHILDREN'S BODIES! It is bad enough that many kids have to endure the poisonous bile of their parents' beliefs (racism, homophobia, etc.), but once again, at least that is not incurable.


(*not "yours" to mutilate)

On circumcision and HIV "study"
Where the tradition of circumcision comes from in the west (excluding Jews/Muslims)


/rant


@chilaxe I upvoted your comment for its cynical irony, but just to be clear about the second point for those who might take its origins seriously: the "study" that claims circumcision reduces possibility of contracting STDs is far from scientific. Moreover, it was conducted in three African countries with a poor record hygiene-wise. I doubt such a study would yield the same results in western countries. (the US has the highest rates of circumcision and HIV for a western country... but correlation is not causation, I know)

Actually, there are real benefits to circumcision.

For example, proponents note that you can last longer in bed since sex isn't as pleasurable. Hard to argue with that!

Also, if you have unprotected sex with lots of people with STDs, you might be somewhat less likely to contract the STDs. Perfect!

prohibition will never work as well as regulation and control.

i know its now redundant to bring up prohibition.....but it is still, and will very much continue to be, an extremely valid point: we tried it. it was fucking stupid. we reversed it. problem solved. how is marijuana and other drugs or prostitution for that matter any different? speaking of prostitution, the Bunny Ranch in Nevada, for whatever scant few of you that dont know, is a legal, privately funded, government controlled brothel. can you guess how many acts of violence or abuse have occured there? none. can you guess how many STD's the girls or patrons have? none. can you guess how many cases of HIV or AIDS come out of their establishment? ya, none. seeing a trend here?

back to my point tho, regulation and control. You say drugs are harmful not only to the users but to others and the community as a whole? alcohol and tobacco arent? no ones calling for their prohibition are they (well i guess a remote few are but i digress)? you know why? cuz we tried it with both and both were such monumental failures on the grandest scale that we conceded and said "ya, we fucked up, that was dumb, beer and cigs are back on!"


theres this overwhelming idea that those who are against prohibition of whatever just want that shit on every street corner and in your babies hands. if this is you, youre fucking stupid, go away. regulation and control. let the government regulate its production, potency, etc. then let them control it through law. feels like im beating a dead horse, but, this is what we did with alcohol and tobacco. if you cant see that, then there really isnt any hope for your dumbass

if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. doom youself, dont fucking drag me with you

Its weird how immature this is in the fact that they don't directly say or describe the effect on the penis specifically.

Its attitudes like this that cause people to be less open about sex and make the subject tabo which has the knock on effect of reducing the likely hood people would seek help or take preventative measures to reduce STD'S or confront Sexual disorders.

I was just looking up some of those numbers, and that is about spot on, about 2.7% to abortions and
nearly all other services are just sexual system related...not that I ever supposed that they were a huge abortions machine. And while even if those numbers are 5 or so percent off, it doesn't really matter to the person who is apposed to abortions all together. It would be akin to a husband saying to his wife, of all the women I have met, I didn't cheat on you with 98% of them...it is that small percent that matters when morality is concerned. Certainly, though, as far as a health organisation goes, I have nothing against PP.

Personally, I think you should use the logic that war is murder, and you are against murder in an effort to diswage your congressman against acts of war. I would tend to agree with this position, most of the wars haven't really been fought to save ourselves from torment as of late, more like cause torment. It doesn't have to be "cover" if it is true. And this truth is completely subjective, hard to test the legitimacy of peoples claims beyond face value...it's all so damned tangled in personal backgrounds.

I think you are being rather disingenuous as the the totality of church go'ers on donations. While I know fire and brimstone churches exists, I have had the pleasure of not ever attending one, ever. I am no longer a Christian myself, but when I was, I gave out of the compassion that I knew it was going to be used for something good, instead of a cheeseburger for myself. That raised up in me a charitable heart in myself furthering my commitments to those in need. I was fortunate enough to be able to support the blood and fire food hand outs, the Sam's battered women shelter, and several others. Giving is a mindset more than a command. And in that, goodness is only going to success if we take an active role in it. A fraction of our taxes will never be enough. Giving has to be a lifestyle, it won't work otherwise.



>> ^peggedbea:

except that 97% of the services pp offers are not abortion services. the idea that pp is some massive abortion franchise is pure myth. its main function is to provide low cost birth control, breast exams, pap smears, std tests and education. i don't know the people who think those things are murder.
furthermore, i'm down right against war and an aggressive foreign policy and believe these things to be murder but no one is defunding any of that and using my moral outrage as cover.
also, churches use fear and religious devotion and obligatory methods to secure their funding. it's called tithing and it was ordered by god in the bible somewhere, you can't compare the funding of other organizations to churches. god didn't mandate you to give 10% of your income to fund various social causes, unfortunately.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^gwiz665:
500 % of $2000 isn't much compared to the millions the government provides either.

Private donations account for 1/4 of operating revenue. Government spending is was/is 1/3ed. (all according to wiki). Which means that private donations accounted for 370% more than government spending would of accounted for, up from government spending 120% more than private donations prior. >> ^peggedbea:
do you think the surge has more to do with the highly publicized nature of the threat to defund them?
what do you think would happen to organizations that aren't in the news constantly?

Publicity and people who care account for the spending surge no doubt. I would imagine the total spending will drop to levels lower than they were previously in time. But I don't mind this so much, I am pro choice mind you, but to FORCE someone to pay for something they down right believe is murder is pretty outrageous. It will be up to those who truly believe in the cause to take up financial arms, as it should be. There are organisations that aren't publicized via media and do very well for themselves and sponcers...like every church in america.
This funding change also may force PP to be more dithered and less national, which might force it to be less monolithic and more regional in its ways and policies. This could bring both good and bad, only time will tell.

except that 97% of the services pp offers are not abortion services. the idea that pp is some massive abortion franchise is pure myth. its main function is to provide low cost birth control, breast exams, pap smears, std tests and education. i don't know the people who think those things are murder.

furthermore, i'm down right against war and an aggressive foreign policy and believe these things to be murder but no one is defunding any of that and using my moral outrage as cover.

also, churches use fear and religious devotion and obligatory methods to secure their funding. it's called tithing and it was ordered by god in the bible somewhere, you can't compare the funding of other organizations to churches. god didn't mandate you to give 10% of your income to fund various social causes, unfortunately.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^gwiz665:
500 % of $2000 isn't much compared to the millions the government provides either.

Private donations account for 1/4 of operating revenue. Government spending is was/is 1/3ed. (all according to wiki). Which means that private donations accounted for 370% more than government spending would of accounted for, up from government spending 120% more than private donations prior. >> ^peggedbea:
do you think the surge has more to do with the highly publicized nature of the threat to defund them?
what do you think would happen to organizations that aren't in the news constantly?

Publicity and people who care account for the spending surge no doubt. I would imagine the total spending will drop to levels lower than they were previously in time. But I don't mind this so much, I am pro choice mind you, but to FORCE someone to pay for something they down right believe is murder is pretty outrageous. It will be up to those who truly believe in the cause to take up financial arms, as it should be. There are organisations that aren't publicized via media and do very well for themselves and sponcers...like every church in america.
This funding change also may force PP to be more dithered and less national, which might force it to be less monolithic and more regional in its ways and policies. This could bring both good and bad, only time will tell.

Contraceptives, STD treatment,"other services" and Cancer prevention are all forms of abortion. I bet ya'll didn't know that.

Well, remember how we were talking about taxes? If we're going to play the fashionable game and tack dollar values of benefits onto people's salaries to pad the number for demagogic effect, then my effective tax rate is even smaller, more like 8% if you add the value of my health & retirement benefits to my income. You really need to consider doing your taxes yourself, clearly your CPA is doing something wrong.

So here's the thing, you say firefighters have such a sweet deal because of unions. I have an idea, how about instead of taking away unions from firefighters, why not get unions for everyone?

As for why you get flack from liberals for being a selfish fascist when you bitch about taxes, it's because you never give anyone a reason to think you're somehow being treated unfairly. There's one set of Federal tax laws, and most of us can fill out our 1040 or 1040EZ, grumble, and go on with life. You aren't running your business as a charity to help the unemployed, you're trying to make a buck. There's no blankfist tax, or anti-entrepreneurial tax. On the contrary, there are tax subsidies for small business all over the place, to the point where little middle class worker bees like me get fucking tired of hearing about it.

GE somehow paid zero taxes, and got a 3.2 billion dollar check from Uncle Sam. Instead of bitching about the insanity of that, all you want to do is fuck over all public sector employees all across the nation because you think they might be getting a slightly better deal than you.

Surely by now you've seen this:

A CEO, a tea party member, and a union worker are all sitting at a table when a plate with a dozen cookies arrives. Before anyone else can make a move, the CEO reaches out to rake in eleven of the cookies. When the other two look at him in surprise, the CEO locks eyes with the tea party member. “You better watch him,” the executive says with a nod toward the union worker. “He wants a piece of your cookie.”

That's what you're doing.

Oh, and by the way, student loans are subsidized by tax dollars. As was your K-12 education, I suspect. I bet you've also taken advantage of the services of countless thousands or millions of people who had their education paid for or subsidized by tax dollars. I bet the navy taught you some marketable job skills even (beyond the right way to use a glory hole). You were probably born in a hospital that was subsidized by tax dollars, and delivered by a doctor whose education was subsidized by tax dollars, and received vaccinations for childhood illness that were developed by research subsidized or wholly funded by tax dollars. You might even occasionally use this thing called the Internet, which is based on technology developed at DARPA as part of the defense budget.

Look, I have sympathy for anyone who's struggling to make ends meet, and I know running your own business is tough -- that's why I haven't tried it. But it's your philosophy that says people have to own their failures even if it's not really their fault. If you were working for, say, Blockbuster the last 15 years, did an excellent job, but then got laid off because traditional rentals got destroyed by Netflix, that's your fucking problem, and nobody else should have to help you out with your plight. That includes bailouts in the form of tax cuts.

Me, I want a safety net so that if you seriously fall flat on your face, you won't have to worry about having a place to sleep, and food to eat, and will still be able to go see a doctor for the STD you picked up from fucking farm animals. I think all life is precious, and that the markets are a fickle and harsh mistress, while the nanny state should always welcome you into her large, welcoming bosom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yes, LA is really fucked up. So is California in general. And so are my apocryphal firefighters and policemen.

The average pay for firefighters you linked me to doesn't account for benefits and pension, does it? That's just base salary. So, if the average pay for firefighters is just under $44k, then that's pretty much their taxable income because I cannot image what possible expenses they'd deduct, because they have zero financial risk being an employee. And I'd imagine his benefits alone would equal around $15k to $20k. And then of course their pension which is available when they retire at 55.

That's a pretty good deal. And they get women fawning over them and the vox populi calling them heros. Then there's the guy in the private sector, who's painted to look selfish and evil. People like me. But we don't have unions to protect us, give us great pensions and benefits, and we actually create jobs. I created two last year myself. That aside, the real problems with LA and CA are the unions. They were one thing when they protected proletariats from the bourgeoisie in Charles Dickens' England, but they're something entirely different today, especially when allowed to collude with government and legislators.

I grew up in a milltown in the South. You can't get more working class than that. I'm almost 40 and I'm still paying off my college loans, so suffice it to say no one helped me out. Being happy? I know what makes me happy. The same things you mentioned: not having to worry about rent, not having to worry about food, etc. But without getting too personal here, I can safely say some of that worries me right now because of what I owe to the taxman. And probably nine to eight years back I was in a really, really bad place, yet the taxman cometh. I tried to cash a honkey check, but apparently those don't exist. I guess being white only goes so far contrary to modern lib rhetoric.

What I find interesting is if someone like me bitches that the tax is too high, which it is, then some of you complain I'm selfish and refusing to pay my fair share. But isn't it you, the statists who believe in stealing my money to give to others, that are actually being selfish by laying the tax burden so heavy on the middle class? Specifically income tax.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

HPV? The vaccine has been around for years. Just make sure your kid gets the vaccine before he or she will have sexual contact.

Circumcision is good, though, if you're 1. a crazy religious fundamentalist, or 2. someone who's likely to be exposed to many STDs.

you obviously live in canada or somewhere else where public school teaches kids science, math, sex ed and healthy lifestyle choices.. instead of simply the skills they need to work in retail or join the military.

also, humanity as whole doesn't really understand nutrition. there are plenty of decent, resonable parents who don't have a clue what a balanced diet actually looks like and actually try to raise their kids to have good habits.

also, i don't think taking away a 5 cent toy is going to do anything about the people who eat fast food often enough for it to be a major problem. it has already become a habit .. my son probably wouldnt care about going to mcdonalds ever again if he wasnt going to get a toy, but we also eat mostly plants at home and grab fast food less than once a month on average.

banning high fructose corn syrup would do more to curb obesity. this is epicly stupid. like throwing a bigger warning label on a carton of cigarettes and felating yourself for combating lung cancer.
In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
"So basically everyone should be responsible for raising the kids...except their parents? Who's driving the kids to McD? Who's paying for the food? Who ultimately decides to celebrate a kid's birthday at McD? And who fails to provide a healthy diet at home that would lessen the negative impact of an occasional McD meal?" - campionidelmondo



You also have to realize that Education is education. That's what school is there for. I don't teach my kids everything they need to know, some things they learn in school or on their own. Like mine, most kids are smart. Mine will call me on something I get wrong. They do have differing opinions that I don't always share.

As an adult, If I like McDs (though I don't), and I go there all the time. My kids should have that opportunity to learn facts contrary to my habits and be able to call me on it.

The school system is there to help guide our kids in their education in the areas the parents fall short. This is true for science, math and even shop class. If I hate sports, should my kids not be allowed to take Phys Ed? They already have health and nutrition in school (part of science class I believe) why not show them the film and make it part of the curriculum.

We already do it with "Family life" class (or what ever your town calls it) - kids learn all about sex, STDs, personal health and hygiene and are better off for it.
Why should Nutrition be different?

"So basically everyone should be responsible for raising the kids...except their parents? Who's driving the kids to McD? Who's paying for the food? Who ultimately decides to celebrate a kid's birthday at McD? And who fails to provide a healthy diet at home that would lessen the negative impact of an occasional McD meal?" - campionidelmondo



You also have to realize that Education is education. That's what school is there for. I don't teach my kids everything they need to know, some things they learn in school or on their own. Like mine, most kids are smart. Mine will call me on something I get wrong. They do have differing opinions that I don't always share.

As an adult, If I like McDs (though I don't), and I go there all the time. My kids should have that opportunity to learn facts contrary to my habits and be able to call me on it.

The school system is there to help guide our kids in their education in the areas the parents fall short. This is true for science, math and even shop class. If I hate sports, should my kids not be allowed to take Phys Ed? They already have health and nutrition in school (part of science class I believe) why not show them the film and make it part of the curriculum.

We already do it with "Family life" class (or what ever your town calls it) - kids learn all about sex, STDs, personal health and hygiene and are better off for it.
Why should Nutrition be different?

Becks account is pretty frickin whacky!
Here's a good account if you have the time to read it.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/std-fears-sparked-case-against-wikileaks-boss-20101208-18ou0.html