Debbie does Congress?

It is a very small world.

halvorson.jpgBack in February I wrote a post for Illinois Review entitled, "Debbie does...??" and a related WorldNetDaily column, "The link between HPV and lung cancer."

In large part about Democrat IL state Sen. Debbie Halvorson - who was pushing mandatory HPV vaccinations of preadolescent girls - this section of my post combined with my title made liberals crazy and got me mention in the New York Times...

So when... Halvorson admitted she had HPV and worried others might get it, you would think she'd focus on her behavior that caused her to contract that sexually transmitted disease.

Halvorson would be most helpful by discussing the health consequences of pre- or extra-marital sex. Here are some potential topics:

  • Halvorson could discuss the number of sex partners she has had throughout her lifetime and how each one increased the likelihood of contracting HPV.

  • If Halvorson even had only one sex partner aside from her husband, she could discuss how one can contract HPV from a sole encounter.

  • Halvorson could discuss whether she realized at the time her sex partner carried HPV, which most trusting, vulnerable women don't.

  • Halvorson could disclose whether it was her husband who passed HPV on to her after sleeping with other women, demonstrating another reason for chaste behavior outside the marriage bedroom.

  • More uncomfortably, if Halvorson contracted HPV through rape, she could discuss ways to avoid rape.

    But no, Halvorson does not advocate avoiding a risky behavior that leads not only to HPV but to 20+ other STDs and their strains, along with unplanned pregnancy. Halvorson merely advocates trying to avoid the consequences of risky behavior.

  • For that a Daily Southtown columnist called me a "mean girl" spewing "vitriol" with a "shark mentality" who should "get comfortable on the sidelines" because I was "los[ing] credibility."

    Ah, memories.

    As it turns out, Halvorson was a board member of Women in Government, in cahoots with Merck to force the HPV vaccine by legislative fiat on us all. Americans thought this was a bad idea and shot the forced shot down in flames.

    But I'm not one to say I told you so. I just told that story to tell this one.

    Last week, with a scandal looming, my own IL GOP Congressman, Jerry Weller, said he would not run for reelection. I know him, and I know his aide, Jack Dusik, who embarrassed himself and could have hurt someone by losing his temper and shoving CBS reporter Mike Flannery, a really nice guy, down the stairs when Dusik thought Flannery was being too pesky after Weller's announcement:

    You've likely figured out where this is going. From the Washington Post blog, September 24:

    Weller's seat... is almost certain to be competitive between the two parties....

    Candidates: On the Democratic side, the leading choice appears to be state Senate Majority Leader Debbie Halvorson....

    Gotta laugh.


    Comments:

    We get Hepatitis shots--they are mandatory--and several types are spread through sexual contact.

    Should we stop the vaccination and hope that people will just learn their lessons? Once the HPV vaccine is better tested, I don't know why it shouldn't be mandatory. If there was an AIDS vaccine, I would support it being mandatory, even though it is mainly a consequence of sexual behavior. And HPV is one of the most common STDs. It can even be contracted mother to baby. Not good.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 26, 2007 9:59 PM


    *If there were

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 26, 2007 10:03 PM


    "Once the HPV vaccine is better tested, I don't know why it shouldn't be mandatory."

    mandatory my butt.

    Posted by: jasper at September 26, 2007 10:04 PM


    Did anybody watch the Democrat debate on MSNBC tonight? what a lousy bunch. I think the Clinton co-presidency would be awful again. HRC can't even answer the simplest of questions without calculating her answer.

    Posted by: jasper at September 26, 2007 10:11 PM


    Once again I can't compete with your flawless arguments.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 26, 2007 10:18 PM


    Jasper, how many of your candidates deny evolution?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 26, 2007 10:20 PM


    "Jasper, how many of your candidates deny evolution?"

    my candidates ? all of them.

    Posted by: jasper at September 26, 2007 10:49 PM


    Exactly.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 26, 2007 11:05 PM


    *rolls eyes* You know, a ton of people who have only had sex with their spouse have HPV. Know why? Because there is no possible way to diagnose it in men, and because it is often transmitted genetically. For example, I had a cone biopsy last friday- number of sexual parters? Two. Yup, that sneaky HPV, it only hits on those skanky, skanky hos who can't keep their legs closed. Odds are 50-50 if you marry someone and only ever have sex with them, that you'll still wind up with HPV.

    Either way, so it will be mandatory. If you have personal or religious reasons against it, then DON'T GET IT. You're not forced to get all the vaccines that you probably should be getting right now. They're just highly reccommended. Jehovah's Witnesses don't vaccinate their children, I believe. And those in public schools are still allowed to go, even though they haven't had their shots.

    Posted by: Erin at September 27, 2007 12:47 AM


    prettyinpink - Everywhere I've worked the hep vaccines were voluntary, as they should be. Barring an epidemic, people need to be allowed to decide if they should be assuming the risks of vaccines.

    Interetsting that the "pro-choice", who say that they're all about "letting owmen control their own bodies", do NOT want women to be allowed to have a choice at all about the HPV vaccine.

    I guess the only choice they are "pro" is choices they agree with, be the choice to abort a fetus or to get a risky, ill-tested vaccination.

    Posted by: Christina at September 27, 2007 5:49 AM


    Christina,

    Notice PIP said "once the HPV vaccine is better tested" and therefore safer. Also notice that PIP is not pro-choice so you can stop those taunts.

    If you want to choose to contract a preventable disease, by all means, go ahead, who am I to judge?

    Posted by: JKeller at September 27, 2007 6:14 AM


    I agree with everything PIP said about hpv being mandatory . I do believe that there should be religious exemptions though.

    Posted by: Carrie at September 27, 2007 6:38 AM


    In order to attend the 8th grade I had to have all my hepatitis shots completed. For many jobs I had to get my tetanus shot and a tuburculosis test, at least! I'm sure all the shots at my birth were also practically required. Measles and German measles and whooping cough...dang those horrible people who would like a requirement for these vaccines. However I'm sure religious reasons are a special case, and I assume that an HPV policy will be the same.


    Again, if an AIDS vaccine were to be developed, I wonder if this controversy would exist. Like HPV, it can be "treated" but not cured yet. Like HPV, it can be passed through sexual contact and mother to baby (I think I remember reading that this can be prevented in a mother with AIDS but you would have to take all of the medicines). You'd think people wouldn't mind a vaccine that actually worked to prevent a disease (it seems pharmeceutical companies have forgotten how to cure instead of treat) regardless of how it is spread. Using the "well you shoulda just never had sex. Now live with it" is the kind of attitude that makes HPV so prevalent (what is it, 70% of people?). As Erin pointed out, waiting till marriage will not necessarily prevent it. Marriage is not some rainbow that creates an "STD" exempt card.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 7:33 AM


    Thanks, JK!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 7:39 AM


    The vaccination only protects against 4, COUNT THEM - 4, of the 97 different types of HPV. I think it gives women a false sense of security.

    Posted by: Kristen at September 27, 2007 7:52 AM


    Americans are such an independent lot. Mandating vaccines, seatbelts, speed limits or even new coinage has at times been met with resistance. People don't want to be forced.


    The shrewdest politicians mandated availabilty only. They made sure that anyone who wanted it had access to it and the govt would pay for it if you couldn´t. This promotes it yet stops short of force.

    A couple of months ago, an article in the New England Journal of medicine noted that the new HPV vaccine was rushed to market faster than other vaccines have been. From a medical perspective, that means a lower standard because there is less time for problems to emerge on a small scale. Recently, as industry influence over the FDA has grown, safety has declined. Drugs are expensive to develop and companies want a return on investment ASAP. There have been many lawsuits and recalls of new drugs.

    The RU486 rush to market by politicians was sharply criticized by the FDA who published a paper on the approval process entitled "Lowering the Standards for Womens Health." FDA data through the process showed the drug to be less effetive and less safe than current surgical method. Others here have noted that the early surgical method has a low complication rate, so the goal for any new method should be hazards equal to or lower than current technology and effectiveness equal to or higher. This is the same standard for all drugs.

    The complaint by the NEJM re: HPV vaccine and by the FDA re: RU 486 is that the HPV has not been shown to have lower side effects and higher efficacy rates than other recently approved vaccines and RU 486 is not safer and is far less effective than current methods. So from a scientific view, this is a lowered standard for women's health care.

    Since there was no other vaccine for HPV it gets approved because it is more effective than nothing and its hazards in the short term are lower than infection in the long term.

    Posted by: hippie at September 27, 2007 8:16 AM


    Look at how many deaths have already been caused from RU486. Wasn't it supposed to be just a pill to pop, and the pregnancy would just disappear? They made it sound so simple.

    Posted by: heather at September 27, 2007 8:22 AM


    sorry for the multiple posts,

    my computer kept giving me error messages and kicking me off the site, so I didn't realize that would happen

    Posted by: hippie at September 27, 2007 8:25 AM


    Heads up,

    There are AIDS vaccines used in other countries, but they don't meet our standards for safety or effectiveness. Like, they are not highly effective, only work on a few strains since HIV mutates quickly, oh and my favorite, you can sometimes get the virus from the vaccine.

    Posted by: hippie at September 27, 2007 8:37 AM


    "As Erin pointed out, waiting till marriage will not necessarily prevent it. Marriage is not some rainbow that creates an "STD" exempt card."

    No PIP, you and Erin are dead wrong. Waiting till marriage will reduce ones changes of getting by about 99%.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 8:43 AM


    @PiP, Erin and ........,

    it indeed is frightening how young women as 'sold' on the efficacy of most vaccines. The majority of vaccines are contaminated with the heavy metal mercury. [Mercury causes many neurological problems ... like lowering IQ 10%.] It seems that vaccines are given a special exemption and you can inoculate a kid (one shot) with 5X the safe level of mercury for an adult. [Kids are much more sensitive to any neuro-toxin than adults.]

    We had best get-off this I-must-have-an-inoculation, fast! Oh by the way, the same holds for the flu shot ... it is much better to go the vitamin D3 route, or the elderberry syrup route!

    Posted by: John McDonell at September 27, 2007 9:18 AM


    September 27, 2007 - Thursday

    Susan G. Komen - Planned Parenthood connection
    Category: News and Politics

    Susan G Komen SUPPORTS PLANNED PARENTHOOD (PP) . Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion clinic chain. They promote promiscuity, homosexuality, and they kill unborn babies by the thousands.


    Planned Parenthood has been in the spotlight for lawsuits regarding botched abortions , some causing the deaths of the mother's seeking the abortion. ( See links)
    http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2007/09/01/news/local/doc46d8c05405a03284163710.txt

    http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jul/07070502.html

    Planned Parenthood has also been caught selling abortions to minors, even when they are told that the girl was impregnated by an adult.
    Listen to actual tapes here: http://www.childpredators.com/

    Komen has been confronted, begged, and asked to NOT support PP. But still they do. They deny any link between breast cancer and abortion. The president of CURBS, removed his support of them because of this as well.

    I personally wrote to Komen. They sent me a response that confirmed that they did fund Planned Parenthood. Their written excuse was that they believed that PP was able to offer breast screening services to many women in low income places. But, it is my view that every dime PP receives is money freed up to kill more babies.

    Below is some documentation to my findings: I Beg you NOT to support Komen until they refuse to support child killing:

    Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation

    North Texas 2002 annual report.
    Quote: From Komen's Denver Chapter: "?we have funded projects with Planned Parenthood and the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado) in the past?" In 2003, Komen Affiliates awarded $38.4 million in grants to support community outreach programs, including 21 grants to their local Planned Parenthood chapters totaling more than $475,000. Nancy Brinker, who founded SGK is listed for 2002 as a member of the advisory board of Planned Parenthood of North Texas...



    http://www.clearresearch.org/latina_advisor_quits_komen.htm

    http://www.lifeissues.org/AbortionBreastcancer/komen/fact_sheet.pdf

    From Komen's website:
    http://cms.komen.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/komen_document/011337.pdf
    search term: Planned Parenthood
    http://cms.komen.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/komen_document/011338.pdf
    search term: Planned Parenthood

    http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/abc.html

    Pro-Life Waco's :.
    http://www.prolifewaco.org/Komen.htm

    Here is a Press Release from Co. RTL:
    Colorado Right to Life To Join the Race for the Cure Protest,

    A meeting last Friday between Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's Denver
    officials, CRTL board members, and scientific and medical experts led the
    pro-life organization to decide to join an annual protest to warn women at
    the Komen Foundation's Race for the Cure of the link between abortion and
    breast cancer.

    Former Komen medical research analyst Eve Sanchez Silver explained to
    the Komen officials that she resigned from Komen two years ago because
    the organization denies the scientific studies showing the link between
    abortion and breast cancer, and it provides funding to abortion provider
    Planned Parenthood.

    Professor Joel Brind, PhD endocrinologist from Baruch College in New York City attended the meeting after saying on Denver radio that, "the 2003 conference of the National Cancer Institute which denied abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer refused to
    allow attending scientists to present the opposing position of the scientific research establishing the link, showing that abortion was declassified as a cancer risk for political and not scientific reasons."

    Further, "The NCI's own statistics show that breast cancer has
    increased, and only in women who were of child-bearing age when abortion
    was legalized in 1973, so much so that nationally cancer would have
    steadily declined, except it has held steady at the expense of women
    getting breast cancer," said Dr. Brind.

    Komen Denver board member and chairman of the grants committee, J.P.
    Pedinielli, and public relations representative, Dana Brandorff,
    attempted to dissuade CRTL from protesting at the Race arguing that
    "Planned Parenthood is not a current grantee" of Komen's Denver chapter,
    and when challenged, added that Planned Parenthood, "might have been a
    previous grantee." CRTL vice president Leslie Hanks then documented the
    continued local funding of the abortion provider throughout this decade.
    Eve Silver showed from Komen documentation that the national
    organization has given as much as $475,000 in a single year to
    abortion-provider Planned Parenthood.

    "Even if abortion proved beneficial to a woman's health," said Hanks,
    "government should still prohibit the killing of an innocent human being,
    because abortion is always wrong."
    Prof. Brind corrects a factual error on the Komen.org website, that "the
    breast is mature after puberty," stating that "Third trimester pregnancy
    hormones begin the final maturation process and the differentiation of
    mammary gland cells. Abortion prevents this, leaving the woman with more
    undifferentiated cells vulnerable to carcinogens, increasing her risk of
    breast cancer."

    As transcribed from a recording of the meeting, CRTL asked, "Why aren't
    women being told about the most preventable risk factor?" to which
    Komen's Brandoff answered, "We tend to focus on the cure? we're focusing
    our energies on that, rather than the preventative."

    Information on the abortion/breast cancer link:
    http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

    Posted by: heather at September 27, 2007 9:21 AM


    I won't give a dime to this organization!

    Posted by: heather at September 27, 2007 9:23 AM


    oops, in my earlier post, I wrote that i thought hpv should be mandatory. I meant to say the hpv vaccine.

    Posted by: Carrie at September 27, 2007 9:32 AM


    "The vaccination only protects against 4, COUNT THEM - 4"
    I'd take 4 over 0 any day. I mean, we don't have a vaccine for Hepatitis C--does that make the vaccines for A and B invalid?

    btw Hippie, I do want more standards on the vaccine, just as high as any vaccine should be. But I don't think that this article is really focusing on that issue in particular, right?

    "No PIP, you and Erin are dead wrong. Waiting till marriage will reduce ones changes of getting by about 99%."
    Talk about false security! Barring the obvious discrepancy with marriage outside the US, it is very unlikely that both partners in a marriage have been completely abstinent before (no sexual activity whatsoever, no touching anywhere, no oral sex, etc), and saying "I wish" over and over is obviously doing very little. Also, there are ways to get STDs in other places. For example, genital warts--can happen via self-inoculation. You can get hepatitis from getting a tattoo. Herpes? Kissing someone, self inoculation, skin-to-skin. Obviously pubic lice and scabies can be spread via clothes to clothes, etc. Generally skin-to-skin contact can spread several STDs...and guess what? HPV is one of them!

    "We had best get-off this I-must-have-an-inoculation, fast! "
    If you think it is unsafe, as I feel too it has not been properly handled before being on the market, we have the same concerns. Just because we want an HPV vaccine on the market doesn't mean we are willing to compromise health standards. It seems the article focused on "let's try telling people not to get HPV rather than a vaccine." This is what I was addressing. Notice how little it helps in real life.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 9:44 AM


    The Komen Foundation is one of the least effective charities, they have very high advertising and promotional costs. They focus on the least effective research and very little on prevention or services. There are some great breast cancer charities that provide assistance to people to help them get the care they need.

    For me, it is a practical issue. What is the point of all the research to find treatment and cures if we aren't willing to spend money to provide them to people who need them?

    If the Komen Foundation has had a hand in funding ANY important advance in the "fight" against breast cancer, I am not aware of it.

    The are selling hope, I mean hype.

    Posted by: hippie at September 27, 2007 9:49 AM


    I am not against developing, testing or promoting this HPV vaccine or any other.

    I am for honesty.

    The NEMJ article simply noted that politicians were rushing the vaccine. They thought waiting a couple more years before pushing it would be prudent and safe. It would also follow the usual pattern for introducing a new vaccine. They felt politicians were pushing it for other than medical reasons. They felt this push caused more resistance to it than there would have been if it had been made available according to the usual timeline allowing people to learn about it and choose it for themselves.

    They also noted that if unforseen problems occured, it would be on a smaller scale. That means fewer young women would be at risk for side effects. They weren´t against the vaccine at all but were very honest about its limitations and felt the usual cautious introdution for the HPV vaccine should be followed, just like any other vaccine.

    Posted by: hippie at September 27, 2007 10:06 AM


    Hi Jasper.

    "Did anybody watch the Democrat debate on MSNBC tonight?"

    The debate was right here on my campus! It was crazy here yesterday, all sorts of people running around, people yelling at me from the sidewalk as I was in my car to honk at them. Lots of Obama supporters. He very much appeals to those in college it would seem. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 10:35 AM


    Hi Bobby,

    Oh thats right, you go to Dartmouth. It's too bad there are so many Democrat supporters, not one of the Democrats runnings is pro-life or even remotely promotes anyting that respects life. For instance, not 1 Democrat on the stage last night was against the PBA ban! oh, maybe Joe Biden, but that was it.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 10:46 AM


    Great bunch of democratic presidential prospects. I'm liking Obama best, but Richardson, Edwards, and Biden also appeal to me. Hillary would be ok, but she strikes me too much as a phoney.

    Posted by: Hal at September 27, 2007 11:06 AM


    Hi Hal. So I was thinking that if one is a Democrat, then the candidates all seem pretty good. Both you and another Democratic friend of mine seem to think thats the case. But the Republicans are pretty bad, at least the ones who have the best chance of being elected. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 11:21 AM


    Bobby, I agree. It's a nice change from our perspective. Rudy is leading, but no one seems to like him. Go figure. The only republican I like is Ron Paul, but not on every issue of course. He'd make things interesting in DC though.

    Posted by: Hal at September 27, 2007 11:27 AM


    jasper- it's a genetic disease as well as a sexually transmitted one. Often if either of your parents have it, you can get it too. There is no test for HPV in men. Therefore, a man and woman can be completely abstinate before they marry, and the lady will still end up with the disease.

    Also, the immunization may only prevent 4 types of HPV, but only about 12 types of HPV cause cervical cancer- and all 4 of the types prevented by the vaccine do.

    Posted by: Erin at September 27, 2007 11:39 AM


    "Rudy is leading, but no one seems to like him."

    Yeah, seriously... I mean, are you kidding me? I don't know how he's considered a Republican. I like Ron Paul, too, although I'm sure it's not for the same reasons as you do :) God love you, Hal.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 11:42 AM


    I agree that the Republican party is sort of at a loss. I was interested to see who would stand up to the challenge of the problems this administration poses for the future. Ron Paul is interesting, but I think some libertarian values are a little scary..

    I am also not very trusting of Hillary. She sure knows how to say the right things--I just don't know about her record or a good reason why she is trustworthy. However the democrats seem much stronger than last time, which as Hal said, is a nice change.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 12:22 PM


    Democrat party: Party of death. A disgraceful, traitorous bunch.

    I realize the Republican party has some problems but it's a much better selection then the Dem field. At least the Republicans are patriotic Americans who love their country unlike the cowardly Democrats.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 12:37 PM


    I would certainly take any of the Republicans (except perhaps Rudy) over a Democrat too, but it seems like none of them are really that committed to life.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 12:42 PM


    Bobby,

    all of the Repubs except Rudy are pro-life.. they will nominate judges that will overturn Roe, veto any crazy Democrat bill which always attempts to kill more children...it goes on and on...

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 12:52 PM


    Canidates on abortion:

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/abortion/index.html

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 12:54 PM


    Hi Jasper. Well, McCain is pro-embryonic stem cell research, I believe, so that's no good, and I"m still a bit skeptical of Romney, but if he wins the primaries I'll look more into him. I guess I meant the main three (Guliani, McCain and Romney) aren't really committed to life but I know Brownback and others are pretty good. But I certainly hope that they prove me wrong. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 1:00 PM


    I wouldn't say that republicans don't contribute to "death culture," with Texas and Oklahoma having the highest death penalty rates in the country and the party supporting pre-emptive strikes on a country we weren't even sure was a direct threat to us.

    I also don't think any candidate will really tackle the abortion issue anyway with the country being so divided. I'd say they don't want to take the risk of much alienation, and would leave the legislation open to the states.

    Also, never questioning the government is possibly the least patriotic thing to do. The point of patriotism is to love one's own country so much, it is worth the effort to improve things that go wrong. I don't think the founding fathers would approve of people saying "during war we should just SHUT UP and never question a thing" like Bill O'Reilly seems to think (can we think of what kind of mistakes this thinking brought on?). Being reasonable and moderate is not cowardly, but stubbornness for the sake of stubbornness is in my opinion one of the most cowardly things one can do. I don't care if someone is a Republican because I don't think that Republican and Democrat is a proper way to describe one view--we are all diverse in our opinions. I care about policies and rhetoric that seems to spew hate and contempt for those that simply disagree with an action our government takes. Execution for treason, as you like to say jasper, is a more communistic way of looking at it than anything else!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 1:01 PM


    Bobby,

    I agree, the top 3 are suspect (RudyMcRomney),

    but guys like Brownback, Hunter, Tancreado and Huckabee, Paul are very good on life issues.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 1:09 PM


    "I wouldn't say that republicans don't contribute to "death culture," with Texas and Oklahoma having the highest death penalty rates in the country"

    We'll these are criminals who killed people and are getting justice. Not innocent unborn babies..

    "and the party supporting pre-emptive strikes on a country we weren't even sure was a direct threat to us."

    the CIA intelligence, Bill Clinton, international community has said repeatly since 1991 has said that Sadamm has WMD, plus he used it to kill 50,000 kurds.

    "I also don't think any candidate will really tackle the abortion issue anyway with the country being so divided. I'd say they don't want to take the risk of much alienation, and would leave the legislation open to the states."

    Democrats will keep abortion alive and well. At least the Republicans will protect life like Bush did, nomintae good judges, etc, veto bad bills...


    ..and PIP, I never said people shouldnt critizise governments policies, etc. But when you have Democrats traveling the world, saying the administration is evil, they lied about war, saying our troops are torturing Iraqies, leaking information about important programs that protect our security, coddling dictators, not protecting unborn babies, accusing the adminstration of spying on normal citizens, want to shut down club gitmo, etc......it's not the time to put these type of people in office.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 1:24 PM


    Hi PIP. The whole patriotism thing, at least for me, is that some liberal people I know (and this isn't all liberals) would just as soon see this country crumble and die than things get better. I would certainly agree with you that it's okay to question things that the government does, but I really have a big problem with those cowards who, as soon as things get tough, immediately turn their back on this great country and say "let it die." I think we both agree that our country is sick, and we both want to help it get better. But it's those who take advantage of the freedom that this country bestows upon us and immediately turn their backs when things get a little tough that really saddens me. God love you, PIP.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 1:26 PM


    "We'll these are criminals who killed people and are getting justice. Not innocent unborn babies."
    Does your Church agree with you? I personally believe in the right to life for everyone--born or unborn, and that includes quality of life.

    "the CIA intelligence, Bill Clinton, international community has said repeatly since 1991 has said that Sadamm has WMD, plus he used it to kill 50,000 kurds."
    Remember when we supported him? And gave him weapons?

    "Democrats will keep abortion alive and well. At least the Republicans will protect life like Bush did, nomintae good judges, etc, veto bad bills..."
    Bush really didn't give much headway, I gotta say. I haven't seen abortion numbers substantially going down, have you?

    "and PIP, I never said people shouldnt critizise governments policies, etc."
    I remember you saying that anyone against the war should be tried and executed for treason. I really can't make that stuff up!

    "saying the administration is evil"
    Individuals do not represent the whole. I don't say all republicans are ann coulters!

    "saying our troops are torturing Iraqies"
    Well...some of them have. Using an excuse like 'emotional release' doesn't cut it either, unless you believe people beating their children are innocent, they are just releasing tension!

    "coddling dictators"
    Who ever said saddam was a good guy? Have you seen the outcry of Iran's president going to New York?

    "not protecting unborn babies"
    The individual does not necessarily represent the whole. there are elected senators that are pro-life democrats!

    "accusing the adminstration of spying on normal citizens"
    Well warrantless wiretapping doesn't really inspire confidence.

    "it's not the time to put these type of people in office."
    Yeah, perhaps another 6 months will do it!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 1:36 PM


    death penalty executions of bad, awful criminals since 1976: 1098

    death penalty executions of innocent, precious unborn babies since 1976: 45,000,000

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 1:37 PM


    "I think we both agree that our country is sick, and we both want to help it get better. But it's those who take advantage of the freedom that this country bestows upon us and immediately turn their backs when things get a little tough that really saddens me."

    I think most people will agree with you and I on this issue. But it's really offensive when all liberals are labeled unpatriotic by questioning the government. And it's extremely devisive! There is a difference between criticism and unpatriotism but often there is no distinction made by the accusers. When a person says, "This is enough. We have had extensions over extensions about this war, and it's leading nowhere. We came in with the best of intentions but it's time to let it go and bring out soldiers home," I don't find that unpatriotic at all, just trying to be reasonable. Attacks on such a person are certainly not patriotic at all, don't you think?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 1:40 PM


    jasper,

    Does it really matter? This is relativism if I ever saw it. Well let's not try to fix the death penalty while also trying to fix abortion. The amount of people executed doesn't matter at all! What a great way to look at things!

    Yeah, those criminals should be thrown away like trash too! Screw their lives. They don't matter!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 1:43 PM


    "Attacks on such a person are certainly not patriotic at all, don't you think?"

    Yeah, I think I can agree with that. To be honest, I haven't really been following the whole war debate, so I don't have an opinion about it, but I believe that in general there can be reasons for just war, but also that citizens have the right to politely voice their opinions against a war if they don't feel it's just (or ever just). I think those are the kinds of people you're talking about, and I would defend their right to charitably express their opinions.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 1:52 PM


    Thank you Bobby. I definately agree with you :)

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 1:53 PM


    "Individuals do not represent the whole. I don't say all republicans are ann coulters!"

    it's too bad thy're not.we need more Ann Coulters

    "The individual does not necessarily represent the whole. there are elected senators that are pro-life democrats!"

    really, who? 1? or 2?


    "Yeah, those criminals should be thrown away like trash too! Screw their lives. They don't matter!"

    PIP, I wish you had the same zeal for the unborn as you do for hardened murderous criminals...

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 2:19 PM


    look at the disgraceful record of Democrats Senators when it comes to protecting life:

    http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=110&x=7&y=17

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 2:28 PM


    I swear, jasper. Seriously, there are no words.

    I'm an odd duck, though- I'm a liberal who actually is pro-death-penalty.

    I've said this a million times before- liberalism is the highest form of patriotism. We're the people who actually use the freedom we've been given. "If there's something wrong, people who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action."

    Besides, yesterdays liberals are todays conservatives, todays liberals are tomorrows conservatives. Conservatives can say, yeah, but THIS will never change. Yeah it will. It always has. Once black people couldn't get married to white people. Once slavery was acceptable. Once it was OK to rape women whenever you wanted to. Soon it will be, once gay people couldn't get married. Once, people refused to do everything they could to cure diseases.

    Society progresses in spite of people dragging their feet. Sorry.

    Posted by: Erin at September 27, 2007 2:34 PM


    Erin, I'm another liberal who isn't too concerned about the death penalty, My opposition isn't to killing murders (my former view) but now due to the fact that I don't trust the government to know who is a murderer and who isn't.

    Bobby:. "I like Ron Paul, too, although I'm sure it's not for the same reasons as you do"
    Don't be so sure, I bet we both like his intregity and principles.

    Posted by: Hal at September 27, 2007 2:59 PM


    "Don't be so sure, I bet we both like his intregity and principles."

    Ah, touche!

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 27, 2007 3:14 PM


    "I've said this a million times before- liberalism is the highest form of patriotism. We're the people who actually use the freedom we've been given."

    Given to by Patriotic Americans so you can abuse it, distort it, disgrace it, destroy it, twist it, kill unborn babies with it. That's not freedom, thats license. Freedom means you're free to do the correct and moral thing.

    Godless: Church of liberalism.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 3:42 PM


    Pip -

    "We get Hepatitis shots--they are mandatory--and several types are spread through sexual contact."

    "In order to attend the 8th grade I had to have all my hepatitis shots completed. For many jobs I had to get my tetanus shot and a tuburculosis test,...."


    I'm sure you are aware of this, but I think it is worthy to point out. The vaccines that you mentioned here are highly contagious and are not controlled by simple behavior modification. Most of the diseases that we mandate vaccination for are spread through casual day to day contact like someone coughing or through accidents, like tetanus or eating infected foods like hepatitis A.

    "Like HPV, it can be passed through sexual contact and mother to baby"

    The HPV we are talking about is the one that causes Cervical Cancer. From the book "what your doctor may not tell you about HPV and abnormal PAP smears":

    "the HPV types that are associated with cancer are called oncogenic. They're sometimes also called intermediate-risk or highrisk HPV types....

    High or intermediate risk, or oncogenic, types don't always cause visible lesions, but they do cause cancer. In fact, 99 Percent of cervical cancers have been linked to oncogenic HPV types....

    Since the genital HPV types live only in the genital skin, and since HPV is spread by skin-to-skin contact, then it seems as though most, if not all, genital HPV infection is sexually transmitted: It spreads by one person's genitalia touching another person's genitalia. "

    Also, From WebMd:

    "Of the 100 HPV types, about 60 types cause warts on areas such as the hands or feet. The other 40 or so types of HPV are sexually transmitted and are drawn to the body's mucous membranes, such as the moist layers around the anal and genital areas.

    How HPV Virus Spreads
    These sexually-transmitted HPV viruses are spread through contact with infected genital skin, mucous membranes, or bodily fluids, and can be passed through intercourse and oral sex. HPV can infect skin not normally covered by a condom, so using a condom does not fully protect you from the virus. Also, many people don’t realize they’re infected with HPV and may have no symptoms, so neither sexual partner may realize that the virus is being spread."

    I wouldn't say that republicans don't contribute to "death culture," with Texas and Oklahoma having the highest death penalty rates in the country"

    Just to put my two cents in - I actually agree with you here. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with the death penalty or if someone is guilty or not. A death is a death no matter how you justify it.

    " and the party supporting pre-emptive strikes on a country we weren't even sure was a direct threat to us."

    Just something to think about, not necessarily to respond: Should we wait until there is a direct attack on us? We waited for a direct attack before really doing anything about Bin Laden. Didn't turn out very well did it? Sadam had already killed millions of his own people not to mention all the Kurds. EVERY intelligence from the various different nations agreed that Sadam had weapons of mass distruction. Not to mention that he had already used them on the Kurds.

    "I don't think the founding fathers would approve of people saying "during war we should just SHUT UP and never question a thing" like Bill O'Reilly seems to think "

    The first part - I agree. But where do you get your information on O'Reilly? He has been exceptionally critical of the war for several years now. Plus, he has been exceptionally critical of the Bush administraion.

    "Have you seen the outcry of Iran's president going to New York?"

    Yea.... It was fun to watch the President (?) of the University slam him!

    "We came in with the best of intentions but it's time to let it go and bring out soldiers home," I don't find that unpatriotic at all, just trying to be reasonable"

    Another bit of food for thought: Al Queda (spelling?) is using all those sound bites against us. They are showing the Iraqi's and telling them that we are going to abandon them again. They have been beeten down so bad that they fear anything that might bring death back to their families. This is what is making giving control to the Iraqi police so difficult. Most people are afraid to take sides in fear of what will happen, so they aren't helping the police capture the terrorists. The only way we can safely leave is by giving control to the Iragi's, but how can we do that when they are afraid to help us?

    Posted by: valerie at September 27, 2007 4:03 PM


    Jasper: "Freedom means you're free to do the correct and moral thing."

    Freedom means YOU don't get to decide what's correct or moral.


    Posted by: Hal at September 27, 2007 4:51 PM


    "it's too bad thy're not.we need more Ann Coulters"
    I'd be disappointed if little Ann Coulters started running around, and I'd probably fear for the country too.

    "PIP, I wish you had the same zeal for the unborn as you do for hardened murderous criminals..."
    I do, I feel strongly about everything I support. I am not an apathetic person. Who are you to question how much I feel about these issues? To make an assumption like that is slander.

    Jasper, do you want to get into which party is more a supporter of the "culture of death"? I think they are both equally guilty. What we need to do now is rally our people to elect the senators we want, ones that respect life. Party-line voting obviously is doing nothing. And everyone being devisive is not going to help pro-life Democrats get elected.

    "Society progresses in spite of people dragging their feet. Sorry."
    :)

    "Godless: Church of liberalism."
    Clever. Couldn't think that one up yourself?

    "Most of the diseases that we mandate vaccination for are spread through casual day to day contact like someone coughing or through accidents, like tetanus or eating infected foods like hepatitis A."
    Can I count you for a 'no' when it comes to a possible mandatory AIDS vaccine?

    Valerie, regardless of which types are which, are you saying that you are against any vaccine designed to prevent diseases that affect the majority of the population because you don't want your daughter to ever have sex? If they have a herpes vaccine, will you oppose that too?
    It's just shortsighted to say "well I believe in abstinence, so anything designed to prevent incurable diseases that can be spread sexually is morally wrong." It just is. If the country doesn't support trying to eradicate prominent diseases, we will never get anything done. And nothing is!

    "Should we wait until there is a direct attack on us?"
    Just off hand, I'd say its situational. Even if he did have WMDs, plenty of other countries besides the US do. What was our proof that he'd use to attack us? And now hopefully we have learned that trying to employ democracy from a top-down strategy doesn't work. We need to help those who want to help themselves. Iraq is such an unstable country. There are other middle east countries that are much more united and ready for democracy than Iraq ever was. This is just my two cents. It really depends on whether we are seriously threatened by someone and weigh the consequences of preemptive strikes. Preemptive strikes are tricky, because misunderstanding intentions can lead to problems.

    "But where do you get your information on O'Reilly?"
    His past.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrNl6-j9x5w

    "The only way we can safely leave is by giving control to the Iragi's, but how can we do that when they are afraid to help us?"
    You are right. Just give them another six months to think something up.
    But seriously, should we just stay there until there is peace in the middle east? That would be forever. When do we know when it's time to pull out? When there is peace in Iraq? When Iraq is "stable"? What determines stable? If Bin Laden is not the problem, and Al Qaeda is desbanded, what is truly driving the violence? How do we stop that idea? How do we plan on making these people (that were sorta arranged there in the first place) be peaceful if they don't want to? When would the government be able to stand on its own? What determines when the army is "ready"? If the war is on terror, what constitutes terror? How do we find terror and eradicate it? Are we fighitn a war on terror around the world, or just middle east? What is the difference between the war on terror and the Iraq war now? When does terror become distinct from middle eastern war in general? Bush seems to have different ideas on when would be feasible time to pull out, and each time the precident seems to fall, with a promise for another 6 months. Everyone seems to disagree on the answers to these questions. This thing is a real problem!!

    In my opinion, we made a mistake. We need to try to correct it. And doing what we are doing doesn't seem to be working very well. And nobody seems to care, what with every bill to set a timeline (these set plans to hand over iraq safely) being vetoed. Is more time going to make things go away? I don't think so. We need to come up with a viable strategy to hand over power in the (somewhat near) future to give hope to our support in Iraq and back home.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 5:15 PM


    Oh, PiP. You're my favorite lifer.

    Posted by: Erin at September 27, 2007 5:20 PM


    "Freedom means you're free to do the correct and moral thing."

    Freedom means we are not oppressed, censored, enslaved, detained, or forced to do things in direct conflict with universal human rights.

    That means we get to speak out against those that oppress us, speak out against things we are unhappy about, practice religion without persecution, and essentially be our government. Freedom means we get to decide how or what our government should be.

    What is the correct thing? To obey laws? Well then, I guess all laws are game then. China for example...

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 5:21 PM


    Jasper: it's too bad thy're not.we need more Ann Coulters
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    "Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00

    Posted by: Laura at September 27, 2007 5:27 PM


    Laura, just remember Ann Coulter is just like a female Howard Stern.

    Saying offensive things, but when people get angry, "it's just a joke!"

    Works every time!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 5:30 PM


    "Freedom means YOU don't get to decide what's correct or moral."

    NO, YOU ARE WRONG HAL!

    "Jasper, do you want to get into which party is more a supporter of the "culture of death"?"

    Yes, you think liberating 40,000,000 from the taliban and Sadaam Hussian premotes a culture of death?

    "And everyone being devisive is not going to help pro-life Democrats get elected."

    pro-life democrats? what? who? where are they? The democrat party platform is to kill unborn babies -full throttle ahead. the party of death, the party of treason, the party of debauchery, the party of sodomy, the party of John Stewart, the party of hypocracy, the party of Abortion, the party of pornography, the party of the ACLU, the party of NAMBLA, the party of artificial birth control, the party margaret sanger, the party of Ted (I left that woman to die) Kennedy, the party of Bill (I could not legally arrest Bin Laden) Clinton.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 6:47 PM


    Erin: "it's a genetic disease as well as a sexually transmitted one."

    Erin, I have never read anything about cervical cancer being genetic; only that 99.? percent are caused by hpv. Can you please tell me the resource where you got this information.

    Also, the vaccine does not protect from 4 strains of hpv (high risk) that cause cervical cancer; it protects from 2 high risk that cause 70% of cervical cancer. The other 2 strains targeted by the vaccine are considered "low risk" and cause genital warts, but not cervical cancer.

    Posted by: Ellie at September 27, 2007 7:30 PM


    We're the people who actually use the freedom we've been given."

    I believe you mean license, not freedom.

    Posted by: mk at September 27, 2007 7:31 PM


    "If there's something wrong, people who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action."

    So you approve of what we're doing in Aurora?

    Posted by: mk at September 27, 2007 7:32 PM


    "Yes, you think liberating 40,000,000 from the taliban and Sadaam Hussian premotes a culture of death?"
    Why don't we liberate everyone else then? I'm sure they will also welcome us as heroes.

    "pro-life democrats? what? who? where are they? "
    Look at their website. It's right there, youd o'nt have to look very far!

    "the party of John Stewart"
    HAHA you really got it there! He's REALLY threatening! That old Jewish man sure is scary! Boo! hehehehehe thanks jasper for the laugh!

    BTW learn how to spell his name. It's Jon.

    "the party of hypocracy"
    Hypocrisy? I think there is plenty to go around, fella...unless you don't care to see the huge fallacy there.

    "the party of pornography"
    Yes actually the newest platform concerns this important issue. As only democrats watch pornography, we want to put it all over our campaign posters and put it on the big banner at the national convention. We want to make it an official "American Pastime." You should join us we will have a wonderful time!!

    "the party of NAMBLA"
    Yeah, we are a big supporter of molestation. WE have wonderful barbecues!

    "the party of sodomy"
    Yeah, only democrats engage in activities other than sexual intercourse. and we plan on having it put to vote to have a national campaign telling everyone how great it is!

    " the party of death"
    Yeah, the intentional killing of prisoners doesn't count! They aren't really dead, in fact, they are just having angels escort them to hell. Not the same thing.

    "the party of artificial birth control"
    Hehe, only democrats use the pill, so all of those legislations trying to ban any sort of artificial birth control will just have to be filibustered this time!

    " the party of Bill (I could not legally arrest Bin Laden) Clinton"
    Seriously, do you like pulling this stuff out of your behind? We disproved that myth wrong a long time ago. Just repeating the same lie over and over again still doesn't make it true. So let's move on and find some other way to downplay all the good Clinton has done during and after his presidency, okay? I'm sure you have enough to whine about there.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 7:59 PM


    "Seriously, do you like pulling this stuff out of your behind? We disproved that myth wrong a long time ago. Just repeating the same lie over and over again still doesn't make it true. So let's move on and find some other way to downplay all the good Clinton has done during and after his presidency, okay? I'm sure you have enough to whine about there."

    They have hime on tape admitting this. ...Oh, btw, thanks for listing 1 pro-life Democrat senator, there hard to find, I know.

    Now, for the other issues, these are what the Democrap party stands for. they've damaged this society pretty bad. they suck...big time.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 8:20 PM


    MK- it's your right to do it. I think it's tacky and distasteful. But it's your right. Just like the Fred Phelps protesters.

    http://www.cdc.gov/std/STDFact-STDs&Pregnancy.htm

    Here, Ellie. It should cover HPV on there, if not, the previous link

    http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

    should help.

    jasper- I feel the same way about the republicans. Go figure.

    Posted by: Erin at September 27, 2007 9:09 PM


    Democrat party: Party of death. A disgraceful, traitorous bunch.

    I realize the Republican party has some problems but it's a much better selection then the Dem field. At least the Republicans are patriotic Americans who love their country unlike the cowardly Democrats.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 12:37 PM
    ......................................

    You owe my father an apology. He was a died in the wool democrat. Earned 4 bronze stars in WWII including the Battle of the Bulge. He was a furst generation American who was very proud to be American. It's bigoted blow hards like you that make me ashamed of so many Americans. Having lived over seas as a military wife and feeling obliged to apologize for americans like you isn't an easy thing to do.
    If you PLs couldn't make over the top hysterical and insupportable sweeping pronouncements about people you don't know, would have nothing to say at all.
    If you desire respect Jasper, you had better learn to show it for others.

    Posted by: Sally at September 27, 2007 9:28 PM


    "I've said this a million times before- liberalism is the highest form of patriotism. We're the people who actually use the freedom we've been given."

    Given to by Patriotic Americans so you can abuse it, distort it, disgrace it, destroy it, twist it, kill unborn babies with it. That's not freedom, thats license. Freedom means you're free to do the correct and moral thing.

    Godless: Church of liberalism.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 3:42 PM

    .......................................

    You might be carefull there Jasper. Worshiping your flavor of patriotism might make your christian god angry.

    Posted by: Sally at September 27, 2007 9:31 PM


    PIP -

    "Valerie, regardless of which types are which, are you saying that you are against any vaccine designed to prevent diseases that affect the majority of the population because you don't want your daughter to ever have sex? "

    since when did you become a drive by reader? You were mentioning madatory vaccines. I explained why certain vaccines are considered mandatory; that they are caused by more than just behavior. Then you said (implied?) that you can get the HPV that causes cancer is contracted in more ways than sex. So I showed you two sources that say otherwise. Did I say that I didn't want the vaccine? NO! Where in the heck did you get that? I do not believe it should be mandatory. The flu vaccine is not mandatory and I agree with that. Unless you have an underlying condition, the flu isn't deadly. For people who are high risk it is highly recommended but not mandatory. When my son was born prematurely it was highly recommended that he get vaccinated for RSV. It was not mandatory. I also agree with that. I do not believe in forced vaccinations if it isn't necessary to sustain the health of the entire population. Approx 50% of sexually active people have HPV but only a select few will get cervical cancer from it. From the CDC:

    "Research has shown that for most women (90 percent), cervical HPV infection becomes undetectable within two years. Although only a small proportion of women have persistent infection, persistent infection with "high-risk" types of HPV is the main risk factor for cervical cancer."

    Why should this vaccine be mandatory? I do not see it as a serious public health issue. I do believe it should be available. I do believe that it should be a choice. I will not have my daughter get it unless there are some serious improvements on it. The testing was faulty and it was rushed through too quickly. Why on earth would I want to put my daughter at that kind of risk when her risks of cervical cancer can be seriously minimized through behavior! This vaccine is only 70% effective anyway. There is no reason to do it, in my opinion. But that is my opinion, if other parents want to do it, they should have that option.

    "Just off hand, I'd say its situational. Even if he did have WMDs, plenty of other countries besides the US do. What was our proof that he'd use to attack us?"

    What? Hello? So millions of dead isn't a concern to you? Only if he attacks the U.S. is it a concern? I bet you think we should do something about Darfur right? They didn't attack us, so why should we? Saddam was killing millions of his own people. He killed thousands of Kurds. Saddam was a serious threat to those around him. He had already proven that. For over 20 years he killed, raped, tortured and terrorized the Iraqi people. An Amnesty International report said this: "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings, and electric shocks ... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage." He had his own relatives killed. Some 30,000 Iraqis and Iranians have died because of his chemical attacks. Approxamately 900,000 Iraqi's were displaced because of his oppresive government. Under the oil for food program, according to Tony Blair, ""Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living."

    Here is a partial list of some of his atrocity:

    1. 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign"

    2. 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000

    3. 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001

    4. At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.

    Should we have just let all that continue including the fact that he refused to follow the UN's policies? He refused to provide proof that he had destroyed the WMD's that we knew for a fact he had. He had already used the WMD's so we knew he was capable. Do you honestly believe we should have just sat around and picked our noses and said "so sorry, to bad, don't care you are all tortured and die."? I do have to say that your lack of compassion in this department is shocking considering how compassionate you are on so many other topics.

    Re: O'Reilly - why don't you try watching what he said AFTER all the comments on the UTube post. Talk about editing! Talk about having an agenda and lying in order to show someone is saying something they aren't. I saw most of the entire segments that the cut and pasted, there was a heck of alot more to it.

    "But seriously, should we just stay there until there is peace in the middle east? "

    No - but how about if we stay until we know the Iraqi people are going to be safe? How about if we don't allow them to be massacred and tortured again?

    "what with every bill to set a timeline (these set plans to hand over iraq safely) being vetoed. Is more time going to make things go away? I don't think so. We need to come up with a viable strategy to hand over power in the (somewhat near) future to give hope to our support in Iraq and back home."

    The democrates are even being wishy washy on getting a timeline and Congress hasn't really sent anything to Bush that is viable and they know it. More time isn't going to make it go away, but more time will allow us and our allies time to disband and disorganize Al Queda. The goverments just have to get out of the military's way and let them do their job. Does this mean some innocent people might get hurt? Unfortunately yes. But what's better? The entire country living under another terrorist regime because we couldn't stomach reality? Allowing them to live another 2 decades of fear, pain, torture and death?

    Congress isn't doing anything too drastic right now because believe it or not they understand the consequences of that. They can't pull out early, because that will cause more lives to end needlessly then if we stay. They can't pull the money away because that is what happened in Vietnam and that caused many many many lives. We have to stay the course. We can't abandon (again) people who are relying on us for their own safety. That would be more inhumane.

    Lecture over, time to go to bed. If I sounded condecending, I don't mean to. I'm very tired and had a long day. I love ya, you know that.

    ;-)

    Posted by: valerie at September 27, 2007 9:38 PM


    oh - one more comment while I am in lecture mode.

    The whole generalization of political parties is getting a bit old, in my opinion. There are pro-life democrates -

    http://www.democratsforlife.org/

    They are on our side on this issue. There are pro-choice republican -

    http://www.republicansforchoice.com/

    One person's democrat is another person's republican. Put any of the dem's from indiana in California and they would be laughed out of the state for "claiming" to be democrats. Put any of California's republicans here and we would call them liberal freaks.

    Posted by: valerie at September 27, 2007 9:51 PM


    Erin,
    I should have mentioned that one of my sources for information about HPV is the CDC.

    There is nothing in the CDC info you gave me that mentions that cervical cancer or hpv is genetic. I would be very interested if you could point me to information that specifically says there is a genetic component to HPV or cervical cancer, because I think you are mistaken.

    Also, I would like to comment on your statment: "For example, I had a cone biopsy last friday- number of sexual parters? Two. Yup, that sneaky HPV, it only hits on those skanky, skanky hos who can't keep their legs closed."

    Erin, obviously one of your partners was infected with HPV. Were your two partners virgins? Probably not or they wouldn't have been infected.

    Your chances may go up if you have many partners, but really, it only takes one infected partner to infect you.

    "Odds are 50-50 if you marry someone and only ever have sex with them, that you'll still wind up with HPV."

    No, only if you marry someone who has been with other women. If the woman hasn't been with another man, and if the man has never been with another woman, there is essentially no chance of either one of them becoming infected with HPV or her developing cervical cancer.

    It is not sex itself that causes HPV, it is sex with someone who has already had sex with someone else that can.

    HPV is simply one of the natural consequences for engaging in non-marital sex.

    The surest way to prevent HPV (not to mention all the rest of the gross STD's) is to remain chaste before marriage AND marry a man who has not been sexually active AND remain faithful to each other in marriage.

    Posted by: Ellie at September 27, 2007 9:51 PM



    "Freedom means YOU don't get to decide what's correct or moral."

    NO, YOU ARE WRONG HAL!

    I don't think so Jasper. I think I'm right. I have freedom and license in this great land. If you don't like it, you don't understand either.

    You're just a parady of a right wing nut job. You used to make me angry, now I simply chuckle.

    Posted by: Hal at September 27, 2007 11:01 PM


    Ok Hal, God-bless.

    every once in a while I to vent about the Democrats, I'm Ok now.

    Posted by: jasper at September 27, 2007 11:07 PM


    Jasper,I understand the need to vent. Have a good evening....

    Posted by: Hal at September 27, 2007 11:09 PM


    " You were mentioning madatory vaccines."
    I did mean to imply mandatory there. If by making it part of the school system, we can prepare to prevent many diseases; if you don't want your daughter to have sex, the vaccine has no say in that, it is there for whatever reason. So tell her not to have sex. That vaccine is there to help girls, in no way does it imply they should sleep around at all.

    "Then you said (implied?) that you can get the HPV that causes cancer is contracted in more ways than sex."
    There is an HPV that causes genital warts...this can be contracted outside of sex. I believe only two types of strains protected are cancer causing. So at least one of the strains protected is genital warts!
    Also, who would want to mess around with cancer? Saying "shoulda coulda woulda" isn't very fun when you have to treat cancer!

    "The testing was faulty and it was rushed through too quickly. Why on earth would I want to put my daughter at that kind of risk when her risks of cervical cancer can be seriously minimized through behavior!"
    This is different. I did NOT say, it is okay as it is now. I DID say, that I think it should be better tested and developed, it shouldn't be compromised.
    Heh, yeah, HPV is no big deal! Only a few get cervical cancer, so who cares.

    "What? Hello? So millions of dead isn't a concern to you?"
    When did I EVER EVER say he was a great guy? When did I say, "aw gee Iraq used to be soo great." Obviously he had tons of human rights violations, nobody is disputing that. Here is what most people have problems with:
    1. Bombing the country, and assuming we can just make them a democracy and oh! how they will love us! --here after finally getting rid of saddam we occupy their country, and look at how we are accomplishing that.
    2. Noone ever disputed the fact that Saddam was corrupt. What they disputed is how we did the whole thing, and the ultimate reason for it. How come we didn't invade other countries with simliar problems? Why only Iraq? Are we planning on doing this over and over with each country? I know you are tired boys, but let's head into Iran now.
    3. For some reason when people say "Action in Darfur" I don't think they are thinking, "Do the same thing we did in Iraq."

    As I've been trying to say. There is action, there is the how, and there is the reason. We did the "how" very wrong, as is hopefully now obvious. The reason was a good intention, but looking back is not fully pronounced. Was it just because of WMDs? Or that he was a dictator? Did we only invade so we can occupy and bring democracy? Or was it simply to take a terrorist out of power?
    I don't think I ever got a clear answer to this itself, unless you can tell me.

    It just says we have to be careful. If we are going to start bombing a country first in the future, we should have a GOOD (or god forbid at least better) plan for action, and a very clear reason for doing so.

    "I saw most of the entire segments that the cut and pasted, there was a heck of alot more to it."
    I thought it a pretty good demonstration as to how he twists words. He's guilty of this all the time. You don't have to like it, but I think it is pretty characteristic of him.

    "No - but how about if we stay until we know the Iraqi people are going to be safe? How about if we don't allow them to be massacred and tortured again?"
    But how will we guarantee that? If we think it is safe, and pull out, and it then becomes more unsafe, should we go in again? "Safe" here seems also kind of relative word- what constitutes safe? Do we mean safer? No major attacks? No attacks at all? When is it then safe to leave? Who decides this?

    "Does this mean some innocent people might get hurt? Unfortunately yes."
    None of us want innocents killed ever. But also sadly enough Americans are more willing to let innocent lives be taken for a cause they think is attainable and worth it. I think most people nowadays, and the Vatican has always been saying, think that there is no verifiable end in sight. We dont' know when it ends, except when big daddy government says it's "safe". We all want humanitarian aid, but the people get tired of waging war if we don't have a clear cut goal.

    "We can't abandon (again) people who are relying on us for their own safety. That would be more inhumane."
    All we are asking for is hope. When should we leave? What are the signs? At what point can we get out of there? See, this is how the "War on Terror" jargon is deceptive. If that were the case, we would be at war---constantly. And "stay the course" is deceptive too-we should just sit here and wait in the corner, until dad thinks its safe to come back. Why can't dad tell us what we are looking for? Why can't dad give us a verifiable end to this? Six more months! But what will that do?

    I hope you can understand why the American people are tired of it--because they feel helpless! I know I never got a good handle of what the plan was, or what would constitute the end. Maybe you can help me out?

    "One person's democrat is another person's republican. Put any of the dem's from indiana in California and they would be laughed out of the state for "claiming" to be democrats. Put any of California's republicans here and we would call them liberal freaks."
    Rationality!!! Can I hug you?

    "If the woman hasn't been with another man, and if the man has never been with another woman, there is essentially no chance of either one of them becoming infected with HPV or her developing cervical cancer."
    Coulda Woulda Shoulda!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 27, 2007 11:47 PM


    Valerie-

    To your credit, O'Reilly is mostly watchable, and is very good entertainment. There are times when it is so appalling I can't take it, but on a normal day it's humorous and funny, because I can't take him too seriously.

    I think Rush and Ann C are different than O'Reilly in that they see no reason whatsoever in half the things they are saying.
    When Rush says there is no link to parental smoking and child health problems, I don't giggle. I stand there with my mouth open.

    So although I rip on O'Reilly he is an easy target b/c he is on tv, and it is harder to locate transcripts (etc) for others. He is much more tolerable than most pundits, and occaisonally a sense of humor seeps through. Which is partly what makes him a great muse!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 28, 2007 12:47 AM


    JKeller, I'm talking about the people who are on the "inject chemicals in to everybody's daughter; we all know they're skanky sluts anyway" bandwagon. They're "prochoice" as long as they get to make the choice for everybody.

    Posted by: Christina at September 28, 2007 5:25 AM


    Thaxs for the info, hippie.

    Funny that it's okay to treat women like guinea pigs as long as you're promoting promiscuous sex.

    Posted by: Christina at September 28, 2007 5:28 AM


    PIP: "There is an HPV that causes genital warts...this can be contracted outside of sex. "

    PiP, You do not get genital warts outside of sexual activity.

    The "sexual activity" includes intercourse, of course, but also skin-to-skin contact in the genital area. This is why condoms don't protect against HPV, because the virus could be on the skin in the gential area that is not covered by a condom.

    Gentital HPV includes low-risk HPV (causes genital warts) or high-risk HPV (can lead to cervical cancer but doesn't causes warts).

    The vaccine targets two high-risk types that lead to 70% of cervical cancers and two low-risk types that lead to 90% of genital warts.

    Just wanted to correct what you said about being able to get genital warts outside of sexual activity. (Unless what you meant is that you could get genital warts outside of intercourse, and that would be correct. But you still need to engage in sexual activity to contract the hpv that causes genital warts.)

    Posted by: Ellie at September 28, 2007 6:53 AM


    PIP -

    "That vaccine is there to help girls, in no way does it imply they should sleep around at all."

    When did I ever say it would cause girls to sleep around? That is the 2nd time you've said that, if I implied it anywhere I didn't mean to. I don't think the vaccine should be mandatory because it is not a health risk to the population nor does it cause immediate problems for the majority of people who contract it. EX: We have to get a tetanus shot before certain jobs and school because it is easy to contract (breaking the skin with foreign object, or in my profession - canine teeth!) Once you get tetanus you are at risk for lockjaw. It isn't just a minimum number of people that would get lockjaw. If not treated immediately it is almost a given. And muscle spasm are extremely painful. With HPV only a very minimum amount of people will get cancer. 90% of people who contract HPV usually dont' know because their bodies fight off the virus (you are still a carrier though) and nothing comes of it. No vaccine should be mandatory when it isn't a major health risk to the majority of the population and it isn't deadly to the majority of the population. Treatment of cervical cancer is possible when found early.

    Now to go back to one of your previous questions. Should an AIDS/HIV vaccine be mandatory and that answer should be yes. It is a major health risk to the majority of the population. Once infected, there is not an out, you will more than likely die from the disease. There is not only no cure, but very limited treatment is available. 100% of the people who contract the virus will have negative results and as far as I know no one's immune system can fight this off. It is not only a STD. You can get it from a needle - which can and has happened at hospitals not just drug additcts - you can get it through a blood transfusion, or just by being a good samaritan and helping someone who has been injured and is bleeding. AIDS/HIV is far more than just something you can alter a behavior and not be at risk.

    Hopefully that made sense.

    "1. Bombing the country, and assuming we can just make them a democracy and oh! how they will love us! --here after finally getting rid of saddam we occupy their country, and look at how we are accomplishing that."

    What are you talking about? They are not a democracy like we have. They choose what type of government they wanted, wrote a constitution with the advice of MANY nations, not just us. They had free elections and the people had the choice and the power of what there government was going to be. We didn't force a democracy. They could have chosen a theocracy, they could have chosen a monarchy....etc. No one forced upon them what there constitution would look like. This is why it took awhile to write! We are in their country on the wishes of the government the people elected. They have asked us, and ALL the OTHER nations that are there to stay. One of the reasons it is taking so long is because we are not forcing them to adopt to what we want. They are having growing pains and we are assisting them through this, on their wishes.

    "2. Noone ever disputed the fact that Saddam was corrupt. What they disputed is how we did the whole thing, and the ultimate reason for it. How come we didn't invade other countries with simliar problems? Why only Iraq? Are we planning on doing this over and over with each country? I know you are tired boys, but let's head into Iran now."

    The United Nations was in agreement of the invasion. Has everyone forgot that? France, Germany and Russia - at the last minute tried to bail out of that. Guess what? All three countries had their hands dirty in the oil for food scandal. Look at my previous post to see how many innocent children died because of that. We didn't invade other countries because other countries complied with the United Nations (not the United States, but the United Nations) resolutions on many subjects. Saddam refused. He had something like 16 resolutions that he ignored and refused to comply with. These resolutions were agreed upon by the United Nations. (In comparrison to many resolutions against Israel that not all nations agree with.) Saddam had already used his WMD which is why these resolutions were in place. The other countries that have WMD do not have a history of using it against people. And the ones that do have that history have complied with the United Nations. That is the difference.

    This may help: http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

    I just found it. I haven't had time to really read it, but it appears all the facts and information is clearly documented. Maybe it will help.

    Also, if you are truely serious about wanting to know all the facts on the Iraq war...etc... I can have my hubby e-mail you. He is a history nerd and is very good at explaining things.

    "3. For some reason when people say "Action in Darfur" I don't think they are thinking, "Do the same thing we did in Iraq."

    No we aren't saying that. But the lack of humanitarian efforts and the people being tortured, raped and killed is similar. Why go into Darfur for the atrocities and look the other way with other countries.

    "I thought it a pretty good demonstration as to how he twists words. He's guilty of this all the time. You don't have to like it, but I think it is pretty characteristic of him."

    How? In the last segment on the UTube thingy it doesn't even tell you who was interrupting O'Reilly and why he was so angry? How is that a good representation of him? When they were showing his talking points and he was saying that we shouldn't critisize the military and we should "shut up" - he wasn't talking to the average citizen! He was talking to the people who are giving really good sound bites to the enemy. (AKA - many hollywoodites..) How is that a good characterization? There was one guy that he told to "shut up" that at the end of the segment he appologized to the guy, but they didn't show you that did they? He also appologized 2 nights after that. But they didn't show you that. The beginning of the video shows him saying that he has only said "shut up" once and then goes on to show him saying it several times. Did it occure to you that the first segament was BEFORE the other times? How is that a good representation? He doens't know what he is going to do in the future - none of us do! That video was a hatchet job with the only intention being to slam O'Reilly. Kinda like how CNN is saying O'Reilly was saying racist stuff on his radio show and that he has proven himself to be a racist. His radio show was about how stupid it is to be racist. He was talking about how we all just need to get along because of how rediculous racism is. Al Sharpton was a part of that discussion! Juan Williams from NPR has come to his defense. Jesse Jackson was on his show last night - and at first was offended - until he got all the details. Everyone wants to attack and smear O'Reilly. Why do you think that is? Maybe because he is hitting a nerve with some people. He is going after child predators. He is going after politicians that don't want to pass "Jessica Laws". He is going after Judges who let illegal immagrants out of jail even though they are murderers and rapist. he is going after judges who give no prison time to adults who have been found guilty of molesting children. I'll ask again - Why do you think they are going after him so harshly? Do I like him all the time. NO! But I refuse to listen to a cut and paste UTube presentation that has been put together for the purpose of trying to make him look bad without giving anyone all of the facts.

    (Tirade over now) ;-)

    "But how will we guarantee that? If we think it is safe, and pull out, and it then becomes more unsafe, should we go in again? "Safe" here seems also kind of relative word- what constitutes safe? Do we mean safer? No major attacks? No attacks at all? When is it then safe to leave? Who decides this?............."

    Okay - Let me ask you something. Do you really think it is a good idea to announce to the terrorists what are plans are? That would be like saying 'I'm here, here!" when playing hide and seek!

    Most of your questions at the end are not very logical in the "war" sense. The military has the knowledge of previous wars to go on. History repeats itself, however with knowledge we can make sure that doesn't happen. Why do American's insist we make the same mistakes we have in the past? Why are Americans so weak minded when it comes to this? Why have Americans forgotten that we are not the only nation in Iraq? Why have Americans forgotten that the United Nations is in agreement? Why? Those are the questions we should be asking. We, as Americans, have no right to know what our military is planning on doing. (we have the right to know what they have done, especially when war crimes are involved) but cannot have everyone informed on there every action. Again, that would be giving the enemy the same information. I guarentee you that there is an exit plan - but the big wigs etc. cannot tell us nor can they tell congress. Why would you tell the enemy when you are planning on leaving? That would just allow them to sit still, not do anything and wait for us to leave. Then they can attack again and even stronger than before because WE gave them time to organize and plan.

    This would not be a good strategy would it? Talk about innocent lives being detroyed!

    "Can I hug you?"

    YES!

    but you probably don't want to now.

    ;-)

    Posted by: valerie at September 28, 2007 8:53 AM


    "PiP, You do not get genital warts outside of sexual activity."
    Skin to skin contact is a way to spread the virus.

    "When did I ever say it would cause girls to sleep around? That is the 2nd time you've said that, if I implied it anywhere I didn't mean to"
    That seems tob e the main objection, such as, "If you just don't sleep around, this wouldn't be needed. That's why it shouldn't be mandatory. My daughter is not going to need it." I can't tell you how many times I've heard it. Christina just said it.
    "Funny that it's okay to treat women like guinea pigs as long as you're promoting promiscuous sex." I apologize if my impression was wrong.

    "Once infected, there is not an out, you will more than likely die from the disease."
    Nowadays people in this country can live a pretty long life, if properly treated.

    "ALL the OTHER nations"
    There must be a lot of them!

    "Saddam had already used his WMD "
    Really? I didn't catch that. When did he use nuclear weapons?

    "Why go into Darfur for the atrocities and look the other way with other countries."
    This was my main point.

    "ther countries complied with the United Nations"
    Really? There are many countries who did not comply with the UN on several resolutions. If that is the only reason?

    "How is that a good representation of him?"
    The 'I never said it'/'I only said it once' phenomenon.
    He seems to get angry quite a bit. And his guests usually don't seem threatening at all, just trying to say their piece.
    But it's good entertainment.

    "(AKA - many hollywoodites..)"
    Those people are mainly spewing anti-government stuff rather than anti-troops.

    "Did it occure to you that the first segament was BEFORE the other times"
    It would seem like if someone called him on it 'only once' he would try to keep it that way.

    "O'Reilly was saying racist stuff"
    Well I don't know about that recent one, but it is pretty racist to want to racially profile muslims-no-actually put in a separate muslim line at the airport.

    "He is going after child predators"
    I've never seen people complain about this.

    "Why do you think they are going after him so harshly?"
    He is an easy target and opens himself up to criticism, like other conservative (or liberal--but I have never seen many of them) pundits. They are so out there. Also he says really off the wall things sometimes that offends people (see above). But I mostly find him entertaining, except for those occasions..

    "But I refuse to listen to a cut and paste UTube presentation that has been put together for the purpose of trying to make him look bad without giving anyone all of the facts."
    Aww you didn't think it funny? Don't worry, I'll find you another one.

    "Okay - Let me ask you something. Do you really think it is a good idea to announce to the terrorists what are plans are? That would be like saying 'I'm here, here!" when playing hide and seek!"
    No specifics. Just give the American people some reliable idea of how things are going and what needs to be done before we get outta there. We see fighting, we see people dying. Just saying we should give it time is not encouraging. We are going nowhere. Just give us some hope, tell us where we are going. That is all we are asking.

    "Why have Americans forgotten that the United Nations is in agreement? Why? Those are the questions we should be asking. We, as Americans, have no right to know "
    A lot of countries have withdrawn support. You haven't noticed that?

    "I guarentee you that there is an exit plan - but the big wigs etc. cannot tell us nor can they tell congress."
    Telling us to wait a while is a teensy bit vague, eh? You have to admit this is tiring. Patreas was only repeating what the president has been saying this whole time. "Be patient." We are getting impatient- we don't know how this is going to end.

    In past wars, we knew when it would be time to go home-when the personwe were fighting was defeated. Again, I have never gotten a clear idea of who we are fighting.

    "That would just allow them to sit still, not do anything and wait for us to leave.
    Well we have to leave sometime. We can't just wait until they die before we leave.

    "This would not be a good strategy would it?"
    So would us waiting it out be a better strategy?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 28, 2007 10:19 AM


    "Again, I have never gotten a clear idea of who we are fighting."

    LOL!!

    Posted by: jasper at September 28, 2007 10:41 AM


    I know, jasper, it's pretty funny. Al Qaeda are not the only terrorists out there. How do we know when they're gone?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 28, 2007 11:27 AM


    PIP: "Skin to skin contact is a way to spread the virus."

    Yes, but only GENITAL skin to skin contact. This is virus that is spread through sexual activity; not just any skin-to-skin contact and NOT from non-sexual touching.

    It confuses the public when it is not specified that it is sexual contact that transmits the virus.

    Posted by: Ellie at September 28, 2007 1:23 PM


    Okay, fine, if we assume that none of the public is ever going to ever touch, rub, have oral sex, sexual intercourse, do sensual massages, or kiss and then self inoculate, wear infected clothes, or marry a nonvirgin, then nobody will get STDs! Yay for that small group of people!

    But any vaccine designed to prevent an irreversible disease, including a couple that can cause cervical cancer. well, heaven forbid. It's so scary.

    Haha but seriously. I just don't get it. If a herpes vaccine comes out, I would recommend everybody get that too. To assume that it "promotes sex" is underestimating public intelligence.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 28, 2007 1:57 PM


    Ellie, dear, that's how it's spread from mother to baby. Where does the baby come out?

    Posted by: Erin at September 28, 2007 1:58 PM


    PIP-

    ""ALL the OTHER nations"
    There must be a lot of them!"

    The voting power of the United Nations is alot of them.

    ""Saddam had already used his WMD "
    Really? I didn't catch that. When did he use nuclear weapons?"

    This is when you begin to really scare me. WMD is SSOOOOOO much more than nuclear weapons. From Wikipedia: Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons which can kill large numbers of human beings, animals and plants. The term covers several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.

    He used biological and chemical weapons many times.

    ""ther countries complied with the United Nations"
    Really? There are many countries who did not comply with the UN on several resolutions. If that is the only reason?"

    Your doing the drive by reading thing again. Re-read it. The other nations that didn't comply with some resolutions - AND I even mentioned Isreal as one of them - are the ones that the United Nations did not agree with as a whole. The Iraqi resolutions were agreed on.

    "He is going after child predators"
    I've never seen people complain about this."

    You're kidding me right? Many people are complaining about it. Just look at the states that haven't past Jessica's Law and you will find many of complaints. Also, the people that think Pedophiles shouldn't be in jail are complaining too.

    "No specifics. Just give the American people some reliable idea of how things are going and what needs to be done before we get outta there."

    Already did. Three times by my count. The democrats and some republicans just didn't like the answer.

    ""Why have Americans forgotten that the United Nations is in agreement? Why? Those are the questions we should be asking. We, as Americans, have no right to know "
    A lot of countries have withdrawn support. You haven't noticed that?"

    30 or more nations have supplied troups. Many have left because their nations could only commit for a specified amount of time. And Many nations left because the terrorists took hostages and them leaving was apart of the negotiations to free the hostages. Basically, they gave in to the terrorists demands, giving the terrorists more psychological power.

    "Well we have to leave sometime. We can't just wait until they die before we leave.

    "This would not be a good strategy would it?"
    So would us waiting it out be a better strategy?"

    What would you recommend? Leaving the entire population at the hands of the terrorists because we can't stomach it?

    Exit strategy: Allow the Iraq police to get trained and get some respect. (that idea was from Hillary by the way) - Once that happens, Adios. This is what Patreas and many others have been repeating over and over and over and over. It aint gonna happen tomorrow though. Especially not with the fear that we are going to pull out. The people in the police could be targets if the terrorists get control because we abandon them. And then their families would be in danger. How willing would you be to take that risk?

    Look, this is not the ideal situation and it sucks. But we can't leave an entire nation at the hands of terrorists. It doesn't matter if going to war with Iraq was right or not, what matters is doing the right thing in the present. We can't undo the past by whining about it, but we can correct the past by doing the right thing now.

    You need to read up on (not implying you are ignorant, just most people don't know - Did I mention my hubby is a history geek?) Bin Laden and how he came into power and why he hates Americans as much as he does. While doing this, keep in mind the position we are in now. This may help an understanding as to why we can't leave early. If we do, there will be dozens of Bin Ladens and the next attack on our soil will be a hell of a lot more than 3,000 dead.

    You know that I love to debate with you, but this thread is about to be dropped. I just wanted to let you know that I probably won't respond to your response to my response. wait...I confused myself again. Anywho...you know what I mean.

    To quote our favoirte News man O'Reilly: I'll give you the last word.

    ;-)

    Posted by: valerie at September 28, 2007 2:26 PM


    Ellie -

    Erin is right. From the CDC:

    "Rarely, a pregnant woman can pass HPV to her baby during vaginal delivery. A baby that is exposed to HPV very rarely develops warts in the throat or voice box. "

    Posted by: valerie at September 28, 2007 2:34 PM


    "He used biological and chemical weapons many times."
    I understand the meaning of WMD, however, wasn't the concern nuclear weapons? That is the impression I got from Bush's speeches. Was the reason we invaded the fact that he has used bombs, or that we was getting nuclear weapons?

    "Already did. Three times by my count. The democrats and some republicans just didn't like the answer."
    I've seen people say different kinds of things--in several instances Bush seems to have lowered the standard to get out of there. However, most of the stuff I get from government mouthpieces is, "going great, we just need more time."

    "30 or more nations have supplied troups. Many have left because their nations could only commit for a specified amount of time. And Many nations left because the terrorists took hostages and them leaving was apart of the negotiations to free the hostages"
    But are you going to deny that the war has lost support from many people?

    "Exit strategy: Allow the Iraq police to get trained and get some respect."
    But again I have heard this for at least 2 or 3 years. How long does it take to train police? Or are we sitting there and waiting for the "respect" part?

    "The people in the police could be targets if the terrorists get control because we abandon them."
    So how do we know when they are "ready" to be released?

    "We can't undo the past by whining about it, but we can correct the past by doing the right thing now."
    I absolutely agree; my problem is finding out what the right thing is. I've heard several opinions that seem valid; all I am saying is: when would we gauge what the "right time" would be? It sounds like we keep pushing the day back further and further, in order to go nowhere. I don't think it's helping anything. Do what we need to do, develop a plan to hand over power, and leave. This seems to be a general consensus with the people I know. Although, I do meet people that want to start invading Iran (I would laugh, except they are serious). And hearing the wait-it-out excuse certainly isn't satisfactory to me.

    "If we do, there will be dozens of Bin Ladens and the next attack on our soil will be a hell of a lot more than 3,000 dead."
    But see, there will still be bin ladens when we leave. We can't even find the big one right now, and bush doesn't really care. Iraq will be shaky when we leave, that is inevitable. So it's not like we are going to get out of there once we defeat "terror" because it will still be there. The best we can do is train em and equip em to fight on their own, and then be on the lookout here. I don't mean exit strategy as in "leave right away" I mean, it's time to make a plan, pull it through effectively, and finish it up. We CAN keep occupation there for a few more years, but again how will doing so help the state of Iraq?

    "You know that I love to debate with you, but this thread is about to be dropped. I just wanted to let you know that I probably won't respond to your response to my response. wait...I confused myself again. Anywho...you know what I mean.
    I gotcha, I hope we came to an understanding though.

    To quote Colbert: And that's the Word. We'll be right back.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at September 28, 2007 4:49 PM


    Valerie: "Erin is right. From the CDC:

    "Rarely, a pregnant woman can pass HPV to her baby during vaginal delivery. A baby that is exposed to HPV very rarely develops warts in the throat or voice box. "

    Valerie/Erin,
    I realize an infected mom can pass this on to her child, but Erin used the word "genetic." This is not "genetic." This is physical. The child comes in contact with her skin during birth.

    Unless I am mistaken, "genetic" means passed on through the genes. I thought she was implying that some people get it just because it is genetic and not because of coming into contact with it.

    Erin, if you could, can you please explain what you meant by "genetic?"

    If you meant that an infected mom can pass it on to her baby during birth, then yes, I agree with that.

    Posted by: elli at September 28, 2007 5:44 PM