Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Drucifer View Post
    How many adopted children are you raising?
    What is this meant to imply?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    $335,000,000 FOR STD PREVENTION IN ECONOMIC STIMULUS BILL
    Wed Jan 28 2009 09:58:30 ET

    Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

    The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

    In the past, the CDC has used STD education funding for programs that many Members of Congress find objectionable and arguably unrelated to a mission of economic stimulus [such as funding events called 'Booty Call' and 'Great Sex' put on by an organization that received $698,000 in government funds.]

    "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

    Developing...
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    well std's are def a problem in this country. And back in my whore days (big time) I hated using condoms. So I'm actually for this.
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,957
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    well std's are def a problem in this country. And back in my whore days (big time) I hated using condoms. So I'm actually for this.
    I'm for these types of things, but this stimulus is becoming such a political football that every little thing is being picked apart. Obama is already conceding that this type of stuff can be taken out and put in a separate bill. I don't see why they don't just take this std funds, contraception, and sex ed funding all in one bill. They should then title it "bringing the USA out of the dark ages of abstinence only". It would still pass overwhelmingly and it is legislation that is needed. Just like obama's exec order which releases funds to all family planning operations worldwide, instead of just those against abortion.

    while all of this may not be "economic stimulus" it is certainly preventative care that saves tax dollars in the long run. Just put it in a different bill and let's move on. Unless of course you're Bill O and you want to ***** about spending $400 million on "funding abortions". Odd for the "no spin zone" to spin it into this talking point when the facts are this $400 million has always been alocated for overseas aid, not it is just being allowed to go to all family planning services.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    North Oakland, California
    Posts
    25,815
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    well std's are def a problem in this country. And back in my whore days (big time) I hated using condoms. So I'm actually for this.
    I agree that this is a good idea, but I also agree that, as was mentioned in the article:

    "Whether this funding has merit is not the question; the point is it has no business in an economic plan supposedly focused on job creation," says a stimulated Hill source.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,840
    vCash
    1500
    Preventing stds is obviously a good thing, but how is this going to help the economy? This is just more bureaucratic waste (at least in this bill).

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    24,382
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by b1e9a8r5s View Post
    Preventing stds is obviously a good thing, but how is this going to help the economy? This is just more bureaucratic waste (at least in this bill).
    as the std rate amongst teen girls is at:25%),thats an unacceptably high portion of a generation,that will develop chronic conditions related to said and all the productivity lost because of it,and if left unchecked that rate grows,which leads to more people spending more time at the clinic than at work,spending all their money on medical bills instead of consumer goods..and if left unchecked this will become a crisis and a drain on the economy in the near future(seriously watch for this to happen)

    a healthy society is a productive society
    Last edited by abe_froman; 01-28-2009 at 06:09 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,779
    vCash
    1500
    This is probably part of the overall push for nationalized health care. A prevention vs treatment cost issue. Short term vs. Long term cost thing. We should try to put this out to the private sector, which is my solution to 99.9% of all societal problems. Government should only be involved in oversight and things where there is no money involved in.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,592
    vCash
    1500
    Obama is already conceding that this type of stuff can be taken out and put in a separate bill. I don't see why they don't just take this std funds, contraception, and sex ed funding all in one bill. They should then title it "bringing the USA out of the dark ages of abstinence only"
    This is a separate issue and all....but I really don't see why government should be involved in any of that.

    Even the "abstinence only" stuff.

    Usually when people argue this stuff, they argue about the pros and cons, which I think misses the point. I do not see how the sexual practices of the people, is in the realm of government.

    Preventing stds is obviously a good thing, but how is this going to help the economy? This is just more bureaucratic waste (at least in this bill).
    It's easier to pave roads without an itchy crotch? I don't know....
    Last edited by gcoll; 01-28-2009 at 11:28 PM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •