Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
Again, no argument but, also again, being unrealistic is not in itself oppression or oppressive, though it can foster that.
Based on the link, restrictive social norms considered negative are oppression and those considered positive are chastity. The same principle is considered either oppression OR chastity solely on a given individuals opinion of it, irrespective of its nature. Those are strained arbitrary definitions.
A restrictive norm is oppression if (and only if) imposed on consenting adults against their will, and chastity only if it is abstinence. The same restriction can qualify as both, regardless of what advocates on either side choose to label it, but marital sex is not chastity and opposing pedophilia not oppressive. Note that the article refers to social NORMS that may or may not be enforced by law. I have no idea who decided "encouraging sexual SELF-restraint" is oppression, but someone should get them a dictionary, because "self oppression" is a contradiction in terms.
Inaccurate, inconsistent and subjective definitions are a running theme in that article. The use of "oppression" is a good example, but what is to be made of "Many societies which aggressively regulate sexual behavior tend to have high levels of hidden child sexual abuse, although if this level is lower or higher per capita than in sexually permissive societies is unknown"? That usage of "high" is very relative; we cannot know if the prevalence of hidden child abuse in sexually permissive societies is "high" unless we know its prevalence elsewhere. The statement is meaningless, and sounds like someone wants us to believe, but cannot prove, that "oppression" (whatever that means at the moment) fosters pedophilia. The next statement is similar, that some Westerners "choose" to define "normal" as "not perverted," which even the author immediately notes is a just a truism reflecting perennial practice; normal=¬perverted.
Regardless of the articles muddled presentation, however, it is also a truism that when you accused people of oppression you (not I) labeled them oppressors. That was the whole point, no? Won't someone think of those oppressed by the parochial morality of others? Its only major failing is being untrue.
Based on the link, restrictive social norms considered negative are oppression and those considered positive are chastity. The same principle is considered either oppression OR chastity solely on a given individuals opinion of it, irrespective of its nature. Those are strained arbitrary definitions.
A restrictive norm is oppression if (and only if) imposed on consenting adults against their will, and chastity only if it is abstinence. The same restriction can qualify as both, regardless of what advocates on either side choose to label it, but marital sex is not chastity and opposing pedophilia not oppressive. Note that the article refers to social NORMS that may or may not be enforced by law. I have no idea who decided "encouraging sexual SELF-restraint" is oppression, but someone should get them a dictionary, because "self oppression" is a contradiction in terms.
Inaccurate, inconsistent and subjective definitions are a running theme in that article. The use of "oppression" is a good example, but what is to be made of "Many societies which aggressively regulate sexual behavior tend to have high levels of hidden child sexual abuse, although if this level is lower or higher per capita than in sexually permissive societies is unknown"? That usage of "high" is very relative; we cannot know if the prevalence of hidden child abuse in sexually permissive societies is "high" unless we know its prevalence elsewhere. The statement is meaningless, and sounds like someone wants us to believe, but cannot prove, that "oppression" (whatever that means at the moment) fosters pedophilia. The next statement is similar, that some Westerners "choose" to define "normal" as "not perverted," which even the author immediately notes is a just a truism reflecting perennial practice; normal=¬perverted.
Regardless of the articles muddled presentation, however, it is also a truism that when you accused people of oppression you (not I) labeled them oppressors. That was the whole point, no? Won't someone think of those oppressed by the parochial morality of others? Its only major failing is being untrue.
Most people reason about right and wrong based on societal (and especially familial) views and positions. A view of sex which condemns or opposes any kind of consensual interaction is oppressive. Such a view contributes to a social environment in which people feel limits on their freedom of consensual sexual interactions because of external negativity (which often generates internal negativity, as well). Social customs and practices are the aggregate of those of individuals, so people can contribute to the existence of an oppressive more without being active, intentional oppressors themselves.
Legal oppression is far from the only kind of oppression. Social norms can be and often are oppressive.
Arguing from age of consent laws is inevitable in this case because only minors face significant obstacles to contraception and sex ed. They constitute nearly everyone vulnerable to "oppression," and their SEXUAL oppression is simply denying their ability to consent to sex, as they are denied it with so many other things. They are also proscribed from drinking, voting, military enlistment, full time jobs and signing legal contracs, but no one demands their "liberation" from those "oppressions." Age of consent laws are an approximation of an underlying generally accepted morality, yes, but not an oppressive nor unrealistic one, surprisingly enough.
Sex ed is more about health than about safety (the latter excludes childbirth, beyond a mothers welfare,) but I will not argue if the distinction is only semantic.
Sex ed is more about health than about safety (the latter excludes childbirth, beyond a mothers welfare,) but I will not argue if the distinction is only semantic.
This response entirely misses my point. Arguing from age of consent laws is essentially saying that the age of a person, and nothing else, determines his or her actual (not legal) ability to consent. That's not how it works; age is an estimator of other factors in the brain, which are harder to measure.
If age of potential pregnancy is the metric, we apparently must begin implants around 5 (at least 8, if we discount the earliest three pregnancies on record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers.) I am VERY sure few people will accept implanting birth control in girls when they start school.
I do not overestimate teen judgement (believe me,) it is simply a matter of logic: Available birth control CANNOT deter sex, and does REMOVE a deterrent, therefore it MUST encourage sex overall, though not necessarily by measurable amounts. Surely we do not need a study to prove the self evident.
I do not overestimate teen judgement (believe me,) it is simply a matter of logic: Available birth control CANNOT deter sex, and does REMOVE a deterrent, therefore it MUST encourage sex overall, though not necessarily by measurable amounts. Surely we do not need a study to prove the self evident.
Those cases seem to be anomalies of premature puberty. My concern is with biology, not what people will accept today. If we get away from the idea that using birth control is equivalent to standing out on the street corner, it would no longer be objectionable. Make it into a matter of basic health, just like the HPV vaccine.
You say you don't overestimate teen judgment, but then you say that birth control gets rid of a deterrent. If they don't actually weigh pregnancy as a substantive risk, then it's not a deterrent. Also, "it must encourage sex overall, though not necessarily by measurable amounts" is a fine example of an unfalsifiable claim.
See http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14:
With data aggregated at the state level, conservative religious beliefs strongly predict U.S. teen birth rates, in a relationship that does not appear to be the result of confounding by income or abortion rates. One possible explanation for this relationship is that teens in more religious communities may be less likely to use contraception.
...
Our findings by themselves, of course, do not permit causal inferences. There could be unstudied confounding variables that account for the correlations we report. But if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, drawing on the other research cited above: we conjecture that conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.
...
Our findings by themselves, of course, do not permit causal inferences. There could be unstudied confounding variables that account for the correlations we report. But if we may speculate on the most probable explanation, drawing on the other research cited above: we conjecture that conservative religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging use of contraception among their teen community members than in discouraging sexual intercourse itself.
This makes my point pretty clearly.
You WOULD say that, you MAN! Seriously, it is not worth considering until it happens, but that is most teens attitude teens toward standard sex. The PROBABILITY is low but the CONSEQUENCES serious; what that does to risk depends on whom we ask. If, for example, we ask those 600 pregnant Brits, their answer probably differs from yours. 
I would wager dollars to donuts scores, perhaps hundreds, got Implanon precisely because they are pro life, pro sex and anti-personal pregnancy.
Seriously, it is not worth considering until it happens, but that is most teens attitude teens toward standard sex. The PROBABILITY is low but the CONSEQUENCES serious; what that does to risk depends on whom we ask. If, for example, we ask those 600 pregnant Brits, their answer probably differs from yours. I would wager dollars to donuts scores, perhaps hundreds, got Implanon precisely because they are pro life, pro sex and anti-personal pregnancy.Trying to reason from "low probability, serious consequences" can get you to any conclusion if the seriousness of the consequences is not strictly set. Otherwise, you can just arbitrarily increase it to cancel out the lowness of the probability.
The consequences of getting hit by a meteor are pretty serious, but people don't live in bomb shelters. Eventually, it really isn't worth worrying about a low enough probability.
Parents will continue passing on their sexual mores to their children; those children may or may not embrace them, but as long as the parents are not coercing adherence after the age of consent there is no oppression. In terms of abortion specifically it gets a bit more complicated because of the risks of pregnancy, which are elevated for girls, especially young ones, and because of incestuous rape; obviously an abusive parent cannot be trusted with decisions about their daughters body.
Again, I generally endorse those above the age of consent and aware of the risks doing whatever they like to their own bodies, but have reservations about most forms of hormonal forms of birth control because in most cases the full risk is unknown. I was prepared to tentatively endorse NuvaRing until I saw this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42848006/at-merck-an-undercover-video-and-40-deaths-plague-nuvaring-birth-control-brand/?tag=bnetdomain
The German article CBS links does not say how many women used NuvaRing (that I can tell; my German is rusty, but if yours is no better and you are still hanging around the LHC you can probably find a translator.) I did notice there were less deaths reported using it than any of the other hormonal birth control cited. Bigger question: Why must I (and apparently everyone not a gynecologist) read a Swiss newspaper to learn of a USFDA report on fatal contraception complications...?
Whether a pro life parent wants their child forced to carry a pregnancy to term if raped is only half the question. The need to balance two mortal risks, however small, plus the difficulty and subjectivity of doing so, is a great reason to leave the decision in the hands of legal guardians. It sounds like you agree but, once again, I urge making it VERY explicit when trying to persuade others of your views. Many people get nervous about the possibility of ACTUAL oppression in the form of the state demanding to raise their children for them, ESPECIALLY when people talk about parents not passing on their oppressive sexual mores, .
Again, I generally endorse those above the age of consent and aware of the risks doing whatever they like to their own bodies, but have reservations about most forms of hormonal forms of birth control because in most cases the full risk is unknown. I was prepared to tentatively endorse NuvaRing until I saw this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42848006/at-merck-an-undercover-video-and-40-deaths-plague-nuvaring-birth-control-brand/?tag=bnetdomain
The German article CBS links does not say how many women used NuvaRing (that I can tell; my German is rusty, but if yours is no better and you are still hanging around the LHC you can probably find a translator.) I did notice there were less deaths reported using it than any of the other hormonal birth control cited. Bigger question: Why must I (and apparently everyone not a gynecologist) read a Swiss newspaper to learn of a USFDA report on fatal contraception complications...?
Whether a pro life parent wants their child forced to carry a pregnancy to term if raped is only half the question. The need to balance two mortal risks, however small, plus the difficulty and subjectivity of doing so, is a great reason to leave the decision in the hands of legal guardians. It sounds like you agree but, once again, I urge making it VERY explicit when trying to persuade others of your views. Many people get nervous about the possibility of ACTUAL oppression in the form of the state demanding to raise their children for them, ESPECIALLY when people talk about parents not passing on their oppressive sexual mores, .
I think I've made it extremely clear that I'm talking about changing social norms, not instituting state mandates.
Raising children with sex-negative views is still oppressive, because those views don't magically vanish once they turn 18.
My German is non-existent, and I will not be back at CERN until the summer; in any case, CERN is in Geneva, which is generally French-speaking (being right at the Swiss-French border).
I ran it through Google Translate, and got this:
The Phama company Bayer, Janssen Cilag and Essex Chemie wanted to be the actual numbers of deaths not comment. They stressed, however, the reports are spontaneous reports, and as such is not always complete, because information about the same drugs taken together with information on medical conditions and exposures were often missing.
Spontaneous reports have no explanatory power, when it comes to the risk of a drug. The three companies hold, the positive benefit / risk profile of their contraceptives had been confirmed by experts, authorities and repeated in numerous studies.
Spontaneous reports have no explanatory power, when it comes to the risk of a drug. The three companies hold, the positive benefit / risk profile of their contraceptives had been confirmed by experts, authorities and repeated in numerous studies.
The fact that drugs have risks is a reason to do more research and improve the drugs. I am not trying to gloss over or make light of any deaths that did occur, but a few hundred deaths out of tens or hundreds of millions of people is an incredibly low rate already. Aspirin causes more deaths than that.
I usually speak descriptively, and this exchange illustrates much of why. The pro life movements views on the necessity of childbirth as a consequence of sex runs as broad a gamut as we should expect in such a large group. The "every sperm is sacred" view is very popular with many Catholics, perhaps most; the Vaticans position is essentially the impression you have of pro lifers in general: No abortion, no birth control; procreation is the primary goal of every sexual act. I would expect the Greek Orthodox view to be similar, but do not know their doctrine well (a few others here could almost certainly say.) Protestants... Protestants are all over the place theologically, from liberalism little more than vague secular humanism to a level of repression that would shock Cotton Mather. With Jews and Muslims I imagine it varies by degree of orthodoxy, though Jews practically invented secular humanism masquerading as religion around the time Luther nailed his theses to the Wittenberg chapel. With other religions I can only guess, and among non-religious pro lifers you would probably have to ask them individually.
It is really not as monolithic as you seem to think. As to sexual mores, I agree we covered it; I am descriptivist by nature, disliking definitions that change by user.
It is really not as monolithic as you seem to think. As to sexual mores, I agree we covered it; I am descriptivist by nature, disliking definitions that change by user.
If all of these "reasonable pro-lifers" exist, what impact do they have? The main "pro-life" movement, comprised of the organizations which dedicate their time to opposing abortion, does not take actions consistent with their stated position, as I have pointed out. This is still a silent majority claim, and one with no supporting evidence that I have seen. Yes, there are undoubtedly individuals who are not motivated in their "pro-life" views by sexually oppressive mores, but their existence has not had any noticeable effect on the movement at large. If they don't actively try to take positive actions and oppose the actions of the current movement, they might as well be a part of it, since the only difference they make is increasing the percentage of "pro-life" people in polls, creating ammunition for the movement.
Probably for the same reason the police spend more time preventing murders than they do preventing heart attacks, even though the latter kill far more people. There is a tremendous difference between death, taking a life and murder, and pro lifers believe that, in the case of the unborn, the last is far easier to cause OR prevent than is the first. They are, of course, wrong; banning abortion only dooms women seeking it to die or be seriously, often permanently, injured in secret, nonsterile unprofessional environments. I know there are pro lifers who consider that justice, because one of them told me so point blank at wotmania. I do not, however, believe them the norm, because I have spoken with too many who feel otherwise.
Bottom line is that falsely demonizing pro lifers as having ill intent is no more fair, accurate or constructive than demonizing pro choicers that way.
Bottom line is that falsely demonizing pro lifers as having ill intent is no more fair, accurate or constructive than demonizing pro choicers that way.
I referred to medical research, and you responded by talking about the police. I feel no need to dignify that straw man with an actual response.
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
- 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
2193 Views
The most annoying part is in the sixth paragraph- abortions are only a small part of their thing
- 02/02/2012 05:08:07 PM
1085 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
996 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
- 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
981 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
- 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
943 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
- 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
1029 Views
That is a little unfair.
- 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
1238 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
- 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
1026 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
- 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
968 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
- 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
944 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
- 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
967 Views
It worries me when we think alike....
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1001 Views
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1001 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
- 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
1105 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
- 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
1016 Views
Oh please.
- 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
981 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
- 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
857 Views
Quite a telling reply.
- 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
924 Views
Re: I quite agree.
- 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
1129 Views
You're taking an issue of objective facts and treating it like a day of playground gossip.
- 09/02/2012 03:47:06 AM
968 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
- 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
990 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
- 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
1227 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
- 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
1019 Views
You continue to miss the point.
- 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
1108 Views
No, I got the point: You expect me to accept a heavily biased, partisan and combative "source."
- 07/03/2012 01:47:37 AM
1028 Views
The claim of brain waves at 8 weeks is still unsupported by evidence, i.e. a myth.
- 15/03/2012 09:16:14 PM
1065 Views
Well, yes.
- 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
1029 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
- 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
973 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
1067 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
1055 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
967 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
801 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
968 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
950 Views
I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though.
- 07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM
1046 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
1137 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
1003 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
1034 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
1096 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
1013 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
1311 Views
There are problems with the implants
- 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
992 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
- 03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
1011 Views
Oh yes, I totally agree! My point is just that there are some barriers to handing out implants 
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
468 Views
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
468 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
- 03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
925 Views
I was actually kinda with you until you closed with that anathema I condemned in my response to rt.
- 03/02/2012 01:39:06 PM
954 Views
I agree that they have made Beast Cancer a cult but splitting with PP is just smart
- 02/02/2012 05:39:49 PM
1127 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
909 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
- 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
976 Views
Right
- 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1026 Views
it is a judgment call and I hope her decision is based on more than my guesses
- 02/02/2012 06:53:50 PM
897 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
- 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
975 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
- 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
883 Views
You didn't; I inferred it from the way you phrased that ("if she HAS to..."). Sorry.
- 02/02/2012 08:06:11 PM
965 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
968 Views
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
968 Views
Just curious...
- 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
950 Views
Not at all.
- 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
1012 Views
Not at all?
- 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
903 Views
No.
- 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
866 Views
My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
- 02/02/2012 11:17:24 PM
958 Views
Re: My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
- 03/02/2012 12:08:01 AM
956 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
919 Views
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
919 Views
Ooor, the best.
- 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
900 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
588 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
534 Views
Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant...
- 02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM
1034 Views
You don't know stuff.
- 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
997 Views
I know the stuff that matters. 
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
897 Views
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
897 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
- 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
1041 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
- 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
1051 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
- 03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
982 Views
The investigation by Congress is well-known to be specious. It's the House GOP abusing their power. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:41:58 AM
644 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
- 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
1015 Views
Re: stuff
- 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
915 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
- 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
947 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
- 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
959 Views
I"m not that fussed. I'm just generally leary of research that has results like that
- 04/02/2012 08:35:04 PM
905 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
997 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
922 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
- 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
857 Views
They restored funding incidentally
- 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
893 Views
Unless I've missed it
- 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
981 Views
You must have missed it then
- 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
897 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
- 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
1049 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
- 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
925 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
959 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
1149 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1093 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
866 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
- 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
894 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
- 03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
964 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
- 03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
1011 Views
Judge for yourself
- 04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
1020 Views
Well, a public letter makes whether they signed it "Sen. so-and-so" irrelevant: It is political.
- 04/02/2012 04:07:20 PM
949 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
- 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
1024 Views
To me, it depends on the nature of the contact, which I have not dug enough to discover.
- 03/02/2012 10:43:45 PM
924 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
- 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
948 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
997 Views
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
997 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
- 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
895 Views