Lyin' Ass Bitch

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think the "bitch" part was the point. It was the "Lyin' ass" part, IMO. Not misogynistic, just anti-bullshit.

I think every part was justified. She's a professional liar, with brains inferior to that of any long eared equid (or she thinks with the rear end), and she's a nasty piece of work that deserves the colloquial comparison to female canids, it's the female canids who ought to protest against bachman being referred to as one of them.

I've addressed on other threads the issue of the constant labeling of all republicans as stupid. One thing you can't say about Bachmann is that she's stupid.

The reason people speak of her as stupid is not that she lies, it's that she tells dumbshit lies like she expects no one's gonna notice. The alternative is to decide that her opinion of most people is that they're all stupid and won't notice. Which is a deeply stupid thing to do, no matter how smart she is.

I think this kind of thing, and calling her a "liar," is unwarranted.

She tells stupid lies.

It's silly to call her stupid, and it has become a tiresome talking point. Eisenhower, stupid (despite being quite demonstrably smart, and having been able to handle being head of all Allied forces in Europe in WW2). Ford, stupid and a clutz (despite being smart and an athlete), Reagan, stupid and narcoleptic, GHWBush, kindly sounding, but stupid. Bob Dole, stupid. GWBush, king of the stupid. McCain, stupid and senile. Every other Republican candidate, stupid. The only Republican in memory who wasn't "stupid," was Nixon - they didn't need to call him stupid because he was so evil. Better to call Nixon "a genius" because then he is an "evil genius."

I don't support Bachmann, mostly because of her religious views, but "stupid?" No. She graduated law school, and went to William & Mary for a Master of Laws degree (LLM) in tax law. That's a difficult subject area.

She doesn't seem to speak any more untruths than any other politician, Democrat or Republican, including the current denizen of the White House.

Bullshit. a) Politifact disagrees strongly with you, and they document the lies.

Actually, politifact doesn't disagree with me. Take a look at Obama's record, and Pelosi and Reid, from that same politifact.

You don't. b) That's propaganda. "They're all just as bad" is how we got deregulation and the financial catastrophe in the first place,

We did not get overall "deregulation." To say we did does not survive collision with the facts.

which is ongoing and which the banksters are studiously trying to pretend isn't happening and if it is, isn't their fault. It's also the excuse they use every time they fuck some other financial sector. They're not all just as bad. Some of them are so profoundly stupid that they don't know any economics, and those are the destroyatives. The worse of those are the Libertardians.

Your manner of discourse is irritating to follow. "Libertardian?" Really? "Bankster?" "Destroyative?" Really? Next will be "Repugnican" and "Amerikkka?" no doubt....

That being said, I'd never vote for Bachmann.

Neither would I, but that's beside the point.

Of course it's beside the point, but it has to be said, because of the knee-jerk reaction by some to say that if you say that politician X gave a good speech or was wearing a nice tie that day, then you must be a devotee and "love" that candidate. There is a decided tendency among people to be all-or-nothing on politicians. One either like politician X, or loathes every fiber of his or her being, right down to the manner in which that politician combs his or her hair.

[Coito ergo sum]

Insofar as the government is concerned, you are correct. All it has to do now is enforce the law. Otherwise, it's up to the parents to control their children's sexual exposure and behavior, not the government.

Indeed, because it is just so obvious that for millennia parental control has been the most effective method for preventing children being sexually active.

It worked on me....

I wouldn't pretend that parents are fully able to regulate their children's sexual behavior, but I would submit that they are far more capable of doing so than a national or state government. And, I don't believe that the opinion of a government bureaucrat on what constitutes proper sexual behavior is, at a minimum, any better than the typical or average parent's view on it. Cops should enforce the law as to rape and age of consent, etc.. Beyond that, the government should stay out of vaginas and off of penises.

[Coito ergo sum]

Insofar as the government is concerned, you are correct. All it has to do now is enforce the law. Otherwise, it's up to the parents to control their children's sexual exposure and behavior, not the government.

So, government is stupid. Gotcha.

Well, yes, obviously. And often malicious.

So children won't have sex because the parents will see to it. Really?

By the same token, will children not have sex because the Federal Bureau of Chastity will see to it?

Children have sex because sex is a natural human drive. Kids start wanting sex around age 11 or 12 ish, give or take, depending on the child. It's certainly a daily thought, if not hourly, among pubescent males, and if given the opportunity, most will take it.

As far as limiting that behavior, neither parents nor governments will be able to faultlessly achieve a perfect result. However, it seems self-evident that parents are in a better position than a government bureau to monitor the behavior of their children, through controls on when and where the children can go, and the level of supervision. They can also instill a lot of knowledge in their children from an early age, which may result in children making better decisions some of the time.

I, for one, don't particularly want a government bureau exercising the same functions as a parent - supervising, scheduling, monitoring, overseeing, instructing (outside of school), parenting, etc., when there is a parent available. The government doesn't do as good a job in these areas, even when we admit that parents often suck.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was sexually active at 13, a recovering virgin at 14. My parents were pretty typical, they didn't have a clue what I was doing most of the time.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was sexually active at 13, a recovering virgin at 14. My parents were pretty typical, they didn't have a clue what I was doing most of the time.

Certainly a common set of experiences. However, that does not suggest that the government can do a better job at it. Perhaps a better job could be done by a three parent system, rather than a two parent or one parent system. But, a government bureau in loco parentis? I see no evidence for that being a more effective option.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I was sexually active at 13, a recovering virgin at 14. My parents were pretty typical, they didn't have a clue what I was doing most of the time.

Certainly a common set of experiences. However, that does not suggest that the government can do a better job at it. Perhaps a better job could be done by a three parent system, rather than a two parent or one parent system. But, a government bureau in loco parentis? I see no evidence for that being a more effective option.

My point was that legislating morality, at the government level, or at the family level, just doesn't work. So saying that parents or government will stop kids from having sex is absurd. With this in mind the HPV vaccine is needed to help prevent women from dying needlessly.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was sexually active at 13, a recovering virgin at 14. My parents were pretty typical, they didn't have a clue what I was doing most of the time.

Certainly a common set of experiences. However, that does not suggest that the government can do a better job at it. Perhaps a better job could be done by a three parent system, rather than a two parent or one parent system. But, a government bureau in loco parentis? I see no evidence for that being a more effective option.

My point was that legislating morality, at the government level, or at the family level, just doesn't work. So saying that parents or government will stop kids from having sex is absurd. With this in mind the HPV vaccine is needed to help prevent women from dying needlessly.

I most certainly agree with you on the HPV vaccine, regardless of the effectiveness of morality lessons. That being said, a reasonable argument can certainly be made as to the timing of said vaccine.

I think age 10 or 11 is a perfect age. I'd want to get the vaccine in there pre-puberty. I think Bachmann's opposition to it at that age is pandering to a certain sector of the voting public.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No argument on the timing, but there may be issues with menarch to consider, no clue. Just so long as we stop another means of useless deaths.

[charlou]

I think Bachmann's opposition to it at that age is pandering to a certain sector of the voting public.

And needlessly risking the health and lives of a sector of the voting public with her incredibly negligent moral values attempting to override pragmatic ethics.

[Seth]

I was sexually active at 13, a recovering virgin at 14. My parents were pretty typical, they didn't have a clue what I was doing most of the time.

Certainly a common set of experiences. However, that does not suggest that the government can do a better job at it. Perhaps a better job could be done by a three parent system, rather than a two parent or one parent system. But, a government bureau in loco parentis? I see no evidence for that being a more effective option.

My point was that legislating morality, at the government level, or at the family level, just doesn't work. So saying that parents or government will stop kids from having sex is absurd. With this in mind the HPV vaccine is needed to help prevent women from dying needlessly.

Then make the case to the parents and convince them, don't try to force children to have vaccinations they may or may not need that are, in fact, potentially dangerous or deadly, and for which the LONG TERM consequences are unknown.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, but parents have been abrogating their responsibilities from the Garden on. (Caine really turned out well, didn't he?)

[Seth]

I was sexually active at 13, a recovering virgin at 14. My parents were pretty typical, they didn't have a clue what I was doing most of the time.

Certainly a common set of experiences. However, that does not suggest that the government can do a better job at it. Perhaps a better job could be done by a three parent system, rather than a two parent or one parent system. But, a government bureau in loco parentis? I see no evidence for that being a more effective option.

My point was that legislating morality, at the government level, or at the family level, just doesn't work. So saying that parents or government will stop kids from having sex is absurd. With this in mind the HPV vaccine is needed to help prevent women from dying needlessly.

I most certainly agree with you on the HPV vaccine, regardless of the effectiveness of morality lessons. That being said, a reasonable argument can certainly be made as to the timing of said vaccine.

I think age 10 or 11 is a perfect age. I'd want to get the vaccine in there pre-puberty. I think Bachmann's opposition to it at that age is pandering to a certain sector of the voting public.

Of course it is, but she's a politician after all. On the other hand she has a very strong and resonant argument that it is an overreach of government to mandate HPV vaccinations for children...and she's absolutely correct in this. Regardless of the benefits of such vaccinations, it is not within the power of the government to interfere in either the medical decisions or family life of children in such a manner. HPV is not like smallpox, it does not have a high mortality rate and indeed the link between HPV and cervical cancer is not strong. Not every woman with HPV gets cervical cancer. This means that many children would face possible death from the vaccine, hundreds of thousands of them if it's made mandatory nationwide, that they do not need.

Furthermore, since cervical cancer usually shows up in middle-age adult women, not children, a better preventative for cervical cancer may be developed in the period between when a young person gets vaccinated and when they are likely to get cervical cancer, and the vaccine would then be an unnecessary risk or it might even preclude such a cure or preventative. Nobody knows.

The HPV vaccine seems like a good idea, but it's not been sufficiently tested and has sufficient negative effects that the decision to vaccinate any child must be up to the parents, not the government.

[Seth]

I think Bachmann's opposition to it at that age is pandering to a certain sector of the voting public.

And needlessly risking the health and lives of a sector of the voting public with her incredibly negligent moral values attempting to override pragmatic ethics.

It's not "needless" when there is an identifiable mortality and injury rate for the vaccine, which there is.

[Seth]

I was sexually active at 13, a recovering virgin at 14. My parents were pretty typical, they didn't have a clue what I was doing most of the time.

Certainly a common set of experiences. However, that does not suggest that the government can do a better job at it. Perhaps a better job could be done by a three parent system, rather than a two parent or one parent system. But, a government bureau in loco parentis? I see no evidence for that being a more effective option.

My point was that legislating morality, at the government level, or at the family level, just doesn't work. So saying that parents or government will stop kids from having sex is absurd. With this in mind the HPV vaccine is needed to help prevent women from dying needlessly.

Or dying needlessly. Nobody's saying that either parents or government can keep every child from having sex. The question before us is who has the moral and ethical authority to attempt to do so or to vaccinate a child in order to POSSIBLY prevent a POSSIBLE future case of cervical cancer using a vaccine that has identifiable health risks, including death, and which does not have an long-term research on either the child or on that child's children. Thalidomide was thought to be useful as a medication too. Turns out it's not quite so useful.

The most important question here is the scope of government authority in intruding in people's lives. It's not up to government to prevent women from "dying needlessly" of a possible future medical condition. That's not it's legitimate function, and never has been. It may research and recommend, but individual liberty demands that the individual, and in this case the parents, have the authority to decide whether or not to take advantage of a vaccine offered as a GUARD against POSSIBLE far-in-the-future cervical cancer which MIGHT be caused by HPV, but which could also be caused by other things.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I got vaccinated against polio. I didn't ask for it, I had no choice. Good thing, too.

Seth, are you an anti-vaccer?