quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

No tip toeing through the tulips here.
Plain and simple, lady or confused person, you have the nerve to disrespect Elmer the farmer, you call them, who not only feed our country but other countries? Your elephant mouth surpasses your canary ass. *snort snort snort*
So you think country people are dumb? They are not full of nonsense like you. They tend to get straight to the point. And they work hard. They don't spend their life trying to learn big words or have a need to think they look smart by googling.

As far as being gay a select few may have a natural tendency to be attracted to the same sex but it is also a choice.
I am left handed, only 10 to 15% of the population is, the majority are men. The percentage of women even smaller. It's my choice to stay left handed but if I choose to be right handed I could be. Btw 4 out of seven presidents have been left handed. It's a fact I could change hands if I wanted.
And southern people are stupid too? Wow, you truly need to wear the dumb cap of the day as someone thumps you on the head with a bible. And fix you some tea during.
Have fun with that opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

When the Republican party gets out of our bedrooms and back to running a lean government (like they were before Reagan) they will once again be the GRAND old party.

Until then, they'll just be a bunch of Bible thumping dumbasses.

Do you think that'll ever happen, HW?

To me, it's always seemed that the New Right *needs* its ultra-authoritarian, moral side. Without it, its neoliberal side couldn't work, because the neoliberal idea of ultra-freedom has no clear boundaries otherwise. Republican neoliberals love the notion of freedom in the economy - but that's where it must stop. They don't love the idea of freedom for people to - well, use violence to steal from a tycoon who's gained his vast wealth from the free market system - to give an example. And they don't love the idea of freedom for those who'd like to opt out of the free market system altogether.

The trouble is that the good old morals that kept people in check, and made them just *know* that the only real and true freedom was the freedom of the market, started to crumble a long time ago. During the Great War, if not before. Vietnam, it seemed, was the last straw (in your country, at least). Hippy ideas, anarchism, long hair, drop-outs - oh, no, no, no. That is *not* the freedom that should be encouraged. But the old-style conservative line - 'traditional values are always best' - no longer worked. It had been too clearly demonstrated to have been trashed. Nixon was the symbol of it.

So in order to revive that one, narrow idea of freedom as 'the only *real* idea of freedom' - the free market - you'd need a muscular dose of reaction on the social front. Dredge up some 19th century ideas of religion. Hell, dredge up some mediaeval ideas of morals. Whatever it takes to stop people thinking that freedom means anything other than the free market and the large bulk of the people cropping their hair, donning their crisp neat suits and ties and going in to work to keep the bloated billionaires in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed.

All right, rant over. I just wish that whenever some flatulent old twat in government or big in the media utters the word 'freedom', everyone who's watching has developed the tits or testicles to interrogate the meaning of it, that's all. ;-)

It actually is, David Brooks had a piece in the times about it, that conservatives are fighting the tea party stupidity, or worse, the whole ayn Rand cult of the rich that the GOP promotes as reality (ie that the rich create jobs, that there is this incredibly large group of 'parasites' living off the government, the infamous 47% and so forth), and actually coming up with ideas instead of the fruit loop, bible thumping and tea bagger bullshit the party has been running on. Basically, the John Birch society took over the GOP, and the rational conservatives are fighting back. Among other things, they aren't stupid, and they realize that the incredible disparity of wealth going to the very rich, that between the huge tax cuts and the crazy stockholder management we see driving the economy, that the middle class is going to rebel, and I am not talking the morons in the farm belt and down south with their Patriot movement crap, I am talking a middle class that can topple governments and kingdoms, they know that all the arguments about the top .5% being job creators and the like is bullshit, that greed has run rampant, and that the government is not the big problem, that greed is, and that markets don't operate rationally when they let greed drive them.

The GOP is going to need to change, because they have created a monster that is going to fail them. The older white men who make up so much of their base is dying off, and appealing to the farm belt and southerners with a mix of pseudo populism and coded racism isn't going to work. Put it this way, between the tea party and the bible thumpers the GOP has turned of a large majority of young people, and has turned independents against them. Sure, they have their base, but their base has the demographics that Oldsmobile had, and we know where that ended up. They have been riding wedge issues, they have been riding the whole tea party nonsense, they have been riding the education=elitism crap of Sarah Palin, and it is going to fail them, pure and simple. Every tea bagger that gets elected is going to hurt them nationally, and that is where it counts. They may have the south, they may have the farm belt, but guess what, they aren't the country, and by appealing to elmer the farmer (who of course gets nothing from the government *snort*(, or to the unreconstructed George Wallace former supporters, they have turned off young people big time. Put it this way, if young people today start voting, the GOP might be able to take mississippi, but that and a few places like it will be it. People don't like Obama, but his ratings are sky high compared to the GOP's approval ratings.

I don't disprespect elmer the farmer, what I disrespect is the farm state types who get huge benefits from the government, spouting the tea party nonsense how they pay for everyone else...take a look at the size of farm subsidies, then come back and tell me about how they get nothing. The farm states and the red states down south depend on the federal government for their economic health, most states down there get back several dollars for every dollar they send in. A lot of those states depend on federal dollars to fund their schools, they get a lot more money for roads and such then they pay into taxes, and the goes on, medicaid disbursements, medicare, social security, spending on defense, go disproportionately to these areas, and that is a fact. When as part of the budget negotiations to cut federal spending cuts in farm subsidies were put forth, the farm state people, who were all for cutting food stamps for poor people, wanted 10's of billions of dollars of subsidies returned to federal spending. And this, mind you, at a time when commodities prices are at record levels.....

As far as you being left handed, you cannot change what hand is your dominant hand. As much as you try, you won't be able to use your other hand as effectively as you use your dominant one, it is hard wired. Using you non dominant hand to do certain things would be a like a gay guy having sex with a woman, it wouldn't be enjoyable or particularly useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DLZandD

While I agree that farm subsidies should be eliminated (along with the corporate subsidies for non-farm businesses). You should be careful who you tarnish with your big brush. The vast majority of subsidies (farm and otherwise) go to large corporations. Small farmers get nothing but grief from the government. Heck, I can't even shoot the deer eating my vegetables without a visit from two government officials.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I don't know of any effective method for changing gender preference. But... If an individual wants to change, why deny them the attempt?

Very simply, because 'reparative therapy' has been shown by the same basis they use for any treatment that it doesn't work, period.

Very simply, you are not responding to what I wrote. Pronouncing a blanket ban against any and all "not officially approved" approaches to the amelioration of a behavior or condition from which an individual may seek relief is pig-headed nonsense. Restricting the claims that providers can make, and the conditions under which they can make them, is perfectly reasonable and in the public interest. But what I asked was, why deny private individuals the freedom to make an attempt if they come across something they feel might work for them? It may only appear to work in some cases, and the data may be scarce, but if the individual is informed and decides it's worth a try, by what right should they be denied the freedom to do so? In my opinion, a far greater danger is the pernicious conceit that there exists a class of "elites" who are invested with the responsibility of protecting the idiot children in their care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I don't know of any effective method for changing gender preference. But... If an individual wants to change, why deny them the attempt?

Very simply, because 'reparative therapy' has been shown by the same basis they use for any treatment that it doesn't work, period.

Very simply, you are not responding to what I wrote. Pronouncing a blanket ban against any and all "not officially approved" approaches to the amelioration of a behavior or condition from which an individual may seek relief is pig-headed nonsense. Restricting the claims that providers can make, and the conditions under which they can make them, is perfectly reasonable and in the public interest. But what I asked was, why deny private individuals the freedom to make an attempt if they come across something they feel might work for them? It may only appear to work in some cases, and the data may be scarce, but if the individual is informed and decides it's worth a try, by what right should they be denied the freedom to do so? In my opinion, a far greater danger is the pernicious conceit that there exists a class of "elites" who are invested with the responsibility of protecting the idiot children in their care.

Because if idiots like you insist that such things be offered then other idiots will pressure their children into it. That leads to suicides, runaways and other bad outcomes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I don't know of any effective method for changing gender preference. But... If an individual wants to change, why deny them the attempt?

Very simply, because 'reparative therapy' has been shown by the same basis they use for any treatment that it doesn't work, period.

Very simply, you are not responding to what I wrote. Pronouncing a blanket ban against any and all "not officially approved" approaches to the amelioration of a behavior or condition from which an individual may seek relief is pig-headed nonsense. Restricting the claims that providers can make, and the conditions under which they can make them, is perfectly reasonable and in the public interest. But what I asked was, why deny private individuals the freedom to make an attempt if they come across something they feel might work for them? It may only appear to work in some cases, and the data may be scarce, but if the individual is informed and decides it's worth a try, by what right should they be denied the freedom to do so? In my opinion, a far greater danger is the pernicious conceit that there exists a class of "elites" who are invested with the responsibility of protecting the idiot children in their care.

Because if idiots like you insist that such things be offered then other idiots will pressure their children into it. That leads to suicides, runaways and other bad outcomes.

What happened to their body, their choice? Or does that only apply when it's a choice you agree with?

quote:

The Texas Republican Party recently adopted a new platform that endorses “reparative therapy,” which seeks to turn gay people straight. The American Psychological Association and other major health organizations have denounced such counseling, which seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or decrease their interest in same-sex activity.
Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I don't know of any effective method for changing gender preference. But... If an individual wants to change, why deny them the attempt?

Very simply, because 'reparative therapy' has been shown by the same basis they use for any treatment that it doesn't work, period.

Very simply, you are not responding to what I wrote. Pronouncing a blanket ban against any and all "not officially approved" approaches to the amelioration of a behavior or condition from which an individual may seek relief is pig-headed nonsense. Restricting the claims that providers can make, and the conditions under which they can make them, is perfectly reasonable and in the public interest. But what I asked was, why deny private individuals the freedom to make an attempt if they come across something they feel might work for them? It may only appear to work in some cases, and the data may be scarce, but if the individual is informed and decides it's worth a try, by what right should they be denied the freedom to do so? In my opinion, a far greater danger is the pernicious conceit that there exists a class of "elites" who are invested with the responsibility of protecting the idiot children in their care.

Because if idiots like you insist that such things be offered then other idiots will pressure their children into it. That leads to suicides, runaways and other bad outcomes.

What happened to their body, their choice? Or does that only apply when it's a choice you agree with?

When it isn't their bodies, dumbass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I don't know of any effective method for changing gender preference. But... If an individual wants to change, why deny them the attempt?

Very simply, because 'reparative therapy' has been shown by the same basis they use for any treatment that it doesn't work, period.

Very simply, you are not responding to what I wrote. Pronouncing a blanket ban against any and all "not officially approved" approaches to the amelioration of a behavior or condition from which an individual may seek relief is pig-headed nonsense. Restricting the claims that providers can make, and the conditions under which they can make them, is perfectly reasonable and in the public interest. But what I asked was, why deny private individuals the freedom to make an attempt if they come across something they feel might work for them? It may only appear to work in some cases, and the data may be scarce, but if the individual is informed and decides it's worth a try, by what right should they be denied the freedom to do so? In my opinion, a far greater danger is the pernicious conceit that there exists a class of "elites" who are invested with the responsibility of protecting the idiot children in their care.

Because if idiots like you insist that such things be offered then other idiots will pressure their children into it. That leads to suicides, runaways and other bad outcomes.

What happened to their body, their choice? Or does that only apply when it's a choice you agree with?

When it isn't their bodies, dumbass.

What else would he have meant by private individuals having the freedom to make an attempt if they come across something they feel might work for them? double dumbass

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Good luck everyone. 2182 is your lucky number. That's enough wasted time and posts to spend. Moving on to better more constructive time spending.

Remember then from what heights you have fallen. Repent (change the inner man to meet God's will) and do the works you did previously [when first you knew the Lord], or else I will visit you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you change your mind and repent. (Revelation 2:5 AMP)

May the right science be chosen. Bye

quote:

Moving on

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Pronouncing a blanket ban against any and all "not officially approved" approaches to the amelioration of a behavior or condition from which an individual may seek relief is pig-headed nonsense. Restricting the claims that providers can make, and the conditions under which they can make them, is perfectly reasonable and in the public interest. But what I asked was, why deny private individuals the freedom to make an attempt if they come across something they feel might work for them? It may only appear to work in some cases, and the data may be scarce, but if the individual is informed and decides it's worth a try, by what right should they be denied the freedom to do so? In my opinion, a far greater danger is the pernicious conceit that there exists a class of "elites" who are invested with the responsibility of protecting the idiot children in their care.

Because if idiots like you insist that such things be offered then other idiots will pressure their children into it. That leads to suicides, runaways and other bad outcomes.

You're making shit up again. I have nowhere insisted that "such things be offered." I have only argued that they shouldn't be banned outright. Such bans affect not only existing approaches but also any new ones that may arise, and criminalize any attempt to apply and test them. This amounts to nothing more or less than a politically motivated suppression of science. The APA’s 2009 task force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation is documented to have consisted...

of all gay, lesbian, and gay-affirming psychologists, with no dissenting viewpoints allowed onto the panel. And almost every one of them had a long, proud, and well-known history of gay psychological activism. Yes, this was the APA’s handpicked task force to investigate whether gays could change their sexual orientation. ~Source

They were wrong. Homosexuality is not a single thing with a single cause, and not all are "born that way."

People Can Change

quote:

of all gay, lesbian, and gay-affirming psychologists, with no dissenting viewpoints allowed onto the panel. And almost every one of them had a long, proud, and well-known history of gay psychological activism. Yes, this was the APA’s handpicked task force to investigate whether gays could change their sexual orientation. ~Source

quote:

This amounts to nothing more or less than a politically motivated suppression of science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If the therapy is out there then parents will force it on their kids. How many times does this have to be said? How many kids have to die or wind up on the streets before we stop this crap?