Nah, you're dreaming. Never happened. Couldn't have.

Everyone knows that Hollywood is run by a bunch of effette, unpatriotic, liberal pansy elitists.

Are you sure YOU don't have PTSD?

...ya wanna cry?? I'LL give ya something to cry about!!

If the GOP wants to think that we're not being bi-partisan, I say it's about time we give them a GOOD REASON to think so.

Bow tie daddy dontcha blow your top

Everything's under control

Bow tie daddy dontcha blow your top

'cause you think you're gettin' too old

Don't try to do no thinkin'

Just go on with your drinkin'

Just have your fun, you old son of a gun

Then drive home in your Lincoln

FZ, WOIIFTM, 1968

...who sued. Some people are such shits.

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

1. Anger

2. Denial

.

.

.

I'm tempted to explain our friend Tina... as a RW plant who has been given the mission of posting ultra-cuckoo posts so that the other, slightly-less-Ultra-cuckoo RW posters look more reasonable by comparison.

You know, kind of like what Beck's purpose is on Faux News.

It's a lot more compassionate than, say, simply dismissing them as yet another benighted fool.

"As a well-worn veteran of brainwashing at the hands of narcissistic parents, I can definitely say that I know it when I see it. And it broke my heart."

Yes. This is the heart of the matter. I could not have expressed it better myself. Thanks.

And I hope I never have to face 12 people who are not even smart enough to avoid jury duty.

[/snark]

---------------

"Reality really s---s if you are a Republican, I guess." ~ (?)

"The people who see reality see the reality. Traister treated Bristol with the generosity and tact she deserves, and Sarah with the contempt that she deserves." ?????

~Hope you never serve jury duty.

-- Truthfully

Teens have always had sex?

I see in another comment the oft-repeated line in support of abortion on demand, sex education in public schools, and free birth control to teens that "teens will have sex" no matter what, and that they always have. Ask anyone who was a teenager before around 1970 or much later in many parts of the country and they will tell you that's not true. While it is true that some portion of teens have always had sex, all teens have certainly not until very recently. Look at the rate of out of wedlock births in 1959 as compared to today for proof of this. Before birth control there was a social stigma attached to premarital sex due primarily to the risk of pregnancy without the relative economic and relational stability of marriage. There are many economic and religious reasons for this, but evolutionary biologists would agree its part of the human makeup for women to avoid pregnancy until they are in a stable relationship with a man. Once birth control entered the picture, that social taboo against premarital sex eventually faded and has almost totally disappeared today. So, while it may be true today that most teens today have sex, its not an argument in favor of birth control or abortion; it may be an argument against them as they have eliminated the taboos against premarital sex, with the predictable result that more women have sex with more men who often (especially at early ages) use them for sex and leave them. This trail of broken relationships does women and their eventual husbands no favors. So, why is it assumed that teen sex is a good thing so long as they use birth control? Does no one question the mental consequences of women being used for sex in a way that they were never biologically adapted to handle? And what of the results to men who, free of any real consequence to sex that might bind them to the woman--(i.e., a child)--,increasingly see women as living sex toys, thus damaging their ability to develop real and deep relationships with the opposite sex. How does this free women? How is it feminism? How does it help men besides allowing them to live out every baser fantasy? Everyone wants to mock religion, but no one suggests any sexual ethic to replace it with other than "wear a condom." Shouldn't even atheists and agnostics be able to agree on some socially beneficial ethic to such a fraught aspect of human activity, at least for the young?

Oh please. Get real. I don't know about you, but here in Eastern TN, I see all the proof I need that teens have always had sex. The only difference here, as opposed to more enlightened parts of the country, is that they were married teenagers. People in many parts of the US have a long, long tradition of marrying at shockingly young ages. Imagine if you have had "abstinence-only" education beaten into you. Those who were able to endure it (or more likely, get in "trouble") do the predictable thing... they get married!

The really funny part is that these same people who are pushing Abstinance-Only are the same ones who do silly things like fight Same Sex Marriage because they see it as a "threat to the institute of Marriage."

One of the most reliable predictors of future marriage failure is getting hitched when you are still a kid!

Ya wanna cry?

I'LL give ya somethin' to cry about!

----------------------

Fine then

If they're going to call everything socialism anyway we should just go ahead and institute a big bunch of it. Fund it with an Eisenhower-like 90% tax on the top 1%. Bring back the estate tax, raise the capital gains tax and so on. This same kind of fear of "socialism" is why we don't have decent health care in this country. Big business would have been helped by it, but were so scared of "socialism" they screwed themselves and the rest of us in the bargain.