But isn't the truth that the only 100% absolute guarantee to not get pregnant or an STD to abstain?

That is no excuse for the gigantic packages of bald-faced lies found to be endemic to many abstinense-only education programs, and is also no excuse for failing to teach kinds to protect themselves when they do have sex - which they will, no matter how much you preach at them.

As for those saying not realistic, well it worked for me and I dare say plenty of my friends. I went to a rather enlightened Catholic high school, which of course would never distribute birth control as that would contradict Church teaching. However, it taught the morals in religion class and the science in health class and in both cases there were very open discussions about this whole thing.

Then I would guess that more of your friends than you are aware of used more birth control methods than abstinence.

The answer lies in the orders of magnitude difference between the amount of spending.

It's easy to acquire an order of magnitude by comparing one year's worth of deficit to ten years worth of deficit, which is the benchmark Republicans are using these days.

But even if your claim were true, one absolutely damning fact would remain: It's all Bush's spending anyway, because he's the one who screwed up dang near everything in the first place.

It is not just "the right wing of the GOP" that hates the card-check bill. EVERY "wing" of the GOP hates the card check bill.

There you go again. Everybody who doesn't agree with you isn't "really" a Republican (of any "wing"), and so your party shrinks a little more. How long until it's just you, alone in a room wondering why the whole world doesn't automatically do your bidding?

Last I checked, the correlation between happiness and circumstance was remarkably weak in all but the most poverty stricken populations. The reality is that the factors cited may have little or nothing to do with self-reported "happiness" at all. But it's worth noting that people who's lives are measurably improving are generally happier than people whose circumstances are stagnant or deteriorating - even when the deteriorating circumstance is far, far more comfortable than the respective improving circumstance.

Oh, I didn't mean that in any long-term sense, but only in the relatively immediate and individual sense. I agree that comparing self-reported happiness from forty years ago to self-reported happiness now is likely an entirely meaningless figure.

The simple fact of the matter is that there's no way to baseline the scale. I can say that 41 pounds today is heavier than 40 pounds 40 years ago because we have a standard, repeatable measure of what each pound really is. But a person whose spent their whole life happy and a person whose spent their whole life unhappy might both respond as "moderately happy" as they don't have comparable baselines to judge against.

"I don't think we have enough votes to sustain a filibuster."

Whatever the union of two people of the same sex is to be called, it can't be called a "marriage".

Sure we could. We could even call it "spoon", if we wanted. Language isn't fixed; the meaning of words changes over time.

The historical definition of that word has always been a union of two people of the opposite sex who live together as a husband and wife.

You conveniently left out the "of the same race" historical qualification. Nevermind the many other differences, minor and major, that have occurred over the centuries. Face it; the definition of marriage has always been in flux.

After all, there is no way to tell if the same sex couple is even gay. It's entirely possible that straight men and women could find some reason to form one of these unions, for tax or benefit reasons.

There is no easy way to tell if a mixed-sex marriage is gay, either, and in fact many cases of such have turned up. Indeed, the INS has whole sets of involved procedures to try and squirrel out "false" marriages.

Seriously, "Paradise Falls"? Does the kid get a collar, too?

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Paradise_Falls

Thank you for keeping us updated on all the great deals available, Tracy. ;)

Simply put, you can't be unemployed if you are not seeking employment.

Simply put, that is an incorrect statement with no basis in reality whatsoever, regardless of how the government happens to be collecting its statistics.

That being said, the government has no way of knowing for sure if an individual person is seeking employment except insofar as that person informs the government, which people only tend to do if they get some kind of benefit from doing so.

Explain this: If we're in such a downturn, how come there are plenty of men who can afford to pay for sex? It doesn't compute.

Well, there aren't, really, or at least not enough to meet the increasing supply any longer. This computes to downward price pressure.

If you are under 18, you have to get permission for a tattoo, medical treatment of any kind, prescription drugs, etc.

Nonsense. Walk into any emergency room with a life-threatening condition (like a pregnancy, for example) and you don't need any proof or permission of anything whatsoever to get treatment.

I think returning to pre-constitutional law is exactly what the Republicans want.

I'm vaguely depressed at how many responders are justifying violent response to verbal insult. No, that's not okay, and the perpetrator should rightfully be convicted for assault. It's not okay in domestic violence (and a lot of domestic violence is a violent response to a verbal insult), and it's not okay between acquaintances or strangers, either.

I can't say I'm particularly fond of the last-minute 300+ page amendment added in the wee hours, either. It wasn't a good thing when Republicans did that sort of thing, and it's not really a good way to conduct congressional business now.