$335,000,000 For Std Prevention In Economic Stimulus Bill

So that is what the GOP twisted into contraceptives? That was a stretch even for them.

 

Oh come on people, this is the best you can do? Accuse me of sounding like a woman who supports abortion, say I'm dancing, and say that health isn't an economic issue and that the government shouldn't be involved?

If you wanted to attack the bill and not discuss it, you've done so.

If you wanted to attack me and not discuss the bill, you've done it.

In other words, if you want to actually read the bill and discuss it, I'll be here. If you'd like to present the concept that the health of a nation doesn't impact the economy of a nation, I'll be here to read your presentation of that concept.

Also, seeing that you aren't fond at all of this bill, (so far based on a flung out piece of disinformation) please feel free to discuss what solutions you believe would be better than those our government has presented us with.

But if you don't want to do that, you've accomplished your mission to simply harp a bit on a dressed up accusation of a hidden agenda on a very public bill that is available for every single citizen to read and to throw out insults to people who don't see it your way. Congrats. However, I'd hope that as an American citizen you will have a bit of a deeper interest than has been expressed thus far. After all, we're all in this together and if this nation goes down, we go down with it.

 

You'd be asking them to tear up the whole play book if you want them to legitimately discuss any Democratic legislation. I think the Internet has made the scare tactic ineffective but the GOP is having a tough time figuring out another strategy.

Look, they turned STD into contraceptives and it's not just the GOP on this board, you can hear the ones on the hill saying the same things. I wonder if any of them read it or did they get a flunky to read it then took their word for what it said.

 

So who brought up being a woman or abortion? You have taken a small part of the op and made a federal case out of something no one really cares about.

Add to that you still have not answered my question. How is any of this a stimulus to the economy? If you are going to address me in this thread you need to answer that question. That is what brought me into it. I could care less about who thinks it is buried or not.

But you have spent a lot of energy avoiding my question. If that is what you wanted then you have done it.

If you wanted to address everything but my question you have done it.


I will ask again. How is this a stimulus to the economy? Do you know what a stimulus is?

Better yet don't bother. with all your ranting I do not expect anything coherent.

 

Who did that name the post?

 

I already bothered. Right here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1360558&postcount=15

Here's what it said:

Your rebuttal to that post was this:

A federal case out of something nobody cares about? Whatcha talkin bout? I'm discussing the bill and the portion that talks about STD's. It's the topic.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't that the topic? I looked twice. I'm pretty sure it is, unless someone went and changed it while we were posting.

 

Sure. See if you can find me here dancing with my friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0oXRbRiFfE

:tongue3:

 

Was this English?

 

Can you please quiet down? I'm trying to take a coherency lesson here. :saint:

 

So, you really aren't asking a serious question, are you? You are just waiting for someone to attempt an answer so you can ridicule them.

No thanks, I'll pass.

 

Ok...It's all coming into focus.

Sort of like this:

People with toothaches can't get out there and work if they're in pain...

ergo, The Stimulus package should allocate $$$,$$$,$$$ so that everyone can get those fillings and root canals that they need, and then...

They can concentrate on their new jobs that the Obama administration has just created...

And let the economic stimulus begin!

Makes perfect sense.

 

The administration hasn't been able to provide evidence that any of this would create a single job.

"Can you tell me Mr. Barthold, how many jobs will be created as a result of this legislation?"

"In short, Mr. Camp, I can’t."

"So we don’t have an estimate of the number of jobs this would create either private sector or public? We don’t have any estimate of the economic effect that this legislation would have on our economy, whether it would create any growth in our economy at all? We don’t have that data before the committee today?"

Barthold nods head and shrugs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFwS2W3ITI

​

 

I'm sorry...please show me in the Constitution where it is the Government's job to protect us from stupidity?

Hey...flame me if you wish. My contention is that it is not the Government's job to protect us from ourselves. There is this concept called "personal responsibility." It's pretty amazing...shame that a majority of Americans have lost sight of it.

 

That was unwittingly a pretty good analysis, so yes! It's kinda like that.

Let's say John Doe had a great job. Then the economy went down the drain, he lost that great job, and he now works as a waiter.

John needs gas in his car to get to work. He has $100 in his pocket set aside for this. He also has $100 set aside to buy his wife an anniversary gift.

Unfortunately, his daughter, Jane, woke up with a toothache. Knowing that an untreated tooth infection can get in your blood and lead to a serious or even fatal infection, John Doe takes Jane to the dentist. The total cost of gas, antibiotics, root canal, and dentists other charges equals $300.

Now Jane is better, but John can't spend that money at the store for his wife's anniversary gift. He doesn't have enough gas money to get to work. He also is in the hole $100.

But wait! What if there was a new service out there that offered him a reduction in the cost of the dental service? Let's say it only totaled fifty dollars.

Now Mr. Doe can still have gas money to get to work and he can buy his wife an anniversary gift, he'll just make it $50 instead.

He just kept his job and he just put a bit of money out there.

See how that works?

 

What stupidity are you referring to?

If you're talking about STD care and education, I agree. However, it needs to be done and people need to be educated and need treatment.

Children are being raised in morally irresponsible homes. They're not being taught what they should know, and then they're suffering the consequences as adults. That is a good part of this issue.

So we as a country are left to deal with the results. We can't just ignore it. Step one is education. That is SO important!

Even more important though is the need for Godly morals to be reintroduced. That would be the responsibility of believers. We need preachers out there holding a revival in this country, people willing to talk to others and introduce them to Christ.

I don't do that enough. Do you? I think there are probably many on here who do not.

Perhaps instead of being angry with the government and calling for change there, we should be calling on the church (as in all Christians) to get out there and work on this particular problem by reintroducing Christ to this country.

 

So you don't like a taste of your own medicine?

 

For right or wrong, the Constitution hasn't been relevant since the 1800s.

 

OK...but be aware that education always involves a system of morality. And most sex ed classes are apalling in the "morality" which they teach.

I agree with you that we should be standard-bearers when it comes to proclaiming the need for godly morals. And yes...I do a ton regarding that. I do talk to our kids about sexuality, and the importance of moral choices that line up with the word of God. I pull no punches. And I have no problem addressing it directly. (Tactfully, not inappropriately, but directly).

But have you sat in on a government school sex ed class? What some of them teach is just plain scary. From one of our schools locally (and this is firsthand info: I heard this stuff myself:

• Condoms will always protect against pregnancy and STD's.
• As long as "safe sex" is practiced, (I'll be delicate)...there is no difference safety wise between acts normally perpetrated by straight versus acts normally perpetrated by "not straight" folks.
• If you just can't handle your "tension," pornography might be a "safe" outlet.
• You should only engage in sex if you are in a committed relationship (nothing said of marriage).

Scary.

 

Medicine? :laugh: