BJean

I agree that not having it in the house is a huge factor. When the urge to binge hits, it causes a spontaneous reaction. If we have some time to think about it, we're much more likely to choose something sugar-free, like you said. If you have this stuff figured out, hurrah for you!!

gadget: "I was responding to a post of BJean's where she was complaining about abstinence funding under Bush, that it doesn't work, and that he somehow blindsided the American public by funding something that no one agrees with and is a waste of money. I thought you were agreeing with her about it? Maybe not. Anyway, I was just correcting the perception that it doesn't work, because statistically it does have an impact." What? "Blindsided" (interesting characterization)..." by funding something that no one agrees with and is a waste of money." I most certainly did not say that no one agrees with it. I didn't say that it is a waste of money. I said that it has been proven not to be an effective way to curb teen pregnancy. I didn't make up the stats. It may work for some kids, but it does not work for most of them. This has been proven time and again and one doesn't even have to cite statistics to know that. You're the one who keeps bellowing about an increase in abortion. I'd like to know exactly why you're characterizing sex education the way you are right in the middle of this discussion about ideas of how to set up sex education so that it works and covers all the bases. No one has said that we have properly conducted or perfected the curriculum for sex education classes. And how could we expect that to happen when we've had a president who has been supporting abstinence-only classes for our children? Do you really think that has made a major impact on teen pregnancies? You say that it has had an impact. Well we need a darn sight more than an impact. We need a complete 180 degrees on this. Why are people like you so opposed to kids knowing all about their anatomy and physiology, including their sexual organs? Because you think it's dirty or that kids will make jokes about it? Man, if you had a son and expected him to go online to find out about how to use condoms, you're living with blinders on. You know what is online. You know parents can't just turn their kids loose to look up anything of a sexual nature because they'll get way, way, way, more than they or you bargained for. Beth: "You and I have different values -- and that's fine. I want the ability to monitor what my kids are taught, making sure they are from my perspective and reflect my values. That's my prerogative as a parent." You are making a big mistake here. There is absolutely no reason whatever that parents cannot have a say in how sex education is taught in schools and who teaches it. Obviously you monitor your kids - they're home schooled. As for the millions of us who have used the public school system, we know that we can have a hands-on approach to our children's education. The Superintendent and the Principal and the teachers do a job for the country that is not taken lightly. It is a huge responsibility. But the biggest responsibility is for us, as parents, to get involved in our children's education. Public schools need proper sex education including the use of condoms. I don't know how you can possibly see it any other way. The rate of teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, all point to it being a problem that is way out of control. And they've had the lecture on abstinence. Yeah right it works. In your dreams.

Carrie what you posted is exactly what I'm dealing with. Exactly. If you figure out a way to stop that behavior cycle, I would be eternally grateful if you would share it with me. I saw Oprah the other day for the first time in a long time and I felt really sad. She has every resource imaginable to her and she is still fighting it. This weight problem is not a simple thing, that's for sure.

You're absolutely right man. You can read anything. It used to be that if something was in print and reported as news you could pretty well trust it. That's long gone. Now you can even find writings that claim that Dubya is a genius in disguise and that Rush Limbaugh has the country's best interests in his big ole' heart. Yeah, right. No way can you trust everything you read. It does take some intellect to separate the truth from some writer's wet dream. (In the mood to be crude, sorry.)

rodriguez you're very lucky to have had a sensible and enlightened mother! No wonder you are the person you are. I am proud of you and Carrie for being smart when you were that young. My mom pretty much gave me some brochures and told me that I could ask her anything. She obviously had a few hangups of her own to overcome and I never really asked her much. I was very involved in church activities and I waited until I was married, as they told us we should, those many years ago. To be honest, I was always sorry that I did. I got married when I had barely turned 19 and he was 20, we were in college and had no business getting married that young. I didn't really know him as well as I should have but our hormones got the better of both of us. We got married in a beautiful religious ceremony and both thought that God would take care of the rest. Turned out that we were incompatible sexually and in nearly every other way. It was a painful nightmare. Fortunately we divorced 4 years later and I met the man of my dreams. During those 4 years I made up for the years I didn't have sex and I learned the things that no one had taught me. I'm very lucky that everything turned out so well in my life. Many less fortunate women have stayed trapped in dysfunctional marriages, wound up having affairs and have also wound up slapping their kids around in frustration. So it isn't just teen pregnancy that the lack of sex education can cause.

I just read an article in USA Today that says that President Obama is going to cut funding for abstinence-only sex education. I had no idea that Bush had thrown money at a program for abstinence only sex ed for the past 7 or 8 years. I guess that's his idea of giving our children a good education, eh? Being the "education" president and all. Research has shown that abstinence only sex ed does not reduce the incidence of teen pregnancies. President Obama is staying open to the discussion with some abstinence only proponents, but he wants to use the money to do something that actually works to reduce teen sex and teenage pregnancies and STDs. It is so wonderful to have the voice reason in the White House - and someone who will pay attention to statistics and research instead of going rogue and quietly doing his own thing no matter what the country actually needs.

I understand patty, and how's that workin' for ya? What we HAVEN'T done is to give all of our young people a good basic education about all things sexual. We give them a smattering of information that even now parents complain about. And it's the churches and religious people who very vocally fight it and the ability of people like Planned Parenthood to distribute condoms. What we HAVE given them (in lots of cases because the majority of Americans are Christian, eh?) is the information that you suggest. We've taken our kids to church. We've read them the Bible. We've explained that there should never be any sex before marriage. Just like Sarah Palin probably did with her daughter, Bristol.

Would they belong to the same bogus organizations as those few scientists who claim that global warming really exists? :mad2: Yeah Beth... good point. Am I going to believe you or my lyin' eyes? In all seriousness, to answer all ya'll's comments, I choose to believe what my intellect and my research tell me. And I listen to and believe people whom I think are credible right after I listen to people that hold opposing views - like you all. It is like believin' my lyin' eyes. plain, you and I obviously do not expose ourselves to the same information. You keep asking me to cite my sources. I have lots and lots of sources. I am constantly open to hearing the news and learning what experts are saying but I sure don't spend my day looking for stuff to use as rebuttal to comments here at LBT. I think that if you don't believe or listen to what many authorities have said publically on the subject anyway, why would I waste my time trying to give you sources that you're just wanting to use to tell me how wrong I am and they are? You do not seem to have a mind that is closed like a steel trap, but you continue to wonder where I got my info. Look around dude, if you really want to, you'll find all kinds of information just as easily as I do.

Beth: Two wrongs don't make it right. You state your case very well, patty. I just do not believe everything you say is true or God's will.

Thanks for your response, Jack. Actually they say true costs are hard to pinpoint. There has been lots of creative calculating going on during these long years of the Iraq war and the numbers vary pretty widely depending on who you're reading. The Iraq war is projected to cost into the trillions. And as far as I know, that was first revealed in 2008. The numbers have probably gone up since then, especially if you add in Afghanistan. Interestingly the Bush administration tried to gloss over the true cost of the war and even cut taxes during the time when billions were being spent over there every month. That added fuel to the fire on our road to a deep recession. There are creative numbers being reported everywhere today about everything the government has done and is doing and is even planning to do. However, most credible economists all agree that the steps that the Obama administration has taken are vital to a recovery.

ten little Indians, plain.

Carrie you're absolutely right. And teaching teenagers that their only option is abstinence when they are dealing with their sexual urges, is not the answer. Giving our kids a very good, basic sex education that covers everything and includes but is not limited to: * basic anatomy and physiology of the sexual organs and the sex act itself * information about the emotional turmoil that sexual activity can cause * information that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent sex * information about sexually transmitted diseases * information about birth control methods and their success rate * the anatomy and physiology of conception, pregnancy, labor and delivery and how it changes a girl's body * a reality class on parenting and what becoming a teenage parent really means * an elemental bookkeeping class on what it costs to feed, clothe and raise a baby * a class on the responsibility of parenthood and the fact that once someone becomes a parent they will be resonsible as a parent for the rest of their lives For the life of me I cannot understand why any parent would be averse to their children having the information that I've listed above presented to them in a clinical classroom situation - with the understanding that the teacher is qualified and screened, of course. Any of you have additional topics that would be beneficial?

Yup plain, that's right. Pretty obvious that our brains do not allow us all to perceive things in exactly the same way, eh?

Jack, how much money has been spent on the Iraq war to date?

Patty if you were held to the religious standards of the Puritans, you would be living a very different life in America today. They came here because they were being persecuted for religious reasons. They did not set out to have a country that operates the same way as the country they fled. That is why separation of church and state is the right thing to do for a Democratic nation. No one is telling you that you can't worship the way you wish, believe what you want to believe and be very vocal about it if you so desire. But if you want a country that incorporates one particular religion, one religious doctrine that governs everyone, then you don't want a free democratic nation. On the surface it seems that the gay marriage argument revolves around the term "marriage" which some of you believe can only defined by the language of the Bible. But I'm afraid that the real problem won't be solved by changing the term from marriage to legally wed or legal union, or any other term. Many of you just have an aversion to gays living together and don't want your country recognizing their lifestyle as legal in any way.

We'll see. We'll see.

Bonk, bonk, bonk. That's me, hitting my head against the wall trying to talk to you. oooz, ooze, dribble. That's blood running into my eyes. Blink, blink. The country has every right to use the word marriage to refer to a civil union of two people in this country. If YOU have a problem with that, then YOU can get it brought before the citizenry for a vote so that your religious sensibilities are soothed. You do not have the right to tell people that they cannot get married down at the courthouse, just because they do not fit within YOUR definition of marriage. Clarify the terminology if you wish, but don't try to deny gay people their rights. By barring them from civil unions because the government uses the term "marriage" instead of "civil union" (or some other acceptible term to you), you are abridging their rights as citizens of the United States. NOT because of the actual marriage or civil union or legal joining of two people of the same sex, but because the government uses "marriage" to identify couples and apply the certain rules to them. When the government uses the word marriage, it must be careful not to discriminate. They cannot exclude couples by using it to disallow all couples all the same rights that marriage affords. I dearly hope you're just yanking my chain and not really this obtuse.

Btw, I really didn't give a rat's patootie about Clinton's transgressions or who gave him a b.j., but when it came to involving an intern in the White House, even I had to draw the line. I will never forgive that rat for that. And I still don't feel too great about the little missus either. As a side note, my feelings had nothing to do with the religious inappropriateness of Clinton's behavior, or the fact that he made a mockery of his wedding vows, it had to do with compromising the office of the president of the United States and the way it could have jepordized the safety of this country.

Duuudes, I can't tell you how many times I helpfully listed all of Bush's transgressions, in fact I even helped out by listing some of Bush I's, but you all booed and hissed and said I was all wet. Interesting how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot, eh?

If you want the people to vote on changing the terminology, that's a reasonable approach to consider. Clarafication of poorly defined (worded) laws can be a necessary and good thing. If you're saying that people should vote on whether or not gay people should be able to marry, with the current terminology, then that's a sham. Individuals shouldn't get to define constitutional rights for everybody else. It's a process.

Takes one to know one, Beth. That's silly of course, but your posts make me want to resort to playground tactics because they are so completely infantile. And I mean that in only the most complimentary way. :frown:

Hee, hee, hee. I'm glad that you're keeping your delightful sense of humor, Jack. I know that for me, it isn't always easy. You're right about Pelosi's senior moments of course. And I have to confess to a few of my own *she says in disgust*. And I do know that the Democratic party has slid a little - particularly in opposition to the extreme sliding that the Republican party has done. However the Democratic party has always championed the little guy, the environment, education for our children, unemployment and all those things that the Republicans seem to think will take care of themselves. At least they have "always" had those concerns since I've been aware of Democratic platforms. My parents were politically active in their community and my dad ran for public office on two occasions. He served in the state senate for a while and as a child of that household, I was exposed to a lot of politics in general. So I come by my "leanings" honestly (inherited/endoctrinated) and they are deeply ingrained in my soul. As an adult under my own steam (located in a completely different State in fact), I also became involved directly in politics from time to time and nothing ever managed to sway me in the least to the other side - that of big business interests and the "no tax, no spend" theory and the "all government is bad" viewpoint. In fact, the more exposure I've had to the people on the other side of the fence, the more convinced I became that my parents were right. As for today, I think we are suffering from the pendulum swing effect where over the past 15 years or so, the pendulum rose higher and higher on the right side. Now it is beginning to lower itself and we should probably get ready for a swing that goes too far to the left. I would be happy if someday I could actually live in a time when it settled in the middle and became as fair to everyone as possible. In the meantime, I find it very unfair that President Obama is being called a socialist and other ridiculous things because if we have ever had a president who is actually more centered, I believe it is him. He has some serious work to do to get the pendulum drifting downward again, but I do not believe that he is the socialist that some like to accuse him of being. I think he is as conservative as a Democrat can be. In fact, due to my left leanings, some of his decisions scare me a little. But I have to admit that I believe that he is not a dishonest man and that he is going to ultimately be good for this country. That is one reason why this particular thread is so annoying to me. The second being that what people here are suggesting as a solution to our fiscal problems has already been tried and shown that has never worked to the advantage of the average American. And the average American citizen is my concern. As a Democrat. You, as opposed to me, are concentrated on a line by line criticism and dissection of every move every Democrat makes. I have to look at the bigger picture because I kow that the nitty gritty can make you crazy. I am already crazy enough for the both of us. So you keep up what you're doing and I will continue to be who I am. End of story, I think.

Jack, you're a little different breed. You still have a slam dunk right wing outlook, but you at least try to appear to have given opposing viewpoints a little serious consideration. Mind you I'm not sure that you really have, but at least you are aware how of how your credibility suffers if you don't appear to be open to other ideas from time to time.

You all accuse me of going off the deep end? Yeah. Right. There's no discussion on this tread. It's like some of the threads that turn all religious. There's just no talking to some people. They know it all. They're sure of that because they have all the evidence in print. In religious cases, it's mostly the Bible they cite. With you all, it's all the right wing propaganda that is put out all over the media. You're convinced and there's no slowing down to consider a different viewpoint. You're just as pleasant to exchange ideas with as religious fanatics. Geez louise.

You want harping? I'll show you some harping.....:frown: Just kidding~ I am not harping on a religious marriage being a right, and I'm pretty sure that you get that. But not positive. So to clarify further, I'm talking (harping, eh?) about civil rights. You have a government that uses the term "marriage" to define a civil union between two eligible folks in the United States. You do get that, right? It is other folks who want to make the term "marriage" have a religious meaning under the law. Btw, there are a number of things besides taxes that are affected under our laws, based on whether a person is married or single.