text:
Project: Potemkin, a Star Trek Fan Film
View Single Post
March 8 2011, 06:53 AM
Location: Southwest Georgia
Re: New Star Trek Fan Film
Still working with several episodes in post-production at this time.
Jon Carling reports he has around 2 more weeks of work on the VFX for "The Void." Jon also completed the opening credits sequence, and Steve Gallant has already scored it. Tom Scott's going to assemble a video from it which we'll be posting in the coming week. We're also going to be re-shooting Jeff Green's close-ups next week. Once the close-ups are done, we expect Tom to be able to finish the edit and make a color correction. Then it'll be off to Bill Walker for digitizing the displays, then to Steve Gallant for scoring and Ralph Miller for sound effects. So we're making excellent progress on it.
"Doctor's Orders" edit of the live-action footage has been completed. Rick Foxx has done a terrific job with the footage available. We are going to reshoot a close-up with Doug Harper, possibly this Saturday, which will allow us to finalize the edit. Bill Walker has the VFX for the opening sequence, and is going to extend it to accomodate the credits. Bob Reed has been handed the assignment of doing the Potemkin fly away for the ending. Tony Lunn will be handling the scoring, and Rick Foxx will be doing the sound for this episode. Bill Walker will be digitizing the effects for the panel displays.
"Delivery" is slated to go before the cameras sometime between March 18 and March 27. This vignette will be directed by Randall Landers, and features Jeff Green and Stephanie Burke. The VFX for this episode will be completed by Bill Walker. Music will be Steve Gallant for this episode.
"Miscommunication" is solidly in post-production with Director Bill Walker handling the VFX. The vignette features Stephanie Burke, Richard Thornton, Hannah Ruiz and Thomas Walker as was shot on location in Lee County, Georgia. Neal Manning will be scoring this vignette.
Primary filming (videotaping) for "The Engineer's New Clothes" starring Mario Pagan has been completed. Second unit videotaping in Atlanta will take place in the coming months. Bill Walker will appear as "Chief Engineer Barton" in the Atlanta facility. He's going to be working on the Engine Room fot this episode.
Filming for "The Night the Stars Fell from the Sky" (our second full-length episode) will take place in locations throughout Southwest Georgia from May 10 - May 31st. This episode will be quite a challenge for the cast and crew. I've been scouting locations at least once a week, and have made some arrangements with the local park ranger for the shoot at one location. (We're going to film two productions at this particular park.)
Guess that's all for now. We've updated the series bible and guidelines; we've posted a new character picture for Blaire Erskine (Lt. Patricia Allen) and Rodriguez Graper (Lt. Commander Chuck Richards). We'll be creating listings for Richard Thornton (Lt. Darrell Frazier) and Hannah Ruiz (Lt. Doreen Spampinato) this week. We also intend to create a page on "Making an Andorian" this week. Be sure and check out the site for pictures and updates!
Project Potemkin
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Potemkin_Prod
Visit Potemkin_Prod's homepage!
Find More Posts by Potemkin_Prod


text:
It's Cam Newton vs. LaMichael James
The Heisman is down to two possible winners -- but Oregon's RB has work to do
At this point even the casual college football fan knows who is running away with the Heisman Trophy.
By leading the Auburn Tigers to a thrilling come-from-behind victory over the Alabama Crimson Tide on Friday afternoon, Cameron Newton all but secured his spot in the college football history books. In that game alone, Newton tallied 11 points in the Heisman Predictor, opening up a commanding lead over Oregon's LaMichael James.
But it certainly wasn't easy.
If the Predictor had been calculated at halftime of Auburn's game on Friday, with the Tigers trailing 24-7, Newton would have actually lost 9.5 points from the previous week. That loss would have been enough for James, who stands in second place with 139 points, to pass Newton for the lead.
So when Newton took the field in the third quarter on Friday afternoon, he was fighting for his Heisman life as well as Auburn's championship hopes. With his brilliant second-half performance, Newton boosted his Predictor score a remarkable 20.5 points from where he stood at halftime, and he held on to his commanding lead.
Despite Newton's performance, however, it is still too early to declare him the winner. The odds are certainly in his favor, but James remains in the mix.
To prepare for the last round of games before the Heisman ceremony, let's run through a few scenarios and attempt to determine who would come out on top in each.
For the full breakdown and the standings, you need to be an ESPN Insider.
Become an insider and get access to all our articles and tools.View Insider Benefits »
Magazine subscribers: activate your Insider account.
Insider: Week 13 Recap
RECAPPING WEEK 13CFB Rumor Central: Miami's next coach
Feldman: The end of Shannon
Feldman: Boise didn't belong
Eliminator: Can SC beat Auburn?
Heisman Predictor: Newton vs. James
- All Conference Men's Missouri Tigers Black Sec State T-shirt
Shop »
- Betting: Best 2015 CFB Playoff bets
- Katz: Teams that will surprise in 2015
- Haney: TCU among 2015 favorites
- National links: Reshuffling the top four

subset: commoncrawl


text:
American Bank Center supports 9 affordable housing projects
American Bank Center has contributed $220,000 to the North Dakota Housing Incentive Fund, dividing the dollars between nine affordable projects that will provide housing for elderly and disabled individuals and families, and will create workforce housing, according to a press release.
Get the full story
Subscribe or Log In
Are you a newspaper subscriber but you don't have a Digital Access account yet? Activate your account.
You will need your subscription account number and phone number. Not sure if you have an account? Call (701) 225-8111 and we can help you.


text:
This is my first stay at a Baymont Hotel. For the money, which was about equal to other hotels, this was a far better room than other Wyndham places I have stayed.
Phone Number:
Location: United States > Kansas > Topeka
Business Center with Internet Access Fitness Center with Gym / Workout Room Free Breakfast Free High Speed Internet ( WiFi ) Free Parking Swimming Pool
Ranked #19 of 32 Hotels in Topeka
Price Range (Based on Average Rates): $
Hotel Class:2 star — Baymont Inn & Suites Topeka 2*
Number of rooms: 62
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Expedia, Orbitz, Travelocity, Booking.com, Priceline, EasyToBook, Wyndham, Hotels.com, Odigeo and Tingo so you can book your Baymont Inn & Suites Topeka reservations with confidence. We help millions of travelers each month to find the perfect hotel for both vacation and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.
- Also Known As:
- Baymont Inn & Suites Topeka Hotel Topeka
- Baymont Inn And Suites Topeka
- Baymont Inn Topeka
- Topeka Baymont Inn


text:
The sprinkles on your ice cream sundae of sex.
The person you're jonesing after might not be exactly like the fantasy babe in your head.
I think of unrequited love as a daisy field of me time.
A beginners' guide to being a good partner.
A cautionary tale from a former dreamgirl.
Dumb/amazing stuff we've done in the name of L-U-V.
How I learned the true meaning of love.
Learning to love my body after sexual assault.
How to turn a painful breakup into the best thing that ever happened to you.
How to rediscover yourself after a breakup.
Hi, queen people! April's theme is BOTH SIDES NOW, which considers the many different answers to THE BIG QUESTIONS, whatever those are for you. If you've got a project or pitch about seeing things in a whole new light, please email it to firstname.lastname@example.com.
Rookie is a website for teenage girls. With monthly-themed content, we update three times every weekday, and once a day on weekends. Click here to find out where to send stuff you'd like us to see. Learn about the people who write this thing here.


text:
- Home
- News
- People
- Events
- Jobs
- Resources
- Store
- Subscribe NowLimited Time Offer
Upcoming Event
Apr 24
Time: 11:30 am - 1:30 pm
Place: DoubleTree Hotel
Citigroup not breaking down local job cuts
- Mark Anderson
- Staff Writer- Sacramento Business Journal
- Email | Twitter | LinkedIn | Google+
Citigroup will be making its latest cuts across the board as the New York-based bank trims costs.
The local cuts aren't being broken out, but it is expected to be about the same 4 percent the entire bank is taking.
The bank (NYSE: C) announced today it is taking a charge of $1 billion this quarter as it cuts costs and cuts 11,000 positions, about a 4 percent reduction in its workforce.
Citibank has 12 branches in the Sacramento market, which includes El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties. Citibank's market share is 5 percent locally, with a total of $1.7 billion. The bank also has a back-office operation in West Sacramento, which many years ago had as many as 450 employees. In recent years, that office has fallen to around to 100 people.
The bank is not breaking out positions affected in each site or business, a spokesperson said. In California, where the bank has just under 6,000 employees, the number of positions impacted will also be about 4 percent.
Mark Anderson covers technology, agriculture, banking and finance, venture capital, energy, mining and hospitality for the Sacramento Business Journal.
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.
Most Popular
- Most popular
- Slideshows
- Emailed
- Mobile
- How California law school jobplacement rates compare
- Radio Shack assets, former stores hitting the market
- Co-working and coffee space opens in midtown
- San Francisco-based Swift confirms plans to buy 630 K St.
- Disgraced real estate exec accused of recording women
- Still $3 million short, B Street adds board members for final push
- Sacramento County writes a big check to ease mental-health crisis
- Elk Grove shopping center sells for $42.5M
- Sacramento State chooses president
- Emergency medical workers ratify 3-year contract with AMR
Sponsored by
People on the Move
RE/MAX Gold
APCO Worldwide
Lyon Real Estate
Radoslovich Parker, PC
The Buzz Oates Group of Companies
Edward Jones
National Accounts Project Specialist Simpson Strong-Tie | Stockton, CA
Contracts Analyst-VI UC Davis Health System | Sacramento, CA
Executive Director / CEO of Catholic Schools Diocese of Sacramento | Sacramento, CA
Development Director Diocese of Sacramento | Sacramento, CA
Business Development Officer Sacramento Credit Union | Sacramento, CA
Featured Property
$6 per sqft
14,500 SF Available
For Rent
14,500 SF Available
For Rent


text:
Conservatives and Liberals and Parenting
We have had this discussion before but as I sat and reread the definition for the upteenth time , trying to grasp how two opposing beliefs can cause so much dissention and (hate even), it started reading like different views of parenting skills.
My view as a conservative is exactly how I raised my son
and daughter.
My son worked all through high school and college.
I never made a car payment, paid car Ins, or bought gas for his auto.
He believes, if you don't work, you don't eat.
My daughter was well on her way to the same goals.
I am sure there are conservatives' with children not worth
a nickle as far as being a contributing citizen but over all....
my conservative friends and family have raised
their children by the same guidelines as our political
values. If you don't work....you don't eat.
Do liberals raise their children as they view their beliefs
for others? If not, why not?
Do liberals expect their own kids to solve their
own problems or the govn solve them?
Do liberals raise their kids, if you don't work, you
don't eat?
I find this an interesting subject.
Does our political belief and view run parallel with
how we raise our children?
Conservatives and Liberals
Very briefly stated, here are the different beliefs of Conservatives and Liberals.
Conservatives ideals are based on the belief in the capability of others and the attendant accountability i.e. personal responsibility. The individual, not the government, is responsible for individual actions. All government should be limited and be representative of the people. They believe in free market economy, individual liberty, traditional values and morals, and a strong national military for defense. The role of the government is to protect the freedom of the people so that individuals can pursue their own goals and desires. The emphasis is on the state to solve its own problems and for the individual to solve his/her own problems.
Liberals believe in a strong government that acts to absolve others from accountability based on their belief that Americans generally incapable. Seeing people as incapable they feel compelled to protect promote equal opportunity for all people in the nation. It is the job of the government (state) to help solve social ills and to protect the civil liberties of all. Liberals have a strong belief in individual and human rights. The role of the government should be to protect and guarantee that no person is in need. Thus, liberals would accept governmental policies such as national medical insurance for all. Liberals emphasis the basic goodness of people and the need for government to help solve problems.
Are liberals more compassionate than conservatives?In: Uncategorized [Edit categories]
Answer:.Not necessarily. A specific liberal may be more compassionate than a specific conservative, but the reverse can also be true.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_liberals_more_compassionate_than_conservatives#ixzz27yzAW9y5
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_are_conservatives_different_than_liberals#ixzz27yyW8sMD
City woman-before you can discuss different methods of child rearing first you have to honestly define conservative and Liberal. Your definition of Liberal is painfully, hopelessly wrong-hopefully not purposefully so but really really off the mark. It is hard for me to accept that you could be so very wrong since I know you know how to read so I can only assume you want to believe the drivel you posted in which case a rational discussion on parenting is hopeless.
Citywoman, when you come up with an accurate definition for a Liberal, there may be some way of having this discussion.
As patriciae said, your definition is so far from accurate, there is nothing to discuss that is rational or sane.
One might actually describe this thread as another one started by a Troll, since there is nothing reasonable to discuss in the OP
Yes it is, and you posted while I was starting to respond to CW and her thread. You beat me to the words and they where both posted.
Look at it this way, ENMc, I was backing up and supporting exactly what you said, agreeing with you.
Sometimes 2 people post just about the same thing at the same time, because the posts are getting crossed as they are typed and one posts before the other.
I'm not sure if you meant for this post to be insulting, but it easily could be. I like to think you didn't, that perhaps you didn't consider how it might be construed.
I may be a Liberal (by any definition) but of course we have raised our kids to be as self-supporting, intelligent, independent, gracious, grateful, respectful, patriotic, and personally responsible as possible.
I don't raise my kids to expect to go on welfare and suck the life out of all that government will give them. How awful of you to imply that someone would raise their kids - be they conservative or liberal - to do that. Not saying that people don't end up that way, of course. One can never say never when it comes to the many faces of humans. After all, people abuse their kids and even kill them ....
My kids have turned out quite differently - even though they were raised by the same parents. Both of them are still as defined above, but slightly different in drive and maturity.
I believe in personally responsibility but I also believe in safety nets (but I don't raise my kids to expect them). You see, life sometimes happens through no fault of your own (a terrible accident or disease, downsizing or offshoring at work). Yes, the family would rally around to help, but people don't always have a family that can help. So yes, this liberal does believe in certain government-supported safety nets. I hope none of my family will need to use it, but I'm glad it is available for those that do.
"based on their belief that Americans generally incapable."
Oh lady, you are so off base you're not even in the ball park.
And as for a discussion as to how I raised three sons (four, with my partner's son), the truth would probably shock you. Curfews, chores, consequences, house rules, ...........and if you must pigeonhole me - which I'm sure you feel you must - I'm left wing, gay, feminist, democrat-voting, on and on and on, all the things you think should be anathema to good parenting. Really, you need to get out more. What a ridiculous, arrogant post.
Sorry...I guess Wiki is wrong in their definition then.
So this definition of a liberal view is wrong?
"It is the job of the government (state) to help solve social ills and to protect the civil liberties of all. Liberals have a strong belief in individual and human rights. The role of the government should be to protect and guarantee that no person is in need. Thus, liberals would accept governmental policies such as national medical insurance for all. Liberals emphasis the basic goodness of people and the need for government to help solve problems."
I thought this is what you have been saying but now that is in black and white you don't like the looks of it?
Then instead of getting all huffy tell me what is it you
don't believe in the definition .
Thank you, Esh... well stated.
Since every single person is an individual, no two will grow up... regardless whether raised by the same parents, in the same household... with the exact same views, goals, drives, maturity or intelligence levels, common sense, etc... and should be treated and looked at as decidedly individual. Life experiences will differ greatly, molding individuals into very different persons.
When one views life with boxed in, narrow views of people, stereotyped as they are in the OP, it's very difficult to HAVE an open discussion on parenting... or any issue, really.
Perhaps better questions to ask would include the age at which various issues were broached and explained, and what tact was used to raise and discipline children.
Liberal and conservative only cover two very stigmatized views... what about parents that raise children in non-political environments? Not everything is slathered in political views, you know.
What we know for sure is that liberals raise their daughters to believe taxpayers should buy birth control for grown women.
Sorry...I guess Wiki is wrong in their definition then.
Do you know how Wiki entries get created? When it comes to topics like this, no single person's view can be applied to every one. I suspect the same is true of conservatives.
I am sure there are conservatives' with children not worth
a nickle as far as being a contributing citizen but over all....
my conservative friends and family have raised
their children by the same guidelines as our political
values. If you don't work....you don't eat.
Do liberals raise their children as they view their beliefs
for others? If not, why not?
This is what I asked.
I did not accuse anyone of bad parenting.
I asked a question which I thought had foundation.
Some people went on the defensive at hello.
I think what I was asking and ESH got it......do you raise
you children with the values of self-responsibility?
I'm sure most of you do....but then how does that coincide
with your political view of govn being a money nanny.
"Citywoman, What we know for sure is that liberals raise their daughters to believe taxpayers should buy birth control for grown women."
Its comments like that that shut down all intelligent conversation. You know squat about how liberals raise their daughters!
Its like me saying conservatives raise their daughters to be baby machines and subservient to their men.....which is bunk....just like your ignorant (as in uninformed) comment is.
CW, try as you might you just cannot put individuals into a box. I know both Con & Lib parents who spoil their offspring to death and worthlessness. And yet some offspring do well despite how they are raised. No kids here, but if so I wouldn't be a liberaltarian spoiler.
citywoman2012 none (My Page) on Sun, Sep 30, 12 at 16:26Sorry...I guess Wiki is wrong in their definition then.
Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on Sun, Sep 30, 12 at 17:57
Do you know how Wiki entries get created?
Of course she doesn't. She believes in death panels....and probably what Akin said about legitimate rape, and don't forget the unnecessary equal pay for equal jobs for women......lmao
There are many, many more ways of parenting out there than there are schools of political thought. I don't think one is necessarily connected to the other.
The first thought that comes to mind is one of the most conservative men I know... who also happens to be wrapped around his daughters' little fingers. Two daughters, one in university, the other dropped out long ago. Since they were children, they were daddy's litlle girls, he gave into them on everything. He bought them their cars and paid their insurance, he gave them credit cards when they were teenagers and paid their monthly bills. He pays their cell phones, one still lives at home and the other he is paying for her apartment while she attends university.
Neither girl has ever had to work or pay for anything they own, yet he is a staunch conservative.
He is not alone either... many have spoiled their children and it runs along both left and right wing parents.
I can't say I would agree that right wing parents inherently teach their children to be self sufficient and neither do left wing parents teach their children to be moochers. it just doesn't work that way.
CW I'd like to answer your question. As one who spent the first half of her life as a liberal, the second half + as a conservative, I can tell you there really isn't any difference. We have a tendency to parent much like our parents did. At least we tend to take what they did well and discard what we felt they didn't. I remember that for my two oldest, Dr. Spock was all the rage. When I had my two youngest, some fourteen years later, he was no longer in vogue. Besides the fact, my mother was a democrat and my father was a republican. Same with my siblings, two are democrats, two are republicans, and we all parented pretty much the same.
>>Some people went on the defensive at helloGET OUT!! Your kidding me!
Let's see...
>> I'm confused on this subject.You can say that again.
>>I want to say up front I have never voiced my opinion
regarding feeding anyone.....You must have been saving it up for THIS thread you started, eh?
>>When school lunches have been discussed before, it was
posted by a liberal and it was titled:
Conservative Definition Of Charity: Starve The Children
I went back and reread that post.
This is where the confusion comes in.Seems to me that you are in a perpetual state of confusion, here, but I digress. ;)
>> Now some liberals are stating regarding THIS post, the kids should "pack their own lunch".
Perfect example is below.
Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on Fri, Sep 28, 12 at 8:03
If one accepts that it is the tax payers job to subsidize and/or pay for school lunches then the government gets to set the guidelines on what the meals will consist of.
If the lunches don't fill you up bring a snack, fruits and veggie would be a good choice! Don't like it pack a lunch.
Uh oh, look, up there....confusion is setting in
>>So this post title should have been:
Liberals Definition Of A Good Balanced Lunch: Starve The Children.See what I mean?
>>This subject has become a flip-flop.You can say that, again! Make up your mind! See below, she will, many times :(
Is it Starve a Conservative
Feed a Troll??
>>I had a dear
friend that taught 5th grade for 33 years.
Her DH had a huge garden and she took veggies out of the garden to
school every day for a mid afternoon snack.
With homemade ranch dressing.
In the winter she made a huge pot of soup and had veg
soup midday snack with crackers a couple times a week.WOW! I certainly hope she made those little buggers sing/work for that cup of soup?
ya know, ......"more please, sir...I'd like more, please"
What did they have to do? Sweep the floor, clean the toilets? Gotta start 'em young...make 'em work for those crumbs...er, I mean, learn personal responsibility!
>>I am a pushover for kids and animals.
They had better be treated right.I can see that. Especially for starving kids. Oh wait. Maybe it's just the starving kids of liberals? No? That can't be right? FLIP. The Starving kids that deserve to be starving cuz the taxpayers, the 53%, are supposed to feed them? FLOP Kids who work for their supper (or free lunch, in this case) wait.. free lunch??? Free lunch, really? No such thing as free lunch, right?? ;0 FLIP.
Alright, I think I got it. You are a pushover for the kids that Liberals want to starve. But put your foot down when it comes to Liberals own children who, apparently according to you, either earn their keep or should expect to starve.
Got it.
I'm so confused. Who, exactly, gets to "eat cake"? lol
Can you clear this up for me I have a few questions. When you say "had to work to eat" would Honey Boo Boo be an example? At what age did you farm them out to put food on the table? At what age did you set them on the street corner?
I am not clear how your mind process these things. You know how liberals need proof.
I hope the lurkers are watching. You cannot make this stuff up.
chase...Pretty sure that wasn't me that said that Chase.
"Citywoman, What we know for sure is that liberals raise their daughters to believe taxpayers should buy birth control for grown women."
Its comments like that that shut down all intelligent conversation. You know squat about how liberals raise their daughters!
Its like me saying conservatives raise their daughters to be baby machines and subservient to their men.....which is bunk....just like your ignorant (as in uninformed) comment is.
Do you know how Wiki entries get created?
Of course she doesn't. She believes in death panels....and probably what Akin said about legitimate rape, and don't forget the unnecessary equal pay for equal jobs for women......lmao
Notto, I think you need to find a thread where I said I believed in death panels, or agreed with Akin or disagreed
pay for equal jobs.
lmao back at-cha for being wrong.
AHA! Now I get it-the problem is not being able to read, it is reading comprehension. Nik persists in believing that liberals want the g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t to pay for birth control when in fact liberals want I-n-s-u-r-a-n-c-e c-o-m p-a-n-i-e-s to pay for birth control. When you read insurance company and understand Government what can any one say? I can tell you that for profit insurance companies are not a branch of the government but if you dont want to grasp that there is no more discussion. When CW goes to Wikipedia and reads up on conservatives and Liberals and comes out of it with the weirdly skewed view that she has there is nothing I can do. Reading comprehension I have to say is one of my strengths. I always scored in the 99th percentile on all the tests but I dont know of any system for passing that on.
The system was set up so there is a safety net for those who need it, not for every other lazy ass who doesn't want to work or pay taxes. I learned that in first year sociology class.
I've never heard a conservative say they don't believe in safety nets for those who need it. I know that conservatives are very generous in their donations to worthy causes yet has anyone seen Biden's tax return and his % of income given to charity? Dem's just keep running the same ole tract on what conservatives want and think and repeatedly demonstrate they don't have a clue what conservatives want or think.
I know one thing for sure, you won't see a conservative daughter on national TV telling the world she needs them to pay for her birth control!!! So who the heck raised Sandra Flock? Seems the number one lesson her mom left out was the one on self respect.
NOOOOO Patricia you missed CW read the Conservative platform and she said. reread the definition for the upteenth time
After reading for whatever upteenth time (Gee that could have been a 100 times) all she could get out of it was how much food was going into her kids mouth and who was going to work to put that food in their mouth.
You cannot make this stuff up.
I think Marquest has a mental problem and the rest of you have a comprehension problem.
Mrsk, GGMolly and esh(on one point) are the only ones to understand what I am asking.
Since so many of you went into overdrive and on the defensive then the only thing I can think is comprehension.
It must be a big liberal thing.
After reading for whatever upteenth time (Gee that could have been a 100 times) all she could get out of it was how much food was going into her kids mouth and who was going to work to put that food in their mouth.
You cannot make this stuff up.
My large family was raised to be self reliant...work and carry your load.....do not live off the govn..live by the sweat of your brow.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
I asked if the definition was wrong, for a liberal to
disect it and show where it is wrong.
Not one person did. All I got was back talk NOT STRAIGHT
So I am concluding it is right and some are teed off because it translated into what liberalism is?
Hey, I went to Wiki. Thats where lots of liberals go for info.
CW- you went to Wiki and then totally misundestood what you read there-that is where the comprehension part comes in. I dont know, not being an educator, how to fix that. You read plain English and come up with Urdu. There is no point in telling you point by point where and how you are wrong because either you dont want to understand or you cant. I am not going to debate the point of whether or not Wikipedia represents the values of all liberals properly because it is beside the point if none of the points get through.
And apparently GGMolly is in the same boat with Nik-Insurance Company and Government are not the same thing.
As for Biden and his contributions to charity-perhaps he is like me-I do not believe in taking tax deductions for Charitable contributions so mine are not listed on my tax return. It is a moral thing for me.
I am a liberal and I have five different children by five different men and married none of them, but boy do I collect a hefty welfare check , drive a Cadillac and eat steak and lobster every week. Is that the kind of answer you wanted, CW, with your loaded question?
I agree you do have a reading comprehension problem. My son worked in a grocery store all thru HS and college. He'd come home at 11 , have a late dinner , study and get up and go to school the next day. My daughter worked thru HS and college as well. They both got scholarships which helped pay for schooling.
I don't agree we raise kids like we were raised. I was raised by very conservative parents and think their values were skewed and subtly racist. I raised my kids quite differently, and they have good values, are liberal, and good citizens. My only fault with both of them is they give their kids quite expensive gifts such as iPhones and iPads. But then they make good money and it's theirs to spend any way they see fit. They raised/are raising smart nice kids.
CW, a straight answer to your post would beg the question of the accuracy of your definition. What people here are responding to is that your definition is so off the mark that answering your post can't be done, as the premise is faulty from the start.
It's like asking, when did you stop beating your wife? The premise is faulty, because the of the assumption you present. You get no "straight" answers because there isn't one without buying into your assumptions.
CW, you are disingenuously trying to paint all of a "type" of people with the same brush, probably so you can more easily say Us and Them, and make sure you know who you mean. Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way, so all of your attempts to pigeonhole, label, etc will get you nowhere. Not only will you not get you the answers you hope to get, but you alert anyone you ask to your hoped-for agenda, hidden - not very well - withing the blatant subcontext of your post.
I hope this answers your confusion as to why the responses have not been as you expected.
Off topic - Bill: had the time of our lives!!
For the record, none of you has given any sort of rational answer to citywoman. All you are interested in doing is mocking her rather than supply an intelligent answer. That seems to be a typical response from what I read on this forum and just about everywhere else, from Liberals including from our President and especially from our Vice President. Why don't you stop the junior high school behavior and, since you don't agree with the Wiki definition, give your own definition of what makes a Liberal or Progressive and their beliefs. It would be nice to see such an adult attempt at a conversation.
The responses so far are nothing more than just plain boring. You certainly don't convince me or anyone else who might be Conservative of the rightness of your positions, whatever they may be by indulging in this kind of juvenile garbage. Do you actually speak to everyone this way? If you do, what does it gain you? Timeout in the Principal's office?
Dem's just keep running the same ole tract on what conservatives want and think and repeatedly demonstrate they don't have a clue what conservatives want or think.
Look, GGM is saying the same thing but in reverse! Now it's Democrats that don't have a clue about what conservatives want or think.
Hey, I went to Wiki. Thats where lots of liberals go for info.
The point about Wiki is - there is some very good factual information on Wiki when the subjects is FACTS (such as what happened in the Battle of Bulge). But when the subject is a subjective one - such as how one group thinks or feels - the information is subject to interpretation on the part of the person/persons that wrote it. So whenever you read Wiki, you have to determine for yourself if the information is factual or subjective. The information posted is not always validated. And that's why students in school are not allowed to use Wiki as a reference for their papers.
For the record, none of you has given any sort of rational answer to citywoman. I beg to differ. Several people did answer part of the question and CW has acknowledged that. The problem was the premise that raising children has to do with political beliefs and it was further compounded by CW's injection of Wiki's view of "liberal political beliefs" which were not accurate.
I also agree with mrskjun because I think her point was in line with mine earlier - we raise children based on how we were raised (either in agreement or in reaction to), not according to political beliefs.
Politics has nothing to do with it.
I have to say, I agree with mrskjn, and I'm sure she's as shocked as I am. My parents were very conservative, I'm not, but I, too, raised my children with similar values. My children, now adults, seem happy, pretty well adjusted, have very good jobs, make very good salaries and raise their children with good values. We share many similar interests, and values, spend good times together. I don't expect they will have the same [political] values I have. and that's OK. They can even be Republicans.
I have noticed, in our extended family, that there are [conservative] cousins who do expect their children to have the same depth of commitment to EVERYTHING their parents believe, no matter what. This has created huge rifts in these families, and it's so sad to see these families break apart.
For me, personally, in our Family, the big difference seem to be that "we liberals" seem to be more tolerant of the different choices our children make, not seeing these as a personal failure on the part of the parents and children, but the natural evolution of the family.
I believe the term is non-sequitur.
"What people here are responding to is that your definition is so off the mark that answering your post can't be done, as the premise is faulty from the start."
The only question remaining is... was this done on purpose? Or does it stem from a lack of reading comprehension, where the meanings of fact and opinion are confused? And I think we all know the answer to that one.
CW - I have to wonder where it is you live. It is such a strange question to ask how liberals raise their children. Do you not know anyone that has a different political view from you in the real world? Were/are your kids raised with only people exactly like you? That is what it sounds like. It's like asking how people of a different religion raise their kids.
Where I live there are many different kinds of people. There are conservatives and liberals and independents and Christians and Jews and Muslims and aetheists (and I'm sure some others too). There are rich people, upper middle class, middle class and lower middle class.
My kids are raised to see what it like for as many different kinds of people that I can expose them too. Not just some small circle of like minded people.
Conservatives have their babies change their own diapers: you just can't instill Personal Responsibility at an early enough age.
Libruls expect the government to change their babies' diapers, which is why they put them in subsidized daycare.
Conservatives have their babies cook their own meals because its never too early for individualistic 'we made this' to get started.
Libruls feed their babies with things they buy with government food stamps.
The first toy a conservative gives their babies is a toy gun, what with the 2nd amendment and all.
The first toy a librul gives their babies is a rattle, so that they learn that if they make enough noise, the government will come help.
A conservative teaches their babies that on play days with the neighbors' babies, if they're the biggest and strongest, everything belongs to them.
A librul teaches their babies to redistribute the toys.
and so on.
Most liberals I know beat their children harshly and won't let them eat any potato chips until they come home with their begging bowls full of money. Then they all watch pornography, open their welfare cheques, do an hour or two of satan worship, and off to bed anytime between 2 to 6 AM. That's why I'm liberal - the hours are so much easier.
David, change the spelling and your post will likely be picked up and widely distributed as an email - I Love My Children and that's Why I'm a Conservative!
I can't wait till one of the duller lights on this forum receives it and reposts it as a guide to raising perfect right wing children.
Ummm yeah, the "Conservatives" have dibbs on God, stimulating the economy through trickle down...ahemmm, and NOW rearing children. LMAO
Really? Dems believe in hand-outs, and Repubs are all self-sustaining?
As IF I told my child to watch the Dems and or the Reps for guidance...NOT.
If my child were suffering from a life-threatening illness, the last thing I would care about would be my politics or the politics of my child. If my child was in need of clothing, food, shelter or guidance, I would not question my child's politics or my own - I would do what I thought necessary as a parent.
Anything else is abuse. So denying a child food to make a political point is child abuse; I'm sure that's something everyone here would agree with.
So, judging only by cw's post, that's the difference between liberal and conservative parents. Conservatives abuse their children by starving them into submission.
Reading comprehension 101.
Yesterday's sermon must have been about parenting, and how much better "we" are than those evil liberals, who have no values at all. And liberals are single-handedly responsible for all the ills of the world.
As we get closer to the election, we should have some interesting Sunday evening/Monday morning posts.
Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on Mon, Oct 1, 12 at 12:34
Really? Dems believe in hand-outs, and Repubs are all self-sustaining?
Exactly, notto. That explains why the states that take the most from the government are all red states. Oh, wait...
At one time in my life, I had to live in GA, on the SC border, and NEVER in my life have I seen so many people on welfare. They were getting checks in the mail and MEDICAID, and the kids were some of the poorest, least educated in this country. These were White people, born and bred in that area. They were staunch REPUBLICANS and claimed they didn't want any hand-outs. Some even had outhouses! They clung to their guns and were Bible-thumpers. They would argue Religion on a daily basis.As they voted GOP they would say that God will provide. I love to help the less fortunate, but there was no reasoning with this crowd. I wanted to scream. Instead, I moved ;)
Citywoman, I read all through your post and it's obvious you and your friends and relatives live in a bubble. I didn't read through the rest of the posts. Oftentimes I use the term 'Stepford' in these posts because it applies so well to a certain mindset. I just really, really feel sorry for you folks, but there's nothing the rest of us can do about it.
Firstly, the proper spelling of nickel will probably help one to gain employment.
I am not a liberal, just a Democrat and I raise my children in a very "conservative" fashion. I don't allow my little girl to shop at a place like Justice, which I call "clothes for the pole." I am very strict with my children, more so than most so-called conservatives I know.
My son attends a social group. Another Mother whose son attends Christian Academy (the most religious school in town) has many friends who allow their children to play video games labeled M for Mature. Including first graders. I do not allow any video games.
Her quirky son was routinely bullied at Christian Academy. My quirky son has never been bullied at public school.
Another woman I know and like who is a conservative is reading "50 shades of grey" I would not read that trash.
Who is the real conservative now?
Ah, yes... the self-constructed bubble... where one hides away from what they've been told are evils within the world. A place where very little sunlight enters, along with differing ways of looking at life, or the notion of walking a mile in someone else's shoes. A place of forced indoctrination, outdated social constructs, where anything else is considered taboo...
Couldn't imagine living where I wasn't encouraged to see life through many different eyes, to embrace the new and different, to reach out for more and more knowledge... to broaden views and learn... to admit mistakes, and try again... etc.
Robin, I'd say that you don't fall into any category according to the Republican gospel of today. You, I believe, are what we'd call an honest to goodness conservative/moderate... what Republicans USED to look like, before the party was taken over by the voices of the far right extreme fundamentalist.
I don't detect that same hint of paranoia, that same level of hate toward anything progressive... imagine that, Robin... you fall into the category of a regular conservative... when conservatives were really conservative... in my humble opinion.
For the record, none of you has given any sort of rational answer to Citywoman.
She hasn't asked a rational question. A provocative question about brad names without a label of content on the cans of pigeon holes!
Alas I am not qualified to answer as I only have cats but I do abhor the use of the term lib as an epithet by a dwindling population of ah ermm (define yourselves) as conservative is a ward that rarely comes to my mind!
For the record..I found the definition of Conservative
and Liberal pretty accurate,
In fact I thought the definition for Liberal was being more than fair and flattering.
For some that call Republicans, "racist scum, thoughtless , selfish , racist old white men,
ignorant idiots and every other nasty word one can even think of, I find it more than hypocritical and even dishonest that those same name callers would pretend
offended of the description of a liberal from WIKI.
Personally I did think it was being more than FAIR.
Get real.
What is it about this below.....that liberals said wasn't
Liberals have a strong belief in individual and human rights. The role of the government should be to protect and guarantee that no person is in need. Thus, liberals would accept governmental policies such as national medical insurance for all. Liberals emphasis the basic goodness of people and the need for government to help solve problems.
Now, I will take this slowly although I think each of you knew exactly what I meant when I made this remark.
I taught my children if you don't work you don't eat.
My children had chores around the house.
They lived there too. No one is born to wait on anyone else that is able-bodied. And you know I'm not talking about babies and small children!
Everyone works. The teaching of work is to ready your child as an adult, to earn his keep in life and for his food by the sweat of his brow so to speak.
You do not ever assume anyone else is going to feed you
especially the govn. Never assume the govn is going to house you.
You house yourself, you feed yourself.
No one else, after I left my home ever fed me or housed me
but myself.
Evidently, this was a great foundation for my son because
he lives by, you work ...you eat.
If only all able-bodied Americans had been raised with that motto.
It's sad that you had to preach "you don't work you don't eat" to your children. I never had to say anything like that to my now 26 year old daughter. And, gee, she works and supports herself teaching 3rd grade. And I am a liberal and so is she. Weird. Wonder how that happened? I must be the exception (sarcasm).
I sure would hate to live whereever you live. Must be awful to never meet anyone different from yourself.
I taught my children if you don't work you don't eat.
My children had chores around the house.
They lived there too. No one is born to wait on anyone else that is able-bodied. And you know I'm not talking about babies and small children!
Everyone works. The teaching of work is to ready your child as an adult, to earn his keep in life and for his food by the sweat of his brow so to speak.
You do not ever assume anyone else is going to feed you
especially the govn. Never assume the govn is going to house you.
You house yourself, you feed yourself.
No one else, after I left my home ever fed me or housed me
but myself.
Evidently, this was a great foundation for my son because
he lives by, you work ...you eat.
If only all able-bodied Americans had been raised with that motto.
CW--I'm really mad at you now! How can you claim that is the way a conservative raises his/her kids when, in fact, that is pretty much how liberals raise their kids.
Do you honestly think the liberals on this forum are all on foodstamps and teaching their kids how to sponge off of others? How insulting! And you wonder why we don't want to have much to do with you.
I started working in the 7th grade. Both my children started working in the 7th and 8th grades. So what is it you want to know?
Oh, yeah, just so you don't get any more confused--we are all liberals and/or Democrats and no one in my family has taken anything from the government except after age 65, they collected Social Security along with their other retirement funds.
So what is it, again, you are assuming about liberals/Democrats?
I am a bleeding heart liberal and darn proud of it!
We were fortunate enough to be able to pay for our kids university education BUT they had to contribute financially and they had to do well. Both lived at home for a short time after graduating, both paid room and board.
When younger they were given a certain amount of money each week. From that they had to buy whatever was appropriate for their age, birthday party gifts, pizza days at school, video rentals and the like when they were little. "Want to have" clothes, gas for the car, and treats when they had friends over plus save some.
Both our kids are financially responsible, have good jobs, great partners, and have an excellent work ethic....bonus is they have a keen sense of social responsibility.
They aren't perfect by any means but they are darn fine people....in spite of being the fruit of these liberal loins!
It is beyond absurd to even suggest that somehow conservatives have the answer to raising children to be responsible...politics has SQUAT to do with it!
I'm lucky that I don't have to teach my children underhanded ways of sponging off the government or mooching money from innocent taxpayers.
You see, in Canada nobody actually works. We just let the government take care of all our needs from cradle to grave. Working at an actual job is not an option in socialist countries. We don't work, we don't pay for our own housing, we don't pay for our own food, we don't pay for our own cars and we certainly don't pay for our own gas or insurance. Without a capitalist/conservative form of government, there is just no incentive for any of us to work.
I'm a long-time lurker coming forward just to answer this for citywoman, since she seems to be having a tough time getting the answer she's looking for. I mean, she innocently asked the question, don't Liberals teach their children to expect the government to support them? She says she really just doesn't know the answer... She read it on Wiki, so it must be true...
Sure, I raised my children with Liberal ideals. They were raised to care about those less fortunate than they are. They know that they are lucky to have family to help if needed, but understand that not everyone has this. They were taught that all Americans are in this together as a country, and the needs of the many are more important than the wants of the individual. They were taught to be accepting of others' beliefs, and not to judge people on race, nationality, or income. They were brought up to believe in equal civil rights, including who can marry. They learned that love is the answer, not war. They are mindful of the environment, do not pollute or litter, and are not wasteful. They knew that they would have to have jobs when they were of age, but they were aware that they had many opportunities that others might not have.
My kids went through public schools, and state colleges, and both have been employed since they were 14 years old. And now, they pay for insurance since their employers don't offer it, and all on their own they have realized that the health insurance industry is a giant swindle as a for-profit business. My daughter doesn't have prescription coverage, so she gets her birth control at Planned Parenthood, which, if the conservatives have their way, wouldn't be available either. And they think, why not national health coverage? So I guess by your definition, they have grown up to be Liberal. And they vote every year.
My kids do charity work, are fine citizens, and are good to their mom. If only all able-bodied Americans were raised this way there might be peace in this world.
What a great answer kitchenwitch. I think your description of how you raised your kids resonates with a lot of us who had exactly the same experience.
My question is what kind of upbringing would allow someone to even ask a question like cw asked? It's all about stereotyping; it's all about intolerance and it's all about crass generalization. Sorry cw but your "innocent" question is NOT something you should be proud of.
Very Well said Kitchenwitch. Thanks for coming out of lurking. It is nice to see all points of view.
I raised my daughter not that she had to work to eat but with pride, respect for herself and others. That training gave her the guidance and confidence needed to become a responsible person. She wanted to work to be a independent woman.
A independent woman that would do more than work for food but be a contributing citizen to society. She is very much "Your Brothers Keeper".
I raised my daughter with love and the best education I could afford. That education included travel to Brazil, Germany and Mexico to experience the world as part of that education and her language studies. I have taken her on vacations to most of the states of the US and several islands. So she could experience other cultures and of other states in the country she lives.
I raised my daughter to know the value of a dollar but not the love of the dollar.
I am as proud as peach of what she has accomplished.
I am a bleeding heart liberal and I raised a bleeding heart liberal.
Kate said:
Do you honestly think the liberals on this forum are all on foodstamps and teaching their kids how to sponge off of others? How insulting! And you wonder why we don't want to have much to do with you.
Noooooooooooo, I never wondered that lol.
I have never seen so many take so many different directions with this post.
I never said any of you raise your children in any particular way.
I asked , Do you raise your children with the values
and beliefs you invest in your liberal political party.
There are not alot of differences in our "values" and "standards"
in performance of what we want and would like to expect to receive from a political party, from
the outcome of actions within our personal life.
Why wouldn't your "values" within project out to your
"values" and expectations in a broader sense?
You have one set of values and a set of standards for your
personal life and then a different set for what kind of party you vote for?
I went back and read all the posts.
I did get some intelligent answers from some of you .
Thank you for your answers.
patricia, after next year if Obama's plan goes into affect, insurance and government will in fact be the same thing. In the end we all pay, something those who don't pay taxes don't understand. I do not want to pay for Sandra Flock's birth control. If she can't afford to buy her own then she needs to refrain from having sex!!! This idea of others have to pay for everyone else's choices in life is crap, plain and simple. Take care of yourself if you want to indulge in behavior that has consequnces and don't look to me to bale you out. It's called personal responsibility. Goes back to the Wiki links definition of being conservative.
This idea of others have to pay for everyone else's choices in life is crap, plain and simple. Take care of yourself if you want to indulge in behavior that has consequnces and don't look to me to bale you out. It's called personal responsibility.
Oh thank goodness someone said this, greatgollymolly -- so now I can stop paying exorbitant property taxes to send YOUR children to school, right? And deduct the portion of my federal taxes that goes to tuition and scholarships, right?
Not my fault you decided to indulge yourself by reproducing; YOU had 'em, YOU can pay for their education. ...right?
Circuspeanut, perfectly stated.
I don't have any kids in school now, so I can withhold a large portion of my property taxes, the part that goes to the school system and anything related to the schools, to kids, etc.
Anything that funds the COA (council on aging, I'll pay that portion cause both of us here are seniors)
Will spread the word to all I know that have no kids in schools, we don't have to pay, those conservatives just said it perfectly.
This idea of others have to pay for everyone else's choices in life is crap, plain and simple. Take care of yourself if you want to indulge in behavior that has consequnces and don't look to me to bale you out. It's called personal responsibility.
I had 2 kids, paid the taxes etc, but heck at 34 and 29, not my problem anymore according to those conservatives.
So all you out there, time to take responsibility, you played around and now you got to pay for your behavior.
you had 'em, you can pay for the education....right sounds good to me.
It's called personal responsibility. Them conservatives are big on "personal responsibility" and all that goes with it.
It's like we libs are strange alien creatures and CW just wants to know we don't have horns and carry on with satanic rites. My family has never taken any help from the government EVER except for social security. I produced two kids who never were without a job in their careers, and both have an excellent work ethic. Neither ever calls in sick. They are both stewards of the environment, and I'd venture a guess that libs are by far and away bigger environmentalists than conservatives.
CW, I don't know if you know this but the poorest states, the states with the most divorces are conservative southern states. Liberals are more likely to stay married. I find it amusing that these same people want the government out of their lives while holding out their hands for assistance.
I'm proud to be a lib and am so happy my kids are too. It would make for some uncomfortable holidays. We are of one mind on social and political issues. I guess I brainwashed them good by taking them on protest marches against the war in Vietnam when they were kids.
I have 1 son, raised him alone as the sole parent and head of household for 18 years, little contact with and zero c/s from his father. Needless to say, this was not an ideal parenting scenario, and it also required a tremendous amount of work and self-sacrifice. I lean toward liberal political views, and confess that I also leaned toward permissive parenting and probably spoiled my son terribly. Being a cunning child, and a difficult child as well, he took full advantage of this, figuring out long ago how to get by doing the minimum at times, and how to get Mom to do of lot of work for him.
Naturally I worried a lot about this kid over the years, but it seems some of that worry was unwarranted. He is now a freshman at one of the top engineering schools in the country. If he gets his degree, knock on wood, he will not only be highly employable, but will probably start at a salary making as much or more money than I do.
He is adjusting to college quite well, studying his butt off, doing his own laundry, and even refused my offer of money when I visited with him this past weekend. I'm not really sure how this all happened, but sometimes life works in mysterious way that may not have anything at all to do with one's politicial viewpoints.
Except that this is not from Wikipedia.
It's from Answers.com,
and the definition opinion of one (1) single person, one Peterc14, (current profession: Customer Service Representative).
More proof of why one shouldn't even believe them the time of the day. Not to mention the lecturing of others, on "values" no less.
Well I'll be. Thanks maddie for info and the link.
So, CW claims she got her info, her definitions from wiki and in reality she got them from Answers.com and just claimed they where from wiki.
Took a look over there at wiki, hadn't checked until now and, yup, CW definitions are not on Wiki.
We thought CW had a reading comprehension problem and in fact it is both a reading comprehension problem and a reading problem itself.
Sorry CW but you just don't have any credibility, There is a difference between a search on Answers.com and going to wiki for a definition.
Claiming that your definitions on liberal VS conservatives came from wiki when it didn't, well not good.
Did you think that you could get away with that and the rest of us would never get around to checking out the definition you claimed came from Wiki?
Guess you did, but like the rest of your supporters and the GOP that you support, you just don't get the difference between fact and fiction, between truth and lies.
Seems that this is just the story of the life of a GOP supporter and a GOP politician.
And darn it, they keep getting caught doing the same thing over and over and over again.
One would think that by now, they would have learned, but I guess that is not something that is possible with them either.
I appreciate you jodik, kind words I don't deserve. I was kidding with Ron. I realize Chase and I fall into those cracks, even with our leaning tendancies.
I'll try to answer the original post now (I was having hard time physically yesterday, so pardon my lack of answer) I am conservative. In politics and in values. Yes, I raise my son to be as self sufficient as possible. However, I am surrounded in my non-cyber world with liberals. I don't think there is another conservative in my office. They seem to hold on to what I call the "liberal elite". I'm making up this term. They want everyone to have everything they need all the time, but they're not afraid to put their money where their collective mouths are. They are warriors--out to set it all straight--whatever the problem is, they're on it with all of their heart, soul, money, lives... that's what liberal elite is. Yes, they want you to live like they do. They think if everyone thought as they, it'd be a much kinder world. And they're right. We all want to solve the same problems, it's the how to solve them where we differ.
G G M, would you please explain to me what in "Obamacare" makes insurance and government the same thing?
That's a good question chase, and from what I have been reading, seems to have a lot of misconceptions surrounding it.
Obamacare, as I understand it, does not include government run or government paid healthcare. What it does, is make purchasing PRIVATE health insurance from PRIVATE companies mandatory.
What it has is government making sure that the health insurance companies no longer fully run the show.
They must live under some rules that the government sets whether they and the minority of GOP like it or not.
The PRIVATE health insurance companies can no longer "use and abuse" the people any more. No more denying coverage because of pre existing conditions, no more canceling insurance because the insured got ill. No more limits on amount of insurance coverage.
I guess it must be that if the government has set up rules that the insurance companies must follow, then that makes the government and the insurance company one and the same; at least in the eyes of the GOP and their supporters.
You have to remember HG and Chase, it sounds so much more sinister when you put that GOP spin on things, the one that says Obamacare is evil, is government run health care and all that kind of insanity.
Trying to explain how it is, well that's a totally different story and one that they really can't do, but they will keep on trying and coming up with one crazy answer after the other, none of which will make any sense.
Little one , there must be more to it than that in G G M' s mind.
Government establishes some sort of regulation and controls on most industries. We have controls on banks so they don't gouge their customers, controls put on the food industry so we don't get tainted foods, airline safety regulation, etc. I'm quite sure no one equates that to government ownership of those industries
Hopefully G G M will explain what she meant.
The other thing I don't understand is why those so bent on eliminating Obamacare aren't equally as vocal about getting rid of Medicare given that truly is government run heath insurance. I just don't get it.
I can answer that chase, it's change. They grew up with Medicare, but not the new legislation. People fear what they don't know.
You know I'm not all for the legislation, but that's because I've been on the inside of insurance and I watched TennCare go up and watched the first panels of the legislation. It's not about fear for me, it's just plain wary of what will happen. I'm still reserving my judgement.
Posted by rob333 (My Page) on Tue, Oct 2, 12 at 8:55
I can answer that chase, it's change. They grew up with Medicare, but not the new legislation. People fear what they don't know.
You know I'm not all for the legislation, but that's because I've been on the inside of insurance and I watched TennCare go up and watched the first panels of the legislation. It's not about fear for me, it's just plain wary of what will happen. I'm still reserving my judgement.
IF you know anything about how PRIVATE insurances work, you would be very afraid to go the voucher system for Medicare. We are ALL going to get there, and if you allow and changes now, it's only going to get worse when YOU need Medicare.
The voucher sytem is great for the taxpayer, because the gov't knows exactly what it needs in its' funds yearly, but it's terrible for the elderly, in terms of how much THEY individually have to pay out of their pockets, and IF the private insurances will take them in with pre-existing conditions.
Gramma gets $5,000 from Medicare and has to buy private ins.
1)Good luck finding ins for that amount for the year when you're 80 yo.
2)You better hope you have NO pre-existing conditions at that age:
a)They either will not take you.
b)Your premium will be sky high.
c)They'll give you a decent premium the first year, and they will double it the next year, because THEY CAN ;)
also, you will be subjected to co-pays, and the difference between what the voucher will be and the REAL premium for the year. The cost out of YOUR pocket will be astronomical-thousands. Private insurances will benefit. The PATIENT loses all around.
So don't give me this fear because you don't know.
Answers.com, huh.
Me? I go directly to that unbiased fount unbiased wisdom, Conservapedia.com, what with wikipedia being so librul and all. Here's their opening paragraph on defining a librul:
"A liberal is someone who favors censorship of Christianity plus increased government spending and power, as in ObamaCare. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting same-sex marriage. Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own."
Here is a link that might be useful: link
"Its comments like that that shut down all intelligent conversation."
Yep. The liberal capacity to carry on all "intelligent conversation" is "shut down" by facts for which there is no defense.
As if the liberal "war against women" wasn't about demands that grown up women have their birth control supplied by somebody else. Liberalism promotes a parasitic arrangement between women and government, as anyone familiar with "The Life of Julia" knows.
Government takes on the responsibility of the "husband." The sperm donor or future "baby daddy" and the Sandra Flukes of the world have no responsibility for anything. If they don't get free birth control, we're told it will cost society more when they get pregnant. Their right to have sex will lead where it leads. They're not going to take responsibility for where they end up. Somebody else will. With the baby daddy/sperm donor out of the picture, government steps right in.
Whether it's taxpayers providing direct benefits, or government forcing insurance companies to do it, the outcome is the same. Government power in the service of liberalism forces responsibility on one group, and encourages irresponsibility in another. But to say so "shuts down" any "intelligent conversation" from women who believe more dependency makes for good government.
RE: Conservatives and Liberals and Parenting clip this post email this post what is this?
see most clipped and recent clippings
Posted by rob333 (My Page) on Tue, Oct 2, 12 at 9:57
I know everything about how PRIVATE insurance works. I was in that industry for 18+ years. Every part of it.
TennCare....in Tennessee, right? That would be a form of Medicaid, right?
Wouldn't TennCare be primarily for the people on STATE welfare?...which would explain the spiraling cost.
EVERY state has issues with welfare costs as our economy soured over the years, with job outsourcing etc. The problem is that YOUNG people who are healthy NEED to work and get off "assistance".
You cannot put the elderly in the same category. They have worked, paid for the system.....and MOST cannot go back to work to supplement their income or ins payments. Just sayin.
Nikoleta, your misogyny never ceases to amaze me. Carry on.
Misinformation that truth cannot penetrate. To their own detriment. would listen to the dribble of Rush that makes millions by making a joke of them. I think that is the saddest part of what they repeat is that a drug addict can convenience them that a stupid lie is truth. Could you be any more weak minded than to repeat this vile man?
As if the liberal "war against women" wasn't about demands that grown up women have their birth control supplied by somebody else.
It wasn't.
A. birth control is only part of the Republican's war on women.
B. insurance should cover it for all women just as it does already for most women.
C. when insurance covers it, that doesn't mean it was "supplied by somebody else"; it is part of what your insurance premium pays for.
Conservatives and Liberals and Parenting clip this post email this post what is this?
see most clipped and recent clippings
Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on Tue, Oct 2, 12 at 10:16
"Its comments like that that shut down all intelligent conversation."
Yep. The liberal capacity to carry on all "intelligent conversation" is "shut down" by facts for which there is no defense.
As if the liberal "war against women" wasn't about demands that grown up women have their birth control supplied by somebody else. Liberalism promotes a parasitic arrangement between women and government, as anyone familiar with "The Life of Julia" knows.
Government takes on the responsibility of the "husband." The sperm donor or future "baby daddy" and the Sandra Flukes of the world have no responsibility for anything. If they don't get free birth control, we're told it will cost society more when they get pregnant. Their right to have sex will lead where it leads. They're not going to take responsibility for where they end up. Somebody else will. With the baby daddy/sperm donor out of the picture, government steps right in.
Whether it's taxpayers providing direct benefits, or government forcing insurance companies to do it, the outcome is the same. Government power in the service of liberalism forces responsibility on one group, and encourages irresponsibility in another. But to say so "shuts down" any "intelligent conversation" from women who believe more dependency makes for good government.
I consider myself a conservative liberal. While I believe in helping the less fortunate, I don't believe in the extremes of babysitting adults,their choices and behaviors.
This comes from someone who grew up poor (me), but never on welfare, or hand-outs. As soon as I was able to live on my own (19 yo)I took care of myself, and paid for everything myself. My parents didn't help me. I attended colleges and worked....
As for the issues that we are facing in the US, it's a tricky problem. It's extremely difficult to encompass ALL the ills in the US, and draw a line as to WHAT the taxpayer should pay for. You have to look at the big picture, look at studies and projections. I'm not sure that either party is doing a good job at reading the statistics.
1)People will have sex, and have children whether they can afford them or not. Actually the ones who don't work have more time and energy to procreate ;)
Since we cannot make laws to stop this (lol), we must deal with the WELFARE problem and either give them birth control, or deal with multi uneducated, proliferating welfare living kids...It's a tough call. I'm not sure which side to join (Dems or Reps).
-If I take the route that "I" did it, and you're on your own, the welfare child population will continue to explode, more poverty and higher taxes...
-If I take the attitude that "I will take care of YOUR WHIMS" then I feel used.
This is a situation as to where do you stop "the bleeding" (welfare). We are having US citizens, non-citizens having babies at an alarming rate, and the govt is paying for them. As I've said before, our experiences ARE primarily regional. If you don't see much of it around you, your opinion may differ from mine. But if you see tons of moms with 5-6 kids a piece and nobody is working, whether it's because they don't feel like it, or can't, you may think that birth control may be a good idea by stopping this behavior with 1-2 kids vs another 5-6. It's not fair to those kids, as they have nothing, and it's NOT fair to the taxpayer.
I'm NOT happy about it. I'd love to put a physical PLUG in it, but that is unrealistic.
I feel the same way about paying for others' education. I paid for my own, YOU can too. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we didn't have any state or Fed gov't help.
I think that maybe if ordinary people would be shown the STATISTICS of welfare and explained things, we would be more cohesive in our opinions as to how to solve the problems.
This is a complete crock of personal responsibility Republicrat Bull.
When and where I grew up in the big City people things were pretty tough on everyone. It was even harder during the Depression era when my folks grew up.
There wouldn't be any Democratic voters and liberal minded people from that era given this foolhardy theory.
That just blows up this simple minded, self serving psychological analysis that is based on the asinine notion that liberal people are the result of the lack of personal responsibility in parenting.
Liberals are mainly open minded, rational AND responsible people who follow the golden rule and are not overwhelmed by selfishness, avarice and greed.
It takes GREAT PARENTING to develop children who can see the world clearly, base their views on science and fact, maintain an open mind, and not be burdened with the bigotry, ideology and narrow-minded views of their conservative parents.
No, what we need is for individuals to get guaranteed issued coverage, which can be subsidized. Back in July 1997, Gov idiots made it so that groups were guaranteed issue, but not indivduals. So the groups kicked the indivduals off and their premium became reasonable. But the individuals were out in the cold. You wanna kick some butt? Kick the emmployers' butts. They are the ones who screwed their employees out of what the deserved. I watched it up close and personal. Elderly also fit in this category. But no private insuance carrier could foot the bill for all those kicked off and so, what the government did shut down the INDIVIDUAL carriers, with exceptions of those who have $10,000 deductibles, for instance.
Unless the pool is spread far and wide, and subsidized, private carriers will get put out of business. Then it will all be government run.
I would agree, Robin... I think it's safe to say that most liberals would like to shape the world through peace, understanding, acceptance, and sharing... while the extreme right seems to have a different opinion.
But all of those things... understanding, peace, acceptance, and sharing... are all considered positive things by the liberal mind. When or how they became negative, I have no idea... I don't think that way. I can't think that way.
When one asks an irrational question, such as is asked in the OP, one should expect to receive the sort of answers that have been given.
There's an issue of comprehension, here, whereby facts and opinions are once more swirling together in a puddle of misunderstanding... and now, there's also an issue of credibility. When one claims a source, the quoted material should be traced to that named source. When one needs to lie about a named source, one can't be thought of as a credible, rational rhetorician.
In other words... ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
Nik, you do know don't you that insurance companies have been paying for prescription birth control for a very long time. It is hardly anything new and I'm willing to be the ranch that lots of conservative women have their birth control paid for by their insurance companies and would scream bloody murder if that stopped. It's nothing new!!!
The only new element is the issue of insurance companies paying for the birth control prescriptions for employees of religious based universities, etc. which, by the way, the insurance companies agreed too. Much has been made of that yet Catholics support the President 54-39 percent over Romney.
There is no issue here at all except in the minds of those who must see the President in a negative light no matter what.
"No one else, after I left my home ever fed me or housed me but myself."
So little empathy for those less fortunate. You also seem very ungrateful that you have had such good fortune... so far.
So many elderly lost everything in the great recession.... regardless of all of their personal responsibility over an entire lifetime.... it will be interesting to see how many on medicaid in assisted living are liberals in the coming years.
There is no issue here at all except in the minds of those who must see the President in a negative light no matter what.
Exactly Chase. Thank you.
Nik you are not paying one dime for anyone's birth control. The insurance company is paying for the birth control. There are teens that are given birth control pills because they have debilitating pain every month. It is no different than having your insurance plan that covers insulin if you are a diabetic.
It is pure ignorance to repeat Rush stupidity of people not wanting to pay for someone to have sex.
I would be wasting keystrokes if I thought you wanted facts but because you have a dieing need to believe stupid but I am doing this for those that lurk and want to understand and to know the truth.
For that I thank you and others for stating the false so others can inform with the truth. You are a positive tool for that purpose.
And, again, lost in this ridicilous conversation about nik paying for someone else's birth control is the fact that by the insurance company paying for birth control THAT REDUCES THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S COSTS THEREFORE SAVING EVERYONE (INCLUDING NIK) MONEY
I do not know why this is so hard to understand? It really is very simple. In fact, I don't believe it is hard to understand. It's just that it DOESN'T FIT THE AGENDA OF HATING EVERYTHING OBAMA DOES. Therefore, ignore the facts and continue to repeat lies.
Do you think the insurance companies went along with this out of the goodness of their heart? Because they like paying for things they didn't actually have to pay for before? With their enormous lobby why wouldn't they have fought this with everything they had? And why have they BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS WITHOUT OBAMA TELLING THEM THEY SHOULD? Because IT SAVES THEM MONEY!!!!!
How much clearer can this be?
Anyone know how many people will get birth control covered by insurance that up until now had to pay themselves becasue their employer excluded birth control from company coverage?
Best I can figure it is a miniscule number of people, I'd venture even less than 1%...the REST ALREADY HAD THEIR BC COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE...including conservative posters on this board.
Actually, we didn't cover birth control, even in the 80s and 90s. Which all of the employees thought was D-U-M-B.
Which costs more? Delivering a baby and all the care that goes with them, or birth control? Hm. Didn't take a lot to figure out the higher costs for us. But then, we weren't in charge.
(Psst? I'm a woman too! just in case you didn't know :)
No I did not know you were a woman. But, I thought you were saying no insurance company covered BC. I had worked for a lot of companies and my husband's company covered BC too. I thought it was normal.
I could see companies wanting it included for the employees for family planning for their career. It cost them plenty hiring and training new employees and Family Medical Leave.
As an administrator, we often worked with groups who were self-insured (do you know how that works? It's quite a bit different), but also worked with carriers like Aetna, for instance. It was across the board, though. 2nd largest brokerage firm in the world. We even covered property casualty stuff, like the space shuttle that blew up or John Travolta's planes. Big company!
Self-insured, for us, were companies that collect a "fee" (premium) from their employees and pool it in one spot and then the company sets the parameters for the coverage, within strict guidelines. They usually put the company's money into the pot too. Usually larger companies, corporations do this since the pool can contain thousands of employees and dependents.
As an administrator, we often worked with groups who were self-insured (do you know how that works
Yes I know how that works I was an auditor. I am newer around HT but i been around awhile so I know some from the other forums. I think I saw you in other forums and just never paid it any attention.
I usually do not pay attention to male or female most times anyway. It just not usually my focus. I resent when people treat or talk to one gender different than another.
I was speaking to chase about the self-insured thing.
But to answer your other statement, during the time I was where I was, you read me correctly--none of the carriers/companies we worked with (and there were quite a few, national companies) covered birth control. None.
I only told you my gender as I've been accused of "mis-representing" myself (on this forum, not the rest).
Hope this explains it all m! (hugs to you!)
"Best I can figure it is a miniscule number of people, I'd venture even less than 1%...the REST ALREADY HAD THEIR BC COVERED BY HEALTH INSURANCE...including conservative posters on this board."
Less than 1% is still a WAR AGAINST WOMEN! That's why grown up Sandra Fluke demanded the changes Democrats imposed on employers.
By the way, Obama's campaign wants liberal women to vote like their "lady parts" depend on it.
For some reason, their charming lady parts e-card has been scrubbed, though.
Here is a link that might be useful: vote like your lady parts depend on it
By the way, Obama's campaign wants liberal women to vote like their "lady parts" depend on it.
You may not understand this Nik but voting for every part of my body is important. I feel as strongly as you do that government should not control my body. If you agree to that then you should be for Obama. Do you feel your lady parts are not important? Guess what you cannot live without those lady parts, You will be on that death panel table.
You seem to be so paranoid about death panels why are you not paranoid about your lady parts and what the government tells you what you can do with those parts?
So you are darn tooting I am voting with my feet, body parts, behind and anything else I can squeeze in that voting booth.
DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS? or WILL YOU RUN AND HIDE WITH THE OP OF THIS TOPIC?
My lady parts will be voting!
OBAMA for Lady Parts 2012!!!!
vkgk (is that right?) - we need you for a slogan!
Oh, and my daughter will be voting her lady parts as well!
So strange...conservatives care so much about keeping government out of their lives (or so they say), unless it has to do with intrusive exams for women, and equal pay for women, and...I find that so weird. But, I guess whatever the conservative talking heads say is what they repeat.
Even my husband will be voting with 'lady parts' in mind... mine, and our daughters', and our granddaughter's... and even their daughter's! I'll be voting that way, too.
Having the freedom and the right to make our own choices is very important to us.
I don't know why you feel the need to put these people down, nik
Because they are not voting for her candidate.
But, wait, I learned here that only liberals say demeaning things about people that don't agree with them. You mean that's not true?
And, by the way nik, those costumes were used (for good purpose) to demonstrate at the RNC, not the DNC. You're clearly confused.
And, again, conservatives are always screaming about government staying out of their lives. But, when government gets involved in the most private part of our lives, and people protest that, they are demeaned by conservatives. What a wacky world we live in!
"I don't know why you feel the need to put these people down, nik."
It's not a put down, it's encouragement! Democrat women here have already told us that they, their daughters and husbands all plan to vote with their "lady parts." That's awesome!
I am completely supportive of their plans. And if Obama supporters want to wear those lovely vagina costumes they wore for the DNC convention again, why shouldn't they? It will just add to the festive air.
Do liberals raise their children as they view their beliefs
for others? If not, why not? Do liberals expect their own kids to solve their
own problems or the govn solve them? Do liberals raise their kids, if you don't work, you don't eat?
I find this an interesting subject.
Does our political belief and view run parallel with
how we raise our children?
I wonder if self described conservatives are invariably just closed minded, ideological individuals who have sponged up everything from their parents.
Perhaps that is why they want their country back to the way it was in the 1950's.
We don't need closed minded people with old ideas to lead us into the future.
I just remembered a personal story starring me and a college friend. We are from adjoining towns ,but I did not know her. She knew "of" me she said. We both were only children in very conservative Christian homes. We were both raised in the church from birth up. We both had the same curriculum all thru college, mostly the same classes. After college we both married young, and each of us had a son and a daughter. I briefly moved to a different part of PA but when I returned we and three other college friends and husbands started going out to eat every month or so.
My son and daughter were not raised in the church ,but both graduated from a prestigious university (daughter, magna cum laud /phi betta kappa) and both (and SIL )have their masters degrees. Both have had good paying jobs since college, each has one kid and older GK graduated from college in May, other one is an AP high school student and star athlete.
Friend's kids were raised in their very conservative Christian house. Their son turned out okay. Daughter dropped out of HS , married the guy who got her pregnant , left him when her daughter was three, hooked up with another guy who moved in with her , had another daughter. But her fiance was raping her 10 year old first daughter so he's in prison now ,and his daughter has psychological problems dealing with the fact her father raped her half sister. And to top it off the first daughter just dropped out of HS to have a baby boy and is not with the father of the child.
Them good old conservative Christian values, ya know.
Lily, certainly you know their lives have everything to do with loads of factors, not just one. It is sad what they have been through though. I could tell you about my mom's friends who also went to Christian universities and all of their blooming children, but I won't say it's solely because of Christianity.
Rob, I'm going to agree with you on this one.
I don't think Christianity should be presented as the factor in why the kids turned out the way they are when we are talking about a family whose lives have been affected by a molesting stepfather, divorce and psychological problems.
I think Lily's kids, given their upbringing, would have turned out the same way even if they HAD been raised in the church.
And her friend's kids may have been molested by anyone, Christian or not, high income, low income, doesn't matter. And likely it would have had the same psychological effect no matter if she was raised in the church or not.
I understand the point that divorce, sex before marriage, and molestation are not Chrsitian values. But I just don't think that they got married early, or had a child molester as an almost-husband, or had the children turn out poorly compared to your kids BECAUSE the kids were raised in the church.
Them good old conservative Christian values, ya know
From the posters on HT I do wonder about those values. There are a lot of Christians but not Christian like according to the teaching of Christianity.
Every one of my friends I can tell you why most of them turned out the way they turned out. There were a few exception to the rule. But I believe psychiatrist have it right when they say it is your Mother's fault.
Occasionally kids make it in spite of their mother or parents.
We all had basically the same parenting style with some minor exceptions. The majority of their children are very successful but there are a few that you wonder where they switch at birth.
Christian, Democrat, Republican I do not think have any weight how they turn out as adults. I have seen some demon Christian children.
"One can only hope the thread dies at 150 responses and sinks to the bottom of the forum page."
Why? Aren't you having fun?
The contrast is hilarious.
Obama attracts single women who vote with their "lady parts" and Romney attracts married women who vote with their brains.
Posted by nikoleta (My Page) on Thu, Oct 4, 12 at 12:51
Obama attracts single women who vote with their "lady parts" and Romney attracts married women who vote with their brains.
But, but, but....my experience has been that the GOP women brains are programmed with lies, like women's bodies shutting down during rape....and that it's ok to be UNEQUAL with men, get paid less, and esp in the South where I lived for a couple of years, all you have to do is look pretty and smile....like a moron, and the men call you a "pretty little lady". Sorry, quite frankly, I never got THAT jargon.
"Obama attracts single women who vote with their "lady parts" and Romney attracts married women who vote with their brains."
Nik, my vagina doesn't think for itself any more than my elbow. Another of my lady-parts (specifically my brain) is telling the rest of my body to watch out...
I'm married. And my brain is looking out for my womb, my vagina and all those other parts that my daughter happens to have as well.
"And if Obama supporters want to wear those lovely vagina costumes they wore for the DNC convention again, why shouldn't they? It will just add to the festive air."
There would be no reason for me to wear a vagina costume. This is not a party. This is actually fairly serious stuff. Giggle giggle, she said vagina, hahaha lady parts, snicker...
That's BS. This isn't funny, it's not cute, and it's not about our hoo-hoos or cootchies or (ahem) down-there...
This is about having personal control over our bodies. Any woman who mocks that basic right needs to get her head out of the patriarchal feed bag.
The teachings of christianity, the true message that Jesus brought to his followers, has been bent and twisted to the point that it no longer resembles the original message.
It would be more accurate to say that Obama attracts women who vote with their brains, realizing how important having health care and reproductive choices really is.
If Romney is only attracting married women, he's not getting a very big audience, considering the divorce rate sits at around 50%.


text:
Do You Need To Get Tested If Protected
Here's a taste of what TheBody.com has to offer on this topic:
Ask the Experts
Infected after 'protected' hand-job & boob-job. I challenge you dr.bob, testing after window period will prove you are wrong!(YET ANOTHER IM POSITIVE IM POSITIVE WHO HASNT TESTED POSITIVE, 2010)Hi Dr.Bob;Hope you are well. Thank you for your contiued help and support and thank you for your kindness and immense patience! I can only imagine what it must be like dealing with all sorts of HIV realated fears and issues given your own "virally...
Response from Robert J. Frascino, M.D.
The Robert James Frascino AIDS Foundation...likely psychosomatic illness.You write: "I hope I am wrong." You don't have to hope; you can bet on it!Dr. BobRE: Infected after "protected" hand-job and boob-job - You are wrong dr.bob! Aug 13, 2010Dear Dr.Bob;I appreciate your positive... Read more »
OraQuick test result with protective geneDear Dr. Bob,Thank you for your froum.I have taken an OraQuick test 10 years after receiving oral... Read more »
Test required: Protected Virgina But Unprotected Cunnilingus?Hi Dr. Bob,A quick question, I know that protected virginal intercourse carries essentially no risk... Read more »
First AIDS Vaccine Tested Did Not Protect, But Gives Scientific Leads...-- of an AIDS vaccine in humans found that the vaccine (called AIDSVAX, produced by VaxGen in Brisbane, California) failed to protect people from HIV infection. But thousands of blood tests now being analyzed will likely provide important... Read more »
GlaxoSmithKline Begins Testing New Technology to Protect Patients Against Counterfeit Medicine...FDA to assess the technology and its prospects for reducing counterfeiting. The project has cost several million dollars. The testing of the RFID technology on additional products will be evaluated by GSK with guidance from the FDA as the... Read more »
Rights Group Asks Kenyan Government to Protect Rights During Home HIV Tests...government a letter asking that it ensure that all those tested -- particularly children and teenagers -- have their rights protected during the process," the New York Times reports. Human Rights Watch recommended that outreach workers... Read more »
Arizona: HIV Test Helps Mothers Protect Newborns...less risky delivery, said Piatt. The infant would also receive treatment and not be breast-fed by the mother. "If you had unprotected sex, you could be at risk," said Piatt. "And if you're pregnant, you had unprotected sex. Even if you've never... Read more »
Connect With Others
Testing after Protected Sex Recomended?
Posted by Anonymous, 2 Replies...Is testing after protected sex recomended or warented????? Read more »
do I need to be tested again
Posted by Anonymous, 1 Reply...stupid), it was vaginal sex with condom and oral sex without condom. Do you think I need to be tested again ?? or am I overtesting ? Read more »
Need help????
Posted by Anonymous, 2 Replies...Had brief protected anal sex with a female pro in France. Then put on a new condom and received oral sex. Finally removed condom and finished with Read more »
test enough
Posted by Anonymous, 1 Reply...broke up. i tested negative. we never used protection that much. do i need any more test. please give me some information on testing. thanks Read more »
Resource Centers
Guides for People With HIV