http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/ reports that the Bush administration is interferring with scientific findings by various federal agencies with regards to health and welfare issues in order to further Bush's political agenda and ideology.
I haven't read the PDF yet but I've been told that it involves manipulation of findings about condom education encouraging pre-marital sex (which is apparently a bad thing for some reason...) and something about abortion leading to breast cancer.
Bush administration interferring with scientific findings
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
Spyder
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4465
- Joined: 2002-09-03 03:23am
- Location: Wellington, New Zealand
- Contact:
Here's the Executive Summary of the Report for those of you that (like me) aren't a big fan of PDFs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The American people depend upon federal agencies to promote scientific research and to develop science-based policies that protect the nation?s health and welfare. Historically, these agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency have had global reputations for scientific excellence.
Recently, however, leading scientific journals have begun to question whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote earlier this year, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration "invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation."
At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report assesses the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. It finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the political party occupying the White House. Thirteen years ago, former President George H.W. Bush stated that "[n]ow more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." Today, President George W. Bush?s Administration has skewed this impartial perspective, generating unprecedented criticism from the scientific community and even from prominent Republicans who once led federal agencies.
The Administration?s political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups.
The report identifies over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including:
* Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven "abstinence-only" programs appear effective;
* Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC?s web site;
POLITICS AND SCIENCE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
* Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed;
* Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed; and
* Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld.
Other affected topics include HIV/AIDS, agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, environmental health, lead poisoning, oil and gas exploration, prescription drug advertising, stem cells, substance abuse, drinking water, women?s health, workplace safety, and Yellowstone National Park.
Across this wide range of issues, the report identifies the three principal ways in which the Bush Administration has pursued its agenda: by manipulating scientific advisory committees, by distorting and suppressing scientific information, and by interfering with scientific research and analysis.
Manipulating Scientific Advisory Committees
Scientific advisory committees assure that the government hears from the nation?s top experts in a particular field before creating policy in that area. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that such committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented" and requires that advice and recommendations "not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest." The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly manipulated the advisory committee process to advance its political and ideological agenda. Examples include:
* Appointing Unqualified Persons with Industry Ties. After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children?s brains.
* Appointing Unqualified Persons with Ideological Agendas. The Department of Health and Human Services nominated as chair of the FDA?s Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee an anti-abortion activist who recommends that women read the bible for relief of premenstrual symptoms. The appointee?s principal credential appears to be his opposition to the abortifacient RU-486. The medical journal Lancet described his scientific record as "sparse" and wrote that "[a]ny further right-wing incursions on expert panels? membership will cause a terminal decline in public trust in the advice of scientists."
* Stacking Advisory Committees. The Department of Health and Human Services replaced 15 of 18 members of the key advisory committee to the National Center on Environmental Health. Several of the new members were long-time industry consultants. In response, ten leading scientists wrote in Science that *stacking these public committees out of fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration policies devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure and the work of dedicated scientists who are willing to participate in these efforts.*
* Opposing Qualified Experts. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected a widely respected expert?s nomination to a grant review panel on workplace safety after it became clear that she supported rules to protect workers from musculoskeletal injuries, rules that the Bush Administration opposes. The head of the panel called the rejection directly opposed to the philosophy of peer review, which is supposed to be nonpolitical and transparent.
Distorting and Suppressing Scientific Information
The public relies on government agencies for accurate scientific information, evidence-based decision making on matters of life and health, and clear explanations of complex technical matters. Under the Bush Administration, however, Administration officials have withheld or skewed important scientific information that conflicts with the Bush Administration?s ideological and political agenda. Examples include:
Including Misleading Information in Presidential Communications. After banning research on new lines of embryonic stem cells, President Bush assured the American people that research on "more than 60" existing lines cells "could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures." In fact, only 11 cell lines are now available for research, all of which were grown with mouse cells, rendering them inappropriate for treating people.
* Presenting Incomplete and Inaccurate Information to Congress. When Interior Secretary Gale Norton assured Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region?s caribou population, she altered or omitted multiple key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists at the refuge. One Fish and Wildlife Service official commented, "We tried to present all the facts, but she only passed along the ones she liked. And to pass along facts that are false, well, that?s obviously inappropriate."
* Altering Web Sites. As social conservatives campaigned to require women to be "counselled" about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, the National Cancer Institute revised its web site to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there is scientific consensus that no such link exists; as the head of epidemiology research at the American Cancer Society had concluded previously, "This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate."
* Suppressing Agency Reports. After the White House edited a discussion of global warming in the Environmental Protection Agency?s Draft Report on the Environment, agency scientists objected that the draft "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," and EPA chose to eliminate the discussion entirely. A former EPA Administrator in the Nixon and Ford Administrations commented, "I can state categorically that there was never such White House intrusion into the business of the E.PA. during my tenure."
Interfering with Scientific Research
The federal government invests $100 billion annually in scientific research to discover new cures, protect the environment, defend the country, and support other effective policies for the health and welfare of the American people. But instead of encouraging the development and dissemination of objective scientific information, the Bush Administration has repeatedly interfered with scientific research and analysis where political and ideological interests are at stake. Examples include:
* Scrutinizing Ongoing Research. Officials of the National Institutes of Health warned HIV researchers to expect increased scrutiny of any research grant requests using the words "gay" or "men who sleep with men." The Administration has also instituted a new policy at the Agriculture Department requiring scientists to seek approval of any research on "agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences."
* Obstructing Agency Analyses. The Bush Administration refused to let the Environmental Protection Agency conduct analyses on air quality proposals that differ from the President?s ?Clear Skies? initiative. William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA administrator under President Nixon, said of this pattern, "Is the analysis flawed? That is a legitimate reason for not releasing it. But if you don?t like the outcome that might result from the analysis, that is not a legitimate reason."
* Undermining Outcome Assessment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to evaluate sex education programs and identify those with scientific evidence of effectiveness. After social conservatives complained that none of the programs taught "abstinence only," the agency ended the "Programs That Work" initiative altogether.
* Blocking Scientific Publication. The Agriculture Department prohibited one of its microbiologists from publishing or presenting research indicating that industrial hog farming may contribute to antibiotic resistance. The scientist traced the Department?s actions back to communications from industry.
This report describes these and other examples of interference in the scientific process. While in a few cases the Bush Administration reversed itself or admitted error, most of these actions, policies, and appointments remain in effect.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The American people depend upon federal agencies to promote scientific research and to develop science-based policies that protect the nation?s health and welfare. Historically, these agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Environmental Protection Agency have had global reputations for scientific excellence.
Recently, however, leading scientific journals have begun to question whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. As the editor of Science wrote earlier this year, there is growing evidence that the Bush Administration "invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation."
At the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, this report assesses the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration. It finds numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. These actions go far beyond the typical shifts in policy that occur with a change in the political party occupying the White House. Thirteen years ago, former President George H.W. Bush stated that "[n]ow more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." Today, President George W. Bush?s Administration has skewed this impartial perspective, generating unprecedented criticism from the scientific community and even from prominent Republicans who once led federal agencies.
The Administration?s political interference with science has led to misleading statements by the President, inaccurate responses to Congress, altered web sites, suppressed agency reports, erroneous international communications, and the gagging of scientists. The subjects involved span a broad range, but they share a common attribute: the beneficiaries of the scientific distortions are important supporters of the President, including social conservatives and powerful industry groups.
The report identifies over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including:
* Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven "abstinence-only" programs appear effective;
* Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC?s web site;
POLITICS AND SCIENCE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
* Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed;
* Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed; and
* Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld.
Other affected topics include HIV/AIDS, agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, environmental health, lead poisoning, oil and gas exploration, prescription drug advertising, stem cells, substance abuse, drinking water, women?s health, workplace safety, and Yellowstone National Park.
Across this wide range of issues, the report identifies the three principal ways in which the Bush Administration has pursued its agenda: by manipulating scientific advisory committees, by distorting and suppressing scientific information, and by interfering with scientific research and analysis.
Manipulating Scientific Advisory Committees
Scientific advisory committees assure that the government hears from the nation?s top experts in a particular field before creating policy in that area. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that such committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented" and requires that advice and recommendations "not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest." The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly manipulated the advisory committee process to advance its political and ideological agenda. Examples include:
* Appointing Unqualified Persons with Industry Ties. After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children?s brains.
* Appointing Unqualified Persons with Ideological Agendas. The Department of Health and Human Services nominated as chair of the FDA?s Reproductive Health Drug Advisory Committee an anti-abortion activist who recommends that women read the bible for relief of premenstrual symptoms. The appointee?s principal credential appears to be his opposition to the abortifacient RU-486. The medical journal Lancet described his scientific record as "sparse" and wrote that "[a]ny further right-wing incursions on expert panels? membership will cause a terminal decline in public trust in the advice of scientists."
* Stacking Advisory Committees. The Department of Health and Human Services replaced 15 of 18 members of the key advisory committee to the National Center on Environmental Health. Several of the new members were long-time industry consultants. In response, ten leading scientists wrote in Science that *stacking these public committees out of fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration policies devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure and the work of dedicated scientists who are willing to participate in these efforts.*
* Opposing Qualified Experts. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected a widely respected expert?s nomination to a grant review panel on workplace safety after it became clear that she supported rules to protect workers from musculoskeletal injuries, rules that the Bush Administration opposes. The head of the panel called the rejection directly opposed to the philosophy of peer review, which is supposed to be nonpolitical and transparent.
Distorting and Suppressing Scientific Information
The public relies on government agencies for accurate scientific information, evidence-based decision making on matters of life and health, and clear explanations of complex technical matters. Under the Bush Administration, however, Administration officials have withheld or skewed important scientific information that conflicts with the Bush Administration?s ideological and political agenda. Examples include:
Including Misleading Information in Presidential Communications. After banning research on new lines of embryonic stem cells, President Bush assured the American people that research on "more than 60" existing lines cells "could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures." In fact, only 11 cell lines are now available for research, all of which were grown with mouse cells, rendering them inappropriate for treating people.
* Presenting Incomplete and Inaccurate Information to Congress. When Interior Secretary Gale Norton assured Congress that drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge would not harm the region?s caribou population, she altered or omitted multiple key scientific conclusions prepared by federal biologists at the refuge. One Fish and Wildlife Service official commented, "We tried to present all the facts, but she only passed along the ones she liked. And to pass along facts that are false, well, that?s obviously inappropriate."
* Altering Web Sites. As social conservatives campaigned to require women to be "counselled" about an alleged risk of breast cancer from abortions, the National Cancer Institute revised its web site to suggest that studies of equal weight conflicted on the question. In fact, there is scientific consensus that no such link exists; as the head of epidemiology research at the American Cancer Society had concluded previously, "This issue has been resolved scientifically . . . . This is essentially a political debate."
* Suppressing Agency Reports. After the White House edited a discussion of global warming in the Environmental Protection Agency?s Draft Report on the Environment, agency scientists objected that the draft "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change," and EPA chose to eliminate the discussion entirely. A former EPA Administrator in the Nixon and Ford Administrations commented, "I can state categorically that there was never such White House intrusion into the business of the E.PA. during my tenure."
Interfering with Scientific Research
The federal government invests $100 billion annually in scientific research to discover new cures, protect the environment, defend the country, and support other effective policies for the health and welfare of the American people. But instead of encouraging the development and dissemination of objective scientific information, the Bush Administration has repeatedly interfered with scientific research and analysis where political and ideological interests are at stake. Examples include:
* Scrutinizing Ongoing Research. Officials of the National Institutes of Health warned HIV researchers to expect increased scrutiny of any research grant requests using the words "gay" or "men who sleep with men." The Administration has also instituted a new policy at the Agriculture Department requiring scientists to seek approval of any research on "agricultural practices with negative health and environmental consequences."
* Obstructing Agency Analyses. The Bush Administration refused to let the Environmental Protection Agency conduct analyses on air quality proposals that differ from the President?s ?Clear Skies? initiative. William Ruckelshaus, the first EPA administrator under President Nixon, said of this pattern, "Is the analysis flawed? That is a legitimate reason for not releasing it. But if you don?t like the outcome that might result from the analysis, that is not a legitimate reason."
* Undermining Outcome Assessment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used to evaluate sex education programs and identify those with scientific evidence of effectiveness. After social conservatives complained that none of the programs taught "abstinence only," the agency ended the "Programs That Work" initiative altogether.
* Blocking Scientific Publication. The Agriculture Department prohibited one of its microbiologists from publishing or presenting research indicating that industrial hog farming may contribute to antibiotic resistance. The scientist traced the Department?s actions back to communications from industry.
This report describes these and other examples of interference in the scientific process. While in a few cases the Bush Administration reversed itself or admitted error, most of these actions, policies, and appointments remain in effect.
-
Yuri Prime
- Padawan Learner
- Posts: 334
- Joined: 2003-03-31 10:55am
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
This really doesn't surprise me. More great ideas from idiots that think sex is evil. I keep asking peopel who support this viewpoint to explain to me what chemically changes between two peple when they get married that they never get STDs. They never can for some reason. Guess it's magic.
GAH! Science in the hands of idiots pisses me off.
GAH! Science in the hands of idiots pisses me off.
I don't go to mythical places with strange men.
-Douglas Adams
Evil Liberal Conspiracy. Taking away your guns since 1987.
-Douglas Adams
Evil Liberal Conspiracy. Taking away your guns since 1987.
-
The Yosemite Bear
- Mostly Harmless Nutcase (Requiescat in Pace)
- Posts: 35211
- Joined: 2002-07-21 02:38am
- Location: Dave's Not Here Man
-
The Duchess of Zeon
- Gözde
- Posts: 14566
- Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
- Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.
Re: Bush administration interferring with scientific finding
Was the accuracy of the data in existence in the first place? Much of it has been questioned by independent think-tanks, after all, which the government often commissions to perform studies. It's just now that they're being listened to instead of ignored as they were during the Clinton years. I'm not saying that's a certainty at the case; but indeed, perhaps, a possibility. Bias can go in either direction, you know, and once found out, either side is as much prone to screaming over it.Spyder wrote:http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/ reports that the Bush administration is interferring with scientific findings by various federal agencies with regards to health and welfare issues in order to further Bush's political agenda and ideology.
I haven't read the PDF yet but I've been told that it involves manipulation of findings about condom education encouraging pre-marital sex (which is apparently a bad thing for some reason...) and something about abortion leading to breast cancer.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
-
Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Why does this not shock me? Makes me want him out of office even more now, and that is hard to do...
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
-
Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
It shouldn't. This is the kind of thing religious reactionaries do all the time. That Bush, who is one, did this shouldn't suprise anyone.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Why does this not shock me? Makes me want him out of office even more now, and that is hard to do...
Bullshit. It's not endangering public safety any more than whiny soccer moms have done, with far more effect I might add. It's been done before and by every level of the reactionary religious right. It's not right and it does perpetuate ignorance but it's not a high crime.kojikun wrote:uh.. huh.. Isn't this some sort of high-crime in the US? Intentionally risking public safety?
Yeah but theres stuff about health studies. I would think that preventing health studies and reports from being published would be considered endangering public health and safety.Stormbringer wrote:Bullshit. It's not endangering public safety any more than whiny soccer moms have done, with far more effect I might add. It's been done before and by every level of the reactionary religious right. It's not right and it does perpetuate ignorance but it's not a high crime.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
-
Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
It is endangering health and safety. There's no question that ignorance kills.kojikun wrote:Yeah but theres stuff about health studies. I would think that preventing health studies and reports from being published would be considered endangering public health and safety.
But the forces of reactionary religion have done it before and will probably do it again. It's unfortunately not a crime.
Brilliant. All hail the USA, where preventing people from getting proper healthy knowledge is a GOOD thing!Stormbringer wrote:It is endangering health and safety. There's no question that ignorance kills.
But the forces of reactionary religion have done it before and will probably do it again. It's unfortunately not a crime.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
-
DPDarkPrimus
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 18399
- Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
- Location: Iowa
- Contact:
-
Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi
- What Kind of Username is That?
- Posts: 9254
- Joined: 2002-07-10 08:53pm
- Location: Back in PA
I say there should be some sort of amendment that would prevent politicians from interfering with scientific research just because it opposes their political and/or religous viewpoint. If it's not a crime ot potentially endanger people by disclosing, altering, or exxagerating studies, then I say we should try and make it.
BotM: Just another monkey|HAB
-
NapoleonGH
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: 2002-07-08 02:25pm
- Location: NJ, USA
- Contact:
this doesnt even list the NIDA's continual falsified findings and purposefully bad science to try to prove that drugs are worse than they are a policy that Reagan engaged full throttle and since then has been continued by all the administrations.
Festina Lente
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
Friggin' politicians. Just what the hell do they want done???. Would they rather prefer that the teenieboppers go boom-boom without ANY type of protection?. Dub-Yuh and the invisible people who hold his leash just don't seem to understand that we humans are sexual creatures. Interesting, isn't it?. They hate abortion, and yet are hell-bent against the free and open distribution of the ways to prevent thoes conceptions from occuring. Just remember that, my fellow Americans, come election time (but watch out for the hanging chads!!).
-
Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
This is a democracy. Nothing says the majority has two brain cells to rub together.kojikun wrote:Brilliant. All hail the USA, where preventing people from getting proper healthy knowledge is a GOOD thing!Stormbringer wrote:It is endangering health and safety. There's no question that ignorance kills.
But the forces of reactionary religion have done it before and will probably do it again. It's unfortunately not a crime.
-
Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Correction, the US is a federal/constitutional RepublicStormbringer wrote:This is a democracy. Nothing says the majority has two brain cells to rub together.kojikun wrote:Brilliant. All hail the USA, where preventing people from getting proper healthy knowledge is a GOOD thing!Stormbringer wrote:It is endangering health and safety. There's no question that ignorance kills.
But the forces of reactionary religion have done it before and will probably do it again. It's unfortunately not a crime.
But yeah, the majority is stupid much of the time.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
-
Stormbringer
- King of Democracy
- Posts: 22678
- Joined: 2002-07-15 11:22pm
maby they're trying to breed someone out. if they keep popping out reactionary babies they'll hold the majority.GREAHSIAM wrote:Friggin' politicians. Just what the hell do they want done???. Would they rather prefer that the teenieboppers go boom-boom without ANY type of protection?. Dub-Yuh and the invisible people who hold his leash just don't seem to understand that we humans are sexual creatures. Interesting, isn't it?. They hate abortion, and yet are hell-bent against the free and open distribution of the ways to prevent thoes conceptions from occuring. Just remember that, my fellow Americans, come election time (but watch out for the hanging chads!!).
"its just vile & wrong, and it just makes me giggle."
-Amanda Winn Lee
the Dropkick Murphys kick your ass, & you love every minute of it.
-Amanda Winn Lee
the Dropkick Murphys kick your ass, & you love every minute of it.
-
Crayz9000
- Sith Apprentice
- Posts: 7329
- Joined: 2002-07-03 06:39pm
- Location: Improbably superpositioned
- Contact:
Ah, but for the days where you had to pass a literacy test to vote.Stormbringer wrote:This is a democracy. Nothing says the majority has two brain cells to rub together.
Way to go, Martin Luther King Jr... remove the literacy requirement rather than pushing politicians to fix the fucking public schools.
A Tribute to Stupidity: The Robert Scott Anderson Archive (currently offline)
John Hansen - Slightly Insane Bounty Hunter - ASVS Vets' Assoc. Class of 2000
HAB Cryptanalyst | WG - Intergalactic Alliance and Spoof Author | BotM | Cybertron | SCEF
John Hansen - Slightly Insane Bounty Hunter - ASVS Vets' Assoc. Class of 2000
HAB Cryptanalyst | WG - Intergalactic Alliance and Spoof Author | BotM | Cybertron | SCEF
-
EmperorMing
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3432
- Joined: 2002-09-09 05:08am
- Location: The Lizard Lounge
-
NapoleonGH
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1090
- Joined: 2002-07-08 02:25pm
- Location: NJ, USA
- Contact:
Hear hear, lets get basic literacy and competency tests back as requirements before you could vote. Then again if i had it my way you would have to demonstrate graduation from an accredited university or college in order to vote.Crayz9000 wrote:Ah, but for the days where you had to pass a literacy test to vote.Stormbringer wrote:This is a democracy. Nothing says the majority has two brain cells to rub together.
Way to go, Martin Luther King Jr... remove the literacy requirement rather than pushing politicians to fix the fucking public schools.
Festina Lente
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance