My daughter is fast approaching her teen years and I am steeling myself for “the discussion.” But it is not about sex. It is about drugs. I am about to embark on a journey through cognitive dissonance that would have made my old Speech Com 101 professor shudder. To wit: how do I sit her down and explain that, yes, life will get bumpy down the road but turning to drugs to dull the pain is not an answer when our society is bombarding us with just the opposite message? Many a parent frets over the hedonistic images that pour out of TV and the Internet and hit our children right between the eyes. But have you noticed the drum beat of seemingly 24/7 drug advertising? How do I tell my kids to stay away from drugs, when an explosion in direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) over the last decade tell us that drugs are the solution to what ails us?
It is a powerful and seductive message. Consider a typical stream of ads. Got a headache? Take Tylenol. Acid reflux? Here’s a Zantac. Back pain? Try Doans. Can’t sleep? Here’s your Ambien. Can’t wake up? Get your Vivarin here. ED? Viagra to the rescue. Going bald? Minoxidil. Depressed? Take a Paxil. And so it goes. Problem + drug = no problem.
Sure these drugs are legal. And I have no problem with pharmaceutical companies making a dime and offering necessary products that have made living far more enjoyable than in the past. As any student of history knows, these are definitely the “good old days” when it comes to medicine. Chronic pain used to be the common lot of our ancestors and lives were routinely cut short by what are now easily treatable conditions (Can you imagine dying of an impacted wisdom tooth for example?) But it seems the whole is more sinister than the sum of the parts for it is in the drug culture dynamic that I must now tell my child “say no to drugs.” Well, no to which drugs exactly? Only the illegal narcotics that serve no function but for recreation? Ok, what about alcohol then? How do I tell my kids to stay sober when their father, who is ethnically German-Irish (two cultures not exactly repelled by a snifter of port around the holidays) sips a scotch while decorating the Christmas tree? And how do I explain that the most harmless recreational drug that I know of, marijuana, is still illegal, yet alcohol—which has been responsible for more misery, tragic deaths, violence, disease and addiction than any other –is fine once they turn twenty-one so long as they drink “responsibly.” Yeah, right. Think back to college.
The America in which I am raising my little brood is a far cry from the one I knew at their age. In August 1997, the FDA introduced new direct-to-consumer guidelines about what constituted adequate provision for labeling information with broadcast DTC advertising. Spending on DTCA grew at a rapid pace after the publication of these guidelines, with increasing emphasis on broadcast advertising. In 2005, firms spent an estimated US$4.24 billion on DTCA — 11 times the amount spent in 1995. As this graph of U.S. and Canadian per capita expenditures on prescription drugs show, there is a correlation between advertising dollars and purchases in this area.
Look at your own life. How many people do you personally know who are on Paxil or some other anti-depressant? Taking Lipitor or other cholesterol drugs, etc. Are you taking something yourself at the moment? It is astounding really how hopped up we really are. We are, as I said, a monument to cognitive dissonance in that we are a society so puritanically anti-drug that it deems growing hemp a crime, yet nonetheless tolerates a population awash in pharmaceuticals of every kind and for every imaginable health issue—real or not.
I thought of this now also because of some reports surfacing that Tiger Woods was supposedly under the influence of prescription drugs when taken to the hospital after his accident. The drugs themselves I imagine were obtained through a perfectly legal transaction. But their sole purpose seemed recreational. So we now see a very public illustration of the phenomenon of our medical and recreational drugs merging into one culture that feeds on itself. People who would never think to seek out a local dealer of illegal mind-altering substances on a street corner feel little stigma in obtaining drugs for the same purpose if they come from a sanctioned source—a man in a lab coat.
So once again as I sit down with my daughter to impart on her some words of wisdom and advice, I struggle with the subject of drugs as she is about to enter into a culture awash in drugs. Of course, I will tell her to “Say no to— what?” I really don’t know at this point. If trends continue, it may not matter soon. By the time she grows into adulthood, maybe this arcane motto of the 1980s will be replaced by Aldous Huxley’s prescient glimpse into a Brave New World that I see so very much before me this very day: “..there is always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon…”
57 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:44 pm
……Brad what are you a communist or something? ……the drug adverts are aimed at the many real and imagined illnesses from which Americans suffer………….the drug companies are in business to sell expensive pills and make money…….It’s a marriage made in heaven……..what’s your problem?…….this is how capitalism works
2 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“We are, as I said, a monument to cognitive dissonance”
………Really?
3 Raider1 // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Otto…captitalism is also responsible for the advancement of medical technologies that make this, as Brad says, “the good old days.” So give the free market its due as well. But there is truth to what you say. (Yes…I AM agreeing withyou)
I am not sure of Shafers point here. But I can sympathize with him. There are conflicting messages out there.
4 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Yeah it’s awfully tragic. How does one break away from a legal drug addiction? It’s a lot like alcohol in that respect (prescription drug addiction, that is), except far more addictive and harder to detect. I think it’s important to separate recreational drugs from non-recreational drugs that do not have an appeal, such as Zantac (which, at least to my knowledge, is not a party time drug). I’d also say we’re waaay overdoing the whole ADD treatment, since it seems like half the people I know (mild exaggeration) are on Adderall.
5 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Raider1 // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Otto…captitalism is also responsible for the advancement of medical technologies that make this, ”
…….Of course it is that’s why I own a lot of stock in pharmaceutical companies….but that’s the fundamental dilemma……reconciling the enormous effectiveness of big pharma in producing medical advances with their more mundane business of pill peddling …..when about a third of the kids I know under 18 are taking pills for bi polar disorder, aspergers, or some other nonsense there’s something seriously wrong……I blame the parents (and I’m serious, because for most parents it much easier to send their kids to a shrink rather than to discipline them)
6 Raider1 // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Otto…once again I agree 100%.
7 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Raider1 // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“Otto…once again I agree 100%.”
……..it had to happen one day……the key to stopping your kids going off the rails too badly depends on establishing a moral ascendancy over them…..this is better known as fear
8 PracticalGirl // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Brad:
Your post demonstrates that you are better equipped than 99% of parents to deal with the realities of our drug culture, both illicit and legal. Hopefully, you began an age-appropriate discussion about drugs and alcohol (uses and abuses) long ago. If you’re really looking for advice, then heed your own words …”remember college”. And then accept that yesterday’s college atmoshpere is today’s upper-grade school and middle school reality.
Do look at Otto’s sentence
“I blame the parents (and I’m serious, because for most parents it much easier to send their kids to a shrink rather than to discipline them)”
and take it to heart as you frame your next level of discussion. Your daughter lives in a world where the biggest drug dealers are fellow students with access to parents’ medicine cabinets…And their own. And while children today often play the Psychiatric Roulette game with Mom and Dad, they openly mock it behind their backs and find that it is easier to profit from it than try to buck the trend. A big eye opener: Beware the “good, smart, active-in-everything and popular” child of a doctor. They not only have access to whatever crap Mom and Dad score for them and for themselves, but to Dr. Parent’s ’scrip pad. And they know what to do with it.
Are you really looking for advice? Rail at our drug-soaked culture, fine, but get real within it. Be the parent who walks the fine line: Get open, get honest with it all. Do talk about the DTCA trend and how it affects how everybody thinks. Do talk openly and honestly about the differences between alcohol and weed (and don’t call it pot or dope, as those 70s and 80s terms have different meanings today). Do be ready to hear what’s available and how easy it is to get. And then help your daughter understand how good choices vault her ahead of 95% of her peers.
Open the discussion now, and deal head on with all the conflicts I hear in your post. Your daughter, by now, already knows that you see a difference in danger levels between alcohol, prescription drugs, and marijuana. Don’t shy away from this: You can do it in a way that discusses the truth without stepping away from the message of “not now, dear” for a 12-18year old. The very worst thing you can do in the age of information (besides leaving your voice out of her head), is adopt the DARE program and ratchet up the hype. Your daughter found this information “scacry” the first time she heard a presentation in 2nd grade. Now, she’s done her own research and sees the holes in lumping it all together.
9 PracticalGirl // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Otto:
Agree with all but the last part:
……..it had to happen one day……the key to stopping your kids going off the rails too badly depends on establishing a moral ascendancy over them…..this is better known as fear
I might say “this is better known as truthful guidance”.
10 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I bet this issue will receive increasingly more attention by the media until it’s labeled an epidemic, which it likely is. Unfortunately, the target will likely be those commercials. Stopping the commercials will not stop prescription drug addiction, anymore than stopping cigarette advertising has (not) stopped smoking. It’s discipline and fear that keeps kids (anybody, really) in line. I don’t know how you could realistically expect to stop a determined addict. They’ll lie to, quite literally, anybody to get high.
11 PracticalGirl // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:05 pm
WillyP:
“It’s discipline and fear that keeps kids (anybody, really) in line.”
If you (and Otto) are talking about the fear of consequences at home, then I agree 100%. Fear of the consequences of the drug needs to be handled a bit differently. Lumping them all together causes an info-saturated kid with a PC to question everything you say. So honesty about the effects coupled with a strong message of no and well-laid out consequences at home is necessary.
12 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:17 pm
PracticalGirl,
Frankly, I prefer honestly at all times. I think the honest thing to tell your kids concerning drugs is twofold:
1) The immediate consequences of abuse are fleeting, perhaps even enjoyable. Getting high off a narcotic (I’ve never done this, mind you, but plenty of family members have had orthopedic surgery that requires strong pain medication) might be pleasant and relaxing, and in truth it isn’t going to ruin your life immediately. A responsible adult using these drugs to alleviate pain needs to be very mindful (and willful) not to remain addicted. A kid who takes one at a party and likes it might figure it’s safe once in a while.
2) This idea of safety through restraining to recreational use is a mirage. Physically addictive drugs are very, very dangerous, and when life’s problems get overwhelming (as they sometimes do) they are LOT worse than even alcohol – which is bad enough. So, although I do not have kids, if/when I do, I’d probably make the analogy to playing Russian roulette with 4 bullets in a 5 round chamber. If I may say, that’s a notion to fear.
13 MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Wow, the far Left echo chamber runs on in earnest! Talk about licit drug use and it brings out the TrollTribe in force.
We were wrong, as culture, to allow BigPharm the opportunity to circumvent docs and allied health care providers and advertise directly to the public. Just like we were when trial lawyer scumbags were allowed to pander to the basest in our society with modern-era ambulance chasing tactics on TV.
While it may not be possible to get the genie back in the bottle, it’s necessary we try.
Of course that’s going to be hard with a president who is the ultimate corrupted pal of BigPharm.
It’s tough with a democrat majority in both Chambers that feed at the lobbying and political cash trough of BigPharm.
And it’s tough when we have a president who glorifies his drug use of cocaine and other drugs as legitimate experiences… it’s tough. But we gotta try.
It’s why we need GOPers in control of Congress again to stop the Culture of Corruption that is the democrat Congressional Caucus.
It’s for the kids, afterall.
14 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:44 pm
MI-GOPer,
Actually, I think this might be one of the posts where you have wide-spread agreement from most people. I don’t think most liberals are in favor of addictions, likely because of witnessing their effects first hand.
15 pnwguy // Dec 10, 2009 at 3:47 pm
MI-GOPer:
“We were wrong, as culture, to allow BigPharm the opportunity to circumvent docs and allied health care providers and advertise directly to the public. Just like we were when trial lawyer scumbags were allowed to pander to the basest in our society with modern-era ambulance chasing tactics on TV.
While it may not be possible to get the genie back in the bottle, it’s necessary we try. ”
Do I have my history wrong? It seems like it was laissez-faire, free-market advocates, more Republicans than Democrats, who were the allies of the global pharma giants in this, arguing that companies should be free to advertise and market legal products to consumers. The same goes for limits on attorney advertising, saying that direct competition is the key to both savings and consumer choice. If I’m wrong, please correct me.
How does a limited, non-market interfering government get the genie back into the bottle?
16 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:08 pm
PracticalGirl // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:45 pm
……..it had to happen one day……the key to stopping your kids going off the rails too badly depends on establishing a moral ascendancy over them…..this is better known as fear
“I might say “this is better known as truthful guidance”.
……You see fear is a broad term which encompasses not just sanctions that you might levy against children but also fear of behaving like a jackass, letting the side down, embarrassing the family etc etc, it’s a lot more than just being concerned Pa is going to shout or take the car keys away…….it also involves some realism about what teenagers are going to get up to (binge drinking, car crashes, credit card problems, et al) and being supportive if they total their car or similar
17 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:15 pm
WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“MI-GOPer,
Actually, I think this might be one of the posts where you have wide-spread agreement from most people. I don’t think most liberals are in favor of addictions, likely because of witnessing their effects first hand.’
…….Only someone as fatuous as you would think anyone would agree with gopher’s confused and bizarre characterisations, or suggest that addiction was more widespread in Liberal circles……as with unmarried teenage pregnancy it’s quite possibly more widespread in conservative circles and for similar reasons
18 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:23 pm
pnwguy // Dec 10, 2009 at 3:47 pm
“Do I have my history wrong?”
……..Er no………who went through the revolving door from chairman of the house pharma oversight committee to chief of the drug industry trade association…..does the name Tauzin ring a bell?……or who wrote the prescription drug benefit bill that legally barred shopping for price breaks on drugs (a clue….his name began with a T)
19 Arch // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Here’s my impression of Mi-GOP-er on any topic:
Trolls! You’re all left wing trolls! Every one of you crybaby liberals is really Blankhead posting under another name! There’s only one other person on this board with me! Take that Auto-BS-er!
20 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Arch // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm
……..a bit like those science fiction movies in the sixties where the earth is being taken over by extra terrestials who are distinguished by some identifying characteristic like a birthmark……the hero (mi-gopher…in his own mind anyway) attends a meeting at the Pentagon to discuss fighting fighting the aliens…..looks around the room…… and…..shock……horror (loud music on soundtrack) all the other people in the room have the mark…….da da daaaaah
21 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:49 pm
otto,
The statement stands alone, without you reading into what you wish I said. People in general, not liberals or conservatives, know other people who have succumbed to addiction. And for like reasons I’ve stopped responding to you. You’re annoying.
22 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 5:15 pm
WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“And for like reasons I’ve stopped responding to you. You’re annoying.’
…..I really wonder if you know what you are writing at times…….as in you’re not responding with a response……..no statement stands alone particularly not one as clear as yours……you implied liberals were more familiar with drug addiction than conservatives……then applauded statements from your fellow fruitcake gopher suggesting amongst other things that the president glorifies cocaine addiction…..not much “reading in” required I’d have said
23 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 5:25 pm
OTTO
I really wonder if you have a brain, or just a couple dust mites roaming your cranium. I’m losing doubt, and increasingly am convinced it’s the former.
OK, so “gopher” writes, basically, that it’s the liberals (they’re out “in force” at the mention of illicit drugs) to blame and Obama is a bad role model. Can you agree to this?
I say, No. We (i.e., PEOPLE) are in agreement on this: drug addiction is a bad and dangerous thing. Liberals – that is, the people “gopher” implicated were lax about the whole drug thing – I argued, were against drug addiction PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW SOMEBODY WHO WAS ADDICTED AND REALIZE WHAT IT DOES TO FAMILIES, etc. This is a pretty non-controversial statement. I would think most adults regardless of political affiliation have known, perhaps well, an addict or two in their lives.
Now, you can go on claiming what you want and continually disagree with everybody (because it seems this forum is your life, and arguing with the same 10 people is the reason you lift your empty little head from the pillow each morning). That is beyond my concern. Perhaps it did not occur to you that some people writing here have known addicts, and are not really concerned with trvializing/playing gotcha with a tragic epidemic.
24 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 5:31 pm
the latter, that is… the dust mites
25 balconesfault // Dec 10, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Arch // Dec 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Here’s my impression of Mi-GOP-er on any topic:
Trolls! You’re all left wing trolls!
Well, what seems clear is that MI-GOPer basically does not believe that it is possible to hold an honest discussion over ideas with someone from the other party. Pure partisanship is all that really exists, and so any Democrat who might venture over here is clearly only here to cause mischief.
GOPer gives no value to a discussion of policy in terms of “what is the best idea” – only a fool would think that the best ideas ALL reside within a single party.
Rather, his worldview is such that policy is best viewed in terms of “what will be more likely to result in more Republicans being elected”.
Thus, whether or not a Democrat or liberal has a good idea is irrelevant. The litmus test for MI-GOPer is a committment to never vote Democrat, and always vote Republican (unless perhaps a Club for Growth candidate runs against the Republican). If you do not have this committment, he doesn’t believe you should have any right to speak here.
Unfortunately for him, Frum clearly does not share this particular myopia. And it obviously makes him mad. I think of him like Grandpa Simpson screaming “get off my lawn!”
26 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:00 pm
balcones,
“GOPer gives no value to a discussion of policy in terms of “what is the best idea” – only a fool would think that the best ideas ALL reside within a single party.”
Neither does Frum. He reject half of what the Republicans do well, and takes on half of what Democrats do poorly. The Democrat party in its current incarnation is detestable on all issues. Look at what our Congress and President are doing on matter of economy, war, and foreign relations. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the polls.
27 ottovbvs // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm
WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 5:25 pm
“Now, you can go on claiming what you want and continually disagree with everybody ”
……..Another non-responding response?……actually until you and mi gopher showed up we were having a perfectly reasonable discussion…….even regular conservative Raider 1 and I were in agreement as in:
“Raider1 // Dec 10, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Otto…once again I agree 100%”
“The Democrat party in its current incarnation is detestable on all issues…….Take a look at the polls..”
…….unfortunately you are just as fanatical and irrational as your fellow fruitcake ……perhaps you should look at the polls that suggest the Republican party and its ideas are even more detested than the democrats.
28 balconesfault // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Look at what our Congress and President are doing on matter of economy, war, and foreign relations. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the polls.
Willy – before I actually try to formulate a response to this comment – would you then argue that the correct measure of whether a policy is “detestable” is best reflected viai public opinion polling?
Or does that only apply to Democratic policies, and only during those time snaps when they do not receive majority support?
29 sinz54 // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm
WillyP:
Would you have guessed that Robitussin is now a party drug?
Well, it is.
At least the kind that contains dextromethorphan, a cough suppressant. In large doses it depresses the central nervous system. You can get drunk on it if you chug enough of it. And unlike liquor stores, a kid buying a few bottles of Robitussin at a drug store won’t be carded. He can always say he’s coming down with the flu or something.
30 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:13 pm
otto,
I don’t think you get it. I don’t care to respond to you. You’re a loser with the impertinence to insult others.
Anybody fair reader of the comment stream would realize that I actually AGREED WITH YOU, and was DISAGREEING WITH “GOPHER.” You have it perfectly backwards. I’m sure you realize this however, since you aren’t looking to establish common ground, but ARE looking to have something to do with your obviously boring life – respond to me, who, it would seem, keeps you entertained on some level. (I note here this is not because you find me interesting, but simply because you spend your day typing on FrumForum, likely alone in your dark, unfinished basement.)
Apparently this is immaterial to you, which is why I find anything further made in good faith the equivalent of trusting one desperately addicted to substances.
31 sinz54 // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:14 pm
The drug culture antedated direct drug ads to consumers, by some 20 years.
The drug culture was a concoction of the New Left of the 1960s.
Timothy Leary (“Turn on, tune in, drop out”) was not a conservative.
And he ruined thousands of young people with his advocacy of hallucinogens.
32 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:14 pm
sinz, actually i did know that! experience is a great teacher!
33 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 10:39 pm
I’m going to cement this dispute
WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“MI-GOPer,
Actually, I think this might be one of the posts where you have wide-spread agreement from most people. I don’t think most liberals are in favor of addictions, likely because of witnessing their effects first hand.”
OK, in other words, what I was trying to say was:
Actually MI-GOPer, this might be one of the posts where the crowd has wide-spread agreement. I disagree with you; I think most liberals, like most conservatives, are for preventing people from becoming addicted to drugs by stricter laws, marijuana notwithstanding, for the nasty stuff. This is because drugs are not discriminatory – addiction affects all people equally.
-The “you” in “you have wide-spread agreement” was not directed at MI-GOPer, but at the broader, collective YOU, as in YOU ALL. It’s a colloquialism, sure, but I did not think it would be so wrongly understood, especially in the context of what had been written prior. Furthermore, while liberals tend to apologize for drug usage more than conservatives, nobody in their right mind who has seen someone they care about suffer/die/get incarcerated/ruin their life actually thinks legalizing narcotics is a good idea.
In addition, I also supported what you said about fear:
“2) This idea of safety through restraining to recreational use is a mirage. Physically addictive drugs are very, very dangerous, and when life’s problems get overwhelming (as they sometimes do) they are LOT worse than even alcohol – which is bad enough. So, although I do not have kids, if/when I do, I’d probably make the analogy to playing Russian roulette with 4 bullets in a 5 round chamber. If I may say, that’s a notion to fear.”
34 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:24 am
WillyP writes: “Perhaps it did not occur to you (OttoBS) that some people writing here have known addicts…”
Right, WillyP. As a gay man, I’ve known more than a dozen drug addicted people who touched my life through college, work, my kids’ schools, my church. Drug addiction –whether by licit or illicit drugs– like many other addictions are a terrible burden on society, on our social fabric and cultural institutions. Drug addicts are not, as the far Left likes to incline, “victims”… they are simply failures in life who have not yet met the challenges of life in a constructive manner.
The Left’s casual embrace of the drug culture and –in some instances– glorification of it as a sort of bad-boy, coming of age experience, is destructive. You think not; I disagree. Hollywood’s clear glorification of it and obscene near-pornographic portrayals of drug addled actor idiots living out their lives for all to observe is a pathetic commentary on Hollywood Left values. Drug culture is a far Left contribution to modern America. That it easily slides over to licit drugs and a high incidence of regular folks grabbing for pain meds when a knee or back bothers them –instead of maybe losing the 50-80 lbs of excess fat that causes the knee or back pain– is a direct extension of the drug culture.
But that doesn’t matter to snide sniping snots like OttoBS. He’s here to inflame, incite, irritate, annoy, vex, distract and disrupt this blog’s clearly stated and singular purpose: to rebuild the conservative movement and return the GOP to majority status.
And for the record here, BigPharm wasn’t invited into the WH by Republicans on Health Scare Reform. BigPharm wasn’t cut an exemption or dealt a freebie by Republicans… that was Obama’s WH and democrats letting BigPharm continue in its destructive ways… while allowing trial lawyers to openly chase the ambulance on drug mistakes. By one estimate, 22% the last 10 yrs of health care cost increases can be tagged directly to BigPharm industry. And Obama gave them a pass… hell, he even promised they could keep making the dough off sick Americans while he guts MediCare.
Thank you for helping to make my points –even if you find it necessary to retreat from earlier statements or clarify them so as not to distance yourself from the usual garden variety of far Left trolls parading on this site.
35 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:35 am
BlankHead #25 enters the echo chamber with Arch (who used to be named ArchConservative b4 the Tribe decided to drop that name ’cause it sounded too fake even for them) for some soothing, mellow reassuring reverberations from the echo TrollTribe…
Sorry to burst that toxic, spitefilled bubble you live in BlankHead but when you and your multiple named pals manufacture comments to change the dynamic of this discussion, invade a site that is singularly dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to majority status –for which, David Frum and I concur wholeheartedly– you become the interloper, you become the outsider, you become the fraud here. Not me. You and your manufactured pals.
I’ve never been shy of a good debate with democrats. I’ve never worn partisan blinders when dealing with my Party’s leaders or the rank and file.
That’s the unique aspect of a democrat activist posting repeatedly contrarian comments on a site dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement –that would be you and your TrollTribe creations.
No conspiracy. That’s the province of Hillary Clinton’s paranoia to construct vast conspiracies out to get the Democrats… until she learned differently by the brutal experience of Truth.
36 Raider1 // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:46 am
Everyone here needs to take a valium and chill…oops! (just trying to get us back on topic of Schafers article).
37 ottovbvs // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:46 am
MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:24 am
“Right, WillyP. As a gay man,”
……..Er……haven’t you previously claimed to have three children?……I suppose it’s possible
38 ottovbvs // Dec 11, 2009 at 9:51 am
30 WillyP // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“otto,
I don’t think you get it. I don’t care to respond to you. You’re a loser with the impertinence to insult others.”
……..So why keep responding……the desire for the last word presumably?
“would realize that I actually AGREED WITH YOU, and was DISAGREEING WITH “GOPHER.”
……..Glad to hear it…..but you need to improve your writing style
39 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:10 am
OttoBS’er meets the enemy face2face and realizes it is himself?
“……..So why keep responding……the desire for the last word presumably?”
OttoBS’er, you even get people who agree with you pissed off here. You really are here just to inflame and annoy.
40 ottovbvs // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:18 am
MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:10 am
“Right, WillyP. As a gay man,”
“……..Er……haven’t you previously claimed to have three children?……I suppose it’s possible”
…….Still waiting for you to explain that little inconsistency gopher
41 sinz54 // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:24 am
ottovbs:
Gee, with all your embrace of liberal ideas, I never thought you would consider a gay man with children to be an “inconsistency.”
I don’t know him.
But one possible scenario is that he had children with a woman before he “came out” as gay–after whihc he and that woman separated.
42 sinz54 // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:26 am
WillyP:
This was the position of Consumers’ Union circa 1970. They called for not just legalizing marijuana, but decriminalizing heroin and starting heroin maintenance programs for heroin addicts. This was after a long research program in which they concluded that drugs weren’t the menace, but keeping them illegal was creating the menace.
Maybe liberals have rethought their stance since the 1970s.
43 oldgal // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:52 am
Watching the back and forth discussion here, I find it difficult to envision most of the posters having an effective discussion about drugs with a teenager. I found the thing that worked was to be open and honest, to treat them as equals and not talk down to them. The other thing that is important is to understand what the street drugs are and what they do – saying something is bad without any knowledge of what it is leaves a teenager believing you don’t know what you are talking about. Teenagers believe that marijuana is less problematic than alcohol…they have never seen anyone smoke a doobie and become violent, which they have seen or heard about with alcohol. I was perfectly honest that marijuana is not that bad, but it is illegal, and before trying it you should envision yourself in jail making a call to your father, because I’m not taking the call – this worked quite effectively. My big surprise came when my son was a Jr. in high school and he wanted to ask me about something in confidence. It turns out some of the kids in school were getting into their parents prescription drugs and selling the stuff at school. He didn’t think this was a good idea but wanted to know more. My big surprise is that he didn’t know this was extremely dangerous or illegal. The kids assumed if nonprescription drugs are the bad drugs then prescription drugs must be the good drugs. Since the prescription drug ads are no doubt here to stay, it is very important that the message get out that taking them without a prescription is extremely dangerous and is illegal. Actually, it’s very important whether the ads are here or not.
44 ottovbvs // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm
sinz54 // Dec 11, 2009 at 11:24 am
…….just asking him to clarify since he’s so concerned about everyone else’s probity
45 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:50 pm
There are some missing posts from this thread, as of 12:45. I think the Frum Forum must be suffering under the weight of all these Trolls incensed over Obama’s Celebrity Gal Miss Desiree being drawn into the light of day.
OttoBS’er, I’ve already answered your baiting little snideness here and on other threads. You asked how a gay man could have kids. I told you to go to GayPatriot and you can read about it. You asked for a shorter version –I labeled you with the added rubric “Lazy Ass” on top of the usual “Stupid” you earned and well-deserve here.
My family has been created by my partner’s and my force of wills. No former wife, no former wives. Gay men can have families, you dolt of the far Left.
I would have thought hard core democrat activists like you would have come in contact with at least one gay family in your pathetic life? But then, Obama and his main squeeze didn’t have any gay friends until their campaign bought some for them… so, I guess it’s possible you’re unaware of life inside the gay community.
How’s that hat fitting you these days?
46 balconesfault // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:13 pm
What does the Catholic Church say about practicing gays in their congregations?
Ahh well, I consider it a matter of personal conscience. None of my business how others resolve that issue, as long as they are at peace with their decisions and not harming anyone else.
47 balconesfault // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm
oldgal – your point is spot on. If you want a teenager to pay attention to you about drugs, you’d better not bullshit them … or your words will have no value at all.
And one of the worst things about our war on drugs, imo, is that a relatively benign drug like marjiuana is illegal – which means that kids who understand that pots biggest danger has to do with getting arrested, and not with the substance itself – also end up needing to interact with some really bad people to obtain it much of the time. You don’t want your kid getting exposed to cocaine or heroin or meth? The best step would be to make it so that kids don’t ever meet coke or heroin or meth dealers … and a lot less would if that wasn’t also where they needed to go to get their pot.
btw – not a pot user myself, never have been … but seriously believe that the inclusion of pot in the war on drugs has been a very economically disruptive mistake
48 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:59 pm
BlankHead tries the old standard far Left democrat trick of let’s “bait” the Roman Catholic gay man with “What does the Catholic Church say about practicing gays in their congregations?”
My congregation has said Welcome. My children have been baptized and attend the parish school. My marriage has been blessed by the parish priest and the new Bishop. What’s your congregation say, BlankHead.
Oh, that’s right, you’re anti-religion secular humanist who presupposes his moral compass is always pointing in the correct direction.
Bigot. Catholic bigot and a baiter. Shame on you, BlankHead.
49 ottovbvs // Dec 11, 2009 at 5:15 pm
MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“My family has been created by my partner’s and my force of wills. No former wife, no former wives. Gay men can have families,”
…….Good for you……I’m afraid the limit of my experience of gay families is two girls with an adopted child……as I keep telling you gopher my milieu is upper middle class Republican where most of them think homosexuality can be “cured”…….what’s more of mystery to me and I’m being entirely serious if you can get out of rant mode for a while is why you feel at home in a movement that is basically deeply antipathetic to homosexuality……I asked this question of a couple of gay friends of my son in law but didn’t really get a satisfactory answer
50 ottovbvs // Dec 11, 2009 at 5:22 pm
balconesfault // Dec 11, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“btw – not a pot user myself, never have been … but seriously believe that the inclusion of pot in the war on drugs has been a very economically disruptive mistake”
……never inhaled?……I took a couple of drags when I was a student but it made me so sick I was immune ever thereafter even when mountains of bad stuff were readily available………the entire war on drugs is an economically disruptive mistake and it costs us 60 billion a year.
51 balconesfault // Dec 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm
My congregation has said Welcome. My children have been baptized and attend the parish school. My marriage has been blessed by the parish priest and the new Bishop. What’s your congregation say.
You’re lucky to live in a liberal community like Ann Arbor.
The congregation where I grew up, went to in the parish school, and was an altar boy, and where my mother still attends church, would certainly baptize children of a gay couple, since a child should not face damnation for the sins of its guardians … but would also deny you communion as long as you continued to practice homosexuality. Then again, San Antonio is the hometown for John Hagee – not exactly the most theologically tolerant place you’ll find.
The Unitarian Universalist Church I go to in Austin would welcome you, however!
Interestingly, this is the second time I find you at complete odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church – previously, in claiming that Catholics worshipped statues and relics (something that the Church considers apostacy), and now this.
52 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Like I wrote, BlankHead:
Bigot. Catholic bigot and a baiter. Shame on you, BlankHead.
And now we can add Liar to the conviction. You’ve written here, right alongside your TrollTribe saddle buddie OttoBS’er that you aren’t religious and don’t believe in organized religion… and you’ve posted under BarryS name and others that you have contempt for “religionists”.
Bigot. Baiter. Liar. What a load for someone of such short mental stature, BlankHead. At least keep the multiple names you post under clear on their antagonism toward religion, will you.
For now, you can keep Bigot. Baiter. Liar. And you don’t need to check PoliFact to learn of your new found, gutter level status.
53 MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“previously, in claiming that Catholics worshipped statues and relics “… right and you shut up quickly when I pointed out that at Lourdes, Craigh na Patrick, Calcutta Center and hundreds of other religious sites in the world, good Roman Catholic faithful worship the both statutes and venerate relics of the saints. And priests and Bishops are right alongside.
Of course, back then when you advanced that line, you were anti-religion and peddling that special democrat core value of bigotry toward all who actually believe in God. Now, you’re just an agnostic unitarian –right. We can believe that one too?
I didn’t think we’d find someone more comfortable telling lies than OttoBS’er on the far Left. You might have eclipsed him, BlankHead. Good show, ol’ sport??
54 balconesfault // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:15 pm
You’ve written here, right alongside your TrollTribe saddle buddie OttoBS’er that you aren’t religious and don’t believe in organized religion
You sir, are still a scoundrel and a liar. I have not written that I am not religious. I don’t believe in dogmatic religions, since I believe dogma to be created by man. That is not the same as not being religious.
And I have never posted under another name here, so your continuing attempts to conflate multiple posters, despite my advice that you take this up with Frum, just makes you an abject coward.
I believe that the Catholic Church is all about its dogma. If you don’t want to embrace the dogma of the Church, I don’t understand why you would want to continue to belong to it. That is most certainly the reason I am no longer a Catholic … I was just honest enough to say that if I didn’t believe the teachings of the Church, I should leave it – rather than continuing to remain a Catholic while intentionally engaging in behavior that the Church believes a serious sin.
The Catholic Church has always been very clear on their linkage of sex and procreation. Per Papal Encyclicals, sex which is done in a way to dislink it from the miracle of procreation is demeaning to all involved. This is why the rejection of the use of birth control, and along with biblical passages condemning homosexuality, this is also a reason for the rejection of active homosexuality. One can ask “what about a sterile woman, an infertile man, an older couple”. As the story of Abraham and Sarah tells us, God can overcome all of those obstacles.
I have provided you with passages from the highest levels of the Church itself which states that worship (rather than veneration, which you do not seem to be able to grasp the difference between) of anything but God Himself is a violation of the First Commandment.
As such, it is you, accusing fellow Catholics of heresy and apostacy, who are a bigot, sir.
And I am not agnostic. I am a deist.
Your ignorance is surpassed only by your belligerence.
I’d encourage you to come visit your local Unitarian Universalist Church, if you are at odds with the Catholic Catechism. Perhaps not having the stress of being at odds with your own faith will help you find peace.
55 sinz54 // Dec 12, 2009 at 9:16 am
balconesfault:
The worst thing about the War on Drugs, is that how society treats these drugs (which are legal, how severe are the penalties for the illicit ones) bears almost no correlation to what modern medical science has discovered about these drugs.
Instead, society sets the penalties to make various social statements. Robert Bork, in his book “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” says that the penalties against marijuana must remain strong, because marijuana has always been the symbol of left-wing rebellion by youth. And by keeping the penalties strong, society sends a strong message to youth that left-wing rebellion won’t be tolerated.
56 balconesfault // Dec 12, 2009 at 9:44 am
And by keeping the penalties strong, society sends a strong message to youth that left-wing rebellion won’t be tolerated.
Yeah, I was once listening to Rush and hearing him state that a culture that tolerated pot wasn’t acceptable because nobody would be willing to fight in wars anymore.
57 ottovbvs // Dec 12, 2009 at 9:59 am
balconesfault // Dec 11, 2009 at 10:15 pm
“You sir, are still a scoundrel and a liar.”
…………this guy really is a nasty piece of work…….he has only one mode of communication and that is ranting and name calling and it’s a mode he’s clearly incapable of varying whatever the topic……given his personal circumstances he’s fortunate that other posters here seem better able to control their emotions
You must log in to post a comment.