KaskadskyjKozak

I believe this is because with Viagra you are attempting to correct something that doesn't work. With birth control you are trying to stop something that is natural. Similar to the fact that insurance generally doesn't, for instance, cover Rogaine to stop balding. I would really like to believe that, but it just isn't true. First of all, most ED is a natural side effect of aging. Second of all, birth control is a normal activity that most countries like ours follow. (And that's good--it'd be tough to support 8 kids for every family). I think if you read a little on the incredible battle that it took for women to get birth control pills covered, you'll see that there is more than just your theory at work here. There have also been amazing battles that women fought just to get something back to normal again. For example, the legal fights over getting an implant after having a breast removed due to cancer were bitter. Isn't this simply returning something back to normal? I wish I could remember the name of the book I read that researched the battles fought over different coverages. Issues that only affected women were far more common and took much much longer to win than issues that only affected men. I am happy to see that trend starting to change. You mean like the current disparity between the funding available for breast and prostate cancer research? Prostate cancer is a slow growing cancer that usually affects men in their geriatric years. Breast cancer affects younger women and is often deadly at a faster rate. It makes more sense to put more money into the second group. (as a side note: my father has prostate cancer, my mother has breast cancer. I can say that emotionally they are both devastating. I don't wish to dismiss the problem in one group; but if we don't have money to fix everything, it makes sense to help the group that will benefit the most. In this case, getting another 40 yrs of life is worth more than another 10.) I agree that this is the reason why we spend more on breast cancer research than prostate cancer research, and this rationale makes sense to me - but it doesn't support the contention that the claim that women's health issues have been the subject of an intentional, wide-ranging, and systematic neglect because no one cares about women, we value women's lives less and always have, the self-serving medico-patriarchy can't look beyond it's own interests, etc. I think in most cases men simply made better "animal models" for most medical research because no one had to worry about their drug candidate turning into the next thalidomide if they included women of child bearing age in the drug study, hormonal fluctations that might complicate the analysis, etc. Sins of omission versus sins of commission. Well, it really is a gender issue. And it works both ways. For example, I think it is absolutely unacceptable that men often have to sue the companies they work for in order to get paternity leave. This is a gender disparity issue that exists in the world of our "benefits package" due to cultural norms that have been allowed to live long past their time. The genders get treated differently and unfairly in many situations--and that is a sin of commission in my opinion. Is treating genders differently always unfair in every situation? Will this not become moot (in terms of drug research) as pharmacogenomics becomes the norm? Excepting the pregnancy angle, of course.

God, I love it when you get all up and O'Reilly - it brings out the real you... this is spray

So direct barbs, such as the ones you fling at me, are ok, Mr. magna cum filled laude pastry boy? the only thing filled with cum is your bunghole, you fudge-packing, pseudo-intellectual troll.

Sounds a little hypocritical don’t it? Nope.

1. I never said it logically followed 2. my point, you obtuse dipshit, is that is what is IMPLIED by the simplistic sound-bite rhetoric of the anti-war crowd. "we are less safe now" is quickly followed by "withdrawal timeline" and "get the boys home". The implication is intentional - the demagoguery to deceive through simplistic assertion and innuendo reinforced with repetition. And fuck off with your tangential barbs. Unlike that moron ass clown No. 13 whatever who is clearly a few dozen IQ points lower than Bush, I've never maintained that you fall in that category. The thread you cite with your pathetic barbs was meant to put him in his place - which it did. All you do is drop to the level of a moron, which you clearly aren't, whatever your personal academic credentials may be.

I think you are making too many excuses for some of these situations, and Eric was raising good points, albeit bluntly.

This is fucking rich! The same semantic, parsing bullshit brought to us by Bubba! I'm gonna frame your comment, and whenever I need a good laugh, pull it out.

Remember before the war discussing this subject, and how the argument was made that there was no "terrorist threat" or connection to terrorism with Iraq? And that after an invasion, there surely would develop a connection? I clearly remember you arguing otherwise.... But I digress: What is this terrorist threat "from Iraq"? Can you clearly define it? What specifically does it threaten now, and what would the natural evolution of this threat be, if the US was to leave? Would you see it growing, shrinking, expanding its influence. etc etc.... "By their argument"? Don't be so tendentious here. You are the one filling in the blanks with your magna cum laude deductive reasoning skills here, and frankly, they suck. The position isn't: x makes us unsafe, -x makes us safe; the position is: x makes us unsafe. It's not as if x FORCES a reaction for the sake of logical consistency; no, x maintains its validity (which you seem to agree with) without referencing any necessitated acts beyond its own reference of an accountability to sound evaluation. It's all that is needed. nice attempt at subterfuge and obfuscation. your side has made the claims that I have stated, and now you avoid them, and their concomitant implications. and your logic is the one in need of remedial education, sir. if our presence in Iraq makes us "less safe" as you and your ilk periodically vomit in some anti-war thread, then clearly the effect of our leaving would be to make us more safe.

I like it. Why isn't it supported? Probably because it conflicts with someone's personal or ideological interest in this. I'm not so sure. You give too much faith in how wars are run and priorities set in the modern era.

Surely you jest. "The prevailing opinion"? I guess Limbaugh skews more than I realized. Or is this the propaganda the Russian papers feed you? I've never met a "lefty" who has said there isn't a terrorist threat. no terrorist threat FROM IRAQ. Jesus Christ, that's what we're talking about! The left argues it makes us less safe, so if we leave, then, by their argument we are more safe, right? So, let's leave and we'll just see if that holds up.

That is exactly the kind of "politically correct KK-style support the troops" B.S. that, in the National debate, has prevented rational consideration of anything to do with this war. I don't remember anybody here or anywhere else stating that they want us to LOSE. What is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American is your vile spew directed at those you disagree with, and the statement that you'd be happy to see them twisting in the wind or, as you put it, "fucked over by the terrorists" simply because of their political opinions. Blame yourself, buddy. The prevailing opinion I hear from the left is there is "no terrorist threat", and "our involvement in Iraq makes us less safe". So, let's get out, and drop the charade. But if the threat actually turns out to be real, and we are attacked, let it be you and not me that feels the brunt because you asked for it.

This post hits the nail on the head, kind of. It's easy to criticize without offering pragmatic solutions, and I haven't heard any good proposals from the Left on how to withdraw without conflagrating the chaos that is contemporary Iraq. On the otherhand, the Right has left me unconvinced that the current approach will result in a favorable outcome and avoid the worst-case results KK identifies above. As I see it, the lack of good options from either side of the debate brings one word to mind - quagmire. I thought we were supposed to train the Iraqi police force to keep order in their own country and we could provide support and step in when necessary. As they took over their own defense and stabilized the country, we'd need a smaller force there. Apparently that isn't working, and I'm afraid it will not work. If the Iraqis don't have the will to fight for themselves, then I don't know why we are. We could withdraw to bases and stand by on the sidelines while the factions slaughter eachother. Or we could leave entirely, and let the wolves have their pick of the sheep. Those options would go over real well in the US and world opinion. The UN isn't going to do shit. Even if they moved in, as soon as they suffered a month of casualties at the level we suffer them, they'd be out. No option there. We could encourage Iraq to become a dictatorship. That might work. So much for democratization though. Which leaves us with what we have. A forced semi-stable country, and a slow bleed of lives and a fairly large bleed in terms of deficit spending with no end in sight. One thing I have never understood, BTW, is why we don't look down the damn borders. I know the borders are long with difficult terrain, but... if Iran and Syria are importing weapons and people to help the insurgency, it seems this would be critical.

You don't criticize the war you want us to LOSE, and always have. Because losing means YOUR side (politically) wins. THAT is disgusting, despicable, and anti-American. I would like us out of Iraq. But not if it means Iran gets to move in and the country fall into a civil war. Tell me a solution for getting us OUT without that type of aftermath and I'm all ears.

Why do you hate America? I think this must be the most pathetic post in this entire thread. I have nothing in common with about 30-40% of my fellow Americans. You can thank all the political rancor and bickering of the last 25 years for that. Hate America? That's rich. It's the other way around - I react against those who hate America, and I'm perfectly happy to let those folks twist in the wind. I have no desire to do anything for them and certainly don't need to answer to THEM for anything.

There is a famous saying about that... owning more books than you can read. :-)

i remember the only reason i could finish w&p was my absolute and complete hatred of every single character and my desire to see all of them come to the worst possible end... Wow, pretty harsh. I find most of the characters to be typically bland/aristocracy mold. Nobody I hate yet. I am appreciating some of Tolstoy's insight into human nature - there's a gem or two in almost every few pages.

You've got a short memory. I was jabbing you with a barb that someone else used a few months back. Keep up the bragging, btw, it's real impressive. I told you already: with all the fuckhead assholes who bad mouth this country and our involvement in this conflict (and others), hate on American and everything it stands for, mock the sacrifices made by our soldiers, etc., I honestly don't see how anyone can serve. Personally, I'd rather see you all get fucked over by terrorists and rot in the aftermath, then lift a finger on your behalf. Must I repeat again?

*yawn* How about this - ONLY vets who saw combat can discuss Iraq - period. I'm sure that would exclude a lot of participants of this board. And let's apply this type of standard to other topics. Only home-owners can vote increases on property taxes. Only teachers can discuss education policy in the US. Only policemen can discuss law enforcement. Get my drift, asshole?

as a REMF, right?

I would never risk my life to preserve the freedoms of an ungrateful, anti-american a-hole like you.

Patriotism is not the issue, numb-nuts.

We have a volunteer army, and our government recruits. Nobody holds a gun to your head and forces you to enlist, and everyone knows if you do, you'll likely see combat in Iraq. That about sums up my position. YOU just want to make it into something else.

my son's school is starting a program like that - read one book together every month then meet with all the other participants in the program to discuss it.

I think a lot of viagra is sold to (older) guys who just want to have marathon sex.