discussion comment
16 years ago
"jabelake: I did not accuse you of anything other than ignorance. Israel has the right to protect it's self as does the U.S. If we do not fight terrorism all over the globe, who will? God? Think about this in November."
Let Israel defend *itself*----wonderful. :) If people actually believe in this religion garbage, then God has already determined the winner, no? :) I mean God isn't actually going to allow his "chosen" people to lose?
I think if the U.S. doesn't help the terrorists by bombing innocent people enmass, then the terrorist damage will be tiny such as say 911. Yes, the beloved 911. What was the final body count? Just under 3,000? The real terrorism is on U.S. highways and hospitals. 100,000 annually dead due to medical mistakes? 40,000 annually dead due to traffic fatalities? The numbers are a damn sight higher that 3,000.
Not only that: the 3,000 killed were killed by a *tiny* number of killers. So the U.S. decides to terrorize millions of people to fight the menace unleashed by a HANDFUL of people. Ignorant? I suggest you think about how ***ignorant*** it is to fight ghosts and inflict harm on millions to battle a HANDFUL of people. If you actually cared about "terrorism," then a very real solution is to allow Jews to immigrate to the U.S. along with hefty cash payments to help them get established----true peace for land. :)
Don't fret, I have NO intention of voting. I'd LOVE President Bush to serve for another 20 years; yes, I think he is incompetent enough to end the U.S. as a world menace. Hell, Israel might have to start sending billions and billions in funds to America if only we can keep people like him in charge. Of course, if he is stopping Israel from fighting back----well, that is pretty damn nasty! :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I would rather see the U.S. fight these evil people in their realm rather than here. In the mean time what does it hurt to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into democracies? It works in Israel."
Yes, and for strategic reasons I think they're loving the sinkholes the U.S. has stepped into. Sure the U.S. is much more powerful than the former Soviet Union, but you do recall it was U.S. strategy to bleed the Soviets dry in an expensive unwinnable war in Afghanistan? It worked, imo, beautifully. :) So, Soviets get kicked out and broke and now the U.S. wishes to see if it has the bankroll to get the job done? Sounds like mainly the U.S. has turned the Afghanistan into a narco state, which is positive, imo. :)
It worked in Israel? I guess if you believe in promoting one religion over another than it has been a wonderful success or if you wish to send billions and billions every year to fund their BS you could call that a success. :) Worse, the U.S. gives Egypt billions to be "nice" to Israel. As long as the printing press is working smoothly, it ain't a horrible deal. :)
Real democracies? You know the ones where "terrorists" get elected on the platform of destroying Israel? Or, are you talking about phoney baloney democracies?
discussion comment
16 years ago
"If it wasn't for the U.S.'s influence they would take out Syria and Iran tomorrow."
Hi Shadowcat,
Wonderful, let Israel take out whoever they so wish and let the blood be on their hands. They might be able to win and so what?
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hate? I'll have you know some of my best friends are Jews!!! Take that you big half Jewish bully!!! :)
Actually, I don't keep up with the religion garbage too much.
I think it is a little funny that you would assume your people did anything to me----like you feel guilty??? Or, is it because the history of the Jews is filled with people seeking their destruction? I *assume* you realize other peoples have been hated and have suffered genocide. So what? The U.S. should run around the globe fighting endless wars?
discussion comment
16 years ago
"jablake, I'm proud that we as a nation stand against genocidal maniacs, whatever it may cost us."
Yes, spoken like true blue supporter of Israel.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Yes, who cares about the cost of that "friendship" to America?
discussion comment
16 years ago
heaven forbid wish to fight back.
discussion comment
16 years ago
President Bush is the terrorist's best friend. Just like the government's Drug War is the drug lords best best friend in terms of making truck loads of cash. Without the Drug War, drugs would selling for pocket change i.e little tiny profits; can't have that! As far as terrorism, blowing people up around the world and invading nations is the best way to not only bankrupt the U.S. (the dollar is doing surprisingly well, imo---gas should be selling for more like $20 per gallon), but it creates even more innocent victims who heaven wish to fight back. As far as the U.S. minding its own business---PLEASE you don't arm and finance another people's enemy (Israel) without expecting to get kicked in the balls at some point e.g. 911.
discussion comment
16 years ago
No, starting a new war with Iran? Remember Iran is a threat to Israel, which means the US better get its ass in gear pronto. So, let's have some faith in President Bush.
Besides, President Bush's oil backers haven't made enough money, yet.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"5%/year is for men, 10%/year for women."
Oops, I guess I misread it: I was reading 5 - 10 cases per 10,000.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Depends on the relationship. More than a few married wives cut their husbands off; for whatever reasons. Heaven forbid husband doesn't wish to be financially raped by the government's corrupt court system!
My grandmother was raised with the belief that you only put out for your husband as long as children are possible. No possibility of children equals NO sex for husband from wife. NO, he doesn't need to broadcast that which she wouldn't want to hear. NO, he doesn't need to meet the wrath of a corrupt court to make its lawyers rich.
The one size fits all rule foisted by government is unadulterated BS. I doubt all religions cut the husband's balls off just cause he gets married.
discussion comment
16 years ago
And, of course those numbers like the inflation numbers should be believed. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Gee, the Bush Administration ain't looking so bad after all. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
There are good things like "crime," and "illegal immigration," and "poor wages," but unfortunately this is a police state. When I was young it was fairly rural and guns were common and police were few and far between. On my street, you could easily go a month or two without seeing a police officer. Prostitution? Hello?! Might have been against the law, but it wasn't enforced unless you're being a real pest. Stripclubs? Oh YES!!! W. Dixie Hwy was the place to be; all manner of little small clubs. Drugs? Well, if you were male and white and over 18 . . . my strong wager would be the officers would ignore the "crime" without a bead of sweat. In fact, most officers didn't want to be sending people to jail in the least. It was more of a very friendly force (for whites) that attempted to keep the peace and keep people on target as far as respecting others. Now, the police get a sizable bounty for sitting in a court room so sending people to jail is just fun and games; there ain't much of community.
Ideally, the police will just sort of disappear as quickly as they appeared to enforce a bunch of phoney baloney "crimes."
I'm so sick of the ruling class of so called legal Americans it be wonderful to see 'em replaced wholesale with people from Cuba, Haiti, Iran, South America, etc. Who knows perhaps those people have the same prison state mentality that seems to have gripped so called legal Americans.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I wish Miami would follow SF lead.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"If you assume sex 100 times per year for 20 years"
"Anyway, the base rate of infectivity in the absence of condoms is known to be low: about 5-10 in 10,000 per act."
OK, 100 X 20 = 2,000 sex acts. Assume the higher figure of 1 in 1000 sex acts (10 in 10,000) that means every 10 years the (100 X 10 years) the person should expect to feel the hammer assuming NO condom use *AND* that your partner is infected??? Seems like something is very wrong.
"some people are just plain genetically immune to STDs. I think this is especially true among Northern Europeans, for whatever reason."
Could be; just like some people aren't susceptible in the least to becoming addicted to alcohol. Difficult to imagine that type of honesty out of government and it is disappointing how many even intelligent people parrot the official line.
discussion comment
16 years ago
When the club is slow and you stop paying strippers because you lost your job or have other real financial problems, it seems like the lovable strippers are still lovable as ever. Only negative is offers of FREE dances----yes, it should go without saying FREE is negative. HINT: No such thing as a free lunch.
Anyway, the above is based on experience many years ago. Of course, if the club is busy, then damn I'd be insisting that the stripper stop wasting her valuable time on me and go make some stinking money. HINT: She is at work and normally work is how one pays pesky bills from food to rent. Cutting a stripper off, imo, would often prove zero about her real feelings.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Anyway, the base rate of infectivity in the absence of condoms is known to be low: about 5-10 in 10,000 per act."
Seems like practically nobody should be infected given those numbers. Perhaps my friends who don't believe in condoms know what they're doing.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"It took about 10 years on average until the male caught HIV. Hepatitis also has very low transmissibility rate for heterosexual. HSV is about as transmissible as HIV in the absence of outbreaks,"
I had read that it was very difficult for a man to get HIV from a woman----I didn't think it was extreme as you've cited: maybe they're only having sex once a year or less? ;)
I believe, and maybe 100% wrong, that genital herpes is more difficult to get via oral sex than regular intercourse. Heck, it seems safe to give a woman cunnilingus even in a high risk group----if true all the fun I've been missing. :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/143/10/707?ijkey=d8c9963875df9a729228a969116fa05c8a3c59c9&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
"Jablake: Did you find it interesting that the larger study I cited found no evidence of HSV-1 reduction due to condom use?"
Is that the link above? I saw that, but: 1) The full article required payment and 2) It included sex where condom usuage was only 75% or greater. A little more than 3 out of 4 times doesn't seem like it should offer much protection so yeah the lack of HSV-1 reduction shouldn't, imo, come as a surprise. It is like a couple that complains the condoms weren't any good and then go on to brag that they used 'em almost 80% of the time. Gee, imo, it hardly seems worthwhile using 'em especially if the couple is getting it on a fair amount of times per week.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi bobbyl,
The fifty percent reduction seems low because I think of it in terms of Russian Roulette. Stripper has good old fashioned six shooter loaded with 2 bullets. She spins the cylinder and points the gun at her hand. I say WAIT!!! That seems way dangerous. She says you're right. She then removes 1 of the bullets and happily proclaims she cut the risk by 50%. Yes, I guess the Russian Roulette is now safer. Hardly seems worth the effort if she is gonna keep playing that game. Similarly with the sky high rates of infection for Herpes it seems like having sex, protected or not, with many different partners almost guarantees you a "bullet" as in the stripper example.
The government non-stop lies about drugs including alcohol make me doubtful about its STD propaganda. *Seems* insane, but most of the people that I know either don't use condoms or use them occasionally.
BTW, it is possible a single toke of marijuana or snort of coke could kill just as eating a single peanut could kill so it is difficult to get at the truth. Unfortunately, imo, prohibition probably does have real health care benefits----just look at benefits of zero tolerance in much of the muslim world. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi Bobbyl,
One of the links that you provided lead to a paid article. I'm like Book Guy in that I try and avoid paying for stuff on the internet. :)
I noticed that in some of the studies they bundle over 75% condom usage with 100% condom usage---well, you don't use it then well you shouldn't be too surprised if you get a STD from a stripper. Sad thing is I've known people who "haphazzardly" use condoms and then complain the condom failed.
Doesn't seem like rocket science 101 that if you didn't put the condom on, you can't blame it for "failing." Pity the poor doctors who hear the condom failed as the patient relates that I used it religiously 50% of the time.
Only a 50% reduction seems low, but then the whole thing becomes extremely murky when you lump condom users together with sometime losers.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples—couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not (166, 557). Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users (22, 166, 167, 177, 311, 378, 416, 557). In three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users (134, 141, 473)." *** http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4_2.shtml ***
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Some protection against other STIs. Since the 1970s studies of typical use have demonstrated that condoms provide some protection against gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia (39, 46, 85, 86, 131, 253, 346, 400, 492). For example, consistent condom use probably reduces the risk of chlamydia and gonorrhea infection by about 60% to 80% (471). One study found that condoms reduce the risk of trichomoniasis by about 30% (457). Condoms offer less protection against herpes, the genital wart virus HPV implicated in cervical cancer, and other STIs that can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact between parts of the body not covered by condoms (86, 93, 146, 300)." *** http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4_2.shtml ***
discussion comment
16 years ago
"In women reporting 100 percent condom use by their partners, no cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions were detected in 32 patient-years at risk," *** HPV link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16790697 ***
"CONCLUSIONS: Condom use offers significant protection against HSV-2 infection in susceptible women." *** HSV link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11427138 ****