Legalize needle-exchanges for addicts in Texas?

[RandomGuy]

I don't have the time [for these] things.

Results 1 - 10 of about 173,000 for teen pregnancy rates graph. (0.31 seconds)

If you can't take a less than a second to back up your bull , GTFO.

Not even trying = lazy

[Wild Cobra]

If you can't take a less than a second to back up your bull , GTFO.

Not even trying = lazy

Searches on such subjects are nothing but information overload. That information has no merit.

How about one that breaks down by age, without including the 18 and 19 year old girls who were married and had planned pregnacies... You know, and times changed, and more women want to work rather than have kids, that effects those numbers too.

I think it was clear I was speaking of unplanned, unmarried teen pregnancies. That graph does not fit the argument. How many kids in the 60's and 70's would get married right after school and start families? Intentionally?

[RandomGuy]

Searches on such subjects are nothing but information overload. That information has no merit.

How about one that breaks down by age, without including the 18 and 19 year old girls who were married and had planned pregnacies... You know, and times changed, and more women want to work rather than have kids, that effects those numbers too.

I think it was clear I was speaking of unplanned, unmarried teen pregnancies. That graph does not fit the argument. How many kids in the 60's and 70's would get married right after school and start families? Intentionally?

The data was on unplanned, umarried teen pregnancies.

This response simply fits into your pattern, dogma-boy.

When faced with data that contradicts your world-view, it must be "flawed" somehow, or "not worth the time".

Your first response isn't "well maybe I should see if I should re-examine my position based on new evidence and data", it is "this must be wrong somehow because it doesn't agree with my opinion."

Begone from here. I wave my stick at you that wards off stupid spirits....

[Wild Cobra]

The data was on unplanned, umarried teen pregnancies.

Where does it say that?

This response simply fits into your pattern, dogma-boy.

At least I don't make things up like you do.

When faced with data that contradicts your world-view, it must be "flawed" somehow, or "not worth the time".

How does it contradict my word? You must be seeing things. I don't see where it says unplanned and unmarried.

Your first response isn't "well maybe I should see if I should re-examine my position based on new evidence and data", it is "this must be wrong somehow because it doesn't agree with my opinion."

I reject your flawed data. Not because it doesn't agree with my opinion, but it doesn't say what you say it does.

Begone from here. I wave my stick at you that wards off stupid spirits....

Looking in a mirror again?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not going to bother. But tell me one thing. Are you saying for the record that teen pregnacy rates are lower now than 30 years ago? I would diagree with that!

As of the date of this pdf report in late 2006 (based on data up to 2002) it is.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resourc...te_oct2006.pdf

1972 95
1973 96
1974 99
1975 101
1976 101
1977 105
1978 105
1979 109
1980 111
1981 110
1982 110
1983 109
1984 108
1985 109
1986 107
1987 107
1988 111
1989 115
1990 117
1991 115
1992 111
1993 108
1994 105
1995 100
1996 96
1997 91
1998 89
1999 86
2000 84
2001 80
2002 75


You fail, dogma-boy.

[RandomGuy]

Where does it say that?


At least I don't make things up like you do.


How does it contradict my word? You must be seeing things. I don't see where it says unplanned and unmarried.


I reject your flawed data. Not because it doesn't agree with my opinion, but it doesn't say what you say it does.


Looking in a mirror again?

(shakes anti-stupid stick harder)

Away spirit of stupidity, cease inhabiting my computer!!!

[Wild Cobra]

(shakes anti-stupid stick harder)

Away spirit of stupidity, cease inhabiting my computer!!!

Man, you've lost it.

Again, where does it say that?

[Wild Cobra]

Well RandomPropagandaGuy...

Two days later...

I ask again, where does it say that?

[RandomGuy]

How does it contradict my word? You must be seeing things.

I'm not going to bother. But tell me one thing. Are you saying for the record that teen pregnacy rates are lower now than 30 years ago? I would diagree with that!

As of the date of this pdf report in late 2006 (based on data up to 2002) it is.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resourc...te_oct2006.pdf


TEEN PREGANCY RATES FROM TEEN PREGNANCY.ORG
1972 95
1973 96
1974 99
1975 101
1976 101
1977 105
1978 105
1979 109
1980 111
1981 110
1982 110
1983 109
1984 108
1985 109
1986 107
1987 107
1988 111
1989 115
1990 117
1991 115
1992 111
1993 108
1994 105
1995 100
1996 96
1997 91
1998 89
1999 86
2000 84
2001 80
2002 75

[RandomGuy]

The data was on unplanned, umarried teen pregnancies.
Where does it say that?

Where does it say that?

It is kind of implicit in the data, dogma-boy.

If you intend it not to be you would have to have some data regarding the "planned, married" rate of pregancy is for US teens aged 15-19.

Given that the law in most states prohibits most 15 year olds from marrying in the first place, it is kind of hard for any given 15 year old girl to get married and "plan" the pregnancy, isn't it?

Backpedal and provaricate, dogma-boy, I expect no less. Your opinions are based on your own preconceived notions, not actual data, whether you admit it or not.

[RandomGuy]

I don't need to see a peer reviewed study. I've seen the DRAMTIC rise in teen pregnacies grow in my lifetime.

ing oops.

Ever find any data to support this, asshat?

This whole thread is a prime example of how self-righteous bull judgmentalism keeps decent policies from seeing the light of day and slowing economic growth for everybody.

[RandomGuy]

Pinned to the wall, WC looks for any out he can feverishly and quickly think of.

You made the statement Cobra.

Back it up, because the only data available directly contradicts your statement.

It isn't my burden of proof, it is yours.

[scott]

Another case of society chopping off its own nose in spite of its face.

[scott]

And I was just referring to the OP, not to WC's continued asshattery.

[Wild Cobra]

Good.

You did bump it.

I'll look at this tomorrow. Have to go now. Have to leave for work within 15 minutes.

[RandomGuy]

Another case of society chopping off its own nose in spite of its face.

Here is a good question for an economist, because one of the arguments given here was an economic one.

"If you make something free, you increase its usage".

In this case, the "free" thing is clean needles.

All things equal, making needles free, but not the drugs, will push up clean needle usage, but not affect the overall usage of drugs by any appreciable amount.

Is that a reasonable statement? Given the cost of needles is such a small part of the monetary cost of injectable drugs.

[RandomGuy]

Good.

You did bump it.

I'll look at this tomorrow. Have to go now. Have to leave for work within 15 minutes.

Take all the time you need to find the data to support your statement about teen pregnancy rates, of any type.

, we've been waiting four years, what is another few days?

You go wit yer bad self on that one. I would LOVE to see data supporting it.

(edit)

I double DOG dare you.

[RandomGuy]

... TRIPLE DOG DARE you to find anything. Anything at all.

[RandomGuy]

And I was just referring to the OP, not to WC's continued asshattery.

See, he is pinning his hopes on some difference between planned and unplanned.

As if "planned" pregnancies by teen age girls/women cons ute a significant part of overall pregnancies.

He was unwittingly vague enough in his statment that he thinks there is some weasel room there for him.

Overall, in addition to the data on "unplanned" pregancies, women in general have been waiting to have kids, longer and longer.

The average age of a female in the US at her first birth, if at all, has been creeping up as well.

WC might surprise everybody by admitting he ed up, but I am not holding my breath.

[DarrinS]

At least Winehole bumps other people's really old threads.

Carry on

[RandomGuy]

At least Winehole bumps other people's really old threads.

Carry on

Don't you have some shopping to do before the jackbooted thugs git yer bulbs?

[Yonivore]

Don't you have some shopping to do before the jackbooted thugs git yer bulbs?

Is this place the only home you know? It's like you remember every obscure thing anyone has ever said in here.

, I can't even remember what you said in any post before today. It's not just you, there's a number of posters in here that either write down and keep it hand or have no real life that bumps this crap out of your brain when you're not logged in.

[Th'Pusher]

Is this place the only home you know? It's like you remember every obscure thing anyone has ever said in here.

, I can't even remember what you said in any post before today. It's not just you, there's a number of posters in here that either write down and keep it hand or have no real life that bumps this crap out of your brain when you're not logged in.

Probably all that grass you smoked when your brain was still developing

[TeyshaBlue]

Is this place the only home you know? It's like you remember every obscure thing anyone has ever said in here.

, I can't even remember what you said in any post before today. It's not just you, there's a number of posters in here that either write down and keep it hand or have no real life that bumps this crap out of your brain when you're not logged in.

Or there's another possibility.
It's called thread subscriptions. It's really easy. Look into it.

[ElNono]

Or there's another possibility.
It's called thread subscriptions. It's really easy. Look into it.

technology... that evil thing