Lets now take a moment to "thank" all those liberals who have told us for decades that sex is just a natural, healthy activity which any well-adjusted adult should partake in without any worries.

Are you implying that sex is unnatural? You do know it is the method of our species to procreate right?

Wow… slavery is a problem caused by Liberals! The fact that slavery have been with us since time immortal seems to escape the author of this dribble. Slavery is present in the bible, in history. But I assume we Liberals were there then and were the cause of it. And the author does not look at the business the ‘traders’ are in. Big business I assume to take those risks. And it is not too different to prostitution where the prostitute is run by a Pimp and often protected by the local police via payoffs. And all this the fault of liberals. Again, WOW!! What else are we at fault for? The stock market taking a dive today? The thunderstorms that hit the country this weekend?? Gee we liberals must have great power to be in control of all this.

I don't think it is fair to soley blame liberals for this. We are responsible for this and we all need to work together to correct this.

Ohio,
Wait, what?

Was anyone able for follow that rambling nonsense from the Flogger? "author of dribble"? "time immortal"? That was intended to be funny, right? Go ahead, make fun of Bush's malpropisms.

But if he's serious, did he even read Mark's last paragraph?
Here's a clue little man, the liberal mantra that there is no right or wrong; only personal choices, is what brings us to this point.

Sorry, that should be "malapropisms" I was laughing too hard to check my own spelling.

And the most important "personal choice" a liberal wants protected is the individual's right to say no, you do NOT own my mind, body or soul. This is the antithesis of slavery, where in fact, the belief that government has some God-given right to control people's bodies is the gateway to human rights abuses like this.

Leviticus condones slavery. The ACLU does not. Do the math.

OhioGoofy, you need to heed my advice--go back to school, learn to write, then come back and show us what you've learned. War

Oh, here goes Mark again on another liberal rant, pathetically attempting to demonize the left by drawing parallels that don't exist.

Slavery Mark, was incepted from the BIBLE, the same one you use in church, not liberals. In the 1800's Republicans were on the other side of the fence from what they are now, and voted to free the slaves, then the conservatives took over the party and you have been attacking them ever since.

Mark, I apologize for changing the subject. I just wanted to note that on the Power Line blog, today they note an Iraqi document that was recently translated. It was a letter dated 6 months before the start of the Iraq war in 2003 and was by the head general of the saddam fedeyeen to uday hussien, saddams son. It notes that chemical weapons were buried under the ground near fallujah, and they wanted instructions as to what to do with it. Hopefully, we are starting to learn what happened to some of saddams wmd.

"Incepted from the BIBLE"? I've seen people "incepted" into university, and I've seen things at their "inception" but never anything "incepted" from an object!

And the Republicans used to be liberals in the 1800's?

Good God! You’re hysterical! I get it now, axis is really Mark, no one could be that stupid intentionally! It’s got to be a joke. good one, Mark, you really had me going!

"Incepted from the BIBLE"? I've seen people "incepted" into university, and I've seen things at their "inception" but never anything "incepted" from an object!

And the Republicans used to be liberals in the 1800's?

Good God! You’re hysterical! I get it now, axis is really Mark, no one could be that stupid intentionally! It’s got to be a joke. good one, Mark, you really had me going!

The confusion here is implying that slave rape under threat of violence is "sex" where in fact it is an act of violence. It is not "free and open sexuality" by any definition. If it is not mutually consenting full-grown adults, it is a crime.

This does bring me to THIS STORY (CLICK HERE) where YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLAR IS BUYING SLAVES, PEOPLE! THIS IS WRONG! The Republicans talk the talk, but they sure as heck don't walk the walk when it comes to slavery.

Oh, here goes Mark again on another liberal rant, pathetically attempting to demonize the left by drawing parallels that don't exist.

Yeah, but this one is even more cravenly pathetic than usual. Sex slavery is the end result of liberalism? Sounds like somebody's not only quite desperate to find something--anything--to tar the opposition with, but also quite monumentally ignorant as to what he's saying.

I've studied modern slavery, Noonan, including sex slavery. I've researched it, I've interviewed ex-slaves (some of the most harrowing, disturbing conversations I've ever had), and I've written about it. It has been going on for a lot longer than 50 years, and it is certainly not the end result of "liberalism," not even your hideously distorted idea of what liberalism is. You're in way, way over your head here, pal, and this is far beyond your usual weakly-reasoned pabulum. Best to just let this one go and find some other way to foist your wish for nobody to ever have sex except to try to make babies upon the public.

Oh. My. God.

Now we're to blame for women's slavery?

My God, how did we get to this state of stupidity? How is it that in five years we've gone from united to unbelivably divided? How did we go from disagreement to questioning a president's chioce of action becoming an act of treason? How did we go from reasonabe people to blind fools?

Is this is what is to become of America, where ignorance has becomes strengh and intelligence is considered disloyalty, then I want no part of the destruction and dumbing down of this nation.

Uh, Rat, there was an actual party called the Liberal Republican Party in the 1870's. And the 1860 Republican Party Platform included immigrant rights:

14. That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our Naturalization Laws or any State legislation by which the rights of our citizenship hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

Government funded infrastructure improvements:

15. That appropriations by Congress for River and Harbor improvements of a National character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligations of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

They valued State's rights, but the Civil War was by definition a "Feds trump States" issue. And of course, slavery being the ultimate "civil rights and liberties issue" paints Lincoln to be a screaming liberal.

You seem to like equating bad things with liberalism, and, yet again, you are stretching here.

It's funny though, you talk about slavery as if it is immoral, look to your bible (from Leveticus: 25).

" 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

See? It's perfectly fine to keep slaves and concubines (God said it is), as long as you are a hebrew. Well, if you believe in the bible that is.

Rathaven, try picking up a dictionary before speaking, so it doesn't make you look so STUPID.

People are ACCEPTED into University MORON, not incepted.

For your learning pleasure, I will spell out the definition for you for future reference.

in·cept Audio pronunciation of "incepted" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-spt)
tr.v. in·cept·ed, in·cept·ing, in·cepts

1. To take in; ingest.

2. [Latin incipere, incept-, to begin, take up. See inception.]

"Incepted from the BIBLE"? I've seen people "incepted" into university, and I've seen things at their "inception" but never anything "incepted" from an object!

And the Republicans used to be liberals in the 1800's?

Good God! You’re hysterical! I get it now, axis is really Mark, no one could be that stupid intentionally! It’s got to be a joke. good one, Mark, you really had me going!

Just for completeness, is the author saying that all gay people should be celibate? Yes or no?

Thanks for the update, james.

Come ON, you guys. You know perfectly well that Mark was commenting on the devaluation of sex from being a part of a relatioship to mere recreation. You can nitpick all you want to, you can reach way out there for wild comparisons, but please don't insult us all by pretending that you don't know what he was saying.

For religious people, sex is a part of a committed relationship, which is expressed through marriage. But even for non-religious people, or people with more liberal religious views, removing emotion and respect from the sex act and making it merely an animal act of physical pleasure was limited to a very few, who were not highly regarded by society in general. While it is now fashionable to sneer at such an idea, it was a valuable way of establishing boundaries of behavior.

When the sexual revolution of the 60's hit, and "If It Feels Good, Do It" became almost a law to many, those boundaries were blurred, and in many cases destroyed. While libertines claim this is a good thing, there is nothing to indicate that society has benefitted from the new casual attitude toward what was once a private and relatively important act.

And when the new sexual attitudes, of sex being nothing more than recreation, results in the dehumanizing of people to turn them into nothing more than living, breathing, sex toys, it is a sad commentary on where we have gone and where we are going.

It is also a sad commentary that the knee-jerk reaction of the resident lefties is not to be concerned about the fate of innocent women kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery, it is to mock and ridicule a well-meaning commentary on the dissolution of what were once deemed to be simple common moral issues.

Al-

Of course I'm concerned about these women. I was mainly pointing out how moronic it is to associate slavery and sex slaves with the american left.

People like Mark can't just say that it is just bad and we need to work to stop it, he has to implicate liberals somehow, and it's sick.

"For religious people, sex is a part of a committed relationship, which is expressed through marriage." - Almi.

Ahaha. Thanks for the laugh, Almi. Yes, a committed act, expressed through (a single) marriage. Just ask Rush Limbaugh. He'll tell you all about how that worked out for him. And those child-molesting, Catholic priests - yet another shining example of the religious right Shall I go on? You guys are too much.

Conservatives should be having *more* sex, not less. Read: this is why you all are so uptight (War Boy & Bane of Everyone's Existence, especially).

Al-

Of course I'm concerned about these women. I was mainly pointing out how moronic it is to associate slavery and sex slaves with the american left.

People like Mark can't just say that it is just bad and we need to work to stop it, he has to implicate liberals somehow, and it's sick.

stupid server error..

(Mark, pleeeease do something about the server errors).

"Hopefully, we are starting to learn what happened to some of saddams wmd." - James Allegro

Keep hoping, Allegro, 'cause hope is all you've got. I mean, I guess it makes sense, to want to actually *justify* this war you have STARTED in Iraq - so I applaud you on that end.

I've got to give you guys credit - you'll cling to anything - any last shred of hope - that will ultimately justify King George's Giant Blunder.

I'd have to agree that this is a huge leap. Leftist Americans didn't even exist before the sex slave trade existed.

Come on Almi, you know darn well forced sexual slavery is not "recreational sex" but an act of violence perpetrated by thugs who believe your body does not belong to you. Liberals treat non-consensual sex of any kind as a violent crime. Anytime anyone does anything to a man/woman's body that he/she does not consent to is wrong, according to liberals. Not so with conservatives. They believe God or something gives them the right to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, just like slave holders.

"resident lefties is not to be concerned about the fate of innocent women kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery" This COMPLETELY IGNORES everything I've said. THE WOMEN ARE BEING VIOLATED by those who believe they have no say in how their bodies are used. Aren't YOU concerned that YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY is BUYING SLAVES for HALLIBURTON?!?!? THIS REPORT (CLICK HERE) from YOUR GOVERNMENT shows YOUR GOVERNMENT is spending YOUR MONEY to BUY SLAVES! Where is your outrage?

Lets now take a moment to "thank" all those liberals who have told us for decades that sex is just a natural, healthy activity which any well-adjusted adult should partake in without any worries.

If I didn't know better I would swear you were a Catholic Mark. All that guilt! Now stick out your hand young man so I can rap your knuckles with my ruler.

Matt, Mark -

Why nothing today on (the Conservative hero) Ann Coulter's comments about the 9/11 widows?

Somehow, the left is always telling us to respect other cultures, but when a pecadillo of another culture --- like slavery --- arises, they are shocked.

Equally shocked they are, when the natural results of their need for "diversity" --- pedophilia, slavery, women in burkas, lycanthropy, and Richard Simmons getting another show --- when all that happens, they are equally shocked that we hold them accountable for their actions.

Because of liberals, slavery still exists. Because of liberals, the Dutch Pedofile Party will rule.

We must stop the liberals. It's for the children, for chrissake!

Because of liberals, slavery still exists.

-- It was only abolished by Republicans back in the 1800's because you were liberals back then. If you were conservatives instead, then you would still have them out back picking cotton.

Modern day slavery is a conservative ideal. Al conservative feel that have a "right" to impose their wills on others.

Over half of all pedophiles are conservatives as well, including many, many from church and conservative boy scouts organizations.

as-if

"If you were conservatives instead, then you would still have them out back picking cotton."

No, that is a job Americans are unwilling to do, so it goes to the Mexicans.

"Al conservative feel that have a 'right' to impose their wills on others."

Not "Al" conservatives feel this way. Some of us don't so much view it as a right so much as a natural consequence of our success.

"Al conservative feel that have a "right" to impose their wills on others."

Actually, only 36% of pedophiles worldwide are conservatives, far less than half, Mr. Statistics.

oops, third quote should be "Over half of all pedophiles are conservatives"

No, that is a job Americans are unwilling to do, so it goes to the Mexicans.

-- There are NO jobs that Americans won't do, its all a matter of paying a fair wage. You cheap fat cats won't part with more than $2-3 a hour, what do you expect.

Not "Al" conservatives feel this way. Some of us don't so much view it as a right so much as a natural consequence of our success.

-- I see. So the batter half of you don't think that way, instead you think that because you are a rich, white land owner who is successful that that entitles you to have black slaves in your fields picking cotton. I personally don't see the difference as there are slaves there no matter which way you choose.

You also believe that if you are a rich, white heroin drug dealer, who is successful, that entitles you to own sex slaves to have your way with.

Interesting, thanks for letting us in for that small glimpse of how a conservative mind works.

Actually, only 36% of pedophiles worldwide are conservatives, far less than half, Mr. Statistics.

-- 36%! Wow. ok, assuming you are correct, thats no small number my friend, certainly nothing to be proud of when you consider all the other political stances out there, you are still in the majority. That relevation did not bolster your image one bit though.

ask-if

Your stupidity is boundless beyond all expectation.

I never said that as a rich, white land owner I want black slaves picking cotton. As I said, the mexicans should do that stuff.

Nor do I think that rich, white heroin dealers own sex slaves, as it is far cheaper to go to Thailand or someplace like that, if that is their perverse desire.

Lastly, if 36% of pedophiles are conservatives, then it must mean the remaining 43% are liberals. How does THAT feel?

Good to see slavery is ok as long as the mexicans are taking the places of the blacks.

Good to see you are also ok with sex slavery as long as it is not in your backyard.

Lastly, if 36% of pedophiles are conservatives, then it must mean the remaining 43% are liberals. How does THAT feel?

-- No, because you are forgetting about those centralists that lean neither to the right or left.

Wha? 36% of conservatives are pedophiles? :-/

"Your stupidity is boundless beyond all expectation.

I never said that as a rich, white land owner I want black slaves picking cotton. As I said, the mexicans should do that stuff."

Wow. Is this the meaning of "Conservative"? Matt? Anyone else?

Wow. Is this the meaning of "Conservative"? Matt? Anyone else?

-- I believe that I would be hard pressed to put it any better than conservative did.

OT: Al-Zarqawi is assuming room temperature as we speak!!!

For axis and the rest of the illiterate kooks: Dat bad guy in Irack has been blowed up...

It is mostly repressed Republicans that visit these whore houses.

keefer

If a terrorist leader has been taken down, we all benefit, illiterate kooks included. Problem is, another will step up to replace the one eliminated. And so it goes.....

Very good keefer. Now back to playing with your GI Joes and dont come out of your bedroom without asking again

Mark,

How do you reconcile this with your ever so religious buddy Delay and his pal Abramoff stopping the labor reforms in the Marianas? If you recall, they sat back and got rich while many thousands were placed into indentured servitude, forced abortions and virtual slavery.

Yea, those damn liberals at it again...

I'm back, and I see you command of the English language is as pathetic as your ability to make a salient argument.
"Incept, EDUC to enroll at a university, especially to begin studying for a master’s degree or doctorate"

Your own definition doesn't match your usage, dimwit, slavery was eaten in the Bible? You’re a screaming idiot.

"For religious people, sex is a part of a committed relationship, which is expressed through marriage."

Ahaha. Thanks for the laugh, Almi. Yes, a committed act, expressed through (a single) marriage. Just ask Rush Limbaugh. He'll tell you all about how that worked out for him. And those child-molesting, Catholic priests - yet another shining example of the religious right Shall I go on? You guys are too much.
....................

maf, I guess I need to start listening to Rush more to find out how religious he is. I guess I missed his religious fervor. I was not aware that he had expressed a reglion-based belief in having one single mate for life. But I am intrigued by your obsession with Rush.

But you do realize, don't you,that the ability to single out a person here and a person there totally fails to condemn a movement of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people throughout twenty centuries? You do realize, don't you, that the liberal knee-jerk responses are too threadbare and feeble to be convincing?

You do realize, don't you, that the debate technique of zeroing in from a wide angle to a very narrow perspective and then attacking that perspective as if it were representative of the entire sample is proof of no real argument at all?

My statement stands as I wrote it. For religious people, sex is a part of a committed and exclusive relationship, which is expressed through marriage. I will expand that to say that this is the most desirable model. As religious people, like you, are drawn from the human gene pool, they also are fallible and prone to weakness. But they have goals, lofty goals, and most try to meet them. The religious life is defined as an ongoing effort to meet those lofty goals, not as constant and unvarying success. That is considered by many to be better than never striving for anything at all.

And the old saw about the child-molesting priests is totally worn out. The fact is that nearly every single act of sexual molestation by a priest was one of a homosexual priest acting in a sexual manner with a post-pubsecent boy. (I say "nearly" because of the possibility, no matter how faint, that there might be at least one other type of sexual predation by a priest.) Now, that is a very bad thing. I am not excusing it. I think that such priests should have been removed from the priesthood and I am distressed that they were not. Do not misreprsent my position on this. But also do not misrepresent the facts. They were not "child molesters". They were not "pedophiles".

What they were was representative of a liberal takeover of the Church in the 60's, when the seminary became a refuge for predatory homosexuals and the Church a religion guided far too much by politics---liberal politics. The main problem in the sex abuse scandal was that to identify it accurately and deal with it effectively would have meant violating a basic precept of liberalism---that homosexuality is just fine and dandy, there ain't nothing wrong with it, and there is something wrong with people who don't like it.

If you don't agree my take on the politically liberal direction taken by the Church since the 60's, you can explain the frantic hysteria from those leftists at the election of a (gasp!!) CONSERVATIVE, the new Pope Benedict. The idea of the Church moving back toward its more conservative roots absolutely terrified those who had been the architects of its slide into sexual degeneracy, via opening the priesthood to homosexuals and then protecting their predatory actions.

You may argue this. You probably will. I suggest that your argument actually deal with what I said, for a change, and with the topic, for a change. A good rebuttal would be to cite one, just one, instance of a priest "molesting" a pre-pubescent girl.

Citing Rush Limbaugh as a representative of Christianity won't fly. Neither will setting up straw men so you can shoot them down,instead of dealing with the real issues at hand.

Of course, I just set down debating rules that disqualify liberal 'arguers' who mistake simple disagreement with everything, and slinging around a bunch of irrelevant facts and pseudo-facts, as rational or effective debate. That is to say, maf.

Almiranta,

First, I reject wholly your assumption that liberalism and religion cannot and do not coexist. Simply because liberals do not subscribe to the right's side of hot-button social issues (abortion, gay rights) does not make them less religious. Who are you to decide who is or is not religious?

You point to liberalism's tolerance as antithetical to the moral foundation of religion, yet conservatism's social darwinism is equally if not more antithetical to the values expressed in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus preached loving your neighbor and helping those weaker than you, which part of the conservative ideology coincides with that?

Ultimately, though, Mark's initial post is nothing more than a straw man argument itself, something you claim to be against. Consider: Mark takes a story about sex slaves and without any evidence attaches it to liberalism. If you want to talk about sex slaves, answer 3moreyears post: what does it say about conservativism that through the machinations of prominent conservatives (Abramoff and Delay), the Marianas Islands have been legal havens for indentured servitude, child labor, and sex slavery?

If you can't answer this, please, then, shut the hell up.

I hate to burst your bubble, but isn't it kind of a leap to go from consenting adults having sex to slavery? No one forces Conservatives to have sex outside of marriage, but I notice many of them do.
Newt, the movement's poster boy cheated on his wife,Marianne, then told her he was leaving her when she was recovering from cancer. Reason? She wasn't young or pretty enough to be the wife of a president. Rush is on his third divorce-so is Ann Coulter. Isn't it hypocritical of them to preach to us about family values?

Georgia,

I can't work to stop it - the problem is that I've got liberals trying to re-defined whores as "sex workers"...you see, I'm really up against it. I want to have women respected for their basic humanity, but every time I try to inject a bit of respect for women, I'm called a sexist.

Do you know why that girl was killed in Aruba? Because she was an un-married female who went down to an area where there are a large number of males who view women as mere sexual playthings. Had she a male escort (father, older brother, respected family friend, eg), then she'd be alive today. But to suggest this is allegedly sexist - any 18 year old girl is supposed to be able to handle herself fine when she's handed a lot of booze and is surrounded by sexual predators.

It was you on the left who advised us that Clinton's sexual predation of a young girl was nothing to get too upset about - just censure and Move On, right?

These poor women who have been sold in to sexual slavery - they are your fault. They are my fault, too - but at least I'm not advocating a sex of moral imperitives which sets the stage for such slave auctions.

steve, it would be a lot easier to follow your posts if you actually referred to something I actually said.

I have never said that "liberalism and religion cannot and do not coexist." I have never implied it. As a matter of fact, TRUE liberalism, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, used to be almost synonymous with religion, being representive of tolerance, kindness, fairness, and generosity. The new political definition of liberalism is not very consistent with religion, but as I never said religion could not coexist with liberalism it's a moot point anyway.

If you read that I was saying that "liberalism's tolerance as antithetical to the moral foundation of religion.." you managed to make quite a leap, from one nonexistent statement to another.

In fact, true tolerance is a crucial part of most religions. That is to say, tolerance of other people, tolerance of foibles and quirks, and forgiveness for sins and shortcomings. But again, not to defend what I said (because I didn't say it) but to defend the point that you yourself brought up, the word "tolerance" is another that has drifted far from its original roots. In the political context where it is most used, it seems to mean a refusal to find anything abhorrent or wrong. Except, of course, conservatives. Because that is the really funny thing about (political) liberals who preach 'tolerance'. They seem to be the least liberal of any in their total intolerance of anyone who is not exactly like them.

You seem to be defending tolerance, yet you make a very intolerant remark about a group you do not like, making a reference to "conservative ideology". "Conservative ideology" has nothing to do with religion. It is a political philosophy which is, in a nutshell, based on a respect for individuals, a respect for the government set up by our Founding Fathers, a respect for and commitment to governing our nation by the rules set forth in the Constitution and its amendments, a belief in personal responsibilty, a commtment to equal opportunity (as opposed to equal outcome) a preference for small government, and a belief in the freedom of all to worship as, and if, they please.

People who subscribe to "conservative ideology" can, and do, run the gamut of relgious beliefs. Some are fundamentalist Christians, some are Bhuddists or Hindus, some are not affiliated with any religion, some are Jews, and some have no religious beliefs at all. But true "conservative ideologues" do have a belief in individual human dignity and freedom.

Trying to brand political conservatives as being of any particular relgious bent is a liberal (meaning, here as in the rest of my posts 'political liberal') ploy. The Left has invented the term "Religious Right" and then used it to describe a certain type of fundamentalist Christian, a nasty invented stereotype that, if it exists at all, exists in only a very few individuals. There are millions and millions of very devoutly religions people on the Left---Southern Baptists and Jews come to mind.

However, to respond to one of your accusations, those who are simultaneously conservative in their political views and devout in their Christian relgions form the single group that has contributed the most help, financial and otherwise, to the most recent catastrophes. I find Christian churches to be incredibly generous with their time, energy, and money, supporting schools in Afghanistan and Iraq, sending clothes and school supplies, sending teachers, sending money. It was Christian churches who leaped to the forefront in helping victims of last year's hurricanes, sponsoring whole families, providing homes and jobs, clothes and furniture and food. Yes, they did love each other as Jesus asked them to.

Once again, the avoidance of a general philosophical issue by ignoring it to zero in on one person, to then claim that person represents anyone or anything but himself and his own life, is an intellectually dishonest ploy.

kritter, unless you personally know Marianne and Newt Gingrich, you can't speak for either of them, or explain the motives of either of them. You can speculate, based on your personal dislike of the man, that he had very ignoble motives for what he did, but as you really don't know, it is foolish to spout your opnion as fact. But you have no personal or real knowledge of why their marriage ended, or what motivated either of them. And Rush and Ann don't claim to represent any religious group or belief.

But thank you, steve, for your shining example of (politically) liberal 'tolerance' when you told me to shut the hell up.

Oh, and back to what I think Mark was trying to get across---it is certainly a reasonable theory to posit that a world in which pornography is acceptable on television, in which people openly advertise for anonymous sex on the internet, in which very young children are encouraged to indulge in sex, in which teenaged girls too young to get their ears pierced are told they can abort their children without consulting their parents, in which casual and often anonymous sex no longer has any social condemnation, is a world which is more likely to accommodate the open selling of women into sexual slavery than a world in which none of the above behaviors would have been acceptable.

it is certainly a reasonable theory to posit that a world in which pornography is acceptable on television, in which people openly advertise for anonymous sex on the internet, in which very young children are encouraged to indulge in sex, in which teenaged girls too young to get their ears pierced are told they can abort their children without consulting their parents, in which casual and often anonymous sex no longer has any social condemnation, is a world which is more likely to accommodate the open selling of women into sexual slavery than a world in which none of the above behaviors would have been acceptable.

No, it isn't reasonable in the slightest, and it's rather sad that you would cosign such a ludicrous notion. As I said above, I'm an individual who has actually researched this fairly hard. I've talked to ex-slaves. I've read the accounts and the literature, and as such, it's plain as day to me that Noonan is in way, way over his head. I suggested he bail on this topic before he further embarrasses himself, and I suggest you do the same. If you want to drown with him on this, be my guest. Just bear in mind that you are completely, categorically wrong in your quote above.

For starters, try to explain how most of the sex slavery happens in countries that are among the most sexually oppressive. Go ahead, try to explain that. It certainly doesn't fit with the belief you and poor little uninformed Noonan are trying to forward, does it? Nope, it sure doesn't. But as usual, you'd rather run with what feels right to you--blaming your strange conception of "liberals" for anything you don't like--than actually be accurate.

Almiranta-

You don't personally know Bill Clinton or Monica Lewinsky either, but that doesn't stop you from speculating about his motives. The story about Newt and his first wife was widely reported in the press, so its not really speculation.

Rush and Ann both consider themselves Christians, and Ann has made many publicized comments like "We should invade their countries and convert them to Christianity", has suggested Muslims should be converted to Christianity or shot. No need for either of them to represent a specific sect of Christianity-they speak to and for the values of the Christian right.

As another poster alluded to, Christian Conservatives like Tom Delay, and Ralph Reed had a direct connection with sex slavery in the North Mariannas islands. Reed, a good friend of Jack Abramoff, actually sent a flier out to conservative Christian voters in Alabama, urging them to contact Bob Riley (then a U.S. rep) to tell him to vote against legislation that would have made the islands subject to fed. wage and worker safety laws.

As a result, workers ended up being exploited, subject to forced abortions and forced prostitution. At the time Reed was exec. director of the Christian Coalition.
So, Conservative Christians have caused sex slavery in a U.S. territory. Congratulations, Mark for another ridiculous rant against liberals!