McCain/Palin

Waiting2buy. I'm a Dem and I'm all for the Patriot Act. I have nothing to hide and am not concerned if, for the greater good, my activities are monitored.



I do think I'm in the minority though.
 
[quote author="GOTTI" date=1221559385]Sarah Palin puts the c*nt in country.</blockquote>


That's a constructive, educated and intelligent comment?! Are you kidding me? This isn't 8th grade. grow up.
 
[quote author="BMP 309" date=1221604817][quote author="GOTTI" date=1221559385]Sarah Palin puts the c*nt in country.</blockquote>


That's a constructive, educated and intelligent comment?! Are you kidding me? This isn't 8th grade. grow up.</blockquote>


Yes, it's just as constructive and intelligent when the McCain campaign puts out ads saying that my candidate will raise taxes on the middle class. Or that my candidate wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.
 
[quote author="GOTTI" date=1221605543][quote author="BMP 309" date=1221604817][quote author="GOTTI" date=1221559385]Sarah Palin puts the c*nt in country.</blockquote>


That's a constructive, educated and intelligent comment?! Are you kidding me? This isn't 8th grade. grow up.</blockquote>


Yes, it's just as constructive and intelligent when the McCain campaign puts out ads saying that my candidate will raise taxes on the middle class. Or that my candidate wants to teach sex ed to kindergartners.</blockquote>


The fact is that Obama did vote for legislation when he was in the state Senate in Illinois that advocated teaching sex education to children in kindergarten. It was possible for parents to withdraw their children from the sex ed classes, but as outrageous as it may seem, the legislation did support it.



If you don't believe me, you can find the <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess;=&Session;">text of the legislation here.</a>



Some nuggets you will find if you want to learn the truth:



The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois? existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read:

<strong>

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.</strong>



Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:

<strong>

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.</strong>



The bill?s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. For example, the old law contained passages like this:



<strong>Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage?

[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases?

</strong>

The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this:



<strong> Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV?</strong>
 
(105 ILCS 110/3) (from Ch. 122, par. 863)

22 Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Program.

23 (a) The program established under this Act shall

24 include, but not be limited to, the following major

25 educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary

26 and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and

27 health, human growth and development, the emotional,

28 psychological, physiological, hygienic and social

29 responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence

30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy until marriage,

31 prevention and control of disease, including <span style="font-size: 16px;">age appropriate</span>

32 instruction in grades K 6 through 12 on the prevention of

33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention,



Fox News' Megyn Kelly(So Hot) is defending this as well so who are you trying to fool?

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9745534
 
There is no such thing as "age appropriate" sex education for a kindergartener.



And the fact is that Obama backed legislation that would bring sex ed classes to teenagers. I can understand his embarrassment about his poor judgment. But calling another person a liar is a poor way to correct a mistake.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221609510]There is no such thing as "age appropriate" sex education for a kindergartener.



And the fact is that Obama backed legislation that would bring sex ed classes to teenagers. I can understand his embarrassment about his poor judgment. But calling another person a liar is a poor way to correct a mistake.</blockquote>


Nothing in that law requires sex ed for kindergartners. The law doesn't change which grades get sex ed. It simply adds to what they already get taught.



And are you seriously upset that sex ed would be taught to teenagers? So people shouldn't know about sex until they are 20?
 
Well obviously a kindergartner isn't at an age where it's appropriate to learn about sex education. So that wouldn't be age that they would be learning about the birds and bees.



However, it was meant to teach kids about inappropriate touching and to beware of child predators/pedophiles.



And running a dishonest campaign is a poor way to win an election.
 
[quote author="GOTTI" date=1221607441](105 ILCS 110/3) (from Ch. 122, par. 863)

22 Sec. 3. Comprehensive Health Education Program.

23 (a) The program established under this Act shall

24 include, but not be limited to, the following major

25 educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary

26 and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and

27 health, human growth and development, the emotional,

28 psychological, physiological, hygienic and social

29 responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence

30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy until marriage,

31 prevention and control of disease, including <span style="font-size: 16px;">age appropriate</span>

32 instruction in grades K 6 through 12 on the prevention of

33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention,



</blockquote>


As the parent of the Kindergartner, my big question is WHO decides what is age appropriate? I understand the Obama arguement is that they are only trying to educate the children to avoid sexual predators ---- But as a citizen who values personal responsibility, I would just as soon take the responsibility for informing my daughter of the evils of the world in my own way. Believe me, NOBODY (certainly not school administrators) wants to protect her more than I do --- so I will make damn sure she understands. But I'll make sure she understands it the way I want her to.



Of course, the personal responsibility issue is what the real key is here. I understand that a significant portion of the voting bloc Obama is aiming for does not feel as strongly as I about personal responsibility. They are more than happy to defer to the Federal Gov't for not only a paycheck, but also for raising their kids. so it makes sense he would push for the public schools to force their view of what is age appropriate on the children --- rather than push for the parents to get off their ass and start taking responsiblity for their own children, or for their own livelihood.
 
I repeat, the law does not change which ages get sex ed. If kindergartners weren't getting sex ed before this law, then they still won't.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221610622][quote author="WINEX" date=1221609510]There is no such thing as "age appropriate" sex education for a kindergartener.



And the fact is that Obama backed legislation that would bring sex ed classes to teenagers. I can understand his embarrassment about his poor judgment. But calling another person a liar is a poor way to correct a mistake.</blockquote>


Nothing in that law requires sex ed for kindergartners. The law doesn't change which grades get sex ed. It simply adds to what they already get taught.



And are you seriously upset that sex ed would be taught to teenagers? So people shouldn't know about sex until they are 20?</blockquote>


Re-read what I linked to. The old law had sex ed starting in 6th grade. The one Obama supported brought sex ed to kindergarteners.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221611281]I repeat, the law does not change which ages get sex ed. If kindergartners weren't getting sex ed before this law, then they still won't.</blockquote>


No, they still won't change sex ed because Obama is not going to win.



The Mike Dukakis/John Kerry/Al Gore coalition of Eggheads and African-Americans is not a winning coalition. The only way the Democrats win is to get a moderate (preferably Southern) at the top of the ticket. Although she does not exactly fit the bill, Mrs. Bubba Clinton would have been a winner -- but the Clinton's are so hated by the liberal wing of the party that they did everything they could to keep her out. Now the Dukakis/Kerry/Gore coalition has their man, and he will highly likely suffer the same fate as they did. Exhibit A on how this coalition loses elections: It is popular opinion among Democrats that Gore had the election stolen from him in Florida. Negative --- Gore LOST the election when he failed to carry his home state of Tennessee and West Virgina, which Clintion won.



Did Howard Dean forget that Bubba won almost 400 electoral votes --- twice??!! What is he thinking throwing another Northern liberal losing ticket up, and not following the Clinton model? What a fool. And don't tell me Obama "won" the primary. The DNC could have easily told Obama to stand down as soon as it appeared that he was going to be real threat to Hilary --- who they knew was a winner. They could have promised Obama the VP, and put him in line for his turn in 2016 --- when would be the ripe old age of 54. But it was more important to get "their guy" than to win.



I'm a lifelong Democrat who is heading another direction this time (finally) after watching the out of touch liberal wing of the party throw up loser after loser. Why would I hitch my fortunes to a party who chooses candidates out of step with the much more significant (in numbers) moderate arm of the party? It's too bad, really.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1221613644][quote author="T!m" date=1221610622][quote author="WINEX" date=1221609510]There is no such thing as "age appropriate" sex education for a kindergartener.



And the fact is that Obama backed legislation that would bring sex ed classes to teenagers. I can understand his embarrassment about his poor judgment. But calling another person a liar is a poor way to correct a mistake.</blockquote>


Nothing in that law requires sex ed for kindergartners. The law doesn't change which grades get sex ed. It simply adds to what they already get taught.



And are you seriously upset that sex ed would be taught to teenagers? So people shouldn't know about sex until they are 20?</blockquote>


Re-read what I linked to. The old law had sex ed starting in 6th grade. The one Obama supported brought sex ed to kindergarteners.</blockquote>


There are two separate issues that are getting confused: <strong>when</strong> something gets taught and <strong>what</strong> gets taught. This law addresses the what.



I read it as allowing it to start earlier, but not forcing it to. Nothing in the law says sex ed even has to be taught at all to anyone ever. It just says that if it is, it should include certain topics. It mostly looks to me like someone thought it might be best to not leave out 5th grade or something if someone thought sex ed should be taught that early.



With kids (esp girls) hitting puberty earlier now than they did 30 years ago, it might be good to tell them <strong>something</strong> before they become pregnant.
 
there's no arguing with the Repugs, they lie and distort everything. Ya, Obama wants to teach Kindergartner's sex ed....It was to protect them from predators. But the truth means nothing to Repugs.
 
[quote author="CK" date=1221613865][quote author="T!m" date=1221611281]I repeat, the law does not change which ages get sex ed. If kindergartners weren't getting sex ed before this law, then they still won't.</blockquote>


No, they still won't change sex ed because Obama is not going to win.



The Mike Dukakis/John Kerry/Al Gore coalition of Eggheads and African-Americans is not a winning coalition. The only way the Democrats win is to get a moderate (preferably Southern) at the top of the ticket. Although she does not exactly fit the bill, Mrs. Bubba Clinton would have been a winner -- but the Clinton's are so hated by the liberal wing of the party that they did everything they could to keep her out. Now the Dukakis/Kerry/Gore coalition has their man, and he will highly likely suffer the same fate as they did. Exhibit A on how this coalition loses elections: It is popular opinion among Democrats that Gore had the election stolen from him in Florida. Negative --- Gore LOST the election when he failed to carry his home state of Tennessee and West Virgina, which Clintion won.



Did Howard Dean forget that Bubba won almost 400 electoral votes --- twice??!! What is he thinking throwing another Northern liberal losing ticket up, and not following the Clinton model? What a fool. And don't tell me Obama "won" the primary. The DNC could have easily told Obama to stand down as soon as it appeared that he was going to be real threat to Hilary --- who they knew was a winner. They could have promised Obama the VP, and put him in line for his turn in 2016 --- when would be the ripe old age of 54. But it was more important to get "their guy" than to win.



I'm a lifelong Democrat who is heading another direction this time (finally) after watching the out of touch liberal wing of the party throw up loser after loser. Why would I hitch my fortunes to a party who chooses candidates out of step with the much more significant (in numbers) moderate arm of the party? It's too bad, really.</blockquote>






You're gonna be in for a rude awakening Nov 4. That's the day decent people take their country back from the liars and distorters.
 
[quote author="T!m" date=1221617435]

With kids (esp girls) hitting puberty earlier now than they did 30 years ago, it might be good to tell them <strong>something</strong> before they become pregnant.</blockquote>


I don't think anyone would argue that, Tim. The point is who do you want teaching that stuff to our children? I guess if you think it is a matter for the gov't, Obama is your guy. Me, not so much. It's taken me a long time to realize it, but finally I can see that the gov't is neither the smartest nor the most efficient person in the room.



When Obama says in his big speech essentially "Without the gov't, you are on your own", that sounds pretty good too me. I guess I'm not a Democrat anymore, by the definition of the ruling wing of the party.
 
[quote author="socalmd" date=1221617678]

You're gonna be in for a rude awakening Nov 4. That's the day decent people take their country back from the liars and distorters.</blockquote>


That has to be one of the more absurd statements I have read, even in these ridiculous political forums. Surely your handle cannot stand for "medical doctor" with a statement like that.



But hey, Gotti gives you thanks. Maybe you guys should get together for the election night political coverage --- Too bad Chris ("Obama gives me a tingle up my leg") Matthews and Keith ("Shame on you, Mrs. Clinton") Olbermann won't be hosting, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top