PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Teach 'the pleasure of gay sex' to children as young as five, say researchers


KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2008, 08:39 PM
Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.


Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of 'creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated'.


The ambition was revealed in documents prepared for the No Outsiders project run by researchers from universities and backed with 600,000 of public money provided by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Children as young as five should be taught about gay sex, an education project has said (file picture)

The stated purpose of the project - which is operating in 14 primary schools - is to stop bullying and prejudice aimed at homosexuals.

However, at a seminar at Exeter University tomorrow, supporters of the group will go beyond the anti-bullying agenda and discuss 'pleasure and desire in educational contexts'.

A document prepared for the seminar and couched in convoluted academic jargon says: 'The team is concerned to interrogate the desexualisation of children's bodies, the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts, and the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity in No Outsiders project work.

'The danger of accusations of the corruption of innocent children has led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire - and that it is therefore not about bodies.

'Yet, at a very significant level, that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people.'

No Outsiders is led by researchers from Sunderland University and also involves academics at the Institute of Education and Exeter University. Books, puppet shows and plays are used to teach children about same-sex relationships.

During the project, the seminar paper says, its members have 'challenged each other to go beyond imagined possibilities into queer practice'.

The seminar will 'question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom' and examine 'the place of the research team members' own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research'.


The discussions provoked a furious reaction from critics of the homosexual rights agenda. Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: 'When an adult who is working in a primary school suggests that children should explore their sexuality, that should result in a complaint to the police.'


Patricia Morgan, author of studies of family life and gay adoption, said: 'The proposal is that primary school classrooms should be turned into gay saunas. This is about homosexual practice in junior schools. The idiots who repealed Section 28 should consider that this is where it has got them.'


Project leader Dr Elizabeth Atkinson said the seminar had no connection with No Outsiders work in classrooms. 'The seminar is part of a long-standing academic debate and has nothing to do with schools,' she said. 'It has no connection with sex education.'


Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056415/Teach-pleasure-gay-sex-children-young-say-researchers.html

Ultra Peanut
09-16-2008, 08:42 PM
Cool?

P.S. THIS IS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT

tiptap
09-16-2008, 08:45 PM
My wife's Grandmother use to say that there are some people who get to enjoy the presence of both sexes. She was from Texas.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2008, 08:45 PM
Cool?

P.S. THIS IS ALL OBAMA'S FAULT

No just a very strange story.

Donger
09-16-2008, 08:46 PM
Welcome to liberalism, British-style.

Ultra Peanut
09-16-2008, 10:00 PM
Welcome to liberalism, British-style.That rules. British people rule.

Direckshun
09-16-2008, 10:06 PM
Obama muslim, folks. Obama muslim.

Mecca
09-16-2008, 10:07 PM
Welcome to liberalism, British-style.

Excellent, I want a cool accent.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2008, 10:43 PM
From the responses in this thread i gather that liberals=gay child rapists, i fail to see why you guys are quick to defend Obama when i never made mention of him? Was BO implicated in some kind of child porn ring or something?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:45 PM
From the responses in this thread i gather that liberals=gay child rapists, i fail to see why you guys are quick to defend Obama when i never made mention of him? Was BO implicated in some kind of child porn ring or something?

You aren't this stupid are you?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:45 PM
Actually, don't answer. You're a "GW is a fraud" type.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2008, 10:46 PM
You aren't this stupid are you?

I guess why is BO name being brought up?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:49 PM
I guess why is BO name being brought up?

McCain's sex ed commercial. How bout you scan the front page of this forum? You might find it there. There are multiple topics on it too.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-16-2008, 10:51 PM
McCain's sex ed commercial. How bout you scan the front page of this forum? You might find it there. There are multiple topics on it too.

I honestly do not watch any tv other than sporting events, and i visited one of the obama kindergarten posts but it was obviously bs. I was posing a serious question.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 04:01 AM
Here's a breakdown of the kindergarden sex ed cirriculum (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/14/obama-did-vote-to-teach-sex-ed-and-much-more-to-kindergartne.html)Obama supports.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 04:04 AM
"We Other Victorians"

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 09:15 AM
Here's a breakdown of the kindergarden sex ed cirriculum (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/14/obama-did-vote-to-teach-sex-ed-and-much-more-to-kindergartne.html)Obama supports.

I fail to see a problem with those guidelines.

Chief Henry
09-17-2008, 09:20 AM
Here's a breakdown of the kindergarden sex ed cirriculum (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/14/obama-did-vote-to-teach-sex-ed-and-much-more-to-kindergartne.html)Obama supports.



Obamajuankanobee says thats just not right. He only wants to teach
good touch and bad touch. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2008, 09:29 AM
I fail to see a problem with those guidelines.

When you peruse the actual document, the sections on reproduction and sexual orientation contain value statements and morality that may undermine, or even usurp, parental perogatives on such matters. You may agree with the values being promulgated, but it's presumptious and offensive to many parents....for others to assume that parental role.

I fully understand that some parents abdicate, or are just "fine" with the schools assuming that role....however, at a minimum, parents ought to be able to opt out of what they may view as a politically motivated program to instill morals and values in their children, with which they may not agree.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 09:44 AM
I fail to see a problem with those guidelines.

Obviously you have no children.

:shake:

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2008, 09:57 AM
"We Other Victorians"

In fairness though, let's apply their curriculum to other aspects of life:

Level 1

- Individuals differ in the way they think, act, look, and live.

- Talking about differences helps people understand each other better.

- The belief that all members of a group will behave the same way is called a stereotype.

- Stereotypes can hurt people.

- All people should receive fair and equal treatment.

- People who are different are often treated negatively or unequally, which is unfair.

By this standard, all sorts of interesting behaviors could be rationalized/permitted on the basis of "tolerance."

Not to mention the logical fallacies being invoked.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 10:00 AM
Teach 'the pleasure of gay sex' to children as young as five, say researchers

Obama is vindicated!

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 10:14 AM
In fairness though, let's apply their curriculum to other aspects of life:



By this standard, all sorts of interesting behaviors could be rationalized/permitted on the basis of "tolerance."

Not to mention the logical fallacies being invoked.GOD THAT'S SO OBJECTIONABLE GRRRRRRRRRRR

I'm going to call my friend, Strawman Slipperyslope, to remedy this posthaste!

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:21 AM
Welcome to liberalism, British-style.


Uh, QFT ....... soon to be American liberalism .

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 10:23 AM
Uh, QFT ....... soon to be American liberalism .I FEAR THE LIBERALS
I LET FEAR RUN MY LIFE
I AM SCARED
ALWAYS

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2008, 10:26 AM
GOD THAT'S SO OBJECTIONABLE GRRRRRRRRRRR

I'm going to call my friend, Strawman Slipperyslope, to remedy this posthaste!

If we hadn't witnessed the phenomena of slippery slope so much in society/government during our history, we might actually buy that it's a 'strawman.' Yet anyone with a sense for history understands full well that this slippery slope is very real, don't we? I know you know.

Funny how one person's 'straw man,' is another's "stereotype" or "injustice."

You can retire the drama queen theatrics for this one.

Have a good day, Psic.

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:26 AM
I FEAR THE LIBERALS
I LET FEAR RUN MY LIFE
I AM SCARED
ALWAYS


You should wizen up, pay heed to yourself . Just saying, if you see this, do something about it . :D

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 10:31 AM
I FEAR THE LIBERALS
I LET FEAR RUN MY LIFE
I AM SCARED
ALWAYS

Socialist government is murdering thousands of people just north of my location. Its no joke or mere internet discussion. Socialism is antiChristian. It is also antiHumanitarianism.

KCJ
South Korea
Just below the Dear Leader's border

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 10:31 AM
If we hadn't witnessed the phenomena of slippery slope so much in society/government during our history, we might actually buy that it's a 'strawman.' Yet anyone with a sense for history understands full well that this slippery slope is very real, don't we? I know you know.

Funny how one person's 'straw man,' is another's "stereotype" or "injustice."

You can retire the drama queen theatrics for this one.

Have a good day, Psic.We shouldn't teach our kids that being an asshole to someone who's different is wrong because SOME people might be TOO different!

Hog Farmer
09-17-2008, 10:31 AM
I FEAR THE LIBERALS
I LET FEAR RUN MY LIFE
I AM SCARED
ALWAYS


You're a friggin nut job!

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:35 AM
We shouldn't teach our kids that being an asshole to someone who's different is wrong because SOME people might be TOO different!

Damn, but teaching them to be anyway they want is acceptable ? Why bother having any kids if you want to be irresponsible about it ?

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:35 AM
I saw that K-3 list and that is burdening children with adult problems.
It's one thing to answer a question from a child, acceptable to his age level, but
to insist that those topics be covered that early is just pushing something on them they are not ready for or interested in.

That's a far cry from Victorianism. What an absurdity.

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:36 AM
You're a friggin nut job!


That's nothing new .........

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:37 AM
I saw that K-3 list and that is burdening children with adult problems.
It's one thing to answer a question from a child, acceptable to his age level, but
to insist that those topics be covered that early is just pushing something on them they are not ready for or interested in.

That's a far cry from Victorianism. What an absurdity.

Forget it, they are too liberal to see the consequences .

Mr. Kotter
09-17-2008, 10:38 AM
We shouldn't teach our kids that being an asshole to someone who's different is wrong because SOME people might be TOO different!

Good parents already do that.

However, there is a world of difference between teaching tolerance and acceptance, then in promoting an agenda that defies, belittles, and condemns the values and morality of another group of people.

The irony of the idea "tolerance" for world views (as long as they agree with mine) is not only ironic and hypocritical...it's rationally indefensible.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 10:40 AM
The irony of the idea "tolerance" for world views (as long as they agree with mine) is not only ironic and hypocritical...it's rationally indefensible.

We'll force you to be tolerant...

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 10:42 AM
We'll force you to be tolerant...

Exactly. Reminds me of Clockwork Orange.

|Zach|
09-17-2008, 10:50 AM
uh, wtf?

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 12:44 PM
I saw that K-3 list and that is burdening children with adult problems.
It's one thing to answer a question from a child, acceptable to his age level, but
to insist that those topics be covered that early is just pushing something on them they are not ready for or interested in.

That's a far cry from Victorianism. What an absurdity.

Again, it's opt-out.

Further, I think the abstinence only policy's failure should highlight the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed. Let's not kid anybody, people are getting "girlfriends" and "boyfriends" younger and younger.

I don't understand why it's not perfectly acceptable to clue younger kids in on how sex works, what to look out for, etc.

What is the downside(s) you see?

BIG_DADDY
09-17-2008, 01:53 PM
Again, it's opt-out.

Further, I think the abstinence only policy's failure should highlight the effectiveness of comprehensive sex ed. Let's not kid anybody, people are getting "girlfriends" and "boyfriends" younger and younger.

I don't understand why it's not perfectly acceptable to clue younger kids in on how sex works, what to look out for, etc.

What is the downside(s) you see?

Stay away from my kid, seriously.

SNR
09-17-2008, 02:07 PM
They're kindergarteners. They don't understand STRAIGHT sex, why would they understand gay sex?

Waste of money. There are other ways to teach tolerance in public schools.

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 02:22 PM
I don't understand why it's not perfectly acceptable to clue younger kids in on how sex works, what to look out for, etc.

What is the downside(s) you see?

:eek::eek::eek: Good Grief ? Are you serious ?

BIG_DADDY
09-17-2008, 02:27 PM
:eek::eek::eek: Good Grief ? Are you serious ?

That brought on visions of irishgayhawk sitting around with 5 year olds watching gay porn. IGH is one sick ****er.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 02:29 PM
That brought on visions of irishgayhawk sitting around with 5 year olds watching gay porn. IGH is one sick ****er.John McCain's campaign chairman, ladies and gents.

Friendo
09-17-2008, 02:30 PM
Good parents already do that.

However, there is a world of difference between teaching tolerance and acceptance, then in promoting an agenda that defies, belittles, and condemns the values and morality of another group of people.

The irony of the idea "tolerance" for world views (as long as they agree with mine) is not only ironic and hypocritical...it's rationally indefensible.


nutshell :thumb:
pardon the pun

BIG_DADDY
09-17-2008, 02:41 PM
John McCain's campaign chairman, ladies and gents.

Listen freakshow I never even said I even liked McCain.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 02:43 PM
Listen freakshow I never even said I even liked McCain.I didn't say you did. You were just exhibiting the same sort of ridiculous extrapolation/embellishment.

Calcountry
09-17-2008, 02:45 PM
I FEAR THE LIBERALS
I LET FEAR RUN MY LIFE
I AM SCARED
ALWAYS
Yep, the economy is just fine, isn't it?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 02:45 PM
In fairness though, let's apply their curriculum to other aspects of life:



By this standard, all sorts of interesting behaviors could be rationalized/permitted on the basis of "tolerance."

Not to mention the logical fallacies being invoked.

You aren't getting what I was alluding to.

Calcountry
09-17-2008, 02:51 PM
Listen freakshow I never even said I even liked McCain.Be careful, Ultrapenis, or he will post that thing in the pink outfit again. It usually shuts you up too.

BIG_DADDY
09-17-2008, 02:52 PM
I didn't say you did. You were just exhibiting the same sort of ridiculous extrapolation/embellishment.

Why can't you freaks just stay away from our kids?

Calcountry
09-17-2008, 02:55 PM
Why can't you freaks just stay away from our kids?
They have habbits.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 02:56 PM
Why can't you freaks just stay away from our kids?

You are a small, pathetic little man. Please, overcompensate some more.

J Diddy
09-17-2008, 02:57 PM
Yep, the economy is just fine, isn't it?

I've heard fundamentally, yes.

BIG_DADDY
09-17-2008, 02:59 PM
You are a small, pathetic little man. Please, overcompensate some more.

Maybe you can over and help him stick some estrogen in his ass. Didn't mean to pick on your girlfriend broh. Speaking of which, didn't I see a thread about you getting your ass kicked by some chick recently? LMAO

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 03:04 PM
Maybe you can over and help him stick some estrogen in his ass. Didn't mean to pick on your girlfriend broh. Speaking of which, didn't I see a thread about you getting your ass kicked by some chick recently? LMAO

Excellent recollection of history. No wonder your world view is as retarded as it comes off on this board.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 03:12 PM
Why can't you freaks just stay away from our kids?Because you read on a second-grade level.

Excellent recollection of history. No wonder your world view is as retarded as it comes off on this board.Hey, it's hard work for a functional illiterate to try to keep up with discussion on a forum. Usually they're not so belligerent, but it's still an admirable effort.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 03:52 PM
:eek::eek::eek: Good Grief ? Are you serious ?

Quite. Please explain your incredulity.

That brought on visions of irishgayhawk sitting around with 5 year olds watching gay porn. IGH is one sick ****er.

Thanks for contributing something positive.

Anything intellectual or useful to add?

Jenson71
09-17-2008, 04:44 PM
I spent some time looking through the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United State's Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, the document found in KCJohnny's link.

I see no reason why children as young as five years old need to know from schools that "boys and girls both have body parts that feel good when touched," the basics of puberty, that "vaginal intercourse - when a penis is placed inside a vagina - is the most common way for a sperm and an egg to join" and the differences between heterosexual and homosexual orientations.

At five years old, many are still trying to separate reality and the last Disney movie they saw. They've just mastered their telephone number. They are working on left and right.

How absurd is our education problem when we shift our focus from learning the basic fundamentals of reading, understanding differences and similarites between plants and animals, and figuring out that 40 is a lot more than 10 but 100 is even greater to a focus that boys and girls both have body parts that feel good when touched and the differences in sexual orientation?

How natural is it for a five year old to wonder about vaginal intercourse? And how relevant is it for their further intellectual development? And why is it important to know that homosexuals are also called gays and lesbians but that you shouldn't call someone "gay" just because he is a homosexual?

There is a great paradox of thought when we constantly stress that math education and science education are falling behind other industrial countries and yet we need to carve out a whole curriculum for 5 year olds about gender and sexual issues that won't even be relevant to them for another 5-6 years.

SNR
09-17-2008, 04:49 PM
I spent some time looking through the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United State's Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, the document found in KCJohnny's link.

I see no reason why children as young as five years old need to know from schools that "boys and girls both have body parts that feel good when touched," the basics of puberty, that "vaginal intercourse - when a penis is placed inside a vagina - is the most common way for a sperm and an egg to join" and the differences between heterosexual and homosexual orientations.

At five years old, many are still trying to separate reality and the last Disney movie they saw. They've just mastered their telephone number. They are working on left and right.

How absurd is our education problem when we shift our focus from learning the basic fundamentals of reading, understanding differences and similarites between plants and animals, and figuring out that 40 is a lot more than 10 but 100 is even greater to a focus that boys and girls both have body parts that feel good when touched and the differences in sexual orientation?

How natural is it for a five year old to wonder about vaginal intercourse? And how relevant is it for their further intellectual development? And why is it important to know that homosexuals are also called gays and lesbians but that you shouldn't call someone "gay" just because he is a homosexual?

There is a great paradox of thought when we constantly stress that math education and science education are falling behind other industrial countries and yet we need to carve out a whole curriculum for 5 year olds about gender and sexual issues that won't even be relevant to them for another 5-6 years.

Exactly. They're FIVE.

I had it all explained to me in FIFTH grade, and I still didn't get it in the first run-through of being educated.

Kids simply can't comprehend sex at that age. It's a retarded proposal to even think about teaching it at that age, let alone throwing taxpayer money at it.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 05:46 PM
So are your opinions based more on the age or the content?

It seems that you are suggesting the age more than the content. Who are you to say what will and won't sink in? And before you trot out personal experience, many have attested to the abstinence only teachings as being effective due to their experience, statistics don't back it up.

SNR
09-17-2008, 05:56 PM
So are your opinions based more on the age or the content?

It seems that you are suggesting the age more than the content. Who are you to say what will and won't sink in? And before you trot out personal experience, many have attested to the abstinence only teachings as being effective due to their experience, statistics don't back it up.Remember, these are the public schools we're dealing with here. You honestly believe that the few kids who might understand sex at that age will be challenged and presented the material? Public school held me back to my true potential, as it does for 75% of the kids who go there. It's always been about teaching to the lowest common denominater and no amount of education reform will ever change that.

And I still don't believe your point. Yeah, I didn't know what sex was in kindergarten and didn't grasp it fully when it was first explained to me. There are so many "why" questions that kids have to ask that it overwhelms them. Let's say you have a prodigy that understands it effectively though. But still... age FIVE? Age ****in FIVE? The amount of kids that would understand that stuff at age five is a veeeeeeery small percentage. I'm basing that on common sense, not personal experience.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 06:08 PM
Remember, these are the public schools we're dealing with here. You honestly believe that the few kids who might understand sex at that age will be challenged and presented the material? Public school held me back to my true potential, as it does for 75% of the kids who go there. It's always been about teaching to the lowest common denominater and no amount of education reform will ever change that.

And I still don't believe your point. Yeah, I didn't know what sex was in kindergarten and didn't grasp it fully when it was first explained to me. There are so many "why" questions that kids have to ask that it overwhelms them. Let's say you have a prodigy that understands it effectively though. But still... age FIVE? Age ****in FIVE? The amount of kids that would understand that stuff at age five is a veeeeeeery small percentage. I'm basing that on common sense, not personal experience.


You're fine to nitpick what they recommend in between levels etc. However, the notion that 5 year olds are too young to hear, say, boys have penises and girls have vaginas and babies come out of girls is laughable at best.

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:13 PM
Obama Tax Returns: Low On Story Lines And Charity Donations
March 25, 2008 03:14 PM


Sen. Barack Obama released seven years of prior tax return documents on Tuesday. And a review of the records reveals several newsworthy, albeit minor, disclosures.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama's family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations -- about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent).

The money went to several organizations. More than $27,000 total was given to Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, whose former pastor Jeremiah Wright has dominated recent news coverage. Other charity gifts included: Muntu Dance Theater, a Chicago-based company that performs contemporary and classic African dance, which received a $5,000 donation; The Rochelle Lee Fund, a literacy organization, which received a $20,000 donation; the Illinois Reading Council, which received a $25,000 donation, and CARE, the poverty fighting organization, which received a total of $31,000 in donations.

Obama also classified a $13,107 contribution to the Congressional Black Caucus as a charity gift.

Taken as a whole, these disbursements made up a small portion of Obama's annual income. According to TaxProf Blog, the Illinois senator gave "well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years."

"As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity [from 2000 to 2004] was as generous as they could be at the time," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

The release of Obama's tax returns represents another step in the campaign's effort to push the issue of transparency in the nomination battle against Sen. Hillary Clinton. The New York Democrat has not released her tax return information from the years following her departure from the White House (she has released returns corresponding to the 20 years prior). Her campaign promised to make her tax information public at least three days prior to the Pennsylvania primary on April 20.

While political observers are eager to see how former president Bill Clinton's profited off his post-White House fame, the Obama disclosures underscore the story of a relatively obscure and unknown state senator rising rapidly to national prominence.

Indeed, perhaps the only other of interesting news to be gleamed from a review of the Obama tax returns is that Michelle Obama made $12,000 more than previously known from the organization Treehouse Foods.

Why is that significant? Treehouse, an Illinois food-processing company on which Michelle Obama served as a board member, is one of the biggest suppliers of pickles and peppers to WalMart, the retail giant that is often loathed in progressive circles.

According to Obama's 2007 tax returns, Michelle earned $51,200 from the company and 7,500 Treehouse stock options. This is relatively minor stuff considering the degree of separation from WalMart itself (Sen. Hillary Clinton, for one, served on WalMart's board while she was first lady of Arkansas), but already Obama's critics have used it against him.

"The Obamas would have us believe that, when it comes to money and ethics and compassion, he is a different kind of politician," Chicago political consultant Joe Novak said in a May 2007 article in the London Telegraph. "[But] defending Treehouse while attacking Wal-Mart is a blatant example of personal hypocrisy."

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:18 PM
An unlinked, unsourced story cut and pasted into a totally unrelated thread.

Outstanding.

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:20 PM
An unlinked, unsourced story cut and pasted into a totally unrelated thread.

Outstanding.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/obama-tax-returns-low-on_n_93353.html

From the Right-Wing blog...

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:22 PM
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/images/2008/03/25/obama_tax_returns_2.jpg

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:24 PM
"As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity [from 2000 to 2004] was as generous as they could be at the time," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

Shameful! :shake:

Maybe they could've given up their attempt to own a home asked McCain if they could rent one of his seven homes?

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:25 PM
It's be great if we could compare and contrast, of course. But that would require the McCains to actually disclose their tax info.

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:28 PM
More than $27,000 total was given to Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, whose former pastor Jeremiah Wright has dominated recent news coverage. Other charity gifts included: Muntu Dance Theater, a Chicago-based company that performs contemporary and classic African dance, which received a $5,000 donation; The Rochelle Lee Fund, a literacy organization, which received a $20,000 donation; the Illinois Reading Council, which received a $25,000 donation, and CARE, the poverty fighting organization, which received a total of $31,000 in donations.

Obama also classified a $13,107 contribution to the Congressional Black Caucus as a charity gift.


1.) Jeremiah Wright
2.) Muntu - AFRICAN DANCE
3.) Black Caucus

Notice any themes? Someone is lined up with the Black Liberation Theology..

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:31 PM
It's be great if we could compare and contrast, of course. But that would require the McCains to actually disclose their tax info.

*crickets*

yep

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:32 PM
yep

Clever. Gold star 4 u!

knowmo3
09-17-2008, 06:32 PM
:cuss::cuss:WTF is this world coming to. Don't they know if you are a fag you go to hell:cuss::cuss:

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:35 PM
Clever. Gold star 4 u!

Oh, I'm sorry I missed the part where you posted the McCains' tax info. Or did you just have empty, mostly lame insults as usual?

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 06:37 PM
When did I say I support McCain?

banyon
09-17-2008, 06:54 PM
When did I say I support McCain?

Please.

Bootlegged
09-17-2008, 07:07 PM
Please.

I'm not voting for John McCain.

banyon
09-17-2008, 07:12 PM
I'm not voting for John McCain.

uh huh.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-17-2008, 08:17 PM
I'm not voting for John McCain.

You know there are only 2 candidates right? and if you vote for someone other than the two your wasting your vote? You should hold your nose and vote for someone you can't stand, ya know party lines? that is always the best course of action. ;)

SNR
09-17-2008, 11:01 PM
You're fine to nitpick what they recommend in between levels etc. However, the notion that 5 year olds are too young to hear, say, boys have penises and girls have vaginas and babies come out of girls is laughable at best.Okay, you've misunderstood my point.

Young kids are inquisitive. They all are. From my experience, you can't give kids half the picture. You can't just say, "mommy and daddy bought some cheap beer and a hotel room for the night, penis in, penis out, 9 months later you have a baby." WHY does the penis go in the vagina? HOW does that make a baby? WHY would anybody do that sort of thing for pleasure? WHY does it feel good? And then if the purpose of teaching kids sex at age 5 is to educate them on safe sex practices, you have to explain what a condom is, what an STD is, and what the fluids are that are involved in sex. Then you have to explain the body parts.

It all gets to be quite complicated in the end. And then you want to add on, "sometimes a boy and a boy like to have sex, which isn't weird or different" and it's just a lot of information. Five year olds are stupid, have low attention spans, and like to giggle. They probably already know a few naughty words and by simply showing a diagram of a penis they'll crack up laughing. I remember when "butt" and "underwear" were funny, can you imagine this?

SNR
09-17-2008, 11:04 PM
Remember how addition and subtraction seem like the easiest things in the world? Guess who do not understand them? Five year olds.