PDA

View Full Version : Elections ABC NEWS Last Year: Sex Ed For Kindergarteners "The Right Thing To Do" Says Obama


RINGLEADER
09-16-2008, 09:56 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

:)

DEVASTATING!

ROFL

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 09:57 PM
I don't get it.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 09:58 PM
it's important for a kindergartner to distinguish the difference between a chick and a pig with lipstick on

Direckshun
09-16-2008, 09:58 PM
A perfect distraction for McCain supporters, their modus operandi.

They're not going to be showing up in many of the threads criticizing McCain's blatant dishonesty for the 500 nutty things Palin's involved with, but they'll pack themselves into this thread like a clown car.

Just perfect.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 10:00 PM
A perfect distraction for McCain supporters, their modus operandi.

They're not going to be showing up in many of the threads criticizing McCain's blatant dishonesty for the 500 nutty things Palin's involved with, but they'll pack themselves into this thread like a clown car.

Just perfect.

distract and divide politics indeed

Taco John
09-16-2008, 10:00 PM
Isn't this about recognizing sexual abuse?

I didn't bother to read the post, but combatting sexual abuse is the only reason I can think of to introduce the topic of sex to a kindergartner.

I'm guessing that this is another McCain lie, and Obama isn't trying to teach kids how to have sex.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:01 PM
Isn't this about recognizing sexual abuse?

I didn't bother to read the post, but combatting sexual abuse is the only reason I can think of to introduce the topic of sex to a kindergartner.

I'm guessing that this is another McCain lie, and Obama isn't trying to teach kids how to have sex.

Correct.

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 10:02 PM
Isn't this about recognizing sexual abuse?

I didn't bother to read the post, but combatting sexual abuse is the only reason I can think of to introduce the topic of sex to a kindergartner.

I'm guessing that this is another McCain lie, and Obama isn't trying to teach kids how to have sex.

a rehash of an old one to boot

RJ
09-16-2008, 10:02 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

:)

DEVASTATING!

ROFL




I read the article and I really don't see your point in posting it. What do you think it means?

Direckshun
09-16-2008, 10:03 PM
Forget it.

I was going to reply to describe my understanding of the issue, but then realized this isn't about the serious issue of sex ed at all.

This is about drawing an arrow from Obama to kindergarden handjobs. Nothing more.

And it's just another McCain distraction.

Great campaign. You conservatives have every reason to be proud.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 03:32 AM
<CENTER><OBJECT height=344 width=425>
&ampnbsp
&nbsp

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1zQryISazAc&hl=ko&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT></CENTER><CENTER></CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER> </CENTER><CENTER>Here's (http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/14/obama-did-vote-to-teach-sex-ed-and-much-more-to-kindergartne.html) the actual cirriculum for the kindergardner sex ed.</CENTER>

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 03:55 AM
Hey, we're only human. :shrug:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKhzqG3_DPA&hl=ko&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mKhzqG3_DPA&hl=ko&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

VAChief
09-17-2008, 05:20 AM
NeoCons Against CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION: What do they have to hide?

Just as an absurd accusation or headline. If you are for a k-12 program of sex education you must be teaching kindergartners about sex (even if it is basically a "good touch, bad touch" emphasis). I guess then the alternative would be you want little ones to not know how to get help if they are molested.

InChiefsHell
09-17-2008, 06:15 AM
NeoCons Against CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION: What do they have to hide?

Just as an absurd accusation or headline. If you are for a k-12 program of sex education you must be teaching kindergartners about sex (even if it is basically a "good touch, bad touch" emphasis). I guess then the alternative would be you want little ones to not know how to get help if they are molested.

Check out KCJohhny's link...and tell me you still think that's what this is about...

http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/14/obama-did-vote-to-teach-sex-ed-and-much-more-to-kindergartne.html

alpha_omega
09-17-2008, 07:36 AM
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/14/obama-did-vote-to-teach-sex-ed-and-much-more-to-kindergartne.html

Sounds like considerably more than abuse prevention to me.

StcChief
09-17-2008, 08:13 AM
it's important for a kindergartner to distinguish the difference between a chick and a pig with lipstick onor a monkey in a suit.

ChiTown
09-17-2008, 08:15 AM
or a monkey in a suit.

look out!

Sully
09-17-2008, 08:20 AM
You can put lipstick on a pig, kids, but until there are several different shades on that pig, you can't call it a rainbow party.

RINGLEADER
09-17-2008, 08:54 AM
I read the article and I really don't see your point in posting it. What do you think it means?

Well, truthfully, there wasn't much of a point to it besides having fun with others who post silly points here and act like they're game-changers. Hence the "DEVASTATING" line. :)

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 08:58 AM
The bill does have language stating issues relating to sex other than predator touching be taught to Kindergarteners. That's just a plain fact.

Sorry if you don't like it Obama and want to lie about it.

banyon
09-17-2008, 09:00 AM
It's the same game different players. Keep repeating the lie and the people too lazy to think or read for themselves will believe it.

ChiTown
09-17-2008, 09:01 AM
It's the same game different players. Keep repeating the lie and the people too lazy to think or read for themselves will believe it.

Agreed.....for both sides.

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 09:01 AM
It's the same game different players. Keep repeating the lie and the people too lazy to think or read for themselves will believe it.

Which part of the bill am I misrepresenting?

patteeu
09-17-2008, 09:23 AM
It's the same game different players. Keep repeating the lie and the people too lazy to think or read for themselves will believe it.

The lie that's being repeated is that Obama didn't support comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. While it may be true (and we cant really know one way or the other) that Obama's support was strictly due to his desire for kids to be protected from sexual molestation, the fact is that the legislation he supported was significantly more broad than that.

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 09:34 AM
The lie that's being repeated is that Obama didn't support comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. While it may be true (and we cant really know one way or the other) that Obama's support was strictly due to his desire for kids to be protected from sexual molestation, the fact is that the legislation he supported was significantly more broad than that.

QFT.

Obama whining about how he's being attacked about it proves to me he can't handle politics with the big boys. Putin would eat him alive.

Chief Henry
09-17-2008, 09:40 AM
QFT.

Obama whining about how he's being attacked about it proves to me he can't handle politics with the big boys. Putin would eat him alive.

In a game of poker between Putin and Barry, who wins ?
I've asked this before.

Chief Henry
09-17-2008, 09:42 AM
The lie that's being repeated is that Obama didn't support comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. While it may be true (and we cant really know one way or the other) that Obama's support was strictly due to his desire for kids to be protected from sexual molestation, the fact is that the legislation he supported was significantly more broad than that.

You mean he voted for something he didn't understand ?

patteeu
09-17-2008, 09:54 AM
You mean he voted for something he didn't understand ?

That seems to be the Obama camp's argument.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 10:03 AM
That seems to be the Obama camp's argument.

No it's not... their argument is "LIES, LIES, LIES! The REPUBLICANS LIE! Nice campaign, liars. Lying poopy pants liar liar, pants on fire meanie-poos"

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 10:20 AM
No it's not... their argument is "LIES, LIES, LIES! The REPUBLICANS LIE! Nice campaign, liars. Lying poopy pants liar liar, pants on fire meanie-poos"Yeah. McCain's only lying about Obama's record, policies, and personal history. He's running a very honorable campaign, it's just that THOSE DAMN LIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIES keep whining about THE TRUTH because THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

InChiefsHell
09-17-2008, 10:23 AM
Yeah. McCain's only lying about Obama's record, policies, and personal history. He's running a very honorable campaign, it's just that THOSE DAMN LIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIES keep whining about THE TRUTH because THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Well said, I agree...:D:D:D

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:28 AM
Yeah. McCain's only lying about Obama's record, policies, and personal history. He's running a very honorable campaign, it's just that THOSE DAMN LIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIES keep whining about THE TRUTH because THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!


Who's cry'n now ?

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2008, 10:30 AM
Who's cry'n now ?You tards are crying because we're pointing out your duplicitous horseshit.

banyon
09-17-2008, 10:35 AM
The lie that's being repeated is that Obama didn't support comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. While it may be true (and we cant really know one way or the other) that Obama's support was strictly due to his desire for kids to be protected from sexual molestation, the fact is that the legislation he supported was significantly more broad than that.

No it wasn't. There's nothing in the bill requiring schools to provide comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners. That's the stark fact you're ignoring.

ROYC75
09-17-2008, 10:38 AM
You tards are crying because we're pointing out your duplicitous horseshit.


I'm crying over nothing .........well other than exposing kids to something they need no part of at that age .

patteeu
09-17-2008, 11:00 AM
No it wasn't. There's nothing in the bill requiring schools to provide comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners. That's the stark fact you're ignoring.

I'm not ignoring that fact. What you're ignoring is that "not requiring" something is different than "not permitting" something.

I don't have much of a problem with the bill that Obama supported. I have a problem with people lying about McCain by saying that he lied about the bill. And btw, it was definitely more broad than protecting kids from molestation.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:07 AM
No it wasn't. There's nothing in the bill requiring schools to provide comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners. That's the stark fact you're ignoring.

:shake:

D. Nial

InChiefsHell
09-17-2008, 11:07 AM
I'm not ignoring that fact. What you're ignoring is that "not requiring" something is different than "not permitting" something.

I don't have much of a problem with the bill that Obama supported. I have a problem with people lying about McCain by saying that he lied about the bill. And btw, it was definitely more broad than protecting kids from molestation.

No doubt. Will you libs at least admit the fact that it had WAY more to do than protecting the kiddies from molesters? Any one? Hello??

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 11:29 AM
The lie that's being repeated is that Obama didn't support comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. While it may be true (and we cant really know one way or the other) that Obama's support was strictly due to his desire for kids to be protected from sexual molestation, the fact is that the legislation he supported was significantly more broad than that.

Not only that has anyone considered with the high amount of sexual abuse that's been reported among professions that have access to or work with children, with teachers at about 13% (AMA), that this could open the door to more abuse of children? How do we know those teaching it won't be inclined that way? Even the psychology/psychiatry profession has issues with such things at about 10%. Theycan cover it up by saying it was a demonstration and they need to see what it's like. Some therapists have actually claimed such things as therapeutic. Just a thought.

KCJohnny
09-17-2008, 11:31 AM
No doubt. Will you libs at least admit the fact that it had WAY more to do than protecting the kiddies from molesters? Any one? Hello??

C'mon! Are you mad?
Its not about that at all. Its about mainstreaming the sexual perversion in our society.

HELLO?

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 11:32 AM
You mean he voted for something he didn't understand ?

Those guys we elect pass a lot of garbage they not only don't understand but don't even read.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 11:36 AM
I guess then the alternative would be you want little ones to not know how to get help if they are molested.

The parent can teach that. It can be done in a very simple non-sexual manner. Just call it inappropriate touching by someone. But making a big deal about it is not good either. You don't want to cause needless anxiety. That list is sex focused.

InChiefsHell
09-17-2008, 11:38 AM
The parent can teach that. It can be done in a very simple non-sexual manner. Just call it inappropriate touching by someone. But making a big deal about it is not good either. You don't want to cause needless anxiety. That list is sex focused.

Ah, but remember, parents can't teach their kids right...in fact parents are probably doing the molesting anyway...best left to the Government Institutional Education System...:rolleyes:

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 12:29 PM
I'm not ignoring that fact. What you're ignoring is that "not requiring" something is different than "not permitting" something.

I don't have much of a problem with the bill that Obama supported. I have a problem with people lying about McCain by saying that he lied about the bill. And btw, it was definitely more broad than protecting kids from molestation.

I take issue with McCain's insinuation that sex ed should not be taught to certain age groups. In this case, specifically, kindergartners. For something as biologically basic as sex, it seems that starting early can only help.

The fact that he's trying to insinuate Obama is a pervert of some sort for wanting to cover sex ed starting at an early age is the "lie" I have a problem with.

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 12:36 PM
I take issue with McCain's insinuation that sex ed should not be taught to certain age groups. In this case, specifically, kindergartners. For something as biologically basic as sex, it seems that starting early can only help.

The fact that he's trying to insinuate Obama is a pervert of some sort for wanting to cover sex ed starting at an early age is the "lie" I have a problem with.

I take issue with anyone that thinks they have a right to teach sex ed to my kindergartner.

That's the angle McCain went after, he didn't call Obama a pervert, Obama's response is just a tact at avoiding McCain's point.

Politics as normal.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 12:40 PM
I take issue with anyone that thinks they have a right to teach sex ed to my kindergartner.

That's the angle McCain went after, he didn't call Obama a pervert, Obama's response is just a tact at avoiding McCain's point.

Politics as normal.

Umm, except the bill he supported explicitly outlined an opt-out clause. Therefore, I find it dishonest.

Redrum_69
09-17-2008, 12:42 PM
just tell them that they came from a huge volcano that erupts every once in awhile...

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 12:45 PM
Umm, except the bill he supported explicitly outlined an opt-out clause. Therefore, I find it dishonest.

The fact the bill was as broad as it was, one that Obama voted for, is fair game IMO.

BucEyedPea
09-17-2008, 12:48 PM
The fact the bill was as broad as it was, one that Obama voted for, is fair game IMO.

I agree. Plus opt-out clauses are a joke. Most folks don't know what will actually occur in those classes.
The schools don't always inform parents about what will be taught or that there is even an opt-out.
The public ed venue still provides a captive audience.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 12:52 PM
just tell them that they came from a huge volcano that erupts every once in awhile...

Vlasic pickle stork delivery service.

Donger
09-17-2008, 12:56 PM
I take issue with McCain's insinuation that sex ed should not be taught to certain age groups. In this case, specifically, kindergartners. For something as biologically basic as sex, it seems that starting early can only help.

Horseshit. Kindies don't need sex education.

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 01:00 PM
I agree. Plus opt-out clauses are a joke. Most folks don't know what will actually occur in those classes.
The schools don't always inform parents about what will be taught or that there is even an opt-out.
The public ed venue still provides a captive audience.

I might be ok with it if a kid's parents were forced to preview and sign off on the material before the child was allowed in to such discussions/curriculum.

When my son was in 5th grade his school's plan was to show his class a film informing them of the 'changes' they would go through soon. Opt'ing out was optional and parents were encouraged to attend one of two previewings attended especially for us.

My wife and I went to the second one and the teacher sadly informed us we were the second of only two couples that bothered to preview the movie at all.

Opt'ing out is a joke, especially when the contents are discussed at length by the kids on the playground anyway.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 01:04 PM
Horseshit. Kindies don't need sex education.

Goddamn right. They barely understand the alphabet, numbers, colors, and their family's name. That is WAY too early to start study of reproductive biology.

ChiTown
09-17-2008, 01:06 PM
Goddamn right. They barely understand the alphabet, numbers, colors, and their family's name. That is WAY too early to start study of reproductive biology.

Hell, I just had The Talk with my 10 yr old son. I'm not sure the light came completely on with him.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 01:11 PM
The fact the bill was as broad as it was, one that Obama voted for, is fair game IMO.

I don't think the ad went for the "broadness of the bill" angle. Which is why I find it dishonest.

I agree. Plus opt-out clauses are a joke. Most folks don't know what will actually occur in those classes.
The schools don't always inform parents about what will be taught or that there is even an opt-out.
The public ed venue still provides a captive audience.

Thank you for putting the blame on the parents with respect to education.

Horseshit. Kindies don't need sex education.

Define sex education. Is it "sex education" to tell them say, boys have penises and girls have vaginas? Is it "sex education" to tell them say, where babies come from?

Where's the line between sex education and biology/anatomy/science?

Donger
09-17-2008, 01:14 PM
Where's the line between sex education and biology/anatomy/science?

Somewhere between nine and ten, not five and six. Let them be kids, for God's sake.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 01:18 PM
Somewhere between nine and ten, not five and six. Let them be kids, for God's sake.

You hit the nail on the head.

This obsession that "they're just kids" extends far to long now a days. 16 cannot see boobies on screen. Porn requires one to be, legally, 18.

And those are kids who have been active - all evidence points to - at age 15.


Also, don't confuse sex EDUCATION with sex INSTRUCTION.

Thig Lyfe
09-17-2008, 01:30 PM
Lack of sex education obviously worked wonders for the Palin family...

bkkcoh
09-17-2008, 01:47 PM
Lack of sex education obviously worked wonders for the Palin family...

That is quite unfair.

As a parent of 3 teen-agers, I know we can tell them and show them until we are blue in the face what to do or not do and it still in the hands of someone who doesn't understand the total implications of thier actions. Including, but not limited to, sex, drinking, drugs and who knows what else.

ChiTown
09-17-2008, 01:48 PM
Lack of sex education obviously worked wonders for the Palin family...

Nice cheap shot.

Thig Lyfe
09-17-2008, 02:22 PM
That is quite unfair.

As a parent of 3 teen-agers, I know we can tell them and show them until we are blue in the face what to do or not do and it still in the hands of someone who doesn't understand the total implications of thier actions. Including, but not limited to, sex, drinking, drugs and who knows what else.

That's exactly the issue. Sex education should be telling them what to do or not do. It should be an in-depth explanation of the many options that come with sex in the real world, both in terms of the consequences of irresponsibility and the benefits of a healthy sexual relationship.

The "abstinence-only or nothing at all" attitude prevalent on the right (particularly in the case of Palin) has never worked, is not working, and never will work.

Talking about Palin here isn't a cheap shot. It's a legitimate demonstration of why people who are against comprehensive sex education programs are dumb, blind, or both.

bkkcoh
09-17-2008, 02:31 PM
That's exactly the issue. Sex education should be telling them what to do or not do. It should be an in-depth explanation of the many options that come with sex in the real world, both in terms of the consequences of irresponsibility and the benefits of a healthy sexual relationship.
You shouldn't be telling them what to do or what not to do, that is sending the wrong message to them. What needs to be done is give them the information that may include possible consequences of actions.

The "abstinence-only or nothing at all" attitude prevalent on the right (particularly in the case of Palin) has never worked, is not working, and never will work.

But abstinence is the only form of birth-control that is 100% effective when used. Other forms of birth-control, even if used correctly can fail. Can you argue with that fact?

Talking about Palin here isn't a cheap shot. It's a legitimate demonstration of why people who are against comprehensive sex education programs are dumb, blind, or both.

It shouldn't be up to the schools to teach sex education anyway, it should be up to the parents to do so when it is appropriate. That is a parenting responsibility that has been been taking away, imho!

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 02:36 PM
Talking about Palin here isn't a cheap shot. It's a legitimate demonstration of why people who are against comprehensive sex education programs are dumb, blind, or both.

How do you know the protection they were using didn't fail?

Answer? You don't. So using the Palin's as an example is really a stupid uninformed thing to do.

Thig Lyfe
09-17-2008, 02:37 PM
You shouldn't be telling them what to do or what not to do, that is sending the wrong message to them. What needs to be done is give them the information that may include possible consequences of actions.

That would all be included in a properly funded, comprehensive sex education program. The kind that Palin has expressly said she would not support.



But abstinence is the only form of birth-control that is 100% effective when used. Other forms of birth-control, even if used correctly can fail. Can you argue with that fact?


Of course not. But teenagers are going to have sex anyway. The goal is to minimize the risk involved when they do.


It shouldn't be up to the schools to teach sex education anyway, it should be up to the parents to do so when it is appropriate. That is a parenting responsibility that has been been taking away, imho!

There are too many shitty parents out there to do that. And just because your child's school has a sex education program doesn't mean you can't teach them about it, too.

bkkcoh
09-17-2008, 02:37 PM
How do you know the protection they were using didn't fail?

Answer? You don't. So using the Palin's as an example is really a stupid uninformed thing to do.

Besides, how many women have gotten pregnant while they have been on the pill. Don't they call them 1 percenters?

Programmer
09-17-2008, 02:39 PM
Sex Ed for K-5.

If the parents can opt-out will the kids be flunked for that class if it is government mandated?

There's something bigger going on here and not a single person is seeing it.

Thig Lyfe
09-17-2008, 02:40 PM
How do you know the protection they were using didn't fail?

Answer? You don't. So using the Palin's as an example is really a stupid uninformed thing to do.

Yeah, I guess I don't. But it's not ludicrous to think Palin's daughter was uninformed when it came to what she was doing.

Palin is against sex education.
Palin's daughter got pregnant.
Palin's daughter could probably have benefited from sex education.

You really think Palin taught her daughter all the options, risks and consequences of sex but decided not to extend that same help to the rest of her state? Sounds like a pretty shitty governor to me.

bkkcoh
09-17-2008, 02:41 PM
That would all be included in a properly funded, comprehensive sex education program. The kind that Palin has expressly said she would not support.
I don't really disagree with you on this.


Of course not. But teenagers are going to have sex anyway. The goal is to minimize the risk involved when they do.

So are you one of those that say that we need to lower the drinking age, because they are going to drink anyway?


There are too many shitty parents out there to do that. And just because your child's school has a sex education program doesn't mean you can't teach them about it, too.

Agreed, there should be some type of test to allow you to become parents. You have to fill out more paperwork and get approved to buy a car, but almost anyone can becomes parents. :banghead:


..
Palin is against sex education.
Palin's daughter got pregnant.
Palin's daughter could probably have benefited from sex education.

..
She wasn't against sex education, she was against comprehensive sex ed, there is a huge difference. her daughter would have benefitted in not being sexually active, but I guess they are gonna do it anyway. huh?

mlyonsd
09-17-2008, 02:43 PM
Yeah, I guess I don't. But it's not ludicrous to think Palin's daughter was uninformed when it came to what she was doing.

Palin is against sex education.
Palin's daughter got pregnant.
Palin's daughter could probably have benefited from sex education.

You really think Palin taught her daughter all the options, risks and consequences of sex but decided not to extend that same help to the rest of her state? Sounds like a pretty shitty governor to me.

I'm not trying to talk you out of looking stupid, just pointing it out. Carry on.

Chief Henry
09-17-2008, 02:46 PM
I'm not trying to talk you out of looking stupid, just pointing it out. Carry on.

He does a nice job of doing that...

Programmer
09-17-2008, 02:48 PM
Yeah, I guess I don't. But it's not ludicrous to think Palin's daughter was uninformed when it came to what she was doing.

Palin is against sex education.
Palin's daughter got pregnant.
Palin's daughter could probably have benefited from sex education.

You really think Palin taught her daughter all the options, risks and consequences of sex but decided not to extend that same help to the rest of her state? Sounds like a pretty shitty governor to me.

All you are doing here is throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

Palin is against sex education? show me a link.
From what I read she is against sex education for k-5.

Palins daughter got pregnant. How many teen girls get pregnant?
Should you ever have kids are you going to put a chastity belt on your girls and boys? How you going to stop them?

Did Paliin restrict sex education for the state of Alaska? Show me a link.

HTF do you get that she was a shitty governor from that little diatribe that you just threw out?

Palins daughter probably could have benefitted from sex education.
Where is it that you found that she did not have any "sex education"? I would think that a woman talking to her daughter just might have a better clue than you about what risks are involved. At the moment you think with your dick.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-17-2008, 02:51 PM
The economy is in the shitter, and your faux outrage just demands that we talk about some other unrelated and wholly manufactured horseshit story, doesn't it?

J Diddy
09-17-2008, 02:53 PM
All you are doing here is throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

Palin is against sex education? show me a link.
From what I read she is against sex education for k-5.

Palins daughter got pregnant. How many teen girls get pregnant?
Should you ever have kids are you going to put a chastity belt on your girls and boys? How you going to stop them?

Did Paliin restrict sex education for the state of Alaska? Show me a link.

HTF do you get that she was a shitty governor from that little diatribe that you just threw out?

Palins daughter probably could have benefitted from sex education.
Where is it that you found that she did not have any "sex education"? I would think that a woman talking to her daughter just might have a better clue than you about what risks are involved. At the moment you think with your dick.

you're not gonna stop them, that's the point you're going to educate them about protection options

that's the point

J Diddy
09-17-2008, 02:54 PM
The economy is in the shitter, and your faux outrage just demands that we talk about some other unrelated and wholly manufactured horseshit story, doesn't it?

I heard Palin doesn't believe in an economy.

:)

Thig Lyfe
09-17-2008, 02:58 PM
Did Paliin restrict sex education for the state of Alaska? Show me a link.


http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130090

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

Keep in mind that for Palin, "explicit" and "comprehensive" are the same thing.

Abstinence-only sex education is NOT sex education, much less comprehensive sex education.

You folks can call me an idiot all you want, but it's pretty plain. Palin says herself that she supports funding for abstinence-only sex education. It's logical to assume that Palin thus taught her daughter abstinence-only. Palin's daughter is pregnant.

It's quintessential anecdotal evidence against this way of thinking.

Thig Lyfe
09-17-2008, 02:59 PM
you're not gonna stop them, that's the point you're going to educate them about protection options

that's the point

You have to think that cognitive dissonance will set in for these people at some point.

J Diddy
09-17-2008, 03:15 PM
You have to think that cognitive dissonance will set in for these people at some point.

you underestimate their sheer stubbornness

Programmer
09-17-2008, 03:21 PM
you're not gonna stop them, that's the point you're going to educate them about protection options

that's the point

K-5? That is pointless, all it would do is to get them interested in experimentation before they should.

Programmer
09-17-2008, 03:25 PM
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130090



Keep in mind that for Palin, "explicit" and "comprehensive" are the same thing.

Abstinence-only sex education is NOT sex education, much less comprehensive sex education.

You folks can call me an idiot all you want, but it's pretty plain. Palin says herself that she supports funding for abstinence-only sex education. It's logical to assume that Palin thus taught her daughter abstinence-only. Palin's daughter is pregnant.

It's quintessential anecdotal evidence against this way of thinking.

Show me the Palin definitions of explicit and comprehensive. You will have to link that one, or is it something you pulled out of your anus?

Let's see, how many girls got pregnant that have been through sex education? It's only logical to assume that all kids are going to screw because the have the hormones raging. I don't believe there is a secret rule that prohibits sex from happening just because you had sex ed or your momma taught you it was not right.

It happens, all the sex education in the world won't stop it. Time for you to get over it.

orange
09-17-2008, 04:11 PM
Opt'ing out is a joke, especially when the contents are discussed at length by the kids on the playground anyway.

Opting out is always a joke - the opt-out kids are stigmatized and humiliated.

That's why we LIBERALS have NEVER ACCEPTED "opting-out" as good enough to allow school prayers. Or have we? - Now that we feel we can forcefeed conservatives something they categorically oppose because we put in an opt-out clause.

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis'd, new fashions are devis'd.
Old Christmas is kickt out of Town.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.

banyon
09-17-2008, 05:19 PM
I'm not ignoring that fact. What you're ignoring is that "not requiring" something is different than "not permitting" something.

I don't have much of a problem with the bill that Obama supported. I have a problem with people lying about McCain by saying that he lied about the bill. And btw, it was definitely more broad than protecting kids from molestation.

The bill didn't permit it either.

banyon
09-17-2008, 05:20 PM
:shake:

D. Nial

You have about as much business in a discussion about statutory interpretation as I would in a discussion about prayer rituals of land mine disarmament or whatever it is you won all those medals for.

patteeu
09-17-2008, 05:28 PM
I take issue with McCain's insinuation that sex ed should not be taught to certain age groups. In this case, specifically, kindergartners. For something as biologically basic as sex, it seems that starting early can only help.

It seems like a bad idea to others. That's why it's controversial. My personal opinion is that it's a good idea to start this education early but that I want my kids to learn about sexual issues from their parents at that age.

The fact that he's trying to insinuate Obama is a pervert of some sort for wanting to cover sex ed starting at an early age is the "lie" I have a problem with.

But that's something you're creating in your head, that's not something McCain said.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 05:33 PM
It seems like a bad idea to others. That's why it's controversial. My personal opinion is that it's a good idea to start this education early but that I want my kids to learn about sexual issues from their parents at that age.

And that's why it's opt out.



But that's something you're creating in your head, that's not something McCain said.

Not really. What else is the point of running the ad?

Friendo
09-17-2008, 05:37 PM
[QUOTE=orange;5029483]Opting out is always a joke - the opt-out kids are stigmatized and humiliated.

That's why we LIBERALS have NEVER ACCEPTED "opting-out" as good enough to allow school prayers. Or have we? - Now that we feel we can forcefeed conservatives something they categorically oppose because we put in an opt-out clause.


based on the experience of a friend's daughter, I'd say you are exactly right.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 05:40 PM
Opting out is always a joke - the opt-out kids are stigmatized and humiliated.

That's why we LIBERALS have NEVER ACCEPTED "opting-out" as good enough to allow school prayers. Or have we? - Now that we feel we can forcefeed conservatives something they categorically oppose because we put in an opt-out clause.

Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year:
Since Herod, Caesar, and many more, you never heard the like before.
Holy-dayes are despis'd, new fashions are devis'd.
Old Christmas is kickt out of Town.
Yet let's be content, and the times lament, you see the world turn'd upside down.
ROFL

Sex ed is exactly like separation of church and state an the First Amendment.

orange
09-17-2008, 06:35 PM
ROFL

Sex ed is exactly like separation of church and state an the First Amendment.

Yes it is. It is exactly. That is EXACTLY what it is like. And a SMILEY is not an argument. A quick check of Supreme Court cases online turned up NO smileys whatsoever. All you're doing is demonstrating that YOU have no rational point to make.

You know the Obama Sex-Ed law never passed - BECAUSE THERE WERE STRONG OBJECTIONS. For you to dismiss that many people had strong objections to it is foolish in light of that simple, indisputable fact.

And, I would wager that almost ALL the objections raised were on MORAL and RELIGIOUS grounds.

irishjayhawk
09-17-2008, 06:37 PM
Yes it is. It is exactly. That is EXACTLY what it is like. And a SMILEY is not an argument. A quick check of Supreme Court cases online turned NO smileys whatsoever. All you're doing is demonstrating that YOU have no rational point to make.

I'm sorry. Sex ed is not comparable to prayer in school. Not in any way, shape or form.

InChiefsHell
09-17-2008, 07:30 PM
Lord...I can't wait till this stupid election is over...

Chiefnj2
09-18-2008, 09:05 AM
Proctor, where in Bill SB099 that Obama endorsed does it say that the Siecus guideline will be used? Page 8, lines 9-12 look like the State Superintendent has the power and authority to dictate courses.

patteeu
09-18-2008, 09:32 AM
Proctor, where in Bill SB099 that Obama endorsed does it say that the Siecus guideline will be used? Page 8, lines 9-12 look like the State Superintendent has the power and authority to dictate courses.

Which makes the "age appropriate" safeguarding language that much less reliable.

Chiefnj2
09-18-2008, 09:40 AM
Which makes the "age appropriate" safeguarding language that much less reliable.

By not answering the question, you admit that the Bill that Obama supported does not mandate that the Siecus guideline be used, but that the specific course be chosen by each state's superintendent.

patteeu
09-18-2008, 09:47 AM
By not answering the question, you admit that the Bill that Obama supported does not mandate that the Siecus guideline be used, but that the specific course be chosen by each state's superintendent.

No, by not answering the question, I admit that I didn't consider the question to be directed at me. I don't know the answer. My response is based on the presumption that you are right.

Oh, and by not addressing my comment, you admit that I'm right. :D

Chiefnj2
09-18-2008, 11:36 AM
Proctor, where in Bill SB099 that Obama endorsed does it say that the Siecus guideline will be used? Page 8, lines 9-12 look like the State Superintendent has the power and authority to dictate courses.

Bump for KCJ.

Programmer
09-18-2008, 12:42 PM
You have about as much business in a discussion about statutory interpretation as I would in a discussion about prayer rituals of land mine disarmament or whatever it is you won all those medals for.

Here is a great example of your personal attacks when you don't agree with someone's POV.

You are truly troubled.

J Diddy
09-18-2008, 12:46 PM
Here is a great example of your personal attacks when you don't agree with someone's POV.

You are truly troubled.

that's not an attack

Programmer
09-18-2008, 01:18 PM
that's not an attack

Originally Posted by banyon http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5029732#post5029732)
You have about as much business in a discussion about statutory interpretation as I would in a discussion about prayer rituals of land mine disarmament or whatever it is you won all those medals for.

You may want to reconsider your point, insulting and attacking his military service. He knows full well what the medals stand for and it has nothing to do with his commentary.

orange
09-18-2008, 03:56 PM
Proctor, where in Bill SB099 that Obama endorsed does it say that the Siecus guideline will be used? Page 8, lines 9-12 look like the State Superintendent has the power and authority to dictate courses.

I don't think that Bill addresses it specifically, but the Obama campaign cited the Siecus guidelines in their defense of Obama's position:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/19/277886.aspx

Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read: "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there." In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has curriculum for those in kindergarten.

Chiefnj2
09-18-2008, 07:31 PM
I don't think that Bill addresses it specifically, but the Obama campaign cited the Siecus guidelines in their defense of Obama's position:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/19/277886.aspx

Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells First Read: "You can teach a kid about what's appropriate and not appropriate to protect them from predators out there." In addition, he issued a document showing that the Oregon Department of Education has guidelines for sex education for children in grades K-3 (which includes understanding the difference between a good touch and a bad touch), and that the Sexuality Information And Education Council of the United States has curriculum for those in kindergarten.


I agree that they cited to those documents as showing that curriculum exists for sex ed programs for the K-3 level. I don't think it demonstrates an endorsement of a particular program. The bill at issue appears to give control to the Superintendent to come up with local plans. It is a stretch to say that Obama supported a specific plan based on any the clips/articles that have been posted.

Proctor's link said "The curriculum Obama wanted to use is from SIECUS", for which I have not found any proof.

orange
09-18-2008, 08:08 PM
From an article published June 12 - long before the current controversy:

The Obama campaign told The Brody File last year through spokesman Bill Burton that:

"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."

Back then, the campaign directed me to Oregon Department of Education guidelines* which they said would give people a good idea of where Obama is at on the issue.


Part of the problem here is that many school districts across the country look to The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) when shaping guidelines. Those guidelines may make many parents shudder. They include teaching children 5-8 years old about homosexuality, names for body parts and specific details about how a baby is made. More details here. Regarding the polling that was done on this issue, the Republican strategist told me that:

“No one seeing those guidelines believed that that material was age appropriate.”

The Obama campaign sent out the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC when asked about this issue last year. The problem confronting the Obama campaign on this issue is that while he may not be for any of the more intense language contained in the SIECUS guidelines, he does support age-appropriate sex ed for kindergartners and the polling suggests voters are uncomfortable with that. The Obama campaign may be pulling the hair out screaming that he’s not for any of that stuff but if he’s not more aggressive on this in the general election, he could easily be defined as a big time liberal.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/391467.aspx


*Here's a bit of those guidelines:

A. Grades K-3:
1. Good touch, bad touch
2. Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic
growth process
3. Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept
4. Behaviors that reduce the spread of communicable diseases (washing
hands, not sharing eating utensils, using Kleenex)
5. Accepting of their uniqueness and a positive regard for themselves and
others
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention
7. Unsafe objects (needles, broken glass, drug paraphernalia)
8. Refusal skills, role playing
9. Personal hygiene
10. Emotional development

The full guidelines: http://web1.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/hklb/hiv-aids/sexedguidelines.pdf

banyon
09-18-2008, 08:17 PM
From an article published June 12 - long before the current controversy:

The Obama campaign told The Brody File last year through spokesman Bill Burton that:

"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."

Back then, the campaign directed me to Oregon Department of Education guidelines which they said would give people a good idea of where Obama is at on the issue.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/391467.aspx

Here's a bit of those guidelines:

A. Grades K-3:
1. Good touch, bad touch
2. Understanding body parts, proper anatomical names, stages in basic
growth process
3. Communicable/non-communicable diseases, the concept
4. Behaviors that reduce the spread of communicable diseases (washing
hands, not sharing eating utensils, using Kleenex)
5. Accepting of their uniqueness and a positive regard for themselves and
others
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention
7. Unsafe objects (needles, broken glass, drug paraphernalia)
8. Refusal skills, role playing
9. Personal hygiene
10. Emotional development

The full guidelines: http://web1.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/hklb/hiv-aids/sexedguidelines.pdf


Truly comprehensive. It's like they're teaching them about gangbangs and tp's and Double Master Blasters.

Mecca
09-18-2008, 08:31 PM
Truly comprehensive. It's like they're teaching them about gangbangs and tp's and Double Master Blasters.

Boy that list is really bad isn't it, I mean it's just like teaching them about how to have anal sex.

orange
09-18-2008, 08:34 PM
Boy that list is really bad isn't it, I mean it's just like teaching them about how to have anal sex.

Keep reading.

The Obama campaign sent out the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC when asked about this issue last year. The problem confronting the Obama campaign on this issue is that while he may not be for any of the more intense language contained in the SIECUS guidelines, he does support age-appropriate sex ed for kindergartners and the polling suggests voters are uncomfortable with that. The Obama campaign may be pulling the hair out screaming that hes not for any of that stuff but if hes not more aggressive on this in the general election, he could easily be defined as a big time liberal.

Maybe Obama should just come out and say that he doesn't support the SIECUS guidelines. Wouldn't that make this all clear?

banyon
09-18-2008, 08:38 PM
Keep reading.

The Obama campaign sent out the SIECUS guidelines to MSNBC when asked about this issue last year. The problem confronting the Obama campaign on this issue is that while he may not be for any of the more intense language contained in the SIECUS guidelines, he does support age-appropriate sex ed for kindergartners and the polling suggests voters are uncomfortable with that. The Obama campaign may be pulling the hair out screaming that he’s not for any of that stuff but if he’s not more aggressive on this in the general election, he could easily be defined as a big time liberal.

Maybe Obama should just come out and say that he doesn't support the SIECUS guidelines. Wouldn't that make this all clear?

Other than toning down #2 (maybe?), what else do you think is wrong with that list?

Mecca
09-18-2008, 08:39 PM
Other than toning down #2 (maybe?), what else do you think is wrong with that list?

Everything obviously, remember the evangelical crowd thinks we should all be scared of our bodies and know nothing of them, it's all "dirty"

orange
09-18-2008, 08:44 PM
I don't think anything is wrong with that list.

I do take exception to some of the much more graphic SEICUS program which - unfairly or not - Obama has been linked to; but even there, I wouldn't vote against him for that.

I DO take exception to the Obama campaign calling McCain's correct claim that Obama supported comprehensive sex-education a lie. I DO take exception to him running away from this issue and leaving it to folks like you on websites to try to defend his stance. Evading and minimizing his position is one thing, but when he says the other guys are lying about him - THAT'S the real lie.

orange
09-18-2008, 08:46 PM
Everything obviously, remember the evangelical crowd thinks we should all be scared of our bodies and know nothing of them, it's all "dirty"

And as for you, you don't know WHAT THE HELL you're talking about, dude. Before you try characterizing someone, you might try checking out that person's other posts.

banyon
09-18-2008, 08:47 PM
don't think anything is wrong with that list.

I do take exception to some of the much more graphic SEICUS program which - unfairly or not - Obama has been linked to; but even there, I wouldn't vote against him for that.

I DO take exception to the Obama campaign calling McCain's correct claim that Obama supported comprehensive sex-education a lie. I DO take exception to him running away from this issue and leaving it to folks like you on websites to try to defend his stance. Evading and minimizing his position is one thing, but when he says the other guys are lying about him - THAT'S the real lie.

So it sounds like you've calmed down a bit from your claims a ways back that he absolutely supported total sex ed replete with teaching about contraception and HIV, etc.

Since you realize that "age appropriate" had a definite meaning though in the Bill we both looked at and don't oppose any of the age appropriate guidelines, I guess I'm having a tough time seeing where your problems remain. Maybe they could do a better job explaining it and fighting the lies? I agree, but their campaign's WAY more agressive than Kerry was about combatting this type of BS.

orange
09-18-2008, 08:50 PM
So it sounds like you've calmed down a bit from your claims a ways back that he absolutely supported total sex ed replete with teaching about contraception and HIV, etc.

Since you realize that "age appropriate" had a definite meaning though in the Bill we both looked at and don't oppose any of the age appropriate guidelines, I guess I'm having a tough time seeing where your problems remain. Maybe they could do a better job explaining it and fighting the lies? I agree, but their campaign's WAY more agressive than Kerry was about combatting this type of BS.

I never said any such thing. I pointed out that the bill REQUIRED teaching about STD's and HIV at EVERY GRADE LEVEL including Kindergarten....

... which would be that point #2 YOU just said should be toned down. [RE-edit] Looking back, it was point #4 MAKE THAT #6. I guess I'm even more liberal-minded than you when it comes to teaching Anatomy.

Mecca
09-18-2008, 08:50 PM
And as for you, you don't know WHAT THE HELL you're talking about, dude. Before you try characterizing someone, you might try checking out that person's other posts.

That wasn't directed completely at you....but cmon this is a country where 3 seconds of a nipple set off outrage, that should tell us something.

banyon
09-18-2008, 08:54 PM
I never said any such thing. I pointed out that the bill REQUIRED teaching about STD's and HIV at EVERY GRADE LEVEL including Kindergarten....

... which would be that point #2 YOU just said should be toned down. [edit] Looking back, it was point #4. I guess I'm even more liberal-minded than you when it comes to teaching Anatomy.

Oh, okay. I still disagree about that too then.

But I agree with most everything else in this thread we've come down to.

orange
09-18-2008, 08:57 PM
Maybe they could do a better job explaining it and fighting the lies? I agree, but their campaign's WAY more agressive than Kerry was about combatting this type of BS.

And there is no doubt that Obama is putting up a much more aggressive and better fight than Kerry. BUT he needs to avoid blatant lies - this cannot help him. People will see that SEICUS text and so on and compare it to his claims that he "only wanted to teach protection against molesters" and come to the conclusion that Obama is just another lying politician.

banyon
09-18-2008, 09:07 PM
And there is no doubt that Obama is putting up a much more aggressive and better fight than Kerry. BUT he needs to avoid blatant lies - this cannot help him. People will see that SEICUS text and so on and compare it to his claims that he "only wanted to teach protection against molesters" and come to the conclusion that Obama is just another lying politician.

That seems to be one of the primary goals of the guidelines to me. I don't know how else you would teach little kids about how to avoid being molested. They have to have some understanding of where they can and can't be touched and why it's bad.

orange
09-18-2008, 09:09 PM
I don't think anyone is complaining about that. It's the STD stuff. I can't see any way to teach that without giving Kindergarteners "too much information."

Just the EXISTENCE of STDs may be TMI for 5-year-olds.

banyon
09-18-2008, 09:14 PM
I don't think anyone is complaining about that. It's the STD stuff. I can't see any way to teach that without giving Kindergarteners "too much information."

Just the EXISTENCE of STDs may be TMI for 5-year-olds.

There's nothing in the guidelines about STD's AFAICT. Do you agree there?

orange
09-18-2008, 09:19 PM
There's nothing in the guidelines about STD's AFAICT. Do you agree there?

6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention :Poke:

But even if you don't agree, it's explicitly in the Obama Bill at least twice. Don't make me repost the link. :cuss:

81387

p.s. check the address on that church

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 09:26 PM
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention :poke:

But even if you don't agree, it's explicitly in the Obama Bill at least twice. Don't make me repost the link. :cuss:

81387

p.s. check the address on that church

Please do. I read the Obama supported guidelines and I don't recall that.

orange
09-18-2008, 09:36 PM
The ACTUAL BILL:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV.


Repeated (at least once):

and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV.


COMPLETE HERE: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session

THIS IS THE ONE. THIS IS THE BILL OBAMA SUPPORTED AND PASSED OUT OF HIS COMMITTEE. VERBATIM. I DIDN'T INVENT THIS.

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 09:46 PM
The ACTUAL BILL:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV.


Repeated (at least once):

and whenever such
15 courses of instruction are provided in any of grades K
16 through 12, then such courses also shall include age
17 appropriate instruction on the prevention of sexually
18 transmitted infections, including the prevention,
19 transmission and spread of HIV.


COMPLETE HERE: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session

THIS IS THE ONE. THIS IS THE BILL OBAMA SUPPORTED AND PASSED OUT OF HIS COMMITTEE. VERBATIM. I DIDN'T INVENT THIS.


Also, HIV can spread without talking about STDs.

I see no point.



(psst, notice the underline.)

orange
09-18-2008, 09:47 PM
You did leave out the other relevant portions again though. :hmmm:

:evil:

I understand you're pulling my leg a little here...

... but as I've said, I can't think of ANY age appropriate way to teach that to Kindergarteners.

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 09:48 PM
I understand you're pulling my leg a little here...

... but as I've said, I can't think of ANY age appropriate way to teach that to Kindergarteners.

I can.

Don't share needles.

orange
09-18-2008, 09:49 PM
Also, HIV can spread without talking about STDs.

I see no point.



(psst, notice the underline.)

Please. It says SPECIFICALLY "sexually transmitted infections."

banyon
09-18-2008, 09:50 PM
I understand you're pulling my leg a little here...

... but as I've said, I can't think of ANY age appropriate way to teach that to Kindergarteners.

How about the way that's in the guidelines?

"don't share fluids with strangers" "Don't let people touch you in your private areas", etc. You get those across, it's pretty hard to get STD's.

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 09:50 PM
Please. It says SPECIFICALLY "sexually transmitted infections."

It also says "age appropriate".

orange
09-18-2008, 09:55 PM
How about the way that's in the guidelines?

"don't share fluids with strangers" "Don't let people touch you in your private areas", etc. You get those across, it's pretty hard to get STD's.

6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention

"What do you mean, teacher? My juice cup? "

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 09:56 PM
6. Recognize risk behaviors (sharing body fluids) and methods of prevention

"What do you mean, teacher? My juice cup? "

Hmm, don't rub your bleeding arm from the playground on someone else.

orange
09-18-2008, 09:58 PM
Hmm, don't rub your bleeding arm from the playground on someone else.

You're fixated on the HIV part. What about the syph and clap and herpes parts?

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 09:59 PM
You're fixated on the HIV part. What about the syph and clap and herpes parts?

Don't let an adult touch you in your private part because you might get a disease.

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 10:00 PM
You're fixated on the HIV part. What about the syph and clap and herpes parts?

Also, you're the one that keeps quoting the "sharing body fluids" part. I keep giving reasonable solutions and you keep shrugging them off.

:shrug:

orange
09-18-2008, 10:15 PM
Your "reasonable solutions" do not touch on the PLAINLY STATED requirement in Obama's Bill that the sex-ed classes teach about prevention of sexually transmitted infections, not just HIV. Your "reasonable solutions" would NOT meet the requirements of the law, and we can properly conclude they WERE NOT what Obama had in mind.

The SIECUS guidelines used by many school districts - and referred to by Obama himself - DO give detailed "reasonable solutions" - that many people object to; but since Obama himself referred to those guidelines, we can reasonably conclude they ARE at least close to what Obama had in mind. At least until OBAMA says otherwise.

The point I made several posts back is that Obama's Bill clearly included MORE than just avoiding molesters and his claims otherwise are FALSE.

And a further point I made several posts back is that the suggestions of irishbanyonjayhawks on internet forums are NO substitute for Barack Obama stating and defending his actual position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you have to sit there and guess? Why can't you just go to www.barackobama.com and FIND his ACTUAL position?

irishjayhawk
09-18-2008, 10:17 PM
Your "reasonable solutions" do not touch on the PLAINLY STATED requirement in Obama's Bill that the sex-ed classes teach about prevention of sexually transmitted infections, not just HIV. Your "reasonable solutions" would NOT meet the requirements of the law, and we can properly conclude they WERE NOT what Obama had in mind.

The SIECUS guidelines used by many school districts - and referred to by Obama himself - DO give detailed "reasonable solutions" - that many people object to; but since Obama himself referred to those guidelines, we can reasonably conclude they ARE at least close to what Obama had in mind. At least until OBAMA says otherwise.

The point I made several posts back is that Obama's Bill clearly included MORE than just avoiding molesters and his claims otherwise are FALSE.

And a further point I made several posts back is that the suggestions of irishbanyonjayhawks on internet forums are NO substitute for Barack Obama stating and defending his actual position.


The guidelines don't dictate how the matter is distributed or "handled". Perhaps that would be a good place to start.

For me, this isn't about Obama, but about America's perversion with sex.

Logical
09-18-2008, 10:20 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/sex-ed-for-kind.html

:)

DEVASTATING!

ROFLI don't know it seems perfectly reasonable. Teach them to avoid strangers, don't get in cars that are strange, if an adult shows you their private parts run away as fast as you can and report it. Things like that, kids that age are smarter than you think.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 07:30 AM
So it sounds like you've calmed down a bit from your claims a ways back that he absolutely supported total sex ed replete with teaching about contraception and HIV, etc.

Since you realize that "age appropriate" had a definite meaning though in the Bill we both looked at and don't oppose any of the age appropriate guidelines, I guess I'm having a tough time seeing where your problems remain. Maybe they could do a better job explaining it and fighting the lies? I agree, but their campaign's WAY more agressive than Kerry was about combatting this type of BS.

What was the definite meaning?

banyon
09-19-2008, 03:43 PM
What was the definite meaning?

The one in the guidelines.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 03:54 PM
The one in the guidelines.

OK, I guess I'm lost. I thought you guys were talking about the Illinois bill that Obama supported. Is there a "definitions" section that defines "age appropriate"? Or are you talking about some other document where "age appropriate" is defined?

banyon
09-19-2008, 03:56 PM
OK, I guess I'm lost. I thought you guys were talking about the Illinois bill that Obama supported. Is there a "definitions" section that defines "age appropriate"? Or are you talking about some other document where "age appropriate" is defined?

Well the bill was a committee bill, so they were either going to rely on definitions of "age appropriate" elsewhere, or incorporate one like the one from Oregon when they got the bill ready for a vote in the main chamber. That's my guess anyway.

patteeu
09-19-2008, 04:00 PM
Well the bill was a committee bill, so they were either going to rely on definitions of "age appropriate" elsewhere, or incorporate one like the one from Oregon when they got the bill ready for a vote in the main chamber. That's my guess anyway.

OK, that's a fair guess. From what you said earlier, I thought you'd seen a place where it was already tied to a specific meaning.

banyon
09-19-2008, 04:02 PM
OK, that's a fair guess. From what you said earlier, I thought you'd seen a place where it was already tied to a specific meaning.

Like orange said, ideally someone from the campaign should address these queestions and not some random guy on the internet like me, but I guess they are hoping the story will die a quiet little death like so many of the rumors in this campaign on both sides.