Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2008 10:59:16 GMT -5
Let's say Sarah Palin hadn't made that specific lipstick reference in her speech, but that Obama had still made his comments...do you think the McCain campaign would've let Obama's comment slide? By your logic, they would have.
If you believe that, you're kidding yourself.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 11, 2008 11:03:52 GMT -5
You make a good point. However, she did make that speech and Obama did use that line in close proximity to that speech.
He would have had a much more "saleable" position.
I truly believe the Obama camp is a bit unglued by Palin and is a bit out of control right now.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 11, 2008 11:20:15 GMT -5
I've heard lipstick on a pig tons of times before, with reference to both men and women. It's certainly a more polite version of the phrase I prefer to use, which can't be posted here.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 11, 2008 11:34:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyamac22 on Sept 11, 2008 11:36:43 GMT -5
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 11, 2008 12:02:16 GMT -5
I've heard lipstick on a pig tons of times before, with reference to both men and women. It's certainly a more polite version of the phrase I prefer to use, which can't be posted here. Might that also be a rather negative slang for a overly common cafeteria meal?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 11, 2008 12:42:49 GMT -5
I wish the networks would take a cue from the candidates and take a day off today to acknowledge something more important than this campaign.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 11, 2008 13:12:29 GMT -5
I've heard lipstick on a pig tons of times before, with reference to both men and women. It's certainly a more polite version of the phrase I prefer to use, which can't be posted here. Might that also be a rather negative slang for a overly common cafeteria meal? No, it's about trying to improve the appearance of excrement.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 11, 2008 14:03:53 GMT -5
Might that also be a rather negative slang for a overly common cafeteria meal? No, it's about trying to improve the appearance of excrement. close enough ... "chipped beef on toast" has a somewhat less complimentary name that would be appropriate as well.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 11, 2008 19:04:07 GMT -5
Can someone on here explain to me when and how Obama ever said he wants to teach sex ed to 5 year olds? I want to hear someone take a shot at this, because it's complete crap.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Sept 11, 2008 19:29:25 GMT -5
Can someone on here explain to me when and how Obama ever said he wants to teach sex ed to 5 year olds? I want to hear someone take a shot at this, because it's complete crap. I thought he introduced a guy named Bill to a guy named Ed and told them to have sex in front of 5-year olds. Is that not true?
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by hoyarooter on Sept 11, 2008 20:07:49 GMT -5
Actually, it was Bill Clinton and some woman named Edwina. Bill was happy to oblige, as always!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 12, 2008 10:34:39 GMT -5
Are you going to make this same post on every thread? I know you're desperate to get above 11 posts, but c'mon.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 12, 2008 12:58:14 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 12, 2008 13:01:37 GMT -5
Since the entire curriculum for kindergartners involves discussing inappropriate touching, we can safely say the GOP is pro-child molester.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 12, 2008 13:02:43 GMT -5
Are you going to make this same post on every thread? I know you're desperate to get above 11 posts, but c'mon. Agreed, especially since I posted it first, a week or so ago.
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Sept 12, 2008 13:05:04 GMT -5
When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign. Despite Obama's support, the legislation was not enacted. Children should know that human babies do not come from birds, and they should also be aware and able to tell their parents if they've been inappropriately touched.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 12, 2008 13:30:32 GMT -5
I'm not going to try to nitpick, but unless some of those quotes were inaccurate then what Obama did can't really be called a "move to clarify." That is much more of a change of position. For the record, I do like the "clarified" version far better.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 12, 2008 13:33:57 GMT -5
What was his original position then? Show me something specific where Obama EVER said he wanted to teach the details of sex to five year olds. PLEASE. I want to see it. Because it was never said and it's nonsense.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 12, 2008 14:03:41 GMT -5
What was his original position then? Show me something specific where Obama EVER said he wanted to teach the details of sex to five year olds. PLEASE. I want to see it. Because it was never said and it's nonsense. www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=or tinyurl.com/6gls2oappears to be what you're looking for. The act Obama supported dropped the minimum age requirement for mandatory discussion of STD prevention from sixth grade to kindergarten: Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV. Now, just because he supported (or introduced?) the bill doesn't mean that Obama really meant that he approved of the text of the bill, which is why it's important to clarify after the fact that he didn't really want to mandate discussions of STD prevention in kindergarten, he merely wanted to cover "inappropriate touching" .... which by the way isn't addressed in the bill once!!
|
|