Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 12, 2008 14:09:50 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!! He didn't sponsor the bill, he voted for it on a party line vote. And age-appropriate discussion of STD prevention for kindergartners is "don't touch other people's blood". I swear, you people are ridiculous in your fauxrage.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 12, 2008 14:21:15 GMT -5
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!! He didn't sponsor the bill, he voted for it on a party line vote. And age-appropriate discussion of STD prevention for kindergartners is "don't touch other people's blood". I swear, you people are ridiculous in your fauxrage. Then stop saying Sarah Palin slashed funding for this or that when the final $$$ was $3.4 million instead of $3.9 million.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 12, 2008 14:43:43 GMT -5
KC--Discussions of Sarah Palin's policies are getting to be a boring topic. Unless you think your #1 guy is going to die (which I guess he might), stop talking about what Sarah Palin wants to do.
Here are some excerpts. Please explain how this mandates HIV education for kindergartners. It also mentions "dental health" in the "AGE APPROPRIATE" K-12 discussion. Just as I don't think they intend to teach 17-year old Derek to brush his teeth, they're not going to teach 6-year old Janie why not to give BJ's in the park.
It's patently absurd and an intentional misrepresentation of facts to assert otherwise.
(a) The program established under this Act shall 24 include, but not be limited to, the following major 25 educational areas as a basis for curricula in all elementary 26 and secondary schools in this State: human ecology and 27 health, human growth and development, the emotional, 28 psychological, physiological, hygienic and social 29 responsibilities of family life, including sexual abstinence 30 and prevention of unintended pregnancy until marriage, 31 prevention and control of disease, including age appropriate 32 instruction in grades K 6 through 12 on the prevention of 33 sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, -10- LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b 1 transmission and spread of HIV AIDS, public and environmental 2 health, consumer health, safety education and disaster 3 survival, mental health and illness, personal health habits, 4 alcohol, drug use, and abuse including the medical and legal 5 ramifications of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use, abuse during 6 pregnancy, sexual abstinence until marriage, tobacco, 7 nutrition, and dental health. 8 (b) All comprehensive health education programs 9 established under this Act shall satisfy the following 10 criteria: 11 (1) Factual information presented in course 12 material and instruction shall be medically accurate and 13 objective. 14 (2) All course material and instruction in classes 15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or 16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate. 17 (3) Course material and instruction shall include a 18 discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent 19 unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, 20 including HIV.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 12, 2008 14:56:22 GMT -5
KC--Discussions of Sarah Palin's policies are getting to be a boring topic. Unless you think your #1 guy is going to die (which I guess he might), stop talking about what Sarah Palin wants to do. Umm, you might want to tell that to Obama. He's the one who's fixated on Palin. Pretty stupid such a "smart" guy. BTW, what are the democrat's odds on McCain dying in office up to? The highest I've head lately is 1 in 4 by Paul Begala. I'm sure by the end of October there will be ads tying McCain to William Henry Harrison.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 12, 2008 15:04:31 GMT -5
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!! He didn't sponsor the bill, he voted for it on a party line vote. And age-appropriate discussion of STD prevention for kindergartners is "don't touch other people's blood". I swear, you people are ridiculous in your fauxrage. 1. Don't vote on "party line" votes. Vote based on the merits or lack thereof, of the bills components. 2. Voting "for" something is valid reason for criticism. 3. He was very clearly in favor of the bill, and only upon criticisms, "clarified" his position to a much more reasonable stance. Sounds somewhat like Gov. Palin being "for" the bridge until the costs kept going up, ultimately deciding that there were far more worthy projects to invest the money in, except for the fact that her change of opinion actually accomplished something.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 12, 2008 15:18:53 GMT -5
KC--To the extent that Obama is still engaging w/ Palin, I do think he should stop. Hopefully by Monday, she's last week's news. I think they'll get solidly back on message very soon, though. If people already don't know why Palin is not good as a VP, then Obama may as well move on and get back to why he IS right for President. (I was going to say that "He could lead a horse to water" but decided that some on here might decide to read something into that.)
Odds McCain dies: I'm not good with numbers, but how is "Higher than any President before him"? (At least in the last 20-30 years, at least since whatever year you would say medicine got to a point where we can keep the elderly at a functional level seemingly for eternity, or at least until there's nothing left of Social Security.)
Hifi--You're an idiot. Yes, he was very clearly in favor of the bill. His "clarification" was not a clarification of HIS SUPPORT. It was a clarification of WHAT THE BILL SAID. Everything he explained in his "clarification" comes from the bill itself. He was attempting to explain the bill to people who don't know what it said and try to stick nonsense like "Sex ed for children" into it. He wasn't attempting to explain away his support for what is clearly a good bill.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 12, 2008 15:36:47 GMT -5
WHY IS BARACK OBAMA INTENT ON DROWNING HORSES?!?!?!?
If the "age-appropriate" lessons for kindergarteners about STDs, HIV and sexual activity were truly limited to "don't touch other people's blood," then that seems like a good idea. I think that it's very likely, however, that what some might have deemed "age apprpriate" might not have been so at all.
Another "age appropriate" lesson for 5-year olds......stay away from BuffaloHoya. ;D
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Sept 12, 2008 15:43:03 GMT -5
No, it's not a clarification of what the bill said strummer. There is NOTHING in the legislation about quote-unquote inappropriate touching.
Perhaps side-by-side comparison might help make it clearer.
The old statute said:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.
The bill that Obama defends changed that statute to read:
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.
The legislation changed the state mandate from stopping the spread of AIDS (which could realistically mean "don't touch other people's blood" as suggested) to focus instead on preventing sexually-transmitted infections.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 12, 2008 15:51:34 GMT -5
Hifi--You're an idiot. Yes, he was very clearly in favor of the bill. His "clarification" was not a clarification of HIS SUPPORT. It was a clarification of WHAT THE BILL SAID. Everything he explained in his "clarification" comes from the bill itself. He was attempting to explain the bill to people who don't know what it said and try to stick nonsense like "Sex ed for children" into it. He wasn't attempting to explain away his support for what is clearly a good bill. blah blah blah ... personal attacks .... blah blah blah "'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
He later went on to clarify his position and what he considers to be age-appropriate. There is no denying that. I said as much and also said that I much more approve of the clarified version. Then you come up with this hogwash blaming me for some, as of yet, unknown error. Come on pal, who are you trying to kid?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 12, 2008 16:32:59 GMT -5
Hifi--You're an idiot. Yes, he was very clearly in favor of the bill. His "clarification" was not a clarification of HIS SUPPORT. It was a clarification of WHAT THE BILL SAID. Everything he explained in his "clarification" comes from the bill itself. He was attempting to explain the bill to people who don't know what it said and try to stick nonsense like "Sex ed for children" into it. He wasn't attempting to explain away his support for what is clearly a good bill. blah blah blah ... personal attacks .... blah blah blah "'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
He later went on to clarify his position and what he considers to be age-appropriate. There is no denying that. I said as much and also said that I much more approve of the clarified version. Then you come up with this hogwash blaming me for some, as of yet, unknown error. Come on pal, who are you trying to kid? He clarified what the BILL said. You're an idiot, in addition to being a racist. Back to topic, that bit of hyperbole back there when I joked that McCain was pro-child molester? Unbeknown to me, Planned Parenthood made an ad with nearly that message.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Sept 12, 2008 19:12:01 GMT -5
What was his original position then? Missionary...that's what Timmy told me anyway.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 13, 2008 12:17:49 GMT -5
What was his original position then? Missionary...that's what Timmy told me anyway. Ba-dum, ching!
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Sept 13, 2008 18:48:45 GMT -5
What's wrong with sex education at any and all levels?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 13, 2008 19:20:50 GMT -5
What's wrong with sex education at any and all levels? Because if our kids were actually raised to understand the realities of life, then they may never get the opportunity to choose at a young age to have their child and prove a point about the sanctity of life. Duh. But really, I truly don't understand how anyone can oppose AGE-APPROPRIATE sex education, w/ communities determining what "age appropriate" means. It's a sad, sad reality, but kids are growing up A LOT faster now, and it's better for them to do so intelligently, as opposed to making decisions based on the ignorance of their friends.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 13, 2008 20:35:38 GMT -5
I'm trying to figure out what "age appropriate" sex education would be for kindergarteners. This is not denying the reality of the world we live in, but I'm not sure that there really is much that I'd want a school teaching to a 5 or 6 year old. Yes, you can teach to guard against against sexual predators, but that really doesn't have to be "sex education" per se. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go out and drink a lot and stare at all the girls with Xs on their hands.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 14, 2008 12:10:02 GMT -5
Boz, we probably agree on what would be appropriate and not. Whether it's called "sex ed" or not is debatable, but I still just think it's terribly misleading to make it sound like Obama wants to show graphic STD photos to 5-year olds or teach them how to put on condoms.
On a totally different topic, do any McCain supporters fear that he may be getting hot a bit too early? With over a month and a half to go, it seems to me that he's gotten some nice little momentum going, but these things have a tendency to ebb and flow. It just seems like there's plenty of time for whatever "Palin-mania" exists to hopefully die, and for people to realize that since he named her as VP, he has not convincingly argued a single substantive point in favor of his presidency or defended a single attack against him.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 14, 2008 17:35:09 GMT -5
....ooops. Barack Obama's new "out of touch" ad: link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1789003018Except, whoopsie. As reported by the Boston Globe, the reason John McCain doesn't use a computer or send e-mails is because he can't. His POW injuries prevent him from doing so. They probably should have just stuck with "doesn't understand the economy." I don't think that's true, and I'm not sure it has the traction they want (Obama has a lead on the economic issue, but not a big one), but at least it would have stuck to the issues and avoided a potential backlash.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 14, 2008 17:52:30 GMT -5
....ooops. Barack Obama's new "out of touch" ad: link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1789003018Except, whoopsie. As reported by the Boston Globe, the reason John McCain doesn't use a computer or send e-mails is because he can't. His POW injuries prevent him from doing so. They probably should have just stuck with "doesn't understand the economy." I don't think that's true, and I'm not sure it has the traction they want (Obama has a lead on the economic issue, but not a big one), but at least it would have stuck to the issues and avoided a potential backlash. Ok, that's just woefully ignorant. Are you aware of the hundreds of devices and applications available to help the disabled use computers? The woman (forget her name) who ran for Lt. Gov. under Erlich in 2006 used a computer regularly, and she was blind. Severe autistics have blogs. My brother's best friend is completely paralyzed save for limited motion of his head and one arm, and he's on the internet all the time. John McCain has never used a computer because he's never wanted to. Stop making stupid excuses.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 14, 2008 18:47:08 GMT -5
Yeah I'm with Bando on this one. Charles Krauthammer, who we were just discussing a few days ago, is almost entirely paralyzed. I've been in a minivan that he was driving completely by himself. He also got himself into and out of said van. There's a girl in my law school class who is blind and has a laptop with her at all times. This assertion that he "can't" send email is patently absurd. Get a blackberry and it requires 1 hand.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,477
|
Post by TC on Sept 14, 2008 18:50:59 GMT -5
Bando, that link Boz drug up is the Drudge Report response. It's stupid. If Stephen Hawking can use the internet, John McCain can too.
That said, I don't think "John McCain doesn't use the Internet" is an effective ad or meme.
|
|