New mccain ad

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2754106
"Each class or course in comprehensive --- education offered in any of grades K through 12 ...."
That what you are looking for?

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2754455
If Obama didn't support teaching s-ex ed to Kindergartners why in the hell would he vote for a bill that specifically authorized it? Obama either supports it or is too stupid to even be a state senator.
This is really a weak spin. The Bill is very clear. It legislates the content and parental rights of any s-e-x education course that is taught in elementary, middle and high school. Each of you have referenced the same language that clearly specifies this intent.
To suggest that this language promotes, authorizes, permits, encourages or requires said class to be taught to kindergardeners is completely untrue. READ THE BILL!! It doesn't speak to whether these classes SHOULD be taught or not, but simply addresses the content and parental rights where the course does exist.
Guys, I know that you will support your guy, even if Satan happened to be the Republican nominee for President. You have given yourself to a political party and therefore you will support anything and everything he does. But the language here speaks for itself. To suggest that he is promoting, authorizing or encouraging the teaching of s-e-x education to kindergardeners is, at best, very misleading or, at worst, an outright fabrication. I'd respect you gentlemen more if you just told me that you don't care what he does as long as he wins. To suggest that the ad is "100% accurate" simply shows that you either didn't read, or don't comprehend the Bill. There's no real debate here... but I'll respect that you'll support the guy and argue this thing to death. Good luck.

 

[rylan1]

I don't have to even see the commercial to know that it is misleading by the comments on this thread... We have a problem... and parents do not want and often can not discuss these topics with their children... we know that kids are experiementing at younger and younger ages... their bodies are developing much faster... We also have an epidemic here in the US with HIV rates increasing in certain parts of the pop. and with 1/3 or 1/4 people having contracted an STD or incurable form of one being something like 1/5... We need to stress the point...and we can't live thinking our little girls or boys will be "innocent" their entire life..

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2754064
The bill was linked to and I posted the language. If you don't want to read it thats your problem.

McCains ads are more accurate and honest than Obus saying McCain wanted a 100 year war in Iraq
He did say he wanted a permanent base there like Korea or Germany... and that we would be their 100 yrs if necessary....

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2754461
This is really a weak spin. The Bill is very clear. It legislates the content and parental rights of any s-e-x education course that is taught in elementary, middle and high school. Each of you have referenced the same language that clearly specifies this intent.
To suggest that this language promotes, authorizes, permits, encourages or requires said class to be taught to kindergardeners is completely untrue. READ THE BILL!! It doesn't speak to whether these classes SHOULD be taught or not, but simply addresses the content and parental rights where the course does exist.
Guys, I know that you will support your guy, even if Satan happened to be the Republican nominee for President. You have given yourself to a political party and therefore you will support anything and everything he does. But the language here speaks for itself. To suggest that he is promoting, authorizing or encouraging the teaching of s-e-x education to kindergardeners is, at best, very misleading or, at worst, an outright fabrication. I'd respect you gentlemen more if you just told me that you don't care what he does as long as he wins. To suggest that the ad is "100% accurate" simply shows that you either didn't read, or don't comprehend the Bill. There's no real debate here... but I'll respect that you'll support the guy and argue this thing to death. Good luck.

So you're arguing that they were teaching sx ed to the k-12 grades already and this just mandated content?

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2754564
So you're arguing that they were teaching sx ed to the k-12 grades already and this just mandated content?
It's not even an argument. The language of the Bill speaks for itself. It only regulates content where a course presently exists. It does not condone, promote, encourage or even address who should be taught about s-e-x education at all.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by WangoTango
http:///forum/post/2752587
Actually from the last I knew condoms were somewhere in the 80% affective range.
Edit: According to some of the comments posted on that link, the bill wasn't mean to teach kindergarteners about s e x but about how to be safe from strangers/ s e xual predators. Don't know if that's the truth or not. Not defending Obama though.
-Justin

He also confused the words "safe" and "effective".

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2754479
He did say he wanted a permanent base there like Korea or Germany... and that we would be their 100 yrs if necessary....

We're over half way to the 100 year mark. Germany's been pretty quite since.

 

[oceansidefish]

I read this bill without thought on either side of the argument. I am not really sure what the big bruhaha about this is. All that it does is say that what IS taught should be age and developmentally suitable and that no child should have to recieve instruction in the subject if the parents oppose. It also says that material should include how to avoid unwanted harrasment. I don't see a problem teaching K's or 1st graders how to stay away from strangers. Molestation is an epidemic in this country and if more kids were told what to do it would proably keep alot of them out of therapy in their 20's. I had --- ed in all three schools, elem, junior and high school. All 3 classes I distincly remember were very different in content and presentation. You must read the content of every bill ENTIRELY to make a judgement about what it does or does not say. They are broken down into pieces and taking one sentance from any one section is going to give you an inacurate picture.

 

[vinnyraptor]

do you or anyone else really think this man wants to teach 5 yr olds about ---? and why is everyone so worried about typing the word anyways? we ALL know that kindergarteners wont be learning the same things as highschool kids! there is nothing wrong with making it a part of the curiculum IMO.
in K -3 it should be about predators including family members, clergy, and other kids. this is a real problem in this country. 4 -6 can start to talk about biology without being graphic and talk about protection. 8-12 should teach EVERYTHING they need and DESERVE to know. including protection, hygiene, hormones, abstinence, homosexuality. etc...
face it by 8th grade alot of kids are doing it. these kids treat oral --- like we used to treat a kiss. most of them dont think they can get sick from it because there ignorant and uneducated. teen pregnancy has ALWAYS been a problem. and kids not understanding there feelings and urges is out of control. maybe if the understand more they will be more responsable. i honestly dont see how it could hurt. do you?
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2753588
There is video of Obama talking about that bill, and him saying that it is "the right thing to do" when discussing education.
Anyone think it is funny this is one of the bills he felt strongly enough about to vote yes for...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2754475
I don't have to even see the commercial to know that it is misleading by the comments on this thread... We have a problem... and parents do not want and often can not discuss these topics with their children... we know that kids are experiementing at younger and younger ages... their bodies are developing much faster... We also have an epidemic here in the US with HIV rates increasing in certain parts of the pop. and with 1/3 or 1/4 people having contracted an STD or incurable form of one being something like 1/5... We need to stress the point...and we can't live thinking our little girls or boys will be "innocent" their entire life..

So the government should be allowed to teach your kids about s ex whether the parents agrees or not. Kinda explains why you would support someone like Obama with his extreme left politics. The Democrat Socialist of America support him too. When your policies are so far out there the marxists support you it's hard to claim the populist title.
You might want to review that pesky little first amendment to the constitution and while reading it keep in mind the Catholic church considered contraception a sin.

 

[oceansidefish]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2754680
So the government should be allowed to teach your kids about s ex whether the parents agrees or not. Kinda explains why you would support someone like Obama with his extreme left politics. The Democrat Socialist of America support him too. When your policies are so far out there the marxists support you it's hard to claim the populist title.
You might want to review that pesky little first amendment to the constitution and while reading it keep in mind the Catholic church considered contraception a sin.
No one said that they should be allowed to teach kids without parental permission. I don't know why you would even make that argument. It's a non point really

 

[darthtang aw]

I personally don't care onm this subject because the way things are going Obama isn't going to win.
However I question a bill that addresses content on --- education of k-12 children. What I question is why makje a bill about content if you do not intend to teach --- education to that age range. If you don't intend to or want to, why waste the time on content for that age group? Just my two cents. This is a dumb argument anyway.
The real question is the rumor mill had Biden Stepping down and hilary taking his place. Bidden is on record quoted recently stating Hilary would have been the better choice for VP. Now, If your own VP says someone else would have been better for the job, what does this say about Obama's decision making skills. I am sure this is a different thread though.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2754575
It's not even an argument. The language of the Bill speaks for itself. It only regulates content where a course presently exists. It does not condone, promote, encourage or even address who should be taught about s-e-x education at all.
How in the heck can you say it doesn't condone address it when it's right in the bill?
Each class or course in comprehensive --- 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 AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
http:///forum/post/2754688
No one said that they should be allowed to teach kids without parental permission. I don't know why you would even make that argument. It's a non point really
Read the post I was responding to
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I don't have to even see the commercial to know that it is misleading by the comments on this thread... We have a problem... and parents do not want and often can not discuss these topics with their children... we know that kids are experiementing at younger and younger ages... their bodies are developing much faster... We also have an epidemic here in the US with HIV rates increasing in certain parts of the pop. and with 1/3 or 1/4 people having contracted an STD or incurable form of one being something like 1/5... We need to stress the point...and we can't live thinking our little girls or boys will be "innocent" their entire life..

 

[oceansidefish]

I read the post and the Bill. No one ever said the government should teach it without parents permission. All he said was parents do not want to and often cannot talk to their kids about these subjects. I completely agree. I think parents are themselves to embarresed often enough to just ignore the facts completely. Generally the kids that need this education the most have horrible parents to begin with. So parents would have had the right to choose whether or not the kids recieved any instruction on the subject.
Each class or course in comprehensive --- 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 AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."
The key to this paragraph states that "each course in COMPREHENSIVE". Comprehensive in this case is a very key word that is being overlooked. 1st graders are NOT being taught a comprehensive education class. It means that any COMPREHENSIVE class taught in the k-12 System will include those things. If you read other bills that legislate things regarding public education they all have to include K-12, whether the entirety of that bill applies to K-12 education or not. K-12 is a grouped term referencing public school systems funded by a state. The devil is in the details.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Oceansidefish
http:///forum/post/2754708
I read the post and the Bill. No one ever said the government should teach it without parents permission. All he said was parents do not want to and often cannot talk to their kids about these subjects. I completely agree. I think parents are themselves to embarresed often enough to just ignore the facts completely. Generally the kids that need this education the most have horrible parents to begin with. So parents would have had the right to choose whether or not the kids recieved any instruction on the subject.
Each class or course in comprehensive --- 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 AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."
The key to this paragraph states that "each course in COMPREHENSIVE". Comprehensive in this case is a very key word that is being overlooked. 1st graders are NOT being taught a comprehensive education class. It means that any COMPREHENSIVE class taught in the k-12 System will include those things. If you read other bills that legislate things regarding public education they all have to include K-12, whether the entirety of that bill applies to K-12 education or not. K-12 is a grouped term referencing public school systems funded by a state. The devil is in the details.
I am only referring to the post as far as requiring it be taught, the bill made it clear a parent could opt out. Comprehensive means all encompassing so it could cover anything. Do I think Obama would want ed taught to kindergartners? I doubt it. Would I vote for a bill with K-12 as the grade range, no way in hell! I've seen some pretty bizarre stuff pulled by individual school districts, I wouldn't want them to have that broad of authority.

 

[vinnyraptor]

its not a 1st ammendment issue! whats the problem with teaching our kindergarteners about sexual predators? Palin wants to teach abstinence is that --- ed? and ofcourse nothing should be forced. if parents dont want their child exposed to this curiculum then they shouldn't be.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2754680
So the government should be allowed to teach your kids about s ex whether the parents agrees or not. Kinda explains why you would support someone like Obama with his extreme left politics. The Democrat Socialist of America support him too. When your policies are so far out there the marxists support you it's hard to claim the populist title.
You might want to review that pesky little first amendment to the constitution and while reading it keep in mind the Catholic church considered contraception a sin.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2754461
This is really a weak spin. The Bill is very clear. It legislates the content and parental rights of any s-e-x education course that is taught in elementary, middle and high school. Each of you have referenced the same language that clearly specifies this intent.
To suggest that this language promotes, authorizes, permits, encourages or requires said class to be taught to kindergardeners is completely untrue. READ THE BILL!! It doesn't speak to whether these classes SHOULD be taught or not, but simply addresses the content and parental rights where the course does exist.
Guys, I know that you will support your guy, even if Satan happened to be the Republican nominee for President. You have given yourself to a political party and therefore you will support anything and everything he does. But the language here speaks for itself. To suggest that he is promoting, authorizing or encouraging the teaching of s-e-x education to kindergardeners is, at best, very misleading or, at worst, an outright fabrication. I'd respect you gentlemen more if you just told me that you don't care what he does as long as he wins. To suggest that the ad is "100% accurate" simply shows that you either didn't read, or don't comprehend the Bill. There's no real debate here... but I'll respect that you'll support the guy and argue this thing to death. Good luck.

Crimzy, you're wrong on this.
This Bill modified the S ex Education curriculum of the State. It clearly outlines what is expected for K-12.
Are you trying to argue it's purely hypothetical? If so, why was the language in the Bill changed to lower the age requirement to Kindergarten? Remember, Obama himslef said it applied to K, but that it was for education to avoid s ex predators.
If Obama says it applied to "K" then it's silly to try to argue it didn't, isn't it? Let's also not forget Obama said he was for teaching 2nd graders about homo s exual relationships. That answer was in front of millions in the Democratic debate.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2754479
He did say he wanted a permanent base there like Korea or Germany... and that we would be their 100 yrs if necessary....

No, actually he didn't... We've repeatedly corrected you on this and shown you the proper quote.
"We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day...."
Obama said he would go back, if neccessary, btw... McCain's plan to negotiate a Military Base in a strategic part of the world makes perfect sense unless you are an Isolationist.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2755233
its not a 1st ammendment issue! whats the problem with teaching our kindergarteners about sexual predators? Palin wants to teach abstinence is that --- ed? and ofcourse nothing should be forced. if parents dont want their child exposed to this curiculum then they shouldn't be.
Not to kindergarteners she does not. A Kindergartener can't even read, and you want to teach them about ---? If they aren't fully capable at that age of learning to read in a correct manner, what do you think they will do with information about ---? For god's sake, at this age they still stick strange things in their mouths. You teach them how a baby is made what do you think they will play out at recess. Maybe not the real act...but a playground with 5 year olds humping each other (even playing with clothes on) is not something I want to see.
Hell, while we are at it, let's show them graphic wr pictures as well. Take a field trip to a morgue to see what a dead body looks like and how it changes....that would be great for children. I mean the more information you give them early the better, correct?