What's going on, Romney: McCain accusation; WRONG & REPREHENSIBLE

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:00 AM
link   
First the infamous Karl Rove who has all the moral authority in the land told Fox News Sunday that "McCain has gone in his ads one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the 100-percent-truth test,"

www.youtube.com...


Now I hear Mitt Romney saying that McCain made False Accusation that Was wrong and reprehensible.

www.youtube.com...


I applaud the GOP for standing up to the dirty campaigning that has been going on. I hope the DEMS take the high road and applaud this as well and not partake in this type of dirty politics.

I know the Dems have done some pretty dirty ad's but nothing compare to those that McCain has done. The one that really gets me is sex education to Kindergarten.

www.youtube.com...

Bottom Line..I'm glad the Republicans are calling wrong wrong and I hope the Dems follow if it fits..

[edit on 15-9-2008 by walkinghomer]




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by walkinghomer
 


Just a quick question for you.

Have you seen the "curriculum" for the sex education courses that Obama wanted to put into place? They did start at K-5, and did include lessons that fell along the lines of "touching yourself feels good, and it's OK to do it."

I'll track them down and put up a link so you can see for yourself.

I for one found them disgusting, and had no problem with McCain's ad.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by walkinghomer
 


Just a quick question for you.

Have you seen the "curriculum" for the sex education courses that Obama wanted to put into place? They did start at K-5, and did include lessons that fell along the lines of "touching yourself feels good, and it's OK to do it."

I'll track them down and put up a link so you can see for yourself.

I for one found them disgusting, and had no problem with McCain's ad.


Looking forward to seeing your link..

Surely you don't see a problem with telling kindergarten's what is appropriate and what is not when it comes to their body. Things such as inappropriate touching and such.

Granted, Parents should be teaching their kids these very very important things but schools can help in some way. Sometimes the perpetrator is a parent or family member. It is unlikely these parents will teach their kids of inappropriate touching when they themselves are the perpetrators. I therefore see nothing wrong with making education a partnership between parents and schools.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by walkinghomer]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by walkinghomer
 


Just a quick question for you.

Have you seen the "curriculum" for the sex education courses that Obama wanted to put into place? They did start at K-5, and did include lessons that fell along the lines of "touching yourself feels good, and it's OK to do it."

I'll track them down and put up a link so you can see for yourself.

I for one found them disgusting, and had no problem with McCain's ad.


You mean this?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by walkinghomer
 


To the OP: what accusation are you speaking about? It is unclear from your post what you are referring to.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by walkinghomer
 


Wow... I was impressed! I had to lift my jaw off the floor.
Rove?

And to address the deflection by nyk537: That was NOT Obama's bill. It was sponsored by Sen. Carol Ronen - M. Maggie Crotty - Susan Garrett - Iris Y. Martinez - Jeffrey M. Schoenberg.

I see davion already covered it.

The Bill

Looking forward to your proof to the contrary.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


Thank you. Some very interesting information I must say. I hope factcheck is considered a reputable source.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by davion
 


Thank you for doing what I was going to do. Present the FACTS. You see, I'm sick of this whole thing. It's not about the major banks filing for bankruptcy and the impact on this economy and the worlds. It's about making up things about your opponent so you can try to scare people into voting for you, who are proving over and over that you are a BIG FAT LIAR! Because, after all, he approves that ad.

Both sides need to wake up because before they know it the people will realize that they are full of crap.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Oh, the infamous "sex education for kindergartener's" blunder. I remember Obama's response to that:



OBAMA: I remember him, uh, using this in his campaign against me, saying, "Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners." (laughter) And, you know, which -- I didn't know what to tell him. But it's the right thing to do".

www.rushlimbaugh.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I agree with you. What exactly is "age appropriate" sex education for 4-5 year olds? I would say nothing.

Children that age do not need to know why a "bad touch" is "bad", only that it is. They don't need to know why a stranger would want to touch them in such a way, only that they should say no, run away, yell for help, and tell their family.

There is no way that it would take more than a few minutes' blurb for a teacher to explain to kindergarteners what touch is bad and what touch is ok. There doesn't need to be an entire curriculum because children that age are on a need-to-know basis and the only thing they need to know is that it's not ok to touch others "here", "here", or "here" and it's not ok for others to touch them that way either.

I have no problem with this ad.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I'm not deflecting BH, and I never said it was Obama's bill. I never even said he was a co-sponsor on it.

He did support the bill though. And the bill did seek to lower the sex ed age to kindergarten. My point is that schools should have no place teaching 5 year old students about sex and masturbation.

As far as I'm concerned that's the parents job. And I realize this bill had the option for parents to withhold their students from the courses.

As such, I have no problem with Obama on this issue. Just the issue itself.

No deflection there.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

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 AIDS


This is the actual text of the bill, lines 13-17. How can anyone say that children below 6th grade should be taught about the sexual transmission of HIV? Honestly! This is beyond ridiculous.

Yes, I know Obama didn't sponsor the bill, but he did vote for it.

Yes, I know parents were offered an opt out option, but the bottom line is that no child that age should be taught this, period. This information has no place in a small child's mind.

edit to add link to bill text, lest I be thought a liar: SB99

[edit on 9/15/2008 by sc2099]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
Have you seen the "curriculum" for the sex education courses that Obama wanted to put into place? They did start at K-5, and did include lessons that fell along the lines of "touching yourself feels good, and it's OK to do it."

I'll track them down and put up a link so you can see for yourself.



Where is the PROOF that you claimed to have about the content of the education for kindergarden? Provide the link or be proved a liar. Kindergardners and preschoolers need to know about stranger danger. Please don't advocate ignorant children. That's what the pedophiles want.

[edit on 9/15/08 by stikkinikki]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099

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 AIDS


This is the actual text of the bill, lines 13-17. How can anyone say that children below 6th grade should be taught about the sexual transmission of HIV? Honestly! This is beyond ridiculous.

Yes, I know Obama didn't sponsor the bill, but he did vote for it.

Yes, I know parents were offered an opt out option, but the bottom line is that no child that age should be taught this, period. This information has no place in a small child's mind.

We had our first sex ed class in 3rd or fourth grade. It was just about biology like body changes and periods. parents had to sign a permissions slip. This was in the 1970's.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 



Originally posted by nyk537
He did support the bill though. And the bill did seek to lower the sex ed age to kindergarten. My point is that schools should have no place teaching 5 year old students about sex and masturbation.

As far as I'm concerned that's the parents job. And I realize this bill had the option for parents to withhold their students from the courses.

As such, I have no problem with Obama on this issue. Just the issue itself.

No deflection there.


I'm confused. Obama supports the bill. You say that it is the domain of the parents. You have a problem with the issue, but not with it's supporters.

Why is that? Because there is a clause to remove your child from the class?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Actually Barack's sex education plan to kinderkids and similar ages is "These places are no no places and if an adult touches them it is wrong." His sex ed plan is to protect children from sexual predators.

Why the GOP has problems with protecting children from pedophiles... I can't believe they can be that partisan. Teaching children the "Bad touch good touch" is a good thing. Why the GOP even has ads saying this is bad...



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
My point is that schools should have no place teaching 5 year old students about sex and masturbation.


Okay. I have read the bill and can't find anything about masturbation.
Can you? In fact, this bill was just to change the existing bill to make it more medically accurate.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099
How can anyone say that children below 6th grade should be taught about the sexual transmission of HIV? Honestly! This is beyond ridiculous.


Read it all.

"All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate."

I'm done feeding this nonsense.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Krieger
 


This part of your response


Originally posted by Krieger
Teaching children the "Bad touch good touch" is a good thing. Why the GOP even has ads saying this is bad...



Shows me that this part of your response is contradictory and downright silly.



Why the GOP has problems with protecting children from pedophiles... I can't believe they can be that partisan.


Proofreading before you hit reply can be your friend.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by sc2099
How can anyone say that children below 6th grade should be taught about the sexual transmission of HIV? Honestly! This is beyond ridiculous.


Read it all.

"All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate."

I'm done feeding this nonsense.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]


BH, I did read it ALL. Every single line. The passage I posted was in the first bloody section. It says explicitly "grades K through 12".

I asked in my first post in this thread, what exactly is age appropriate knowledge about sex and AIDS for 5 year olds. Maybe you should have read all of that.





new topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join