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

reply to post by sc2099


Last I checked McCain is the GOP candidate. He laucned the Ads. Therefore... duh.

Also, you said BO's plan wouldn't have done any good. And you're right. But again are you saying America is a group of natives worshiping a Pepsi can?(If anyone knows what the tribe, where it was, anything please speak up cause its on the tip of my tongue and I can't remember!)

Originally posted by sc2099

Originally posted by Krieger
reply to post by sc2099

 

Maybe she would have fought back?

I cannot even believe you are being serious right now. A 5 year old rape victim would have fought off her abuser if she had been taught sex ed at 4. I have no words for that kind of ignorance.

A young child can run away or scream if they have warning that the situation is dangerous. Will this be true for all? no, but it will help some children and given alternative I side with the childrens right to know.

reply to post by Krieger


*sigh* I can't believe I am even replying to this but,

You are thinking of the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy", a campy relic from the 80s, and most importantly, a FICTIONAL story. A coke can fell out of an airplane and the people in an African tribe thought it was a sign from god.

And no, I am not comparing America to these ficticious native Africans. Like I said, you're just saying anything to get people to read your response. I'm going to be leaving this thread now...

See you, space cowboy.

Originally posted by jsobecky
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.

In the defense if Kreiger and myself here is the supposedly contradictory statements. Reread them - slowly. It's ok. We all make mistakes.

reply to post by sc2099


Thank you! Gah, I must find that movie. I knew I heard of it somewhere. Driving me crazy trying to think of what/who it was.

Anyways, fine, don't protect children from pedophiles. But then watch as you and the GOP blame Obama for an increase in pedophilia if he is elected.

Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Originally posted by sc2099
reply to davion:

The concept only takes a sexual overtone if you are an adult or older kid. It does not to a kindergartener because they have no idea of what sex is. Which is exactly the reason this discussion should not be initiated in the context of sex ed.

That's, uh, what I said. It only has a sexual overtone to those that are old enough, but that tone is still there, isn't it? I am not saying that they should be taught about it in a sexual way, I am saying that is what would be age appropriate, which to my knowledge is already taught anyway in some capacity.

Originally posted by nyk537
Ask and you shall receive.

Syllabus for Sex-Ed Program

If you jump up to page 50, you can find the beginnings of the curriculum. Level 1 outlines the agenda for ages 5 through 8.

Within, we find such gems as

Bodies can feel good when touched.

Masturbation, either alone or with a partner, is one way people can enjoy and express their sexuality without risking pregnancy or an STD/HIV.

Hm. WOW. Wonder who would be teaching these matters to the kids?

Wonder if they will do a thorough check on the teacher, like they do now with all the teacher predators we currently have problems with.

reply to post 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.

Would you please POST where you THINK you see this information?

I dont think you will be able to - correctly - in regards to K5 being taught what you claim in the quote above?

You're really slinging mud here.

Prove it and I will apologize.




...over my dead body...

[edit on 15-9-2008 by silo13]

Again, teaching children "Good touch bad touch" is a good thing. And I think its smart to teach them that touching in places can feel good but if an adult or whatever touches you there it is bad and you need to tell another adult. As said by someone else, a pedophile may use the line "Don't worry, see, it feels good."

So again, Obama's sex ed plan is to protect children from pedophiles. Why is McCain launching National Ads attacking this?

reply to post by Krieger

Originally posted by Krieger
Also, you said BO's plan wouldn't have done any good. And you're right.

Just fyi, this is not "BO's plan". He merely supports it.

And further, it is nothing new. Just a rehashing of the old agenda to remove parental rights and instill the gov't into our classrooms.

reply to post by Krieger

Originally posted by Krieger
So again, Obama's sex ed plan is to protect children from pedophiles. Why is McCain launching National Ads attacking this?

Because we're saying. for the umpteenth time

"Hey Obama. That is my kid and I will teach him/her about those things when they are ready, at their own pace. I know my child better than you ever will, so don't presume to say you should teach them this sensitive information.

Stay out of our classrooms, Obama, and stop trying to teach our kids about sex."

reply to post by jsobecky


He's not trying to teach children about sex he's trying to protect them from pedophiles. Why that is so bad IDK. Is it just because it's his plan? if McCain had come up with it would you be supporting it? Is this just "Obama supports it so we're against it! Screw the kids and if they get raped and sodomized!"

Now Fox News is pressing Tucker Bounds On False Tax Claims?. Wow..Just Wow..Fox!

You remember what happened to CNN when Tucker was pressed By Campbell Brown. McCain canceled his appearance on Larry King.

Rove, Romney and Now Fox..What a strange Week

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by silo13


I posted the proposed curriculum on the previous page and specifically outlined some of the course topics for K-5. Go back and look at it.

And honsetly your apology couldn't mean less to me.

Originally posted by nyk537
Ask and you shall receive.

Syllabus for Sex-Ed Program

If you jump up to page 50, you can find the beginnings of the curriculum. Level 1 outlines the agenda for ages 5 through 8.

Within, we find such gems as

Bodies can feel good when touched.

Masturbation, either alone or with a partner, is one way people can enjoy and express their sexuality
without risking pregnancy or an STD/HIV.

Among others...

This is deceptive. The first example is for level 1, which is ages 5-8, but the second example about HIV is recommended for level 3, which is ages 12-15. They are incorrectly both labeled as level 1 in this post.

There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

1. If the ad is indeed a lie, there is a perfect way to expose it as such and get a lot of free publicity for doing so. Someone from the BO campaign should start a libel suit against the McCain campaign. The news media would eat it up with free 24/7 coverage of the court proceedings.

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: \ˈlī-bəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a: a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought barchaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2): defamation of a person by written or representational means (3): the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4): the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

2. It does appear, at least to me, that in a narrow reading of the bill in question, the ad is truthful.

13 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. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

The emphasis in the preceeding paragraph is entirely my own.
I have removed the deleted text for easier reading. The full text can be found at: The full text of SB0099

What concerns me is the use of the word "shall". I find it difficult to imagine a way to educate someone on preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases without some mention of the sexual act itself or at least of the body parts involved. If the word "shall" were replaced with the word "may" this portion of the bill would have a whole different meaning.

If the intent of the bill was to educate kindergarteners on the good touch/bad touch principles, the bill was poorly written to say the least.

I wonder if half the people who voted on it bothered to read the entire text of the bill. I wouldn't be surprised if they did not. Not because they are lazy, but because of the sheer volume of text that must cross their desks in the execution of their duties as Representatives/Senators. Some of these bills are even more verbose than I am.

reply to post by BomSquad

Originally posted by BomSquad
There are a couple of points I'd like to make.

1. If the ad is indeed a lie, there is a perfect way to expose it as such and get a lot of free publicity for doing so. Someone from the BO campaign should start a libel suit against the McCain campaign. The news media would eat it up with free 24/7 coverage of the court proceedings.

The fact is, the ad is true. Obama admitted he supports it. I already supplied a link in this thread showing that.