Cite that he voted for the bill in committee? Cite that even if he did, cite that it wasn’t on the understanding that age appropriate language would be added?
Quit trying to weasel this. Obama did not support or vote for a bill that would “teach comprehensive sex education to 5 year olds.” That claim is bullshit.
What the fuck is “explicit sex education?”
The bill was not aimed at kindergarteners alone. The meaning of the word “comprehensive” was that it would cover all grades from K-12 in an age appropriate way. The suggestion that Obama wanted to teach “explicit” sex education in Kindergarten is a load of shit, and your insinuation that it even might be true, or that we’re taking his “word” for this when we can read the text of the bill for ourselves is strawclutching garbage.
Seriously, Moto, do you deep down believe in your heart that Barack Obama even MIGHT have wanted to teach 5 year olds about blowjobs and condoms and anal sex? Is that something you sincerely believe is a real possibility? Do you think John McCain really believes it?
And that’s what it comes down to, isn’t it? Why can we not have an intellectually honest conversation?
Because Republicans are involved.
At this point I’m far less concerned about what Obama wanted to do than what the legislation would have permitted others to do - and I think many Democrats would agree with the general concept of that.
After all, they have argued for years over the wisdom of handing Bush “blank checks.”
Again, I don’t think Obama’s denials were complete - there is evidence other places that what he wants to teach kids goes beyond just abuse prevention. (I hasten to add that in general what he has talked about seems reasonable.) And I think this could be the topic of a vigorous debate - it just makes for a lousy ad.
Nice way to weasel out of the question, but the legislation would have allowed nothing inappropriate.
I don’t see how they could have been any MORE complete, but you don’t have to take his word for it. All yoiu have to do is read the bill.
Cite that any such evidence exists for what he wanted to teach in kindergarten.
I’ll ask you again, do you deep down believe in your heart that Barack Obama even MIGHT have wanted to teach 5 year olds about blowjobs and condoms and anal sex? Is that something you sincerely believe is a real possibility? Do you think John McCain really believes it?
Bricker, I tend to avoid religious discussions because they are rarely fruitful, and combining that with a man’s politics is tilting at windmills, but I’m wondering why you seem to place such a high priority on money (viz, your personal wealth) over the personal integrity and character of the candidates, and how you reconcile this high priority you place with your faith.
Jesus said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" (Matthew 22:21).
"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon." Matthew 6:19-21,24
Note: I’m not trying to persuade you to to vote for Obama. I merely offer it as food for thought. In fact, I expect you to tell me to piss up a rope. I just don’t understand how a someone can say they worship Christ and look to him as their primary inspiration for morality and yet still covet wealth. :dubious:
You say this, but frankly you don’t know that. The legislation was pretty general, and even after inserting the age-appropriate language left an awful lot to interpretation by local officials.
I said before this sounded reasonable - but it isn’t merely abuse prevention, as Obama’s spokesperson claimed. This quote demonstrates that pretty well. And once we head off into this territory, we’re into a pretty vast debate over what is appropriate information, and at what age.
Answer my question, please.
I have answered it as much as it needs to be answered.
Could you answer with a straight yes or no, please?
Incidentally, having some experience with this, I can tell you that the kind of information that typically would be given at that age for where questions about where babies come from does not include anything about sex but something along the lines of “babies grow in their mothers’ tummies.” How the baby got there is not discussed.
Sure, and that’s fine. But the legislation only said “age-appropriate” without spelling out what that entailed - and even that had to be added in. It goes without saying that your idea of that and mine - not to mention countless other people - will differ.
Do I think he wanted to teach inappropriate things? Nope. Would this legislation have permitted others to do so? Maybe. I don’t know what other controls were in place. The legislation by itself leaves too much to interpretation for my taste.
Is this an appropriate campaign topic? Yes and no. In long form discussion it is fine - it speaks to how detail oriented Obama is, and to how his record on these education topics is overall. As the topic of an ad it fails - no context is present and the fact that this wasn’t even a bill that was enacted should be considered.
Sorry you don’t get a yes or no. But I hope this helps you.
And he said: “Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’” Do you want the State government to decide what is age appropriate, or do you want the local school board? Do you want the State to either forbid “it’s not the stork” or mandate “it’s not the stork?” I’m having trouble understanding what your issue with letting the local school board decide rather than the State government.
I’m surprised at this exercise in musical chairs to see who is the last rightie tightie standing when the music stops.
If you’d ask me who would stand out as perpetuating a smear that even Bricker and Sam Stone and even Scylla for gods sakes would condemn as despicable, there would have been bigger douchebags than Mr. Moto who I would have predicted would still be trying to carry the baton.
Just shows ta go ya, I suppose.
I assume you not calling for a literal beheading of Ms. Coulter.
I have often criticized her on these boards, and I don’t remember ever praising her. Here, that’s about as much as can be done.
It’s not ok with me that she refers to all liberals as treasonous, or even all liberals as godless, and I’ve said so before. She’s a hatemonger. I wish she would drop off the face of the earth, publicity-wise.
You miscast my position.
When voting for a candidate, typically I seek to support someone who will support and continue the policies I favor.
It’s not simply my money I’m seeking to protect – I would not, for example, for vote for a candidate that said, “Let’s tax the upper 5%, but put in a special exemption for Bricker, so he pays the old tax rate.” That would certainly be to my financial benefit, yet it’s not what I’m looking for.
It’s my view that there’s both a moral wrongness and a fiscal unwiseness in taxing the wealthy with crushingly higher tax rates. It’s true that this happens to benefit me personally now.
But my father was an immigrant from El Salvador, who came here with not much more than the clothes on his back, and grew up in a shanty-town type house with a dirt floor and corrugated tin roof. When I was young, we were a poor family. And yet even in high school and college, where I worked multiple jobs and had almost nothing in terms of extra money, I was against taxing the rich in this manner.
So my view is not based on my own, personal financial situation.
Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?
A little unfair. Moto is merely pointing out that this legislation is not necessarily a splendid example of mental hygiene, that there are some grey areas that would require further definition.
And when John McCain put his name to this ad, he was constrained by the time limits of a campaign ad, had no “room” to introduce these difficult topics into the conversation, so had no real choice but to suggest that Mr Obama and the various pedophiles in the Illinois legislature were seeking to screen porno films for the edification of pre-schoolers.
We should further be mindful that Sen McCain is a war hero, a status the drapes a permanent mantle of sanctity and virtue about him. In case you weren’t already aware of that. (Unless, of course, after being a war hero you turn into a dirty fucking hippy, like Kerry. Sanctity is revoked under such circumstances.)
Nuance, people. This isn’t simply a cut-and-dried case of political slander, there’s nuance.
(deleted double post)
There are always people, parents and groups who might object to any part of any sex ed curriculum. This also should go without saying, and is the source of the very first part of the Illinois bill:
If a parent feels that their given district’s sex-ed curriculum is inappropriate at any or all grade levels, they are free, have always been free, to pull their child out.
Even if someone could somehow make an objective case that Obama personally wanted to visit schools and teach kindergarteners how to use condoms, this bill can not mandate that a single student would be forced to attend such a demonstration.
Hey, here’s a newsflash - Bricker and I don’t always agree.
And while some of you are upset that I haven’t denounced the ad with the vehemence that all of you did (without looking at anything except Obama’s word, from what I can see), the fact is that I don’t agree with what McCain did here and I have said so.
It won’t make me vote for Obama, nor should it. But you shouldn’t consider me an uncritical McCain supporter - I’ve had my disagreements with him in the past and undoubtedly will again.