actually rebkev, they pulled this up from when he was a running for senate. and one of the main lines that you keep "forgetting" to read is that it would still be up to the parents, as to whether or not they will allow their kids to be included in these classes. and ggniners claims are just about stupid. you guys will just make up anything and call it fact won't ya

implementing this at a federal level is just stupid....as is almost any education initiative by the feds. but if a community wants to teach 5yr olds about good touching and bad touching and parents can opt their kids out of it, i dont see a huge problem with it. this just seems like a big toodoo about nothing.

LaurelEagleSon Wrote:actually rebkev, they pulled this up from when he was a running for senate. and one of the main lines that you keep "forgetting" to read is that it would still be up to the parents, as to whether or not they will allow their kids to be included in these classes. and ggniners claims are just about stupid. you guys will just make up anything and call it fact won't ya

He STILL believes it. This is a recent story AND quote:

Quote:"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"'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."

It's not up to a Senator OR a President to force sex education onto 5 y/o's.

RebelKev Wrote:

LaurelEagleSon Wrote:actually rebkev, they pulled this up from when he was a running for senate. and one of the main lines that you keep "forgetting" to read is that it would still be up to the parents, as to whether or not they will allow their kids to be included in these classes. and ggniners claims are just about stupid. you guys will just make up anything and call it fact won't ya

He STILL believes it. This is a recent story AND quote:

Quote:"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"'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."

It's not up to a Senator OR a President to force sex education onto 5 y/o's.

from what i've read(pleases correct me if im wrong) keyes made it a campaign issue. while obama did work on it at a state level, he has never intended to write a federal bill doing the same thing.

aTxTIGER Wrote:implementing this at a federal level is just stupid....as is almost any education initiative by the feds. but if a community wants to teach 5yr olds about good touching and bad touching and parents can opt their kids out of it, i dont see a huge problem with it. this just seems like a big toodoo about nothing.

the problem with the opt-out argument is its a cop-out. Human Nature would dictate that the kids that don't opt-out will tell their classmates all about what they 'learned' after the fact.

GGniner Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:implementing this at a federal level is just stupid....as is almost any education initiative by the feds. but if a community wants to teach 5yr olds about good touching and bad touching and parents can opt their kids out of it, i dont see a huge problem with it. this just seems like a big toodoo about nothing.

the problem with the opt-out argument is its a cop-out. Human Nature would dictate that the kids that don't opt-out will tell their classmates all about what they 'learned' after the fact.

you mean kids learn about sex from their friends? jk

Not everyone has a responsible parent. Schools are increasingly doing the jobs of parents. The easiest thing to do is to sit back and be a critic.

I don't disagree with many of the positions on this thread... but since you can't have it both ways, I'll play the TRUE Republican...

The federal government has absolutely NO business in the sex lives of our children... None, zero, zilch. The ONLY time this isn't the truth is when the government is invited or REQUIRED to be in those lives. That does not include a 5yr old asking a teacher where babies come from any more than Santa, the tooth fairy or Friday the 13th... or for THAT matter, IS THERE A GOD!! The correct answer for a public educator is... ASK YOUR PARENTS. If I have chosen a religious education for my child, then I should expect a religious answer...

Now.. as to when the government (meaning the people) are INVITED into someones life, that happens the moment that person asks for public assistance... whether it be welfare, healthcare or other public services. At THAT point, you are asking for someone else to bear the expense/burden of YOUR decisions. At that point, we should be allowed to IMPACT your future decisions... meaning placing limits on your activities that cause us to have to be in your life...

but we can't do that, can we...

Machiavelli Wrote:Not everyone has a responsible parent. Schools are increasingly doing the jobs of parents. The easiest thing to do is to sit back and be a critic.

They used to be a helluva lot more responsible in the past. Wonder what brought about the change. Hmmmmmmmm

Hey Reb... I think our two points are related...

People stopped being responsible parents when we created a mechanism whereby their lack of responsibility became an obligation of "the people" rather than their own.

Why make a "tough-good" decision when there's a consequence to it... there's no consequence to the "easy-bad" one

summary:



Vs.

GGniner Wrote:summary:



Vs.

Which one of those authors is still in the Senate?

Fact is, it takes both.

Again, to re-iterate and cut through the propaganda, NOBODY is proposing a federal government program here.

Obama's only saying that as a matter opinion he supports the existence of such programs that ALREADY exist at a state level in MANY states, including Mitt Romney's Massachusetts (while he was governor, no less).

All he's saying is they are appropriate and there should not be federal intervention to ban them, it is a state issue.

Oh but its so much easier to scream OBAMA WANTS TO TALK DIRTY TO YOUR SIX YEAR OLD (AND OH BY THE WAY I HEAR HE'S A MUSLIM)!

It does not take a village to raise a child, OU. Go tell your mom that she couldn't have done it without the help of your neighbors and see what she says. I don't have the balls to do that.

Hambone10 Wrote:I don't disagree with many of the positions on this thread... but since you can't have it both ways, I'll play the TRUE Republican...

The federal government has absolutely NO business in the sex lives of our children... None, zero, zilch. The ONLY time this isn't the truth is when the government is invited or REQUIRED to be in those lives. That does not include a 5yr old asking a teacher where babies come from any more than Santa, the tooth fairy or Friday the 13th... or for THAT matter, IS THERE A GOD!! The correct answer for a public educator is... ASK YOUR PARENTS. If I have chosen a religious education for my child, then I should expect a religious answer...

Now.. as to when the government (meaning the people) are INVITED into someones life, that happens the moment that person asks for public assistance... whether it be welfare, healthcare or other public services. At THAT point, you are asking for someone else to bear the expense/burden of YOUR decisions. At that point, we should be allowed to IMPACT your future decisions... meaning placing limits on your activities that cause us to have to be in your life...

but we can't do that, can we...

Good. Then get your President to stop making abstinence only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS position for sex ed in schools today.

RobertN Wrote:Good. Then get your President to stop making abstinence only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS position for sex ed in schools today.

You thinking we should be pushing for more about promiscuity?

Great plan. :withstupid:

I understand Hambone's point (and somewhat agree with it), but I think you ignore the fact that so many people are born into their situation. It's the nature vs. nurture argument wrapped up in the Eddie Murphy classic "Trading Places".

RebelKev Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:Good. Then get your President to stop making abstinence only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS position for sex ed in schools today.

You thinking we should be pushing for more about promiscuity?

Great plan. :withstupid:

Did I ever say that? I don't think so. I don't have a problem with teaching abstinance but you know as well as I do for most kids in this country will have sex at some point. IT is known that in the south there is a big problem with teen pregnancy because they don't have a clue about sex except for abstinance because you and the church don't want them to learn how to have "safer" sex(notice I used "safer" not "safe" and it should be taught that way-there are risks but if you are going to have sex, do it as safely as possible but abstinance is the best way to go). I am not saying that we should promote sex. I don't think they should get into which positions are good etc. Just teach them about how to use condoms(though I know you think that is teaching them to be promiscuous). Having said all that, you are against the federal government teaching our kids about sex, yet when Bush(ie. federal government) tells the schools they have to be abstinance only, you have no problems? That is very hypocritical.