PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Obama and McCain are both unqualified?


Yar-El
10-03-2008, 02:21 PM
Poll: Obama and McCain are both unqualified?

Both men have issues that I just don't like. Obama is a human poster selling positive words without substance. McCain is just too soft and unmoving as a leader. We have two devils at the door.

We are back at the 2000 election all over again. Our options back then were dumb and scary. George the second and Al Gore. Now, we have poster boy and the dough boy.

Lets hear it, are they both unqualified?

I'm going to get a rash of heat for this poll. :D

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 02:39 PM
Just Obama is unqualified, McCain is perfectly qualified, McCain has actually led stuff. The only thing Obama has led is radical left wing foundations.

Astor
10-03-2008, 02:43 PM
Both are unqualified to lead as President - they've both spent far too long arguing with each other that I don't think any of them have actually thought about what they'll do when they actually become President.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 02:45 PM
Both are unqualified to lead as President - they've both spent far too long arguing with each other that I don't think any of them have actually thought about what they'll do when they actually become President.

They can't predict everything that will happen between now and when one of them take office you do realize that.

Nedak
10-03-2008, 02:47 PM
Just Obama is unqualified, McCain is perfectly qualified, McCain has actually led stuff. The only thing Obama has led is radical left wing foundations.

If you're basing that off the fact that he was in Vietnam, that's a weak argument.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 02:57 PM
If you're basing that off the fact that he was in Vietnam, that's a weak argument.

Actually, I'm basing it off of the fact he lead a Military Squadron after he got back and completely turned it around in the positive direction. He also has a long history of bucking his party for the good of the country.

He headed the investigation that got Tom Delay kicked out of the United States Senate, he got the Republican Senate Majority Leader kicked out of office.


Obama's history is voting along party lines.

Astor
10-03-2008, 03:00 PM
Actually, I'm basing it off of the fact he lead a Military Squadron after he got back and completely turned it around in the positive direction.

No matter how good a squadron commander he was, it doesn't necessarily make him a great choice for President.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 03:08 PM
No matter how good a squadron commander he was, it doesn't necessarily make him a great choice for President.

It matters if it was in horrible shape when he got command of it and then by the time he left, he had completely turned it around.


That's executive experience - management skill.

Something a President needs to have.

Nedak
10-03-2008, 03:22 PM
It matters if it was in horrible shape when he got command of it and then by the time he left, he had completely turned it around.


That's executive experience - management skill.

Something a President needs to have.

A military unit and a country are two different things.


Also, interesting videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGdHTb9zxc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk

Palin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg&feature=related

Sarah Palin also

"In 2007, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing the hunting of wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations. In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs."
WTF?

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 03:29 PM
It matters if it was in horrible shape when he got command of it and then by the time he left, he had completely turned it around.


That's executive experience - management skill.

Something a President needs to have.

No, it is not "management skill". In a military unit, when you're in charge, you are IN CHARGE. When you say jump, they ask how high. When you tell them to fight, they fight. You get the picture.

The country, the government, it doesn't work that way. If the president comes to Congress and says "pass this bill" Congress has every right to tell him to get lost.

Running a military unit and running a government/nation are two totally different kettles of fish.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 03:37 PM
No, it is not "management skill". In a military unit, when you're in charge, you are IN CHARGE. When you say jump, they ask how high. When you tell them to fight, they fight. You get the picture.

The country, the government, it doesn't work that way. If the president comes to Congress and says "pass this bill" Congress has every right to tell him to get lost.

Running a military unit and running a government/nation are two totally different kettles of fish.

Not if you're also handling procurement among other things, that's management, granted that's not business management, but it's still management.

Astor
10-03-2008, 03:40 PM
Not if you're also handling procurement among other things, that's management, granted that's not business management, but it's still management.

But it's still nothing like, or even on the same scale as running an entire country.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 03:44 PM
But it's still nothing like, or even on the same scale as running an entire country.

But what has Obama run though.

Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.

jrrtoken
10-03-2008, 03:53 PM
Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.:lol: That's a good one there. I'd rather have a turnip run the U.S. than Palin.

but to the point, both are rather unqualified, but I'd rather see Obama and Biden set foot in the White House than her.

Nedak
10-03-2008, 03:56 PM
But what has Obama run though.

Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.

Yes, she ran horribly. I guess if you would rather have a person who ran horribly as VP (or President) over a person who only wants to help people then that's sad.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-03-2008, 04:10 PM
But what has Obama run though.

Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.

I've never actually heard or seen anyone say that Palin is qualified to be the Vice President, nevermind more qualified than McCain and Obama. Almost every time someone has been allowed to ask her a question, she's made an ass of herself or gone off on a tangent about soccer moms or kids.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 04:33 PM
A military unit and a country are two different things.


Also, interesting videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGdHTb9zxc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM3oww9Vk-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk

Palin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg&feature=related

Sarah Palin also

"In 2007, Palin supported the Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing the hunting of wolves from helicopters as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose populations. In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs."
WTF?

As someone whom has watched and can actually attest to Youtube management actually taking sides in this Presidential Election, I'm going to hesitate in believing any of the pro-Obama youtube vids. Because they've been yanking the pro-McCain ones left and right.

Nedak
10-03-2008, 05:59 PM
As someone whom has watched and can actually attest to Youtube management actually taking sides in this Presidential Election, I'm going to hesitate in believing any of the pro-Obama youtube vids. Because they've been yanking the pro-McCain ones left and right.

These videos were aired on national TV. All (except maybe the second link) is un bias.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 06:09 PM
These videos were aired on national TV. All (except maybe the second link) is un bias.

Problem is that some of the videos are editted to strip out parts.

Nedak
10-03-2008, 06:15 PM
Problem is that some of the videos are editted to strip out parts.

Find the full transcripts and prove them wrong then.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 06:26 PM
Okay here's the thing, youtube has been taking down things that are proMcCain and/or Anti-Obama left and right. So the odds of being able to find the full video if it was editted isn't that good.

Astor
10-03-2008, 06:33 PM
Okay here's the thing, youtube has been taking down things that are proMcCain and/or Anti-Obama left and right. So the odds of being able to find the full video if it was editted isn't that good.

Can you actually prove that they're being taken down?

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 06:40 PM
Can you actually prove that they're being taken down?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o


Here's an example of one I've seen that got taken down, the Obama people have had people go through and file all these complaints accusations of anything copyright violations etc. In order to remove things that criticize Obama.

Nedak
10-03-2008, 07:23 PM
Okay here's the thing, youtube has been taking down things that are proMcCain and/or Anti-Obama left and right. So the odds of being able to find the full video if it was editted isn't that good.

First of all you have no proof of that. Youtube is extremely unbiased.

Also, I didn't ask for videos I asked for transcripts.

Has it ever accrued to you that maybe you're buying into other people's lies?

I'm not even a liberal and I see that.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 07:33 PM
First of all you have no proof of that. Youtube is extremely unbiased.

Also, I didn't ask for videos I asked for transcripts.

Has it ever accrued to you that maybe you're buying into other people's lies?

I'm not even a liberal and I see that.

I'm waiting for his source too. But don't you think videos with words in them can carry just as much substance and weight as typed words?

Nedak
10-03-2008, 07:56 PM
I'm waiting for his source too. But don't you think videos with words in them can carry just as much substance and weight as typed words?

Well lets see.

The first video was taken from a McCain interview. Was not cut.

“I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.”

The second video:
Showing how similar fox news attacks Obama as they did Kerry. I don't see how you could disprove or argue against that.

Third Video:
This was actually aired on tv and I watched an interview with one of his advisers saying that he didn't think it was "inappropriate."

Fourth Video:
Please disapprove it, all other research of done supports this.

Fifth Video:
She said this her self. It's a direct video off of CBS.com

Also for my information on her bounty on wolves. Look it up, it's all over.

SD Nihil
10-03-2008, 08:17 PM
Well lets see.

The first video was taken from a McCain interview. Was not cut.

“I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.”

The second video:
Showing how similar fox news attacks Obama as they did Kerry. I don't see how you could disprove or argue against that.

Third Video:
This was actually aired on tv and I watched an interview with one of his advisers saying that he didn't think it was "inappropriate."

Fourth Video:
Please disapprove it, all other research of done supports this.

Fifth Video:
She said this her self. It's a direct video off of CBS.com

Also for my information on her bounty on wolves. Look it up, it's all over.

That's why I said "can" they. Of course not always. Yes some videos are not cut to show the parts you want. Neither always are words. But both can be.

But yes I wait for his source. He hasn't posted yet so I think he's done for the night and will be back tomarrow.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 11:27 PM
Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics)


Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all?

Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqyt2vac4E&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_24602

So McCain is telling the truth.

Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there.
An example: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/

Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-04-2008, 12:24 AM
Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics)


Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all?

Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqyt2vac4E&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_24602

So McCain is telling the truth.

Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there.
An example: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/

Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview.“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”

Hmm... I wonder if this "Newsbusters" site you linked to may have a bias...


Can you at least cite sources that aren't blatantly biased?

Nedak
10-04-2008, 04:05 AM
Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics)
He didn't actually mean to say that, but the fact that it was in his mind is scary. All videos I've seen don't seem to be cut. They also include the entire interview.


Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all?
You're missing the point. Also, you're just buying into what they say like that without doing any research?

Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNqyt2vac4E&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_24602

So McCain is telling the truth.
The video didn't work for me and the guy didn't include a source.

Here is mine:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx

It was to get kids aware of sexual predators.

Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there.
Woa, are you saying that they're in it for money with the Oil Companies.? Read about what Sarah Palin's relationship with Oil Companies are.

An example: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/
Please give a more reliable source.

Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview.

That's the offical CBS Youtube channel.. Also here is the transcript:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml

EnderWiggin
10-04-2008, 09:27 AM
But what has Obama run though.

Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place.

Wot.

Are you serious? Or did I just not understand the joke?

_EW_

GarfieldJL
10-04-2008, 08:50 PM
Wot.

Are you serious? Or did I just not understand the joke?

_EW_

Yes, I am serious.


@ han sala

I'm well aware what CBN's interview said, and the video I posted mentioned that I believe. If you do the google search like the video I posted Illinois State Assembly Bill S-99 and look at the actual bill. Obama lied to CBN, there is no other way around it.

The text showed in that video that is quoting the bill is true, I've read the bill myself.

Nedak
10-05-2008, 01:04 AM
@ han sala

I'm well aware what CBN's interview said, and the video I posted mentioned that I believe. If you do the google search like the video I posted Illinois State Assembly Bill S-99 and look at the actual bill. Obama lied to CBN, there is no other way around it.

The text showed in that video that is quoting the bill is true, I've read the bill myself.

Please give me a direct link to the bill itself. I can't see anybody proposing the idea of having sex education in kindergarten. There would be no need of it. Please give me the direct link that isn't Youtube.

Inyri
10-05-2008, 01:38 AM
Hasn't this 'sex ed' thing come up (and been explained) about a thousand times already?

Web Rider
10-05-2008, 02:14 AM
Hasn't this 'sex ed' thing come up (and been explained) about a thousand times already?

Yes, it has, and the bill has nothing to do with teaching little kiddies how to use condoms or anything sexual. And: in before "well have you read the bill?!" yes, I have.

mimartin
10-05-2008, 08:37 PM
The question is absurd. Yes, they are both qualified to be President. The unqualified one has been living at the White House the last eight years.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 10:05 AM
Yes, it has, and the bill has nothing to do with teaching little kiddies how to use condoms or anything sexual. And: in before "well have you read the bill?!" yes, I have.

I have too, and I'm coming to a completely different interpretation, and I read it on the Illinois State Assembly's website.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true

Yes they have a line in there about parents saying their kids should not participate, however the parents have to write the school. There is nothing about the school needing to tell parents or having to ask permission.

So the school does not need permission to teach it like most states or rather permission is assumed, they have to be told by the parents in writing that they do not want their kid to be taught this stuff.

Only two other states are like this: California and Massachusetts, the other states require parents to sign a permission slip in order for this stuff to be taught to their kids. I've read the bill and unless it's toward the end I haven't seen anything about protecting oneself from pedophiles.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 10:29 AM
I've read the bill and unless it's toward the end I haven't seen anything about protecting oneself from pedophiles.
You need to read it again. :confused:

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 10:33 AM
You need to read it again. :confused:

Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education.

ChAiNz.2da
10-06-2008, 10:54 AM
You need to read it again. :confused:

Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education.

(6) Course material and instruction shall advise
28 pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any
29 age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations
30 with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal
31 Code of 1961.

.....

8 (9) Course material and instruction shall teach
9 pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual
10 advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances
11 and shall include information about verbal, physical, and
12 visual sexual harassment, including without limitation
13 nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical
14 sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course
15 material and instruction shall contain methods of
16 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including
17 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that
18 impairs one's judgment. The course material and
19 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
20 respect for others and shall also encourage youth to
21 resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
22 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal
23 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance.
24 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
25 to touch an intimate part of another person, as specified
26 in the Criminal Code of 1961.

Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.)

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:06 AM
Uh that's a nice bill, except it's not SB-0099 which is what I'm referring to... :¬:

ChAiNz.2da
10-06-2008, 11:09 AM
I have too, and I'm coming to a completely different interpretation, and I read it on the Illinois State Assembly's website.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true

Uh that's a nice bill, except it's not SB-0099 which is what I'm referring to... :¬:
That not your link?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:13 AM
Funny, but this is the link you were using:
Criminal Offenses: (720 ILCS S 5/) Criminal code of 1961:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

This is the link I posted:
093_SB0099
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true

You are looking at the wrong bill, btw the link I gave is for ease of printting.

ChAiNz.2da
10-06-2008, 11:14 AM
Funny, but this is your link:
Criminal Offenses: (720 ILCS S 5/) Criminal code of 1961:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

This is my link:
093_SB0099
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true
My link is a source link of the criminal code that YOUR link refers to in the parts I pasted ;)

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:16 AM
My link is a source link of the criminal code that YOUR link refers to in the parts I pasted ;)

Where does it refer to the criminal code, what section of the bill, wait I found it all the way down in section 4 of the bill...

So sections 1-3 covers all this other stuff concerning sex ed and you finally get to the stuff about sexual abuse in section 4... And again at the end of section 10 and beginning of section 11.

Jeez we have stuff about biology, sexual behavior, etc., I thought this was supposed to only be about protecting from pedophiles and sexual predators, seems to be a little bit more than than necessary.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 11:18 AM
Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education. That is distorting the point. The bias FoxNews media and McCain’s approved ad is saying that the bill makes it law to teach comprehensive sex education to Kindergarteners.
Announcer: Education Week says Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education." That he's "elusive" on accountability. "A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family. From newsweek.com FACTCHECK.ORG (http://www.newsweek.com/id/158314)

Despite McCain and Fox News scare tactics, anyone can read the bill (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=99&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=734&SessionID=3&GA=93). Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually. I believe the problem is math. Fox News and John McCain do not know 6th grade is long after kindergartener.

(1) Course material and instruction shall be age appropriate I believe this means you are not going to teach a senior at the same level as we do a 6 year-old. I don't see what so hard for McCain or Fox News to understand about that. We don't teach math the same to kindergarteners as we do senior in high school either. Yet, we do teach both math.

Feel free to show me (within the bill) how you have came to the conclusion that this bill wants to teach kindergarteners comprehensive sex education. If it did do you really believe Republican such as Alan Keyes would have supported it?

Despite Fox News and McCain’s saying otherwise, Democratic want to protect our children too.

ChAiNz.2da
10-06-2008, 11:20 AM
(6) Course material and instruction shall advise
28 pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any
29 age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations
30 with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal
31 Code of 1961.

.....

8 (9) Course material and instruction shall teach
9 pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual
10 advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances
11 and shall include information about verbal, physical, and
12 visual sexual harassment, including without limitation
13 nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical
14 sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course
15 material and instruction shall contain methods of
16 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including
17 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that
18 impairs one's judgment. The course material and
19 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and
20 respect for others and shall also encourage youth to
21 resist negative peer pressure. The course material and
22 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal
23 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance.
24 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
25 to touch an intimate part of another person, as specified
26 in the Criminal Code of 1961.

Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961. (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.)

Where does it refer to the criminal code, what section of the bill?

in yellow

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:28 AM
Again, I said I found the sections, but they are burried in the bill, if this was what the entire bill was supposed to be about it didn't need sections 1-3...

What you are talking about is sections 4, end of 10 and beginning of 11, and it is also entirely directed towards male pupils being the ones at fault.

See the scandals involving Female Teachers with young boys, that's sexual abuse too.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 11:47 AM
See the scandals involving Female Teachers with young boys, that's sexual abuse too. Really?

But you, like obliviously John McCain and FoxNews, don't believe it is appropriate to teach children that that type of attention is inappropriate and what to do about it?

That is one of the major purposes of SB0099.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:49 AM
Really?

But you, like obliviously John McCain and FoxNews, don't believe it is appropriate to teach children that that type of attention is inappropriate and what to do about it?

That is one of the major purposes of SB0099.

Uh my problem with the bill has to do with sections 1-3.

If it was restricted to only the stuff about people trying to sexually abuse them and how to recognize it, then it wouldn't be a problem. The other stuff in the bill is a bit a much, and that's what McCain is referring to.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 11:53 AM
No, McCain ad said that his problem was the bill taught comprehensive sex education to Kindergarteners.

However, he fails to take into consideration this line from the bill course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

As to the other parts of the bill that have nothing to do with Kindergarteners, I find preventing HIV, sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies a worthy cause.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:09 PM
As to the other parts of the bill that have nothing to do with Kindergarteners, I find preventing HIV, sexual transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies a worthy cause.

Read section 1 again, because you're missing a key piece:

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

(had to manually take out crossed out words)

It goes on to say:
19 (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high
20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual
21 activity or behavior shall emphasize that
22 abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is
(25) pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases,
26 and HIV when
27 transmitted sexually.


Note lines 23-24 were all crossed out.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true

mimartin
10-06-2008, 12:27 PM
12 All course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate. :rolleyes:

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:29 PM
mimartin does this legislation define what is developmentally appropriate for a kindergartner or any of the grade levels concerning this stuff.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 12:38 PM
No, that is left up to the local school board. I thought that someone that believed in the Conservative Agenda would think that was the best part of the bill. Shouldn’t deciding that locally be more appropriate than the state government dictating it?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:43 PM
No, that is left up to the local school board. I thought that someone that believed in the Conservative Agenda would think that was the best part of the bill. Shouldn’t deciding that locally be more appropriate than the state government dictating it?

Not when the decisions are arbitrary based on people's whims. If you're going to make a law like this you need to be specific.

Astor
10-06-2008, 12:46 PM
Not when the decisions are arbitrary based on people's whims. If you're going to make a law like this you need to be specific.

That's the double-edged sword though. Too specific and people will complain it's too much, and too vague and people will complain it's not detailed enough.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:51 PM
That's the double-edged sword though. Too specific and people will complain it's too much, and too vague and people will complain it's not detailed enough.

Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids.

However, reason I'm saying local government is not a good idea, see a certain city in California as an example of potential abuse.

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 01:36 PM
Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids.

However, reason I'm saying local government is not a good idea, see a certain city in California as an example of potential abuse.

As of this month, there are 480 cities in California. Be more specific.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 01:41 PM
Wait a minute; you don’t want the control coming from the local school district? You know the government entity that has the ability to listen to the concerns of the parents that have children in that district.

Just use your California example: Would you really want the state setting the details or you local school district? Personally, I’d rather the local school district make the decision. If I don’t like their decision I can make me feeling known to them and the community. I can actually run against them in the next election or I can move my child to a different district. Sure, I can move to a different state, but it is a little easier just moving the child.

Actually, this is something I don't even think schools should be handling, this is something where parents need to take responsibility for their kids. I agree, but since teen pregnancy, sexual transmitted dieses and HIV are still an issue we should make this education available in schools. If the parents want to teach the child themselves they can always opt their child out of the class.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 02:47 PM
Wait a minute; you don’t want the control coming from the local school district? You know the government entity that has the ability to listen to the concerns of the parents that have children in that district.


Depends, some of it should be handled by the state, some on the Federal Level and some at the city level.


Just use your California example: Would you really want the state setting the details or you local school district? Personally, I’d rather the local school district make the decision. If I don’t like their decision I can make me feeling known to them and the community. I can actually run against them in the next election or I can move my child to a different district. Sure, I can move to a different state, but it is a little easier just moving the child.


Granted, I was pointing out Nancy Pelosi's district San Fransisco (sp?) as an example of how wacko a local government can be.


I agree, but since teen pregnancy, sexual transmitted dieses and HIV are still an issue we should make this education available in schools. If the parents want to teach the child themselves they can always opt their child out of the class.

Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff.

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff.

I do believe that it has been mentioned a number of times that the plan would only teach things "age appropriate."

Inyri
10-06-2008, 03:18 PM
It's been mentioned a thousand times and ignored a thousand times by people who want to smear Obama. Are you surprised, though?

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 03:21 PM
It's been mentioned a thousand times and ignored a thousand times by people who want to smear Obama. Are you surprised, though?

Not in the least, Inyri. Not in the least.

So, why do said 'people' continue to ignore this information?

Inyri
10-06-2008, 03:25 PM
It's been stated many times that, as far as young children go, things like "what is inappropriate touching" would be taught so that children would be aware they were being abused instead of thinking it was acceptable. They're not going to be taught how to fit the condom onto the banana.

But circulating smear press about Obama is much more effective, so ignoring the facts for the sake of press is easier and more productive.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 03:27 PM
Not in the least, Inyri. Not in the least.

So, why do said 'people' continue to ignore this information?

Because when we do our own research we've found a lot of the media is outright lieing.

You know the mainstream press is in the tank for Obama when Sean Hannity (whom hates Hillary Clinton with a passion) has to defend Hillary because the media is crossing the line.

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 03:30 PM
Because when we do our own research we've found a lot of the media is outright lieing.
And are these sources credible? And not in your opinion alone- do multiple people of different beliefs acknowledge its credibility?

mimartin
10-06-2008, 03:36 PM
Maybe, but it's a little over the top to be teaching kindergartners about this stuff.
Since they are not teaching kindergartners "this stuff" I have to disagree with you. I believe teaching kindergartners it isn't right for Mr. or Mrs. Pedophile to touch them there is appropriate , but I'm liberal like that thinking it is alright to protect our children from sexual predators.

Inyri
10-06-2008, 03:36 PM
I like how during the Larry Craig sex scandal quite a few Republican news stations thought it would be appropriate to put a little (D) by his name. What were you saying about 'doing your own research' and 'lying,' Garfield?

mimartin
10-06-2008, 03:48 PM
One of the funniest thing I’ve found about this bill is Obama name is not on it. Senate Sponsors: Sen. Carol Ronen - M. Maggie Crotty - Susan Garrett - Iris Y. Martinez - Jeffrey M. Schoenberg He voted for it, but wasn’t even added a co-sponsor. Even Conservative Republicans such as Alan Keyes supported this bill because it attempts to help protect children. However, now some are out to make that a bad thing.

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 05:14 PM
How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 05:17 PM
How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'?

That's what I'm wondering...

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 05:26 PM
That's what I'm wondering...

Perhaps you don't teach it until the students are at a certain age? For the thousandth time, the bill wasn't even sponsored by Obama (provided by mimartin), and even still, it advocates teaching age appropriate material. They're not going to tell a first grader how AIDS is transmitted.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 05:42 PM
One of the funniest thing I’ve found about this bill is Obama name is not on it.


Then why does he name it as one of his key accomplishments then?


He voted for it, but wasn’t even added a co-sponsor. Even Conservative Republicans such as Alan Keyes supported this bill because it attempts to help protect children. However, now some are out to make that a bad thing.

And they need to be held accountable too, I really don't hold government in Illinois in high regard though, they are well known for corruption.

Perhaps you don't teach it until the students are at a certain age? For the thousandth time, the bill wasn't even sponsored by Obama (provided by mimartin), and even still, it advocates teaching age appropriate material. They're not going to tell a first grader how AIDS is transmitted.
So then why is it mandatory then according to the bill it's required to be taught in an age appropriate manner but they still have to teach it to that grade level.

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 06:51 PM
So then why is it mandatory then according to the bill it's required to be taught in an age appropriate manner but they still have to teach it to that grade level.

I'm sorry, I don't fully understand what you said. Would you rephrase your question, please?

mimartin
10-06-2008, 06:58 PM
How exactly do you teach about an STI while remaining 'Age and Development level appropriate'?

You don't. You only teach what is appropriate at any given level. I really don’t understand what is so difficult to understand or so awful about that.

I should be outraged that the bill puts too much emphasis on abstinences. We all know how well only teaching that works with some children.

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 07:02 PM
I should be outraged that the bill puts too much emphasis on abstinences. We all know how well only teaching that works with some children.

I nearly started an uprising in my class when I learned that the sex-ed course would be abstinence-based, if that gives you guys any idea of its effectiveness. ;)

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Aww, how incredibly ludicrous.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 07:41 PM
I nearly started an uprising in my class when I learned that the sex-ed course would be abstinence-based, if that gives you guys any idea of its effectiveness. ;)

We needed to know that why?

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 07:57 PM
Aww, how incredibly ludicrous.
Please, tell me how this is ludicrous.

We needed to know that why?
I felt that it was pertinent to the discussion at hand (It was supporting the idea that abstinence-based sex-education isn't the proper way to teach, in my opinion).

EnderWiggin
10-06-2008, 09:16 PM
I believe teaching kindergartners it isn't right for Mr. or Mrs. Pedophile to touch them there is appropriate , but I'm liberal like that thinking it is alright to protect our children from sexual predators.

Unfortunately, I'm liberal like that too :rolleyes:

We needed to know that why?

Wow, how personally offensive and uncalled for.

Uh my problem with the bill has to do with sections 1-3.

If it was restricted to only the stuff about people trying to sexually abuse them and how to recognize it, then it wouldn't be a problem. The other stuff in the bill is a bit a much, and that's what McCain is referring to.

So at first you said the bill didn't contain those parts, then ChAiNz showed you and quoted it (twice), and now we're just disregarding it because you don't want to talk about it?

_EW_

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 09:52 PM
I felt that it was pertinent to the discussion at hand (It was supporting the idea that abstinence-based sex-education isn't the proper way to teach, in my opinion).

It was a little over the top though Litofsky. No offense was meant, just for a lot of people it was something that one generally wouldn't talk about.

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 10:52 PM
It was a little over the top though Litofsky. No offense was meant, just for a lot of people it was something that one generally wouldn't talk about.

But it's something that SHOULD be talked about. it keeps going around that "abistinence only" is the best way to teach people, now, if it comes down to the people being taught not feeling that their curriculum serves their best interests, say, having a good time without getting STDs or preggers, what recourse do they have?

None really. So, if people who do have an affect, such as voters, hear that students feel their courses aren't teaching them what the students feel they need to know, isn't it our job to listen to them to provide them with the best education?

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:09 PM
Little kids shouldn't be practicing anything other than abistinence, seriously.

Inyri
10-06-2008, 11:14 PM
I don't think Litofsky or the members of his class were "little kids" which, if you'll recall, is what Web Rider was talking about.

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 11:19 PM
Little kids shouldn't be practicing anything other than abistinence, seriously.

i'm pretty sure most of the members that partake in this forum aren't "little kids" though for all I know you could define a "little kid" as somebody 20 and younger.

Litofsky
10-07-2008, 03:56 PM
It was a little over the top though Litofsky. No offense was meant, just for a lot of people it was something that one generally wouldn't talk about.

As stated, we should. This generation's education is laughable compared to most. Sure, we've got public schools galore, but many of them are trapped by a flawed system. I was merely protesting to my school say "Abstinence is the endorsed course, children!" With the AIDS problem, it's understandable, but I dislike the way in which it is enforced.

I'm also irritated by a great many laws, but that's a different conversation for a different time.

And who are you to tell anyone what they should and should not do? If two people want to practice abstinence, fine, but if they don't, meh. That's their choice.