Official U.S. Election - Obama/Biden Plans & Policies

AGM100 · Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:50 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 188):
I don't think they're very nervous at this point. They were at first and then as soon as they figured out who she was, they calmed down and kicked some butt. Election Day is in two weeks. I voted already.

I hope they are not , that is good. Remember Kerry was ahead by 8-14 2 weeks out as well.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 188):
The GOP is quite nervous. VERY nervous.

Yes they are , and they should be.... Sen Obama has the entire world behind him.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 191):
Her fundie nonsense lends itself to more support from the fringe groups

You know the fundie nonsense has been hyped more by the left then by us. I like her because she is a fiscal conservative more than a social activist. She has her views , but that does not mean that she is going to try to upset the apple cart. Like Superfly said to me many months ago .. the VP/Pres do not have omnipotent power.. there are checks in place. Her social views are hers , and her record does not show that she tried to force others to accept them.

Frankly the only social issue difference between her and Sen Obama is abortion from what I have heard , they agree on the marriage issue ...? So how is she so far off the mark ?

AGM100 · Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:11 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 188):
I don't think they're very nervous at this point. They were at first and then as soon as they figured out who she was, they calmed down and kicked some butt. Election Day is in two weeks. I voted already.

I hope they are not , that is good. Remember Kerry was ahead by 8-14 2 weeks out as well.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 188):
The GOP is quite nervous. VERY nervous.

Yes they are , and they should be.... Sen Obama has the entire world behind him.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 191):
Her fundie nonsense lends itself to more support from the fringe groups

You know the fundie nonsense has been hyped more by the left then by us. I like her because she is a fiscal conservative more than a social activist. She has her views , but that does not mean that she is going to try to upset the apple cart. Like Superfly said to me many months ago .. the VP/Pres do not have omnipotent power.. there are checks in place. Her social views are hers , and her record does not show that she tried to force others to accept them.

Frankly the only social issue difference between her and Sen Obama is abortion from what I have heard , they agree on the marriage issue ...? So how is she so far off the mark ?

AirCop · Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:30 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 201):
Remember Kerry was ahead by 8-14 2 weeks out as well.

Sorry, I didn't remember that, but I did pull up the Gallup poll for this time period in 2004.
October 22-24, 2004
Bush 51%
Kerry 46%
Nader 1%
Other -%
Unsure 2%
margin of error: 3%
source: Gallup

And that pretty much how it played out in the end.

AGM100 · Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:04 pm

Quoting AirCop (Reply 202):
but I did pull up the Gallup poll for this time period in 2004.

Your correct , my error. I was looking at some AP info last night. In some polls it was wider but over all the count was within margin ..very close. Sen Obama is pulling away at this point , so although I have voted I would think it should be academic at this point.

DocLightning · Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:10 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 200):

You know the fundie nonsense has been hyped more by the left then by us. I like her because she is a fiscal conservative more than a social activist.

She's both, unfortunately. And a hypocrite, as well.

I'm sorry, but if she makes a public platform out of "abstinence-only" education, then her daughter's pregnancy SHOULD go into the debate. It's only "just personal" if it doesn't clash with your public views. Clearly "abstinence-only" didn't keep her daughter from getting pregnant and that should demonstrate to the country why such "sex ed" doesn't work.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 201):

I hope they are not , that is good. Remember Kerry was ahead by 8-14 2 weeks out as well.

Some polls showed a little bump for Kerry about two weeks out, but the trend had been for his lead to dwindle as Bush's picked up. In this year's race, the curves between the two candidates are diverging, not converging.

AGM100 · Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:28 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 204):
I'm sorry, but if she makes a public platform out of "abstinence-only" education

So if I volunteer at the school and am vocal about "Saying No To Meth" .. (which I do) ...and my son ends up a meth head ... that makes me a hypocrite ? Wow Doc , I know you dont beleive that.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 204):
the curves between the two candidates

Their is only one candidate who has the curves ! Big grin

You are correct the data is pointing towards a Obama victory .
Lets just hope he keep a lid on Rev Wright , Ayers , Michelle over the next few weeks, one of them letting loose with more "campaign help" could be bad.

DocLightning · Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:32 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 205):

So if I volunteer at the school and am vocal about "Saying No To Meth" .. (which I do) ...and my son ends up a meth head ... that makes me a hypocrite ? Wow Doc , I know you dont beleive that.

You know, there's a difference between sex and drugs. The difference is the following: sex is a normal and natural part of human function. In fact, I include a discussion of sex life and sexual function as part of my routine "review of systems" when I'm interviewing a patient. In the same conversation where I ask about headaches, runny noses, sore joints, and fatigue, I ask about sex. Why? Because sex is natural and healthy adults should enjoy a fulfilling sex life.

When it comes to drugs, there are many people who go through their entire lives without touching them.

So there is a difference. And if you pretend like sex is some "adults-only" thing that kids should never touch, it's going to turn around and bite you in the butt. But the raw fact is that teenagers have been schtupping since teenagers were invented.

As it happens, abstinence-only education for drugs is also probably not the most effective method of preventing drug-related problems. I'd far rather see more harm-reduction approaches, which have more evidence behind them.

AGM100 · Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:50 pm

[quote=DocLightning,reply=206]You know, there's a difference between sex and drugs[/quo

It is a good point and true ... however my kids get a simple lesson from me. Its about the choices you make and the consequences thereof. To my kids .. if you have sex it will probably result in a baby... that is what happens ..... then you are fuc**ed big time.

I agree that sex is more of a natural choice made on basis of timely emotion, but I just lump it in with all choices for now.

DocLightning · Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:15 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 207):

I agree that sex is more of a natural choice made on basis of timely emotion, but I just lump it in with all choices for now.

And that's wrong.

And the fact that Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education when her own daughter got pregnant makes her a hypocrite.

PSA727 · Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:39 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 208):
And the fact that Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education when her own daughter got pregnant makes her a hypocrite.

If she had a strict birth control policy and her daughter still got pregnant, would she still be
a hypocrite? BTW, Palin is not opposed to birth control.

mdsh00 · Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:58 pm

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 209):
If she had a strict birth control policy and her daughter still got pregnant, would she still be
a hypocrite? BTW, Palin is not opposed to birth control.

You are saying that if she were for birth control and her daughter still got pregnant? Well no not really it wouldn't make Palin a hypocrite.

But...how can you be for abstience-only education and not opposed to birth control? Abstinence-only education does not include education on birth control options to the ones that need it the most; teenagers.

DocLightning · Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:37 pm

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 209):

If she had a strict birth control policy and her daughter still got pregnant, would she still be
a hypocrite? BTW, Palin is not opposed to birth control.

She IS opposed to Plan B and she IS opposed to teaching people about birth control at the start of their sexual lives.

I don't think any mainstream candidate, not even Romney, would advocate banning condoms and OCP's, but she's about as anti-birth control as you can get.

She would not be a hypocrite if her daughter still got pregnant and she supported birth control education because 1) she probably would have had her daughter on OCP's and 2) the evidence is that abstinence-only education increases teenage pregnancy.

WunalaYann · Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 206):
When it comes to drugs, there are many people who go through their entire lives without touching them.

While I hope I have not gone through my entire life yet, count me into this category! Smile

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 207):
however my kids get a simple lesson from me. Its about the choices you make and the consequences thereof. To my kids .. if you have sex it will probably result in a baby...

If you do not mind me asking, do you bring up contraception and the benefits of it in terms of not resulting in a baby and subsequent issues when you chat with your children about sex?

Rara · Thu Oct 23, 2008 1:02 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 208):

And the fact that Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education when her own daughter got pregnant makes her a hypocrite.

"Hypocrite", why? Quite the opposite I would think, she stands firmly to her conviction. If she had publicly stood for abstinence-only education, but secretly told her daughter "listen, if you go out and have sex, please use a condom or take the pill" - well that would have been very hypocritical. Belly-evidence suggests it didn't happen.

Aaron747 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:22 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 198):
I ask you to use the same standards (ignore the candidate's actual record in office, and concentrate on what their church says and other outside influences) on Obama, and tell me why you would vote for him? Actually, you already do ignore his track record.

Find me a single quote where I said I'm voting for Obama. I've spent the last week harping on Obama supporters for failing to pressure him for details about how he will curtail his plans given a tighter budget environment. The only thing I have supported him on categorically are his foreign policy goals of restoring US standing in the world and taking up a policy similar to General Patreaus's containment strategy for negotiations with Afghan tribes. I already sent in my absentee ballot and I voted for NEITHER McCain or Obama. Unless you can find what I asked for, stop typing such mindless and baseless drivel. Your demagoguery knows no bounds.

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:39 am

Repost.

She "probably" would have had her daughter on OCPs. Ass-u-me? Why do you always portray Palin, and people of faith in general, as ignorant backwoods hicks?

the evidence is that abstinence-only education increases teenage pregnancy.

It's increasing teenage sex that increases teenage pregnancy. Every year sex education grows, more and more condoms are distributed, and more and more girls end up pregnant.
It doesn't work for reducing teenage sex.

You could also say "Eating Little Debbie cakes increases teenage pregnancy", and it would also be true. Kids eat the most Little Debbie cakes and teenage pregnancy "victims" are always kids.

See how the deception works? Other than the actual statement itself, no link can possibly be established between the action (Abstinence-only) and reaction (teenage pregnancy). It's vapour speak.

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:58 am

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 215):
abstinence-only education increases teenage pregnancy.

How about a few examples of absolute truth:

abstinence-only [practice] increases teenage freedom.
abstinence-only [practice] [eliminates] teenage pregnancy.
abstinence-only [practice] [eliminates] teenage STDs.

Lots-a-good to be had there, if we could only convince kids to think of other things besides sex for the tiniest of time spans. That's all it takes for them to remember being a kid again. Smile

Aaron747 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:23 am

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 215):
It's increasing teenage sex that increases teenage pregnancy. Every year sex education grows, more and more condoms are distributed, and more and more girls end up pregnant. It doesn't work for reducing teenage sex.

You could also say "Eating Little Debbie cakes increases teenage pregnancy", and it would also be true. Kids eat the most Little Debbie cakes and teenage pregnancy "victims" are always kids.

See how the deception works? Other than the actual statement itself, no link can possibly be established between the action (Abstinence-only) and reaction (teenage pregnancy). It's vapour speak.

All types of sex education don't work for decreasing teenage pregnancy or sexual activity in general. Not in this day and age anyway. Sex education is important because it has had a positive impact on STD contraction rates when properly executed. Sex education, can and does, by the way, include abstinence education.

All of this BS back and forth ignores the primary reasons teenage sexual activity is higher now than ever: more households than ever are two-income households, more parents than ever are totally ignorant of what their teens are up to, and more societal forces than ever are telling kids they are adult enough to do adult things. Maybe that's a better starting point than focusing on what kids are hearing for an hour a day in high school.

WunalaYann · Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:42 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 217):
more societal forces than ever are telling kids they are adult enough to do adult things.

I agree, although you could turn the argument around and look at it from a perspective that tends to portray sex as not only for adults.

I think more than turning kids into adults before their time, societal forces are pushing the limits of what kids can/should consider as normal activities. Whether it is under-age drinking, smoking, hanging out, sex, not to mention drugs, I think that our societies are trying to make kids "win" (more like lose) on both counts - doing stuff that only adults previously did, but without having to pay for the consequences.

I do not think teenagers these days are more mature than what I was a dozen years ago. They simply have access to a greater variety of activities without parental/social knowledge, much less disapproval.

Smile

Mir · Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:07 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 208):
And the fact that Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education when her own daughter got pregnant makes her a hypocrite.

I don't think it makes her a hypocrite as much as it makes a perfect example of just how effective abstinence-only sex education is at reducing pregnancy - not very.

-Mir

DocLightning · Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:13 am

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 216):

abstinence-only [practice] increases teenage freedom.
abstinence-only [practice] [eliminates] teenage pregnancy.
abstinence-only [practice] [eliminates] teenage STDs.

Absolute truth:

ABSTINENCE-ONLY EDUCATION INCREASES STD's, AND TEENAGE PREGNANCY.

That is a fact. Because there is NO WAY to stop teenagers from having sex. You can get them to wait an average of 9-12 months longer to do it, but that only raises the mean age of onset from about 15 to 16.

Why is it that you would like to ignore facts? Oh yes, because that's what the so-called "neoconservative" philosophy requires. You ignore facts and stick to dogma.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 215):

It's increasing teenage sex that increases teenage pregnancy. Every year sex education grows, more and more condoms are distributed, and more and more girls end up pregnant.
It doesn't work for reducing teenage sex.

Please provide evidence that the teenage pregnancy rate in the U.S.A. is increasing. EVIDENCE, MD80. That means NUMBERS.

Now, let me give you some numbers to chew on. In 1988 Abstinence-only education was more prevalent than it is today and sex-ed in general was less prevalent.

In 1988 63% of girls 15-17 were virgins (by anonymous survey). In 2002, that number was 70%. In 1988 50% of boys claimed to be virgins compared with 69% in 2002.

The United States has the least coverage for harm-reduction sex-ed and 53 out of 1000 teenagers here got pregnant in 2002. By contrast, 5 of 1000 teenage girls were pregnant in the Netherlands, where sex ed is compulsory. Indonesia and Brazil have rates of 55 and 73 per 1000, respectively. Sex-education in these countries is next-to non-existent by European standards. Thus, the United States has almost the teenage pregnancy rate of a highly-religious, third-world country.

Now, MD80, there are some facts. You can show that you're a man and a rational one who is willing to listen to logic. Or you can provide FACTS (not opinions) to the contrary.

Or you can show that you're a fool who could care less about facts, logic, and reason.

Which will it be?

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:45 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 220):
That is a fact. Because there is NO WAY to stop teenagers from having sex.

You might be right. Teaching kids since 3rd grade about the penis and vagina, anus, fisting, oral, etc tends to make kids curious as to why they are being taught this garbage, so some try it out (MUCH to the pleasure of their overly sexual-natured instructors). Until this pre-education is halted, chances are high they will not be able to stop having sex. Good point.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 220):
Or you can show that you're a fool who could care less about facts, logic, and reason.

Same facts, different viewpoint. People who cannot control their sexual urges believe no one else can either. Sadly these "people sans self control" have made astounding jumps through to positions of power in our school system. Now the wolf guards the henhouse. Literally.

If you don't want your young kids to know what a dirty sanchez is.....well tough tacos. It's gonna happen, like it or not. banghead

AGM100 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:16 pm

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 212):
do you bring up contraception and the benefits of it in terms of not resulting in a baby and subsequent issues when you chat with your children about sex?

With my 16 year old , I talk about the whole program . But the rule in my house is abstinence. I tell them about my sister who had sex and got pregnant .. it made her life so much harder. I dont hold anything back , she gets the whole picture. Including my view of raising grand kids when I am 45 years old .... NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. You breed em .. you feed em! Scares the crap out of them ... hopefully it works . I tell my 13 year old son basically the same thing ... the best way is to wait until you are old enough to make the decision and pay for it.

No mushy liberal thinking in my house, period

StuckInCA · Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:34 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 222):
No mushy liberal thinking in my house, period

You think most teen pregnancies happen in "mushy liberal" households?

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:35 pm

Seems Barack is well on his way to selecting another "genius" for his posse.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...r-Britain-Obama-wins-election.html

Oprah? Clearly she is the most fitting and experienced statesman. Yeah sure

Let's see, who will be next? Jay Z?

santosdumont · Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:49 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 222):
Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 212):
do you bring up contraception and the benefits of it in terms of not resulting in a baby and subsequent issues when you chat with your children about sex?

With my 16 year old , I talk about the whole program .

Which, speaking as a non-parent, is something to be applauded.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 222):
But the rule in my house is abstinence

Which, speaking as a non-parent, I think is entirely reasonable.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 222):
she gets the whole picture

Would that all kids get that same picture.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 222):
No mushy liberal thinking in my house, period

What you call mushy liberal thinking and clear ground rules are not mutually exclusive.

Waht kind of thinking do you think the pregnant Palin kid fell prey to?

AirCop · Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:03 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 222):
But the rule in my house is abstinence. I tell them about my sister who had sex and got pregnant

Again, I agree as a parent that is reasonable rule, and the fact that you share your sister's experience is also very responsible. But teenagers are teenagers, god forbid and she did get pregnant; would you be there is support her emotionally?

OA260 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:11 pm

A good tool to look at over the elections :

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Interactive-Graphics/US-Election-Map

AGM100 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:25 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 223):
You think most teen pregnancies happen in "mushy liberal" households?

No ... but all a parent can do is inform them of the rules... clearly. I am not naieve .. I know that I only have so much control over passion and freewill that all humans have. But showing you are willing to bend the rules defeats the purpose .

The obvious consequences of having sex to early are pregnancy and disease... the other consequence is emotional damage. Especially with girls , it can really mess them up if it is not a good experience and the odds are against it being so. We all have been teenagers , we know how it goes .

Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 225):
Waht kind of thinking do you think the pregnant Palin kid fell prey to?

As parents we can only lay the rules down ... what happens in those moments of passion are way beyond our control. But my kids will know the consequences if it happens to them. Its all we can do and I would bet that the Palins told there daughter a simliar thing .

Quoting AirCop (Reply 226):
would you be there is support her emotionally?

I am honest enough to say , that after all the effort that I have put into discussing it with her , I would be pissed ... really pissed. I would be angry, but I would not rip on her about it. She would already know what is going to happen ... she will know that her life has taken a big change and that it just got alot harder for her. I want her to be afraid of the consequences ! really afraid. But these things can only be handled at the time of the issue ... I pray that I have the strength to do what is right.

DocLightning · Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:49 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 220):
Now, MD80, there are some facts. You can show that you're a man and a rational one who is willing to listen to logic. Or you can provide FACTS (not opinions) to the contrary.

Or you can show that you're a fool who could care less about facts, logic, and reason.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 221):
Same facts, different viewpoint.

There you have it, folks.

PSA727 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:52 pm

Why are people worried about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter? I am much more concerned
about Biden's recent discussion about how other nation's leaders will test Obama's will and
fortitude in the first months of his presidency because of his perceived inexperience. And
that their supporters have to stand with them because Obama will do things that might seem
illogical at first...WTF Wow!

And this was not a gaffe, but a long, drawn-out (Biden-style), and
thought-out discord by Joe. It was quite lenghty indeed.

DocLightning · Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:00 pm

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 230):
Why are people worried about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter?

Because I'm a specialist in adolescent medicine and teenage pregnancy is one of my big crusades.

We will be able to DRASTICALLY decrease the welfare rolls in this country if we can decrease teenage pregnancy.

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:12 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 229):
There you have it, folks.

Yes, I have it folks. Smile

I know that, in the absence of highly-inappropriate sexual curriculum at an elementary school level, your "facts" would lean the other way. And you know it's true, doctor.

When you drop a match on dry grass, and then tell us the match had nothing to do with the grass fire, you are being less than honest.

AGM100 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:24 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 231):
We will be able to DRASTICALLY decrease the welfare rolls in this country if we can decrease teenage pregnancy

Wow this is so true .. The problem is how does government do this ? The role belongs to parents and good doctors like you lightning IMO.

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:26 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 231):
We will be able to DRASTICALLY decrease the welfare rolls in this country if we can decrease teenage pregnancy.

And we'll decrease teenage pregnancy by instructing kids in all the fantastic sexual positions they should, of course, avoid. Makes sense.

We should give kids matches and tell them never to use them. Supremely flawed thinking.

santosdumont · Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:26 pm

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 228):
Quoting Santosdumont (Reply 225):
What kind of thinking do you think the pregnant Palin kid fell prey to?

As parents we can only lay the rules down ... what happens in those moments of passion are way beyond our control. But my kids will know the consequences if it happens to them. Its all we can do

Well said.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 230):
Why are people worried about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter?

Because her mother is the poster child du jour for "family values."

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 228):
would be pissed ... really pissed. I would be angry,

I can only imagine what that would be like...it reminds me of that old Bill Cosby line about him telling his kids: "I brought you into this world and I'll take you out..."

Tugger · Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:12 pm

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 230):
Why are people worried about Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter? I am much more concerned about Biden's recent discussion about how other nation's leaders will test Obama's will and fortitude in the first months of his presidency because of his perceived inexperience. And that their supporters have to stand with them because Obama will do things that might seem illogical at first...WTF Wow! And this was not a gaffe, but a long, drawn-out (Biden-style), and thought-out discord by Joe. It was quite lenghty indeed.

He is saying that it is because of his "perceived inexperience" not that he won;t be able to handle it. After watching this campaign, both the nomination and presidential, anyone who thinks that Obama does not have the fortitude, intelligence, and resource to persevere is not looking at reality.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 232):
I know that, in the absence of highly-inappropriate sexual curriculum at an elementary school level, your "facts" would lean the other way. And you know it's true, doctor.

My kids were 5-6 when I sent through my churches first sex education class. Best thing we could do for them, to teach them about them selves and others and that they need to treat themselves with respect. Sex education is a good and important thing. And yes, I do realize this was my choice to send them to this.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 233):
And we'll decrease teenage pregnancy by instructing kids in all the fantastic sexual positions they should, of course, avoid. Makes sense.

We should give kids matches and tell them never to use them. Supremely flawed thinking.

Sex ed is not about teaching "positions" but the information is available, just as it is in every library, and on the internet, and being talked about in whispers with friends. And unless you are talking about "abstinence only" education, sex ed is not about teaching children about sex but to never use it. It's about their sex and sexuality and to have an honest discussion with children who are growing into adults about what the human experience is all about. Sex ed is by no means "comprehensive" and requires parents talking with their kids about it as well for it to work. I believe human sexuality is part of the core of what a human is and should be respected and valued.

On your "matches" comment, what about hunting, using guns? I believe that I kid CAN be taught how to safely and properly handle a firearm. PROVIDED the parents and the society around them demands it and takes the time to instill a respect for the firearm and proper training on how to use it. I take it you would disagree?

Tugg

DocLightning · Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:19 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 232):

I know that, in the absence of highly-inappropriate sexual curriculum at an elementary school level, your "facts" would lean the other way. And you know it's true, doctor.

You know it? Prove it.

FACTS, MD80, not theories. FACTS. Numbers. EVIDENCE.

I predict that you cannot produce any.

(BTW, you're arguing against me in my area of professional expertise, adolescent medicine. It's just possible that if you pull your head out, you might actually learn a thing or two from a professional.)

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:27 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 236):
PROVIDED the parents and the society around them demands it and takes the time to instill a respect for the firearm and proper training on how to use it. I take it you would disagree?

I would agree, except parents are NOT being told what their kids are being exposed to in class. The parents cannot do their part when their authority is being hijacked in schools, without consent. If the parents knew the truth, there'd be throngs of unemployed teachers walking the streets.

If you wish for your kids to know what they know, that is your place in our free society, and I support your decision to do what you believe is best for your family.

Slipping pro-sexual and pro-homosexual information under-the-wire, in school, is a horrible violation of the public's trust. Then to have "repair" measures introduced by the guilty that lead to more screwing is reprehensible.

PSA727 · Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:38 pm

color="#9A9DA0">Quoting DocLightning (Reply 231):
We will be able to DRASTICALLY decrease the welfare rolls in this country if we can decrease teenage pregnancy.
How about making people work insead of giving them welfare? How about not rewarding
teen welfare mothers with a government check. Sound a little too drastic? Do you seriously
think that many of these people's biggest problem is having a child, that this is the only
reason why people prefer welfare over working? How about putting them in a better learning
environment that goes beyond "how to best find your baby daddy". Maybe their lack of
educational development prevents them from seeing a life out of government assistance.
Driling sex education into their heads does little for their future if they can't read or write
at an appropriate level.

[Edited 2008-10-23 13:51:47]

Tugger · Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:43 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 238):
I would agree, except parents are NOT being told what their kids are being exposed to in class. The parents cannot do their part when their authority is being hijacked in schools, without consent. If the parents knew the truth, there'd be throngs of unemployed teachers walking the streets.

If you wish for your kids to know what they know, that is your place in our free society, and I support your decision to do what you believe is best for your family.

Slipping pro-sexual and pro-homosexual information under-the-wire, in school, is a horrible violation of the public's trust. Then to have "repair" measures introduced by the guilty that lead to more screwing is reprehensible.

But there is no secret as to what is being taught. At all. Parents can ask their kids for one, that's the first and best place to start. Parent's can go talk with the teacher too, just set up an appointment, most teachers are happy when the parents want to know what is being taught. You can't tell me that parents can't educate themselves about what is being taught in the classroom. The thing is most don't or don't want to because they are uncomfortable with the subject. And that's funny because it is the most basic function of human existence.

Also its not "pro" anything, its just information. It is just information about all the types of people and human sexuality that are out there. Again, all of it can all be found online and in libraries and from friends and sometimes even (gasp!) their parents! Its not some secret.

And finally thank you for stating your respect for my values and my desires for what I feel is best for my family. I appreciate it.

Tugg

StuckInCA · Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:02 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 240):
Also its not "pro" anything, its just information.

That's a fine strategy that MD uses over and over.

I don't think the government should make it illegal to smoke cigarettes so I must be pro-smoker.

No gray areas allowed I guess. No neutrality or presentation of information without an evil agenda I suppose.

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:19 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 240):
But there is no secret as to what is being taught.

Sure there is, I have seen it firsthand. My last girlfriend (of 10 years) is a top-level elementary school teacher, with bi-lingual and special needs experience. While we dated (1992-2002) I spent much time at her school. I knew all the teachers, seen their lesson plans, and heard their secrets during the occasional happy hour.

Parents must think that no one would have the nerve to teach explicit topics to little kids, and that is the notion that I believe permits these monsters to get away with it year after year. Parents see an innocuous age-appropriate class title on the child's schedule, but what the kids are getting is more along the lines of instruction on fisting and tea bagging.

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:30 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 241):
That's a fine strategy that MD uses over and over.

And it works. Intelligent beings need -all- the facts available to make the most proper choice. Abstinence-only education and creationism being information necessary to a free and educated choice, should be taught alongside all the other opposing viewpoints.

StuckInCA · Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:59 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 243):
Abstinence-only education and creationism being information necessary to a free and educated choice, should be taught alongside all the other opposing viewpoints.

That has nothing to do with the point I was making. Interesting statement though.

Read it a few times and think about what you're saying.

"Abstinence-ONLY education... ...being information necessary to a free and educated choice, should be taught alongside all the other opposing viewpoints."

What do you think the ONLY means? That means that NO OTHER viewpoint would be taught. As in no discussion of what sex is or how it works. No discussion of how to protect yourself from pregnancy or disease other than abstinence.

That means you're arguing against abstinence only education while you're trying to argue for it.

People who don't support abstinence-ONLY education still want abstinence to be suggested as it's obviously the best solution. The reality of the matter is that not all teens are going to abstain so it's worth teaching them how to have safe sex.

All data shows that abstinence only education doesn't work.

How about those pharmacies that won't even sell birth control? Awesome. Yeah sure

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:13 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 244):
That means you're arguing against abstinence only education while you're trying to argue for it.

You got me there. I can make gaffes just like the best of them.

Of course I meant "abstinence" without the "only". If you read what I wrote closely, the context of my argument requires the term be abstinence, only. Wink

(note the comma)

StuckInCA · Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:26 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 245):
Of course I meant "abstinence" without the "only". If you read what I wrote closely, the context of my argument requires the term be abstinence, only. Wink (note the comma)

Fair enough. Mind that advising abstinence and "abstinence-only" sex education are not the same thing.

md80fanatic · Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:46 pm

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 244):
How about those pharmacies that won't even sell birth control? Awesome.

Like this one: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-opening-of-faith-based-pharmacy/ (Excellent idea BTW, along the same lines as a non-smoking establishment)

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 244):
The reality of the matter is that not all teens are going to abstain so it's worth teaching them how to have safe sex.

Where do the parents fit in? Why can't they teach about condoms and creams? Is it because you don't trust them to fairly cover all types of sex and orientations. Is it any of your business anyway?

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 244):
All data shows that abstinence only education doesn't work.

Data taken regarding abstinence-only is tainted, since it has never actually been abstinence-only education. Sexual subjects are being taught into kindergarten these days...and have been for quite a few years. Add to that 6 hours of sexually driven TV after school....and you have an overwhelming force against the will of the parents. A cup of water does little to quench a forest fire, so you're right, abstinence-only won't work under these extreme circumstances.

Rara · Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:10 am

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 247):
Why can't they teach about condoms and creams?

The question is, would I trust you to give your children a full and adequate sex education that enables them to handle their sexuality responsibly and not get pregnant? Based on what you've been writing in this thread, the answer is a clear NO.

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 247):
Sexual subjects are being taught into kindergarten these days...and have been for quite a few years. Add to that 6 hours of sexually driven TV after school....and you have an overwhelming force against the will of the parents.

You don't get it, do you? Teenagers are sexual persons, regardless of whether you want it or not. We don't become sexually mature with puberty for no reason. Sixteen-year olds are biologically at a perfect age for parenthood. Hormons change, breasts grow, body shapes change, and what not. You can keep information from teenagers all you want, you cannot de-sexualize them. Now you can either stick your head in the sand and wait for the inevitable, or you can tell them what's going on with them and explain them that in our society, they'd be better off not having children!

All your rambling about teaching fisting practices to kindergarten kids is so far off the point it's not even funny.

md80fanatic · Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:58 am

Quoting Rara (Reply 248):
Based on what you've been writing in this thread, the answer is a clear NO.

So, if you had the ability, you would deny me the right to raise my offspring by my own standards? I guess you feel that, until I receive a sexually liberal education, approved by you, I will always be a backwoods hick unfit for parenthood?

Here's the "change" according to Rara, good christian parents should lose their kids to the state.

Quoting Rara (Reply 248):
All your rambling about teaching fisting practices to kindergarten kids is so far off the point it's not even funny.

Not far off the point and not at all funny.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net