Article:
Summary
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.


SB 99:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instructions insanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.


Where does the McCain ad say that any course was required? Obama did vote for a bill that lowered comprehensive sexual education from 6th grade down to kindergarten.. so whats with all the guff? It seems the only problem is with "his one accomplishment" part.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: so whats with all the guff?

SB 99:

All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

The ad implied that Obama wants children to be taught explicit sex education in kindergarten. And while you play the plausible deniability" game on this.

As to your question, "so whats with all the guff?"... Most rational people don't like liars.

That's pretty much it.

Obama is right, McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instructions insanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.


Where does the McCain ad say that any course was required? Obama did vote for a bill that lowered comprehensive sexual education from 6th grade down to kindergarten.. so whats with all the guff? It seems the only problem is with "his one accomplishment" part.

Because of the implication that they make saying he wants to teach sex to kindergartners, which is patently false.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Article:
Summary
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.


SB 99:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instructions insanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.


Where does the McCain ad say that any course was required? Obama did vote for a bill that lowered comprehensive sexual education from 6th grade down to kindergarten.. so whats with all the guff? It seems the only problem is with "his one accomplishment" part.

So, you're agreeing with the claim the McCain campaign made, and more importantly, the intent behind what they were implying? You honestly believe Barack Obama wanted to teach full-fledged sexual education to kindergardeners?

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Article:
Summary
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.


SB 99:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instructions insanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.


Where does the McCain ad say that any course was required? Obama did vote for a bill that lowered comprehensive sexual education from 6th grade down to kindergarten.. so whats with all the guff? It seems the only problem is with "his one accomplishment" part.

It's a nasty smear that implies Obama wanted to teach kindergarteners about sex. The bill actually allowed individual schoolboards to set their own curriculum, including the common themes in sex ed for young children, which is designed to give them some basic awareness about biology ("boys and girls have different parts"), and to protect them from predators and molesters ("these are your private parts, you should say no if someone wants to touch you there or ever makes you uncomfortable, tell someone you trust".) That ad was actually the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in politics. Absolutely despicable.

cameroncrazy1984: Because of the implication that they make saying he wants to teach sex to kindergartners, which is patently false.

That would be more of an inference than an implication.

ragekage: You honestly believe Barack Obama wanted to teach full-fledged sexual education to kindergardeners?

No, and I addressed that. But the bill does say that if a class is taught to kindergartners (something the bill specifically lowers from 6th grade) it must include information on prevention of HIV and other diseases. How do you propose that be done with out getting into some detail?

SeismicJizzer: Obama is right, McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

McCain's integrity and his soul are gone. Now what can he trade?

Snowflake Tubbybottom: it must include information on prevention of HIV and other diseases. How do you propose that be done with out getting into some detail?

Easy. "never let anyone touch you there. you could get disease and bad things could happen."

Bam. Done.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Where does the McCain ad say that any course was required?

Well the ad does say "Learning about sex before learning to read?" You can nitpick all you want, but the goal was clear: Make people think Obama wants to teach your kindergartner about sex.

No, and I addressed that. But the bill does say that if a class is taught to kindergartners (something the bill specifically lowers from 6th grade) it must include information on prevention of HIV and other diseases. How do you propose that be done with out getting into some detail?

The bill specifically says material is to be age appropriate and parents can take their children out.

It is up to parents to learn what's going on, and exercise their option to keep their kids out if they don't approve.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: No, and I addressed that. But the bill does say that if a class is taught to kindergartners (something the bill specifically lowers from 6th grade) it must include information on prevention of HIV and other diseases. How do you propose that be done with out getting into some detail?

WHAAARGARBL

Teachers will make up their minds how to go about doing what the bill requires is the most appropriate way. cameroncrazy1984 gave a pretty damn good example. Do you honestly think that the teachers are just going to throw out their education and judgment?

You're being dumb, stop being dumb.

cameroncrazy1984: Easy. "never let anyone touch you there. you could get disease and bad things could happen."

Bam. Done.

I missed the part about the comprehensive prevention of disease there. If they would have said even as little as you suggested they were obligated to get into much more detail.

Lionel Mandrake: The bill specifically says material is to be age appropriate and parents can take their children out.

It is up to parents to learn what's going on, and exercise their option to keep their kids out if they don't approve.

Which pretty much means no sex education at all for such a young age, which is fine. But the parents had to make a written request to remove their kids from said education under this bill. But I agree with the parent's being the final say in this.

Defiance_: Teachers will make up their minds how to go about doing what the bill requires is the most appropriate way. cameroncrazy1984 gave a pretty damn good example. Do you honestly think that the teachers are just going to throw out their education and judgment?

You're being dumb, stop being dumb.

You didn't read the bill did you?

Snowflake Tubbybottom: You didn't read the bill did you?

Yes, yes I did. Listen, these people are teachers. I know a few, and I'm sure that you do too. Do you really think they'd give age inappropriate information to little kids? They worry about their emotional well-being more than most parents do, and a lot of them have taken thankless low-paying jobs because they genuinely care about these kids.

I don't care who you vote for, honestly, but don't throw out all of your common sense for the sake of partisanship. Leave that for the liters.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: I missed the part about the comprehensive prevention of disease there. If they would have said even as little as you suggested they were obligated to get into much more detail.

The bill left it up to local school boards to decide. Teachers get input on what do decide. What's not to like about that? There's also an opt-out. You're so scared your kid is going to turn into a slut? Opt out.

Here, enlighten yourself.

A teacher may have his/her own judgment but if that bill became law their judgment becomes moot in this regard.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Which pretty much means no sex education at all for such a young age, which is fine. But the parents had to make a written request to remove their kids from said education under this bill. But I agree with the parent's being the final say in this.

I don't know. Depends on whether you consider it "sex education" to teach kids where they shouldn't be touched and who to tell if they are ...It needs to be age-appropriate, done with care, and parents need to know about it, but I think most people would be OK with that sort of "sex education."

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Here, enlighten yourself.

A teacher may have his/her own judgment but if that bill became law their judgment becomes moot in this regard.

Here. You're so worried about it? Read this part:

(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
9 any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
10 pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection
11 thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
12 program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
13 such pupil.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Article:
Summary
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.


SB 99:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instructions insanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.


Where does the McCain ad say that any course was required? Obama did vote for a bill that lowered comprehensive sexual education from 6th grade down to kindergarten.. so whats with all the guff? It seems the only problem is with "his one accomplishment" part.

You seemed to mistakenly omitted part of the specific wording for SB99

Please allow me to fix that for you...

105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)
Sec. 27-9.1. Sex Education.
(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in
any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the
pupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection
thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or
program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of
such pupil.

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV 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
activity or behavior intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended 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 HIV acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually.
Link (new window)

Snowflake Tubbybottom: A teacher may have his/her own judgment but if that bill became law their judgment becomes moot in this regard.

Oh bullshiat.

"Hey kids, they passed a new law. After fingerpainting time we're going to talk about syph and some nteresting sexual positions!"

Teachers would resign en masse, panic in the streets, dogs and cats lying down together. I don't buy it, and if you do I think you're goddam crazy.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Here, enlighten yourself.

A teacher may have his/her own judgment but if that bill became law their judgment becomes moot in this regard.

Here's another gem you might like:

(2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.

Defiance_: Do you really think they'd give age inappropriate information to little kids?

No, and I never said anything to that effect.

Again.. If any course relating to sex at any grade level would have had the requirement that HIV and other sexually transmitted disease prevention must be taught also. So illustrate to me how you can do that age appropriately to a 5 year old so they fully understand the concept with out getting into more detail please .

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Here, enlighten yourself.

A teacher may have his/her own judgment but if that bill became law their judgment becomes moot in this regard.

Ooh and another one:

(d) An opportunity shall be afforded to parents or
2 guardians to examine the instructional materials to be used
3 in such class or course.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Again.. If any course relating to sex at any grade level would have had the requirement that HIV and other sexually transmitted disease prevention must be taught also. So illustrate to me how you can do that age appropriately to a 5 year old so they fully understand the concept with out getting into more detail please .

Uh. I just did.

cameroncrazy1984: Here. You're so worried about it? Read this part:

I'm not worried about anything here... it didn't pass.

Defiance_: Oh bullshiat.

You must be correct that teachers would completely ignore the law at risk of their jobs.

cameroncrazy1984: Here's another gem you might like:

My point entirely.. how do you do that with the legal requirement of the bill?

/seriously, you guys are thinking I'm arguing something I'm not here.

Defiance_: Do you really think they'd give age inappropriate information to little kids?

Hell, does he really think that a 5 year old would understand inappropriate information?

/It's like the old You Don't Know Jack trivia game.
//Sure they had blue humor, but your kids aren't going to get it.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Defiance_: Do you really think they'd give age inappropriate information to little kids?

No, and I never said anything to that effect.

Again.. If any course relating to sex at any grade level would have had the requirement that HIV and other sexually transmitted disease prevention must be taught also. So illustrate to me how you can do that age appropriately to a 5 year old so they fully understand the concept with out getting into more detail please .

Are you really, really defending this ad? You know what they were implying. You've admitted as much, and you know that it isn't true. Are you so vaclempt about the possibility that Obama might win that you are honestly defending this crap? Really?
Wow.

cameroncrazy1984: Uh. I just did.

No.. you really didn't. Or its your idea of HIV prevention is "bad things could happen"... pure genius.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: My point entirely.. how do you do that with the legal requirement of the bill?

Where in the bill does it say it has to be taught like that at every level? It gives guidelines on what "course material" should be taught, but it doesn't say when. It doesn't say in all courses.

That's where the age-appropriate clause comes in.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: No.. you really didn't. Or its your idea of HIV prevention is "bad things could happen"... pure genius.

To a five year old? Yeah, they'll understand that.

/dear god I hope you don't teach children.
//you'd try to teach them trigonometry at age five.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: cameroncrazy1984: Uh. I just did.

No.. you really didn't. Or its your idea of HIV prevention is "bad things could happen"... pure genius.

OK, so is your argument "well, it was a very poorly worded law"?
And does that excuse McCain's minions implying that Obama wants to teach kindergartners how to have sex?

dahmers love zombie: Are you really, really defending this ad? You know what they were implying. You've admitted as much, and you know that it isn't true. Are you so vaclempt about the possibility that Obama might win that you are honestly defending this crap? Really?
Wow.

Defending it? No. Clarifying? Yes. The people who are "vaclempt" over this aren't McCain supporters but Obama supporters mad that McCain made the ad.

My honest opinion is that no matter who wins the country will be just fine. Really? Wow.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: "vaclempt"

This is nitpicky, but the word is "verklempt" and you are a moron for using it without knowing how to spell it. Good try though.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: My honest opinion is that no matter who wins the country will be just fine. Really? Wow.

Uh huh. So, you're like, an "unconcern" troll?

Overall: 80% Conservative, 20% Liberal
Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

How Liberal Or Conservative Are You?

I'd say that anyone who liked that well enough to link it in their profile probably doesn't "honestly" feel that whoever wins, the country will be just fine.

But please continue. It's Saturday morning here, and I don't have a hurricane bearing down on me (for once).

Snowflake Tubbybottom: You must be correct that teachers would completely ignore the law at risk of their jobs.

If the law required what was brought up in the ad, and what you're saying in this thread then yes. Every teacher I know would quit before explaining STDs and condoms to kindergartners. Without question.

cameroncrazy1984: Snowflake Tubbybottom: "vaclempt"

This is nitpicky, but the word is "verklempt" and you are a moron for using it without knowing how to spell it. Good try though.

Sorry. My bad, not his. I should know, but I got used to spelling it that way back in the day, when a guy I knew on a VAX cluster spelled his username that way.

cameroncrazy1984: Where in the bill does it say it has to be taught like that at every level? It gives guidelines on what "course material" should be taught, but it doesn't say when. It doesn't say in all courses.

That's where the age-appropriate clause comes in.

Which was my point, thanks for agreeing. The only interesting part is why lower the standard from 6th grade to kindergarten if no real information can be taught... they're 5 years old. A law that has no use and muddles education isn't much of a law; but once a law would be followed.

/now go back and reread everything I've written without the prejudged disdain because it appeared I defended McCain.

cameroncrazy1984: This is nitpicky, but the word is "verklempt" and you are a moron for using it without knowing how to spell it. Good try though.

You know why it was in quotes? Because the other guy actually used it in that manner. Now I've pointed out two morans.. one who couldn't spell and the other who can't read.

Defiance_: If the law required what was brought up in the ad, and what you're saying in this thread then yes. Every teacher I know would quit before explaining STDs and condoms to kindergartners. Without question.

Thank you for finally understanding the actual issue with this aside from the campaign mud slinging.

/Tip: When a law says "shall" it doesn't mean its an option.

ITT: Everyone's favorite precious little Snowflake dissembles and parses hairs, and we all play along?

Snowflake Tubbybottom: /Tip: When a law says "shall" it doesn't mean its an option.

Tip: That age-appropriate clause creates a situation where the "shall" because "shall do nothing".

What's age-appropriate STD education for 5 year olds? None. Wow. That was tough.

Neeek: What's age-appropriate STD education for 5 year olds? None. Wow. That was tough.

Again.. that was my point which was why I asked for an example on how that be done given the law had passed.

SeismicJizzer: Obama is right, McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

THIS.

Bunz: SeismicJizzer: Obama is right, McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

THIS.

McCain is a piece of work....... a dirty no good piece of work.

I love the way the goobers turn this into a discussion of the minutia of the bill (which didn't pass anyways) as way of deflecting the obvious lie that is made in the ad -- that Obama favors teaching kids about sex before they can learn to read. Simply not true, but if you are fixated on the minute possibility that if you read the text of the propsed bill while standing on your freakin' head that it might actually provide for porno films in the preschool class then you might be able to spin it.

Too bad I'm not retarded or I'd believe that spin and I'd buy into that deflection.

"I'm John McCain and I approved this set of puffed up lies because the honorable maverick you once knew is dead dead dead"

As an Arizonan, I'm all for John McCain now:

Plus: We get rid of this asshole once and for all as a representative of Arizona. If Zombie Goldwater were around, he'd be biatch-slapping this doddering old fart from Aravaipa to Yuma.

Plus: He dies of cancer, embollism, heart attack, stroke, hysterical pregnancey, whatever in office. "President" Palin makes the Republican brand a pariah for the next 40 years, if she manages not to mash the Button in the middle of the night.

I don't want to lay the last 8 years of irresponsibility in Obama's lap. He doesn't deserve it. The republicans DO!

ecmoRandomNumbers: As an Arizonan, I'm all for John McCain now:

Plus: We get rid of this asshole once and for all as a representative of Arizona. If Zombie Goldwater were around, he'd be biatch-slapping this doddering old fart from Aravaipa to Yuma.

Plus: He dies of cancer, embollism, heart attack, stroke, hysterical pregnancey, whatever in office. "President" Palin makes the Republican brand a pariah for the next 40 years, if she manages not to mash the Button in the middle of the night.

I don't want to lay the last 8 years of irresponsibility in Obama's lap. He doesn't deserve it. The republicans DO!

You want to risk America's economic and national security on this:


because it will make the Democrats look good?

Facepalm

Rachel Maddow and MSNBC? Might as well be quoting DU.

The rebuttal is a distortion and that makes it a lie!

bobbette: ecmoRandomNumbers: As an Arizonan, I'm all for John McCain now:

Plus: We get rid of this asshole once and for all as a representative of Arizona. If Zombie Goldwater were around, he'd be biatch-slapping this doddering old fart from Aravaipa to Yuma.

Plus: He dies of cancer, embollism, heart attack, stroke, hysterical pregnancey, whatever in office. "President" Palin makes the Republican brand a pariah for the next 40 years, if she manages not to mash the Button in the middle of the night.

I don't want to lay the last 8 years of irresponsibility in Obama's lap. He doesn't deserve it. The republicans DO!

You want to risk America's economic and national security on this:


because it will make the Democrats look good?

Facepalm

First: remove palm from forehead.

Second: That's a fair question.

I pose this question to you...

Do you see an alternative, looking at the latest polls?

We don't dwell amongst geniuses here.