The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[Lula]

i'm not worked up, not at all. just want to be realistic and point out some of the absurdities coming out of the mccain camp. from a partial reading of the article you posted, seems palin is good at playing that political game to her advantage. i don't support her or her policies. she is a politician capable of speaking out of both sides of her mouth, no different from the rest.

and i wasn't pointing out silly mistakes, but rather real contradictions.

Oh, I see. I thought your big problem with her was her religion interfering with how she governs. I see that is not the case. Now she is just a typical pandering pol. Got it.

i don't give a rat's ass about her religious beliefs- unless i am paying her salary and her beliefs drive her policy.

[Lula]

maybe the obama camp should run an ad saying mccain does not care about teaching our children about the dangers of child predators and how to protect themselves.... yeah, mccain supports the rights of pedophiles over the rights of children. completely absurd, as absurd as saying obama wants to teach our children about sex before they are taught how to read, this position from a father of two little girls..... give me a break .

I haven't heard/read a whole lot about this, but I have a question... How does teaching a child about contraception and STDs protect them from child predators? I have no problems with 'family life' (I taught it to older students as a school nurse), and our guidance counselors currently address things like being touched inappropriately, etc.

I don't know how I feel about this issue. On one hand, I think our kids are being given too much information, and by people who should not be responsible for giving them that information. On the other, I understand that with knowledge comes power, and the ability to tell right from wrong. I talk to my children openly about any issue that they have questions about (my youngest is 8 years old), but I'm not sure how I would feel about my kid's teacher doing it. I do believe it's the parent's responsibility to teach the children these sensitive issues, but there are so many parents out there who simply fail to do so.

IDK the right answer here. I think our society is going to hell in a handbasket, and with it our core values.

there are teaching standards directed to grade levels which are designed to guide our teaching, however; health (nutrition, drugs, sex, etc) does not specify grade level, but rather a blanket for k-12. within that standard it is the teachers' responsibility to fit it to their audience and their needs. so within this we have sex ed and education on the dangers of pedophiles.

[Enigma869]

i don't give a rat's ass about her religious beliefs- unless i am paying her salary and her beliefs drive her policy.

Well, apparently it might well "drive her policy". She told Charlie Gibson directly that she would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. The problem with Puppet Palin is that if the old fuck McCain checks out halfway through his presidency, there will be nobody there to pull the strings, and keep our country running!


John from Boston

[Uno_up]

i don't give a rat's ass about her religious beliefs- unless i am paying her salary and her beliefs drive her policy.

Well, apparently it might well "drive her policy". She told Charlie Gibson directly that she would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. The problem with Puppet Palin is that if the old fuck McCain checks out halfway through his presidency, there will be nobody there to pull the strings, and keep our country running!


John from Boston

If McCain gets elected, I will be happy to send checks to the White House to ensure he's kept on life support for 4 years should our maker try to call him up...With any luck, Cheney's doctor will be with him 24/7.

[S2M]

Put it this way.....Think of politics as a string of bad movie plots. All romantic comedies/drama are the SAME plot. Just the jobs are different. Movie 1, a love story based around the Coast guard swimmers profession. Movie 2, a love story based around the firefighters profession. Movie 3, a love story based on baseball. It is the SAME EXACT plot, just disguised a bit.

Politicians are the same. McCain, a bad politician based around being a POW. Obama, a bad politician based around being a man of color/muslim.

And they are NO different than we've seen in the past....just disguised a bit.

[Barb]

The Lying King: The "Media" v. Sarah Palin


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWP5ljQV ... sters.org/


One of the best videos I've seen.

[Enigma869]

Put it this way.....Think of politics as a string of bad movie plots. All romantic comedies/drama are the SAME plot. Just the jobs are different. Movie 1, a love story based around the Coast guard swimmers profession. Movie 2, a love story based around the firefighters profession. Movie 3, a love story based on baseball. It is the SAME EXACT plot, just disguised a bit.

Politicians are the same. McCain, a bad politician based around being a POW. Obama, a bad politician based around being a man of color/muslim.

And they are NO different than we've seen in the past....just disguised a bit.

Spot on dude. I hate to say it, but I truly believe that regardless of which candidate gets elected, we the citizens of the U.S. are in a fuckload of trouble. I still can't tell if it is the presidential canditates or the VP candidates who are more dreadful, in this election. With Blowhard Biden and Puppet Palin, it's probably tipping in favor of the VP candidates.


John from Boston

[donnaplease]

there are teaching standards directed to grade levels which are designed to guide our teaching, however; health (nutrition, drugs, sex, etc) does not specify grade level, but rather a blanket for k-12. within that standard it is the teachers' responsibility to fit it to their audience and their needs. so within this we have sex ed and education on the dangers of pedophiles.

In Virginia we also have "standards of learning" which guide what each grade level is taught. I do believe (but I may be wrong, it's been several years since I worked as a school nurse) that each school division is entrusted to determine the content of their family life education. For example, our division is an abstinance-based program and does not teach about contraception, etc. Parents, of course, have the right to opt-out of any sex ed, and some (albeit very few) do. Parents always have the right to review the curricula before the teaching takes place and/or sit in on the sessions too.

I guess my point is that I might have a problem with some teacher teaching my children about drugs/sex/etc to 'fit their audience and their needs'. My child's needs may be very different than little Susie's. And to federally mandate what is taught, when there are vast differences in audiences & their needs is something I would be concerned about. Of course, the dangers of pedophiles is pretty universal, so that should be okay. Contraception and other topics might be a different story though.

[Lula]

there are teaching standards directed to grade levels which are designed to guide our teaching, however; health (nutrition, drugs, sex, etc) does not specify grade level, but rather a blanket for k-12. within that standard it is the teachers' responsibility to fit it to their audience and their needs. so within this we have sex ed and education on the dangers of pedophiles.

In Virginia we also have "standards of learning" which guide what each grade level is taught. I do believe (but I may be wrong, it's been several years since I worked as a school nurse) that each school division is entrusted to determine the content of their family life education. For example, our division is an abstinance-based program and does not teach about contraception, etc. Parents, of course, have the right to opt-out of any sex ed, and some (albeit very few) do. Parents always have the right to review the curricula before the teaching takes place and/or sit in on the sessions too.

I guess my point is that I might have a problem with some teacher teaching my children about drugs/sex/etc to 'fit their audience and their needs'. My child's needs may be very different than little Susie's. And to federally mandate what is taught, when there are vast differences in audiences & their needs is something I would be concerned about. Of course, the dangers of pedophiles is pretty universal, so that should be okay. Contraception and other topics might be a different story though.

audience and needs refers to age/grade level. all parents must sign off on any kind of sex ed. i think it is irresponsible to teach abstinance without teaching contraception. it is pretty clear kids will do as they please when it comes to sex. i teach both, first abstinance and then protection.

[donnaplease]

there are teaching standards directed to grade levels which are designed to guide our teaching, however; health (nutrition, drugs, sex, etc) does not specify grade level, but rather a blanket for k-12. within that standard it is the teachers' responsibility to fit it to their audience and their needs. so within this we have sex ed and education on the dangers of pedophiles.

In Virginia we also have "standards of learning" which guide what each grade level is taught. I do believe (but I may be wrong, it's been several years since I worked as a school nurse) that each school division is entrusted to determine the content of their family life education. For example, our division is an abstinance-based program and does not teach about contraception, etc. Parents, of course, have the right to opt-out of any sex ed, and some (albeit very few) do. Parents always have the right to review the curricula before the teaching takes place and/or sit in on the sessions too.

I guess my point is that I might have a problem with some teacher teaching my children about drugs/sex/etc to 'fit their audience and their needs'. My child's needs may be very different than little Susie's. And to federally mandate what is taught, when there are vast differences in audiences & their needs is something I would be concerned about. Of course, the dangers of pedophiles is pretty universal, so that should be okay. Contraception and other topics might be a different story though.

audience and needs refers to age/grade level. all parents must sign off on any kind of sex ed. i think it is irresponsible to teach abstinance without teaching contraception. it is pretty clear kids will do as they please when it comes to sex. i teach both, first abstinance and then protection.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and can raise your child however you wish. For me, personally, I don't want a 22 year old girl (or boy) just out of college teaching my child ANYTHING regarding sexual practices. That's my job, as a parent. When my oldest son was a teenager, Travis & I talked with him frequently and openly about choices and how they can affect your life. Now that my younger son is 16 and with lofty goals for himself, we have those discussions too.

If your desire is for your children to remain abstinent, then there is nothing irresponsible about it. The problem is that we live in a world where the going motto is 'If it feels good, do it' without consideration of consequences.

[S2M]

there are teaching standards directed to grade levels which are designed to guide our teaching, however; health (nutrition, drugs, sex, etc) does not specify grade level, but rather a blanket for k-12. within that standard it is the teachers' responsibility to fit it to their audience and their needs. so within this we have sex ed and education on the dangers of pedophiles.

In Virginia we also have "standards of learning" which guide what each grade level is taught. I do believe (but I may be wrong, it's been several years since I worked as a school nurse) that each school division is entrusted to determine the content of their family life education. For example, our division is an abstinance-based program and does not teach about contraception, etc. Parents, of course, have the right to opt-out of any sex ed, and some (albeit very few) do. Parents always have the right to review the curricula before the teaching takes place and/or sit in on the sessions too.

I guess my point is that I might have a problem with some teacher teaching my children about drugs/sex/etc to 'fit their audience and their needs'. My child's needs may be very different than little Susie's. And to federally mandate what is taught, when there are vast differences in audiences & their needs is something I would be concerned about. Of course, the dangers of pedophiles is pretty universal, so that should be okay. Contraception and other topics might be a different story though.

audience and needs refers to age/grade level. all parents must sign off on any kind of sex ed. i think it is irresponsible to teach abstinance without teaching contraception. it is pretty clear kids will do as they please when it comes to sex. i teach both, first abstinance and then protection.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs and can raise your child however you wish. For me, personally, I don't want a 22 year old girl (or boy) just out of college teaching my child ANYTHING regarding sexual practices. That's my job, as a parent.

If your desire is for your children to remain abstinent, then there is nothing irresponsible about it. The problem is that we live in a world where the going motto is 'If it feels good, do it' without consideration of consequences.

Well, you can't always get what you want. At the rate that children are having children - by the time a child should be taught things about sex, and problems that arise - the parent could be very well near the 22 year mark. So what's the REAL issue? Someone else teaching your kids about sex, or the age of the teacher?

Parents need to quit moving the mouth, and start PRODUCING like a parent ought to.....

[Lula]

not speaking of how i will raise my son, but rather how i address the standards handed to me as a teacher. it it up to the parent to raise the child. as far as i'm concerned sex ed should come from the home, but when you teach health and human biology it is impossible not to include reproductive organs and inevitably students have questions.

[donnaplease]

not speaking of how i will raise my son, but rather how i address the standards handed to me as a teacher. it it up to the parent to raise the child. as far as i'm concerned sex ed should come from the home, but when you teach health and human biology it is impossible not to include reproductive organs and inevitably students have questions.

Very true. It was tough for me when teaching family life, and the girls invariably had more questions than the boys. I wasn't allowed (and didn't feel it was my place) to get into specifics regarding sex topics. What I did do, was to tell the student to talk to a parent or other family member, clergy or another trusted adult. IF they had no other choice, then they could come back to me and we would discuss things. The other difference is that these were 6th through 9th graders, not kindergartners and such.

You're just doing what is expected of you, like any good teacher would do. I am just of the opinion that it shouldn't be expected of you.

[donnaplease]

Well, you can't always get what you want. At the rate that children are having children - by the time a child should be taught things about sex, and problems that arise - the parent could be very well near the 22 year mark. So what's the REAL issue? Someone else teaching your kids about sex, or the age of the teacher?

For me, the issue is both. I believe that education about sexual relations is something that should occur between my husband, my child and I. The age of the teacher is an issue simply because of life experience. I don't believe a young person just out of college has earned the life experience necessary to educate others about sexual relations, with only a few exceptions.

I'm not knocking new teachers, in fact I very often prefer them because of their fresh ideas on things. Just not these things.

[conversationpc]

Is anyone following the Charlie Rangel story and the relative lack of press coverage? Other than the Glenn Beck show, I haven't heard much mentioned but I'd think this would be bigger considering he's the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee.

[RedWingFan]

Is anyone following the Charlie Rangel story and the relative lack of press coverage? Other than the Glenn Beck show, I haven't heard much mentioned but I'd think this would be bigger considering he's the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee.

As of Thursday, Rush hasn't said much about it. He's having way too much fun with Biden!!! Comedy gold I tell ya!!

[conversationpc]

Is anyone following the Charlie Rangel story and the relative lack of press coverage? Other than the Glenn Beck show, I haven't heard much mentioned but I'd think this would be bigger considering he's the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee.

As of Thursday, Rush hasn't said much about it. He's having way too much fun with Biden!!! Comedy gold I tell ya!!

For someone who is supposedly so intelligent, Biden sure does provide a lot of comedy fodder, doesn't he?

[Lula]

what is going on with rangel?

i love joe biden!!!

edit.

oh yeah. heard about his little tax issue, shame shame shame.

[conversationpc]

what is going on with rengal?

Rangel, who is the Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee, apparently "forgot" to pay some taxes, along with a few other things. Even the New York Times is calling for him to step aside while he is being investigated...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/opinion/15mon1.html

[conversationpc]

Any thoughts on the Obama ad about McCain being out of touch because he admits he can't use a computer?

[S2M]

Any thoughts on the Obama ad about McCain being out of touch because he admits he can't use a computer?

No, but i DO have an issue with him using an abacus to count how many days til the first debate....

[conversationpc]

Any thoughts on the Obama ad about McCain being out of touch because he admits he can't use a computer?

No, but i DO have an issue with him using an abacus to count how many days til the first debate....

[conversationpc]

Did anyone else hear that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) decided to allow President Bush to keep the over 5 trillion dollars in debt from the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac bailout OFF the federal books.

[7 Wishes]

I can't wait to see how people here manage to blame this on the Democrats, too.

[conversationpc]

I can't wait to see how people here manage to blame this on the Democrats, too.

Unless Bush requested this, it's neither here nor there as far as blame for not putting the additional debt on the record. The national debt is already largely off the books anyway at somewhere near $50 trillion. The number you usually hear is around $9 trillion.

[Archetype]

America needs a true conservative in office.

[mikemarrs]

i'm wondering one thing...ECONOMY.

between mccain or obama who is better suited to get the economy running better of these two.my vote is coming down to whoever is going to make it easier on the people like me who make less than 36,000 dollars a year.

[RossValoryRocks]

I can't wait to see how people here manage to blame this on the Democrats, too.

Nope...won't hear that from me...because in this case it is EVERYONES fault...stupid politicians...stupid investors...stupid fund managers...stupid loan officers...and stupid people who somehow thought they could afford that $300,000 house making $45,000 per year.

There is more than enough blame to go around and it is party independent.

[7 Wishes]

Well if you ask me, it's Rick Astley's fault. Limey fruit.

[conversationpc]

Interesting note...Between 1989 and 2008, the two senators that received the most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were...

#1 - Chris Dodd
#2 - Barack Obama (has only been a senator for 3 years)
#3 - John Kerry

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09 ... eddie.html