They are against Barack Obama's idea to fund programs that teach children the difference between appropriate contact with adults and inappropriate contact. Since children are easily confused, this would certainly help them defend themselves. And he's not saying it's mandatory, a parent does not have to place their kid in any program like this at their school. It's a matter of choice. He simply believes these programs are healthy and deserve funding.
What is the Republicans' problem with that? Or is this just another lame attack from an irrelevant party whose ship is sinking?
2007-07-19
11:33:23
·
15 answers
·
asked by
Incognito
5
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
U R sick Daydoom.
2007-07-19
11:37:28 ·
update #1
The question here isn't about what parents should or shouldn't do. The question is why is he being attacked for wanting to fund a program that might help kids and parents?
Here's a link:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/19/277886.aspx
Romney lied and said Obama wants to teach kids sex ed in kindergarten, like they're going to get a cucumber out and start passing around condoms. Get real. Republicans, this is why your party is in the toilet.
2007-07-19
11:55:25 ·
update #2
Mymadsky, I admire your parenting philosophy, I really do. But some parents want more out of their schools, why do you want to stop them from getting it. And why do you think it's 'bad parenting'.
2007-07-19
11:58:23 ·
update #3
Jeremy- DOn't pretend the Republicans wanted to pass a measure thet banned porn from public libraries. They in fact wanted to ban a whole slew of things that had nothing to do with porn or kids. Democrats want information to be available to the public, and libraries are a great public institution that do that.
If republicans want to block porn in libraries, then write a BIll that says that and that alone, and you'll have a partner with the Democrats.
And that's yet another reason why your party is lame, irrelevant, and in the toilet.
2007-07-19
12:01:41 ·
update #4
Deep THought- THanks for a rellevant arguement.
You're right. a lot of schools can't be trusted, and a lot of teachers can't either. That's a whole new issue though.
2007-07-19
12:03:43 ·
update #5
Obama, bad. Wants kids to be able to learn about real life. Romney, good. Wants to pass laws so kids don't see inappropriate material on TV and "elsewhere", whatever that means. I guess if he has his way we'll all be watching Sesame Street.
2007-07-19 11:40:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I don't know about the federal level, but in my state (California), Republicans have spearheaded some of the toughest legislation to crack down on child molesters and help prevent children from being victimized. But I guess that's irrelevant.
Kindergartners are 5 years old, and as you said, kids that age are "easily confused." How are they going to grasp the concept of what is "inappropriate," and how are teachers going to teach this? With video examples?
Republicans are big on parental rights. The government determines how and what our kids are taught in schools, and many parents believe their rights as parents are being infringed upon. Many parents disagree with how their taxes are spent in the education system. This is a prime example. Sure, you can opt-out, but you're still paying for it. That money can be spent much wiser than trying to teach a 5 year-old the meaning of "inappropriate contact."
I was never taught that in school, but guess what? I learned it from my parents. And you want to know why I was never molested? Because my parents told anyone they left me with that they'd shoot first and ask questions second.
2007-07-19 11:50:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Allison 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
What is healthy is blocking internet porn at a public library where children can be exposed not only to porn, but those who view the porn.
Republicans tried unsuccessfully to write a law that would ban internet porn at a public library. The democrats blocked that measure.
So really, who wants to protect kids?
Besides, perhaps republicans dont want to spend the money it takes to fund a program that is already taught in every school in the United States.
"Democrats want information to be available to the public, and libraries are a great public institution that do that."
Serious? What worth while information can be gleened from a girl who is taking on four guys at once?
2007-07-19 11:39:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jeremy A 3
·
6⤊
3⤋
>>And he's not saying it's mandatory, a parent does not have to place their kid in any program like this at their school. It's a matter of choice<<
Ya all these programs start out that way.. They also start out with a big payroll for people who will never be any where near a kid or "The program", sitting at a desk all day and only coming out to whine about needing more money for more programs and a bigger budget for more staff.
2007-07-19 11:53:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by vladoviking 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Given the track record of the public education system of late, I'm not sure I want to trust even this course to the schools. For all we know, the teachers teaching the class now are going to try to date them in high school.
2007-07-19 12:00:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Deep Thought 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
From how I had heard the program described it sounded more like a sex education program than what you are describing. Anyone got a link to the program info?
2007-07-19 11:43:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by sociald 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
How many teachers have been convicted of pedophilia?
Repubs just think that information should be taught in the home. It is part of the obligation of "parenting". YOU may be happy with corrupt government agencies raising your children but many parents (like myself) would rather instill true values onto our children. We made them and it is our responsibilty to raise them.
2007-07-19 11:40:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by mymadsky 6
·
7⤊
0⤋
Are you kidding more Republicans want the death penalty for them while Democrats give them a big hug and a pat of the back. Along with baby killing and cheating of coarse.
2007-07-19 11:39:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by JohNy 2
·
5⤊
2⤋
All based on party lines, apparently. Sad situation.
2007-07-19 11:41:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by El Duderino 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
It is liberals, in states like Vermont who are blocking laws like Jessica's law. Why don't you ask why they are against protecting children?
2007-07-19 11:46:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋