Is this similar to accusing Clinton of "Wag the Dog" for going after Bin Laden?
2007-07-20 15:01:20 · 22 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
hardwoodrods (below) Nice try neo-con. Protecting children trumps the hypocritical, hard right's desires to create a Stepford Wives society.
2007-07-20 15:07:49 · update #1
`
Neo-cons, how does explaining to a child that they should tell when people touch them a certain way or in a certain area equate to teaching them about having sex?
Fear and hatred for Dems trumps logic with neo-cons every time.
2007-07-20 15:09:59 · update #2
I hate to differ with so many here but this goes against family values because it should be the parents and the courts responsibilty to protect their children not the teachers. Why have we become a society that expects teachers to be the parents and the parents to be the teachers. 5 and 6 year olds are helpless against a predator anyway. Do you want a teacher who could very well be a child predator themselves misguiding your child and maybe saying to them "come here billy and I will show you what good touching really is"..............I don't think so. The government needs go after the predators not the kids.
Do you people have ANY idea how many child predators CHOOSE teaching small children in public, private and daycares as their profession? Why.....isn't it obvious and you want to entrust a very personal and private FAMILY matter in their hands? I agree to start talking to your kids early but not letting the predators do the talking.
Obviously you don't have children or you would know what the difference is between teaching them about inappropriate touching and sex education. The difference is as soon as you begin the conversation they automatically start asking questions about who, what, when, where and why and you have to tell them something to make them understand. This is where the grey area lies in this debate. That part is the biggest reason it should be left to the parents.
2007-07-20 15:38:43 · answer #1 · answered by Enigma 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
When Joy Behar of "The view" said to his face (well, maybe his ear) "You lied about that. Those were lies," he said, "No. They were not lies." No other explanation, just a bare denial. I don't know what his plan will be, but by telling the lie, he has adopted the tactics Bush used on him in 2000. He said he'd rather lose an election than lose a war, but it looks like he's willing to lose his integrity so that he might not lose the election. I'm really disappointed. In 2000, I had a great deal of respect for McCain. Added as an edit - Rich, your link shows Obama saying "Age appropriate education - science based" is the right thing to do. By age appropriate, he means "good touch/bad touch" and being aware of predators and that the child has a right to say no. Alan Keys said, several years back, that he wanted to teach kindergarten kids how to "do it." The "I didn't know what to tell him" comment was a reaction to the total fiction. What do you tell a person who insists on distorting the truth. The audience didn't need clarification because they knew the battle well. Added for those who thinks he wants to take some power away from home - ridiculous. No one can mandate what parents are allowed to tell their own children. And the programs have "opt out" papers so that parents can keep their kids out of the programs if they chose. Further, a child is far more at risk statistically from someone in the home or trusted to care for the child than he or she is from a stranger. Good touch/bad touch taught at home and reinforced at school is more likely to protect the child . that's how education works best - when parents and the school work together.
2016-03-15 07:34:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, neocon again? Geez, you sure keep an ignorant phrase around for a while, don't ya? Obama's intention is not to protect children. His intention is to touch our innocent children about the birds and the bees and STD's. Teach your kids values, it's not the teacher's job to teach them about sex, pregnancies, and STD's! I'm sure the tax payers will be paying for this, right? Another stupid government funded program from the left. What other ways will you anti-conservatives think of to waste our money next?
Great answer CLK (below) Isn't it the parent's problem not the school's? They feel the need to butt in on everything don't they!
2007-07-20 15:19:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just a tactic to let peoples believe Obama is against the Neo-cons, even if he is a CFR members like them all...
So I guess, its to put oil on the fire and let peoples believes that the two parties are still ennemies and not alike... Which is far from reality!!
2007-07-20 17:42:40 · answer #4 · answered by Jedi squirrels 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Barack Obama is for supporting sex education for children as young as kindergartners.
'Senator Obama is wrong if he thinks science-based sex education has any place in kindergarten,'' parents can decide how to provide children with information about sexual predators.
And if Clinton really wanted to capture Bin Laden, he could have, several times. Clinton let him go ,everytime.
2007-07-20 15:30:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Shouldn't this be the responsibility of the parents? The lack of parental responsibility in this nation is pathetic to say the least. We should not even be having this discussion because parents should be doing their job and educating their children instead of relying on the government to do it for them.
2007-07-20 15:30:07 · answer #6 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't fit in with their brand of morals. If you start teaching kids at a young age about sex, when people like Mark Foley and Ted Haggard come along they would be exposed for the lying scum they are and would have no chance to deceive young people. God and country, that's all the morals they need, they can get the rest from their twisted idea of what's moral and ethical from the GOP.
2007-07-20 15:13:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
THIS NEO-CON is the parent! I will decide WHEN my child is ready--NOT Obama, or Hillary or "the village". My daughter (just out of Kindergarten) already knows her private parts are PRIVATE. My husband and I have already taught her that. If a parent can't handle THAT I have no objection to the school or church OFFERING a 'family assembly' to parents and their child (when the parent feels their child is ready) but no one will teach my child anything I, as the parent deem inappropriate and NOT before I feel she is ready.
Nice of you to try and relieve me of my parental duties, but NO THANKS!
2007-07-20 15:20:33 · answer #8 · answered by Cherie 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
In my own opinion, Republicans see Obama as the biggest threat to take the White House from the Democratic side much in the same way that they saw Howard Dean as the strongest Democratic candidate in '04. So in the same way that they slandered Dean, they will continue to slander Obama on online protection for children, healthcare, and even things as rediculous as his middle name. I simply hope that the Democratic primary voters in the early voting states don't cave into these attacks and nominate a weakling over the most viable candidate the same way they did in '04
2007-07-20 15:09:03 · answer #9 · answered by Aaron L 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Wow, Chi - I have to say, I'm surprised at your position. Wouldn't it be a far better idea to lock up child predators in the first place?
2007-07-20 15:50:53 · answer #10 · answered by Jadis 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋