How do you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when 40% of Americans don't even pay any fed. income taxes? I think it's called welfare.

I thought it was the parents' responsibility to teach their kids about the birds, bees and other requisite issues. What happened to that concept?

You cut the taxes of 95% of the taxpaying Americans, that's how.

So what exactly is "age appropriate" sex education for kindergartners?

I have posted a couple of news articles from major media outlets supporting my position. Can you find an article from a major news media that supports your position? I'm not talking about a McCain ad or out of context quotes, I'm talking about a real article that discusses the issue at length.

So news articles are the criteria of an argument? Seriously, Kang?


To Rick's post:

Looks like BO is stretching things a bit, eh? How about the 95% who "will get a tax cut" which actually means 95% of the 60% who pay taxes will get an "income tax cut". If any of the 95% of the 60% sell a home or investment for a profit, they will also pay more in cap gains taxes under BO. This is not a tax cut.

If anything, this thread has pointed out the ability of both sides to "game" the voting block . . . and the murkiness of "the truth". :)

BTW, which bureaucrats decide what "age appropriate" means? Age appropriate is not an objective, defined term. More reason to keep the government out of this stuff and figure out a way to motivate parents to take responsibility for their own kids, which is not an easy and maybe an impossible task.

I dunno about that. I think plenty of the folks who pay no federal income taxes will be getting more handouts from the gov't. Obama has promised all kinds of handouts from college tuition tax credits, to outright free college tuition to "free" healthcare to energy rebates, supposedly paid for by windfall profits taxes on oil companies. If you can't give tax cuts to non-taxpayers, leave it to liberal pandering to find other things with which to buy their votes.

FWIW, I would concede that Obama's policy does not state that all kindergartners should be taught the full gamut of "sexual education" and that the McCain ad is a huge stretch.

But, it does not surprise or shock me as I have seen this type of political ad as long as I have followed any election . . . from both parties!

This thread just focuses on one claim by one party.

So we can conclude that politics is dirty business? Certainly.

No, of course news articles are not the single criteria of an argument. I didn’t say that, and by implying that, you are warping the intent of my post.

There are two sides to this argument. One side has a McCain ad and some out of context quotes. The other side has some in depth and complete analyses of the issue.

I’d just like to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Comparing a McCain ad and some out of context quotes to an in depth news article is not doing that.

Thank you.

The McCain ad is not just a huge stretch; it is a disgusting, vile, perverse, low blow.

Saying “I will cut the taxes of 95% of Americans” when you mean “I will cut the taxes of 95% of taxpaying Americans” is hardly at the same level as McCain’s ad.

Yes, politics is dirty business. But this McCain ad is a new low.

I've already conceded one aspect of your argument, but I fail to see its significance beyond a general conclusion that politics is dirty business.

No, I am reading what is there. The law apparently authorized schools to do sex education starting in kindergarten. It seems to have left the definition of "age appropriate" up to the individual schools. Who decides what is age appropriate? Be honest Kang, with the law as written is it POSSIBLE that a prinicipal could decide that talking about how babies are made is "age appropriate" for kindergarteners? Is it possible that discussions of same sex relationships might be considered age appropriate? Yes, all this is possible. That's the truth of the law as written and as voted for by Mr. Obama.

I don't hate Obama at all, I just don't agree with his policies. Hate has nothing to do with it. Why would you assume I "hate" Obama? Is that the only reason you can fathom as to why someone would oppose him, or is it because you are so used to "hating" Bush that you figure everyone else works the same way?

Well, to be exact, BO will only cut income taxes of the 95% of the 60% who pay. Folks in that group will pay higher taxes on any investment or asset they sell for a profit if BO gets what he wants.

FWIW, I prefer not to engage in a debate re the subjective qualities of the dirtiness of each party's campaign. :)

Um the bill ITSELF was posted. The same bill that your candidate voted FOR. The same bill that specifically says COMPREHENSIVE sex education INCLUDING transmission of HIV shall be taught beginning in kindergarten.

You say Mr. Obama says he isn't for comprehensive sex education in kindergarten, well then maybe he shouldn't have voted for the bill as worded...

Pick your jock up on the way out please, this debate has NOT gone your way...

Apparently the intent is for them to be able to identify sexual predation (something I'd agree with). Presumably the curriculum is designed accordingly. I think it is decided at the district level (rather than by individual principals. Are District boards elected in Illinois?

The issue is not what a given principle will decide. The issue is McCain’s ad. McCain states that Obama is in favor of explicit sex ed for kindergartners. That is not true. Obama has made it clear that he does not support that.

We could discuss the pros and cons of that bill, but that is not the issue. The issue is dirty politics.

I guess I should have RTF bill before expressing my opinion. :)

And, as kstarnes has mentioned above, I prefer to teach my own kids about sexual predation and what is and isn;t appropriate touching. Mr. Obama seems to think my kindergarten teacher needs to do that for me.

I'm waiting for Mr. Obama to mandate a government employee to change diapers too...that one I would vote for.

No, the McCain ad says Mr. Obama supports comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners which is what the bill that Mr. Obama voted for says. You wouldn't be bending the intent of the McCain campaign's ad to support your position would you?

I understand that Obama has said he doesn't think kindergarteners should be having explicit sex education, and that's a good thing, but he DID vote for the bill as written which mandates COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION STARTING IN KINDERGARTEN.

It's really not that tough to understand. I understand that you don't like the ad, it paints Mr. Obama into a position that he likely never meant to take. I'm sure when he voted for the bill that he never figured that it would come to this. I'm sure he had good intentions. I would say, though that he should have READ the bill he voted for. He voted yes to the bill and there is explicit language in that bill that supports the McCain ad.

So are you the one that gets to decide what's "age appropriate" for 5 yo's?

Just one more example of the mullato messiah's buffoonery.

THAT is a flat out lie.

Too bad you can't vote "present" in the U.S. Senate. Of if you can, Obama wasn't aware of that option.

Principal, principle....Choose your words wisely young Grasshopper. Remember, words MEAN things, as does one's "Principle".
;)

Sorry, I should not have put it that way. My apologies.

Yikes! I meant school principle!

yes and we know the GOP HATES welfare EXCEPT when it goes to the CORPs :rolleyes:

Well, in my decades of teaching, I met a few Principals without "principles".....(most were ex-coaches who had come up through the "good 'ol boy" system).
;)

see Sarah Palin kid's for how well that works

Can you refute what I wrote and not hijack this into a thread on corp. welfare (aka consumer subsidies)?

I thought you lefties were all for unwed mothers. The only step up from that is having an abortion, right?

Spin attempt warning!

Admittedly I was very well informed in sex-ed when I had my first bit of unprotected sex. And we weren't trying to have a baby, but had hormones aplenty.

If you're argument is that a more comprehensive sex-ed could have prevented Palin's daughter from getting pregnant (without knowing the extent of Palin's daughter's sex-ed) , I and most every other person who has ever been a teen would probably enjoy such a debate. :)

Those who couldn't get laid back then (or even now) use the school teaching as an excuse:D

Raging hormones man!!!!

Is there a liberal reading comprehension disorder...or are they just plain dishonest?