Me thinks he just shot himself in the foot. No, he blew his own legs off.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801/pl_nm/usa_politics_obama_dc_3;_ylt=AlAhhbVoBWe9Xz0EYT6Kw OdkM3wV

He said that "because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11."

Geesh, there must be a parrot in the room because I could swear I've heard this one over and over. Who said it's just the Reps who 'drink the kool-aid?'

Gotta love this line: Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

Yep, he'll be lucky to get second billing on Hillary's ticket now.

I was actually starting to like him. So much for that.

I was actually starting to like him. So much for that.
Indeed. I was thinking that I might vote for him if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination... So much for Obama getting nominated now!

Me thinks he just shot himself in the foot. No, he blew his own legs off.

No no!!

Not to worry!

Obama simply said that ---

""Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan

No prrrrobbbbbbblem-o!

He states only that he will -- ""strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan"".

If a couple off hundred thousand innocent bystanders are killed in the process (similar to what we've witnessed in Iraq), as the Reichwingers incessantly inform us, why!, that will be meaningless! A slight bit of ""collateral damage"", doncha know.

<wink wink>

Nothing for the Reichwing faction to worry their goddamned *beautiful minds* over.

:rolleyes:

No no!!

Not to worry!

Obama simply said that ---



No prrrrobbbbbbblem-o!

He states only that he will -- ""strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan"".

If a couple off hundred thousand innocent bystanders are killed in the process (similar to what we've witnessed in Iraq), as the Reichwingers incessantly inform us, why!, that will be meaningless! A slight bit of ""collateral damage"", doncha know.

<wink wink>

Nothing for the Reichwing faction to worry their goddamned *beautiful minds* over.

:rolleyes:


I suggest a visit to your tinsmith, seems your hats to tight, again.

We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. (Applause.) If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. (Applause.) If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States and our friends. (Applause.)

The Taliban know that. Our military forces and the forces of our allies and many Afghans seeking a better future, are liberating Afghanistan. And the Afghan people are celebrating. Today, 27 of 30 Afghanistan provinces are no longer under Taliban control. (Applause.) We've got the Taliban and terrorists' lines of communications, and they're on the run. (Applause.)

We've made a good start in Afghanistan; yet, there is still a lot to be done. There are still terrorists on the loose in Afghanistan, and we will find and destroy their network, piece by piece. The most difficult steps in this mission still lie ahead, where enemies hide in sophisticated cave complexes, located in some of the most mountainous and rugged territory. These hideouts are heavily fortified and defended by fanatics who will fight to the death.

Unlike efforts to liberate a town or destroy Taliban equipment, success against these cells may come more slowly. But we'll prevail. We'll prevail with a combination of good information, decisive action, and great military skill. (Applause.)

The enemy -- the enemy hopes they can hide until we tire. But we're going to prove them wrong. We will never tire. And we will hunt them down. (Applause.)


~ George W. Bush (11/21/01)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011121-3.html

Wood you kindly Paleese expound in yer OWN WORDS.
Y'know like what surely was asked of you in 7th grade
and Miss Mary Jane Rottencrotch insisted that all the
widdle boys & girls write down - in their own words-
: - How I spent My Summmer Vacation ? -.
And don't say somethin like :
" Aw...gee Miss Rottencrotch,Y'knows I's ain't too done
good at dat kinda stuf.Geez,I kinda guess I just,y'nose kinda
Goofed off a lot,I guess.Oh yeah I went Fishin an caught a cold one day. "
-- Goofy {cartoon character}

BUSH + INVADE DOES NOT EQUAL PAKISTAN

Bush isn't even suggesting invading Pakistan.

Pakistan is considered an ally. They are an intelligence asset. But the government needs to stay in power and going around arresting people WE call terrorist makes them look like a puppet.

Now every terrorist in Pakistan knows what Obama will do if he is president. It was a huge mistake for him to make.

Obama wants to invade Pakistan

No, what Obama wants to do is sound like he's tough. He wants to sound like he's the kind of man who will take charge and keep America safe. What he sounds like is the kind of man who'll say anything to get people to vote for him. In short,Obama sounds like a phony, dammit.

No, what Obama wants to do is sound like he's tough. He wants to sound like he's the kind of man who will take charge and keep America safe. What he sounds like is the kind of man who'll say anything to get people to vote for him. In short,Obama sounds like a phony, dammit.


Either way, he just alienated most of the Democrats.

Just so I've got this straight;

Obama is going to lose the Democratic nomination because he demonstrated some resolve in dealing with the muslim extremist terrorist assholes,

and

Hillary is going to win because she is willing to lay the US taxpayers down and have them spread their legs for the muslim extremist terrorist assholes?
Damn.
If it takes a village, I sure hope it's a damn nice village.
Because we'll all be lining up to learn how to speak Arabic in that village.

:woohoo:

Because we'll all be lining up to learn how to speak Arabic in that village.
ROFL! Watch out for the Arab bogeymen! They'll come in your sleep and rape your family and beat your dog and eat your cornflakes! Vote Republican so it won't happen!

Stop.

You know that's not how I meant that.
Nor did I articulate it in that manner.

Please don't go all freaking Freethinker on me, man.

Don't fall into the lazy habit of adopting the tired and predictable partisan rhetoric, if just for this moment;

You want Hillary and her husband to be the leaders of the 'free world'?

Either way, he just alienated most of the Democrats.

I'm not so sure of that. I know it's going to go over like a lead balloon with the moveon.org crowd, but there's a huge difference between talk and action. Obama needs to move a bit to the middle to get more "mainstream" voters in order to win the Presidency. It's possible that the extreme left will be aware of that and cut him some slack, dammit.

Just so I've got this straight;

The only thing you need to keep straight is that the Democrats will go in whichever direction the popular breeze is blowing. Kinda like John Kerry voting for the war before he voted against it.

And (not to play the trump card mind you), I have spent more than my fair share of time in the region.

And have since done some business with a great number of adult, educated muslims from a variety of countries in that general area.

I'm not an armchair quarterback when it comes to the matter of dealing with folks from that part of the world, in other words.

Anybody else who has been there want to weigh in here?

:confused:

Just so I've got this straight;

Obama is going to lose the Democratic nomination because he demonstrated some resolve in dealing with the muslim extremist terrorist assholes,

and

Hillary is going to win because she is willing to lay the US taxpayers down and have them spread their legs for the muslim extremist terrorist assholes?
Damn.
If it takes a village, I sure hope it's a damn nice village.
Because we'll all be lining up to learn how to speak Arabic in that village.

:woohoo:


Obama talking about invading another country alienates many people. Probably enough to cost him any chance in the election.

As for Hillery winning, well, we'll have to wait and see about that.

I'm left to wonder what the reaction would be if Bush made the same statements, about invading Pakistan.

No, I was merely amused at your use of cheap theatrics. It's rather amusing to see people think the Arabs/Moslems are the worst threat the world has ever come up with.

Me, if I were a votin' man, I'd vote for the bloke who promised the most money to scientific research. But I'm one of those who thinks my vote doesn't matter. Chalk it up to apathetic youth, whatever. Election years are my time to laugh at the pointlessness and stupidity of human nature. Don't mind that tear in my eye, it's just allergies.

Obama talking about invading another country alienates many people. Probably enough to cost him any chance in the election.

As for Hillery winning, well, we'll have to wait and see about that.

I'm left to wonder what the reaction would be if Bush made the same statements, about invading Pakistan.

Good points.

As to Bush invading Pakistan?
Why bother?
We already practically own real estate there.

:smile2:

No, I was merely amused at your use of cheap theatrics. It's rather amusing to see people think the Arabs/Moslems are the worst threat the world has ever come up with.

Me, if I were a votin' man, I'd vote for the bloke who promised the most money to scientific research. But I'm one of those who thinks my vote doesn't matter. Chalk it up to apathetic youth, whatever. Election years are my time to laugh at the pointlessness and stupidity of human nature.

No, of course Arabs and Muslims are not the bogey man, and they are not the worst threat the world has ever come up with.

But the radical muslim extremist variety (the ones who would have their children strap on bomb vests) are a genuine threat. And they must be dealt with.

To turn your head and look the other way is something akin to Charles Lindberg making nice with Adolph Hitler, and hoping for the best in that whole late-1930's European scenario.

Leadership is a tough career choice.
But only leaders with resolve should venture into the arena.


Or words to that effect.

But the radical muslim extremist variety (the ones who would have their children strap on bomb vests) are a genuine threat.
And you think our choice of President has any bearing on public safety here in the US? You think the upcoming Clinton administration would just drop the ball if she catches wind of a terrorist plot planned against Americans on our own soil? Who do you think she is? President Bush?

Sorry, that was a cheap shot. But the reality is, the President has little say over the minutiae of such things. That job lies in the hands of our somewhat capable security experts. There's another smash-up job you did there, Bush, Homeland Security.

Oops, another cheap shot.

No, I think that at this point the issue of our own national security rests with US.

And if we are willing to put up with lackluster attention to security at airports, (with grandmas being strip-searched while arab gentlemen go right on through for fear of 'offending'), then we are living in the candy-assed village.

And if we vote a social-programs bureacrat into the office of the nation's top leader (instead of a true leader with some resolve, and I don't particularly care what Party they hail from) then we have demonstrated our willingness to live in the candy-assed village.

Remember, I hold no party affiliations.
Come election time, I will vote for the man or woman, from whatever party, who will do the best job of steering the Titanic around the icebergs.

I just know for a fact that Hillary is not the one who should be trusted to keep a firm and steady hand on the wheel.

:eek:

Seriously, Sparky, do you think America has the stones to elect a real leader? We thought that smiling monkey face was a real leeeeaaader after 9-11, what with his down-home country-boy accent and everything. How could you not trust him? This country know absolute dogshit about most everything, how can you expect them to elect anyone worth the job?

Pakistan may not worry, he will loose the elections..))

Seriously, Sparky, do you think America has the stones to elect a real leader? We thought that smiling monkey face was a real leeeeaaader after 9-11, what with his down-home country-boy accent and everything. How could you not trust him? This country know absolute dogshit about most everything, how can you expect them to elect anyone worth the job?


This country can not elect a real leader. None will run for office. We're left with failed lawyers, failed businessmen, or people with little practical experience, to choose from.

And why is that? I'll tell you why. The very nature of our political system. What the hell is the point of voting when it's a choice between Jackass No. 1 and Jackass No. 2? What's even the point of talking about it? Why do we even need to debate it? We should just draw straws, that would give us a far better chance of getting a decent bloke in office, rather than our current system. All this nonsense about issues, campaign promises and donations, grandstanding and gerrymandering. What's the point?

Remember, I hold no party affiliations.
Come election time, I will vote for the man or woman, from whatever party, who will do the best job of steering the Titanic around the icebergs.


Geez no wonder ya done made Moderator.
Yer clueless and ya nose it.
I bet you can smell a leaf of Iceberg lettuce before
lunch is even served.
You don't want a President or Political Party.
You want a national babysitter that does floors.

Yep, he'll be lucky to get second billing on Hillary's ticket now.
Maybe: Chaney-Obama 2008

Maybe: Chaney-Obama 2008
Lon Chaney died a while ago, bud.

You want a national babysitter that does floors.
Can anyone say Bill Clinton?

Can anyone say Bill Clinton?

Not only Is Bill Not going anywhere,but the scuttlebutt has Chelsea
interested in Politics,and if Hillary runs and wins in '08,
then '12,it will be Chelsea to the rescue in '16.
Howz Dem Potatoes.
Enough to make one premanently think twice about a
food fetish.

Lon Chaney died a while ago, bud.Okay, so check this out. I think maybe I've misspelled "Chaney." I whip over to do a quick image seard under the name "Dick Chaney" on Yahoo, just to be sure. Yahoo bumps back a message saying I'd need to turn my filters off because some images for this search "may include pornographic images." Gawd!

I still think his ass was better than the current prez or the three before him. Sure he didn't do anything noteworthy, but he didn't royally fuck anything up, either. That counts for a lot, considering his peers.

Okay, so check this out. I think maybe I've misspelled "Chaney." I whip over to do a quick image seard under the name "Dick Chaney" on Yahoo, just to be sure. Yahoo bumps back a message saying I'd need to turn my filters off because some images for this search "may include pornographic images." Gawd!
Wait a minute. You meant Cheney? I seriously thought of the old silent film star.

I don't see any problem with his comment that we should be willing to strike at Al Queda even inside Pakistan.

Why would anyone oppose going after Bin Laden where ever he hides?

.

Dharmabum,

For once you and I agree.



Geez no wonder ya done made Moderator.
Yer clueless and ya nose it.
I bet you can smell a leaf of Iceberg lettuce before
lunch is even served.
You don't want a President or Political Party.
You want a national babysitter that does floors.

Foolsworth, I gave you more credit for being a gentleman than that.
Besides being way off the mark, your remarks strike me as boorish and judgemental.

Please go back to being cryptic, obtuse, and otherwise harmless.
It suits you better, sir.

Haha, Hillary is sure to get the nomination now, which means she will lose to whatever Rep candidate wins the nomination. The Dems are doomed, Obama was their only hope in my opinion.

I don't see any problem with his comment that we should be willing to strike at Al Queda even inside Pakistan.

?!?!?!?

Does the term "sovereign nation" mean nothing any more?

Should the planetary bully and world's leading exporter of terrorism, the U.S., simply be free to send their invincible military forces into any country they want to, at any time, to cause massive destruction and death, just because they think it will further their own narrow interests??? WTF...?!?

Does the concept of *justice*, and fairness and being friendly toward other nations no longer exist for America?

But then, I guess that by looking at the foreign policy direction of this government over the past six years, we already know the answer to that one.

Does the term "sovereign nation" mean nothing any more?

Not really. Our President doesn't even really know what that term means (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4LhlPBKLd5k).
He has an MBA. He knows nothing and cares less about the law.

His recent antics only highlight that fact. He literally thinks he is above the law and we need to push Congress to prove to him he is not.



Should the planetary bully and world's leading exporter of terrorism, the U.S., simply be free to send their invincible military forces into any country they want to, at any time, to cause massive destruction and death, just because they think it will further their own narrow interests??? WTF...?!?


No, but I think that working in concert with the United Nations we could have gotten Bin Laden in days. The Taliban offered to hand him over to us, as long as we would promise he would have a fair trial, but we refused. That was the end of the "war on terror". That was when the legitimacy started leaking out of our endeavors like air from a punctured tire.

He could have been tried in the world court and there would have been very few nations that would have opposed us at all. If, with the help of the majority of nations in the world, we could not gather enough evidence to prove that he was involved in the attacks, then maybe he wasn't. But we will never know for sure because this administration seems to have almost gone out of its way to not get him, from refusing the Taliban's offer to hand him over, to outsourcing the job at Tora Bora, to outright ignoring him for years as he sits safely in Pakistan under the protection of peace treaties signed with the government.

As Greg Palast pointed out, it is easy to see why Bush "isn't concerned" about Bin Laden anymore, since we gave into all his demands. Bin Laden got everything he demanded in his manifesto, a war with the west, a sharp rise in oil prices and American troops out of Saudi Arabia.


Does the concept of *justice*, and fairness and being friendly toward other nations no longer exist for America? But then, I guess that by looking at the foreign policy direction of this government over the past six years, we already know the answer to that one

Yes, we do.

Their doctrine of "Bully diplomacy" has destroyed the respect that most of the rest of the world once had for Americans by confirming their worst fears about us.

The problem begins with the fact that the stated objective (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) of the neocons is to extend American dominance into the entire 21st century by using our military might to attack and intimidate anyone who opposes us.

Dominating the world should NEVER be the goal of our national foreign policy.

Peaceful coexistence has always been elusive enough.

.

This brings us back to the original Obama thread. Those who said his lack of experience doesn't matter should take note of his statement.

He has trapped himself. He and Hillary have criticized each other to the point that they can't run together without appearing to compromise themselves. And as she pulled ahead in the polls his lack of experience allowed him to make a dumb mistake.

He might have been a formidable candidate in eight or twelve years, but now he may have blown it.

Dharmabum,

For once you and I agree.




Foolsworth, I gave you more credit for being a gentleman than that.
Besides being way off the mark, your remarks strike me as boorish and judgemental.

Please go back to being cryptic, obtuse, and otherwise harmless.
It suits you better, sir.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]********************************[COLOR="Black"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]

[/QUOTE]


Struck a chord...did I's ?

He might have been a formidable candidate in eight or twelve years, but now he may have blown it.

I disagree. I don't think he has done anything wrong except in the eyes of people who are looking for a reason to discount him.

.

Then you agree with him on the Pakistan plan?

How about sex education for kindergarteners?

Then you agree with him on the Pakistan plan?

I already said that I have no problem with it.


How about sex education for kindergarteners?

What about it?

What about it?
Do you think it's a good idea. Or even necessary?

Do you think it's a good idea. Or even necessary?

I have no problem with it.

What does it have to do with Barak Obama?

That's when he (Obama) wants to have kids introduced to sex education. In kindergarten.

I have no problem with it.That's not what I asked.

That's when he (Obama) wants to have kids introduced to sex education. In kindergarten.What question are you answering here?

BO lost a good chunk of the dem voters by making that statement.

Even a hint of expanding the war is a huge mistake for either side.

See ya BO.

?!?!?!?

Does the term "sovereign nation" mean nothing any more?

Should the planetary bully and world's leading exporter of terrorism, the U.S., simply be free to send their invincible military forces into any country they want to, at any time, to cause massive destruction and death, just because they think it will further their own narrow interests??? WTF...?!?

Does the concept of *justice*, and fairness and being friendly toward other nations no longer exist for America?

But then, I guess that by looking at the foreign policy direction of this government over the past six years, we already know the answer to that one.

So how would you propose we deal with a guy who resides in a country that doesn't welcome him, nor have the ability to either deal with him or expel him?

Not really. [URL="http://youtube.com/watch?v=4LhlPBKLd5k"]
No, but I think that working in concert with the United Nations we could have gotten Bin Laden in days. The Taliban offered to hand him over to us, as long as we would promise he would have a fair trial, but we refused. That was the end of the "war on terror". That was when the legitimacy started leaking out of our endeavors like air from a punctured tire.
Your're dreaming right? We could have gotten the UN to help us get obl? How? The organization is rife with corruption. Has no military force, or moral suasion. Exactly what could the UN have done?

He could have been tried in the world court and there would have been very few nations that would have opposed us at all. If, with the help of the majority of nations in the world, we could not gather enough evidence to prove that he was involved in the attacks, then maybe he wasn't. But we will never know for sure because this administration seems to have almost gone out of its way to not get him, from refusing the Taliban's offer to hand him over, to outsourcing the job at Tora Bora, to outright ignoring him for years as he sits safely in Pakistan under the protection of peace treaties signed with the government.

Tried in a world court? For what international crime praytell?

We could have gotten the UN to help us get obl? How?

There is this thing called "cooperation".
I don't think you ever learned about it when you were growing up.

You had better google it.

If we had a President who knew about that and this other cool thing called "diplomacy" (don't bother looking it up, its over your head), we can create what is called a "multinational force".



The organization is rife with corruption. Has no military force, or moral suasion. Exactly what could the UN have done?

The UN is no more corrupt then the US government.

The UN has the military forces of all it's member states.


Tried in a world court? For what international crime praytell?

Terrorism.

Look it up. :thumbs:

That's not what I asked.

I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Better? :thumbs:

That's when he (Obama) wants to have kids introduced to sex education. In kindergarten.

A lot of kids are already talking about it among themselves by that age.

Giving them accurate information doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

That's when he (Obama) wants to have kids introduced to sex education. In kindergarten.
What's wrong with that?

How about sex education for kindergarteners?

Why..........do you oppose that?

What age do you think they have to be.

What's wrong with that?
I don't want my sister hearing about what actually goes on during sex. She's bad enough about it now when she thinks it's just a synonym for "snuggling". :p

I don't want my sister hearing about what actually goes on during sex. She's bad enough about it now when she thinks it's just a synonym for "snuggling". :p
Obviously you shouldn't show hardcore porn to little kids to explain to them what sex is. But at least young people should be aware of the basics about how your body works.

The word "intercourse" should come into play in 4th or 5th grade, I think.

Let's show them some porn tapes as 4 year olds... you can never start too soon!:thumbs:

... when a man loves a woman he sometimes like to put his penis into her ass...

geez... don't these kids grow up fast enough for you guys/gals?

Nothing was said or implied about "showing them porn tapes".

:rolleyes:

4 years old would also be on the young side for kindergarten.

But I am sure Old Phart won't let facts or reason get in the way of a good melodramatic hyperbole. :rolleyes:

Obviously you shouldn't show hardcore porn to little kids to explain to them what sex is. But at least young people should be aware of the basics about how your body works.

The word "intercourse" should come into play in 4th or 5th grade, I think.
Oh by 4th or 5th grade, that's perfectly logical. The age at which they'd be likely to understand is I'd say around third grade. I wouldn't really be an advocate of teaching sex ed in schools before age 8. If parents want to tell their kids before then that's fine.

4 years old would also be on the young side for kindergarten.

But I am sure Old Phart won't let facts or reason get in the way of a good melodramatic hyperbole. :rolleyes:
He has a point though. I don't want my 5 year old sister, who is going to be in kindergarten at the end of this month, learning the specifics of sex. She'd be at me all the time for details... And then of course we'd have to tell her that she shouldn't have sex (because what are we gonna do, encourage it?) and that would make her want to do it since it's a bad thing. I'd say it would be pretty bad to have a bunch of 5 year olds trying to have sex on the playground. We already have enough trouble trying to get my sister to stop touching my boobs...

Let's show them some porn tapes as 4 year olds... you can never start too soon!:thumbs:

... when a man loves a woman he sometimes like to put his penis into her ass...

geez... don't these kids grow up fast enough for you guys/gals?

If they're old enough to ask the right questions, they should be given the correct answers.

If they're old enough to ask the right questions, they should be given the correct answers.

That is w/o question one of THE dumbest things I've heard
of late.
It's akin to askin a child,when they come home from school
what they want for supper.
Or if they're tired late at night.
Or if they feel like goin to school,if they have some sniffles.
Yer just beggin to give kids,far more credit,leniency and control
over things they have NO experience or intuition with.
Kids should be Kids.
That should never equate into micro-managing their own upbringing.
Ya don't ask a kid,what is Age appropriate.
That's just sheer tomfoolery.
No wonder yer a Moderator.
You ain't got the sense GoD gave Geese.

If they're old enough to ask the right questions, they should be given the correct answers.
Okay, but what if they haven't asked the questions yet? My sister hasn't asked where babies come from yet, so we haven't felt the need to explain it to her.

Okay, but what if they haven't asked the questions yet? My sister hasn't asked where babies come from yet, so we haven't felt the need to explain it to her.

I'd say you're doing the right thing. [If they]Don't ask, don't tell. :)

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

----------------

Obama of all people ought to know what "actionable intelligence" got us into in the first place. He has lost my vote for sure.

Okay, but what if they haven't asked the questions yet? My sister hasn't asked where babies come from yet, so we haven't felt the need to explain it to her.

Wait until she asks. :)

You ain't got the sense GoD gave Geese.

Alas, you do.

Wait until she asks. :)
Yeahhhh. It already came pretty close when she wanted to know what tampons were and what a period was... I just told her that it's "Something really annoying that happens to big girls so they're able to have babies". She seemed satisfied by that at the time. :p

Alas, you do.
LOL!!! :hula:

If they're old enough to ask the right questions, they should be given the correct answers.Exactly. Individual parents know their children well enough to know how they could best understand. But bureaucrats shouldn't be making the decision for all thiry kids in the room.

1. A lot of kids are already talking about it among themselves by that age.
2. Giving them accurate information doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
1. I don't want to presume to know your life story, but for the rest of us kindergarten started at the age of five and only lasted one year.

2. That's the same sort of cop-out phrase Obama got away with when he said "age appropriate".
Could you give an example of "accurate information" that is "age appropriate" for a five year old?
I think anyone in favor of this should be able to do that.

Could you give an example of "accurate information" that is "age appropriate" for a five year old?
I think anyone in favor of this should be able to do that.

I should think anyone with half a brain would be able to figure this out, but since it's you asking, Brooks:

"Hi little five-year-old. Here's some good information you should know and always remember: DON'T LET ANYONE TOUCH YOU DOWN THERE, unless maybe if you are sick and your mommy takes you to the doctor for a check-up. Do you understand that? NOBODY SHOULD BE TOUCHING YOU IN THOSE PLACES, and if someone does, you must come and tell me what happened immediately. OK? Don't be afraid to tell - you haven't done anything wrong, but the person who touched you has done something wrong, and we have to make sure they don't do it to other kids because it's BAD."

Understand? :rolleyes:

Could you give an example of "accurate information" that is "age appropriate" for a five year old?
I think anyone in favor of this should be able to do that.

That would depend on the five year-old.

I should think anyone with half a brain would be able to figure this out, but since it's you asking, Brooks:

Understand? :rolleyes:
Firstly, they do that now.
Secondly, telling a five year old not to let someone touch them anywhere their bathing suit covers isn't sex education (half-a-brain comment back atcha).


Anyway, can anyone else give me any examples of appropriate sex education for a five year old?

That would depend on the five year-old.Exactly why schools shouldn't do it at that age.

Firstly, they do that now.

So what's the problem? That a Democrat mentioned it?

Obama of all people ought to know what "actionable intelligence" got us into in the first place.

No, it was "fixed" intelligence that got us into this mess in the first place.

If they're old enough to ask the right questions, they should be given the correct answers.

Well said.

I agree.

So what's the problem? That a Democrat mentioned it?

Of course. If a Republican had said it Brooks would be defending them like they were Ann Coulter.

So what's the problem? That a Democrat mentioned it?Think.
If sex education for five year olds isn't currently being taught (thus this controversy),
and this "touhcing" idea is already being taught,
then this "touching" is not the sex education they were talking about.

(Dhrama Queen's brilliant analysis notwithstanding)

Think.
If sex education for five year olds isn't currently being taught (thus this controversy),
and this "touhcing" idea is already being taught,
then this "touching" is not the sex education they were talking about.

Good point, Brooks.

If Obama had said "We should continue the current sex education to kindergarten students." (and I don't know the original exact quote here), then we could reasonably assume that he was referring to telling kids not to let anyone touch their private parts.

(Dharmabum 's {SC} brilliant analysis notwithstanding)

Brilliant and absolutely correct analysis thankyouverymuch. :thumbs:

Think.
If sex education for five year olds isn't currently being taught (thus this controversy),
and this "touhcing" idea is already being taught,
then this "touching" is not the sex education they were talking about.

(Dhrama Queen's brilliant analysis notwithstanding)

Brooks, the key words here are not "sex education" but "age-appropriate." Telling small children that inappropriate touching is wrong IS age-appropriate sex education.

:rolleyes: Sheesh.

Brooks, the key words here are not "sex education" but "age-appropriate." Telling small children that inappropriate touching is wrong IS age-appropriate sex education.
:rolleyes: Sheesh.You missed the point.
Obama used both phrases ("sex education" and "age appropriate").

A child can understand touching without any knowledge of sex.
Explaining this crime to children is not sex education (unless you consider that to be sex. I don't)

Anyway, when Obama said "age appropriate" "sex education" you think he was just referring to explaining this touching?

You missed the point.

Apparently, you've missed the point. Entirely.

Anyway, when Obama said "age appropriate" "sex education" you think he was just referring to explaining this touching?

Yes.

If "don't let someone touch you" is sex education then "don't go in the water" is a swimming lesson.

Explaining this crime to children is not sex education (unless you consider that to be sex. I don't)
sex
–noun

3. the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.

I don't get your point there but let me put it this way.

Telling a five year old "don't let someone touch you there" is just about the same as "don't let them hit you" or "don't let someone pull your hair". They wouldn't understand any sexual connotation to that particular instruction.

Telling a child not to let someone touch them is so innocuous that it couldn't be construed as age inappropriate to any five year old.

That's why I feel Obama meant more than just that when he made the statement.

We'd know for sure if any of the dumbfounded people in the crowd had the wherewithal to ask a follow-up question.

sex the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.Just a thought - as per this dictionary, do we need to make up a new word for when gay individuals are intimate.

Just a thought - as per this dictionary, do we need to make up a new word for when gay individuals are intimate.
I don't think that definition is exclusively heterosexual.

I don't think that definition is exclusively heterosexual."the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another...."

"the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another...."
Fine. Let's use the American Heritage Dictionary then, if you're going to toss a red herring at me.

4. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.

If "don't let someone touch you" is sex education then "don't go in the water" is a swimming lesson.

For a five-year-old who can't swim... absolutely.

You have kids, right? Did you chat in detail about vaginas and tumescence and oral copulation and penetration, etc., with YOUR five-year-old?

:rolleyes:

I'm going to quote myself here:


If Obama had said "We should continue the current sex education to kindergarten students." (and I don't know the original exact quote here), then we could reasonably assume that he was referring to telling kids not to let anyone touch their private parts.
Five year olds are currently taught not to let anyone touch their private parts. I was under the impression that Obama was referring to something that is NOT currently being taught. Therefore he probably WASN'T referring to just this ides of teaching them about inappropriate touching.

There has not been an argument for this yet.

Five year olds are currently taught not to let anyone touch their private parts. I was under the impression that Obama was referring to something that is NOT currently being taught. Therefore he probably WASN'T referring to just this ides of teaching them about inappropriate touching.

There has not been an argument for this yet.
COOPER: Senator Obama, Mitt Romney has accused you this week of saying that 5-year-old children should be getting sex education. Was he right?

OBAMA: Ironically, this was actually a proposal that he himself said he supported when he was running for governor of Massachusetts.

OBAMA: Apparently, he forgot.

(LAUGHTER)

And it makes the exact point that John made.

I've got a 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter. And I want them to know if somebody is doing something wrong to them, encroaching on their privacy, that they should come talk to me or my wife.

And we've had that conversation, but not every parent is going to have that conversation with their child, and I think it's important that every child does, to make sure that they're not subject to the sexual predators.

---

It's ridiculous that people are accusing Obama of teaching the intricacies of sex to five year olds. Utterly ridiculous. I'm surprised that you seem to buy into that, DF, because Obama's words are readily available.