# Condomns and Candy for Kintergarten Kids



## rayboyusmc (Sep 13, 2008)

Here is a text of the full bill that he is being attacked on.  I really don't see that they will have porn movies for the kiddies or free dildoes at the door.



> SB99 - Illinois 2003
> K-12 Comprehensive Sex Education Bill
> 
> (1) Factual information presented in course material and instruction shall be medically accurate and objective.
> ...



This is real communist shit, man.

This came from Michelle Malkins blog to show how bad the bill is.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 13, 2008)

I don't get it?  What is wrong with this bill?  It seems pretty good to me for the most part?


----------



## jillian (Sep 13, 2008)

There is NOTHING wrong with the bill. It was designed to deal with young kids in an age-appropriate way to protect them from sexual predators.

What an unworthy, goal, eh?

But it sounds good to the right wing extremist smear machine....


----------



## random3434 (Sep 13, 2008)

I like it.


I believe parents should have on ongoing dialog about sex with their children, but it doesn't hurt to also have extra info presented to them in school. Teens are more influenced by their peers than adults most of the time, so a sex education class could be effective for some, because they are learning with their peers. 


My daughter's Junior High has already talked about STD's in Health Class, that was last year in 7th grade.


#3 and #7 stand out to me:

*
(3) Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.*


*(7) Course material and instruction shall discuss and provide for the development of positive communication skills to maintain healthy relationships and avoid unwanted sexual activity.*


----------



## random3434 (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> I don't get it?  What is wrong with this bill?  It seems pretty good to me for the most part?





He was being facetious


----------



## Orange_Juice (Sep 13, 2008)

The Republican's are just desperate and throwing shit at the wall hoping it sticks. McCain had a bad week, IMO


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Great--offer it after school and make it open for anyone who wishes to attend. As far behind as our school are academically, the time could be much better spent teaching science or math instead of social skills.


----------



## Silence (Sep 13, 2008)

it's just more bullshit being flung out in hopes of scaring the rural voter....

the repubs are lying, they know they are lying and that is why they say "well one COULD interpret the bill that way"  

so they take the lowest common denomination and attach it, even though probably less than 1% of the population would read that bill and interpret it that way, and run with it.  

it's digusting and it's shameful IMO.  

there is nothing wrong with teaching children how to protect themselves against sexual predators.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Silence said:


> it's just more bullshit being flung out in hopes of scaring the rural voter....
> 
> the repubs are lying, they know they are lying and that is why they say "well one COULD interpret the bill that way"
> 
> ...



no argument there--why waste school time to do it ?


----------



## random3434 (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> no argument there--why waste school time to do it ?



There is this thing called Health Class.................


----------



## Silence (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> no argument there--why waste school time to do it ?



what?  dillo are you a retard?

do you home school your children?  if not, perhaps you should.  

School is part of the community.  why can't parents and school work as partners?

When you think of how much time is in the day you don't have to ask why it belongs in school... Kids spend 6 to 7 hours of their day in school.... most get home between 5 and 6 if their parents work, then there is homework and dinner and then bed by 9 or 10...  when in that 3 to 4 hour window do you supppse a parent will find the time to have a comprehensive and detailed discussion on how to protect themselves?  

what is wrong with setting time in class to teach them this information?  

it's stupid to say it has no place in schools.  

teaching children stranger danger is one of the most important things you can teach a young child.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> There is this thing called Health Class.................



Why ?


----------



## random3434 (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Why ?



Just part of the State Standards.


Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies and Health are to be taught in schools.

Along with gym, music and art.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 13, 2008)

Social skills are just as important to future success as math and the other academic skills.

With the number of abortions and unwanted births (which can ruin a young girl's life) we need more of an understanding of what works and what doesn't as you get into that whole sexual mixed up crap of adole-scents etc.

I talked to a woman at work yesterday who wont' vote for Obama because he advocates teaching kids to be homosexuals in kintergarten.  That is what she has taken from the McCain adds.

Sad that we can't deal with truth anymore in politics.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Silence said:


> what?  dillo are you a retard?
> 
> do you home school your children?  if not, perhaps you should.
> 
> ...



no--I'm not a retard. National honor society, college, --all that rit rot.
MY son is 19, working, in college and doing fine ty. His comment of "health class" ? Boring and a big waste of time. He already knew it all.

Put down your selective hearing aid for a second and listen.
IF you don't have time to teach your child about how to be healthy and provide them with accurate sex ed, don't waste MY kids time at school so they can teach YOUR kid.


----------



## Silence (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Why ?



because some parents are too stupid OR too lazy to teach their kids the facts.  

you might not be either one and you're entitled to keep your kids out of those classes.  But WHY would you want to prevent a parent who either doesn't have the time, desire or knowledge to properly educate their children on this subject?

dillo we all know how you feel, you express it every chance you get... my question to you is what is your issue with OTHER parents thinking that it's appropriate for this subject to be taught in school?  

I taught my daughter about sex...I have no doubt that I gave her valuable and valid information, however, I still approved of her taking health in school just to reinforce what I told her OR to give her information that I might not have been aware of.

Do you also dispute the need for DARE programs in school?  Those teach children the dangers of drug use.


----------



## random3434 (Sep 13, 2008)

> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > no--I'm not a retard. National honor society, college, --all that rit rot.
> ...


----------



## Denny Crane (Sep 13, 2008)

The bill looked resonable to me. I would't hesitate to allow a child of mine to be taught sex education under those guidlines.


----------



## Gem (Sep 13, 2008)

silence wrote:


> what? dillo are you a retard?
> 
> do you home school your children? if not, perhaps you should.
> 
> ...


. 


OMG, you are so right.  Parents today are just way too busy to do something silly like raise their children and instill them with morals and values.

You know what...we better start providing adequate medical, dental, and vision care for all students, not just those with parents that can't afford it...that way, parents won't have to miss work to take their kids to the doctor or dentist...and if a kids gets sick...parents can just send their little ones to school (most of them do anyway) and we can have a doctor examine them at school, free of charge...school taxes can pay for it!  And if a child is really sick, we can just have a "sick wing" of the school where they can rest and recupperate right in the building.  That way, the school knows where the student is and can give them some work to do...and most importantly, mommy and/or daddy can still go to work.

And you know what?  Parents often go to work early and stay at work late...so lets get the kids at 5AM and keep the kids till 8PM...that way we can make sure students eat three nutritious meals (gotta combat childhood obsesity, ya know!)...we can also make sure they do all their homework and then the school can spend the evening working on its "values and morals" curriculum.  Then mommy and daddy can pick them up and take them home for bed...or, if they just can't make it to school after their long day at the office...the school can put them up in their dormitory for the night.

Teachers won't mind - after all, they didn't get into the profession to make money - and they've already been raising 1/2 of their students for years.  Taxpayers won't mind...because we've slowly been taking more and more of their rights and responsibilities away from them for years, while charging more and more in taxes for an educational system thats an almost total failure.  And parents won't mind...because it will let them get back to what is mos important to them....work!


Am I being sarcastic?  Sure.  Although as a teacher, I see more and more "parenting" roles being assigned to me instead of mom and dad every day.  Some parents have the good sense to be upset about it....more seem like they can't hand the reins over to me fast enough.

Part of the reason conseratives don't like it when Obama says that he wants comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education taught to students at all levels is because once again...we are giving a right of the parent to the public school (a.k.a. the government).

It seems to me that some liberals just feel more comfortable pegging all conservatives as backwoods, religious nutters, who want to put chastity belts on our children and teach them that masturbation will send them to Hell.  Nothing could be farther from the truth...the objection many conservatives have to things like this bill...is that it appears that Obama is very comfortable with the decision to make teaching his children about sexual predators, their bodies, their sexual organs, their sexual orientations, their sexual decisions, etc.  the job of the public education system.

I think we should be incredibly careful about how much power and authority we give to our public schools.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> > Yes, in a perfect world, that would be great dill.
> >
> > But, SOME PARENTS aren't as great as you and I, are they? They may not talk to their children about sex ed because:
> >
> ...


----------



## random3434 (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > So we punish everyone else who has been responsible and caring enough to do it by making their kids sit through it all again ?
> ...


----------



## Care4all (Sep 13, 2008)

i know this is going back 30 plus years, but I was not taught a thing about sex from my stay at home mom, other than YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SEX UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED....Abstinence was ALL I was taught from my strict parents....I was clueless....had girlfriend's mothers teach me more than my mom or dad.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> i know this is going back 30 plus years, but I was not taught a thing about sex from my stay at home mom, other than YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SEX UNTIL YOU ARE MARRIED....Abstinence was ALL I was taught from my strict parents....I was clueless....had girlfriend's mothers teach me more than my mom or dad.



I'm sorry---that's why a sex ed class would be of value. How about we don't sacrifice academics for it ? Seriously--why does this have to be done on school time ? We already are failing our kids academically.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 13, 2008)

gayboyusmc said:


> > K-12 Comprehensive Sex Education Bill



The Kommunist part is in the very first letter, K meaning Kindergarten.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 13, 2008)

Palin's daughter could have used something besides "Abstinence Only."


----------



## Gem (Sep 13, 2008)

JimH52 Wrote:


> Palin's daughter could have used something besides "Abstinence Only."



Yes, you're so right.  No one who has taken comprehensive sex-ed classes has ever gotten pregnant.  What partisan crap!


----------



## glockmail (Sep 13, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> Palin's daughter could have used something besides "Abstinence Only."


 Her example will teach some smart kids why that is so important.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > It could be an elective class. I know my daughter's school sends home notes for me to sign when they do stuff like this. She and I have the CHOICE for her to learn more about it or not.  It's not like it takes up the entire school year, it's only a few hours out of 181 days of instruction.
> ...


----------



## Silence (Sep 13, 2008)

Gem said:


> silence wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, you are so right.  Parents today are just way too busy to do something silly like raise their children and instill them with morals and values.



yes, because that's what I said... that school should teach MORALS and VALUES to our children.... 



> You know what...we better start providing adequate medical, dental, and vision care for all students, not just those with parents that can't afford it...that way, parents won't have to miss work to take their kids to the doctor or dentist...and if a kids gets sick...parents can just send their little ones to school (most of them do anyway) and we can have a doctor examine them at school, free of charge...school taxes can pay for it!  And if a child is really sick, we can just have a "sick wing" of the school where they can rest and recupperate right in the building.  That way, the school knows where the student is and can give them some work to do...and most importantly, mommy and/or daddy can still go to work.



are you aware of how many parents actually ALREADY send their children to school sick because they can't afford to take time off from work and/or because they can't afford a doctor because they don't have insurance.  Used to be schools provided a school nurse... they don't do that anymore... why?  





> And you know what?  Parents often go to work early and stay at work late...so lets get the kids at 5AM and keep the kids till 8PM...that way we can make sure students eat three nutritious meals (gotta combat childhood obsesity, ya know!)...we can also make sure they do all their homework and then the school can spend the evening working on its "values and morals" curriculum.  Then mommy and daddy can pick them up and take them home for bed...or, if they just can't make it to school after their long day at the office...the school can put them up in their dormitory for the night.
> 
> Teachers won't mind - after all, they didn't get into the profession to make money - and they've already been raising 1/2 of their students for years.  Taxpayers won't mind...because we've slowly been taking more and more of their rights and responsibilities away from them for years, while charging more and more in taxes for an educational system thats an almost total failure.  And parents won't mind...because it will let them get back to what is mos important to them....work!
> 
> ...



at least you said you were being sarcastic... I was getting worried about you... LOL  I have to learn to read your entire post gem before I react and fire off a response... 



> Part of the reason conseratives don't like it when Obama says that he wants comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education taught to students at all levels is because once again...we are giving a right of the parent to the public school (a.k.a. the government).



I think that many conservatives don't understand, either on purpose or through ignorance, that ALL parents have the right to opt out of these classes for their children...therefore, the class is available to children whose parents want it and not required for children whose parents do not want it.



> It seems to me that some liberals just feel more comfortable pegging all conservatives as backwoods, religious nutters, who want to put chastity belts on our children and teach them that masturbation will send them to Hell.  Nothing could be farther from the truth...the objection many conservatives have to things like this bill...is that it appears that Obama is very comfortable with the decision to make teaching his children about sexual predators, their bodies, their sexual organs, their sexual orientations, their sexual decisions, etc.  the job of the public education system.



perhaps the impression would change of cons being backwards, strap a chastity belt on women, nutters if the majority didn't appear to think that sex is a dirty, taboo subject, even in this day and age....



> I think we should be incredibly careful about how much power and authority we give to our public schools.



I don't disagree with you on this...

however, if anyone believes that children are being taught all they need to know about MEDICAL FACTS at home, they are naive.  

Schools should be teaching the medical facts, consequences of unprotected sex....ie: disease, pregnancy

Home should be teaching the MORAL/VALUES consequences of sex before they are emotionally ready for that situation.  

These go hand in hand IMO... morals/values at home...medical facts at school...


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Silence said:


> yes, because that's what I said... that school should teach MORALS and VALUES to our children....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



School is not a substitute parent and should never be used as such---EVER.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 13, 2008)

jillian said:


> There is NOTHING wrong with the bill. It was designed to deal with young kids in an age-appropriate way to protect them from sexual predators.
> 
> What an unworthy, goal, eh?
> 
> But it sounds good to the right wing extremist smear machine....


The right wing can't help it. They have to support their base, which includes most sex predators.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> no--I'm not a retard. National honor society, college, --all that rit rot.
> MY son is 19, working, in college and doing fine ty. His comment of "health class" ? Boring and a big waste of time. He already knew it all.
> 
> Put down your selective hearing aid for a second and listen.
> IF you don't have time to teach your child about how to be healthy and provide them with accurate sex ed, don't waste MY kids time at school so they can teach YOUR kid.





Fine then allow kids to challenge the class if they like.

There is nothing wrong with education. Why do you hate education?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> The right wing can't help it. They have to support their base, which includes most sex predators.



Mark Foley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark Foley scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> The right wing can't help it. They have to support their base, which includes most sex predators.



You just can't stop it, can you ?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> I don't get it?  What is wrong with this bill?  It seems pretty good to me for the most part?



The only thing that I can see as _wrong_ is perhaps the dictation of what is to be taught coming from the state level and not from the school board level, which is really a whole different topic for discussion.

-Joe


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Fine then allow kids to challenge the class if they like.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with education. Why do you hate education?



Your ability to misrepresent is noted. Why do you hate --period ?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> I'm sorry---that's why a sex ed class would be of value. How about we don't sacrifice academics for it ? Seriously--why does this have to be done on school time ? We already are failing our kids academically.


after school?  and how will the bussed kids get home from school?  Will they postpone the busses taking kids home, so that those not taking the course after school will just have to wait for the course to get done?

Echo mentioned it being an elective, where one can choose to take the courses with parent's permission, this seems fair, where those parents rejecting such can bow their kids out of it and those that want their kids to take health/sexual education can also be considered.  Why does it have to be an all or nothing?

People need to relearn the word Compromise, imo.

Care


----------



## Care4all (Sep 13, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> The only thing that I can see as _wrong_ is perhaps the dictation of what is to be taught coming from the state level and not from the school board level, which is really a whole different topic for discussion.
> 
> -Joe



in general, it doesn't come from the State level other than the guide lines or realm of what CAN BE TAUGHT....I've read that it is most certainly on a school district by school district level, and this is why the PTA is important....


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> after school?  and how will the bussed kids get home from school?  Will they postpone the busses taking kids home, so that those not taking the course after school will just have to wait for the course to get done?
> 
> Echo mentioned it being an elective, where one can choose to take the courses with parent's permission, this seems fair, where those parents rejecting such can bow their kids out of it and those that want their kids to take health/sexual education can also be considered.  Why does it have to be an all or nothing?
> 
> ...



 with the idea of it being an elective.

In my school, you only take health class one quarter out of the year. The rest of the year is Gym.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> after school?  and how will the bussed kids get home from school?  Will they postpone the busses taking kids home, so that those not taking the course after school will just have to wait for the course to get done?
> 
> Echo mentioned it being an elective, where one can choose to take the courses with parent's permission, this seems fair, where those parents rejecting such can bow their kids out of it and those that want their kids to take health/sexual education can also be considered.  Why does it have to be an all or nothing?
> 
> ...



There is X amount of time in a school day----you are asking to TAKE AWAY time that could be used for what schools are designed to do. Teach academics. School is not a hospital, babysiter, church or sexual institution. They are failing because people cannot figure that out.
We have kids who know all about sex now----they just cant read or do math.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> There is X amount of time in a school day----you are asking to TAKE AWAY time that could be used for what schools are designed to do. Teach academics. School is not a hospital, babysiter, church or sexual institution. They are failing because people cannot figure that out.
> We have kids who know all about sex now----they just cant read or do math.



All schools K-12 have been a babysitter for a very long time now.

It's not a church? Wonder why we say Under God then in the pledge every morning. (Though that's a different debate for another time.)


And those kids can't read or do math because of such things like No Child Left Behind and the wonderful job that Dubya has done with education.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Modbert said:


> with the idea of it being an elective.
> 
> In my school, you only take health class one quarter out of the year. The rest of the year is Gym.



IMHO you would be much further ahead if both of those were replaced with academics----do you realize that when you go to compete for a job, someone who is smarter than you will most likely get it ? What do you intend to do then ? Complain ?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> IMHO you would be much further ahead if both of those were replaced with academics----do you realize that when you go to compete for a job, someone who is smarter than you will most likely get it ? What do you intend to do then ? Complain ?



Of course everybody realizes that Gym and Health are a waste of time.

That's why I think Health should be a elective.

If I go compete for a job, and someone is more qualified then me gets it; I'll try to find the same job in another place.


----------



## Gem (Sep 13, 2008)

Shattered Wrote:


> perhaps the impression would change of cons being backwards, strap a chastity belt on women, nutters if the majority didn't appear to think that sex is a dirty, taboo subject, even in this day and age....



I think that if you truly thought about this you would realize how close-minded, judgemental, and stereotypical this makes you sound.  "The majority of conservatives think sex is a dirty, taboo subject?"  Come on...this just makes you sound stupid...and you're not.  




> however, if anyone believes that children are being taught all they need to know about MEDICAL FACTS at home, they are naive.



I think this is a very important point because I think it hits the true core of the debate between government control and personal freedom.

Do people have the RIGHT to be ignorant in your opinion?  I'm guessing that you think, no - it is the governments job to educate all people about certain things.

From a strict libertarian mindset, I have to disagree with you...because the one thing I have found the government to be truly shitty at is STOPPING itself from taking MORE control over our personal freedoms.

I would rather allow idiot parents choose to raise their children in ignorance about the fact that they can contract herpes from oral sex...than I would having "the state" tell them that they have to have their child taught what "the state" deems as absoultely important about sex.

Is that cruel to the child who grows up not knowing?  Perhaps...  But I simply don't trust the government enough to stop at some point before it takes over a parents role as parent.



> Schools should be teaching the medical facts, consequences of unprotected sex....ie: disease, pregnancy
> 
> Home should be teaching the MORAL/VALUES consequences of sex before they are emotionally ready for that situation.
> 
> These go hand in hand IMO... morals/values at home...medical facts at school...



I don't necessarily disagree with you here.  And I think that allowing parents to "opt-out" their children is a nice middle ground.

However...where I always come back to...perhaps because of what I actually see happening in public schools I work in...is that schools are NOT stopping with medical facts.  Morals/Values education is becoming part of public school curriculum.  Schools are providing more and more services that used to be firmly in the realm of the parent.

One of the things I admired most about Barak Obama was that he was the first politician I had ever seen who stated publically that one of the main problems with our public education system was that parents were not involved in teaching their children that education was important...and without parent support and involvement, children were not going to succeed.

He is absolutely right.  But, by schools acting en loco parentis in an increasingly widening scope....Obama is not supporting increased parental support and involvement...he's advocaing LESS.

Every year, I am asked to act more and more as my students parent, than their teacher.  Every year we enact a new program to take over some aspect of our students' lives that used to be the job of the parent...

I view comprehensive sex-education starting at Kindergarten as just another example of the road we're walking down...towards ever decreasing responsibility on the part of the parent.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> You just can't stop it, can you ?


No, I've decided to emulate John McCain. How am I doing so far?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> No, I've decided to emulate John McCain. How am I doing so far?



You look like a pissy troll who doesn't play well with others.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Sep 13, 2008)

You know, it's gotten to the point where the parents basically tell the schools and teachers to keep their kids safe and teach them things for the time that they're there, but don't talk to them about sex, as that is the parents job.

Meanwhile, the parent is weighted down by job, spouse and other interests and the child only sees the worry and the arguements, and learns NOTHING about how to be a useful member of society.

Is it the schools job to turn out good citizens?  No.  That belongs solely to the parents.  However, it IS the schools job to give the child attending the best and most complete and accurate information possible so that the parent CAN teach their child how to be a good citizen.

Trouble is, leaving out most of the information (abstinence only classes) does absolutely nothing towards putting the child in a position to make a decision, because most of the decisions aren't there.  

Just because a person ignores something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> IMHO you would be much further ahead if both of those were replaced with academics----do you realize that when you go to compete for a job, someone who is smarter than you will most likely get it ? What do you intend to do then ? Complain ?



Who is to say that some kid isn't going to take what they learn in Health and Gym classes and work toward a fulfilling career as a Firefighter / Paramedic?

-Joe


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, it's gotten to the point where the parents basically tell the schools and teachers to keep their kids safe and teach them things for the time that they're there, but don't talk to them about sex, as that is the parents job.
> 
> Meanwhile, the parent is weighted down by job, spouse and other interests and the child only sees the worry and the arguements, and learns NOTHING about how to be a useful member of society.
> 
> ...



Since NO parents agree on what a good citizen is nor what proper sex education is, why bother with it. Thats NOT the purpose of a school anyway. There is something seriously wrong with any parent who claims they dont have the time to teach their child---it borders on neglect and abuse and the is NO acceptable excuse for it. 
We can't even get parents to teach their kids how to properly behave in a school setting thus destroying the learning opportunity for the whole CLASS.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> IMHO you would be much further ahead if both of those were replaced with academics----do you realize that when you go to compete for a job, someone who is smarter than you will most likely get it ? What do you intend to do then ? Complain ?



we have a nation of fat children, sitting in front of their computers all day...many schools eliminated gym as a requirement for 4 years, as it was when i was in high school, this has hurt our children imo.

Gym should be mandatory, all 4 years...not just for the exercise, but for team relations.

When i was younger, and my boss, who was not even a Catholic, had a delinquent 13 year old, he enrolled him in Catholic School to straighten his kid out.  One of the requirements the school put on them, in order to take his child in to this private school, was that his child be enrolled in some of their Team sports....the School felt this was important to rid the child of his juvenile delinquency...  So he joined their track team....initially and then later moved to basketball...  His child was STRAIGHTEN OUT and became a well behaved student....it worked.

I feel this way about gym, at least the kind of gym courses I had as a child, where we learned and played all different kinds of sports and what team work and getting along with your fellow classmates was....


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> Who is to say that some kid isn't going to take what they learn in Health and Gym classes and work toward a fulfilling career as a Firefighter / Paramedic?
> 
> -Joe



AVG-Joe, I don't know the last time you been in school but...

All I did in Health Class last year was do some assignments, talk about drunk driving, watch a couple movies, and do a couple tests.

Gym classes, you can do either Team Sports (Outside it's football or soccer and inside it's basketball or dodgeball).

Tennis, Weight room, or Walking are the other three options.

Trust me, if someone wants to be a Firefighter/Paramedic then Gym/Health classes are the last place to look.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Fine then allow kids to challenge the class if they like.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with education. Why do you hate education?



Neg repping me for asking you a question?


What is wrong with this type of education?

why are you so opposed to education that can save lives and decrease the costs of medical care?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> we have a nation of fat children, sitting in front of their computers all day...many schools eliminated gym as a requirement for 4 years, as it was when i was in high school, this has hurt our children imo.
> 
> Gym should be mandatory, all 4 years...not just for the exercise, but for team relations.
> 
> ...



Again, not to sound rude but most of you are basing off your experiences when you were a child or in high school.

Things have changed, they don't teach you in Gym anymore what teamwork is or getting along with your fellow classmates.

You get dressed for Gym (If you don't then you have to take a seat on a bench.)

You go outside and wait 10-20 mins for the teachers to come and take attendence.

You play Football, walk, Tennis, Dodgeball, Basketball (in the cold seasons for the last two inside) for 20-30 mins.

You have the last 5-10 mins to go back to the Gym and get dressed for your next class.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Neg repping me for asking you a question?
> 
> 
> What is wrong with this type of education?
> ...



no--I neg repped you for totally misrepresenting what a said and your incessant partisan hackery.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> no--I neg repped you for totally misrepresenting what a said and your incessant partisan hackery.




Yet you have NEVER answered the question.

Why do you oppose education which would save lives and decrease the cost of medical care?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> Yet you have NEVER answered the question.
> 
> Why do you oppose education which would save lives and decrease the cost of medical care?



I have made my feelings on this issue perfectly clear. If you will kindly read my posts instead of assuming what I think you will have your answer. I really dont feel like catering to someone who will not take the time to educate themselves before they blurt out assumptions.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 13, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Again, not to sound rude but most of you are basing off your experiences when you were a child or in high school.
> 
> Things have changed, they don't teach you in Gym anymore what teamwork is or getting along with your fellow classmates.
> 
> ...




This is yet another example of how our high schools are TOO BIG!

If we had smaller high schools you could create an atmosphere of community where kids would get more individual attention at a time they so need it acedemically and emotionally.


----------



## random3434 (Sep 13, 2008)

Modbert said:


> AVG-Joe, I don't know the last time you been in school but...
> 
> All I did in Health Class last year was do some assignments, talk about drunk driving, watch a couple movies, and do a couple tests.
> 
> ...



That's a bummer for you. My daughter LOVES gym class, and health class. (and science and social studies and language arts, she's not a fan of math lol)


Anyway....I agree with Care, there are WAY TOO MANY FAT KIDS in America. I know it's not the schools job to reduce their weight, but maybe while playing a sport in gym, they will get interested in it and want to join a team. My daughter  is on the track team and LOVES it, and trust me she's no "jock"-she's more of a rock and roller. 


Maybe your school needs better gym classes!

Anyway, you will have NO PROBLEM finding a job anywhere,,,,,you have your head on straight my friend.


----------



## Truthmatters (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> I have made my feelings on this issue perfectly clear. If you will kindly read my posts instead of assuming what I think you will have your answer. I really dont feel like catering to someone who will not take the time to educate themselves before they blurt out assumptions.



a non answer answer.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> a non answer answer.



followed by a refusal to follow directions to get an answer.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> This is yet another example of how our high schools are TOO BIG!
> 
> If we had smaller high schools you could create an atmosphere of community where kids would get more individual attention at a time they so need it acedemically and emotionally.



Well my school has over 2,000 kids. The other high school in my city has 2,100 kids.

I can agree with your second statement since I have friends who go to much smaller high schools and get more attention, more help with their work, and even perhaps a better education in some aspects.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 13, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Again, not to sound rude but most of you are basing off your experiences when you were a child or in high school.
> 
> Things have changed, they don't teach you in Gym anymore what teamwork is or getting along with your fellow classmates.
> 
> ...



Each semester for 4 years, we learned a different sport, we had bowling, racketball, basketball, tag football, Lacross, golf, softball, paddleball, track, tennis, ice hockey etc and we learned the rules for each sport and was tested on our knowledge of the rules before we began to play the sport the rest of the semester...

It was a solid program, and should be reinstated if this is not the way it is now.

To this day, i swear by these courses and know for certain they have helped me in my adult life, (especially with my hubby, where I can enjoy watching and understanding the sports he spends alot of time watching!  lol)


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 13, 2008)

So is the bill he sponsored a dirty homosexual attack on our christian values where we encourage oral and anal sex by kintergarten kids, or has this thread become a discussion of the need/lack of need, rightness/wrongness of sex education?

I don't see anything in the bill that rates the attack by McCain.

If you don't want sex education in the classroom, then I don't think you would be for the bill.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> That's a bummer for you. My daughter LOVES gym class, and health class. (and science and social studies and language arts, she's not a fan of math lol)
> 
> 
> Anyway....I agree with Care, there are WAY TOO MANY FAT KIDS in America. I know it's not the schools job to reduce their weight, but maybe while playing a sport in gym, they will get interested in it and want to join a team. My daughter  is on the track team and LOVES it, and trust me she's no "jock"-she's more of a rock and roller.
> ...



Thank you for the compliment and it's not that our Gym classes aren't fun.

I usually have fun in Gym class (unless they send us out in what one could consider very cold weather).

Try playing football without gloves when the football feels like a block of ice being zinged into your hands. 

But despite how fun the classes can be, they are a waste of time for the most part.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> So is the bill he sponsored a dirty homosexual attack on our christian values where we encourage oral and anal sex by kintergarten kids, or has this thread become a discussion of the need/lack of need, rightness/wrongness of sex education?
> 
> I don't see anything in the bill that rates the attack by McCain.
> 
> If you don't want sex education in the classroom, then I don't think you would be for the bill.



yes-----this is the type of campaign that the democrats and republicans have both decided to run. Dirty ugly false accustations about the other candidate. Intentional ignorance, misrepresentation., bigotry, sexism and flat out lies. Aren't you proud  of them ?


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Each semester for 4 years, we learned a different sport, we had bowling, racketball, basketball, tag football, Lacross, golf, softball, paddleball, track, tennis, ice hockey etc and we learned the rules for each sport and was tested on our knowledge of the rules before we began to play the sport the rest of the semester...
> 
> It was a solid program, and should be reinstated if this is not the way it is now.
> 
> To this day, i swear by these courses and know for certain they have helped me in my adult life, (especially with my hubby, where I can enjoy watching and understanding the sports he spends alot of time watching!  lol)



My school's gym class is nothing like that.

We have basketball, Golf, Softball, Tennis, Ice Hockey, Track, etc teams for after school. But we don't learn a new sport each semester in class.

All the sports I named is what is usually played. Least the kids and I have a choice in what we want to do for a whole semester but otherwise there's not too much to choose from.

And learning the rules and testing the knowledge of the rules before we began to play the sport for us?

  

Teachers will let kids know the basics and what they need to know before they begin to play a sport. Otherwise? No.


----------



## JimH52 (Sep 13, 2008)

Gem said:


> JimH52 Wrote:
> 
> 
> Yes, you're so right.  No one who has taken comprehensive sex-ed classes has ever gotten pregnant.  What partisan crap!



I didn't say that.  You did.  But I don't think it is true.  We are talking about facing the issue of teen pregnacy with only one solution, "Abstinance Only."
This is advocated by Palin and the far right.

Sex education, such as was the topic of this thread, should be another tool educators can use to addess the problem.

The GOP stance is dogmatic and narrow.  Wait, I think that is the GOP ticket!
Sorry...


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

JimH52 said:


> I didn't say that.  You did.  But I don't think it is true.  We are talking about facing the issue of teen pregnacy with only one solution, "Abstinance Only."
> This is advocated by Palin and the far right.
> 
> Sex education, such as was the topic of this thread, should be another tool educators can use to addess the problem.
> ...



The OP in this thread was a comment on how some republicans were overstating and misrepresenting Obamas position on sex ed. I think its true--they have. I also think that the GOP has been misrepresented in the way the prefer to deal with sex ed.
We want the truth from our government yet find it nearly impossible to tell the truth to each other.


----------



## Gem (Sep 13, 2008)

JimH52 Wrote:


> I didn't say that. You did. But I don't think it is true.



Please don't play games.  The obvious implication of your post was that if Sarah Palin's daughter had received a more "comprehensive" sexual education than she would not have gotten pregnant.

What is asinine about your original statement is the obvious leaps your are making without knowing the facts.  Do we know that Sarah Palin's daughter did NOT receive sex education at school?  Do we know that Sarah Palin and her husband did not speak to their children about sex ed. at home?  Do we know that Sarah Palin's daughter did not use contraceptives?  Do we know whether or not Sarah Palin's daughter chose not t use contraceptives even though she had been educated about them?

We know none of these things...so to speculate that if she had been provided your miraculous comprehensive sex-ed would have "spared her" from a pregnancy is nothing but partisan bunk.

Sorry...but as someone who came from a public school with a VERY comprehensive sex ed program and still knew people who had unprotected sex, had contraception not work, etc...I know that it is JUST as easy to wind up pregnant WITH a sex-ed program.



> We are talking about facing the issue of teen pregnacy with only one solution, "Abstinance Only."
> This is advocated by Palin and the far right.



I actually am not sure if Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only programs or programs that are abstinence-based.  Its an important question and one that should be asked.  

But please don't play that nasty game of mocking a 17-year old girl's pregnancy and try to use it to score political points and then try to act self-righteous...its ugly politics and you know it.

We can talk about, debate, and even attack Sarah Palin on her views...but her daughter should not be a part of any of that...we a) simply don't have the facts to make it a valid point and b) should know better than to bring a child into this for no reason other than to make smarmy comments about her mother.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> You look like a pissy troll who doesn't play well with others.


I guess I did a good job emulating McCain then.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I guess I did a good job emulating McCain then.



If you say so !


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 13, 2008)

Modbert said:


> AVG-Joe, I don't know the last time you been in school but...



High School?  30+ years.



Modbert said:


> All I did in Health Class last year was do some assignments, talk about drunk driving, watch a couple movies, and do a couple tests.
> 
> Gym classes, you can do either Team Sports (Outside it's football or soccer and inside it's basketball or dodgeball).
> 
> ...



Last place to look for full training?  Definitely!  

How about the inspiration to consider what it would take to make it happen...?

That just leaves debate on the value of the curriculum for the time invested in it.  I would think that curriculum value would be a subject close to the local community and best left up to the local school board. 

It _should_ be different in rural Delaware than it is in L.A.

-Joe


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> yes-----this is the type of campaign that the democrats and republicans have both decided to run. Dirty ugly false accustations about the other candidate. Intentional ignorance, misrepresentation., bigotry, sexism and flat out lies. Aren't you proud  of them ?



Actually, I am kind of impressed with how Obama himself has been behaving, even if some of his supporters are wasting time by shining light on the pointless dirt.

-Joe


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 13, 2008)

AVG-JOE said:


> Actually, I am kind of impressed with how Obama himself has been behaving, even if some of his supporters are wasting time by shining light on the pointless dirt.
> 
> -Joe



I thought he was gonna take the high road since it's so available but the latest screams for blood by his base seem to have swayed him otherwise.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 13, 2008)

Don't blame him for what folks are saying on these and other threads.

If you were to make a list of who has told the most lies and attacked the most, I personally think John would win at this time.

Don't count your vultures before they are elected.  If he was smart enough to beat a Clinton, he is smart enough to beat McCain.

Let's wait and see while we waste more font on each other.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 13, 2008)

The first thing to consider is the responsibilty of government to it's people. IDEALLY children should be taught about sex and social skills at home, but there is no way to guarantee that. Some parents (a tiny minority) may teach their children well, but most don't. A very large amount of parents will not discuss these matters at all.

This lack of knowledge not only can destroy the child's life, but we as a society suffer generation after generation, each generation making the same mistakes as the last.

The desire for sex is a basic instinct. In young adults it is overwhelming. In a sexually repressed and uninformed society, people will seek out sex in any way they can get it, and where they get it is usually by getting involved in organized crime or gangs.

Then they grow up to be Republicans.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 13, 2008)

jillian said:


> It was designed to deal with young kids in an age-appropriate way to protect them from sexual predators.



Ran into a good friend/Obamatard last night, he said the exact same thing.

First of all, props to the tofu agenda extremists - you guys get these talking points out fast 

I left my friend stammering like Obama with no TelePrompTer when I pointed out that they *already teach* youngsters how to "protect them(selves) from sexual predators."

This bill is designed to give liberal teachers the power to pass out condoms and lube, er, "*COURSE MATERIALs*," to 6 year olds. 

The American Left makes me sick.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 13, 2008)

Ninja said:


> This bill is designed to give liberal teachers the power to pass out condoms and lube, er, "*COURSE MATERIALs*," to 6 year olds.
> {/QUOTE]
> 
> Would you please show where in this bill it says that condoms will be given out to 6 year olds?
> ...


----------



## Ninja (Sep 13, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> Would you please show where in this bill it says that condoms will be given out to 6 year olds?
> 
> That statement seems to be just plain silly.



You have to read between the lines with liberal politicians.

"Course materials" = condoms, lube, dental dams, etc.

Pretty fucking *SICK* if you ask me


----------



## greenpartyaz (Sep 13, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> no--I'm not a retard. National honor society, college, --all that rit rot.
> MY son is 19, working, in college and doing fine ty. His comment of "health class" ? Boring and a big waste of time. He already knew it all.
> 
> Put down your selective hearing aid for a second and listen.
> IF you don't have time to teach your child about how to be healthy and provide them with accurate sex ed, don't waste MY kids time at school so they can teach YOUR kid.



What is wrong with teaching kids about how to better protect themselves from child predators and improper touching?


----------



## Ninja (Sep 13, 2008)

greenpartyaz said:


> What is wrong with teaching kids about how to better protect themselves from child predators and improper touching?



*THEY ALREADY DID THAT BEFORE THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED.*

WTF is so hard about this?


----------



## Ravi (Sep 13, 2008)

Ninja said:


> *THEY ALREADY DID THAT BEFORE THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED.*
> 
> WTF is so hard about this?


You, is my best guess. You're a sick puppy, Ninja.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Ninja said:


> *THEY ALREADY DID THAT BEFORE THE BILL WAS INTRODUCED.*
> 
> WTF is so hard about this?



I could mention two words here:

Mark Foley


----------



## Ninja (Sep 13, 2008)

Modbert said:


> I could mention two words here:
> 
> Mark Foley



Yes. The lifetime Democrat who switched to the GOP when it became politically expedient. 

He's of no relevance whatsoever to our discussion.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Sep 13, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yes. The lifetime Democrat who switched to the GOP when it became politically expedient.
> 
> He's of no relevance whatsoever to our discussion.



No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig Ninja; It is still a Republican!


----------



## Modbert (Sep 13, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Yes. The lifetime Democrat who switched to the GOP when it became politically expedient.
> 
> He's of no relevance whatsoever to our discussion.



Do you know which Mark Foley I speak of?

Mark Foley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He never ran as a Democrat in his life. He was a moderate Republican. 

But thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 13, 2008)

He was a lifelong Democrat. 

He ran for office as a Republican due to political expedience.

He is of as much relevance to our discussion as your lifelong hero Gary Studds. 

What is relevant:

B. Obama tried to sexualize kindergartners with his bill.

I have already shown the bill to not have dealt with what you and your ilk claim it did.

YOU are a disgusting sack of shit, Robert. I mean this to be taken as a personal attack. You deserve it for being a bad person. 

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself. Bet your parents are. 

Sexualizing children is NOT OK!!!!!!!!!!

*YOU MAKE ME WANT TO FUCKING PUKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 13, 2008)

Ninja said:


> You have to read between the lines with liberal politicians.
> 
> "Course materials" = condoms, lube, dental dams, etc.
> 
> Pretty fucking *SICK* if you ask me




Ninja, do you by chance, sometimes hear voices in your head? Perhaps talking about condoms, lubes and evil liberal politicians?

You seem

Pretty fucking *SICK*

Maybe you should seek help.


----------



## Ninja (Sep 13, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you



Dickie, you seem to project quite a bit. Does your life suck? Do you not have very many friends? Are you unattractive? Unable to find a date? Do you work fast food? Is playing D&D with your three pony-tailed zit-faced loser friends losing it's luster?

Maybe you should get a life


----------



## Shattered (Sep 13, 2008)

Ninja said:


> Dickie, you seem to project quite a bit. Does your life suck? Do you not have very many friends? Are you unattractive? Unable to find a date? Do you work fast food? Is playing D&D with your three pony-tailed zit-faced loser friends losing it's luster?
> 
> Maybe you should get a life



Suonds like a 3am commercial for an 800-number dating line.


----------



## frazzledgear (Sep 13, 2008)

Care4all said:


> I don't get it?  What is wrong with this bill?  It seems pretty good to me for the most part?




Since this was actually intended to be the sex education for children when they first started public school, exactly which part do you find appropriate for a FIVE YEAR OLD?


----------



## greenpartyaz (Sep 14, 2008)

frazzledgear said:


> Since this was actually intended to be the sex education for children when they first started public school, exactly which part do you find appropriate for a FIVE YEAR OLD?



The part about recognizing when it is an inappropriate touch or protecting yourself from a predator! No one is handing out condoms or lube to a five year old. Anyone who thinks so is a total fucking idiot!


----------



## random3434 (Sep 14, 2008)

frazzledgear said:


> Since this was actually intended to be the sex education for children when they first started public school, exactly which part do you find appropriate for a FIVE YEAR OLD?



Kinda like the "Good Touch/Bad Touch Program"

Do you agree with that?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

You don't need sex ed to teach kids about predators. My children learned about good touch/bad touch in preschool, without the benefit of sex education.

You don't have to teach children about sex to teach them about predators. You don't need to teach them about AIDS to teach them about predators. You don't need sex education to teach them to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom, even, to protect them from hepatitis. 

This bill is just another dem ploy to make the sexualization of our children palatable. It's disgusting.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 14, 2008)

I think that it's pretty clear that Republicans are reading WAY more into this bill than is actually there.

This is because either they are mindlessly and desparately supporting absolutely any BULLSHIT that comes out of the McCain Campaign

OR

They are complete and total PERVERTS that read sick and disgusting things into ANY reference to sex thats made anywhere and any time in any context.

These people need to live in a highly controlled, sexually repressed society for fear of their own sick perversions.

Republicans believe that homosexuality is a choice. Do they constantly have to force themselves not to be homosexual? I have never in my life even thought about being  homosexual, not once. I am strickly heterosexual and have no chioce whatsoever in that.

I have two young children and I damn well want them to have the best in sex education so that they are able to defend themselves against perverts.

Anyone who reads the kind of perverted crap into this bill, that some people on this board have, are the exact type of people that I want my children protected from!


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 14, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> I think that it's pretty clear that Republicans are reading WAY more into this bill than is actually there.
> 
> This is because either they are mindlessly and desparately supporting absolutely any BULLSHIT that comes out of the McCain Campaign
> 
> ...



oh give it a shot, Richard--it will make you more able to empathize with them.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 14, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> I think that it's pretty clear that Republicans are reading WAY more into this bill than is actually there.
> 
> This is because either they are mindlessly and desparately supporting absolutely any BULLSHIT that comes out of the McCain Campaign
> 
> ...



Here's some advice from Doug Stanhope:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miQ1vnLInZg]YouTube - Doug Stanhope - The Fetus Photo[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

THanks, I don't want teachers telling my 5 year old about sex. Nor do I think it's necessary to teach 5 year olds about sex in order to teach them about predators.

Once again, it's about sexualizing children.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> THanks, I don't want teachers telling my 5 year old about sex. Nor do I think it's necessary to teach 5 year olds about sex in order to teach them about predators.
> 
> Once again, it's about sexualizing children.



perhaps you missed line 2:

(2) All course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.


Or perhaps you really don't care what the bill actually says.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

Thank you, there is no "sex education" for my 5 year old that is age appropriate. That's the deal. I don't want the lefty "let's sex up our kids" machine teaching my 5 year old anything about sex, period. You don't have to teach sex to teach kids to avoid predators. In doing so, you are acting as a predator yourself. Nor do I want my children exposed to what the left deems is "age appropriate". You idiots think abortions are "age appropriate" for 12 year olds, and think we should protect the assholes who rape and impregnant underage girls. 

5 year olds don't need sex education, period. Teach them to wash their hands and to avoid strangers. Period. And you don't need special funding or "age appropriate" sex education for that.


----------



## random3434 (Sep 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> THanks, I don't want teachers telling my 5 year old about sex. Nor do I think it's necessary to teach 5 year olds about sex in order to teach them about predators.
> 
> Once again, it's about sexualizing children.



There you go again Allie, making your generalizations that aren't true. Why do you do this? Somehow I gave you more credit than to spout the rightwing propaganda.

Here, read this:



> A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.
> 
> Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor  and the bill never left the state Senate.
> 
> In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator's record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.




FactCheck.org: Off Base on Sex Ed


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

"Explicit sex education".

I didn't say I didn't want explicit sex education. I said I don't want sex education, period, because it has no place in the curriculum of a 5-year-old. And it doesn't, nor is it necessary to have "sex education" to protect children from predators.

That's as off-base as the "if we don't have abortions, all those babies will turn into criminals" argument. Abortions have nothing to do with criminality. And sex ed has nothing to do with teaching kids to avoid predators.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 14, 2008)

Sex education for a 5 year old teaches them to report inappropriate touching, especially from adults.

You seem to make an awful lot of extremely wild assumptions about what will be taught to children at which age.

Your statement that liberals protect child rapists is also plain ludicriuos. Are you drunk or what?


----------



## random3434 (Sep 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> "Explicit sex education".
> 
> I didn't say I didn't want explicit sex education. I said I don't want sex education, period, because it has no place in the curriculum of a 5-year-old. And it doesn't, nor is it necessary to have "sex education" to protect children from predators.
> 
> That's as off-base as the "if we don't have abortions, all those babies will turn into criminals" argument. Abortions have nothing to do with criminality. And sex ed has nothing to do with teaching kids to avoid predators.



Yes Allie, IT IS Necessary for young children to know about predators and what good touch/bad touch is. 

Have you ever had a young child come to you and tell you their big brother touches them "places" and even goes after their baby sister?

Have you ever had a little girl tell you her 'privates' are bleeding because of mommy's boyfriend?

Well, I have. They knew that I, as a teacher, was trustworthy and they could come to me. They learned that IN SCHOOL.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 14, 2008)

Echo Zulu said:


> Yes Allie, IT IS Necessary for young children to know about predators and what good touch/bad touch is.
> 
> Have you ever had a young child come to you and tell you their big brother touches them "places" and even goes after their baby sister?
> 
> ...



Actually, yes, I have, I've worked in juvenile detention and residential treatment. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SEX ED in order to teach 5 year olds about predators. Period.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 14, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, yes, I have, I've worked in juvenile detention and residential treatment. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SEX ED in order to teach 5 year olds about predators. Period.



If it's left up to you it'll be the predators that teach the 5 year olds.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 14, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> Sex education for a 5 year old teaches them to report inappropriate touching, especially from adults.
> 
> You seem to make an awful lot of extremely wild assumptions about what will be taught to children at which age.
> 
> Your statement that liberals protect child rapists is also plain ludicriuos. Are you drunk or what?



Where did you take your 5 year old for sex ed ?


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 14, 2008)

Where the libs here are failing in the argument is not in the wording of the bill BUT in the curriculum that is being supported...

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf

Funny to have a unit on masturbation for a 5 year old before they are even required to be able to READ

Try and look at the whole picture, people....


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 14, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Where did you take your 5 year old for sex ed ?



The private Catholic school that I send my sons to teaches age appropriate sex education starting in the kindergarten.

One of the reasons why private schools are worth it: Idiot conservatives keep blocking the modernization of the curriculum in public schools.

Private schools teach what is best for the kids which is usually alot more progressive than public schools. That's how they stay competitive.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 14, 2008)

If this were as simple as teaching 5 year olds how to recognize and report inappropriate touching etc... fine... revamp or "modernize" that all you want.... but do not be fooled by the extremist lefties in here... that is not all this curriculum entails.... much in the level 1 (which included the kindergartners) is wholly inappropriate


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 14, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Where the libs here are failing in the argument is not in the wording of the bill BUT in the curriculum that is being supported...
> 
> http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf
> 
> ...



Tell me specifically what page states that 5 year olds are taught about masturbation.


----------



## Red Dawn (Sep 14, 2008)

Oh.  My.  God. 

Bush voters are opposed to teachers spending a couple hours a year, telling children how to recognize and avoid sexual predators.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 14, 2008)

Jesus man... ever use search function in a pdf???


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 14, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> Oh.  My.  God.
> 
> Bush voters are opposed to teachers spending a couple hours a year, telling children how to recognize and avoid sexual predators.



Again, lib... it is not ONLY about that in this comprehensive curriculum.... try looking at the whole picture


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 14, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> The private Catholic school that I send my sons to teaches age appropriate sex education starting in the kindergarten.
> 
> One of the reasons why private schools are worth it: Idiot conservatives keep blocking the modernization of the curriculum in public schools.
> 
> Private schools teach what is best for the kids which is usually alot more progressive than public schools. That's how they stay competitive.



Why didn't you teach them yourself ?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 14, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> The private Catholic school that I send my sons to teaches age appropriate sex education starting in the kindergarten.
> 
> One of the reasons why private schools are worth it: Idiot conservatives keep blocking the modernization of the curriculum in public schools.
> 
> Private schools teach what is best for the kids which is usually alot more progressive than public schools. That's how they stay competitive.


 Too bad libs run the public school system and fight voucher proposals.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 14, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Do you know which Mark Foley I speak of?
> 
> Mark Foley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...





Ninja said:


> He was a lifelong Democrat.
> 
> He ran for office as a Republican due to political expedience.....


 Nice smack-down to the wiki man.


----------



## Modbert (Sep 14, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Nice smack-down to the wiki man.



Not really since he must of appealed to the republicans in his area enough that they would vote him in.

Even Hiliary Clinton was in the Young Republicans back in College.

So really, it matters when you run for office which party you are. Once you run for office for that party, you are following that party's message and values.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 14, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> The private Catholic school that I send my sons to teaches age appropriate sex education starting in the kindergarten.
> 
> One of the reasons why private schools are worth it: Idiot conservatives keep blocking the modernization of the curriculum in public schools.
> 
> Private schools teach what is best for the kids which is usually alot more progressive than public schools. That's how they stay competitive.



Whoa nelly---you have high hopes that your boys are going to get  accurate and scientific sex ed information at a private catholic school ?


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Where the libs here are failing in the argument is not in the wording of the bill BUT in the curriculum that is being supported...
> 
> http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf
> 
> ...


There is nothing in there that says that.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 15, 2008)

Ravi said:


> There is nothing in there that says that.



HORSESHIT Ravi

There is a whole unit for level 1 or k-3 that discusses the topic of what masturbation is, that it feels good, and it should be done in a private place.... something WHOLLY inappropriate for a child of that age


Try actually looking at the documentation instead of just going with your blind Obama faith and assuming


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> HORSESHIT Ravi
> 
> There is a whole unit for level 1 or k-3 that discusses the topic of what masturbation is, that it feels good, and it should be done in a private place.... something WHOLLY inappropriate for a child of that age
> 
> ...



What you've posted are some guidelines (read: suggestions) on what is age appropriate to teach kids, IF SEX EDUCATION WILL BE TAUGHT. Nowhere in there does it say to teach kindergarten kids what you are implying.

The bill Obama introduced was about making schools that _are_ teaching sex education in Illinois tell their students how to avoid inappropriate touching AND give parents an opt out of sex education class. It's got nothing to do with what you idiots are implying.

I can only assume that you are either an idiot that is incapable of thinking for himself or another asshole that thinks using kids in an ad in this sexual manner is appropriate political fodder.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 15, 2008)

Ravi said:


> What you've posted are some guidelines (read: suggestions) on what is age appropriate to teach kids, IF SEX EDUCATION WILL BE TAUGHT. Nowhere in there does it say to teach kindergarten kids what you are implying.
> 
> The bill Obama introduced was about making schools that _are_ teaching sex education in Illinois tell their students how to avoid inappropriate touching AND give parents an opt out of sex education class. It's got nothing to do with what you idiots are implying.
> 
> I can only assume that you are either an idiot that is incapable of thinking for himself or another asshole that thinks using kids in an ad in this sexual manner is appropriate political fodder.



You are speaking of the bill... and the ad.... again... the doc I provided is the guideline for what is deemed appropriate by the government... laid out subject by subject, subconcept by subconcept, in the curriculum... no, this is not a word for word script lesson plan... but the framework is laid down for what to teach

FREAKING READ IT RAVI

WHAT DO THE TEACHERS FOLLOW BECAUSE THEY ARE INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW, RAVI? GUIDELINES


----------



## glockmail (Sep 15, 2008)

Modbert said:


> ....Once you run for office for that party, you are following that party's message and values.


 Not really, per the your example of Foley. But what's really funny is you taking Wiki as your source which says nothing about Foley's past affiliation with the Democrat Party.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 15, 2008)

frazzledgear said:


> Since this was actually intended to be the sex education for children when they first started public school, exactly which part do you find appropriate for a FIVE YEAR OLD?


it is a GUIDELINE, and the parents, and teachers, and religious community all have a SAY in what they choose to teach THEIR children....this guideline has been there for decades and this is the 13th revision by the Doctors etc, that have put it together....

Show us ONE SCHOOL, just ONE SCHOOL that teaches masturbation to kindergarteners, and MAYBE those that oppose this, have a solid case...

BET MY BOTTOM DOLLAR, you can't.....!

This GUIDELINE is only being exploited by the conservatives for POLITICAL POSTURING, you have to admit!

Care


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> it is a GUIDELINE, and the parents, and teachers, and religious community all have a SAY in what they choose to teach THEIR children....this guideline has been there for decades and this is the 13th revision by the Doctors etc, that have put it together....
> 
> Show us ONE SCHOOL, just ONE SCHOOL that teaches masturbation to kindergarteners, and MAYBE those that oppose this, have a solid case...
> 
> ...



And the part of teaching that for 5-8 year olds is there WHY? How can anyone in their right mind support such a guideline? As stated, in terms of educating elementary school children about recognizing and telling on sexual predators, all well and good.. and this would have not been an issue if it stopped there. This would not have been an issue if the topic of masturbation was put in there for possible discussion with kids of pubescent age and above only.. but the fact that these people had the will to put this in there as OK for young children is appalling... and the fact that Obama supported such a thing is appalling

There are other improper guidelines that are written for students by different people and organizations... and they are probably in high number revisions as well.. but just because they have been written many times does not make them right...


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> You are speaking of the bill... and the ad.... again... the doc I provided is the guideline for what is deemed appropriate by the government... laid out subject by subject, subconcept by subconcept, in the curriculum... no, this is not a word for word script lesson plan... but the framework is laid down for what to teach
> 
> FREAKING READ IT RAVI
> 
> WHAT DO THE TEACHERS FOLLOW BECAUSE THEY ARE INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW, RAVI? GUIDELINES


sigh. It's a private advocacy group, you moron. It isn't anything more than that.

What does it have to do with Obama wanting parents to have the option of opting out of public sex education?


----------



## Care4all (Sep 15, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And the part of teaching that for 5-8 year olds is there WHY? How can anyone in their right mind support such a guideline? As stated, in terms of educating elementary school children about recognizing and telling on sexual predators, all well and good.. and this would have not been an issue if it stopped there. This would not have been an issue if the topic of masturbation was put in there for possible discussion with kids of pubescent age and above only.. but the fact that these people had the will to put this in there as OK for young children is appalling... and the fact that Obama supported such a thing is appalling
> 
> There are other improper guidelines that are written for students by different people and organizations... and they are probably in high number revisions as well.. but just because they have been written many times does not make them right...



Each and every school district DECIDES for THEMSELVES what is age appropriate sexual education....they do this within each community, with the cooperation of parents, teachers, religious community, and even students....

there is no curriculum being forced on to ANYONE.....

are you saying that YOU should have a say, in what another state or community or school district does and YOU should DICTATE TO THEM and CONTROL THEM?  i call BULLSHIT!   this is nothing but faux outrage for purely political posturing.

Come onnnnnn, show us a school district where the parents and community agreed to teach masterbation to kindergarteners....put up, or shut up, is the point i am at now.....

from the guidelines on the link you posted:

*Community Involvement: The community must be involved in the development and
implementation of sexuality education programs. School-based programs must be carefully
developed to respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community.
Parents, family members, teachers, administrators, community and religious leaders, and
students should all be involved.*


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Each and every school district DECIDES for THEMSELVES what is age appropriate sexual education....they do this within each community, with the cooperation of parents, teachers, religious community, and even students....
> 
> there is no curriculum being forced on to ANYONE.....
> 
> ...




ever been to a PTA meeting --how about a neighborhood association meeting--I can't wait for them al lto go over these guidelines and decide what will and will not be part of the curriculum. In the MEANTIME we can't teach Johnny to read and write.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> ever been to a PTA meeting --how about a neighborhood association meeting--I can't wait for them al lto go over these guidelines and decide what will and will not be part of the curriculum. In the MEANTIME we can't teach Johnny to read and write.


Really, your kids didn't learn to read and write? Maybe it's a problem beyond the ability of the schools.


----------



## DiamondDave (Sep 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> Each and every school district DECIDES for THEMSELVES what is age appropriate sexual education....they do this within each community, with the cooperation of parents, teachers, religious community, and even students....
> 
> there is no curriculum being forced on to ANYONE.....
> 
> ...



Yet Obama SUPPORTED this guideline... which calls into question his judgment... which is the point...

You want to teach your kids about whacking off right after reading Green Eggs and Ham to them... your business.. but that has no business in a school, nor does it have any business in any recommendation to a school system

That is the point I am at now... the point that it should never even have got that far to even consider this at a school board....


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Yet Obama SUPPORTED this guideline



Where? As far as I can see, he wanted legislation that allowed parents to opt out of sex education and taught children already in school districts that had sex education to learn about stranger danger.

This didn't work really well when Alan Keyes tried to make up lies about Obama's position so I'm surprised McCain is trying to repeat the same lie.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

Once again, it's about the sexualization of kids. Having the language there is acknowledgement that it's okay to share sexuality with children. It's a mistake, just as it's a mistake for the country to subsidize under-age sex by giving kids the message that they can have sex without consequences, and if they do get knocked up, the state will pay for it.

You wonder why child molestation, battery and murder is so prevalent in this country? Look to laws which encourage us to think of children in a sexual way, as chattel, or as hindrances. This bill is a prime example of teaching the public to think of children as sexual beings.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Really, your kids didn't learn to read and write? Maybe it's a problem beyond the ability of the schools.



Quit being a dunce, Ravi. Our public schools are failing American children. Are you actually going to make a joke out of that ?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

She's been trained to believe they're second class citizens. Fodder for abortionists and sexually perverted libs.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Once again, it's about the sexualization of kids.



For once I agree with you Allie. The fact that McCain is attempting to sexualize kids in this ad of his is shocking and disgusting.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Quit being a dunce, Ravi. Our public schools are failing American children. Are you actually going to make a joke out of that ?


I don't see it. Sure, there are plenty of problems with public education, but on the whole it works. Of course, this no child left behind nonsense has put education back a little, but nothing that can't be overcome.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't see it. Sure, there are plenty of problems with public education, but on the whole it works. Of course, this no child left behind nonsense has put education back a little, but nothing that can't be overcome.



WOW--if you call that working it explains a lot.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

Which reminds me. When I was looking for information on this bill (which has essentially been buried by the press, btw) I came across a really interesting factoid: The federal government offers funds to states for the purpose of including abstention as a part of sex ed.

Did anyone realize that many states are REFUSING that money, and refusing to teach it? I find this sort of interesting. While the left whines, "Why do you want to deny your children KNOWLEDGE" they're actually turning away funds which would enable them to better educate kids.

They are committed to turning babies into sexual figures who are without rights, without standing, and who are considered expendable.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

Ravi said:


> For once I agree with you Allie. The fact that McCain is attempting to sexualize kids in this ad of his is shocking and disgusting.



Insisting that 5-year-olds are sexual beings and in need of sex education because of it is shocking and disgusting, but we've already established that you care absolutely nothing for children.


----------



## Care4all (Sep 15, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Which reminds me. When I was looking for information on this bill (which has essentially been buried by the press, btw) I came across a really interesting factoid: The federal government offers funds to states for the purpose of including abstention as a part of sex ed.
> 
> Did anyone realize that many states are REFUSING that money, and refusing to teach it? I find this sort of interesting. While the left whines, "Why do you want to deny your children KNOWLEDGE" they're actually turning away funds which would enable them to better educate kids.
> 
> They are committed to turning babies into sexual figures who are without rights, without standing, and who are considered expendable.



as many as 48 states i had read, took the federal money at one time or another, for an abstinence only program....it is now down to around 25 states, 13 of thise states offer BOTH the abstinence only course along with the comprehensive sex ed program, which still qualifies for the money....

alaska is NOT one of the states with an abstinence program so it does not get the federal money, but in 2009, they will be offering the abstinence course and get the fed money....

i read that states have dropped the program because their results showed it was not stopping or even reducing, teenage pregnancies....?  But also read, that abstinence only courses can be taught along with comprehensive sex ed and the states would still qualify for the money and states are still refusing to take this money, more as their own statement and rejection of the abstinence program....


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

Care4all said:


> *But also read, that abstinence only courses can be taught along with comprehensive sex ed and the states would still qualify for the money and states are still refusing to take this money, more as their own statement and rejection of the abstinence program...*.



That's what I read, too.

In other words, they're withholding information from children, which is what the left always accuses the right of doing when the right attempts to de-sexualize children and remove sex from the classroom.

They're withholding information when they refuse to include abstinence in the program.

And they wonder why schools are going downhill, why parents don't want to participate any more, and why more and more are finding alternatives to public schooling.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 15, 2008)

> They are committed to turning babies into sexual figures who are without rights, without standing, and who are considered expendable.



Total bullshit again Ali.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Total bullshit again Ali.


Of course it is, but don't expect the McCain parrot to stop using kids to further her agenda.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

You guys think that since perverts see kids sexually, we should teach them about sex.

Go ahead and say that isn't sexualizing children.


----------



## MalibuMan (Sep 15, 2008)

Why spend government money on something that should be the parents resonsiblity?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2008)

MalibuMan said:


> Why spend government money on something that should be the parents resonsiblity?



Amen --I think the idea is that some here are worried about some other kid infecting or impregnating their kid. We got to get them all taught the same thing.


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 15, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Which reminds me. When I was looking for information on this bill (which has essentially been buried by the press, btw) I came across a really interesting factoid: The federal government offers funds to states for the purpose of including abstention as a part of sex ed.
> 
> Did anyone realize that many states are REFUSING that money, and refusing to teach it? I find this sort of interesting. While the left whines, "Why do you want to deny your children KNOWLEDGE" they're actually turning away funds which would enable them to better educate kids.
> 
> They are committed to turning babies into sexual figures who are without rights, without standing, and who are considered expendable.



Because its a waste, they know abstinence is illogical.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> Because its a waste, they know abstinence is illogical.



Then why does the plan Obama supports suggest it ?


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 15, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Amen --I think the idea is that some here are worried about some other kid infecting or impregnating their kid. We got to get them all taught the same thing.



Because there are people like Sarah Palin who dont get the message across to their kids.  Its funny how this could be spun but I will spare the keyboard strokes.


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 15, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Then why does the plan Obama supports suggest it ?



he supports abstinence education?  Are you sure about that?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> he supports abstinence education?  Are you sure about that?



it"s part of the plan    you might try reading it


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 15, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> it"s part of the plan    you might try reading it



Exactly, "Part" not the basis behind the education.  When I was talking about abstinence not working I was referring to another post about the government giving extra funds for states that want abstinence training.  I dont think we are on the same page.  We definately should talk about abstinence but the reality is young people will have sex so make sure they have condoms.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

However, it's ILLEGAL when young people have sex, so why the hell are we subsidizing illegal behavior, and making it easier and easire for perverts to get away with abusing kids?

And do 5 year olds really have sex? And if they do, should we simply "prepare" them for it, instead of simply teaching them that it's just wrong at their age?

If we're teaching them it's wrong, then we don't need sex ed.
Which brings us back to square one. Sex education for kindergartners is condoning sexualization of children.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 15, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> Exactly, "Part" not the basis behind the education.  When I was talking about abstinence not working I was referring to another post about the government giving extra funds for states that want abstinence training.  I dont think we are on the same page.  We definately should talk about abstinence but the reality is young people will have sex so make sure they have condoms.



not all of em--it's worth encouraging. Expect failure you will get failure.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> However, it's ILLEGAL when young people have sex, so why the hell are we subsidizing illegal behavior, and making it easier and easire for perverts to get away with abusing kids?
> 
> And do 5 year olds really have sex? And if they do, should we simply "prepare" them for it, instead of simply teaching them that it's just wrong at their age?
> 
> ...


How do you tell them it's wrong if they don't know what it is? I don't know about your experiences in life, but little kids do like to play doctor. Why would you not want to tell them that adults shouldn't be playing that shit with kids?


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 15, 2008)

If they don't know what it is, why do you support educating them?

Oh, yeah. Because the pervs see them sexually..therefore everyone else should, too. I forgot.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 15, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> If they don't know what it is, why do you support educating them?
> 
> Oh, yeah. Because the pervs see them sexually..therefore everyone else should, too. I forgot.


You are the one advocating that they should just be told that it is wrong. Follow your thought to it's logical conclusion. What exactly do you plan on telling them is wrong?


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 15, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> not all of em--it's worth encouraging. Expect failure you will get failure.



The only teens (16-19) that wont have sex are the ones that cant find anyone to have sex with them and thats a small percentage.  If this was your kid then congrats, your kid was Mcclovin from Superbad.


----------

