<p>YouTube - McCain "Kindergarten Sex-ed" slander ad</p>
<ol>
<li>HAHAHA</li>
<li>Illinois</a> General Assembly - Full Text of SB0099</li>
</ol>
<p>Each class or course in comprehensive sex
education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall
include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
of HIV AIDS.</p>
<p>FactCheck does not dispute this. FactCheck is not an unbiased source, they defend liberals mostly, and throw in a defense of conservatism every now and then.</p>
<p>This FactCheck article is way off base.</p>
<p>A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>The ad claims "Obama's one accomplishment" in the realm of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." </p>
<p>It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate.</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>Please tell me how "age appropriate" makes it any less comphrehensive sex education. And how "age appropriate" can you teach the prevention of AIDS?</p>
<p>What did the fact check article dispute?</p>
<p>BTW, LOL@your title</p>
<p>What? So what if I prefer to keep government small? I believe actual conervatism is a great concept, it's the Republicans who are f-ing up the concept. Like the way I think about it, being pro choice actually should be the conservative stance since conservatives believe in less government intervention and more "choice"(sorry for the pun) for individuals. But for whatever reason republicans have this whole morality bs that actually contradicts the fundamentals of conservatism. Oh well all politicans should burn in the end regardless.</p>
<p>The first step is admitting you have a problem, pug.</p>
<p>There was an actual ad in regards to this. </p>
<p>The fact that you conservatives allow no government regulation results in Viagra commercials on the TV leading to my 9 year old cousin (at that time) asking me what an erection is. Kids are going to learn of it at one point or another.</p>
<p>The defense behind this is aimed at stopping sexual abuse on children. In educating children about these things, SOMETHING PARENTS REALLY NEVER SEEM TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO, will hopefully result in stopping something before it begins.</p>
<p>As my health teacher put it, in not these exact words, whenever he had some [conservative] parents approach him about the sex ed portion of class: "I AM NOT TEACHING YOUR KIDS DOGGY STYLE!"</p>
<p>Spreading of HIV and AIDS? Don't touch blood. Kids touch everything. I was on the bus yesterday and a kid picked up a tic tac or something similar and shoved it in her mouth. They're naturally curious.</p>
<p>YouTube the video.</p>
<p>We need to apply economics to our government. It's not about having a big or small government, but about having an efficient government that caters to our needs and protects the well being of its inhabitants not from foreign invaders, but the terrorists that run the big corporations.</p>
<p>Ever notice how our country's name is an oxymoron in itself?</p>
<p>As I mentioned before, we've arrived at this government due to the citizens of the 19th and 20th century that got sick and tired of being screwed over by their employers. Simple as that. Nobody cared about politics on a national level back then. It was all local and what the major, governor, etc. did for you. NOT MUCH! When America truly became united, that's when the good times started rolling.</p>
<p>And yade yade yade yah.</p>
<p>Mental illness. See a shrink.</p>
<p>The idea of teaching comprehensive sex education to younger children is to teach them things like touching certain things is not OK. </p>
<p>If any of you know any sexually abused children, it is very, very difficult to ever see the signs because kids rarely report it. They do not know what is and is not OK.</p>
<p>Conservatism is sensible fiscal policy.</p>
<p>Yes, if you're greedy and don't care about others, which encapsulates conservatism.</p>
<p>I don't agree that conservatism is a mental illness.</p>
<p>But conservatism is a philosophy doomed to fail because it's about holding back inevitable change for as long as possible. Conservatism has never succeeded in the history of mankind because nothing's exactly the way it was even 10 years ago, much less 100 or even 1000 years ago. Conservatism today would be dismissed as insane liberalism if you go just even a little back in time. </p>
<p>Liberalism is the aggressor, with a clear set of goals in mind. Conservatism is the reactionary, constantly on the defense, and inevitably, it will fail.</p>
<p>I speak as a liberal. The title to this thread is stupid. Read Allan Bloom. Read the political works of Harvey Mansfield. Read the old articles of Andrew Sullivan. Heck, go read some Edmund Burke. </p>
<p>Conservatives and Liberals can both be intelligent. Don't simplify so much. You're still too young.</p>
<p>^nbachris2788 nailed it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Conservatism is sensible fiscal policy."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Using that definition, the Bush administration must be a bunch of flaming liberals . . .</p>
<p>Nothing is great about conservative ideology, whether it be social or economical. They bring absolute backward movement. While both extremes, far right and far left, end up in no advancement of civilization and society, the conservatives as a group bring absolutely nothing to the table. Structured in such a Darwinian survival of the fittest (yet it doesn't apply to nature) mindset, they sit and honestly believe that their problems are more important than those of others. In all honesty, if you live in the USA, there is a good chance you have very little problems and more inconveniences that you've laid on yourself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't agree that conservatism is a mental illness.</p>
<p>But conservatism is a philosophy doomed to fail because it's about holding back inevitable change for as long as possible. Conservatism has never succeeded in the history of mankind because nothing's exactly the way it was even 10 years ago, much less 100 or even 1000 years ago. Conservatism today would be dismissed as insane liberalism if you go just even a little back in time.</p>
<p>Liberalism is the aggressor, with a clear set of goals in mind. Conservatism is the reactionary, constantly on the defense, and inevitably, it will fail.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is obvious, and it's a very narrow definition of Conservatism (the idea that nothing should change). But Conservatives have indeed brought back ideas from the past--the imposition (I feel) of religion in public school is one example. Moreover, as a liberal, I've told my friend that it is unfair to point to the "results" of liberalism. Liberalism DID bring about rights for minorities and females. BUT, the role of Conservatism has been in preventing what could have happened if Liberalism ran amok. For all we know, without Conservatism, we would be allowed to kill the mentally retarded (a strong example).</p>
<p>In the long run, the benefits of Conservatism are usually not easily detectable. But they exist.</p>
<p>A strong or extreme example? As I stated above, the extremes of both result in no advancement, but the conservatives as a wide attribute more than liberals.</p>
<p>I also have a hard time understanding, taking social thought out of it, how liberals would kill the mentally retarded? They're considered inefficient and incapable of helping themselves, which would result in conservatives neglecting them on a wide scale (as seen today in regards to funding).</p>
<p>Moreover, in France, Conservatives often claim that the Reign of Terror would not have taken place if many Conservatives had had their way during the French Revolution. We don't know what would have happened afterward. Conservatives don't think that we would still be under a monarchy. They claim that they would have found "some other way" to negotiate things. Conservatives are skeptics, and their philosophy is based on a converse--the opposite of Liberalism. Liberalism is not positively a converse of Conservatism though.</p>
<p>I suggest you read a great book by Russell Kirk, called The Conservative Mind</p>
<p>Well, on its face, it is easy to say that liberals would not kill the mentally retarded. That was an extreme example (though it HAS been proposed). But social conservatives may well feel that their contributions are not being noticed. Think about it this way--there are a billion potential options (some catastrophes, some not) that could occur, but over time, no one keeps track of them. Your job is to keep them from happening. The ones that pass are generally accepted over time. But those that do not are not accounted for. Would you get credit for your actions.</p>
<p>More over, there is a *huge[\i] argument supporting fiscal conservatism. Most economists are fiscal conservatives, I would argue (Greg Mankiw, even Larry Summers to an extent). In economics, it is the debate between making the pie bigger and making it more equally divided. Both are important.</p>
<p>Let us never let this thread die.</p>
<p>Making the pie bigger and making it equal is impossible. We can try, but history provides us with a great example of why it is not attainable. Those who have the biggest pie want to hold onto it and keep their conservative mentality while those who don't want it take a liberal approach to it.</p>
<p>What I've seen today, very slowly, is that those who don't have that big piece of pie don't really care for it in general as long as its equal and it feeds their family and provides leftovers. I hope you understand where I am coming from.</p>
<p>The huge argument supporting a conservative fiscal policy is provided by men and women who have that big pie. The ones who have the smallest piece of pie and that still contend for it believe that powerball is going to land and they're soon to be big piece of pie is safe. Seriously, thats about it.</p>
<p>I don't understand your catastrophes example. Can you elaborate?</p>