Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[TheCracker]

I was speaking figuratively.

 

[FoolKiller]

Isn't Palin's daughter being pregnent a perfect example why we should not follow the abstinence only sex education?

I don't know if it is a perfect example, considering that we don't know all the details, but it is an example that no policy is 100% guaranteed to prevent it.

Also, regarding use of birth control; how do you know they didn't use it, but screwed it up or it just failed?

My thought is that we need to explain birth control to kids, but teach abstinence as the only 100% effective form of birth control (not to mention STD protection). Abstinence should be there because if every kid thinks that sex is safe as long as birth control is used you will find more diseases spread (pill stops none of those) and the statistics of failure rates will poke their ugly heads out. It must be a combination.

Abstinence is safest, but if you just cannot contain yourself use birth control, preferably a mechanical form (condoms) combined with a chemical form (the pill).

Politics so much more black & white then real life. Your views on a subject are what people use to judge your stance as a politician.

True.

If your views are seen to be at odds to your ability to run your own home, then how can you be expected to 'run the country'?

This could also be used to describe Hillary Clinton. So, the two most prominent females in this election cannot keep their family members from sleeping around. At least Palin's daughter wasn't doing it in the physical office.

But seriously, if the home life was as big of an effect on the election as some make it out to be then many politicians wouldn't have made it. Off the top of my head I can think of current President Bush (daughters drinking), Cheney (lesbian daughter - he was against gay marriage), and the Clintons (I already touched on it).

My thought is that the actions of other family members is never 100% in your control and anyone that says so is lying.

 

[Sureboss]

By "daughters drinking" I presume you mean under-age drinking?

 

[TheCracker]

By "daughters drinking" I presume you mean under-age drinking?

And his own DUi in '76

 

[Touring Mars]

My thought is that we need to explain birth control to kids, but teach abstinence as the only 100% effective form of birth control (not to mention STD protection). Abstinence should be there because if every kid thinks that sex is safe as long as birth control is used you will find more diseases spread (pill stops none of those) and the statistics of failure rates will poke their ugly heads out. It must be a combination.

I agree that a combination is the best option, but Sarah Palin doesn't. She advocates abstinence and opposes sex education programmes which would increase awareness and usage of contraception and family planning. The puritans within the evangelical community that Palin is supposed to represent, and perhaps even Sarah Palin herself, seem to think that policy decisions should be made on the basis of a belief in their effectiveness as opposed to any real evidence of efficacy. Opponents of sex education assert that rising teen pregnancy and STD rates is due to increasingly lax morals and more sexual activity, when infact there is considerably more evidence to support the assertion that these things are down to a lack of decent sexual education. The incorrect (or atleast, evidentially unsupported) assumption made by the evangelical lobby is that more sex education means lower moral standards...

Preaching abstinence to a bunch of school children is one thing, preaching it to 16+ teens is quite another. Either way, I think preaching abstinence is of increasingly limited value as children grow older ("life happens"), but it can't do much harm just so long as contraception and family planning are also being taught... but preaching abstinence in the absence of responsible sexual education is just plain wrong. My worry is that it is likely to stay wrong, because beliefs are extremely hard to shift, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (and let's not forget that Sarah Palin is also an advocate of Creationism )

With any luck, Bristol Palin will serve as a reminder to everyone that we live in the real world, not a world of puritanical ideals, and perhaps Sarah Palin may re-evaluate her evangelical attitude towards her own political decisions...

 

[FoolKiller]

By "daughters drinking" I presume you mean under-age drinking?

Yes.

And his own DUi in '76

Oh man, if we get into personal youthful stupidity then it gets really bad. I was just addressing familial issues, but if we want to address personal ones we could go all day.

I agree that a combination is the best option, but Sarah Palin doesn't.

Which is one of many reasons why I am not voting for her/them. Blind faith solves nothing. If it did I would be much healthier.

With any luck, Bristol Palin will serve as a reminder to everyone that we live in the real world, not a world of puritanical ideals, and perhaps Sarah Palin may re-evaluate her evangelical attitude towards her own political decisions...

As I have said before, we don't know the situation. She may have used contraception and is just a (rare) statistic.


The biggest issue of sex education that I see is that it is done in school and parents feel that they have little say in how it is approached. I know my school had two sex-ed levels. One when I was in fifth grade (10-years-old) that involved a letter mailed home that parents had to sign to approve. In this course we had boys and girls split up into separate rooms and it was basically an anatomy lesson.

Then in high school (14-18) we had organized presentations in the gym regarding safe sex. Heck, I even remember one that was supposed to be a humorous play where the girl talked about having sex while standing and in rhythm with music and wondering why she still got pregnant. That was followed by other characters bringing up every bad advice sexual position rumor out there, including jumping up and down after. And we even had one actual class that demonstrated proper condom use on a banana. I do not remember a single thing my parents had to sign approving any of that.

Parents would be less likely to fight a program if they were able to opt-out. But no one argues for that anymore. I say, offer an abstinence only course and an all-around course, parents decide which the child gets, or also have the option to opt-out altogether.

 

[Touring Mars]

Parents would be less likely to fight a program if they were able to opt-out. But no one argues for that anymore. I say, offer an abstinence only course and an all-around course, parents decide which the child gets, or also have the option to opt-out altogether.

Probably the best approach to keep everyone happy - but I personally have major problems about the whole "opting out" issue. Schools have a responsibility to teach the facts objectively and leave the implications and moral discussions for the parents. The problem with opting out is that children whose parents are unwittingly or even purposefully steering them in the wrong direction (or who advocate ignorance) are the very ones who need the education the most. Not all subjects should be optional...

That was followed by other characters bringing up every bad advice sexual position rumor out there, including jumping up and down after.

Hey, I do that!

 

[YSSMAN]

With any luck, Bristol Palin will serve as a reminder to everyone that we live in the real world, not a world of puritanical ideals, and perhaps Sarah Palin may re-evaluate her evangelical attitude towards her own political decisions...

I'd personally hope so, but, given the short attention span of Americans, probably not.

I was listening to NPR this morning and a caller brought up an interesting point...

How different would people's reactions be (on both sides of the issue) if it were the Democratic candidate's kid having pre-marital sex and being pregnant with a child at 17?

 

[FoolKiller]

Probably the best approach to keep everyone happy - but I personally have major problems about the whole "opting out" issue. Schools have a responsibility to teach the facts objectively and leave the implications and moral discussions for the parents. The problem with opting out is that children whose parents are unwittingly or even purposefully steering them in the wrong direction (or who advocate ignorance) are the very ones who need the education the most. Not all subjects should be optional...

I think the problem is that it is controversial and unless you allow parents to sit in even the ones that will agree with your program won't feel perfectly comfortable with someone else teaching their children about sex.

Besides, how far do you take the "best for the child, ignore the parents' desires" stance? Sure, it works if you are trying to protect the child from harm, but the only way to perfectly enforce that would be to take all children at birth and raise them in state facilities. No matter what, parents will pass along bad knowledge, attributes, etc to their child. You can't prevent it and there is no grounds for it here. If that failed then we would have seen many more teen pregnancy cases pre-1900. Teen pregnancy cases and teen STDs have not improved since public schools have begun teaching sex-ed. In fact, it has been quite the opposite.

Hey, I do that!

For birth control or just celebratory? And I think the girl has to do the jumping.

 

[91hondawagon]

How different would people's reactions be (on both sides of the issue) if it were the Democratic candidate's kid having pre-marital sex and being pregnant with a child at 17?

I'd expect that conservatives would immediately accuse the Democratic candidate of not upholding family values and would try to use the pregnancy as evidence that liberals don't teach their children proper values. I expected liberals to quickly jump on Governor Palin for being a hypocrite, but I'm surprised (and impressed) that Obama warned that family issues are off-limits in the campaign. If conservatives also made this issue off-limits if the candidates' roles were reversed, I'd be equally as impressed with them.

I think the problem is that it is controversial and unless you allow parents to sit in even the ones that will agree with your program won't feel perfectly comfortable with someone else teaching their children about sex.

Allowing the parents to sit in on a sex-ed lesson would be more harmful and distracting to the students than it would be helpful. Talking about sex with your parents is usually uncomfortable enough, and having a lot of parents in the classroom would create a lot of tension and embarrassment. And also, what if a parent is strongly opposed to certain subject matter and creates a big scene in the classroom? The child would be humiliated in front of his or her classmates, the lesson would be disrupted, and everyone would feel uncomfortable. Leaving parents out of the classroom would make students feel more relaxed and more free to speak up during discussions.

Besides, how far do you take the "best for the child, ignore the parents' desires" stance? Sure, it works if you are trying to protect the child from harm, but the only way to perfectly enforce that would be to take all children at birth and raise them in state facilities. No matter what, parents will pass along bad knowledge, attributes, etc to their child. You can't prevent it and there is no grounds for it here.

You're right, parents will always pass on negative traits to their children. However, perhaps teaching children to be more open-minded and to make decisions based on what they believe instead of what their parents believe would be best. But that opens up a lot of controversy about undermining parents' authority, and when that happened in my public school, some parents flatly rejected any compromise and sent their children to a private school. To be honest, I just don't think there is a good answer to your question that everyone will agree on.

Teen pregnancy cases and teen STDs have not improved since public schools have begun teaching sex-ed. In fact, it has been quite the opposite.

That's incorrect. Teen pregnancy rates have actually decreased in the U.S. over the last half-century. However, you're right that rates of STDs have increased. This might suggest that while teens are using more chemical birth control (pills, spermicide, etc.), physical means (like condoms) aren't being used as often, which is troubling.

Hey, I do that!

If you have enough energy to jump around afterwards, you're doing it wrong .

 

[Omnis]

I'm watching the Rally for the Republic.The invocation was kind of lackluster and the national anthem was absolutely terrible. However, things have picked up, and Tucker Carlson is cool, and Doug Wead is speaking now and is on fire in the middle of a great speech.

 

[FoolKiller]

Allowing the parents to sit in on a sex-ed lesson would be more harmful and distracting to the students than it would be helpful.

I wasn't proposing we do that, I was simply explaining why it is an issue for parents and explaining the only way, aside from an opt-out policy, they would be happy.

You're right, parents will always pass on negative traits to their children. However, perhaps teaching children to be more open-minded and to make decisions based on what they believe instead of what their parents believe would be best.

Since you just described tolerance, not birth-control, I agree.

But that opens up a lot of controversy about undermining parents' authority, and when that happened in my public school, some parents flatly rejected any compromise and sent their children to a private school. To be honest, I just don't think there is a good answer to your question that everyone will agree on.

Having the public school take on a roll that a parent feels is their obligation, without getting the parents' permission, does undermine the parents' authority. How far do we go with this? Do we try to unteach any religious ideals that parents give their students?

An opt-in policy is best. The parent agrees, just like for a field trip, to allow the student to participate. Anyone else find it odd that a parent can disallow their child from visiting a museum, but not disallow them from sitting in on a sex-ed course taught by someone they do not know?

That's incorrect. Teen pregnancy rates have actually decreased in the U.S. over the last half-century.

I was about to argue, but then realized I was looking at actual total pregnancies, not rates. Even then they have dropped in the last decade.

However, you're right that rates of STDs have increased. This might suggest that while teens are using more chemical birth control (pills, spermicide, etc.), physical means (like condoms) aren't being used as often, which is troubling.

I think this and the teen birthrate decrease can both be attributed to the fact that the rate began dropping about the time we actually found medically viable forms of birth control. So, yes, the teen birthrate dropped but general responsibility was not better and none of it safer, apparently, from a disease perspective.

I think that all of this is a sign that the amount of sexual activity has not changed, but the taboo of discussing it has, so it is becoming easier for birth control to be requested from a doctor in a private setting. But guys still have that stigma of buying condoms being embarrassing.



Anyway, we have gotten off the topic. I think everyone involved has agreed that Palin's abstinence only stance isn't the best way to go, and at this point we just disagree on the amount of parental involvement. As that is not an issue in this election I figure we are risking going off-topic.

 

[Tornado]

Nevermind. My question was answered.

 

[Omnis]

Jesse Ventura just announced that he'll run for President in 2012 if the Campaign for Liberty and "the revolution" gains traction.

 

[Tornado]

*Insert joke about body slamming terrorists*

 

[Solid Fro]

Jesse Ventura is not the great wrestler he used to be.

He's just a 9/11 Troofer now:



Paul/Ventura '12! Future fail!

 

[Matt R]

I'm watching the Rally for the Republic.The invocation was kind of lackluster and the national anthem was absolutely terrible. However, things have picked up, and Tucker Carlson is cool, and Doug Wead is speaking now and is on fire in the middle of a great speech.

I couldn't believe they had that women singing the national anthem. I overheard from another room and assumed a 12 year old girl was doing it. It was terrible.

Tucker Carlson gets on my nerves a bit. It's one thing to be on the right, but he seems like he's falling off the ledge right. I did get a kick out of him not being able to answer a reporters question last night about Palin's decision making or something, I don't remember specifically. Next time he should just say he doesn't know instead of trying to run circles.

 

[Omnis]

I couldn't believe they had that women singing the national anthem. I overheard from another room and assumed a 12 year old girl was doing it. It was terrible.

Tucker Carlson gets on my nerves a bit. It's one thing to be on the right, but he seems like he's falling off the ledge right. I did get a kick out of him not being able to answer a reporters question last night about Palin's decision making or something, I don't remember specifically. Next time he should just say he doesn't know instead of trying to run circles.

A woman? Did you even see it? It was some military Sergeant guy who couldn't sing worth a damn. The only woman who sang was Amee Allen who just did stuff like sublime covers and her ron paul song. Sara Evans is on at the end, though, so she should be good.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why don't campaigns do car bumper magnets? I end up hating candidates just because I see a nice car ruined by political stickers (yep, I am sometimes that shallow about my politics). It doesn't affect my vote, but I tend to curse them under my breath for doing that to a car.

I have answered myself. While looking at the Libertarian Party's store I was looking at the "I have this crazy idea The Constitution actually means something" sticker when I noticed the option to get it with magnetic backing.

Funny that I found what I was looking for in the Libertarian Party.

To bad they are out of stock.

Oh well, I will still get the window clings.

It's all about cost, car magnets would cost a lot more then stickers.

Specifically, it will cost $2.45 extra. A price I am willing to pay to not damage my paint.

 

[TheCracker]

Oh man, if we get into personal youthful stupidity then it gets really bad. I was just addressing familial issues, but if we want to address personal ones we could go all day.

He was 30!

 

[FoolKiller]

He was 30!

And I am 29. Are you saying that I am not youthful?


In other news:

There have been multiple reports that Sarah Palin may have considered banning books when she was a mayor. I am linking Gamepolitics.com, but they link multiple stories on it.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/03/republican-vp-choice-sarah-palin-tried-ban-books

There seems little hard evidence, but if it is true she fails.

 

[Solid Fro]

Quote of the century:

"Fellow citizens, if the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain's resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry Left never will."

Whoa, who's this fittie?

I didn't see any hot women at the DNC.

 

[TheCracker]

And I am 29. Are you saying that I am not youthful?

Youthful abandonment is fine at any age IMO. Unless your father is the Director of the CiA, in which case it's pretty misjudged

 

[Omnis]

Quote of the century:

"Fellow citizens, if the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain's resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry Left never will."

Quote of the century? Hardly. I read McCain's autobiography-- it said, "I was a POW."

Anyway, here's a funny quote from Lew Rockwell's speech yesterday:

Here is another phrase from early in his presidency. Bush was going to create "an ownership society." Some commentators were stupid enough to believe that this meant that he would privatize things and give back control to the people.

To those who bought this line, I have only this to say: You Got Owned.

 

[Matt R]

A woman? Did you even see it? It was some military Sergeant guy who couldn't sing worth a damn. The only woman who sang was Amee Allen who just did stuff like sublime covers and her ron paul song. Sara Evans is on at the end, though, so she should be good.

Yes, a women. First night of the convention.

 

[FoolKiller]

Quote of the century? Hardly. I read McCain's autobiography-- it said, "I was a POW."

Anyway, here's a funny quote from Lew Rockwell's speech yesterday:

Here is another phrase from early in his presidency. Bush was going to create "an ownership society." Some commentators were stupid enough to believe that this meant that he would privatize things and give back control to the people.

To those who bought this line, I have only this to say: You Got Owned.

I thought the ownership society thing was referring to making sure more lower income families could own homes. You know, the thing Dems were pushing for before and he made his own thing, only to have the whole thing blow up into a housing crisis.

 

[91hondawagon]

I thought the ownership society thing was referring to making sure more lower income families could own homes. You know, the thing Dems were pushing for before and he made his own thing, only to have the whole thing blow up into a housing crisis.

...due to mismanagement by lenders and banks, and compounded by the government's failure to regulate loan practices properly. The "ownership society" idea would only work if these lower-income families managed their finances and property wisely, which many failed to do. The problem got worse when lenders raised the rates on their loans (which were adjustable to begin with - bad idea for the homeowners) and many homeowners couldn't afford to keep up with the high rates.

But, you already know this. What I'm getting at is the "ownership society" is a good idea in principle, regardless of who thought of it or supported it; however, the principle falls apart when the factors that hold it up (personal and economic responsibility, etc.) aren't practiced.

 

[Danoff]

...due to mismanagement by lenders and banks, and compounded by the government's failure to regulate loan practices properly.

Nope, due to over speculation by individuals who did not understand the market they were getting into. "Interest only? Adjustable rate? Who cares! The value is going nowhere but up!"

Don't blame banks for catering to what the customer wanted - or the government for not preventing the banks from catering to their customers.

however, the principle falls apart when the factors that hold it up (personal and economic responsibility, etc.) aren't practiced.

Agreed - personal responsibility. Not government, not bank, personal.

 

[91hondawagon]

Don't blame banks for catering to what the customer wanted - or the government for not preventing the banks from catering to their customers.

Ah, but I will.

By knowingly and willingly giving out loans to people they knew to be on shaky financial ground, the banks essentially set themselves up for disaster. The system worked out okay for a long time; mortgage rates were low, home sales were high, and everyone was having a good time. However, there were eventually too many empty houses on the market, which caused a price depression, which caused the market to turn sour. Banks became worried about their subprime mortgages and began to raise adjustable rates, which forced many homeowners into foreclosure, and everything went to hell.

Also, the government didn't take into account the risk of exploding market bubbles and didn't take steps to regulate it. It did nothing to discourage high-risk lending and borrowing on shaky credit, so the blame must lie at least partly with them.

So, in my opinion, the fault lies with delinquent borrowers for not knowing what they were getting themselves into (which we're in agreement on, Danoff), banks for freely giving out loans and mortgages to borrowers they knew to be high-risk, and the federal government for not properly supervising the housing bubble.

Now relating this to the thread topic, I'm curious to see how each presidential candidate will address this crisis, although neither Obama nor McCain have any highly-publicized stance or an outlined plan for it. I understand that introducing specific plans-of-action about any topic can be dangerous before a political election, but the candidates seem to have gone silent about this issue.

 

[FoolKiller]

Also, the government didn't take into account the risk of exploding market bubbles and didn't take steps to regulate it. It did nothing to discourage high-risk lending and borrowing on shaky credit, so the blame must lie at least partly with them.

That isn't their job. That isn't in their power. Hands-off is what they should have done, and this current bail out talk now is also bad.

banks for freely giving out loans and mortgages to borrowers they knew to be high-risk,

Banks made a bad business decision. The only fault that the banks have to answer for is their own financial problems resulting from it. It isn't their fault that people couldn't meet their agreement, and it isn't their fault that the politicians told people they have the right to own a house no matter what.

and the federal government for not properly supervising the housing bubble.

Again, not their job. Free market, not social market.

Now relating this to the thread topic, I'm curious to see how each presidential candidate will address this crisis,

The best plan of action is to let it work itself out. The government is already spending too much money.

But I believe both leading candidates support some form of bail out.