Yeah kindergarden is far too young. I mean, kids don't even start kissing each other until the fourth grade. I sort of liked the system at my school, though I wish changes in subject matter occurred, but anyway yhey did it like this: They skim the surface of it in fifth grade, just so the kids understand what it is, why its done. In seventh grade they start talking about premature sex, and the risks, and finally get as thorough as they have time for in seventh grade.

Channler, unfortunately I got this survey from an article two months ago, but search google for Sexual Education and they'll show some articles highlighting the controversy.

Ahh... to bad..

Well.. lets see.. I was a little wild.. as a kid? I was kissing girls behind the school bus's in kindergarden...

but that was never serious, it was jsut because. there was no physical attraction.

Channler is such a pimp.

Anyway - about sex-ed.

I don't think it is necessary, except maybe a small talk about STDs and how to prevent them. Everything else will be learned in time. I knew everything they had to say before I ever took the class.

I think they should skim the surface at sixth, maybe fifth grade and then teach the main points in seventh, eighth and maybe future grades. That's how I was taught and I turned out all right.

The most abstinence prone thing I ever saw was on South Park when they started their sex-ed episode and everyone asked Chef when it was appropriate to start having sex.

"Seventeen."

"But after they're truly in love and have trust in each other"

"No, just seventeen"

"But only if both them and their partner are really ready"

"Nope, just seventeen"

Sorry to change the subject but...I just heard today that the US president...is telling Iran to stop manufacturing nuclear weapons. Bush is two words...power hungry.

It's not good enough for him to rule the United States, he has to try and rule the rest of the world as well...where will the line be drawn?

Honestly, I have no problem with anyone stopping the production of nuclear weapons - the US included.

they scare the hell out of me.

I wish every country in the world would agree to abandoning the research and production of nuclear weapons. Anything with that kind of destructive power should be banned IMO.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Aug 15 2005, 02:43 AM

Yeah some people are just too arrogant to understand that a destructive force is a destructive force no matter who owns it.

But you all know how foolish it would be to disabanded them nuke stocks now...

As I see it, nukes would only be trouble in the hands of

A: A terrorist organization, like Al Quada (SP)

B: Korea, who has or doesn't have nukes

C: Iran is sketchy, I trust almost any other nation (developed) with them but Iran

I don't think we would us nukes even if they were used on us (the US), even though both the vast majority of republicans would agree, and a large number of dems would agree.

Besides the notion of warfare has changed from 3rd Gen to 4th Gen..

Above I've ruled out everything I don't agree with.

I think whoever even made thos bombs should have to eat them. YES! YES! *plankton's voice* MWAHAHAH! Now Spongebob, that crabby paddy is mine!

I think as long as one nation has them, it does not have that right to restrict others from obtaining them. There are other nations I don't trust the bomb with.

1. Israel
2. Stargelman Emperor of Waiting4Oblivion (I dare not think what would happen)
3. England
4. France
5. Me (That might be worse that Stargelman owning them)

This post has been edited by gamer10: Aug 15 2005, 03:19 PM

Hey guys, guess what, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but they won't be able to create one for at least ten years. So why then, does the Bush administration represent this kernal of evidence as being so urgent as to justify bombing them in the coming year? Well, let me explain.

See, currently The United States has total power to what ever the Hell they want in the Middle East. They want to bomb an extremely poor country, kidnap their dictator and put a democratic flag at their capital with its rigged elections to turn that country into a terrorist hotspot, then they can, no questions asked, at least from Middle Eastern countries. Why? Becuase the only country with the power to say anything is Israel, and Israel wouldn't say a damned thing because of all the money and benefits the US gives them, and the similarity in their religious Right-wing ideals.

Despite the fact that Iran has a Secular government with even less liberties than Iraq had, they would still represent opposition against this bulldozer force in the Middle-East. If Iran could develop just one nuclear bomb, then they would jump start a cold-war between Israel and Iran. The United States wants to stop that from happening because even though it would bring peace, as Israel would be less likely to bully the smaller states in the Middle East, this peace would not be in favor of the right-wing agenda. I don't agree with Iran's government. They are Secular and right-wing, even more right-wing than Saddam Hussein. However, I am very much in favor of a deadlock between Israel and Iran, that way situations like Iraq could not repeat themselves in countries like Syria and Jordan, as the Bush administration obviously feels in favor of doing, despite the major fiasco that every single anti-war person saw coming, in his mind Iraq was still a success.

In a great deal of people still find Iraq a success, just not the people you like...

The majority of the country is displeased with the way Bush is handling the situation. And America is not the entire world, and 95% of the entire world is definitely displeased with the way Bush is handling Iraq. That's my point, most people agree that no single country with one single, extreme point of view should get total power over a region, and yet thanks to diplomatic networks with Israel, and business connections with Saudis, the US has usurped control over the Middle East. If Iran, a country unfriendly to the US, developed a nuclear bomb, then this tyrannical power in the Middle East would cease.

This post has been edited by DoomedOne: Aug 16 2005, 04:57 AM

I'd like to know where you find your information cause last time I saw the opinion polls (and this was from CNN) they were at 40 for 60 agaisnt

Riiiiiiiight. Let's see, last I cheked was around May, and it was around 55% disliked the way he was handling Iraq, 45% were satisfied with the way he was handling Iraq

Yep, Doomed is right - a majority of Americans don't like the war or how Bush is handling it. Including me.

Back on the Iran with nuclear weapons topic : while Doomed is right in that the "tyrannical power in the Middle East" would end should Iran make a nuke, it may also lead to a nuclear war just fighting over that control. Quite honestly, I would rather have the US and Israel in total domination of the Middle East than have a nuclear war. To me, it's the lesser of two evils.

This post has been edited by Dantrag: Aug 17 2005, 05:32 AM

No one wants a nuclear war. The goal of Iran in developing nuclear capabilities is not to evoke nuclear war. That's not what they want. They can be as right-wing and as secular as they want, they still wouldn't have any plans to ever use a nuclear weapon. They, however, are not diplomatically tight with the US right now. The US has threatened to begin bombing them. As a leader, I'd be pretty frightened in hearing a country planned to blow me up. Even the ability to make the US think I had nuclear capabilities would be enough. You see, the chances of the US dismantling a single nuclear bomb are so slim... there's no chance of bringing balance to the Middle-East by lowering the grade of weapons, so it's up to the countries that aren't on the good side of the Super-powers to stand up for themselves. They really have no choice in this matter.

I look at it like that scene from negotiator where Samuel L Jackson pretended to shoot the assault guy so the cops outside would stop trying to break in.

This post has been edited by DoomedOne: Aug 17 2005, 06:30 AM

About the majority on Americans not liking it . . .

1. They probably don't poll children, and being a minor doesn't take away your American citizenship

2. They poll a small number of adults and use the figures to represent the nation.

When they poll every single person in the United States of America, including me, I'll believe them.

Bush was elected by the majority of voters, not everyone voted. However, seeing as that I can't really do anything about that because I can't vote, I'll just say this.

The majority of voters picked him, so hes our president. If they hated his ideas then why elect him. The way I view it . .

Elected = Hey, too bad for those of you who didn't want him to be president.

This nuclear thing . . .

I believe no nation holds the rights to have stored nuclear weapons, or build them in the future.



Israel? What's Israel? Oh yes, one of the "nations" that was formed when the British broke up the area known as Palestine. Making sure that there was not a single nation that could stand up to them in that region, in order to retain dominance.

We're not giving Israel money as a gift, we're giving it so they don't use the dangerous weapons they have. In other words, it's a bribe. That's whats stopping a nuclear war, I don't view Israel as a responsible state.

Instead of protesting war, people should start protesting Israel. Just think of how much money we're bribing them with. Some of your tax money is being given every year to them, add the years up and find how much money you've given in total.

I view Israel as an opressed state, with a tyrannical dictator. I would rather see us invade Israel than Iraq.



This post has been edited by gamer10: Aug 18 2005, 11:19 PM

Gamer, I agree polls are flawed, but here's some logic.

Just because more voters voted for Bush than kerry (as it has been decided) doesn't mean the majority of Americans think the war is being handled properly. I know a woman who hates war, but voted for Bush because she got a 1600 dollar tx-cut while he was office. I said I know her, I don't like her.

Another thing the majority of Americans is so slimj its irrelevant. If it were around 60-40 it'd mean something more, but let's face it, something like 4 million voters decided the difference between Bush and Kerry. That's tiny. So tiny, that you can split the presidency country 50-50. The point is this. There is only one single point of view deciding matters for the entire Middle-East. The US tells Saudia Arabia what to do and Israel what to do because of their business ties. That's one single point of view, lead by a country that's split evenly, and yet half the country does not get representation, let alone the actual countries who should be deciding matters in the Middle-East, like... say the Middle-East.

See, it may be easier for someone who follows a more right-wing approach to politics to see that there's absolutely no problem with the US having control of the Middle-East, because it's their middle-east.