quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

quote:

Palin's answer:

No, I don't think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I'm not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something that I would support also.

Is there something more extreme than contraceptive use? exactly what did she think they taught kids? another case of her backpeddaling out of a mess. the woman truly is clueless, Firm. no matter how many ways you wish to turn, twist and distort what others say, the whole will never change. She speaks before thinking, she acts without forethought and has the audacity to ask others to cover for her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Well, I hate to differ, but no one has proven a single one of the slurs I posted. There's been a lot of sarcastic humor, and further attacks. There have been a lot of misdirection, and changing of terms.

Maybe that's because nobody ever made a slur? The six items you listed are legitimate allegations, not "slurs". And they were proven time and over in the form that they were made during the campaign (not necessarily in the form you stated them).

For instance: Palin indeed did *not* say that the earth was 4k years old. In the correct version, she said *6000*, and that man walked the earth at the same time. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28 So one could argue that your point about the 4k wasn't proven. By about 2000 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Was Palin a member of the AIP or not?

Gotta love Youtube. Somebody put together all the information at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twOPPzrkBwk

According to Dexter Clark, Vice Chairman of the AIP - and somebody who should know - she was a member before she got her job as Major, and was sympathetic even as a Republican.

Lynette Clark, chairman of the AIP, and at the time AIP secretary, confirmed to ABC News that both Palin and her husband had been members 1994 to 1996. The Republican party later produced voter registration records claiming that Palin may not have changed voter registration at the time, although there seem to have been some doubts about the veracity of that.

Regardless, that does not seem to be a contradiction; Walter Hickel, a prior Alaska governor (and apparently Palin's political mentor), had also gone back and forth between AIP and Republican.

Lynette Clark one day later changed her story. Makes me wonder. It's plausible that the AIP secretary would remember details about a prominent member even from years earlier. But I find it hard to believe that on Monday she remembered the dates Palin joined, attended the convention, and left the party - and on Tuesday she remembered that she had made a mistake with all of that.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

Another AIP official -- Mark Chryson, chairman of the AIP from 1995 to 2002 -- told ABC News that Palin indeed was at the 1994 convention.

quote:


We argued a lot. About Allvest policy, about how to word parts of the many proposals the staff wrote, searching for the next government contract for one program or another. And just about anything. I must have been a very frustrating employee for Bill to have to put up with.

One of the things I argued with Bill about was whether or not he should have anything to do with Jerry Ward. My side of the argument - don't touch Ward with a ten-foot pole - lost.

If I were Bill, I'd hire a first-rate bodyguard very, very soon. Bill may be one of the dirtiest operators in Alaska history. What he's been charged with today by the U.S. Department of Justice isn't the tip of the iceberg. It is the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Weimar's past creative manipulation of funds touches both major political parties in Alaska.

Deeply.

quote:

Weimer has agreed to plead guilty for the following:

* Count 1

...William Weimar, Candidate A, Consultant A, and others known and unknown, did knowingly and unlawfully conspire . . . to deprive the the public of the honest services that Candidate A would provide as an Alaska State Legislator, through a scheme to disguise WEIMAR’s direct payment to CONSULTANT A of approximately $20,000 in expenses for CANDIDATE A’s campaign for the legislature, without reporting the payment as required by applicable Alaska law and regulations and without routing it for payment through CANDIDATE A’s campaign, and through the foreseeable use of the mails, interstate were communications, in violation of Title 18 US Code Section 1341, 1343, and 1346.

* Count 2

Weimar concealed the money through breaking the $20,000 into three payments to avoid the required reporting of transactions over $10,000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Then i shall point it out to you, Firm.

She stated she would not support explicit sex ed. Explicit means explicit. Yet, darn it, as hard as i try, as much as i google, all i can find about sex education is the talk about palin and how schools include contraceptives in their classes.

Now, explain to me what she meant by explicit? She never did, or would, and no one else seems to know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Individuals were billed during her tenure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

She wants creationism taught in public schools. Who besides creationists wants that? You can keep on squirming but this is one of those easy ones. Only people with a specific religious agenda ever call for creationism to be taught in public schools. That she happens to have belonged to churches where creationism is a standard belief is not conclusive but when she speaks supportively on the subject it is conclusive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

quote:

Palin's answer:

No, I don't think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I'm not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something that I would support also.

Is there something more extreme than contraceptive use? exactly what did she think they taught kids? another case of her backpeddaling out of a mess. the woman truly is clueless, Firm. no matter how many ways you wish to turn, twist and distort what others say, the whole will never change. She speaks before thinking, she acts without forethought and has the audacity to ask others to cover for her.

I can totally understand why Obama seemed so relaxed during the campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Hardly. And for you to even attempt that is laughable. What isnt is that Palin had no clue what she was referring too. Sex ed classes in schools include abstinence and contraceptive use. Extreme would be the use of porn to illustrate how to have sex. I dont know of a single program that advocates abortion as an option in schools for pregnancy. So, again, I am asking what she meant by extreme. and the truth is, she had no clue what she was talking about. Someone else had to clue her in, and thats when she backpeddaled out of her intital statement about not supporting extreme sex ed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cagey18

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

speaking as an ob nurse... what a freakin idiot!!

Yes indeed...assuming of course that Palin's water in fact broke in Dallas, as opposed to, say, her daughter's back in Wasilla.  Under the latter scenario, her actions make perfect sense--hurrying home to witness the birth of her first grandchild, Trig.

No records have been disclosed to support (or deny) either scenario. 

We do, however, have Bristol's months-long absence from high school prior to Trig's birth, allegedly due to a prolonged case of mono.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

quote:

Palin's answer:

No, I don't think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I'm not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something that I would support also.

Is there something more extreme than contraceptive use? exactly what did she think they taught kids? another case of her backpeddaling out of a mess. the woman truly is clueless, Firm. no matter how many ways you wish to turn, twist and distort what others say, the whole will never change. She speaks before thinking, she acts without forethought and has the audacity to ask others to cover for her.

I can totally understand why Obama seemed so relaxed during the campaign.

Hmmm... I'm just not getting why this appears so difficult for you to understand, but perhaps you've just been relying on liberal talking points for your news and information.  If that is the case, allow me to paint the full picture for you.

During her 2006 gubernatorial run, Palin completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Note, that she did NOT say that she is against school-based clinics or the distribution of contraceptives in school.  She specified that she would not support explicit sex-ed programs.

So... what is an explicit sex-ed program?

In 1991, SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) convened the National Guidelines Task Force, bringing together experts in the fields of adolescent development, sexuality, and education. The task force identified six key concept areas that should be part of any comprehensive sexuality education program: human development, relationships, personal skills, sexual behavior, sexual health, and society and culture. The Task Force published the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: K–12, a framework designed to help educators and communities create new programs and evaluate existing curricula. Now in its third edition, the Guidelines provide age-appropriate messages about 39 topics related to sexuality for school-age young people.

You can download a .pdf version of those guidelines here.

While much of those guidelines would be considered reasonable information for children to learn before reaching adulthood, there are many people who would question whether it is a public school's job to introduce some of those subjects.  You also run into a situation where some of the information comes into conflict with the personal religious beliefs of individual families.  Beyond that, while a good many parents approve of their children being taught about using condoms and contraceptives to avoid pregnancy and disease, some do not want them being taught about masturbation, sexual fantasies and homosexuality in a public school setting.  See Explicit Sex Education is Opposed by Most Parents in Survey

The quote you gave above came from a KTOO radio debate held during August of 2006.  Palin was asked if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms.

To help you understand her reply, let me first define a few of the terms she used:

Benign - not dangerous, beneficial.

Pro-contraception - in favor of contraception

Contraception - birth control by the use of devices, methods or drugs

Anti-contraception - opposed to contraception

Alternative - option, choice

Now let's look at her response again, bit by bit.

No, I don't think that it includes something that is relatively benign.  -  In response to whether Palin's idea of "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms.  Remember that she had already said that she did not support explicit programs.  In other words, she is saying, "No, the explicit programs that I do not support aren't ones that discuss condoms.  Condoms are relatively benign."  See definition of "benign" above if you still have problems understanding.

Explicit means explicit. - Well... this particular comment wasn't very explicit, but you should now know the background of what an explicit sex-education program can entail.

No, I am pro-contraception - She's saying she is for the use of contraceptions.

and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. - She's saying that children should have other places (ie, school) where they can learn about contraceptives.

So I'm not anti-contraception. - Again, she's saying she is not opposed to contraceptives.

But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something that I would support also. - Sounds like she considers abstinence to be a viable method of contraception and doesn't have any problem with it being covered as an option in a sex-education program.

Palin Appears to Disagree with McCain on Sex Education

So just what is it that you have a problem with?  Where was she backpeddling?  Who is clueless?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Individuals were billed during her tenure.

Prove it. One example will suffice.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

She wants creationism taught in public schools. Who besides creationists wants that? You can keep on squirming but this is one of those easy ones. Only people with a specific religious agenda ever call for creationism to be taught in public schools. That she happens to have belonged to churches where creationism is a standard belief is not conclusive but when she speaks supportively on the subject it is conclusive.

Show me where she specifically said anything other than it ought to be allowed to be discussed.

Not taught as fact. Not taught as dogma. Discussed.

Not what others think she meant. Not what you divine from supposed "code words". Not what others thought she meant. What she actually said should be done.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Well, I hate to differ, but no one has proven a single one of the slurs I posted. There's been a lot of sarcastic humor, and further attacks. There have been a lot of misdirection, and changing of terms.

Maybe that's because nobody ever made a slur? The six items you listed are legitimate allegations, not "slurs". And they were proven time and over in the form that they were made during the campaign (not necessarily in the form you stated them).

For instance: Palin indeed did *not* say that the earth was 4k years old. In the correct version, she said *6000*, and that man walked the earth at the same time. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28 So one could argue that your point about the 4k wasn't proven. By about 2000 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Was Palin a member of the AIP or not?

Gotta love Youtube. Somebody put together all the information at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twOPPzrkBwk

According to Dexter Clark, Vice Chairman of the AIP - and somebody who should know - she was a member before she got her job as Major, and was sympathetic even as a Republican.

Lynette Clark, chairman of the AIP, and at the time AIP secretary, confirmed to ABC News that both Palin and her husband had been members 1994 to 1996. The Republican party later produced voter registration records claiming that Palin may not have changed voter registration at the time, although there seem to have been some doubts about the veracity of that.

Regardless, that does not seem to be a contradiction; Walter Hickel, a prior Alaska governor (and apparently Palin's political mentor), had also gone back and forth between AIP and Republican.

Lynette Clark one day later changed her story. Makes me wonder. It's plausible that the AIP secretary would remember details about a prominent member even from years earlier. But I find it hard to believe that on Monday she remembered the dates Palin joined, attended the convention, and left the party - and on Tuesday she remembered that she had made a mistake with all of that.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html

Another AIP official -- Mark Chryson, chairman of the AIP from 1995 to 2002 -- told ABC News that Palin indeed was at the 1994 convention.

1. Slur:

Were the 6 items I listed intended to be disparaging? If so, then they are slurs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
2. Dinosaurs walking the earth 6k years ago:

The only source for any of this is a claim by a political opponent, a self-style progressive, and a man who admits working for, and advising a convicted criminal involved in political chicanery in Alaska. (Gee, wasn't it Palin that stirred up a shit storm and got a lot of the crooks in hot water .... ?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
3. AIP membership.

Panda has already admitted it not to be true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
In the video you linked, Chyron says " All I know was that she was at the convention in 94". Since that's the time period under discussion, I take that as an acknowledgment that he didn't know that she was a AIP member.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Treasure ,no disrespect intended...to either you or Firm but the idea that the "full picture" could or would be provided by any post authored by you two is laughable on the face of it.What the two of you do consistantly provide is neatly bundled conservative right wing propaganda.....all wrapped up nicely in genteel fashion.
Still and all just one side of the coin....hardly the full picture.
Nice spin jobs though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Explicit is explicit....

What is explicit for me, may not be for you.

And when she was asked what she meant by explicit... her response was.. explicit is explicit.

Again showing she had no clue what she was talking about.