Romney going hardline on sex ed

[Sleeping in EQ]

http://www.aikenstandard.com/news/298511657960824.php

[Tex]

It's an interesting day when no sex-ed to kindergartners is considered hard line.

[Sleeping in EQ]

It's an interesting day when someone cites science in the context of "dirty" "water."

[MikeWaters]

Romney will say or do anything to do be elected. He is the GOP Clinton.

While governor of Massachusetts, Romney funded abstinence education over family planning and abortion services. But in 2002, he also checked "yes" in a Planned Parenthood questionnaire that asked: "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?"

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Romney will say or do anything to do be elected. He is the GOP Clinton.

How is his stance incompatible with the notion of a strong personal conviction?

Why can one not support both agendas in the face of the inherant difficulties and complexities of modern society?

[MikeWaters]

I think Romney's strong personal conviction is that he should be elected.

How can you look at his decisions over the years and not look at them as crass opportunism?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

It's an interesting day when someone cites science in the context of "dirty" "water."

I don't understand your subtlety ... maybe I'm from West VA and only capable of a 3.0 / 22

Of course we could debate the fundamentally flawed nature of assigning numbers to levels of understanding, but this discussion is about Romney and your comment went right over my head ...

Are you referring to the primordial muddy soup wherein organisms evolved? Is it a veiled slap at Romney for making a racially insensitive remark?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think Romney's strong personal conviction is that he should be elected.

How can you look at his decisions over the years and not look at them as crass opportunism?

I don't, because his decisions makes sense in the context of someone who wants to lead ... in fact someone who has been an incredibly effective leader in many different capacities; who has a proven track record.

Wouldn't we all prefer to have a leader that will endeavor to see both sides of the argument and who is willing to compromise? As opposed to the polarizing figure currently serving as president?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I don't understand your subtlty ... maybe I'm from West VA and only capable of a 3.0 / 22

Of course we could debate the fundamentally flawed nature of assigning numbers to levels of understanding, but this discussion is about Romney and your comment went right over my head ...

Are you refering to the promordial muddy soup wherein organisms evolved. Is it a veiled slap at Romney for making a racialy insensitive remark?

Where is this coming from? Read the article TB!

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Where is this coming from? Read the article TB!

I did read the article, and I'm seriously trying to understand your comment? I understand that Romney's quote was clumsy (out of context) and that Obama jumped all over with sanctimonious zeal.