You think Gibson knew she didn't understand what "Bush Doctrine" meant? I was totally caught off guard when she started acting like a child in response. "Whatdaya mean, Charlie?" with that forced smile.
What really got me was when she basically lost her footing in reality in response to the question about the bailout:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Katie Couric
Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin
That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.
|
It was like she was giving the wrong answers to a half dozen questions that Katie Couric didn't ask. I could have probably forgiven her the fact she didn't really understand the bailout, a lot of elected officials don't seem to get it, but holy crap.
I really respect Katie Couric for not laughing, to be honest.
---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I think there is confusion based on the way people ask the question. Schools should not be responsible for teaching the morality of sex. Schools should not be in a position were they advocate/endorse/teach/promote, sexual activity to children or anyone under the legal age of consent. Until a child is "legal" the official position of the schools should be neutral on the subject or they should [err] on the side of advocating/endorsing/teaching/promoting children to abstain from sex. We know teenagers are going to have sex and we know some parents are not going to educate their children. In my view when the question is asked in school, I think the first response should be - you (teenagers) should abstain from sex, however these are the scientifically proven method to reduce the risk of... - you should discuss this with your parents, doctor, guardian, pastor/rabbi/priest/monk/etc. And, here are the legal implications of you (teenagers) having sex, i.e. - statutory rape, rape, sexual harassment, child support, etc.
|
Sex education should only be factual, teaching that a child
should be abstinent is teaching morality. There's a huge difference between, "Abstinence is an effective method of preventing the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies", and, "You should try to be abstinent". The former is informative, the latter is teaching the morality of sex, as you call it.
Sex ed when I was in school was 100% factual, and it worked just fine. I've never caught an STD, I've never had a legitimate pregnancy scare, and I'm confident I'll be clean until the day I die.