Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just love how AOYAS post was completely ignored.
Facts just make some heads hurt.
Thanks for the other sources, AOYAS.
I didnt ignore it, PHM, I just dont believe it ! You call it facts I call it nonsense! There is no way to justify this going on in school no matter how you try to soft peddle it! There will be lawsuits happen and heads will roll.
I just love how AOYAS post was completely ignored.
Facts just make some heads hurt.
Thanks for the other sources, AOYAS.
Thanks, PHM...no problem.
I figured that before a bunch of conservatives got on here, and started agreeing with Bill O'Reilly (oy ), and saying, "Well, my kids are good kids...they don't have sex and they'll never try drugs," (again ) we were all owed an explanation of what actually happened in Boulder, and not just what was spun to high heck by O'Reilly and his merry band of cohorts.
I didnt ignore it, PHM, I just dont believe it ! You call it facts I call it nonsense! There is no way to justify this going on in school no matter how you try to soft peddle it! There will be lawsuits happen and heads will roll.
I just hate how O'reilly constantly reports half of the stories. He clearly puts a spin on things and then has the audacity to call his show the no spin zone.
I personally don't have a problem with the teachings but maybe school staff shouldn't have made the panel mandatory.
I just hate how O'reilly constantly reports half of the stories. He clearly puts a spin on things and then has the audacity to call his show the no spin zone.
I personally don't have a problem with the teachings but maybe school staff shouldn't have made the panel mandatory.
We'll see how this plays out.
The thing is this isnt about oreilly, its not like he is the only one who covered this story.
I figured that before a bunch of conservatives got on here, and started agreeing with Bill O'Reilly (oy ), and saying, "Well, my kids are good kids...they don't have sex and they'll never try drugs," (again ) we were all owed an explanation of what actually happened in Boulder, and not just what was spun to high heck by O'Reilly and his merry band of cohorts.
Do you ever agree with Bill O'reilly? I do. Other times I don't.
What if Olberman reported it. How would he have done it? (Maybe he did and I missed it).
Some kids don't do drugs. Ever. Some don't have sex until they're adults.
I take it you don't like conservatives. Why not? Would you get upset if someone presented to your children's class a so-called "conservative" viewpoint about drugs, sex, history, politics, you name it?
As usual, Bill O'Reilly cherry-picked what he was going to show his viewers. Then, he went on to butter-up his audience, calling them "the smartest, most affluent, and most influencial people...in the country...not only in all of cable news, but in all of tv news." I guess he felt that if he followed his "report" with a bunch of unsubstantiated flattery, his audience would be more inclined to go along with him without researching the validity of his remarks, so that they could be included in "the smart people" category. Oh, then he went on to literally threaten the school board members...I'm sure they're shakin in their boots because Bill O'Reilly is mad at them.
Anyway, the real story is that every year, the University of Colorado (which is located adjacent to the high school) holds a Conference on World Affairs. Each year, one of the panels from that conference takes place at the high school. The topic and speakers are chosen by high school officials prior to the panel being held. Usually, the panel is optional to the high school students, but because of a staff snafu (apparently, there was a change in the high school's administration recently), the panel was accidentally deemed mandatory for high school students, and they were not given the option not to attend, as they usually are.
The panel wasn't a bunch of liberal adults telling kids to go out and have sex with everyone they see, and use drugs to their hearts' content, as Bill O'Reilly made it sound. The panel consisted of a small group of adults telling the kids that they realize that most of the kids were going to experiment with sex and drugs at some point (I agree that it's pretty naive to think that the majority of them will not), and that they wanted to give the students real, honest insight, so that the students would be better informed, and would be able to make better decisions when the time comes for them to experiment with sex and drugs.
Bill O'Reilly made it sound as though the panelists were urging students to engage in orgies and to feel free to get stoned out of their minds on any drug they can get their hands on. The panelists were not encouraging any such thing. They were simply being completely open and honest with the students about sex and drug use, and the effects and consequences involved. They felt that this was a better approach than just telling students that sex and drugs are "bad" and that the students should remain abstinent, thinking that would be a good enough reason for the majority of the students to feel the need to abstain (read: it wouldn't).
I don't know if I personally agree or disagree with the discussion that took place at the high school. After all, it was supposed to be an optional panel, where the students were free to attend or not attend. If it had, in fact, been optional, I don't see the harm in being open and honest with students who would like to be taught in that sort of environment. The fact that the school staff accidentally made the panel mandatory does give me pause, since it is clearly a more progressive and liberal way of teaching, and many students and their parents probably prefer not to learn in such an open environment. I think that an apology by the school administration is in order, but I honestly have trouble believing that the students were told too much of anything that they didn't already know or assume to be true, anyway.
It hasn't been that long (ten years) since I was in high school, and I know that if someone had told me the things in Bill O'Reilly's clip that were said during the panel (about condoms and such), I probably would've responded with, "Um...duh. Who doesn't know that already?" People don't give high school students enough credit these days...they're much more informed than students have been in the past...especially about sex and drugs, because those things are literally part of pop culture.
Parents can think that when they tell their kids, "Just say no," that the majority of kids are going to listen and never experiment...but those parents would be truly kidding themselves, for the most part. Now, I'm not saying that high school kids aren't impressionable and that adults shouldn't watch what they say around students...they are and we should. Nor am I saying that students are all wh*ring lunatics who are stoned out of their minds all the time regardless of what their parents say...obviously, they aren't. Some kids do actually listen to their parents, no matter what. But, I'm also realistic in knowing that the overwhelming majority of high school kids still engage in experimenting, regardless of "the dangers" their parents have warned them of sex and drugs. Personally, I'd rather my kid be well informed with open, honest question/answer sessions (from me, or another knowledgable adult), so that he could make intelligent choices for himself, as opposed to just telling him, "Don't have sex until you're married and stay away from drugs...period." Many kids would say, "Ok, Mom," and go ahead and have sex and experiment with drugs anyway...the urge to experiment is very natural, especially at that age, where kids are trying to "find themselves." I experimented with various things, and I turned out fine. I attribute that to my parents being open with me and telling me what was up before I was even old enough to drive. Some of my friends, who had really strict, close-minded, ultra-conservative parents, though...well, let's just say that some of them ended up in rehab and/or having children out of wedlock before they were 25.
Here are what some may view as more credible sources than Bill-O:
CWA defends sex panel at Boulder High : Schools : Boulder Daily Camera (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/may/16/cwa-defends-teen-sex-panel-at-boulder-high/ - broken link)
The problem I have with this post, is that I don't care what the snafu was, what the intent was, what the 'main goal' was, I can't for the life of me understand how any of the comments I've heard from this 'Conference on World Affairs' would ever be considered OK. As a parent, I know a permission slip wouldn't get so detailed so as to make me aware of this kind of explicit talk. This was way over the edge. One can call it spin, I guess, if that's your view. But based on what I've seen/heard, it'd be hard for me to consider this spin, unless the phrase that might have been omitted from each clip by the heinous folks at FoxNews was "Some irresponsible adults might tell you_________"<---fill blank with quotes from clip. That'd be spin, IMHO.
The problem I have with this post, is that I don't care what the snafu was, what the intent was, what the 'main goal' was, I can't for the life of me understand how any of the comments I've heard from this 'Conference on World Affairs' would ever be considered OK. As a parent, I know a permission slip wouldn't get so detailed so as to make me aware of this kind of explicit talk. This was way over the edge. One can call it spin, I guess, if that's your view. But based on what I've seen/heard, it'd be hard for me to consider this spin, unless the phrase that might have been omitted from each clip by the heinous folks at FoxNews was "Some irresponsible adults might tell you_________"<---fill blank with quotes from clip. That'd be spin, IMHO.
But Alpha that is the difference between you and those with the (gasp, here comes that word) liberal agenda, it over rides common sense.
As usual, Bill O'Reilly cherry-picked what he was going to show his viewers.
Anyway, the real story is that every year, the University of Colorado (which is located adjacent to the high school) holds a Conference on World Affairs.
The panel wasn't a bunch of liberal adults telling kids to go out and have sex with everyone they see, and use drugs to their hearts' content, as Bill O'Reilly made it sound.
RIGHT.......... So basically YOU are claiming that the liberal speakers never ENCOURAGED kids to:
1. Use as many drugs as they want.
2. have sex WITHOUT condoms... ALL liberals complain "NO AIDS education for kids" now they go and TEACH kids how to GET AIDS...
Bill O'Reilly CANNOT show the 2 hours of massive liberal propaganda and teaching of irresponsible behavior. That is the "Progress" that liberal-progressives want... they want a highly messed up youth so they can get back in power as they did in the 1960s.
That is why Boulder is once AGAIN been viewed as a national embarassment. They botched the Benett-Ramsey murder; their DA doesn't prosecute two crazies who KILL a baby with murder and charges them as "troubled young adults" with child neglect for KILLING a baby.... then we have Ward Churchill calling the VICTIMS of 9/11 "Nazis".... Now they are teaching kids to have UNPROTECTED sex, to use illegal drugs
Boulder is going down as America's #2 "Quack town" right after San Francisco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1
If that's considered a progressive way of thinking, how is that progress?
As far as a majority of teens doing drugs, I'd like to see something to support that assertion. If that's true, then we've got a serious problem as a nation.
Some students stated that attendance was mandatory. If that was the case, that was wrong. I'm not paying taxes to have govt. workers indocrinate my son. That's my privilege as a parent whether one shares my beliefs or not.
I have family members who were very open, to say the least, about drug use and their kids wound in in rehab (and prison).
That strategy didn't work either.
It WAS mandatory... and you know what if it wasn't for the video, these people would have gotten away with screwing up America's kids.
Progressive = Liberal and loser-like. As long as America's kids are under the indoctrination by the hard left, we will continue to produce dumb kids who are going out there to contract HIV/AIDS and smoke crack and become losers... as the speakers want them to. That way the hard left can stay in power.... mind you, the ONLY way the hard left comes ot power is when they screw up a whole generation, as they did with the 1960's and 1970's generations.... excatly how they did in Europe... no wonder Europe is producing more lazy losers and druggies than any other continent out there.... very sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777
Just try to remember, THERE IS NO AGENDA!
Yeah... oh NOOOOOOO.... these "poor lefties"... no need to screw up kids.... no hard intended... now the 3 hard lefties are the "victims"....
<snip>
Last edited by jco; 06-01-2007 at 01:58 PM..
Reason: Personal Attack
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), and saying, "Well, my kids are good kids...they don't have sex and they'll never try drugs," (again 
) liberal agenda, it over rides common sense.
