| Political Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom | Page 1 of 4  |
| Message |
 Scott Walker signs several controversial bills into law late Thursday nightPosted by Something over there One requires abstinence only sex education, one removes women's right to equal pay, and another makes it harder for women to get an abortion. He thought lumping these bills in with 50 others and signing them late Thursday before a holiday weekend would hide him from the media. Any one on here support this move?  on 4/7 at 4:01 pmHow do these laws help anyone at all? LINK This post was edited on 4/7 at 4:07 pm Reply • Back to Top |
| Bills are consistent with Republican core values. The sneaking through part? Liberals may not like the bills but have to respect that. If i were Walker I'd say you have to pass them to see whats in them, and walk out using my putter as a cane with a gangsta lean Reply • Back to Top |
quote: On the way to no longer having a job.. Do the majority of conservatives really hold these as core values? I honestly can not think of one single good thing that will come from any of those laws/repeals. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Look, Walker is going to try to ram as much through as possible before the recall election on June 5th. The State is pretty evenly split. There is a 50-50 chance Walker has a matter of months left in office. This isn't a surprise to us here. Reply • Back to Top |
| More fringe overreach. They will pay big time in November and thereafter. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:it will be greeted with open arms with about 96% of the folks on this board. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Absolutely false information. You are talking about Wisconsin's new Strong Communities and healthy Kids Act, which does NOT require abstinence-only sex education. It replaced a former law requiring "comprehensive" sex ed in all public schools. This new law leaves it up to local school boards and teachers to determine the scope of their sex ed programs. Not the same thing at all. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:I don't think the govt should be involved in sex Ed PERIOD and I'm no prude. I would have to know more about this equal pay law that was repealed cause I've never seen one that was actually restricted to equal pay for the EXACT SAME WORK. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Wait. You mean the OP lied. shite. That never happens! Reply • Back to Top |
quote:  You've been sounding that alarm for two years now. Maybe one of these times you'll finally get one right. Keep the faith, brother!Reply • Back to Top |
quote: The result of this bill is that teachers - if they choose to - are now allowed to teach abstinence only. It is also removing the requirement that sex ed classes teach about contraception. So very conservative teachers in public schools will most likely no longer teach children about contraception as a form of sexual education,teaching abstinence only in health classes is not an effective strategy. Therefor it only requires teachers to teach Abstinence only sex ed now. They are no longer required to teach children about contraception but have the choice of whether or not to do so. . This post was edited on 4/7 at 5:04 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote: I'd expect this sort of stretch from DA, but this is sorta disappointing coming from you. Just admit you were full of shite in the OP (ie you just parroted some lib spin you heard) and move on. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Which means that this in your OP was not true then. quote: Reply • Back to Top |
| The future is 1953!! Just say NO and cross your legs. This post was edited on 4/7 at 5:06 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote:One would imagine the passing of these bills by the legislature was public knowledge. Reply • Back to Top |
quote:yup Reply • Back to Top |
quote:    Reply • Back to Top |
quote:Scott Walker used his secret KKK cloaking device. All conservatives have one. It was a masterful stroke. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Ok, my post could have read: the new bill only requires teachers to teach abstinence only sex ed. They used to be required to teach both. It is still a illogical step backwards no matter how you choose to comprehend my post. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Which is quite different than your statement in the OP. Also , quote: This sentence is still wrong and misleading. The "abstinence only" statement is still incorrect. Remove the word "only" right there and you're on safe ground. (You can leave in the first "only" in that sentence, but if you're going to do that, you should add something to the effect of "IF School Boards decide to have sex education programs".) Reply • Back to Top • Refresh |
| Return to Board | ||
  Page 1 of 4  | ||
on 4/7 at 4:13 pm to 
on 4/7 at 4:45 pm to 
on 4/7 at 5:05 pm to