WestCoastRunner

You haven't provided any substance on this thread except to attack someone.

She is stating her opinions. That's what this forum is all about. This speaks more about you than anything else.

You deserve to be suspended for this post shady. It's outrageous.

I agree. Girls get so caught up in teenage angst with boys that they do need direction for achieving educational goals without the distraction of pressure to have sex. And likewise to boys.

I agree with the education. But I also think we need to encourage just say no.

Omg. We are talking young teenagers. Letting kids know it's ok to say no is taking some pressure off them to experiment. They need to know that everyone has their back if they say no. That there is nothing wrong with saying no. If you have ever had a child in a substance abuse program you would understand or if you were a parent of a child that od'd. This isn't fun and games.

After giving our kids all the education we think they need, let's add on an addendum. 'I strongly encourage you to just say no'. For both drugs and sex.

It's not unlike Michelle's mantra. Keep moving, be healthy. She too is empowering children to make the right choices.

She was empowering young people to just say no. Nothing wrong with that. Would you rather she preached just say yes.

But other issues as well?

I believe she also influenced her husband with her moderate views.

As I said, I am FOR education.

I think your confusing my responses. I'm not against education. To bring this back to the OP. NR was a very moderate republican especially by today's standards.

You can't teach a young child to use responsibly once addiction has set in.

I did that too with a very stubborn daughter!

I don't think anyone is saying to deny them an education in these matters. Even with all this knowledge, abstinence is still the safest form against pregnancies, std's, hiv etc. As far as drugs go, young people should continue to be taught 'just say no'.

As a parent, I think that abstinence is always a good choice for young people, no doubt about it. Why would you think otherwise?

I remember her death, was televised here on CBC too. It was a big deal. And I bet her death will continue to be the most covered of all the First Lady's.

It doesn't seem like much evolution has happened with this forum. Granted, as CC has suggested, 'this is little more than a curious hobby' and I would agree. However, by evolving to integrate with social media in some way will increase the membership.

What politically incorrect topics is it that you want to discuss? Perhaps start a thread on it. I'm curious.

No, I don't. I was playing the devil's advocate and I wanted more clarification regarding your statement. Those nutcases are an identifiable group.

But don't you think the cartoonists knew that they 'could' have crossed the line by inciting violent action towards others.

Do you believe the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should have been charged with 'deliberately inciting a group to act in a detrimental way toward others'? Same goes for Family Guy and South Park.

Whenever I see 'Trudeau Jr' used in this forum, it is not used to distinguish him from his father. There is no misunderstanding on which Trudeau the poster is referring to. Just have a look at August's posts. They are clearly not used in a complimentary manner nor as a distinction between the two. It is being used in a derogatory manner and he continues to use it when he knows it's not his proper name.

I'm not suggesting these movies be replaced. Honestly, I don't think you guys get it so I'm leaving this discussion.