McCain's Latest Attack Ad: Obama Wants Kindergartners to Learn Sex Ed

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing...spx?guid=137df2ef-785f-4172-b9ee-91dc78a715a9

The text of the bill:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=523&SpecSess=&Session=

McCain's picked quote: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

That's from the bill. Of course, the little word "any" certainly suggests the idea of choice (something Republicans are inherently opposed to in all walks of live) in curriculum, and not, as he would have you believe, the forcing of cirriculum.

Which, of course, says nothing of the sort that McCain is alleging. In fact, it includes the option for abstinence education (not abstinence-only mind you).

So the question is this: why does John McCain not want our children to learn about abstinence or sex ed? Do we want a nation of Bristol Palins?
 
Rebuttal:

"It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why."
 
Wow, that ad is outright absurd, and I imagine the media backlash will agree.

It's one thing to argue your opponent's policies, but it's something entirely different to say that they want something outlandish for children.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Wow, that ad is outright absurd, and I imagine the media backlash will agree.[/quote]

Eeehhh...I'm not so sure of that.
 
Once it's out there for the first time, there's not much they can do to change peoples' minds on the subject. Sure, they can say it was for X, but people will still be outraged that it happened in the first place.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Eeehhh...I'm not so sure of that.[/quote]

Ok, I imagine that the media backlash -- save for FOX News, who will outright label Obama a pedophile -- will agree.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Wow, that ad is outright absurd, and I imagine the media backlash will agree.

It's one thing to argue your opponent's policies, but it's something entirely different to say that they want something outlandish for children.

~HotShotX[/quote]
Whats absurd about it, its there in black and white K-12 he co-wrote and sponsored the damn thing he obviously wants it. Take the blinders off pal. Whats absurd is that they would include that age group, its fucking disgusting. I pulled my son from those classes in grammar school. Did you ever stop to think that most 10yr kids don't think about sex. Now you introduce them to it at 6 yrs old, guess what? You might have problems before they hit middle school. Out of sight out of mind comes to play here. Save this shit until they start getting hair on thier balls/boobs on their chests, not when their first set of teeth havent even fallen out yet.

Had this just said 6-12 I would have not even been worried but this K-12 crap makes me worry.
 
[quote name='gindias']Whats absurd about it, its there in black and white K-12 he co-wrote and sponsored the damn thing he obviously wants it. Take the blinders off pal.[/QUOTE]

*cough*

Now, imagine me wincing, putting my fist on my chin, and wagging my index finger on the other hand - making a sort of "not so fast" gesture.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...egID=523&SessionID=3&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=93

As is often said, the internet isn't broken. So when you make things up in the storm of having a strong opinion, you're going to be found out.

The link above is to the status of the bill. It lists the sponsors and co-sponsors. Unless Barack Obama went by the name "Iris Y Martinez" in 2003, then he's not a sponsor or co-sponsor. And, thus, he was not involved in the editing of the bill. So save your outrage for Iris and the other sponsors. They aren't running for president.

Now, I can't stop you from voting like an idiot, or, frankly, being a lazy idiot unwilling to do the research. But I can, as I'm doing, simply let other know who may read your post that you're wrong and not someone who expresses reliable claims that should be trusted.
 
Between this, putting lipstick on a pig, and all the other hyperbolic rhetoric, this election should just get a dedicated thread that runs a tally of all the outrageous claims, comments, and misspeaks for it's duration.

I'm use the term "rhetoric" liberally, as it implies an artful, or intelligent, use of language, which of course, this isn't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*cough*

Now, imagine me wincing, putting my fist on my chin, and wagging my index finger on the other hand - making a sort of "not so fast" gesture.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...egID=523&SessionID=3&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=93

As is often said, the internet isn't broken. So when you make things up in the storm of having a strong opinion, you're going to be found out.

The link above is to the status of the bill. It lists the sponsors and co-sponsors. Unless Barack Obama went by the name "Iris Y Martinez" in 2003, then he's not a sponsor or co-sponsor. And, thus, he was not involved in the editing of the bill. So save your outrage for Iris and the other sponsors. They aren't running for president.[/QUOTE]

So...if I'm interpreting that link correctly, it looks like the bill didn't pass and that Obama wasn't involved in it at all? :wall:

This is about as fucking low as you can get. Way to go, McCain!

And since it's not in the topic yet, here's the Obama camp's response:

“It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Click to expand...
 
Would be wrong for Obama to have an ad indicating that if such a bill was passed in Alaska, that perhaps Palin wouldn't have a pregnant teenager. I want some more offensive ads from Obama. They don't necessarily have to attack family, but some good ads with true info. Like the previous ad Obama just had... it was pretty good. [the mavericks ad]
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Would be wrong for Obama to have an ad indicating that if such a bill was passed in Alaska, that perhaps Palin wouldn't have a pregnant teenager. I want some more offensive ads from Obama. They don't necessarily have to attack family, but some good ads with true info. Like the previous ad Obama just had... it was pretty good. [the mavericks ad][/quote]

The difference there would be that the ad you propose would be considered a personal attack. And people don't like those.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Would be wrong for Obama to have an ad indicating that if such a bill was passed in Alaska, that perhaps Palin wouldn't have a pregnant teenager.[/QUOTE]

That would backfire horribly - the Republicans could use it to smear him, and actually be right this time.

The "mavericks" ad is the right way to go - pointing out the lies, without stooping to the attacks on character or the lies that the McCain ads tend to use.
 
[quote name='gindias']Whats absurd about it, its there in black and white K-12 he co-wrote and sponsored the damn thing he obviously wants it. Take the blinders off pal. Whats absurd is that they would include that age group, its fucking disgusting. I pulled my son from those classes in grammar school. Did you ever stop to think that most 10yr kids don't think about sex. Now you introduce them to it at 6 yrs old, guess what? You might have problems before they hit middle school. Out of sight out of mind comes to play here. Save this shit until they start getting hair on thier balls/boobs on their chests, not when their first set of teeth havent even fallen out yet.

Had this just said 6-12 I would have not even been worried but this K-12 crap makes me worry.[/quote]


yea cause k-5 never get sexually molested, little kids should know the difference between good and bad touch. Just because you like your kid in a bubble shouldnt be the same way for everyone else.
 
[quote name='gindias']Whats absurd about it, its there in black and white K-12 he co-wrote and sponsored the damn thing he obviously wants it. Take the blinders off pal. Whats absurd is that they would include that age group, its fucking disgusting. I pulled my son from those classes in grammar school. Did you ever stop to think that most 10yr kids don't think about sex. Now you introduce them to it at 6 yrs old, guess what? You might have problems before they hit middle school. Out of sight out of mind comes to play here. Save this shit until they start getting hair on thier balls/boobs on their chests, not when their first set of teeth havent even fallen out yet.

Had this just said 6-12 I would have not even been worried but this K-12 crap makes me worry.[/quote]

You have a child? Natural selection, you have failed me. ;_;
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']So...if I'm interpreting that link correctly, it looks like the bill didn't pass and that Obama wasn't involved in it at all? :wall:[/QUOTE]

No, he wasn't involved in the sculpting of it, but he did vote for it.

As IKohn points out, though, sex ed doesn't involve just what some folks put their dirty minds to - it can involve informing children of what inappropriate behavior from adults is.

We do want them to know that, correct?
 
I've got a question...

Regarding Abstinence-only education, do the parents have a choice of whether or not they would like their child to be in a sex education program?

Because with that particular bill, it still gives the parents a choice of whether or not they want their child to be taught about sex. If I'm not mistaken, under Abstinence-only, the parents are not given a choice.

Also, I don't know if things have changed but in my school sex education wasn't all about "You can totally have sex because contraceptives are rad!" Abstinence is mentioned quite a bit, as it being the best way to fully avoid STDs and pregnancy... where as Abstinence-only tends to completely ignore contraceptives all together does it not?
 
And people really support that?

"Out of sight, out of mind" doesn't work in this day and age, course I don't need to tell you that.
 
[quote name='HowStern']If McCain gets elected we should just change the countries name to "Backwards Land."[/quote]

Well I guess "United States of could be better, but is trying very hard to be as unlike Europe and/or Canada as possible, regardless of the result" is a bit too long.
 
[quote name='yukine']And people really support that?

"Out of sight, out of mind" doesn't work in this day and age, course I don't need to tell you that.[/QUOTE]

Just cover your ears and sing the theme to "Banana Splits."

Everything will be all right in no time flat.

Until you uncover your ears or stop singing.
 
You know - it's funny because we all accept that a kid saying vroom vroom is a great way to get the American people to buy a car and a deadpan guy with a chocolate beard will get them to pick up the phone for a large order of oreo pizzas.

But then many on this board debate policy as if the same bloated, dull-witted couch potato consumer with a bad case of ADD will suddenly wise up and examine a politician's policies when it comes time to choose a political leader.

That's why I continually get so dissappointed in the end.
 
[quote name='gindias']Whats absurd is that they would include that age group, its fucking disgusting. I pulled my son from those classes in grammar school. Did you ever stop to think that most 10yr kids don't think about sex. Now you introduce them to it at 6 yrs old, guess what? You might have problems before they hit middle school. Out of sight out of mind comes to play here. Save this shit until they start getting hair on thier balls/boobs on their chests, not when their first set of teeth havent even fallen out yet.

Had this just said 6-12 I would have not even been worried but this K-12 crap makes me worry.[/quote]

Sex was very prominent in my elementary school (not having, but the innuendo and references) amongst kids. In middle school I remember several kids being expelled for having sex in the bathroom.

You're out of touch with the real world.

And the best time to teach kids is before they find out about it from someone else, usually of thier own age. It's better you teach them the facts before misinformation has time to breed in thier minds.

Sex ed needs to start early, with identifying predators and that it's ok for your kids to talk to you if they feel weird or pressured from an older adult, and continuing on with more detailed subjects as they grow up.
 
Also, isn't the K-12 written the way it is because that's what the government is legally responsible for public school education? As far as I know, it's not vernacular to say 8-12 or to dissect parts of school in legalese.
 
WHY IS EVERYONE SO DUMB?

The only "sex ed" Obama supports for those young kids is teaching them how to stay away from predators. "Don't accept candy from strangers" type of shit.

gindias, do you just not give a shit about your country? I mean, seriously. You read one sentence and form an opinion, that's it, that's all your country is worth to you? You just assume, from an attack ad, that Obama wants to tell your 5-year old son what a vagina is? Jesus Christ...

This is precisely why we are, as a country, at risk of putting the oil industry in the white house for another four years, Americans are fucking STUPID.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
This is precisely why we are, as a country, at risk of putting the oil industry in the white house for another four years, Americans are fucking STUPID.[/QUOTE]

Normally I let comments like this slide, but it seems they are becoming more common. Comments like this are just flame bait and ultimately pointless, and this is why:

First of all, "Oil in the white house" is just the tip of the ice berg of problems. The root of all corruption and all problems in the white house and government is international banking in the white house. And you won't solve that problem by voting either Dem or Rep.

You're a smart guy Koggit, I really wish people with your brains and passion could realize that what's at stake here can't be solved by a donkey or a packyderm, because they both are the establishment of cancer that you obviously sense but fail (or refuse) to accurately identify.
 
My comment isn't partisan -- the fact of the matter is the oil industry has had puppets in the white house for eight years and, from what little we know about her, it looks like Palin will make sure a GOP win secures the next four years of America's oil-centric energy plan. It's not short sighted at all -- it's very holistic, everything about Palin screams oil lobby, every decision she's made and every stance she's expressed. And it's not partisan -- I don't know if you remember, but just a short three weeks ago, prior to Palin, I supported both McCain and Obama, stating my excitement for a new administration regardless of which way it goes. Yes, I supported Obama, but I was not anti McCain. Even now, I'm only anti Palin. It's not a partisan view, it's a view that opposes putting the oil lobby in the executive branch of our government.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Normally I let comments like this slide, but it seems they are becoming more common. Comments like this are just flame bait and ultimately pointless, and this is why:

First of all, "Oil in the white house" is just the tip of the ice berg of problems. The root of all corruption and all problems in the white house and government is international banking in the white house. And you won't solve that problem by voting either Dem or Rep.

You're a smart guy Koggit, I really wish people with your brains and passion could realize that what's at stake here can't be solved by a donkey or a packyderm, because they both are the establishment of cancer that you obviously sense but fail (or refuse) to accurately identify.[/quote]

Even if you do believe that, how is voting Republican the answer?
 
[quote name='camoor']Even if you do believe that, how is voting Republican the answer?[/QUOTE]

It isn't. I never said it was.

Vote for whichever of the two parties you want, it won't matter. You're essentially voting for which dolphin you want to try and push the Titanic away from the coming icebergs.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It isn't. I never said it was.

Vote for whichever of the two parties you want, it won't matter. You're essentially voting for which dolphin you want to try and push the Titanic away from the coming icebergs.[/quote]

Fair enough. Since it doesn't matter - do you mind voting Democrat - for your old buddy :D
 
[quote name='camoor']Fair enough. Since it doesn't matter - do you mind voting Democrat - for your old buddy :D[/QUOTE]

Hehe. Maybe I will, what you offering?

Actually in my state, there are like maybe 7 total Democratic votes each election, so it wouldn't matter.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']First of all, "Oil in the white house" is just the tip of the ice berg of problems. The root of all corruption and all problems in the white house and government is international banking in the white house. And you won't solve that problem by voting either Dem or Rep.

You're a smart guy Koggit, I really wish people with your brains and passion could realize that what's at stake here can't be solved by a donkey or a packyderm, because they both are the establishment of cancer that you obviously sense but fail (or refuse) to accurately identify.[/quote]

I'll be honest - you're beginning to sound like bmulligan (well, a polite bmulligan)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
First of all, "Oil in the white house" is just the tip of the ice berg of problems. The root of all corruption and all problems in the white house and government is international banking in the white house. And you won't solve that problem by voting either Dem or Rep.

[/QUOTE]

I keep reading your comments about "international bankers" being at the root of all our problems. Hmm. What exactly do you mean by that?

I am reminded of the folks who believe that a shadowy group of bankers controls the world (needless to say, most of those folks believe these "bankers" are Jews and our government is ZOG). Please tell me you aren't going there.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I keep reading your comments about "international bankers" being at the root of all our problems. Hmm. What exactly do you mean by that?

I am reminded of the folks who believe that a shadowy group of bankers controls the world (needless to say, most of those folks believe these "bankers" are Jews and our government is ZOG). Please tell me you aren't going there.[/QUOTE]

No I do not believe Jews are to blame for anything, that's silly. But the IMF, World Bank, and a few others really do run everything that matters. And I mean everything. And politicians don't get very far without getting in their pocket. The idea that a rogue hero politician can get elected and shake corruption out of the government is myth now. They have too much control.

The deal was mostly sealed when the Federal Reserve was created. Once you understand exactly what the Federal Reserve is, how it's not Federal, nor is it a Reserve, and who is behind it, who makes $ from it and how our elected officials can't even audit it or affect it, it's pretty clear. A few decades after the Federal Reserve was created, the wealth was built, the gold was gathered, the power structure put in place, and the real steering wheel of the nation was handed over to unelected folk.

He who has the gold really does make the rules. That's reality. There is plenty of material about it you can read or watch, if you really are interested I'll find some for you. (although if I link you publically here we'll get level1online comparisons for the rest of the week).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']No I do not believe Jews are to blame for anything, that's silly. But the IMF, World Bank, and a few others really do run everything that matters. And I mean everything. And politicians don't get very far without getting in their pocket. The idea that a rogue hero politician can get elected and shake corruption out of the government is myth now. They have too much control.

The deal was mostly sealed when the Federal Reserve was created. Once you understand exactly what the Federal Reserve is, how it's not Federal, nor is it a Reserve, and who is behind it, who makes $ from it and how our elected officials can't even audit it or affect it, it's pretty clear. A few decades after the Federal Reserve was created, the wealth was built, the gold was gathered, the power structure put in place, and the real steering wheel of the nation was handed over to unelected folk.

He who has the gold really does make the rules. That's reality. There is plenty of material about it you can read or watch, if you really are interested I'll find some for you. (although if I link you publically here we'll get level1online comparisons for the rest of the week).[/quote]

I like Metal Gear Solid too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top