McCain against (legislation to) protect children from sexual predators.

[szh]

In that post of mine, party-independent responses showed you that your logic was wrong.

So, like I said, I am not going to rise to the flame-bait anymore in this thread.

Moving on ...

Z

[srellim234]

A. You made the statement that McCain supports sex predation on children. It IS your place to prove it. You made the statement, he didn't.

B. I am well informed on the issue. I coached on the high school level, my sister is a teacher, my wife is a deputy sheriff, I have two little girls and a son in the Air Force so I've been staying informed on the subject for many years.

Let's take your "logic" even further. Obama is in favor of taking this responsibility (teachng my kids) away from the family. Obama, therefore, must be against families. Obama must be in favor of taking all kids away from their parents and making them wards of the state. That's the logic you used against McCain. And it's every bit as incorrect used that way, too.

I provided the link to JM's press release this year in response to Kennedy v Louisiana. I'm not the only source on the internet. Public records are out there if you bother to do the research instead of just claiming he's pro-child abusers.

C. How many child predation cases are prevented when a repeat offender is sitting in a jail cell, is publicly known to his neighbors through an online list, or has been executed? Judicial punishment can be both reactionary and proactive.

D. Not reacting in the manner you want doesn't make the allegation true. I believe John Kerry failed to react to the Swiftboat lies by not reacting to the lies. Doesn't mean the Swiftboat lies are true.

As for JM not reacting within 48 hours and offering an alternative, why don't you ask him instead of jumping to conclusions? Why doesn't the media ask him? Ask him the question!

E. Again, you are following the flawed logic that assumes Obama's plan is the only plan that will work or is correct, no alternatives are available, no alternatives that might be available but not proposed yet need to be explored, so you're either for Obama's plan or you're for the child abuser.Incredibly closed minded and flawed.

[Jimefam]

This thread is going in circles, we keep coming back and making the same point with a different analogy I wish I was a mod right now. LOCKED! anyways srellim that would be a good example of the flawed logic in action except that having these courses taught in schools in no way takes this responsibility away from the family. None as I recall are mandatory and parents have to sign in order to approve their child being taught this.

[smockers83]

Best thing to do is just let it go and let him think what he wants to think, no matter how construed and baseless it is.

[rn79870]

More baseless things McCain doesn't believe in. From Obama's "plan."(and many others too apparently.)

An opportunity shall be afforded to parents orguardians to examine the instructional materials to be usedin such class or course

course material and instruction shallbe age and developmentally appropriate.

No pupil shall be required to take or participate inany class or course in comprehensive sex education if thepupil's his parent or guardian submits written objection

Course material and instruction shalladvise pupils of the laws pertaining to their financialresponsibility to children born in and out of wedlock.

Course material and instruction shall teachpupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexualadvances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances

Course material and instruction shall teachmale pupils about male accountability for sexual violenceand shall teach female students about reducingvulnerability for sexual violence.

These are all terrible things to want for society? McCain doesn't want them. McCain has no counter plan, instead, he's willing let disease, violence, unwanted pregnanct, harassment and child abuse go unchecked.

Is McCain really this stupid? Is that his handlers haven't told him what to say in this regard? Is he too busy living off Cindy's riches to know that there are problems in the world?

McCain is blind to the real world. I'm sure glad the Dems have now reached 16,000,000 more registered voters than the Reps.(63 million registered Democrats 47 million registered Republicans)

[Jimefam]

McCain is blind to the real world. I'm sure glad the Dems have now reached 16,000,000 more registered voters than the Reps.(63 million registered Democrats 47 million registered Republicans)

That does little good for the democrats as republicans tend to vote in higher percentages(the religious right) also alot of that advantage is in states that are not in play (California, New york, etc.)

[AZhitman]

So, the kids whose parents DON'T want their kids to participate (because that's their right) will get singled out, pulled out of class, and sit in the cafeteria...

Social stigma much?

Seems to me I recall the Left pitching a hissy about "moment of silence" -

When the proponents offered that the kids choosing not to participate could be exempted, the Left lost their damn minds bleating about the "harmful and damaging social stigmatization" of the "different" kids.

NOTE: I don't oppose ANY of the content of the legislation, really. But I maintain my position that the OP is pulling a Stretch Armstrong, and that this really lends NOTHING to any meaningful assessment of what J-Mac believes in or does not believe in.

[srellim234]

I agree with you that McCain is out of touch in a lot of areas. Time has really caught up with him over the last 8 years, and I believe at this point he would sell his soul (maybe he already has) to become President.

My only gripe is that you jumped to a conclusion that he has no plan and favors sexual predation without even asking him. And sensationalized your flawed conclusion with a sensationalistic headline.

I can dislike someone's recipe for chicken and still like chicken. Because I didn't offer an alternative recipe doesn't mean that I hate it.

McCain can dislike Obama's "recipe" for this issue and still like kids. Because he didn't offer an alternative doesn't mean you can logically draw the conclusion that you did.

I'm done beating my head against your wall. I'm moving on to other threads where more open minds prevail.

[rn79870]

A. You made the statement that McCain supports sex predation on children. It IS your place to prove it. You made the statement, he didn't.

I've offered enough evidence to take it to a jury, a jury that could rightfully convict him of the charge.

B. I am well informed on the issue. I coached on the high school level, my sister is a teacher, my wife is a deputy sheriff, I have two little girls and a son in the Air Force so I've been staying informed on the subject for many years.

I've put one daughter through USC, another through Purdue and the 3rd. is entering the sheriff's academy later this year. That makes me as qualified as you are for an opinion.

Let's take your "logic" even further. Obama is in favor of taking this responsibility (teachng my kids) away from the family.

No, read the above post.

Obama, therefore, must be against families.

That's foolish.

Obama must be in favor of taking all kids away from their parents and making them wards of the state.

That too is foolish.

That's the logic you used against McCain. And it's every bit as incorrect used that way, too.

Trying to compare several foolish statements to statements that are supported by fact never works.

I provided the link to JM's press release this year in response to Kennedy v Louisiana. I'm not the only source on the internet. Public records are out there if you bother to do the research instead of just claiming he's pro-child abusers.

We're looking for PROACTIVITY here. You've offered no evidence of any.

C. How many child predation cases are prevented when a repeat offender is sitting in a jail cell, is publicly known to his neighbors through an online list, or has been executed? Judicial punishment can be both reactionary and proactive.

That still misses the mark. It's all about those little kids that are not forced to suffer years of abuse because they were not taught where and how to report that abuse. That's what a proactive plan does. So what the villain ends up in jail, the child is scared for life. Let's protect the kids, not subject them to more abuse. Proactivity is required here, increased jail terms fails in that regard. McCain elitist approach to this problem proves what he really stands for.

D. Not reacting in the manner you want doesn't make the allegation true. I believe John Kerry failed to react to the Swiftboat lies by not reacting to the lies. Doesn't mean the Swiftboat lies are true.

Not reacting in the manner....how about not reacting at all. 48 hours and McCain still hasn't recognized his error. 48 hours of outcry and he hasn't come forward with any comment on how terrible child abuse is.

As for JM not reacting within 48 hours and offering an alternative, why don't you ask him instead of jumping to conclusions? Why doesn't the media ask him? Ask him the question!

He's the one making the allegations that this "sex-ed" is terrible. Why doesn't he tell us what he really means before the public sees him for what he apparently is.

E. Again, you are following the flawed logic that assumes Obama's plan is the only plan that will work or is correct, no alternatives are available, no alternatives that might be available but not proposed yet need to be explored, so you're either for Obama's plan or you're for the child abuser.Incredibly closed minded and flawed.

There are other plans? Which one does McCain back? I'm still wondering what McCain finds so objectionable about the plan on the table. And yes, if you aren't for the only option available (no other plans on the table) and you don't offer another option, but choose to remain silent on it, then the thought might cross the voters mind that he is not interested in protecting the country, or he sees it as a non-issue, or perhaps as I suggest, he's a monster who supports it. All three are valid deductions, I choose to believe he's an elitist who could care less about Americans and whether or not they are protected, even if it makes him appear to support the evil.

(sr, none of this is meant to be personal, it's your guy against mine, that's all - I still think you're a great asset to any discussion)

[AZhitman]

I've offered enough evidence to take it to a jury, a jury that could rightfully convict him of the charge.

FROM a guy who testifies in court on a weekly basis, and a guy who has worked for the highest court in the state, and a guy who has served as an expert witness and has drafted reports submitted as evidence into court proceedings, TO a guy who hasn't:

Wrong.



Then again, a jury acquitted OJ, so....

[AZhitman]

By the way, for all this talk of "48 hours of outcry", I still see nothing on the front page of any major news source.

[SmithSR]

Unfortunitely, we don't accept other members opinions as citations. But nice try.

Are you fcking kidding me?

I quote another poster. You don't accept such a remark.

The quote was a clear and concise explanation of one member's opinion. I agree with it. You don't. Therefore, the quote, and the thought, is invalid. According to you. That was your message.

Your opinion is NOT the only one that counts. Knock this **** off.

[rn79870]

No, your Quoted for clarity of thought.with respect to unsubstantiated facts from another poster merely co-signs unsubstaintiated, undocumented facts. That doesn't make those facts true nor does it make them believable. Opinions are fine, but they clarify nothing.

[rn79870]

By the way, for all this talk of "48 hours of outcry", I still see nothing on the front page of any major news source.

Here from your favorite factcheck...Quote »Chapman: ... the ad itself doesn't bother explaining how the candidates differ on school vouchers, the subject of my column. Instead, it insults our intelligence by expecting us to believe that Obama thinks kindergarteners should be taught how to use condoms before they're taught to read. Right. And Joe Biden eats puppies for breakfast. [/quote]Needless to say, they say McCain fails.

A little google fu will produce 791,000 hits if you really want to see the "controversy."

[SmithSR]

His comment clarifies my thoughts on the subject.

You have no tolerance for such comments, because they don't fit your point of view.

I label you intolerant.

Backed by fact.

Substantiated by your own posts.

Stop trying to rule with an iron fist. It is not your strong suit, nor is it your job.

[rn79870]

His comment clarifies my thoughts on the subject.

And if you had said that, your comment would have been understood.But you didn't did you.

You have no tolerance for such comments, because they don't fit your point of view.

Many people have opinions that don't agree with mine. I have no problem with that.

I label you intolerant.

Backed by fact.

Substantiated by your own posts.

Possible you are not understanding.

Stop trying to rule with an iron fist. It is not your strong suit, nor is it your job.

My pointing out how weak your "argument" (or comment) was is ruling with a iron fist.

Don't you think this should best be taken to email?

[SmithSR]

No,

Possible <<you>> are not understanding.

You seem out of touch with the people posting here. Lighten up. When somebody posts "Backed by fact".... a jest aimed in your direction, you take offense?? Lighten up and cope with a critique.

Ruling with an iron fist is how your body of posts in this forum as a whole, appears to a reader. Save the email

You should not pounce on my appreciation of a poster's opinion and deride it as having no factual basis. Are we not allowed to have a different opinion from your own? Save the email..again

[rn79870]

FROM a guy who testifies in court on a weekly basis, and a guy who has worked for the highest court in the state, and a guy who has served as an expert witness and has drafted reports submitted as evidence into court proceedings, TO a guy who hasn't:

You're assuming I haven't?

[AZhitman]

Sure, why not. If wrong, I'll admit it.

But I'm pretty sure you didn't spend 6 years with the CA Supreme Court.

By the way, factcheck doesn't sufficiently address my point... which was that there is no "outcry" or it'd be clearly visible on the major news sources.

This is the part where you say, "You're right, it's not as big a deal as I made it out to be... I clearly see it as a bigger issue than the rest of the country."

[smockers83]

I've offered enough evidence to take it to a jury, a jury that could rightfully convict him of the charge.

That first comment, thanks to you, I've just cleaned up Dr. Pepper off my screen. ARE YOU SERIOUS? That is the biggest LOL ever! Everyone on that jury would put earplugs in after listening to you for 2 minutes until it was over--unless it was a jury made up of the senseless protesters outside of the RNC.

[AZhitman]

I half expected to see some semblance of defense or support for this position, at least from our more partisan members.

My faith in the logic of the human race has been restored.

[S13_love]

Wow.

Misleading title much?

I'll stay out of this one, but the sensationalism of the left's POV seems to be inversely proportional to their lead in the polls.

I thought you were going to stay out of this one? I also like the big vocabulary here, "inversely proportional"

[96Qowner]

Thanks, Phil. It's nice to see a new poster's impressions. We can't escape what we've posted. It's all there for everyone to see and study. We're all judged by what we choose to post, and the manner in which we do so.

[WDRacing]

"What you do speaks so loudly we can't hear you" comes to mind here. I refuse to be wrong therefore I'm right...etc.

This logic that McCain supports sexual predation simply because he doesn't stand behind someone else's plan is so far off base it could be described as total lunacy. In fact any and ALL opinions given here after in any thread by someone that supports this insanity should be immediately dismissed as they are obviously devoid of any rational thought.