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

[Marenta]

Socialism is where Government (or Worker) ownerships are how all business operates.

So, if the State owns all business and markets and capital; then I better be getting a larger paycheck that what I am. I mean, the Goverment already owns my soul, heaven forbid if they want to own my Insurance, my Bank, my vehicles, and the stock market.

[Marenta]

By the way, I've done quite a few of those "plan" things. I'm a Lean 6 Sigma Green Belt (too lazy to get my Black belt) and I've done enough Process Improvement critiques and implimentations that I know what a "plan" should look like. Obama and McCain have "ideas", not "plans".

[rn79870]

By the way, I've done quite a few of those "plan" things. I'm a Lean 6 Sigma Green Belt (too lazy to get my Black belt) and I've done enough Process Improvement critiques and implimentations that I know what a "plan" should look like. Obama and McCain have "ideas", not "plans".

The big difference is that Obama's "idea" is already functioning in Illionis, so with respect to that, his plan is to implement it on a federal level after he is elected.

[AZhitman]

Here's THE TRUTH on Senate Bill 99 that Bob neglected to share:

The Full Text Of S.B. 99 Included Changes That Would Offer Sex Education To Children Beginning In Kindergarten.

"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." (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)

How does one teach a kindergartener about STD's without teaching them about sex?

I'll tell you why McCain opposed it - Because it's pathetically incomplete, and it DOES NOT serve the primary purpose of educating kids about preventing victimization.

This legislation is NOT a "national model" as some would have you believe, and to "spin" this as a "McCain doesn't care about kids" issue is absurd.

[Jesda]

I think you're using a concept (word) you do not understand.

America is a Capitalist/Socialist society, governed as a Republic, with Democratic elections.

Therefore, America is a Capitalist/Socialist/Republic/Democracy. No one will/can change that. Pesky little thing called our Constitution will get in the way.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Capitalism is based on private property and private enterprise, and the freedom for private entities to interact in whatever way they choose for their own benefit.

Socialism assumes that the public has a general right to control or own private enterprise for the good of the public. I disfavor that, and there are too many examples of it, including the EPA.

[Jesda]

The big difference is that Obama's "idea" is already functioning in Illionis, so with respect to that, his plan is to implement it on a federal level after he is elected.

Wait, you want the federal government to go around teaching about predators? I thought NCLB was bad enough.

[Jimefam]

The title is scandalous but how is that any different from alot of the threads on this forum. Anyways your right mccain doesn't need to come up with a plan to counter obama, BUT as I believe mccain said before "why reject a good idea because you didn't think of it first" or something to that effect. I for one think teaching kids what is an appropriate touch or not can be beneficial and I dont see the downside. It is far more petty and scandalous for mccain to call that information sex-ed than the title of this post.

[Marenta]

Does anybody remember "Stranger Danger" week in Kindergarden? I sure as hell do. I wouldn't go anywhere with my parents for a month after that. I was scared ****less!

[AZhitman]

Don't be fooled, Jim - The post title was edited already.

Is California the only state that has legislated many of those "state rights" issues. Or are you saying the federal government should usurp the sovereignty of the states in those matters (while you're professing to be for smaller government at the same time)?

OK, wait - You're telling us that my list is ALL "states rights" issues".

Then you tell us BO's idea (SB 99) wll be Federalized.

So, what to do with the penny is a states rights issue, but teaching a kindergardener about sex is a federal issue?

So, illegal immigration backlash is a state issue, but teaching a kindergardener about sex is a federal issue?

So, misinterpretation of medical documents is a state issue, but teaching a kindergardener about sex is a federal issue?

So, teenage highway fatalities is a state issue, but teaching a kindergardener about sex is a federal issue?

BO is WAY out of his league here.

[HashiriyaS14]

FYI - surrendering to & abandoning Iraq is not a good idea. Please use Google to educate yourself on the reasons we need to see this thing out.

No one is advocating "abandoning" Iraq. Obama supports a measured withdrawal on a timetable, which is very close to what both General Petraeus and the Iraqi government supports.

In reality, whomever gets elected will likely do whatever Petraeus tells them to do, as he's just too fantastic at his job to be ignored. No one knows better than he does.

Obama happens to have lucked into a position where reality more closely mirrors his policy than McCain's, but I think that in the end, either one would defer to the General once they get in office, and rightfully so.

[rn79870]

Why is the state involved in this? Shouldn't this be up to school boards?

Yes and no.

Such a plan would be appropriate (legal) at the local, state or federal level.

The 10th. amendment granted to the states all posers not specifically reserved to the federal government, education being one of them. The state constitutions (typically I assume as Article 9 of the CA Constitution does) grand educational rights/obligations to the counties. All such entities have an interest in the welfare of the youth.

[96Qowner]

Here's THE TRUTH on Senate Bill 99 that Bob neglected to share:

Here's the entire bill with markups:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislatio...ssion=

[Jesda]

Yes and no.

Such a plan would be appropriate (legal) at the local, state or federal level.

The 10th. amendment granted to the states all posers not specifically reserved to the federal government, education being one of them. The state constitutions (typically I assume as Article 9 of the CA Constitution does) grand educational rights/obligations to the counties. All such entities have an interest in the welfare of the youth.

I'm not talking about the constitutionality. Lots of things are constitutional but senseless.

I'm talking about the ridiculousness of some people in DC doing this as well as the need, and the overreaching aspect of putting the federal government directly in the classroom. It sets a bad precedent like I mentioned earlier regarding NCLB.

[Jimefam]

Here's THE TRUTH on Senate Bill 99 that Bob neglected to share:

The Full Text Of S.B. 99 Included Changes That Would Offer Sex Education To Children Beginning In Kindergarten.

"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." (S.B. 99: Illinois Senate Health And Human Services Committee, Passed, 7-4-0, 3/6/03, Obama Voted Yea)

How does one teach a kindergartener about STD's without teaching them about sex?

I'll tell you why McCain opposed it - Because it's pathetically incomplete, and it DOES NOT serve the primary purpose of educating kids about preventing victimization.

This legislation is NOT a "national model" as some would have you believe, and to "spin" this as a "McCain doesn't care about kids" issue is absurd.

In all fairness that is not what obama is talking about. Those guidelines are for "comprehensive sex eductation classes" which is not what obama is intending to give kindergarteners. It would simply be a course to educate kids on what to look for in inappropriate touching. The "comprehensive" classes typically begin in 5th grade at least in FL.

[rn79870]

Back on topic.

I'm going to restate this (again):

If I oppose a plan to supervise sex offenders, am I then pro-offender? Am I supporting molestation?

That really depends on how you oppose it doesn't it?

No.

I may have a BETTER plan.

OR, you may not HAVE a plan...

Follow me here.

Which of course, you would mention in opposing the other plan. Right? Which of course McCain doesn't, or if he does, he's keeping it quiet.

Just because BO pulls a "plan" out of his arse, does that mean that the opponent needs to immediately formulate a "plan" to counter it within the hour? Retarded.

So Illinois is his Arse? That's where the plan came from. That's where it is presumably saving children from child abuse.

Here's the OTHER issue I have with this:

Obama spews the word PLAN like he knows what it really means.

Being that it's modeled after the successful "plan" in effect in Illinois, I think we can correctly assume he knows what it means...

I sit on a couple strategic planning committees. I've done SWOT analysis for several major programs in state government.

"Plan" includes all of these things, which he has NOT done. It includes analysis of the current condition. It includes allocation of resources (financial and personnel). It includes measurable goals and objectives.

So, Obama has NO PLAN, and his characterization of this as such is as ludicrous as his expectation of his opponent to support his "non-plan".

You, my friend, have been duped. Obama has NO PLAN.

But, but, it's already running in Illinois. (Have I said that before?) You're saying the Wright brothers didn't build an airplane because you never saw it fly. Trust me, this argument flies.

He has an IDEA. And "ideas" and "dreams" and "hope" are wonderful, but they don't get things done.

Again, it's working in Illinios. In fact, McCain's ad tout it as his one accomplishment when they opposing it as sex-education for kiddies. I wonder how many kids will grow up not becoming the victim of sicko child molesters due to his "plan."

[srellim234]

You are totally misreading my entire point. You have assumed that someone is against the children and in favor of predators based solely on whether they agree with Obama's plan or not. Obama's plan is not the only way to protect kids; it's only ONE way.

You have also assumed that I have presented my personal stance against it when in fact I have not. I specifically started my analogy labelled as an analogy using the word "IF" as the very first word. You have no idea where I stand on it at this point. All you really know about my feelings on this issue are that I object to your smear tactic against McCain through your use of a sensationalistic and untrue thread title.

McCain, in fact, has advocated stiffer penalties for predators during the course of his career. He came out firmly on the kids' side when he publicly denounced the Kennedy v Louisiana ruling this year.

http://mccain.senate.gov/publi...cb0fb

I'm still waiting to hear how not supporting one, and only one, plan means that you must be diametrically opposed to the people you are trying to protect.

Read the analogy again. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[96Qowner]

Ouch, Bob. You posted ten times on the subject without actually ever reading the bill.

[rn79870]

You are totally misreading my entire point. You have assumed that someone is against the children and in favor of predators based solely on whether they agree with Obama's plan or not. Obama's plan is not the only way to protect kids; it's only ONE way.

I'm not missing your point at all. Instead the point I'm making is that, dismissing a successful plan, (yes folks, it's running in Illinois, therefore it is more than an idea) by calling it sex-education for kids, and not offering a "better" is either A. Very stupid, or B, pro-abuse, or C. Both. I chose to call it C.

Let me take this one step further and actually help John McCain here. John, here is your response.

I oppose Obama's plan but I am working on a better plan because I see issue of child abuse as a national concern, not one that should be dismissed as a joke as it did in my ad.

Yes, JM needs a little flip flop here to come out of this one looking human.

McCain, in fact, has advocated stiffer penalties for predators during the course of his career. He came out firmly on the kids' side when he publicly denounced the Kennedy v Louisiana ruling this year.

Oh, punishing the guilty will protect the innocent? Please. His plan is no different than closing the barn door after the horse escapes. IS Obama the only proactive one in this?

[AZhitman]

Why would he read the bill? He has talking heads to do his research FOR him, and the spin comes free of charge.

In all fairness that is not what obama is talking about. Those guidelines are for "comprehensive sex eductation classes" which is not what obama is intending to give kindergarteners. It would simply be a course to educate kids on what to look for in inappropriate touching. The "comprehensive" classes typically begin in 5th grade at least in FL.

Nope. I can see how you would think that, but the bill BO voted "yea" on basically took your FL plan and extended it down to Grades K-6.

This ain't groundbreaking, it's not novel, it's not tested or evaluated, and it's still not a "plan".

So, just because I oppose BO's "plan", I'm pro-molestation?

That logic, should you choose to employ it, would be absurd.

[rn79870]

Ouch, Bob. You posted ten times on the subject without actually ever reading the bill.

Read the OP again, then we'll discuss the bill.

[96Qowner]

Ok, I read it a second time. Can we discuss the bill now, and how your OP post relates to the actual bill?

You DID read this part of the bill, I'm sure:

(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually.

It DOES say All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

[wingFeather]

No one is advocating "abandoning" Iraq.

So Obama accidently created public perception he will single-handedly end "the war", almost immediately upon election... and we shall clean out hands of that region & not look back?

People all over my town with their "support the troops, end the war" lawn signs seem to think so...

[AZhitman]

That really depends on how you oppose it doesn't it?

Not at all. There are only two available choices when one votes on a bill. In case you weren't aware, they're "yea" and "nay".

There's no "yeah but" or "normally no" or "kinda depends". Yes or No.

Which of course, you would mention in opposing the other plan. Right? Which of course McCain doesn't, or if he does, he's keeping it quiet.

So now BO dictates when the opposing candidate lays out his plans?

Wrong.

Just because the blabbermouth candidate decided to 'toot his own horn' on the ONE thing he's accomplished in his two years as a Senator, does NOT dictate the opposite side's timetable.

Where's Obama's plan on the penny? The illegals? The texting teens? the unreadable prescriptions? WHERE? We want it NOW!!!

See how stupid that expectation is?

That's where the plan came from. That's where it is presumably saving children from child abuse.

Good Lord.

That's NOT where the "plan" came from. He just supported bumping an already existing curricula DOWN to include K-6 kids. How can you not comprehend this? He drafted NOTHING.

Presumably saving kids from child abuse... Quite possibly, yes, if one must use overly dramatic terms. Measurable and quantifiable? Hardly.

To term it a "successful plan in Illlinois" is a mistake as well. Longitudinal studies? Evaluations? Comparisons?

Again, it's working in Illinios.

Oops, you did it again.

My auditor hat just got blown off by that gust of wrong.

[srellim234]

You still haven't explained how a person is against the kids and for predators when they promote stiffer sentencing for predators. Your OP, combined with the ridiculous title, is stating "He's not for the plan so he must be against the children."

Whether he stated at that time that he had another plan or not has no bearing to your conclusion. You clearly tried to lead readers here to believe that McCain was against children and pro predator when that is not the case.

BTW, because a plan has been implemented doesn't mean it's successful. Because a plan is successful in one state doesn't mean it's appropriate for the entire country.

[AZhitman]

Your OP, combined with the ridiculous title, is stating "He's not for the plan so he must be against the children."

You clearly tried to lead readers here to believe that McCain was against children and pro predator when that is not the case.

Not just the OP and the original title, but the subsequent defense of those as well...

I suppose using Bob's logic, since I oppose CARB, I'm pro-pollution.

This is typical though of a theme of Obama's campaign, and to a larger extent, Socialism in general:

If you do not agree with / support me, then you oppose me / are my enemy.

[96Qowner]

In fairness, these sorts of distortions are typical of ALL campaigns.

I saw the ad and didn't like it. It's not a valid criticism. Obama surely didn't intend to teach kindergarteners about sex.

But we're into the serious campaign season now, and both sides are going to do their very best to obscure issues and hurl accusations at each other. As much as "we" don't like it, "we" respond to it. If this kind of campaigning wasn't effective, you can be sure no one would waste any money on it.

[srellim234]

Absolutely. McCain's stretch was out of line.

BUT

It's a bigger stretch for rn to go from "McCain doesn't support Obama's legislation" to "McCain is against protecting kids and supports sexual predators".

[audtatious]

Maybe we should follow UK's new tactic in parks which is to stop and question anyone in the park who does not have a kid with them then throw them out or call the police if you don't like their answers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new....html

[AZhitman]

Precisely.

And, to take it a few steps further, it's not "new" legislation, it's not necessarily "working", nor does it matter as a federal issue.

Again, I'd have opposed it too.

[wingFeather]

How about we buy millions of cameras & employ millions of people to monitor them at $XX thousand a year plus full government benefits? Then we hire more people to stay near each camera, to respond to orders given by the monitors?

This way the government can fully make sure that every citizen is protected