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

[rn79870]

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.

Who was talking about voting for a bill? Not me. I'm talking about a candidate with a plan and one without such a plan. That example doesn't work here.

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.

Or lack of timetable as it appears.

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

I guess you missed my explanation of the 10th Amendment and the matters granted to the states. Matters like many of those you listed above.

See how stupid that expectation is?

I'm not the one defending it...

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.

Oh, then why did McCain's campaign credit him with it as his "greatest achievement." Were they lying when they said that?

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?

So, you want me to bring a kid in that wasn't abused due to the law to prove that it worked. Right.

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

Oh, I'm thinking bad sunburn on the dome now.

[AZhitman]

Oh, and to add the final nail:

The title STILL leads one to believe this legislation is intended to protect children from sexual predators.

Not true.

The legislation may have a SIDE IMPACT of preventing victimization, but it could just as easily be titled:

"McCain opposes legislation to extend sex education to kindergarten and elementary students."

Tell me that wouldn't be accurate. Go ahead.

[AZhitman]

Oh, then why did McCain's campaign credit him with it as his "greatest achievement." Were they lying when they said that?

Nope.

They were making fun of him. It's called sarcasm.

[wingFeather]

McCain opposes legislation to extend sex education to kindergarten and elementary students

Now see, I didn't even know since the OP didn't post a link to the article... just some random quotes.

I believe a title change is in order

[rn79870]

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

You mean instead of citizens arming themselves with bazookas, law rockets and howitzers?

[rn79870]

Now see, I didn't even know since the OP didn't post a link to the article... just some random quotes.

I believe a title change is in order

Everybody but you seems to be following along...

[Marenta]

(off-topic)We would all make very bad unbiased reporters.(/off-topic)

The whole point of this isn't to flame the OP or the thread title, that's all semantics.

The bill does cover some things that a Kindergartner wouldn't understand. But, I definitely remember "Stranger Danger" and, just because I remembered it doesn't mean that it'll prevent bad things from happening.

Just because people don't support the sex-ed at an early stage doesn't mean that they support sexual offenders getting off scott-free. Personally, if I had a really nice sniper rifle, and I knew I could get away with it.. I'd take out some sex offenders. But, that's just my twisted sense of justice. And, after I was done, I'd turn myself in. I figure it makes it fair. Nice sidebar, eh?

I don't like BO's "plan" and I KNOW it probably doesn't work, at age 6, you don't really know the whole touching right or wrong thing. And, you're more than willing to trust just about anybody you come into contact with.

[rn79870]

I don't like BO's "plan" and I KNOW it probably doesn't work, at age 6, you don't really know the whole touching right or wrong thing. And, you're more than willing to trust just about anybody you come into contact with.

Please read this article and tell me if it doesn't change your mind...http://www.starnewsonline.com/...80245

Greg, you might give that article some consideration, and of course, someone needs to forward a copy to McCain.

[rn79870]

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

You're morphing words just like factcheck does. I said MANY not ALL.

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

No, I said McCain objected to his plan for protecting children without offering another option. And McCain doing so appears to make him either unaware of OR not concerned with, OR even in support of child abuse.

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?

The 10th. Amendment granted to the states all powers not specifically retained to the federal government by the Constitution. Many of your "examples" are clearly proper matters for state jurisdiction, such as texting and medical scripts. Others are reserved to the federal government, such as issuing money and immigration. Still others are concurrent jurisdiction, such as protecting ALL/ANY class of citizens. See USC Title 42 for a great example of concurrent jurisdiction. Obama's plan is one of those things that falls within the concurrent jurisdiction envelope.

BO is WAY out of his league here.

Yep, A licensed lawyer who lectured in Constitutional Law at (wasn't it) Columbia doesn't understand the legislative process.

[AZhitman]

No, I said McCain objected to his plan for protecting children without offering another option. And McCain doing so appears to make him either unaware of OR not concerned with, OR even in support of child abuse.

Again, calling this a "plan for protecting children" is a stretch, as is your attempt to backpedal from your original statement:

McCain against protecting children from sexual predators.

[smockers83]

Good god, do some people not understand how bills work and how they come about in the House and Senate? For every bill that got shot down by vote, if everyone who opposed it drafted their own legislation in response, tell me what exactly would get done? Congress would be doing a lot less than what they're already doing now, so instead of 9% they'd be at 1%. Do you not understand what would happen to our government? It would ultimately just grind itself to a halt. What would happen is you would have 200+ responses in the House, 50+ responses in the Senate. Then all of those have to go through approval by a committee. The ones approved get voted on. Lets say 2 get approved for vote and both get shot down. Now we're talking just 100+ responses alone in the senate. To do this, Congress could spend their whole 2 years just trying to make a decision on 1 single issue. The job of a legislator is to legislate, however, you don't legislate in response to everything you oppose.

Lots of poor logic being used.
Modified by smockers83 at 9:17 PM 9/10/2008

[wingFeather]

The job of a legislator is to legislate, however, you don't legislate in response to everything you oppose.

Lots of poor logic being used.

+1 Glad someone can see past the Democrat's mud slinging

[AZhitman]

Again I state:

If either candidate were to pull an issue confronting our country out of thin air and demand that the other come up with a detailed and viable plan to address it, on the spot, what then?

I oppose CARB. Doesn't mean I'm pro-pollution (although by your black / white logic I am). I think the ends can be attained by other (and better) means, but I certainly couldn't whip up a plan overnight, just as CARB wasn't drafted overnight.

[rn79870]

Again I state:

If either candidate were to pull an issue confronting our country out of thin air and demand that the other come up with a detailed and viable plan to address it, on the spot, what then?

Perhaps a comment like "I applaud Obama's efforts to curb child abuse. I support all efforts to curb this terrible crime." Of course, without his handlers, McCain is lost as his ad makes him appear.

[rn79870]

Again, calling this a "plan for protecting children" is a stretch, as is your attempt to backpedal from your original statement:

No backpedaling at all. Read the entire posts. The last option in the OR line for example.

Are all the points I've made that you haven't responded to, points you agree with?

[AZhitman]

Are all the points I've made that you haven't responded to, points you agree with?

Is that personal or related to an issue?

If issue-related, I could ask the same of you.

[rn79870]

Good god, do some people not understand how bills work and how they come about in the House and Senate? For every bill that got shot down by vote, if everyone who opposed it drafted their own legislation in response, tell me what exactly would get done? Congress would be doing a lot less than what they're already doing now, so instead of 9% they'd be at 1%. Do you not understand what would happen to our government? It would ultimately just grind itself to a halt. What would happen is you would have 200+ responses in the House, 50+ responses in the Senate. Then all of those have to go through approval by a committee. The ones approved get voted on. Lets say 2 get approved for vote and both get shot down. Now we're talking just 100+ responses alone in the senate. To do this, Congress could spend their whole 2 years just trying to make a decision on 1 single issue. The job of a legislator is to legislate, however, you don't legislate in response to everything you oppose.

Lots of poor logic being used.

Perhaps you should start your own thread about how a bill becomes law, because in this one, we're talking about John McCain and whether he supports plans to curb child abuse.

[AZhitman]

When even the left-leaning posters shoot holes in a flawed argument, and there's virtually no support from some really smart people on a given position, it might be time to consider the remote possibility that it's completely and utterly incorrect.

[rn79870]

Is that personal or related to an issue?

If issue-related, I could ask the same of you.

Of course it's issue related. I've taken your posts and parsed them almost line by line, pointing out what I believe are the errors in them.

I was referring to, for instance, your states rights vs. federal obligations points that you've dropped. (to name a few.)

[AZhitman]

we're talking about John McCain and whether he supports plans to curb child abuse.

Sounds like open and rational discussion, with possibilities existing on both sides....

Versus:

McCain against protecting children from sexual predators.

Looks like it should be on the cover of the Enquirer. Incorrect by any stretch, inflammatory, and sensationalist.

[ishkabibble]

Leftie reporting in. Bob is way off base here.

Over and out.

[smockers83]

Perhaps you should start your own thread about how a bill becomes law, because in this one, we're talking about John McCain and whether he supports plans to curb child abuse.

Perhaps you should learn when to fold your cards. The whole point of me posting that is due to your claim that John McCain didn't have a counter plan. Now do you see the link? You have to broaden your thinking and think about the big picture here.

[srellim234]

Perhaps you should start your own thread about how a bill becomes law, because in this one, we're talking about John McCain and whether he supports plans to curb child abuse.

Wrong, rn. You started this thread with the subject, and I quote you,

"McCain against protecting children from sexual predators"

THAT was the subject, and you have yet to prove it. You've dodged, weaved and deflected, but you've produced nothing that indicates that McCain is on the sexual predators' side. Show us where he has sponsored legislation or voted or even just STATED that he favors sexual predation on kids.

[AZhitman]

I'm glad to respond to any and all critiques of what I posted.

Here's one that slipped past ya:

Oh, and to add the final nail:

The title STILL leads one to believe this legislation is intended to protect children from sexual predators.

Not true.

The legislation may have a SIDE IMPACT of preventing victimization, but it could just as easily be titled:

"McCain opposes legislation to extend sex education to kindergarten and elementary students."

Tell me that wouldn't be accurate. Go ahead.

[rn79870]

Wrong, rn. You started this thread with the subject, and I quote you,

"McCain against protecting children from sexual predators"

THAT was the subject, and you have yet to prove it. You've dodged, weaved and deflected, but you've produced nothing that indicates that McCain is on the sexual predators' side. Show us where he has sponsored legislation or voted or even just STATED that he favors sexual predation on kids.

I've clearly proven that he not only doesn't support, but he has spoken agains the only plan that proactively addresses abuse of children. What you see or don't see doesn't change the fact.

[rn79870]

Perhaps you should learn when to fold your cards. The whole point of me posting that is due to your claim that John McCain didn't have a counter plan. Now do you see the link? You have to broaden your thinking and think about the big picture here.

Yes, he didn't have a counter plan and he opposed supporting the one that was there. Therefore, he had no problem leaving the children vulnerable to sexual abuse. In fact, neither he or his campaign have done anything in 24 hours not to address the issue. Leaving me to further believe he has no interest in protecting children.

The whole point of me posting in response to your first post was to point out that information on how a bill becomes law is totally, totally irrelevant to the discussion.

[AZhitman]

the only plan that proactively addresses abuse of children.

Wow.

What in the world would we do without Obama saving the children?



The title STILL leads one to believe this legislation is intended to protect children from sexual predators.

The legislation may have a SIDE IMPACT of preventing victimization, but it could just as easily be titled:

"McCain opposes legislation to extend sex education to kindergarten and elementary students."

Tell me that wouldn't be accurate. Go ahead.

[rn79870]

When even the left-leaning posters shoot holes in a flawed argument, and there's virtually no support from some really smart people on a given position, it might be time to consider the remote possibility that it's completely and utterly incorrect.

I'll do that when you do one simple thing.....show me McCain's proactive plan to protect children from child abuse. I might have to wait a very long time, because McCain is not proactive in this regard.

[rn79870]

"McCain opposes legislation to extend sex education to kindergarten and elementary students."

Tell me that wouldn't be accurate. Go ahead.

If by sex-education you mean "how to report inappropriate touchings" to children who might otherwise suffer years of sexual abuse then you are right. You're ignoring his "age appropriate" comment, just like McCain did. This helps prove my point that McCain is not proactive with respect to preventing sexual abuse.

Again, McCain and his supporters would do well to agree that it is a terrible problem that required proactive efforts to by those in position to implement them. Defending him for his failure here is not in his best interest.

[AZhitman]

This is NOT a "proactive plan to protect children from abuse". It's legislation to extend sex education to kindergarten and elementary students.

Show me YOUR PLAN as a parent to protect YOUR children from sexual predators.

You don't have one?

May as well feed them to Uncle Chester.