Slime tactics

[TheDude]

Ad by McCain - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NseW0UPMLtg

Response by Obama - “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."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/arch...09/1370041.aspx

 

[fossten]

Light on facts as usual...

In 2007, on November 20th, Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood event, and he said this about Alan Keyes, who was his opponent in the Senate race in 2004.

OBAMA:

I remember him, uh, using this in his campaign against me, saying, "Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners." (laughter) And, you know, which -- I didn't know what to tell him. But it's the right thing to do.

Also, from an article written by Catherine Donaldson-Evans after a Democrat Debate, written on 9/27/07:

"A fairy tale about two princes falling in love sparked a backlash -- and a lawsuit -- against a teacher and a school last year when it was read to a second-grade class in Massachusetts. But the three front-runners in the Democratic presidential race suggested Wednesday night at their debate in New Hampshire that they'd support reading the controversial book to children as part of a school curriculum. ... Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his 6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage."

And here's the relevant text of the bill, 0099:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K, six through 12; shall include instructions on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections including the prevention, transmission, and spread of HIV. Nothing in this section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene, or traditional courses in biology.

 

[TheDude]

and what exactly does any of that have to do with the smear-angle "learning about sex before learning how to read" that the add stated?

 

[fossten]

and what exactly does any of that have to do with the smear-angle "learning about sex before learning how to read" that the add stated?

Um...smear applies to something that isn't true. Or did you learn to read in preschool?

 

[shagdrum]

I could check with my mother (an elementary school teacher), but last I knew reading wasn't part of the kindergarden curiculum.

 

[TheDude]

Um...smear applies to something that isn't true. Or did you learn to read in preschool?

You can play semantics, but the add was trying to paint Obama as some pervert in regards with children.

 

[TheDude]

I could check with my mother (an elementary school teacher), but last I knew reading wasn't part of the kindergarten curiculum.

Actually it is; it may be simple words like cat, dog and tree, but reading it still is. Where did you go to school?

 

[fossten]

You can play semantics, but the add was trying to paint Obama as some pervert in regards with children.

That's false. The ad is correctly exposing him for being a radical. Not a pervert. Now you're distorting and smearing.

While you're at it, why don't you address the "honor" comment. The Obama campaign has flat out CALLED McCain a pervert in their response. No comment from you?

Clearly McCain believes that he has a strong case that Obama supports sex ed for kindergarteners. I've pasted enough evidence for anyone to see that this is at least a plausible argument. So how is this dishonorable?

 

[TheDude]

That's false. The ad is correctly exposing him for being a radical. Not a pervert. Now you're distorting and smearing.

Radical what now? Last time I checked, sex education helps people make better informed decisions in regards to sex and being safe. Also, underage children taking these courses would need their parents consent first, a teacher just wouldn't walk into a 6th grade class and put a condom over a banana *gasp*. Keep your head in the sand Mr. Intellectual Honesty, the add had one aim, that was to smear.

Read it again, they implied he had no honor in using a smear tactic like this (Obama a pervert), not that McCain is a pervert himself. Nice spin though.

 

[fossten]

Radical what now? Last time I checked, sex education helps people make better informed decisions in regards to sex and being safe. Also, underage children taking these courses would need their parents consent first, a teacher just wouldn't walk into a 6th grade class and put a condom over a banana. Keep your head in the sand Mr. Intellectual Honesty, the add had one aim, that was to smear.

Read it again, they implied he had no honor in using a smear tactic like this (Obama a pervert), not that McCain is a pervert himself. Nice spin though.

Oh really? Didn't call him a pervert?

Why don't YOU read it again:

It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign

So now you're admitting that Obama's in favor of it? Then by definition it can't be smear, because it's true. So your entire premise has been exploded - by you.

And thanks for admitting that you're in favor of sex ed in school for kindergarteners - that tells me a lot about you.

Why don't you examine your own arguments, iron out the inconsistencies, and get back to me.

On second thought, don't bother. I know you're voting for Obama. So why bother? I've already disproven your "slime" accusation.

 

[TheDude]

Oh really? Didn't call him a pervert?

Why don't YOU read it again:



So now you're admitting that Obama's in favor of it? Then by definition it can't be smear, because it's true. So your entire premise has been exploded - by you.

And thanks for admitting that you're in favor of sex ed in school for kindergarteners - that tells me a lot about you.

Why don't you examine your own arguments, iron out the inconsistencies, and get back to me.


On second thought, don't bother. I know you're voting for Obama. So why bother? I've already disproven your "slime" accusation.

Um, the word "perverse" doesn't necessarily mean "pervert" or "sexual pervert"; in the context the Obama response used, it clearly wasn't.

Keep dancing around, it's funny. You well know that the way something is presented can completely change the context. It isn't an issue of Obama just supporting the Bill, If so, they could have just run an add that said "Obama supports this Bill" -the end. It was presented in a fashion painting Obama as some sort of kiddie-pervert.

LoL, now you're trying to smear me, that's a classic.

So far yes, unless McCain can somehow dazzle me during the debates. That's right, spin, dance and then arbitrarily call a "I WON, GAME OVER!" You have fun with that.

 

[fossten]

Um, the word "perverse" doesn't necessarily mean "pervert" or "sexual pervert", in the context the Obama response used, it clearly wasn't.

Keep dancing around, it's funny. You well know that the way something is presented can completely change the context. It isn't an issue of Obama just supporting the Bill, If so, they could have just run an add that said "Obama supports this Bill" -the end. It was presented in a fashion painting Obama as some sort of kiddie-pervert.

LoL, now you're trying to smear me, that's a classic.

So far yes, unless McCain can somehow dazzle me during the debates. That's right, spin, dance and then arbitrarily call a "I WON, GAME OVER!" You have fun with that.

I'm not dancing around anything. I'm carefully, logically, and clearly addressing your points.

Okay, so this whole joke of an argument by you revolves around your definition of the words "smear" and "pervert."

To say something that's true is not smear. That's a fact.

I'm still not clear which part of the video you believe paints Obama as a pervert. I'm guessing that's your imagination. You have yet to specify. But to use the word "perverse" does NOT denote "pervert?"

That's very funny.

You yourself just said that you are in favor of sex ed being taught to kindergarteners, albeit with parental consent. That is a FACT. You DID SAY THAT.

Last time I checked, sex education helps people make better informed decisions in regards to sex and being safe. Also, underage children taking these courses would need their parents consent first, a teacher just wouldn't walk into a 6th grade class and put a condom over a banana *gasp*.

So my comment is not, by definition, smear.

Stop being a victim. You're now using both appeal to pity and argumentum ad nauseum.

Oh, and you know better than to accuse me of playing the "GAME OVER" crap. I don't do that and you know it. So now you're smearing me, albeit quite sophomorically.

Grow up.

 

[TheDude]

I'm not dancing around anything. I'm carefully, logically, and clearly addressing your points.

Okay, so this whole joke of an argument by you revolves around your definition of the words "smear" and "pervert."

To say something that's true is not smear. That's a fact.

I'm still not clear which part of the video you believe paints Obama as a pervert. I'm guessing that's your imagination. You have yet to specify. But to use the word "perverse" does NOT denote "pervert?"

That's very funny.

You yourself just said that you are in favor of sex ed being taught to kindergarteners, albeit with parental consent. That is a FACT. You DID SAY THAT.


So my comment is not, by definition, smear.

Stop being a victim. You're now using both appeal to pity and argumentum ad nauseum.

Oh, and you know better than to accuse me of playing the "GAME OVER" crap. I don't do that and you know it. So now you're smearing me, albeit quite sophomorically.

Grow up.

Keep playing the world game, but you very well know that the way something is presented, can paint a certain picture. I already did spell out which part was the smear tactic, "Learning sex education before learning how to read", that was clearly used to paint Obama as some pederast.

Actually, I said sex ed helps people make better informed decisions and helps them stay safe(r), I didn't say 'sex ed should be taught to kindegarteners'. I mentioned the parental consent fact, as a means to prove that though the bill would allow sex ed to be taught to grades across the board, it simply wouldn't happen in reality. People just need to keep their knees in check.

Well, you in fact did, the "don't bother, I proved you wrong" bit at the end.

 

[fossten]

Keep playing the world game, but you very well know that the way something is presented, can paint a certain picture. I already did spell out which part was the smear tactic, "Learning sex education before learning how to read", that was clearly used to paint Obama as some pederast.

Actually, I said sex ed helps people make better informed decisions and helps them stay safe(r), I didn't say 'sex ed should be taught to kindegarteners'. I mentioned the parental consent fact, as a means to prove that though the bill would allow sex ed to be taught to grades across the board, it simply wouldn't happen in reality. People just need to keep their knees in check.

Well, you in fact did, the "don't bother, I proved you wrong" bit at the end.

Well I'm very sorry that you took the ad personally. I did not feel, after watching the ad, that Obama was being painted as a pervert. I did feel that he was being painted as a radical. Nevertheless, to accuse them of smear, you have to be able to point to something other than your po wittle feewings in order to make your case. They never once implied or stated that Obama was a pervert. Sorry, you can't claim smear in this case, because there is no slander.

If you really want to clear the air, why don't you just state your position on sex ed for kindergarteners, rather than tapdance around it and play word games like "I never said I didn't disbelieve that" ad infinitum.

Do you or do you not support it?

Please explain why you believe that if sex ed is permitted to be taught to 5 year olds, somehow it won't happen.

Also, I'd like to hear you explain how sex ed is going to help a bunch of five year olds make better informed decisions about sex. I wasn't aware they were even old enough to make decisions about that yet. After all, they don't even know how to read yet.

OH NOES!!! NOW I'M SMEARING!!!!

In fact, you've taken two mutually exclusive positions: Sex ed is good, but it won't happen for the youngest, so don't worry. Why should we worry if it's good?

 

[TheDude]

Now attack me that I'm being emotional, another good spin by Fossten.

Obviously sex ed shouldn't be taught to kindergarteners, as they're not mature enough to comprehend the lessons ie. condom use, slid show of medical STDs etc. It's a moot point, what kindergarten school would add "sex ed" to their curriculum, let alone, the parents giving consent for it.

The Bill isn't just for 5 year olds/kindergarten. You keep that angle though.

It's a good lesson for the right age groups, Fossten, which part of that can't you grasp? Sex Ed is taught (with consent) now in Middle School.

 

[fossten]

Now attack me that I'm being emotional, another good spin by Fossten.

Yawn. Quit being a victim.

Obviously sex ed shouldn't be taught to kindergarteners, as they're not mature enough to comprehend the lessons ie. condom use, slid show of medical STDs etc.

Then you disagree with Obama, because he voted for a bill that permits it.

It's a moot point, what kindergarten school would add "sex ed" to their curriculum, let alone, the parents giving consent for it.

Argument to ignorance, otherwise known as the Mary Mapes defense, which you've tried to use before in other discussions. It's most certainly NOT a moot point. I'd like you to logically defend your claim that you believe that not one single school in the country would introduce sex ed for kindergarteners, instead of demanding that I disprove it.

The Bill isn't just for 5 year olds/kindergarten. You keep that angle though.

You yourself said that 5 year olds shouldn't be taught sex ed. But you'd support the bill anyway? Are you contradicting yourself yet again, or do I just not get the nuance? So is your position that we should allow the bill and just cross our fingers because you don't think it would ever happen? I suppose we could apply that logic to the Bill of Rights as well, right? Abolish the first ten amendments, because hey, what government is going to abuse them anyway, right?

It's a good lesson for the right age groups, Fossten, which part of that can't you grasp? Sex Ed is taught (with consent) now in Middle School.

So you're okay with it taught to middle schoolers. Any younger than that? Clearly Obama has admitted teaching it to his 6 and 9 year old. Do you believe schools should be allowed do this, even with consent?

 

[MonsterMark]

Last time I checked, sex education helps people make better informed decisions in regards to sex and being safe.

Last time I checked, sex education is in many ways designed to promote promiscuity. Why tell a 6, 8, 10 year old how to have sex?

What is frikkin wrong with people.

From the same people that cry 'stay out of my bedroom', they also cry 'let us teach your kid about sex with Julie the cute little 5th grader'. Sorry, but I'll teach my kids what they need to know or not know outside of reading, writing and arithmetic. The 3R's is all I expect a school to teach. That and respect for their fellow man and GOD!

 

[MonsterMark]

Clearly Obama has admitted teaching it to his 6 and 9 year old.

Wouldn't it be great to see Obama's 9 year old get knocked up using daddy's lessons by a fellow 9 year old? Then he could really inform us about Roe v Wade by having his daughter perform an 'On Air' abortion. Just think how informative that would be!

 

[fossten]

Wouldn't it be great to see Obama's 9 year old get knocked up using daddy's lessons by a fellow 9 year old? Then he could really inform us about Roe v Wade by having his daughter perform an 'On Air' abortion. Just think how informative that would be!

Are you drinking tonight? I know the Packers won, but...dude.

 

[TheDude]

Yawn. Quit being a victim.

Then you disagree with Obama, because he voted for a bill that permits it.
Argument to ignorance, otherwise known as the Mary Mapes defense, which you've tried to use before in other discussions. It's most certainly NOT a moot point. I'd like you to logically defend your claim that you believe that not one single school in the country would introduce sex ed for kindergarteners, instead of demanding that I disprove it.

You yourself said that 5 year olds shouldn't be taught sex ed. But you'd support the bill anyway? Are you contradicting yourself yet again, or do I just not get the nuance? So is your position that we should allow the bill and just cross our fingers because you don't think it would ever happen? I suppose we could apply that logic to the Bill of Rights as well, right? Abolish the first ten amendments, because hey, what government is going to abuse them anyway, right?

So you're okay with it taught to middle schoolers. Any younger than that? Clearly Obama has admitted teaching it to his 6 and 9 year old. Do you believe schools should be allowed do this, even with consent?

Yawn all you like, just pointing out your tactics, you in fact did call me emotional and claimed I was debating from that angle.

For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that every kindergarten school in America offered sex ed. It would still be the parents call if their children watched a condom going over a banana and learned of STDs; the parents having the final say is good enough for me. In my opinion, not a single parent would allow their child to sit in the course.

 

[TheDude]

Last time I checked, sex education is in many ways designed to promote promiscuity. Why tell a 6, 8, 10 year old how to have sex?

What is frikkin wrong with people.

From the same people that cry 'stay out of my bedroom', they also cry 'let us teach your kid about sex with Julie the cute little 5th grader'. Sorry, but I'll teach my kids what they need to know or not know outside of reading, writing and arithmetic. The 3R's is all I expect a school to teach. That and respect for their fellow man and GOD!

When was the last time you checked? Teaching how to properly use a condom, i.e. not open the packet with your teeth/sharp object so the condom doesn't become useless in regards to preventing pregnancy/disease and learning about the horrors of STDs doesn't teach promiscuity.

Clearly Sex Ed is wrong and abstinence only education works, err wait.

 

[shagdrum]

Actually it is; it may be simple words like cat, dog and tree, but reading it still is. Where did you go to school?

I think it is actually the pre-cursor to reading; spelling. Not the same thing...

 

[shagdrum]

the add was trying to paint Obama as some pervert in regards with children.

There's an exagerated mischaracterization. Strawman?

 

[shagdrum]

Teaching how to properly use a condom, i.e. not open the packet with your teeth/sharp object so the condom doesn't become useless in regards to preventing pregnancy/disease and learning about the horrors of STDs doesn't teach promiscuity.

Wait....
Are you actually claiming that teaching a kid how to use a condom doesn't promote promiscuity?:bowrofl:

 

[TheDude]

I think it is actually the pre-cursor to reading; spelling. Not the same thing...

So in learning how to spell cat and then naming the word after it's spelled, it isn't reading, okay.