Nedak Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I'm waiting for his source too. But don't you think videos with words in them can carry just as much substance and weight as typed words? Well lets see. The first video was taken from a McCain interview. Was not cut. “I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.” The second video: Showing how similar fox news attacks Obama as they did Kerry. I don't see how you could disprove or argue against that. Third Video: This was actually aired on tv and I watched an interview with one of his advisers saying that he didn't think it was "inappropriate." Fourth Video: Please disapprove it, all other research of done supports this. Fifth Video: She said this her self. It's a direct video off of CBS.com Also for my information on her bounty on wolves. Look it up, it's all over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Nihil Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Well lets see. The first video was taken from a McCain interview. Was not cut. “I just want to make a comment about the obvious issue and that is the failure of Congress to act yesterday. Its just not acceptable,” said McCain. “This is just a not acceptable situation. I’m not saying this is the perfect answer. If I were dictator, which I always aspire to be, I would write it a little bit differently.” The second video: Showing how similar fox news attacks Obama as they did Kerry. I don't see how you could disprove or argue against that. Third Video: This was actually aired on tv and I watched an interview with one of his advisers saying that he didn't think it was "inappropriate." Fourth Video: Please disapprove it, all other research of done supports this. Fifth Video: She said this her self. It's a direct video off of CBS.com Also for my information on her bounty on wolves. Look it up, it's all over. That's why I said "can" they. Of course not always. Yes some videos are not cut to show the parts you want. Neither always are words. But both can be. But yes I wait for his source. He hasn't posted yet so I think he's done for the night and will be back tomarrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics) Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all? Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted So McCain is telling the truth. Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there. An example: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/ Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics) Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all? Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted So McCain is telling the truth. Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there. An example: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/ Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview. “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” Hmm... I wonder if this "Newsbusters" site you linked to may have a bias... Can you at least cite sources that aren't blatantly biased? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Video 1: I can't find anything as to where it is from to look for a transcript, but McCain wanting to be a dictator? Riiiiiggghhhhtttt.... (will try to find some stuff but I need more specifics) He didn't actually mean to say that, but the fact that it was in his mind is scary. All videos I've seen don't seem to be cut. They also include the entire interview. Video 2: Is really funny because thing is Fox News is right, Obama is that liberal, Kerry is extremely Liberal too. Fox News attacking Obama arbitrarily, cute. I've done my own research on this and Fox has been understating it. Has anyone else noticed how the rest of the media hasn't even investigated Obama's background at all? You're missing the point. Also, you're just buying into what they say like that without doing any research? Video 3: I see your video and raise you a video hopefully it doesn't get deleted So McCain is telling the truth. The video didn't work for me and the guy didn't include a source. Here is mine: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/198169.aspx It was to get kids aware of sexual predators. Video 4: CNN has gotten in serious trouble for bias, also it doesn't surprise me that CNN found some politicians to bash Palin, she's ruined their sweetheart kickback deals with oil companies up there. Woa, are you saying that they're in it for money with the Oil Companies.? Read about what Sarah Palin's relationship with Oil Companies are. An example: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/10/cnn-labels-palin-s-environmental-stances-outside-mainstream http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/cnn-did-a-fact-check-against-palins-statements-and-shot-down-every-one-of-them-based-upon-little-to-no-credible-evidence/ Please give a more reliable source. Video 5: You won't be able to find anything or even the full interview yet because CBS has yet to release the transcript last time I checked nor the full interview. That's the offical CBS Youtube channel.. Also here is the transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/25/eveningnews/main4479062.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 But what has Obama run though. Out of everyone running, Palin is actually arguably more qualified than everyone. McCain comes in second place. Wot. Are you serious? Or did I just not understand the joke? _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Wot. Are you serious? Or did I just not understand the joke? _EW_ Yes, I am serious. @ han sala I'm well aware what CBN's interview said, and the video I posted mentioned that I believe. If you do the google search like the video I posted Illinois State Assembly Bill S-99 and look at the actual bill. Obama lied to CBN, there is no other way around it. The text showed in that video that is quoting the bill is true, I've read the bill myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 @ han sala I'm well aware what CBN's interview said, and the video I posted mentioned that I believe. If you do the google search like the video I posted Illinois State Assembly Bill S-99 and look at the actual bill. Obama lied to CBN, there is no other way around it. The text showed in that video that is quoting the bill is true, I've read the bill myself. Please give me a direct link to the bill itself. I can't see anybody proposing the idea of having sex education in kindergarten. There would be no need of it. Please give me the direct link that isn't Youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inyri Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Hasn't this 'sex ed' thing come up (and been explained) about a thousand times already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 5, 2008 Share Posted October 5, 2008 Hasn't this 'sex ed' thing come up (and been explained) about a thousand times already? Yes, it has, and the bill has nothing to do with teaching little kiddies how to use condoms or anything sexual. And: in before "well have you read the bill?!" yes, I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 The question is absurd. Yes, they are both qualified to be President. The unqualified one has been living at the White House the last eight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Yes, it has, and the bill has nothing to do with teaching little kiddies how to use condoms or anything sexual. And: in before "well have you read the bill?!" yes, I have. I have too, and I'm coming to a completely different interpretation, and I read it on the Illinois State Assembly's website. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true Yes they have a line in there about parents saying their kids should not participate, however the parents have to write the school. There is nothing about the school needing to tell parents or having to ask permission. So the school does not need permission to teach it like most states or rather permission is assumed, they have to be told by the parents in writing that they do not want their kid to be taught this stuff. Only two other states are like this: California and Massachusetts, the other states require parents to sign a permission slip in order for this stuff to be taught to their kids. I've read the bill and unless it's toward the end I haven't seen anything about protecting oneself from pedophiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I've read the bill and unless it's toward the end I haven't seen anything about protecting oneself from pedophiles. You need to read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 You need to read it again. Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 You need to read it again. Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education. (6) Course material and instruction shall advise 28 pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any 29 age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations 30 with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal 31 Code of 1961. ..... 8 (9) Course material and instruction shall teach 9 pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual 10 advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances 11 and shall include information about verbal, physical, and 12 visual sexual harassment, including without limitation 13 nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical 14 sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course 15 material and instruction shall contain methods of 16 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including 17 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that 18 impairs one's judgment. The course material and 19 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and 20 respect for others and shall also encourage youth to 21 resist negative peer pressure. The course material and 22 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal 23 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. 24 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful 25 to touch an intimate part of another person, as specified 26 in the Criminal Code of 1961. Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Uh that's a nice bill, except it's not SB-0099 which is what I'm referring to... :¬: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I have too, and I'm coming to a completely different interpretation, and I read it on the Illinois State Assembly's website. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true Uh that's a nice bill, except it's not SB-0099 which is what I'm referring to... That not your link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Funny, but this is the link you were using: Criminal Offenses: (720 ILCS S 5/) Criminal code of 1961: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961. This is the link I posted: 093_SB0099 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true You are looking at the wrong bill, btw the link I gave is for ease of printting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Funny, but this is your link: Criminal Offenses: (720 ILCS S 5/) Criminal code of 1961: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt.+12&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60636&SeqStart=17200000&SeqEnd=24400000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961. This is my link: 093_SB0099 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB0099lv&DocTypeID=SB&GA=93&print=true My link is a source link of the criminal code that YOUR link refers to in the parts I pasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 My link is a source link of the criminal code that YOUR link refers to in the parts I pasted Where does it refer to the criminal code, what section of the bill, wait I found it all the way down in section 4 of the bill... So sections 1-3 covers all this other stuff concerning sex ed and you finally get to the stuff about sexual abuse in section 4... And again at the end of section 10 and beginning of section 11. Jeez we have stuff about biology, sexual behavior, etc., I thought this was supposed to only be about protecting from pedophiles and sexual predators, seems to be a little bit more than than necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Uh huh, give me the section and lines where pedophiles and sexual predators are brought up cause I didn't see it (if it's there) in all the other stuff about sex education. That is distorting the point. The bias FoxNews media and McCain’s approved ad is saying that the bill makes it law to teach comprehensive sex education to Kindergarteners. Announcer: Education Week says Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education." That he's "elusive" on accountability. "A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly." Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family. [/Quote] From newsweek.com FACTCHECK.ORG Despite McCain and Fox News scare tactics, anyone can read the bill. Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology. (b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence 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 acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually. [/Quote] I believe the problem is math. Fox News and John McCain do not know 6th grade is long after kindergartener. (1) Course material and instruction shall be age appropriate [/Quote] I believe this means you are not going to teach a senior at the same level as we do a 6 year-old. I don't see what so hard for McCain or Fox News to understand about that. We don't teach math the same to kindergarteners as we do senior in high school either. Yet, we do teach both math. Feel free to show me (within the bill) how you have came to the conclusion that this bill wants to teach kindergarteners comprehensive sex education. If it did do you really believe Republican such as Alan Keyes would have supported it? Despite Fox News and McCain’s saying otherwise, Democratic want to protect our children too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 (6) Course material and instruction shall advise 28 pupils that it is unlawful for males or females of any 29 age to engage in sexual conduct or have sexual relations 30 with a minor as specified in Article 12 of the Criminal 31 Code of 1961. ..... 8 (9) Course material and instruction shall teach 9 pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual 10 advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances 11 and shall include information about verbal, physical, and 12 visual sexual harassment, including without limitation 13 nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical 14 sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course 15 material and instruction shall contain methods of 16 preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including 17 exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that 18 impairs one's judgment. The course material and 19 instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and 20 respect for others and shall also encourage youth to 21 resist negative peer pressure. The course material and 22 instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal 23 consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. 24 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful 25 to touch an intimate part of another person, as specified 26 in the Criminal Code of 1961. Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961. Where does it refer to the criminal code, what section of the bill? in yellow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Again, I said I found the sections, but they are burried in the bill, if this was what the entire bill was supposed to be about it didn't need sections 1-3... What you are talking about is sections 4, end of 10 and beginning of 11, and it is also entirely directed towards male pupils being the ones at fault. See the scandals involving Female Teachers with young boys, that's sexual abuse too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 See the scandals involving Female Teachers with young boys, that's sexual abuse too. Really? But you, like obliviously John McCain and FoxNews, don't believe it is appropriate to teach children that that type of attention is inappropriate and what to do about it? That is one of the major purposes of SB0099. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Really? But you, like obliviously John McCain and FoxNews, don't believe it is appropriate to teach children that that type of attention is inappropriate and what to do about it? That is one of the major purposes of SB0099. Uh my problem with the bill has to do with sections 1-3. If it was restricted to only the stuff about people trying to sexually abuse them and how to recognize it, then it wouldn't be a problem. The other stuff in the bill is a bit a much, and that's what McCain is referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.