Angry Johnny
Tweet
One world leader accuses him of being deceptive and the nukes go flying, America. Oh, also, he was a POW.
What a ridiculous man for a major political party to have nominated. But then, its no coincidence that he’s from the same lineage as George W. Bush and Richard Nixon.
48 Responses to “Angry Johnny”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
McCain has symptoms of Neurosyphilis
Headache
Stiff neck
Irritability
Poor concentration
Mental confusion
Depression
Visual disturbances
Abnormal reflexes
Abnormal gait
Incontinence
Dementia
Weakness, numbness of lower extremities
Loss of muscle function
Muscle contractions
Muscle atrophy
Totally not fit for the office of president.
I’ve known it for a while. Bush and his campaign knew it back in 2000. The rest of America is realizing this day by day.
jr, I’ll go out on a limb and assume that McCain has had at least one course of antibiotics in the last 10 years…
He’s 72 years old, at this point, diagnosing his mental health problems from his public behavior is a bit like determining the problem with a 1982 Honda Civic with 300,000 miles based on the color of the smoke coming out of the tailpipe. You can tell he’s messed up, but good luck figuring out exactly what’s wrong…
He terrifies me. It’s like waiting for that face in Jaws.
Again, did I miss something? He forcefully made his point about something. I’m expecting to see a video of McCain blowing his stack and instead we get a video of him saying, “I respect your opinion, but I disagree with your assertion.”
Clinton’s face used to get beet red and he’d practically shake with rage when being accused of lying (which was often), yet I don’t remember idiots like Marshall getting their panties in a bind over it.
He didn’t seem to respect the position, nor even to claim such. And the position is just calling him out on the bollocks his ads have spouted.
And the position is just calling him out on the bollocks his ads have spouted.
Except the ads are accurate, especially the one about sex education. It’s not McCain’s fault that the media are lazy and won’t dig a little deeper to find out the truth.
You’re right, it’s definitely not McCain’s fault. All that barbecue he served to the media at his home should have definitely bought him a free pass with them. I’d be pretty ticked off they weren’t rolling over for another belly rub, too.
You’re right, Jay, because teaching kids not to let strangers “touch them there” IS “comprehensive sex education.”
For you, and McCain, to cling to this lie is evidence of your dishonesty. Or stupidity. Or both.
Except the ads are accurate, especially the one about sex education. It’s not McCain’s fault that the media are lazy and won’t dig a little deeper to find out the truth.
Yeah, that must be it. Keep telling yourself this.
Oh god damn it:
If you genuinely believe that, you’re a maniac. If you don’t, you’re a dishonest lump of crap. Either way you can just fuck off until you learn either to argue in good faith or what the real world looks like.
You’re right, Jay, because teaching kids not to let strangers “touch them there” IS “comprehensive sex education.”
For you, and McCain, to cling to this lie is evidence of your dishonesty. Or stupidity. Or both.
You know, maybe you should like, actually READ the text of the bill instead of just regurgitating left wing talking points about the bill being nothing more than something that shows little ones how to protect themselves from child predators.
The text of the bill is below. Read it. There’s far more in there and the language of the previous law which started at the sixth grade was struck out and replaced with kindergarten. It covers topics from contraception to sexually transmitted diseases.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session
In addition, one of the co-sponsors of the legislation, Iris Martinez, was asked if she saw the bill was specifically about inappropriate touching and she said, “Absolutely not.”
The bottom line is, the bill mandated that such issues like contraception and STD’s be included in sex ed classes for kids before the sixth grade and perhaps as early as kindergarten. Obama has talked about the “child predator” part of the bill as what he supported, but that’s not what is totally contained within the bill and he should know better.
Took you up on it, Jay, and guess what? There is language throughout the bill about the curriculum being “age-appropriate.”
So I’m not regurgitating anything. Age-appropriate sex-ed for kindergarteners would be about “don’t let ‘em touch you there” and little else. At least it would be in my local school board’s opinion. Or don’t we trust local school boards, Mr Conservative?
I always enjoy it when you link to something that disproves your own point. Especially after you say something smart-ass like, “maybe you should, like, actually READ the text of the bill.”
Wow, we’ve seen this movie before. J’s link disprove his assertions. He didn’t expect anyone to actually check the link, because if they did, they would find this:
“(2) All course material and instruction in classes
15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
Damn you for stealing my thoughts Bruce!
You know what they say about great minds.
“Or don’t we trust local school boards, Mr Conservative?”
Suck on that, Jay.
The bottom line is, the bill mandated that such issues like contraception and STD’s be included in sex ed classes for kids before the sixth grade and perhaps as early as kindergarten.
As already pointed out, the bill mandated age and developmentally appropriate instruction. It also mandated parental approval before any student could participate and allowed parents to review the materials that would be presented. Just like any time I ever had sex ed in school.
And for the record my first sex ed class was in 5th or 6th grade. That was some time ago. In terms of kindergarten, I’ll let the “perhaps” speak for itself.
Wow, Jay, you were really engaged there before being exposed as a schmuck (again).
Are you searching for a linky link or quotely quote that DOESN’T disprove your own point? Or have you, like Sir Robin, bravely beat a brave retreat?
Age-appropriate sex-ed for kindergarteners would be about “don’t let ‘em touch you there”
Except that’s not what the provision says:
Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.
Are you going to argue that this is “don’t let them touch you there” education? Seems to me the provision is aimed more at protecting kids from each other.
Wow, we’ve seen this movie before. J’s link disprove his assertions.
It didn’t “disprove” dick. The objects were raised trying to define this as a bill that was geared towards protecting children from sexual predators and that is clearly not the case.
As already pointed out, the bill mandated age and developmentally appropriate instruction.
Yet it never defines what is age appropriate so that is left open to interpretation.
It also mandated parental approval before any student could participate
Wrong. It gives the parents the choice to opt-out, but does not mandate approval before hand.
So can anybody direct me to language in the text of the bill that seeks to show young children how to ward off sexual predators or child molestors?
Here in Colorado, there’s a ballot measure this November that, if passed, will define a fertilized human egg as a “person.”
Perhaps the authors of the amendment were careless. There is no provision in the measure that prevents the zygotes from receiving “comprehensive sex education.”
God, what a zero j is. Maybe he can find for us where that course material is mandated for kindergarteners. This is the next part of the movie- he quotes another part of the passage which is irrelevant and doesn’t prove his original point. Then he calls the people who call him out names and tries to direct the conversation in another direction. Lather, rinse, and repeat a couple of times. Then he will leave all questions unanswered as he stalks off, only to reintroduce the talking point later.
What a jackass.
Maybe he can find for us where that course material is mandated for kindergarteners.
I never asserted it was mandated for children in kindergarten. And don’t blame me for misdirection. You’re the one attempting to do that.
Bruce Henry is repeating the same thing we have heard ad nauseum from Obama and his supporters since this ad first came out. Let’s go back to what Bruce said:
Age-appropriate sex-ed for kindergarteners would be about “don’t let ‘em touch you there” and little else.
Where in the bill is the language and/or provisions that spell this out?
It’s not a hard question.
Oh and one other question:
Does the bill, as written, allow for the possibility that children in kindergarten could be taught sex education outside of “good touches/bad touches” yes or no?
If not, why not?
“the bill mandated that such issues like contraception and STD’s be included in sex ed classes for kids before the sixth grade and perhaps as early as kindergarten.”
So when you wrote this, what you were really saying is
“I never asserted it was mandated for children in kindergarten.”
Thanks for clarifying J. Don’t get dizzy from spinning too much.
Ok, I it was wrong to include the word “mandated” when I wrote that. I’ll change it to “provided.”
There. Now you can answer my question(s).
Thanks
Ok, you can now explain how the bill provided that Std’s and contraception be taught in kindegarten. Since it doesn’t fall under any accepted definition of “age appropriate”.
Here’s the problem. You were deceptive in including kindergartners in that range. If I say that say, oral sex instruction will be provided in class before the 12th grade, it is misleading to assume that that means “kindergarten”. It is lying to say it when that phrase is combined with the phrase “age appropriate”.
The bill, as written, does not mandate instruction about STDs, etc., for KINDERGARTENERS. While it does not specifically forbid such instruction, it DOES say that all curricula will be “age-appropriate.” No local school board in America would allow such instruction to 5-year-olds. Think about it. Don’t we trust local school boards to decide what is ” age-appropriate?”
If you don’t think 6th graders, on the other hand, should be informed of the dangers of reckless sex, you are either kidding yourself, or not a parent, or both.
No matter how you try to spin it, Obama does NOT advocate “comprehensive sex education” for kindergarteners. To insist he does is, again, to reveal your stubborn dishonesty, stupidity, or both. And that of John “Straight Talk” McCain.
Ok, you can now explain how the bill provided that Std’s and contraception be taught in kindegarten. Since it doesn’t fall under any accepted definition of “age appropriate”.
EL, the problem is, “age appropriate” is not defined. It’s a subjective term.
The problem with the bill is that it leaves the issue open to interpretation and while the possibility that some local schools would talk about STD’s to kids in kindergarten would be (very) slim, that possibility still exists. Therefore, it is not deceptive and it is not lying as the Obama campaign and others have asserted with regard to that ad. The problem I have, is that many of those who repeat the “It’s all about child predators” line have never even read the text of the bill to learn more about it. They just hear it and then go out and repeat it. It’s not all that different from all the, “Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was a Governor” drivel spouted by Obama supporters who took umbrage when community organizing was made fun of.
And again, if the bill was geared more towards showing young children how to thwart the advances of sexual predators, where is that language in the bill?
“Does the bill, as written, allow for the possibility that children in kindergarten could be taught sex education outside of “good touches/bad touches” yes or no?”
No. Because, as has been pointed out a number of times already, the bill requires “age and developmentally appropriate” instruction while requiring parental consent before children can participate and parental review of course material. No school board or teacher would ever think that discussing STDs or intercourse with kindergarteners was age appropriate. Are you suggesting otherwise?
The real point here, however, as Bruce says, is that the McCain ad specifically said:
This is a blatant falsehood. There is no way in which that bill could be read to justify such a claim. None.
“The problem I have, is that many of those who repeat the “It’s all about child predators” line have never even read the text of the bill to learn more about it. They just hear it and then go out and repeat it.”
Burn that strawman down Jay!
“And again, if the bill was geared more towards showing young children how to thwart the advances of sexual predators, where is that language in the bill?”
Right here:
“(2) All course material and instruction in classes
15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
This bill was a comprehensive sex education bill, meant to address the needs of 12th graders as well as kindergarteners and everything in between. Age appropriate sorts out which subjects are taught to which students. Age appropriate will be defined by local school boards in practice, who as we know from conservatives, are the best to administer the needs of the local community. I don’t really understand what the problem is here, unless it is you just being argumentative and intellectually dishonest.
“Ok, I it was wrong to include the word ‘mandated’ when I wrote that. I’ll change it to ‘provided.’”
So you’re amended statement would read like this:
“the bill provided that such issues like contraception and STD’s be included in sex ed classes for kids before the sixth grade and perhaps as early as kindergarten.”
Nice weasel move, Jay. You’re still wrong. The bill does not provide anything of the kind.
Jay, maybe you can answer a question, as well.
Does the bill provide ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners? Yes or no.
Jay, please. The ad states that Obama is advocating comprehensive sex ed for kindergartners. In reality, he is advocating age-appropriate sex education for children pre-middle school. Do you really think that Obama is FOR teaching 5-year-olds about the ins and outs of genitalia, sexually transmitted diseases, condom use, etc? You’re a fucking idiot if you think that.
Yeah, the ad isn’t deceptive. What a load of shit.
Jay, look. Where in the bill does it say what specifically will be taught to 1st-graders? 2nd-graders? 3rd-graders? 4th-graders?
IT DOESN’T, because it states that all instruction shall be “age-appropriate.”
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that instruction about STDs is inappropriate for kindergarteners. IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. No local school board would allow it.
Even a McCain conservative should be able to grasp this point. But perhaps they are more interested in portraying Obama as someone to be feared and mistrusted. You know, one of them egghead smartypants liberals trying to tell godfearin folks how to raise their younguns.
rocket surgeon?
“You know, one of them egghead smartypants liberals trying to tell godfearin folks how to raise their younguns.”
Which is, of course, also a lie because parents can review the curriculum and opt their children out if they want to. So the bill would not force sex education on children against parents’ wishes anyway.
Because, as has been pointed out a number of times already, the bill requires “age and developmentally appropriate” instruction while requiring parental consent before children can participate and parental review of course material.
Ok:
A. The bill does not define what “age appropriate” is and there is nothing in that bill that I read that would even be applicable to five year old kids, so why include that age range? Why?
B. You’re repeating again something that is false. The bill does not require parental consent. It leaves open the option for parents to opt out. Those are two different things.It also does not “require” parental review of course materials. It only says that course materials “shall” be provided. What that means is, if parents ask, they can review the materials.
This is a blatant falsehood. There is no way in which that bill could be read to justify such a claim. None.
The text of the bill says the following:
Right here:
“(2) All course material and instruction in classes
15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
Where??
This bill was a comprehensive sex education bill, meant to address the needs of 12th graders as well as kindergarteners and everything in between.
And where exactly is the relevant information for children in kindergarten? Where is it?
The bill does not provide anything of the kind.
What the hell does, “shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections” mean to you then?
I don’t really understand what the problem is here, unless it is you just being argumentative and intellectually dishonest.
The problem is, the ad as it ran, is entirely accurate. It appears that Obama voted for a shitty bill (as this one did not become law), and he didn’t even know what was in it (which is inexcusable on his part), but it is what it is.
Do you really think that Obama is FOR teaching 5-year-olds about the ins and outs of genitalia, sexually transmitted diseases, condom use, etc?
No, but would the bill allow for that?
Answer: Yes.
Yeah I know. AGE APPROPRIATE. Except, age appropriate is not defined. It’s left open to interpretation.
Does the bill provide ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners? Yes or no.
Does it provide it? No. Does it allow for it? Yes.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that instruction about STDs is inappropriate for kindergarteners. IT AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. No local school board would allow it.
And if you went back 25-30 years ago, they would have said the same thing about teaching kids about how to use condoms and schools providing condoms.
So in other words, it is just barely conceivable that some idiot kindergarten teacher could attempt to teach their kids about vulvas without getting prosecuted for it under any number of extant laws. In other words altogether, not only have you no interest in arguing in good faith, you also CANNOT CRITICISE MCCAIN OR ANYTHING HE DOES. If he went on television and shot Sean Hannity in the head you would defend him because you are entirely without the ability to do anything else.
You’re acting like a three-year-old. You would have more dignity if you actually posted in babyspeak. Fuck off, come back, and then fuck off again.
“The bill does not require parental consent. It leaves open the option for parents to opt out.”
Come on, Jay. Did you even go to elementary school or were you home schooled? The way these things are handled is that students bring permission slips home to parents to get signed. Schools also mail or email notices to parents that sex ed classes will be a part of curriculum and that parents can opt their children out if they want.
You can spin it any way you want but giving parents the right opt their out means those parents that don’t opt out are giving their consent to the material and instruction. Parents that have questions can review the instructional material.
To suggest that both of there’s anything suspect or inappropriate about these clauses is just ridiculous.
Right here: “(2) All course material and instruction in classes
15 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or
16 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
Where??
And dude, the phrase “age and developmentally appropriate” appears in the document three times. If you don’t know how to search a web page for keywords, I really don’t know what to say.
Jay thinks if he more and more narrowly parses his words he’ll be correct.
Kind of like when there were WMDs in Iraq, then there were “programs” and then there were “attempts to obtain knowledge of programs.”
Or when “anybody who leaked information will be punished” became “anybody who has broken the law will be dealt with” and then became “Libby’s being punished enough.”
Or when experience was the only thing that mattered in a President until it didn’t matter in a vice president.
The ad accused Obama of supporting teaching kindergarteners about sex before teaching them to read. It’s not true, but Jay will swear it is until he’s blue in the face. He’ll even provide links to shit that flat contradict his point, but if he can latch onto a word, OR THE ABSENCE OF A WORD, that he can cling to, he will, for dear life.
This motherfucker is pathetic.
fafaroo, I heard “rocket surgeon” in a movie or something. Maybe it’s just me, but it cracks me up.
“fafaroo, I heard “rocket surgeon” in a movie or something. Maybe it’s just me, but it cracks me up.”
I think it’s funny, too, just thought maybe I missed some Bush program to develop cyborg rockets, part human, part machine.
Are you going to argue that this is “don’t let them touch you there” education? Seems to me the provision is aimed more at protecting kids from each other.
And that’s a problem because why? 1 in 4 girls are sexually assaulted in this country, Jay. 1 in 4. If some little snot-nosed bully in my daughter’s class made a move on her, I would want her to know it is not okay.
And again, if the bill was geared more towards showing young children how to thwart the advances of sexual predators, where is that language in the bill?
Right here where you quoted, Jay.
Your straw man is gonna make Burning Man feel inadequate.
The ad is wrong. McCain is wrong about the ad, and you’re wrong about the legislation, Jay.
Own it.
The ad is more than wrong. It’s a lie, and McCain repeats the lie every time he claims it’s not.
So does Jay, but it’s hard to tell if he’s a fucking liar, like McCain, or is just stupid.
“What a ridiculous man for a major political party to have nominated.”
I confess, at the time I thought McCain was their best choice among a host of awful options. I never expected him to be so erratic.