# Attack Ad shows low class of McCain Campaign



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I'm sorry, but I am completely appalled at McCain's complete lack of sense for this ad attacking Obama on education that makes some rather strong insinuations about sex.

He should be ashamed of himself and his campaign for feeling the need to sink to these tactics. This is simply ridiculous.

Now we see which campaign feels the need to go on the attack.






As *discussed on Talking Points Memo:*



> There's a lot to chew on here. But we want to focus on one particularly pernicious aspect of it. The ad shows a dreamy-looking Obama as it says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Late this afternoon, Obama spokesperson Bill Burton's response directly questioned McCain's honor:



> "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."


I would hope that even you staunch R's would see the ridiculousness of this pathetic ad.

Ryan


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Ryan ... maybe you could do an internet showing of all that this course teaches ... then let the rest of us decide what is appropriate for kids age six.

Near as I can tell ... teaching kids how to avoid sexual predators ... might be quite different from teaching them about sexually transmitted disease and the details of how those diseases are transmitted and then how to avoid it if a six year old were to engage in such activities.

Find the details of the course and get back to us ... Please.

From what I see now McCain is 100% in the right here ...

Obama is the same bafoon as always.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Decoy Ryan will not get that info because it does not come off of Huffing ton,MoveOn or the last place he pulled the Palin baby story!

Ryan you may not like your boy getting kicked in the nads while down but that is how elections are run. We will see as harsh or worse ads coming from NObama before long. You are not the poster boy to be slamming McCain's ads which by the way are true, when you ran your mouth about Palins baby which was not true!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This simply means Illinois is stupid, and Obama is among it's dumbest. Remember the conversation we had a while back where you Ryan were complaining about people who preached abstinence and how much better sex education was. You hear that often from people who don't have kids or any experience raising them. I don't know why that is, but often it's the people with zero experience who are the self proclaimed experts. When you have a couple kids get back to us.
Meantime try to explain to me why a six year old needs to know about sex education. The liberal answer to all this has always been the earlier we get to them the lower the teen pregnancy will be. Meanwhile the teen pregnancy rate has continued to climb. The democrats handle this the same as oil. Don't drill, oil is short, it's the republicans fault. Teen pregnancy rate is not acceptable teach sex education. Pregnancy rate goes up so teach it at an earlier age. Pregnancy rate goes up again teach it even earlier. Pregnancy rate goes up, it's those darn people preaching abstinence. Typical liberal MO, screw up the country and blame the conservatives.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

That last line about teaching sex ed to kindergartners was a poor decision IMO.

So what are they to teach? A kid asks, so where do puppies come from? Or where do little birds come from? Personally I think a teacher should have an answer as years ago when most of the population was rural, they saw and experienced the way of the world with their own eyes. Now the vast majoirty have not even seen a hen pop out an egg much less the birth of a foal or a calf.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So what are they to teach?


The same thing they taught us. Reading, math, english (is that racist) etc. They started teaching sex education because parents didn't want to be parents. I guess I would be guilty myself on that. By the time I thought it was appropriate it was to late. They had already had five or six years of it in school. 
This is just another of those things where liberals are taking over the role of parent. No wonder we get more liberal with each generation. Which liberal was it again that thought the schools should teach morals? Was that Hillary. Can you begin in your wildest nightmare comprehend what Hillary would want to push into those little heads that are like sponges?


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> Can you begin in your wildest nightmare comprehend what Hillary would want to push into those little heads that are like sponges?


I could imagine it would be something along the lines that "you need the government to make your decisions for you because you are not smart enough to do it on your own. Don't worry...the government knows what's best!"


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

er......."it takes a village?"........ :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

hunter9494 said:


> er......."it takes a village?"........ :lol: :lol:


    it takes a village idiot to think government can better handle anything than you.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

welcome to generation "X" and gen "debt".......they can't handle life themselves, so quite naturally, they expect the government to take care of them. there thought is safety in numbers......numbers of poor folks and government clones/worker bees.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ryan, is it not true though that Obama did in fact vote for a bill, at the state level, that included sex education for K-12? Its original write up was 6-12 and was changed to K-12. He has also stated that he would support reading material, for these same children, about same sex marriage.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Longshot said:


> Ryan, is it not true though that Obama did in fact vote for a bill, at the state level, that included sex education for K-12? Its original write up was 6-12 and was changed to K-12. He has also stated that he would support reading material, for these same children, about same sex marriage.


Not sure? I haven't heard of it yet.... have you tried digging for it?

In everything I've read, I haven't seen that one. Though I haven't read much on his state level bills to be fair...


----------



## Colt (Oct 25, 2007)

Ryan,

You're a liberal, aren't you.

I don't care for liberals.....just to let you know.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Colt said:


> Ryan,
> 
> You're a liberal, aren't you.
> 
> I don't care for liberals.....just to let you know.


This really has no bearing on the subject at all and it is immature....IMHO


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

A summary of Colt's recent contributions to the Politics Forum. Truly an asset.



Colt said:


> Ryan,
> 
> You're a liberal, aren't you.
> 
> I don't care for liberals.....just to let you know.





Colt said:


> I HATE liberals!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> They are America's enemy.





Colt said:


> She's a fat beech.





Colt said:


> It's extremely difficult to take any liberal seriously.....they're all idiots.


In addition to those, he also started the Sarah Palin is hot thread in Hot Topics as well as the ever thoughtful Osamabama thread here in this forum.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=57430

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... p?p=460694

I, for one, am glad he is on our side. He truly illustrates the introspective and deliberative processes that are needed to form an informed political opinion.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

Another instance of a Mod putting down a member. :roll:

I am not saying Colt did not deserve it, as he has his shortcomings and I will leave it at that.

But my point is this: Why are Mods putting down (insulting) members of this site? Are they not to be taking the high road on such matters? Chris (the owner of this and other oudoor sites if in case some readers did not know) says "no personal bashing is allowed". Meaning no name calling or insults. I and other members believe that this is to hold true for EVERYONE. Especially the Mods are to be following it for they enforce this rule. Mods please take the high road on such matters and follow the rules just like us members also have to do.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

R y a n said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan, is it not true though that Obama did in fact vote for a bill, at the state level, that included sex education for K-12? Its original write up was 6-12 and was changed to K-12. He has also stated that he would support reading material, for these same children, about same sex marriage.
> ...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298307,00.html

But the three frontrunners 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.

Moderator Tim Russert asked John Edwards, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton whether they'd be comfortable having the story - called "King & King" - read to their children in school.

Edwards gave the first and most definitive answer - a resounding and instant "yes, absolutely" - although he added that it "might be a little tough" for second-graders.

Obama agreed with Edwards and revealed that his wife has already spoken to his 6- and 9-year-old daughters about same-sex marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ6vZRy6 ... re=related






Here is the Bill that Obama voted for:



> 093_SB0099 LRB093 05269 NHT 05359 b
> 
> AN ACT concerning education.
> 
> ...


----------



## jgat (Oct 27, 2006)

h2ofwlr said:


> Why are Mods putting down (insulting) members of this site?
> 
> I and other members believe that this is to hold true for EVERYONE.


Guests, not members.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

h2ofwlr said:


> Another instance of a Mod putting down a _*member*_. :roll:
> 
> I am not saying Colt did not deserve it, as he has his shortcomings and I will leave it at that.
> 
> But my point is this: Why are Mods putting down (insulting) _*members*_ of this site? Are they not to be taking the high road on such matters? Chris (the owner of this and other oudoor sites if in case some readers did not know) says "no personal bashing is allowed". Meaning no name calling or insults. _*I and other members *_believe that this is to hold true for EVERYONE. Especially the Mods are to be following it for they enforce this rule. Mods please take the high road on such matters and follow the rules just like _*us members *_also have to do.


Like stated, there are Members and Guests. Both are to be treated the same though and I am not stating otherwise....I am clarifying there is a difference between members and guests.

Read again...no preferential treatment, just clarification.

Also, Mod's (myself included) are just like everyone else and sometimes spout off before thinking, as everyone does. There was only one perfect Being...and no, not Obama.

Post Script:

Germans had a saying a long time ago that echo's the "Pull the log from your own eye before you point out the splinter in your neighbors'". In most European Countries, having a clean stoop was one of the most civil and important aspects of ones dwelling. Therefore, the saying of "Clean your own stoop before you mention anothers" comes to play.

There are many more examples but you get my drift.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have been working on this site for years with Robert. Although I have never met him we exchange PM's often. If he says something that gets on someones case a little you can rest assured he has some constructive reason to say it. Like the rest of us he has a political opinion, but I have always known him to be professional enough to put that aside and do the right thing. 
I looked at the post above, and it may get people irritated because it aims at making people look like idiots. I myself think there are idiots of all flavors in Washington, but it would be good if you tell us why you think so not simply say all liberals are idiots. I'm not a liberal, but I assume there are reasons they are liberal. It's not fair to simply say all liberals are idiots because we know they are not. No more fair than for them to say all conservatives are idiots. They often imply we are heartless etc, but until they say I am heartless or you are heartless they are not breaking the rules. Saying all liberals are idiots doesn't brake the rules either, but it doesn't further the conversation. 
I miss things once in a while on here and don't edit them fast enough. I'm lucky Bobm is here also, and Robert. Got to go again, so in ending I wish all my conservative friends on here, and my liberal friends who I enjoy debating with each and all a good day.

Oh, and by the way this wasn't intended to rag on anyone, simply to let you know my feelings towards this and ensure you of Roberts professionalism. :thumb:


----------

