John McCain is pro-pedophile
Everyone reading this already knows that the John McCain ad attacking Obama for supporting comprehensive sex education is complete and utter bullshit. But as we all know, the fact that it is utter bullshit has unfortunately little relevance to whether it will be successful. Moreover, we all know that Obama's defensive response to this will accomplish almost nothing, since in this election, it's always the attack that gets attention, while the defense gets ignored. Obama can't just play defense on this. He has to counter-attack. And the counter-attack has to be as sensational and attention-grabbing as the initial assault.
Here's the statement:
"John McCain has recently tried to make my support of sex education for kindergardeners an election issue. This is not an important or relevant issue in this election in any way, but since McCain brought it up, let me explain to you exactly what sex education for kindergardeners means. It means teaching children how to avoid sexual predators, and what to do if an adult starts touching them in an inappropriate way. And yes, I believe it is absolutely critical for children to learn this, even before they learn to read. Frankly, it seems to me that the only people who could possibly oppose this form of sex education are either idiots or pedophiles. John McCain is not an idiot. To my knowledge, he is not a pedophile. So I believe John McCain owes the American people an explanation for why he opposes this program. And I think John McCain especially owes the families who have been torn apart because a child lacked the information necessary to contact authorities after being raped or abused an explanation for why he believes children should not have access to this information."
Say it like this and people pay attention and McCain looks like an imbecile.
Advertisement





I do not care how you try to defend Obama Sex education to a five year old is wrong. I do not care if it includes talk about child molesters about sex condems aids it does not matter it is wrong. We teach children in schools about the dangers of strangers and not to go to strangers and what to do if a stranger aproches them and it has nothing to do woth sex ed. A parent can teach there child what they feel is apropriate for them as they grow that is not the job of a school. When a child is maybe 9 or 10 you can start with the aids issue as a health issue not a sex issue. When a child is in 7th grade and up then more and more apropriate sex education could be in order. So you arrogant liberals who think that sex ed for a 5 year old is defensible do not know parents of childen at all. If any school administrator or teacher talks to my 5 year old about sex i will sue them report them for child abuse and crate such a scandal that the community will be at war with them. You want to miss women off more thanb you already have just keep trying to defend this.
September 10, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson,
May I once again respectfully suggest that you take the time to attend to the built in spell check as you go through this site like a grade school child with a roll of Charmin "TP-ing" articles? Or perhaps you could tell us how many scandals would fit into your crate? Or explain how one goes about crating a scandal?
Please, I'd like to be able to consider what you are attempting to say, but I can't tell quite what it is. I recommend using short declarative sentences.
September 11, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink