"safe schools czar" Kevin Jennings further exposed

[Coyote]

When the partisan shit gets cleaned off the fan and walls, those opposing Jenning's nomination can only site two things.

One - a case of admittedly poor judgement in counseling a student, when Jennings was 24 years old, and a new teacher. No law was broken. No child abuse occurred. He just should have notified the school authorities and he himself said on hindsight, it wasn't good judgement on his part. That is it folks. And despite the fact that nothing like this occurred again and his record is stellar - he's forever condemned.

Two - the fact that he's openly homosexual.

Based on the first thing, some folks have determined he is not "the best" choice. Yet, those same folks most likely, were perfectly willing to forgive similar flaws in judgement in other political (for example drug use or alcohal abuse). Why is that? Because he's homosexual? Would a heterosexual teacher be given more leeway for mistakes in judgement?

I tend to think so because of the really nasty direction much of this debate has turned toward.

Is he the best? Only the president knows and he has the right to choose the person he thinks best for the job and except for this early in his career - nothing in this man's record up to now says he is not.

Only the president knows?
That's just too freakin' funny!

I guess the american people are clueless, in your opinion, and only the president knows shit about shit!

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

 

[mudwhistle]

When the partisan shit gets cleaned off the fan and walls, those opposing Jenning's nomination can only site two things.

One - a case of admittedly poor judgement in counseling a student, when Jennings was 24 years old, and a new teacher. No law was broken. No child abuse occurred. He just should have notified the school authorities and he himself said on hindsight, it wasn't good judgement on his part. That is it folks. And despite the fact that nothing like this occurred again and his record is stellar - he's forever condemned.

Two - the fact that he's openly homosexual.

Based on the first thing, some folks have determined he is not "the best" choice. Yet, those same folks most likely, were perfectly willing to forgive similar flaws in judgement in other political (for example drug use or alcohal abuse). Why is that? Because he's homosexual? Would a heterosexual teacher be given more leeway for mistakes in judgement?

I tend to think so because of the really nasty direction much of this debate has turned toward.

Is he the best? Only the president knows and he has the right to choose the person he thinks best for the job and except for this early in his career - nothing in this man's record up to now says he is not.

Only the president knows?
That's just too freakin' funny!

I guess the american people are clueless, in your opinion, and only the president knows shit about shit!

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

This is the first PC President.

He believes in diversity.

All of the special interest groups that got him his job are going to have a seat at the table.

All of the unions, race-baiters, child-molesters, Hollywood freaks, anti-war protesters, anti-capitalists, atheists, pro-Palestinians, anti-Semitics, black supremacists, tree-huggers, and even people that believe that mankind is a decease that needs to be eradicated.

The reason he's selecting these perverts is because he promised them a voice in his administration. It really doesn't matter the ridiculous nature of their causes.

 

[Coyote]

Only the president knows?
That's just too freakin' funny!

I guess the american people are clueless, in your opinion, and only the president knows shit about shit!

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

This is the first PC President.

He believes in diversity.

All of the special interest groups that got him his job are going to have a seat at the table.

All of the unions, race-baiters, child-molesters, Hollywood freaks, anti-war protesters, anti-capitalists, atheists, pro-Palestinians, anti-Semitics, black supremacists, tree-huggers, and even people that believe that mankind is a decease that needs to be eradicated.

The reason he's selecting these perverts is because he promised them a voice in his administration. It really doesn't matter the ridiculous nature of their causes.

Damn...I knew I shouldn'ta wasted bandwidth giving a thoughtful answer so I won't repeat that mistake.

So what you're basically saying is that this administration is simply replacing the last administration's rightwing kooks fundies zenophobic neocons racists anti-middleclass elitist anti-intellectual redneck warmongering draftdodging chickenhawk corporate sleazebag cronies and child molesters with their leftwing models?

Too bad

 

[Wicked Jester]

When the partisan shit gets cleaned off the fan and walls, those opposing Jenning's nomination can only site two things.

One - a case of admittedly poor judgement in counseling a student, when Jennings was 24 years old, and a new teacher. No law was broken. No child abuse occurred. He just should have notified the school authorities and he himself said on hindsight, it wasn't good judgement on his part. That is it folks. And despite the fact that nothing like this occurred again and his record is stellar - he's forever condemned.

Two - the fact that he's openly homosexual.

Based on the first thing, some folks have determined he is not "the best" choice. Yet, those same folks most likely, were perfectly willing to forgive similar flaws in judgement in other political (for example drug use or alcohal abuse). Why is that? Because he's homosexual? Would a heterosexual teacher be given more leeway for mistakes in judgement?

I tend to think so because of the really nasty direction much of this debate has turned toward.

Is he the best? Only the president knows and he has the right to choose the person he thinks best for the job and except for this early in his career - nothing in this man's record up to now says he is not.

Only the president knows?
That's just too freakin' funny!

I guess the american people are clueless, in your opinion, and only the president knows shit about shit!

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

So, what does the appointments of all these dirtbags (tax cheats, communists, racists, homosexual zealots, marxists, etc.) tell you about his ''agenda"?

After all, he did say that his picks for personnel would define his agenda. Those picks are fully defining his agenda as totally anti-american, and completely asinine.

 

[Coyote]

Only the president knows?
That's just too freakin' funny!

I guess the american people are clueless, in your opinion, and only the president knows shit about shit!

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

So, what does the appointments of all these dirtbags (tax cheats, communists, racists, homosexual zealots, marxists, etc.) tell you about his ''agenda"?

After all, he did say that his picks for personnel would define his agenda. Those picks are fully defining his agenda as totally anti-american, and completely asinine.

So....we had a prior administration of sleazebags (fascists, homophobic religoius zealots, crooks, convicted criminals, liars, warmongers, and incompetant cronies) that was....uh...."pro-American" and we have your interpretation of the current one...given that....

I'll take the leftwing dirtbags for $200 over the rightwing sleazebags. Thank you

 

[Wicked Jester]

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

So, what does the appointments of all these dirtbags (tax cheats, communists, racists, homosexual zealots, marxists, etc.) tell you about his ''agenda"?

After all, he did say that his picks for personnel would define his agenda. Those picks are fully defining his agenda as totally anti-american, and completely asinine.

So....we had a prior administration of sleazebags (fascists, homophobic religoius zealots, crooks, convicted criminals, liars, warmongers, and incompetant cronies) that was....uh...."pro-American" and we have your interpretation of the current one...given that....

I'll take the leftwing dirtbags for $200 over the rightwing sleazebags. Thank you

But I thought your beloved messiah was going to change all that. He promised you he would. Did he lie to you?
And if so, why are you or your fellow Obamabots not calling him on it?

LMAO!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The greatest "czar" of all time was Dick Cheney, the president's gray shadow, the most powerful non-ratified individualczar by the Senate of all time. So what's all the yelling about?

 

[EriktheRed]

Apparently a lot of House GOoPers don't mind a bit of public fag-bashing:

As we've been reporting, many on the right are targeting Kevin Jennings, the director of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, over his homosexuality. Today, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and 52 other House Republicans have taken their criticism of Jennings a step farther, writing a letter to the White House asking that President Obama fire Jennings. King has made that request before -- but never with the formal backing of so many other GOPers.

The letter claims that Jennings has "played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools."

"The totality of Mr. Jennings' career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality," the letter continues

.


53 House GOPers: Fire Kevin Jennings Over His 'Pro-Homosexual Agenda' | TPM LiveWire

 

[mudwhistle]

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

This is the first PC President.

He believes in diversity.

All of the special interest groups that got him his job are going to have a seat at the table.

All of the unions, race-baiters, child-molesters, Hollywood freaks, anti-war protesters, anti-capitalists, atheists, pro-Palestinians, anti-Semitics, black supremacists, tree-huggers, and even people that believe that mankind is a decease that needs to be eradicated.

The reason he's selecting these perverts is because he promised them a voice in his administration. It really doesn't matter the ridiculous nature of their causes.

Damn...I knew I shouldn'ta wasted bandwidth giving a thoughtful answer so I won't repeat that mistake.

So what you're basically saying is that this administration is simply replacing the last administration's rightwing kooks fundies zenophobic neocons racists anti-middleclass elitist anti-intellectual redneck warmongering draftdodging chickenhawk corporate sleazebag cronies and child molesters with their leftwing models?

Too bad

If you mean replacing people that believe in defending the constitution and protecting this country from all enemies foreign and domestic....with folks that side with the enemy that wants to bring this country down to their level....then yes.

Also...I resent your claims of racism. Racism is not exclusive to one ethnic group or political party.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Is it now acceptable to have lapses of judgements where our children are concerned with no repercussions?

Incarcerate...where did that come from...I didn't say that.

anyway .......repercussions....for the teacher WHO FAILED to report a sexual crime against an adolescent? HELL YES!!!!!!!!! Why are you giving this guy a pass for failing in his duty to protect your children when they are in his charge? He deserves a position in the highest office in the land? Overseeing safety in our schools???

"......Report that the boy had gay sex with an unknown adult? What will come of that? What if the boy commits suicide from shame at his secret being exposed?"

So this is an excuse to NOT report a felony crime committed against a child. "He may kill himself."

My god!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmm...I have to question the sanity of a person who thinks crimes against defenseless, impressionable children should not be condemned or go unpunished. What kind of liberal tenet is this? I have NEVER heard of such a thing and I'm frankly appalled at this thought process.

I guess me being a father makes me see things a little different than "progressives".

WHAT felony crime?

Underage sex coyote....underage sex is a felony. Failure to report it is a 4th degree felony as well.

You know...your blatant dishonesty and .... yes, attacking the messenger....just shows everyone here the "slobbering love affair" you are having with Obama and his appointees. I like it how now you say "Well.... he's a micromanager so he may not be qualified."

Thanks for admitting I was indirectly right...the guy needs to be fired.

and remember...failure to report a crime...is a crime itself.

Have a lovely day.

 

[Article 15]

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of "age of consent"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Incarcerate...where did that come from...I didn't say that.

anyway .......repercussions....for the teacher WHO FAILED to report a sexual crime against an adolescent? HELL YES!!!!!!!!! Why are you giving this guy a pass for failing in his duty to protect your children when they are in his charge? He deserves a position in the highest office in the land? Overseeing safety in our schools???





So this is an excuse to NOT report a felony crime committed against a child. "He may kill himself."

My god!!!!

Hmmmmmmmmm...I have to question the sanity of a person who thinks crimes against defenseless, impressionable children should not be condemned or go unpunished. What kind of liberal tenet is this? I have NEVER heard of such a thing and I'm frankly appalled at this thought process.

I guess me being a father makes me see things a little different than "progressives".

WHAT felony crime?

Underage sex cotote....underage sex is a felony. Failure to report it is a 4th degree felony as well.

Whoops! 16 was the age of consent in Massachusetts at the time. FAIL.

You know...your blatant dishonesty and .... yes, attacking the messenger....just shows everyone here the "slobbering love affair" you are having with Obama and his appointees. I like it how now you say "Well.... he's a micromanager so he may not be qualified."

Um, all I see is blatant dishonesty on your part - no matter how many times it's been pointed out in the thread, no laws were broken.

Thanks for admitting I was indirectly right...the guy needs to be fired.

Yeah, that didn't happen.

and remember...failure to report a crime...is a crime itself.

And no crime occurred! So it's not a crime to fail to report a "Not Crime".

Have a lovely day.

I'll try, but it's raining pretty hard.

 

[California Girl]

What I meant was the president - whomever he is - was elected to carry out an agenda, determined by his electorate in part. That means he should choose people he feels can do the job, can carry out his policy (however he defines it) and work with him and other parts of his administration. The public sees only one side of it.

I am not certain that Jennings is the best choice - several people brought up his activism in relation to micro-managing and that could be a valid issue. I guess we'd have to see. But while he may or may not be "the best" choice, he is a competent choice.

So, what does the appointments of all these dirtbags (tax cheats, communists, racists, homosexual zealots, marxists, etc.) tell you about his ''agenda"?

After all, he did say that his picks for personnel would define his agenda. Those picks are fully defining his agenda as totally anti-american, and completely asinine.

So....we had a prior administration of sleazebags (fascists, homophobic religoius zealots, crooks, convicted criminals, liars, warmongers, and incompetant cronies) that was....uh...."pro-American" and we have your interpretation of the current one...given that....

I'll take the leftwing dirtbags for $200 over the rightwing sleazebags. Thank you

And therein lies our problem as a nation.....

We should not accept sleazebags on either side of the house. It is time we held our politicians to the standards that they claim to represent.

How about we knock off the rabid ranting defending the indefensible on BOTH sides and call our politicians to account..... ALL of them.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of "age of consent"

You seem to have a hard time understanding what statutory rape is.
Statutory rape laws are based on the concept that a young person may desire sex but may lack the experience possessed by legal adults to make a mature decision as to whether or not to have sexual contact with a particular person.

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chapter 272: Section 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse.


Section 4. Whoever induces any person under eighteen of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished as provided in the preceding section.

Now what...more harrasment for pointing out the obvious to the mentally challenged?

Massachusetts -- Age of Consent

 

[Coyote]

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of "age of consent"

You seem to have a hard time understanding what statutory rape is.
Statutory rape laws are based on the concept that a young person may desire sex but may lack the experience possessed by legal adults to make a mature decision as to whether or not to have sexual contact with a particular person.

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chapter 272: Section 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse.


Section 4. Whoever induces any person under eighteen of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished as provided in the preceding section.

Now what...more harrasment for pointing out the obvious to the mentally challenged?

Massachusetts -- Age of Consent

Speaking of "mentally challanged" you didn't read far enough in your own source:

Section 23. Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years

and, further down in your source:

Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches the age of maturity, that person is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. The age of
consent ranges from 14 to 18 years of age, although in more than half of the states -
including Massachusetts - the age of consent is 16.

 

[Coyote]

So, what does the appointments of all these dirtbags (tax cheats, communists, racists, homosexual zealots, marxists, etc.) tell you about his ''agenda"?

After all, he did say that his picks for personnel would define his agenda. Those picks are fully defining his agenda as totally anti-american, and completely asinine.

So....we had a prior administration of sleazebags (fascists, homophobic religoius zealots, crooks, convicted criminals, liars, warmongers, and incompetant cronies) that was....uh...."pro-American" and we have your interpretation of the current one...given that....

I'll take the leftwing dirtbags for $200 over the rightwing sleazebags. Thank you

And therein lies our problem as a nation.....

We should not accept sleazebags on either side of the house. It is time we held our politicians to the standards that they claim to represent.

How about we knock off the rabid ranting defending the indefensible on BOTH sides and call our politicians to account..... ALL of them.

Fair enough - but what do you define as a "sleazebag"?

Jennings?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

You seem to be having a hard time grasping the concept of "age of consent"

You seem to have a hard time understanding what statutory rape is.
Statutory rape laws are based on the concept that a young person may desire sex but may lack the experience possessed by legal adults to make a mature decision as to whether or not to have sexual contact with a particular person.

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chapter 272: Section 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse.


Section 4. Whoever induces any person under eighteen of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished as provided in the preceding section.

Now what...more harrasment for pointing out the obvious to the mentally challenged?

Massachusetts -- Age of Consent

Speaking of "mentally challanged" you didn't read far enough in your own source:

Section 23. Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years

and, further down in your source:

Statutory rape laws are based on the premise that until a person reaches the age of maturity, that person is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. The age of
consent ranges from 14 to 18 years of age, although in more than half of the states -
including Massachusetts - the age of consent is 16.

That is a SEPARATE STATUTE SUCKER and DOES NOT aply to the AGE OF CONSENT!
IT APPLYS TO RAPE AND ABUSE OF A CHILD!!!!!!!
Consider yourself PWNED!!!!!!!!

 

[Coyote]

So, what does the appointments of all these dirtbags (tax cheats, communists, racists, homosexual zealots, marxists, etc.) tell you about his ''agenda"?

After all, he did say that his picks for personnel would define his agenda. Those picks are fully defining his agenda as totally anti-american, and completely asinine.

So....we had a prior administration of sleazebags (fascists, homophobic religoius zealots, crooks, convicted criminals, liars, warmongers, and incompetant cronies) that was....uh...."pro-American" and we have your interpretation of the current one...given that....

I'll take the leftwing dirtbags for $200 over the rightwing sleazebags. Thank you

But I thought your beloved messiah was going to change all that. He promised you he would. Did he lie to you?
And if so, why are you or your fellow Obamabots not calling him on it?

LMAO!

Because it is so much more fullfilling to sit back, drink some Chardoney, and munch popcorn watching you folks trying to unwad your panties.

 

[Coyote]

Apparently a lot of House GOoPers don't mind a bit of public fag-bashing:

As we've been reporting, many on the right are targeting Kevin Jennings, the director of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, over his homosexuality. Today, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and 52 other House Republicans have taken their criticism of Jennings a step farther, writing a letter to the White House asking that President Obama fire Jennings. King has made that request before -- but never with the formal backing of so many other GOPers.

The letter claims that Jennings has "played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools."

"The totality of Mr. Jennings' career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality," the letter continues

.


53 House GOPers: Fire Kevin Jennings Over His 'Pro-Homosexual Agenda' | TPM LiveWire

I am beyond disgusted with the GoP.

 

[Coyote]

This is the first PC President.

He believes in diversity.

All of the special interest groups that got him his job are going to have a seat at the table.

All of the unions, race-baiters, child-molesters, Hollywood freaks, anti-war protesters, anti-capitalists, atheists, pro-Palestinians, anti-Semitics, black supremacists, tree-huggers, and even people that believe that mankind is a decease that needs to be eradicated.

The reason he's selecting these perverts is because he promised them a voice in his administration. It really doesn't matter the ridiculous nature of their causes.

Damn...I knew I shouldn'ta wasted bandwidth giving a thoughtful answer so I won't repeat that mistake.

So what you're basically saying is that this administration is simply replacing the last administration's rightwing kooks fundies zenophobic neocons racists anti-middleclass elitist anti-intellectual redneck warmongering draftdodging chickenhawk corporate sleazebag cronies and child molesters with their leftwing models?

Too bad

If you mean replacing people that believe in defending the constitution and protecting this country from all enemies foreign and domestic....with folks that side with the enemy that wants to bring this country down to their level....then yes.

Also...I resent your claims of racism. Racism is not exclusive to one ethnic group or political party.[/QUOTE]

True. But we are hardly dealing with reality in our hyperbole here - why start now?