Obama Education Czar: failed to report homosexual statutory rape

Where is this mythical law? I don't believe you, given your history, and I really don't trust Faux "News" or the author who has an extremely evident bias. In order for your statements here to be of any substance whatsoever, you must cite the law you keep crowing about.

 

You don't know this. Nobody but Jennings and Brewster know what happened in that conversation.

Again, you don't know what was and was not said. You are making assumptions about things you know nothing about.

It seems to me that nobody involved has a 100% recollection of the conversation. As such, none of it can be taken literally or as 100% the truth, so basing a judgement on this event would be judging without any facts whatsoever.

You don't know how that conversation went, so you can't say that it didn't happen as in my analogy any more than I can.

Then you have bought the line of a bigot, pure and simple. I prefer not to base my opinions on the musings of bigots.

 

Because he has the benefit of hindight and TWO DECADES.

 

based on that statement, you made up a non-existent law?

 

telling somene of legal age of consent to "use a condom" is irresponsible?

what should he have told Brewster aside from protect himself? people who ride public transportation can't be trusted?

 

No one has shown the law or regulation that Jennings might have broken. We know for a fact that the boy was 16, which is the Mass. age of consent and according to the boy he didn't have sex with an older man. IMO its likely that Jennings story is at least partialy apocryphal which isn't a crime.

At most that can be said is that Jennings showed poor judgement in either counselling the boy in the way he did or giving an apocryphal story that came back to haunt him. Either way at the moment there is nothing illegal or even improper about this story.

The most that has been presented here is a hatchet job (a piece designed purely to impugn the standing of someone) in a editorial written by someone with a clear bias.

 

I've reached my tentative conclusions based on A) what Jennings recalled and B) what Brewster recalled and C) what the editorial asserted. I'm going with the facts as indicated by those three sources. The only contradiction exists between Jennings/Editorial and Brewster as to whether or not there was an admission of sexual activity. Also, some how or another the Editorial implies that the other participant was an "older" man.

Apparently even Jennings and Brewster don't know what happened as they can't agree on events.

That we have a recording of Jennings touting this alleged conversation puts it into play. I see nothing wrong with holding Jennings accountable for his own words. I don't find his handling of the Brewster situation as being the consumate action of someone in charge of child safety at school.

 

Now what did I say? I said if that is as far as he sees his responsibility going.... please don't twist my words to convert them into your own debased meaning.

I don't think you are ready for that discussion. When you are ready to do something other than spew off the most absurd conclusion you can reach maybe we can talk about this some more...

 

so what should he have done?

 

He doesn't have to have broken a law to be seen as unfit to serve in the office; he serves at the pleasure of the presidency, right? So by extension citizens all have the right to find pleasure or displeasure about his fitness.

According to the boy, he didn't have sex with an aardvark or a cantaloupe either. He says there was no sexual activity that evening... but Jennings recounts a tale that includes sexual activity, thus his admonition to use a condom. Explain that discrepancy.

For some, there could be inadequacy if not impropriety. If one thinks 16 YOs should not go out cruising for anonymous sex, there may have been an inadequate response made by Jennings. If he could care enough to say "use a condom," he could also have said "that was not safe and here's why" but he didn't.

What do you make of Jennings' alleged retrospective musings that he could have done more, i.e. contacting health or public safety officials? If he can criticize his own responses why can't others?

 

I'm not going to take the time to draw out a thoughtful response because I don't think you really give a rat's ass; I think you are just looking for something you can distort for your own cause. I have better things to do.

Let's just summarize it this way: there are many more dimensions to the well being of a child than satisfied sexual curiosity.

 

Yet more assumptions about what was and was not said.

 

so you admit its not that simple as it looks

at least Jennings told the kid to make sure to protect himself

 

It's not an assumption; it's a projection.

 

No that's not what I'm saying. I think if you read back through my various replies here, you'd get a pretty good idea of the kind of things that I think should have been said. They would have been more comprehensive than were Jennings.

Why did Jennings tell a kid who told him that he didn't have sex that he hoped he had protected himself?

Your side just keeps skipping over that huge inconsistency. We don't know if there is lying going on or simple forgetfulness but someone has been making that a piece of their public speaking engagements before certain specified audiences...

Unless you come from a certain perspective, it is not a flattering recollection of a pivotal moment in a teaching career.

 

what's wrong with sex?

 

Sure citizens have the right to find the displeasure in the appointment but as noted he he serves at the pleasure of the presidency, so that is the only opinion that really matters.

I did. I said that Jennings story is at least partially apocryphal.

And if I think that people picking their nose is improper I can get outraged if Jennings says he picks his nose. Jennings doesn't have to please everyone's standards of morality but if we are talkign about impropriety in regards to something like this we are dealing with a law or ethical standards governing his behavior which no one has proven he broke.

As I said again I don't think he showed good judgement but I am not the arbiter of the law in this matter nor of the regulations, or even ethical standards, he was acting under.

Again I have said he showed poor judgement in what was a very minor situation but that is about all we can criticize him for. You are free to thunder on but you are asking for an impossible standard here. I mean should we have said that Dick Cheney was unfit to serve office because he admittedly showed poor judgement while hunting?

 

When you can project a law that was broken or a policy that Jennings ignored, the issue will be worth discussing. Until then, your assumptions will live in the same place in my mind as those of the author of this hit piece.

 

So, you're casting judgement on someone based on something they vocalized 9 years ago about something that happened 21 years ago, where no one even knows what happened except the two people involved (who seem fuzzy on it too, since it was 21 years ago), and the two people involved insist that everything that what happened benefitted the teenager?

I see. Sounds like a fair judgement.