McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry As Distortions

[Psychoblues]

But, you all are not concerned with distortions from the fold, are you?

By MICHAEL COOPER and JIM RUTENBERG
Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.

A McCain advertisement called “Fact Check” was itself found to be “less than honest” by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group. The group complained that the McCain campaign had cited its work debunking various Internet rumors about Ms. Palin and implied in the advertisement that the rumors had originated with Mr. Obama.

In an interview Friday on the NY1 cable news channel, a McCain supporter, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, called “ridiculous” the implication that Mr. Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment was a reference to Ms. Palin, whom he also defended as coming under unfair attack.

“The last month, for sure,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist, “I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama.”

Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama...........

Much More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Maybe you ought to pay attention a bit more and quit whining so much!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

sorry, Psych.....Illinois senate bill #99, which came out of Obama's Health and Human Services Committee (he was the chairman) with his approval did NOT state that schools should teach children to be wary of sexual advances from adults.....those words are not even in the bill.....these words are, however.....

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

see page two starting at line 13......there is a list of about a dozen thing which classes SHALL teach....none of which would be appropriate for kindergartners.....

[Joe Steel]

But, you all are not concerned with distortions from the fold, are you?

Calling them distortions is, itself, a distortion, however well-intentioned it may be. McCain is lying. Don't try to sugarcoat it. He's lying.

[Joe Steel]

see page two starting at line 13......there is a list of about a dozen thing which classes SHALL teach....none of which would be appropriate for kindergartners.....

Not surprisingly, you skipped this part:



12 (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.

[PostmodernProphet]

not surprisingly, you didn't bother to understand the correleations between those two parts.....

the statute says that the kindergartner class SHALL be taught about sexually transmitted diseases in an age appropriate manner.....libs try to pretend that the statute says you don't have to teach kids about STD if it isn't age appropriate.....if the statute had actually said that it might have passed......

the statute that Obama supported and sent to the floor for vote did NOT permit that....it mandated the teaching and left it up to the schools to figure out how to do the impossible.....that's the main reason it didn't pass the senate floor vote.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Calling them distortions is, itself, a distortion, however well-intentioned it may be. McCain is lying. Don't try to sugarcoat it. He's lying.
and I have the word of you and Psych on that, I'm sure.....I bet I have the word of both of you that Obama's campaign has absolutely nothing to do with the bullshit claims about Palin.....

[Joe Steel]

not surprisingly, you didn't bother to understand the correleations between those two parts.....

the statute says that the kindergartner class SHALL be taught about sexually transmitted diseases in an age appropriate manner.....libs try to pretend that the statute says you don't have to teach kids about STD if it isn't age appropriate.....if the statute had actually said that it might have passed......

the statute that Obama supported and sent to the floor for vote did NOT permit that....it mandated the teaching and left it up to the schools to figure out how to do the impossible.....that's the main reason it didn't pass the senate floor vote.....

"the statute says that the kindergartner class SHALL be taught about sexually transmitted diseases in an age appropriate manner"

That phrase is the only thing which matters. Age appropriate instruction, by definition, and especially when parents may withdraw their children, is acceptable.

[theHawk]

"the statute says that the kindergartner class SHALL be taught about sexually transmitted diseases in an age appropriate manner"

That phrase is the only thing which matters. Age appropriate instruction, by definition, and especially when parents may withdraw their children, is acceptable.

And who the fuck determines what "age appropiate manner" is? Some fucking lib administrator in the school system, thats who. NO THANKS.

[avatar4321]

So Obama is upset that McCain is accurately attacking his record. What a surprise.

There are no age appropriate manner to teach sex ed to kindergarteners

[Immanuel]

So Obama is upset that McCain is accurately attacking his record. What a surprise.

There are no age appropriate manner to teach sex ed to kindergarteners

Not completely sure I agree with that.

A kindergartner should be taught that if someone touches them on their private parts that they should tell their parents or a teacher and that no one should touch them down there.

Other than that, I can't think of anything else.

Immie

[Mr. P]

"the statute says that the kindergartner class SHALL be taught about sexually transmitted diseases in an age appropriate manner"

That phrase is the only thing which matters. Age appropriate instruction, by definition, and especially when parents may withdraw their children, is acceptable.

Do you consider teaching a kindergardner about STDs age appropriate?

A bit confusing for them if you're not going to teach them about sex to start with, don't ya think? What's the point?

[Kathianne]

"the statute says that the kindergartner class SHALL be taught about sexually transmitted diseases in an age appropriate manner"

That phrase is the only thing which matters. Age appropriate instruction, by definition, and especially when parents may withdraw their children, is acceptable.

A stab in the dark, you're not a teacher or even a parent, no?

[PostmodernProphet]

"the statute says that the kindergartner class SHALL be taught about sexually transmitted diseases in an age appropriate manner"

That phrase is the only thing which matters. Age appropriate instruction, by definition, and especially when parents may withdraw their children, is acceptable.

why teach kindergartners ANYTHING about sexually transmitted diseases?....do they have a need to know?.....can it wait until they are six, or maybe even seven?....sheesh....the statute also says every class shall be taught about rape, sexual harrassment, contraception and a dozen other issues.....

[Joe Steel]

A stab in the dark, you're not a teacher or even a parent, no?

What difference would it make? It's not like parents are bound by the opinions of the school faculty and administrators. They can remove their children if they don't like the instruction.

[avatar4321]

What difference would it make? It's not like parents are bound by the opinions of the school faculty and administrators. They can remove their children if they don't like the instruction.

They shouldnt have to because Kindergarteners shouldnt be exposed to such things.

But its better that they know bobby has two daddies than how to read and write.

[theHawk]

What difference would it make? It's not like parents are bound by the opinions of the school faculty and administrators. They can remove their children if they don't like the instruction.

Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but the democrats are against giving parents the choice to put their kids in different schools. They believe every kid should have to go to state run school, so all are given the same 'fair' chance.

[Kathianne]

I wonder if JS recognizes that when kids are removed from a program, they are basically given a detention? There is no alternative education or rather what one thinks of as a continuation of the instruction in academics that most parents think their children are receiving at school.

[Psychoblues]

Boy, the pigs are getting all worked up over the lies and language of a bill that did not pass. The posted article that most of you didn't read says this about what Obama supported:

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Have you any ammunition left? Fire away.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[PostmodernProphet]

Boy, the pigs are getting all worked up over the lies and language of a bill that did not pass. The posted article that most of you didn't read says this about what Obama supported:

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Have you any ammunition left? Fire away.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I find it interesting that the left hangs it's defense on that statement. It's source is the words of Obama when he was responding to Alan Keyes on this issue. What is interesting about it is that it reflects the fact that the left takes Obama's word without bothering to fact check it. You see, SB 99 doesn't contain those words. The bill he voted to bring to the senate floor for vote did far far more.

The left has always been willing to accept Obama's word. The problem with that is that Obama has lied. Why doesn't the left care about that, Psych?......

[Psychoblues]

Keep talking, Pmp. You get more ridiculous each time you speak.




I find it interesting that the left hangs it's defense on that statement. It's source is the words of Obama when he was responding to Alan Keyes on this issue. What is interesting about it is that it reflects the fact that the left takes Obama's word without bothering to fact check it. You see, SB 99 doesn't contain those words. The bill he voted to bring to the senate floor for vote did far far more.

The left has always been willing to accept Obama's word. The problem with that is that Obama has lied. Why doesn't the left care about that, Psych?......

The record of the Illinois legislature is clear and will be made more clear for you in the very near future. I'll leave your self absorbed research for you to choke yourself on!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Kathianne]

Keep talking, Pmp. You get more ridiculous each time you speak.





The record of the Illinois legislature is clear and will be made more clear for you in the very near future. I'll leave your self absorbed research for you to choke yourself on!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Actually PMP is correct, the proposed law would mandate that HIV, birth control, etc., be taught, yet the wording is included for age appropriate methodologies. In this case, the argument is not about 'unfunded mandates', though it would be a bit of a problem, it really is about the inability to teach some of the mandates, without truly exposing young children to what they cannot/should not be exposed to.

Here's the problem, what Obama is now saying, "Good touch/bad touch and "Stranger Danger," both of which addressed relatives, close friends, and 'strangers' has been taught in IL since at least 1970's for kindergarten and up curriculum, while mandated sex ed, including birth control, diseases, etc., have been included from 6th grade up. The proposed legislation is to change that, making the standards from the upper grades applicable to the lowest grades, while ignoring the fact that the younger children have neither the cognitive ability, nor life experiences to master the objectives.

In a way, it's the same problem seen in math standards and threads over the last 25-30 years. Attempts to integrate highest level standards on those at the youngest ages, making them appear to have understanding of concepts in grades 2-5, then suddenly in 6-12, most crash and burn. There was no foundation laid. Problem with the sex ed mandates, there is a real fear that the exposure could cause some, particularly those exposed to real sexual abuse, to become predators or victims much more readily. They may appear sexually sophisticated beyond their real understanding.

[Psychoblues]

You make good and intelligible points, Kat, but PmP is still wrong.



Actually PMP is correct, the proposed law would mandate that HIV, birth control, etc., be taught, yet the wording is included for age appropriate methodologies. In this case, the argument is not about 'unfunded mandates', though it would be a bit of a problem, it really is about the inability to teach some of the mandates, without truly exposing young children to what they cannot/should not be exposed to.

Here's the problem, what Obama is now saying, "Good touch/bad touch and "Stranger Danger," both of which addressed relatives, close friends, and 'strangers' has been taught in IL since at least 1970's for kindergarten and up curriculum, while mandated sex ed, including birth control, diseases, etc., have been included from 6th grade up. The proposed legislation is to change that, making the standards from the upper grades applicable to the lowest grades, while ignoring the fact that the younger children have neither the cognitive ability, nor life experiences to master the objectives.

In a way, it's the same problem seen in math standards and threads over the last 25-30 years. Attempts to integrate highest level standards on those at the youngest ages, making them appear to have understanding of concepts in grades 2-5, then suddenly in 6-12, most crash and burn. There was no foundation laid. Problem with the sex ed mandates, there is a real fear that the exposure could cause some, particularly those exposed to real sexual abuse, to become predators or victims much more readily. They may appear sexually sophisticated beyond their real understanding.

The record will become more clear to you in the next few weeks or so. I can guarantee you that!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Kathianne]

You make good and intelligible points, Kat, but PmP is still wrong.




The record will become more clear to you in the next few weeks or so. I can guarantee you that!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

I've read the proposed legislation through its evolution. I've read related arguments from professional writings in IL. I will not be surprised.

[Psychoblues]

Wanna bet?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?



I've read the proposed legislation through its evolution. I've read related arguments from professional writings in IL. I will not be surprised.

If I am proven correct will you promise to not ever teach otherwise unrelated innocent children again?

I'll promise the same if I am proven wrong!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Kathianne]

Wanna bet?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?




If I am proven correct will you promise to not ever teach otherwise unrelated innocent children again?

I'll promise the same if I am proven wrong!!!!!!!!!!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

Sorry, not going to bet my livelihood, regardless of how paltry it may be. However, if it doesn't 'develop', I'll admit to it.

[Psychoblues]

That would be mighty white of you, kat!!!!!!!!!!



Sorry, not going to bet my livelihood, regardless of how paltry it may be. However, if it doesn't 'develop', I'll admit to it.

But, there's no need to just sit and wait is there?!?!?!?!????!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

[Kathianne]

That would be mighty white of you, kat!!!!!!!!!!




But, there's no need to just sit and wait is there?!?!?!?!????!?!?!?!

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute:

How racist of you, certainly expected a better rejoinder. Yeah, I'll wait while it's sorted out. BTW, hints to this were given out late spring/early summer. ;)

[PostmodernProphet]

The record of the Illinois legislature is clear and will be made more clear for you in the very near future. I'll leave your self absorbed research for you to choke yourself on!!!!!!!!!!



yes, I can see why research would threaten you.....the record of the Illinois legislature IS quite clear....what puzzles me is that after five years the left still is content to take Obama's word for it instead of taking five minutes to go on line and read SB99.....the truth can be a scary thing when you're a liberal....

[Psychoblues]

You're still stinging from that Lounge thing, aren't you, PmP?



yes, I can see why research would threaten you.....the record of the Illinois legislature IS quite clear....what puzzles me is that after five years the left still is content to take Obama's word for it instead of taking five minutes to go on line and read SB99.....the truth can be a scary thing when you're a liberal....

This liberal has been on the truth for 58 years. It hasn't hurt me yet.

:salute::cheers2::clap::laugh2::cheers2::salute: