[lpkmckenna]

Well, this doesn't happen every day: McCain is a liar.

McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth.

I have to agree. McCain's behaviour is unconscionable. I'm glad the media is growing a spine.

[Big Mac]

Growing a spine? How about left-wing media bias? Growing a spine would be if they called Obama on his deceitful campaigning. The only McCain ad that was questionable was the pig in lipstick ad.

[ort888]

Stupid left-wing libural media. Why are the so stupid?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Growing a spine? How about left-wing media bias? Growing a spine would be if they called Obama on his deceitful campaigning. The only McCain ad that was questionable was the pig in lipstick ad.

Really? I think the kindergarten sex-ed smear is the worst I've ever heard.

[ort888]

No way. I saw Obama himself teaching a second grader how to give a handjob. It's like, all he ever does. Well, that and burning flags and driving 15 year old girls to abortion clinics. It's like, all he ever does.

[stupendousman]

Time and the NYT calls John McCain names while ignoring Obama's WHOPPERS?

Get back to us when you've got some real news.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Really? I think the kindergarten sex-ed smear is the worst I've ever heard.

You're right. It was shameful of the media to lie about McCain that way when all McCain did was to repeat the facts.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You're right. It was shameful of the media to lie about McCain that way when all McCain did was to repeat the facts.

Have you lost your mind? The only "sex-ed" the kindergardeners would get was how to protect themselves from predators.

[ort888]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Have you lost your mind? The only "sex-ed" the kindergardeners would get was how to protect themselves from predators.

No stupid, everything Obama says or does is wrong and stupid and everything McCain says or does is perfect and awesome. Haven't you figured this out yet?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Growing a spine? How about left-wing media bias? Growing a spine would be if they called Obama on his deceitful campaigning. The only McCain ad that was questionable was the pig in lipstick ad.

Go check factcheck.org. McCain's campaign has consistently misrepresented Obama's positions to a much greater degree than Obama's.

Both are dirty campaigns, but one's going to need the industrial strength soap to get clean again.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Growing a spine? How about left-wing media bias? Growing a spine would be if they called Obama on his deceitful campaigning. The only McCain ad that was questionable was the pig in lipstick ad.

OMG!!1!!!1!!11 It's a vast left-wing conspiracy!1!1!!1!!

[Dork.]

We have another thread for the sex-ed stuff, folks.

I think that all the cries coming from the Right about the "left-wing Liberal media" has forced the media to tiptoe around a lot of issues, lest they be seen as biased. I can see this all over the airwaves -- there was once a time when they called CNN the "Clinton News Network", but in my estimation it's shifted right since then, partly to regain viewers lost to Fox News.

The newspaper folks didn't tiptoe quite as much, but I still think they get tired of any negative thing that gets said about a Republican being painted as a smear, even if it's true. This may be a case of Time and the NYT growing a pair, and saying "Yup, we will call them as we see them. The Republicans will say we're not being fair, but they will say that anyway even if we bend over backwards for them, so why should we let that bother us?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Have you lost your mind? The only "sex-ed" the kindergardeners would get was how to protect themselves from predators.

I saw him try to defend that vote. He supported the bill that called not only for sexual molestation prevention (which is fine) but also comprehensive K-12 sexual education as separate components of the bill; he said doing so was the right thing to do. And he must have strongly liked the bill to not have voted present as he did so many other times. There is no proper sexual education to be taught in schools until around the 5th grade, so I don't know what comprehensive sexual education could be taught to students younger than that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Have you lost your mind? The only "sex-ed" the kindergardeners would get was how to protect themselves from predators.

You've been misled. There was no such stipulation in the bill in question. Consider yourself duped.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Go check factcheck.org.

Factcheck needs it's own fact checkers. They've been duped many times into repeating false statements given to them by the Obama campaign. The "sex ed" issue being one of them. Their credibility isn't that high.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You've been misled. There was no such stipulation in the bill in question. Consider yourself duped.

I've replied to this in the appropriate thread. You can go there to eat your words.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I saw him try to defend that vote. He supported the bill that called not only for sexual molestation prevention (which is fine) but also comprehensive K-12 sexual education as separate components of the bill; he said doing so was the right thing to do. And he must have strongly liked the bill to not have voted present as he did so many other times. There is no proper sexual education to be taught in schools until around the 5th grade, so I don't know what comprehensive sexual education could be taught to students younger than that.

According to the bill, all grades that offered sex-ed (and the bill allowed for sex-ed from K-12) must teach STD prevention. I'm not sure what non-explicit sex-ed you can give to kindergartners to teach them to avoid getting infections while they are engaged in sex acts, but that's what Obama voted for.

Seriously, when it comes to making sure Obama is elected, the MSM isn't going to sit by idly why McCain "steals" his rightfully earned spot in office. They'll lie shamelessly for them, and accuse the people telling the harsh truth of being the liars. They are as transparent as glass.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've replied to this in the appropriate thread. You can go there to eat your words.

If you want to dispute it, you're welcome to do it here where the claim was made. I've spent way too much time quoting the bill itself in other threads while having people ignore what the bill said and try to replace it what Obama claims he wished it said. It got tiresome then, and it's just as tiresome to see people either duped or being dishonest now.

...and let's be honest, this the NYT we are talking about. They are the people who made up the sh*t about McCain having an affair while protecting John Edwards who the media had evidence was screwing around. I'm pretty sure most people know that the NYT isn't exactly an unbiased source in these matters, and I'm pretty sure their act can be effectively called the "pot calling the kettle black".

All of this would be really funny, if it wasn't so sad. ..and the MSM wonders why they are losing viewers/readers.

[Chongo]

Here is the link to the bill itself. It is interesting that the bill was originally for grades 6-12, but amended to k-12.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...cSess=&Session

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here is the link to the bill itself. It is interesting that the bill was originally for grades 6-12, but amended to k-12.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...cSess=&Session

DO NOT quote from the bill. You will be called a "liar". The NYT and Time says so.

[Kerrigan]

There was nothing untrue in that ad, so I don't see what the "u teh liar" claims are based on.

What was a lie was Obama's reversal of the meaning of a Rush Limbaugh quote and trying to portray him as racist, then attaching the quote to McCain thereby associating him with racist claims. It is on this basis that I fully support McCain coming up with blatant but plausible lies about Obama in the future in order to repay him in kind. If Democrats want to play dirty, Republicans are more than willing to beat them at it.

Republican strategists always know that you should return punches, not just sit around and whine about how "unfair" everything is.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here is the link to the bill itself. It is interesting that the bill was originally for grades 6-12, but amended to k-12.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...cSess=&Session

It was amended so material appropriate for grades K-5 can be addressed, as stated in the bill (emphasis already provided):

Originally Posted by SB009

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

Obama is not offering comprehensive sex education to kindergartners or anyone that it is not appropriate for. As the bill also states, the parents reserve the right to not have their child attend a sex education class at all.

McCain was caught lying; get over it, he's a politician.

[ort888]

Obama claims he'll be good for the country, but he really wants to turn the nation's populace into catfood in giant industrial sized slaughterhouses. He's a liar!

[kido331]

Could you point out in the bill where it specifically talks about what content is considered age and developmentally appropriate for kindergardeners?

[ort888]

He wants to train the nation's Kindergartner's to work as sex slaves for the political elite. The rest of the populace will be turned into cat food.

[Captain Obvious]

I love it.
More outrage from Obama supporters because they don't like when strategy he uses are turned back around on him. No equivalent.... how f'ing laughable.

Only a moron with blinders on would see this year's election tactics as unbalanced. Let's watch how many more step in here to express their outrage!

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It was amended so material appropriate for grades K-5 can be addressed, as stated in the bill (emphasis already provided):



Obama is not offering comprehensive sex education to kindergartners or anyone that it is not appropriate for. As the bill also states, the parents reserve the right to not have their child attend a sex education class at all.
.

Thank you for interjecting some sanity. Geesh.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Well, this doesn't happen every day: McCain is a liar.

I have to agree. McCain's behaviour is unconscionable. I'm glad the media is growing a spine.

I think "liar" is pretty strong. And let's be straight, it's Joel Klein, not Time, that's calling him a liar.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Factcheck needs it's own fact checkers. They've been duped many times into repeating false statements given to them by the Obama campaign. The "sex ed" issue being one of them. Their credibility isn't that high.

Actually their credibility is incredibly high. They're calling Obama to task for his distortions too. They're not saying McCain is doing it more--I am.

And Ole Pigeon just laid down the final word on this stupid sex ed thing, please do check it out.

[besson3c]

This thread needs more vile, vitriolic comments!

But I guess it doesn't matter anyway since we will all be turned into catfood.

[ort888]

Only is B Hussein O wins.

Vote McCain!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It was amended so material appropriate for grades K-5 can be addressed, as stated in the bill (emphasis already provided):



Obama is not offering comprehensive sex education to kindergartners or anyone that it is not appropriate for. As the bill also states, the parents reserve the right to not have their child attend a sex education class at all.

McCain was caught lying; get over it, he's a politician.

What is "age appropriate" sex education for kindergarteners? The law also says that all grades K-12 having sex-ed must teach prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Please...explain how you teach a kindergartner how to keep from getting an disease while they are engaging in sexual behavior?

There was no lie. Not only is there no lie, there isn't anything that could even be found to be technically untrue. It's sad when the only way for Obama to defend his record is to falsely accuse his opponents of not telling the truth. The man DID learn something from the Clinton's after all these years apparently.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by kido331 

Could you point out in the bill where it specifically talks about what content is considered age and developmentally appropriate for kindergardeners?

It's called common sense. Teachers, parents, and the State Board of Education will decide what is considered age and developmentally appropriate. Believe it or not, most of them are quite competent at making those kinds of decisions.

Except Arkansas.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's called common sense.

The problem is, MY "common sense" isn't the same as your "common sense". Common sense would tell us that Kindergartners have no business being taught about preventing sexually transmitted diseases before they can even read. The point is that the legislation does not reflect "common sense" from the get-go, and Obama showed very poor judgement in supporting it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

There was nothing untrue in that ad, so I don't see what the "u teh liar" claims are based on.

What was a lie was Obama's reversal of the meaning of a Rush Limbaugh quote and trying to portray him as racist, then attaching the quote to McCain thereby associating him with racist claims. It is on this basis that I fully support McCain coming up with blatant but plausible lies about Obama in the future in order to repay him in kind. If Democrats want to play dirty, Republicans are more than willing to beat them at it.

Republican strategists always know that you should return punches, not just sit around and whine about how "unfair" everything is.

Rush was quoting from the Mexican constitution.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This thread needs more vile, vitriolic comments!

But I guess it doesn't matter anyway since we will all be turned into catfood.

mmm Soylent Green.

[Wiskedjak]

this thread could be titled "McCain lies, Republicans cool with it"

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is, MY "common sense" isn't the same as your "common sense". Common sense would tell us that Kindergartners have no business being taught about preventing sexually transmitted diseases before they can even read. The point is that the legislation does not reflect "common sense" from the get-go, and Obama showed very poor judgement in supporting it.

Why in the gods name do you think ONE person would decide? Who the hell in their right mind would teach Kindergartners about sexually transmitted diseases? Did I not just list at least 3 separate entities that would be involved in the decision making? There would be literally hundreds of people who would review the content (most of all the parents!) Really! Scroll up. Read. It's right there.

Out of the State Board, Regional Superintendents, School Principals, classified staff (nurses, physicians, etc.), and the freakin' PTA, why would anyone let a someone teach kindergartners about sexual intercourse?

YES common ing sense.

(That's what I get for sneaking a look at ignored posters, pulling my hair out.)

[kido331]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Who the hell in their right mind would teach Kindergartners about sexually transmitted diseases?

Apparently, the Family Planning Association of Maine

Title: Promoting Healthy Sexuality: Activities and Resources for Classroom Teachers (Grades K-3)

Accession Number: H2935

Publisher: Family Planning Association of Maine

Year Published: 1999

Place Published: Augusta, ME

Subjects: Sex Education

Audience: Elementary; Kindergarten

Format: Print

Abstract: This sexuality education resource guide for grades K-3 contains lesson plans in the key subject areas of anatomy & physiology, communication, decision-making, gender roles, families & relationships, self-esteem, and disease prevention. Activities are research-based and field-tested. (3-ring binder, 175 pages)

[zerostar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What is "age appropriate" sex education for kindergarteners? The law also says that all grades K-12 having sex-ed must teach prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Please...explain how you teach a kindergartner how to keep from getting an disease while they are engaging in sexual behavior?

Are you seriously this thick or just ignorant on education bills? THERE IS NO SEX ED IN KINDERGARTEN in the USA. PERIOD. The youngest grade is 5th as far as I Know. K-12 refers to lower education grouping.

What about the statement:
"all grades K-12 having sex-ed must teach prevention of sexually transmitted diseases."
do you interpret as saying "all grades, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,... etc. must have sexual education classes."?

It is saying that any grade in the range K-12 that has sexual education (the youngest in the USA is grade 5 AFAIK) must also teach prevention of STDs. That is ALREADY part of the curriculum in our schools here, and i can't imagine why you would teach sex-ed without it.

It does not cover pre-school or early care and does not cover any higher education. That is how ALL school laws are written, they don't say grades 5-12 or 9-12, the term K-12 is common to mean lower/grade school class ranges.

Or maybe Obama wants to teach Kindergartners sex-ed, yeah that makes more sense....

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here is the link to the bill itself. It is interesting that the bill was originally for grades 6-12, but amended to k-12.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/full...cSess=&Session

It is interesting to note that the original text was apparently penned by a conservative, before it was amended with someone with common sense:

(2) Course material and instruction shall teach
honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
(3) Course material and instruction shall stress
that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until
they are ready for marriage.
(4) Course material and instruction shall include a
discussion of the possible emotional and psychological
consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual
intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of
unwanted adolescent pregnancy.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

the problem is, my "common sense" isn't the same as your "common sense".

QFT™

Common sense is less than common.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Why in the gods name do you think ONE person would decide? Who the hell in their right mind would teach Kindergartners about sexually transmitted diseases?

A. Why would they change the law to include kindergartners
B. Why when they changed the law did they require all grades that where to have sex ed classes to be taught about STD prevention?

Please...don't ask ME these questions. I didn't vote for the bill that allowed this sort of thing to be legal in Illinois. The fact is, before the law sex ed was limited to 6-12. After the law, it was altered to allow for K-12 with requirements to teach STD prevention in each grade.

ps. I'm glad to see you took me off of ignore. It's in the best interest of your further political education.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

Are you seriously this thick or just ignorant on education bills? THERE IS NO SEX ED IN KINDERGARTEN in the USA. PERIOD. The youngest grade is 5th as far as I Know. K-12 refers to lower education grouping.

What does "K-12 refers to lower education grouping" mean?

What about the statement:
"all grades K-12 having sex-ed must teach prevention of sexually transmitted diseases."
do you interpret as saying "all grades, K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,... etc. must have sexual education classes."?

No. I interpret it exactly as the bill says. It makes it legal to teach sex-ed in grades K-12, and when they do they are required to teach the kindergartners how to avoid diseases when they are engaged in sexual activity. As we see above, there already has been reference material generated to teach the kindergartners how to avoid VD before they are able to read.

I'm NOT MAKING IT UP, it's specifically in the bill in question.

It is saying that any grade in the range K-12 that has sexual education (the youngest in the USA is grade 5 AFAIK) must also teach prevention of STDs. That is ALREADY part of the curriculum in our schools here, and i can't imagine why you would teach sex-ed without it.

You are relying on "AFAIK". Not a good source for irrefutable rebuttals.

Or maybe Obama wants to teach Kindergartners sex-ed, yeah that makes more sense....

If he didn't want Kindergartners to be taught sex-ed, it would probably have been a good idea for him not to have voted for the law that made it perfectly legal.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A. Why would they change the law to include kindergartners

So some sue-happy parent can't sue the schools or teacher for bringing up an already sensitive subject. It releases schools of liability and places it on the state and the parent.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

B. Why when they changed the law did they require all grades that where to have sex ed classes to be taught about STD prevention?

We just went over this. Just in the last thread there was a whole argument about only teaching subjects that are age and developmentally appropriate. Obviously that would mean not teaching about STD prevention to K-5.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The fact is, before the law sex ed was limited to 6-12. After the law, it was altered to allow for K-12 with requirements to teach STD prevention in each grade.

The fact is, before the law was modified, it preached religious propaganda and tried to indoctrinate it into public policy in clear violation of the Constitution. The fact is, it does not require teaching those subjects in each grade as we've already discussed. You're asking the same question that we've already answered three times. You just asked this very question in the last sentence.

You are not reading anything, or at the very least, you do not comprehend anything that is being said. If you actually understood any part of the subject you are trying to argue, you wouldn't be making repeated, full circle arguments and asking questions that have already been answered multiple times.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

ps. I'm glad to see you took me off of ignore.

I didn't take you off ignore. I've already stated countless times how I can see your messages; you would know that if you ever assimilated any sort of information while reading.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's in the best interest of your further political education.

You wouldn't know political education if it ed you in the аss and gave you a reach around.

[- - e r i k - -]

I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head. It really is hard to imagine anyone THAT stupid to believe anyone would legislate mandatory STD prevention to kids below school age.

Shake it is then.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So some sue-happy parent can't sue the schools or teacher for bringing up an already sensitive subject. It releases schools of liability and places it on the state and the parent.

SUE FOR WHAT? Oh yeah, teaching comprehensive sex-ed to kindergartners. Thanks for reiterating the point.

We just went over this. Just in the last thread there was a whole argument about only teaching subjects that are age and developmentally appropriate. Obviously that would mean not teaching about STD prevention to K-5.

THE LAW REQUIRES IT of any grade where sex-ed is taught. I've quoted the law several times. The Family Planning Association of Maine has already developed course materials to teach kindergartners about avoiding diseases when engaging in sexual activity. You can go over it as many times as you want, but unless you're quoting the law instead of Obama, you're going to get it wrong each and every time.

The fact is, before the law was modified, it preached religious propaganda and tried to indoctrinate it into public policy in clear violation of the Constitution. The fact is, it does not require teaching those subjects in each grade as we've already discussed. You're asking the same question that we've already answered three times. You just asked this very question in the last sentence.

I'll quote the law again, for people with reading impairment:

"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 AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology."

Not "can include". Not "might include". SHALL INCLUDE. The state is allowing for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners that SHALL INCLUDE teaching how to avoid getting infectious diseases when engaging in sexual activity.

It's right there in black and white. You can debate what you think that some who voted for this wanted or wished for the law to provide, but the fact is that the McCain ad gave the facts as they were and there was no "lie".

You are not reading anything, or at the very least, you do not comprehend anything that is being said. If you actually understood any part of the subject you are trying to argue, you wouldn't be making repeated, full circle arguments and asking questions that have already been answered multiple times.

I've quoted the law, shown how it does not say what is claimed, and then people go back and claim the same false things again and again. That's not my fault. People are welcome to actually quote the law to support their claims, but I don't see that happening. They keep quoting disputed sources who base their argument on wishful thinking.

I didn't take you off ignore. I've already stated countless times how I can see your messages; you would know that if you ever assimilated any sort of information while reading.

Yeah...you "peeked'. Whatever.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head. It really is hard to imagine anyone THAT stupid to believe anyone would legislate mandatory STD prevention to kids below school age.

Shake it is then.

A. Apparently, it's already happening in Maine.
B. It's right there in black and white.
C. I'm sorry if the state of Illinois and Barrack Obama causes you to shake your head.

[ebuddy]

Absolutely flummoxed. I can see that divisiveness has become the way of things. Some thought it was Bush's fault, but it seems it's all of us. Go figure.

The media has always had a spine. It is a flexible spine. It gives little fist bumps to Michelle Obama and chastises Cindy McCain. It challenges the bottom of the Republican ticket while flattering the top of the Democratic ticket. It is feminist toward liberal women, sexist toward conservative women. It will make up stories from thin air when it has to and its reporting has become an "unnamed source unavailable for comment".

Most of the rest of the country can see the bias for Obama, but of course a few here can't. Many of you supported a candidate who made the same exact claim about the media, but apparently your memory can't recall back more than 2 months. Shocker.

[kido331]

Yes, I'd like to know why Keyes, Clinton, and Romney were not cast as liars when they all made the exact same claim concerning this issue.