[stupendousman]

I thought Barry said that the election would be about "the issues"? They scolded a McCain guy for for suggesting otherwise. Now we have this:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080912/D93535MG0.html

Apparently, Obama wasn't telling the truth when he said that..and that's on top of Obama's consistent lies about his record (on guns, abortion, etc).

Where are the Macnn threads with concerned Dems about Obama's non-truth telling? Where is the media concern and scorn? I can't remember seeing it.

Oh yeah...double standard. I forgot. Sorry.

[Monique]

It shows how desperate the democrats are to nominate such a loser. He is not qualifed to become president. McCain will win probably not big but he will win.

[Dork.]

I'm disappointed that Obama is starting to take the low road, but let's face it -- the low road works. That's why McCain has been taking it all summer. But can you point out to me where Obama is lying in that ad?

If your point is that Obama said the election would be about "the issues", and now it's not, I'm afraid that train left the station a long time ago.
(It must have departed with the Straight-Talk Express....)

[OldManMac]

Both sides are lying through their teeth. Once again, we're going to get the government we deserve; unfortunately, it's getting to be too late to turn this country around, and the rest of the world is starting to realize that they won't need the U. S. in the next few years. The sun is fading on our empire.

[Wiskedjak]

I don't think stupendousman is upset about all the lying in this election. I think he's upset with his perception that his side isn't the only side taking the low road now.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I thought Barry said that the election would be about "the issues"? They scolded a McCain guy for for suggesting otherwise. Now we have this:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080912/D93535MG0.html

Apparently, Obama wasn't telling the truth when he said that..and that's on top of Obama's consistent lies about his record (on guns, abortion, etc).

Where are the Macnn threads with concerned Dems about Obama's non-truth telling? Where is the media concern and scorn? I can't remember seeing it.

Oh yeah...double standard. I forgot. Sorry.

While it's very disappointing, I don't see how he's lying.

[Paco500]

He's saying Obama lied about running a campaign about the issues. There is a difference between lying and going back on your word. Stupendousman, being a bit of a blunt instrument, likely doesn't understand subtleties.

That being said, I'm disappointed that the McCain campaign had lowered the bar so dramatically that it has come to this. However, it has, and he needed to start slinging back. This election is too important not to fight with everything thing you've got.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

He's saying Obama lied about running a campaign about the issues. There is a difference between lying and going back on your word. Stupendousman, being a bit of a blunt instrument, likely doesn't understand subtleties.

That being said, I'm disappointed that the McCain campaign had lowered the bar so dramatically that it has come to this. However, it has, and he needed to start slinging back. This election is too important not to fight with everything thing you've got.

Well, I disagree. I think there are ways that Obama could shrug off this nonsense and keep to the high road. It's just the Democratic party is too dense to figure out how to steer the conversation their way.

As for this constituting "lying," how any McCain supporter could draw attention to "flip flops" and call it "lying" is beyond me. McCain has turned around on so many issues for this campaign that calling Obama on "flip flopping" amounts to rank hypocrisy.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I think there are ways that Obama could shrug off this nonsense and keep to the high road. It's just the Democratic party is too dense to figure out how to steer the conversation their way.

Quoted for Truth. I agree 100%!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Both sides are lying through their teeth. Once again, we're going to get the government we deserve; unfortunately, it's getting to be too late to turn this country around, and the rest of the world is starting to realize that they won't need the U. S. in the next few years. The sun is fading on our empire.

Good! Let the sun fade on us and let other nations have their turn in the spotlight. Worrying about whether our turn at empire is over with or whether or not we are the greatest country on the planet--as if the idea of there being one greatest country isn't laughable in and of itself--occupies too much time and rhetoric of our politicians.

I would much rather have them worry about major issues like the 45 million citizens in this country without regular access to health-care via health insurance or the trillions of dollars needed to be spent to keep our major bridge and road infrastructure from collapsing or the need to radically alter our national energy profile (from where we get it to how we use it) to to paying down the national debt and running balanced budgets.

Once we become a second-rate nation sometime this century I hope our politicians will be able to really focus on the issues in their campaigns. So far there has been more style than substance from both major candidates in the past couple decades and I look forward to a time in the future when politicians *have* to focus on the issues because concerns about image have lost all their importance.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I don't think stupendousman is upset about all the lying in this election. I think he's upset with his perception that his side isn't the only side taking the low road now.

Not at all. I think if Obama says just a couple of days ago one thing, then does something completely different the next that this would be an example of a "lie" as it's been defined in regards to Sarah Palin. Palin killed the "Bridge To Nowhere" but since she one time supported it, her claim was branded a "lie".

In addition, Obama has been caught numerous times telling whoppers about his own record, and I don't remember a single front page story telling about it.

You can't have it both ways.

[Dork.]

You cite some "whoppers" without really offering anything to back that up.

I know about a few of the things that you're talking about. One is the fact that he used to say that he "worked his way through college". A lot of people got on his case because he didn't really have to work a paying job to pay for college, he had a lot of scholarship money. College is hard work, Law School is hard work, and even though he had the benefit of scholarship money he still had to work hard to make it through. Still, he's been altering his stump speech lately, crediting his success in college to "hard work and scholarships" rather than "working his way though college".

Do you consider that a lie or a flip-flop? I consider it a sign that he's willing to listen to criticism, and alter his views because of the points that his critics are trying to make, even if he doesn't agree with them. Isn't this a desired quality in a leader?

I think we try too much to box politicians into corners, just to see them squirm when they try to get out of them. Leaders need to make quick decisions with imperfect information, then reassess their decisions after more information comes in. But we seem to want our leaders to make a decision and stick to it, even if it is wrong. We will hold the guy who is wrong with conviction in higher regard than the guy who tries to make the right decision, even if it means reassessing a previous stance.

[ort888]

How can he run a clean campaign? Have you seen the non-stop barrage of negative ads coming from McCain? It's all I see on TV and half of them are complete hogwash. He supported sex ed for Kindergartners? That's a straight up lie. He thinks Iran isn't a threat. A complete lie. He called Sarah Palin a pig? Complete lie.

What do you do in response? Do you just sit there and let your opponent put out deceptive half-truth attack ad after attack ad?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

How can he run a clean campaign? Have you seen the non-stop barrage of negative ads coming from McCain? It's all I see on TV and half of them are complete hogwash. He supported sex ed for Kindergartners? That's a straight up lie.

False. It is not a lie.

The debate isn't about whether the law supported sex-ed for Kindgartners. It did. What is being criticized is the fact that when you say that, it bring up images of toddlers being shown diagrams of penises and vaginas and told about condom use. That isn't the sort of thing that would be taught. It would be "age appropriate". That means that the commercial told the truth, though it did so in a way that would imply the worse. The fact is, I think most people do not think that there is such a thing as "age appropriate" sex education for Kindergartners. They've got a hard enough time learning their ABC's, no less know about sex.

The fact is that Obama has lied about a lot of things. His background, his support for gun bans, his support to keep things like partial birth abortion illegal and many other things. If you really want documentation, I can provide it.

Personally, I don't think it matters. Politicians exaggerate and do the best to shield the truth from voters when it will make them look bad. I expect it. It's the voters job to get the facts for themselves and decide whether we are dealing with normal exaggerations, or outright lies. When the opposition accuses their opponent of out-right lies, when in fact all we have is exaggeration or a difference of opinion, it says more about the opposition than those they attack, IMO.

[kido331]

McCain wants to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq for the next 100 years.
McCain is going to tell you Obama is black.
McCain thinks you are stupid.
McCain enjoys being ignorant.
McCain thinks rich people make $5 million per year
McCain wants to bomb Iran
McCain = Bush

[ort888]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

False. It is not a lie.

The debate isn't about whether the law supported sex-ed for Kindgartners. It did. What is being criticized is the fact that when you say that, it bring up images of toddlers being shown diagrams of penises and vaginas and told about condom use. That isn't the sort of thing that would be taught. It would be "age appropriate". That means that the commercial told the truth, though it did so in a way that would imply the worse. The fact is, I think most people do not think that there is such a thing as "age appropriate" sex education for Kindergartners. They've got a hard enough time learning their ABC's, no less know about sex.

The fact is that Obama has lied about a lot of things. His background, his support for gun bans, his support to keep things like partial birth abortion illegal and many other things. If you really want documentation, I can provide it.

Personally, I don't think it matters. Politicians exaggerate and do the best to shield the truth from voters when it will make them look bad. I expect it. It's the voters job to get the facts for themselves and decide whether we are dealing with normal exaggerations, or outright lies. When the opposition accuses their opponent of out-right lies, when in fact all we have is exaggeration or a difference of opinion, it says more about the opposition than those they attack, IMO.

The only sex ed for kindergartners was educating them about not getting abducted by strangers and what kind of touching is unacceptable.

The ad is the worst kind of manipulation. It's an absolute farce. It spits in the face of decent human beings everywhere and it makes me think less of McCain. I'm ashamed that ads like that are considered acceptable.

And I used to make political ads for a living.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...on_sex_ed.html

I'm so sick of the negative crap from both sides. Aren't we better then this? Can't we do better?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

The only sex ed for kindergartners was educating them about not getting abducted by strangers and what kind of touching is unacceptable.

According to Factcheck.org:

"It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten."

Either it did or didn't. Both Factcheck.org and the bill says it did, which makes McCain's claim impossible to be a "lie".

The debate is about what "comprehensive sex education" includes. The bill only states that it has to be "age appropriate". It does not mandate that it only include warnings against sexual predators for Kindergartners, even if what some of those people who voted for the bill hoped it would achieve.

The fact is, there are many on the political left who believe that explicit sexual education is appropriate for all ages. The bill does not regulate what "appropriate" is or isn't, which leaves it up to the left-wing academia in charge to decide, and we all know that their judgement often times goes against that of normal community standards.

There's a reason why this bill was voted on "on party lines". It wasn't because everyone agreed it was good legislation. Your evidence isn't a very good example of proving that someone lied either. Especially when your chosen source doesn't dispute what the ad actually says.

Better luck next time.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The fact is, there are many on the political left who believe that explicit sexual education is appropriate for all ages.

I call BS. Prove it. Find me "many on the political left" who advocate explicit sexual education for all ages.

I think you're making stuff up, because I've never seen this position advocated anywhere, by anyone, either left or right.

[smacintush]

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/o...kindergartners

It contains actual text form the bill including striking out the "6" in 6-12 and replacing it with a "K".

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/o...kindergartners

It contains actual text form the bill including striking out the "6" in 6-12 and replacing it with a "K".

I doubt the idea is to show kindergartners how to put condoms on bananas. Probably just "your body" and "strangers shouldn't touch here" kind of stuff.

On the other hand, I really don't see a problem with any school age kid knowing what sex is. It's kind of just natural, you know.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I call BS. Prove it. Find me "many on the political left" who advocate explicit sexual education for all ages.

To be honest, my claim is based on the assumption that there are polar opposites in regards to teaching sex education, which I don't think is unreasonable. People on the far right who want NO sex education in schools and people on the far left who believe strongly in sexual liberation who would want all children educated at an early age about sex.

But...I'm not going to spend the time to prove it. STRICKEN from the record!

Originally Posted by smacintush 

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/o...kindergartners

It contains actual text form the bill including striking out the "6" in 6-12 and replacing it with a "K".

Exactly. People who claim the commercial tells ANY lies are either lying themselves or misinformed. I can buy a claim that some people might think that the commercial is misleading (though I disagree), but that it contains any "lies" (an untruth told knowingly) is something that can be prove false. SORRY.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Both sides are lying through their teeth. Once again, we're going to get the government we deserve; unfortunately, it's getting to be too late to turn this country around, and the rest of the world is starting to realize that they won't need the U. S. in the next few years. The sun is fading on our empire.

You mean it wasn't too late when FDR stacked the Supreme Court in his favor, or imprisoned Japanese Americans because he thought they were traitorous?

Or is it really possible to turn the country around after all?

[Dork.]

Want to nitpick? I'm game.

Here is the current law that is on the books in Illinois, according to the site that was linked here, with all the recent changes reflected.

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.

I read this as "Each course that is offered in this grade range shall meet these requirements", not "Each grade listed here shall have a course that meets these requirements". In other words, it does not mean sex education for kindergartners. Simply changing "6 through 12" to "K through 12" does not change that the rest of the clause does not make the class mandatory, it just mandates the content of the class.

Furthermore, It also does not dictate how these requirements shall be met. While this part of the law does not strictly mandate the age-appropriate things that Obama has claimed, it does not exclude them either. I found nothing in the little bit of the law that was posted on that site that mandates the classes or how the requirements shall be met, either. Maybe it's elsewhere, I don't know.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Furthermore, It also does not dictate how these requirements shall be met. While this part of the law does not strictly mandate the age-appropriate things that Obama has claimed, it does not exclude them either. I found nothing in the little bit of the law that was posted on that site that mandates the classes or how the requirements shall be met, either. Maybe it's elsewhere, I don't know.

I agree. The law does what the McCain ad says it does. I don't think you can call it a "lie" or misleading because the guy who voted for it claims he hoped it would be interpreted a specific way that is not mandated by law.

[Dork.]

You can call it a lie if McCain says it mandates "comprehensive sexual education for kindergartners" when it does no such thing. As I mentioned before, the bill imposes no requirement that a class even be offered, and even if a class is offered it does not force any particular curriculum choice.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You can call it a lie if McCain says it mandates "comprehensive sexual education for kindergartners" when it does no such thing.

You are demonstrably wrong;
A. The commercial doesn't say "it mandates" anything.
B. The bill in question does exactly what the ad says it does. According to Factcheck.org, the law "would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten.

You could call it a lie if McCain says that in addition to allowing for "comprehensive sexual education for kindergartners", it would mandate that teachers also have the right to devour the children for lunch after teaching them sex ed. The McCain ad doesn't make that claim either, but I digress.

Here's a pretty comprehensive analysis examining how you, the Obama campaign and the MSM either are getting it wrong, or lying:
On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right by Byron York on National Review Online

You can argue that Obama now says that he'd hoped that the legislation would be used for child protection, but that's not what the law says or mandates. It allows "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners, just as the commercial says. You can suggest that the commercial does not paint a complete picture in regards to Obama's claimed stance on the issue, but you can't logically call anything in the commercial a lie when it's factually correct. The Obama campaign and the supposed "watchdogs" in the media (who are actually Obama lapdogs) are the only ones lying about it. It's truly ironic when you have people lying about lies.

[Dork.]

You don't get it. The bill (and actually, I didn't realize until now that it was never passed into law) permitted classes to be given to children that young, but did not specifically say that the classes had to be offered. As far as I can tell, the only constraint it put on the classes was that they offer information that is "medically accurate". And although the bill did not use the language "age-appropriate", it did specify that the information which could be covered included information about harassment, inappropriate touching, and building healthy relationships, which are all topics that could be covered with a kindergartner in an appropriate fashion.

John McCain's ad said,

Announcer: Education Week says Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education.” That he’s “elusive” on accountability. “A staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly.” Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.

John McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

"Learning about sex before learning how to read" is simply untrue, given any reasonable reading of the bill. About the only true things in that ad regarding the bill are the fact that the words "comprehensive sex education" appear in it, and that the bill would include kindergartners. But directly connecting the two is disingenuous.

And while we're talking about factcheck.org, let's quote their summary on the matter: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...on_sex_ed.html

A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004.

Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.

In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator's record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.

[Wiskedjak]

If the law says

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.

then it doesn't say "comprehensive sexual education for kindergartners is mandated". The statement above says that "*if* a course in comprehensive sex education is offered in K-12, it must include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If the law says

then it doesn't say "comprehensive sexual education for kindergartners is mandated". The statement above says that "*if* a course in comprehensive sex education is offered in K-12, it must include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

Prior to this bill sex education was limited to 6-12. Afterword, it allowed for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners, which would included teaching them about condoms and AIDS, according to the wording of the bill.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You don't get it. The bill (and actually, I didn't realize until now that it was never passed into law) permitted classes to be given to children that young, but did not specifically say that the classes had to be offered.

No, it's you who doesn't get it. The ad never stated what was to be taught. It simply told the truth - that it allowed for "comprehensive sex education" for Kindergartners. I UNDERSTAND that you and Obama believe and claim that "comprehensive sex education" has a specific meaning as far as what is taught, and that apparently is only information about inappropriate touching. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAW STATES.

As far as I can tell, the only constraint it put on the classes was that they offer information that is "medically accurate". And although the bill did not use the language "age-appropriate", it did specify that the information which could be covered included information about harassment, inappropriate touching, and building healthy relationships, which are all topics that could be covered with a kindergartner in an appropriate fashion.

...sexually transmitted diseases, etc. Even by your account, the bill allowed for "comprehensive sex education" for Kindergartners. You can debate WHAT THAT ENTAILED, but stating this fact as a fact IS NOT A LIE.

John McCain's ad said,
"Learning about sex before learning how to read" is simply untrue, given any reasonable reading of the bill.

False. The law allowed specifically for sex education in Kindergarten, before kids really are able to learn. Again, you can debate what that "sex education" might be, but at the very least it's about "sex". Otherwise, you wouldn't be calling it "sex" education. You can't call someone a liar when they state specifically what has been passed. You've yet to show that what was specifically claimed in the ad is not true, because it is. You tried to insert "mandated" into the ad where it wasn't, and you are still trying to infer that they ads makes that claim when it doesn't. HEAPS of "FAIL" on your part so far.

And while we're talking about factcheck.org, let's quote their summary on the matter: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...on_sex_ed.html

Factcheck's summary, which is essentially the same as yours, is simply demonstrably false. Nothing in the McCain ad is not true. Nothing. None. I quoted Factcheck themselves which claims the EXACT same thing the McCain ad says. Again, stating what you think was Obama's motive for voting for the bill is not the same as proving what the ad says is false when it simply relays the facts as they are. Sorry.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The law allowed specifically for sex education in Kindergarten, before kids really are able to learn. Again, you can debate what that "sex education" might be, but at the very least it's about "sex". Otherwise, you wouldn't be calling it "sex" education.

Ahh, here's where our disagreement lies.

Does "comprehensive sex education" equal "learning about sex"?

Are we confusing definitions here, perhaps? The word "sex" does not always have to refer to intercourse. And perhaps the word "comprehensive" applies to the whole program of education from K-12, and not just the content of any individual class.

The ad is not just a lie, it's a clever one!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Ahh, here's where our disagreement lies.

Does "comprehensive sex education" equal "learning about sex"?

Yes, by any definition "sex education" is education about sex.

Does it mean learning about what the best sexual position is to stimulate a woman? Probably not. Does it mean teaching kids how to give blowjobs? Probably not. Does it mean teaching kids even as young as 5 years old about sexually transmitted diseases. Yep - that's what the bill states.

Are we confusing definitions here, perhaps? The word "sex" does not always have to refer to intercourse.

It's a good thing that the McCain ad says NOTHING about "intercourse". It just sticks to the facts. If only the media could do the same....

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Does it mean teaching kids even as young as 5 years old about sexually transmitted diseases. Yep - that's what the bill states.

*sigh*

No it doesn't. The bill means teaching kids about STD's, and it calls for starting to teach kids about issues relating to their sexual health as young as 5 years old. It does *not* call for teaching kids as young as 5 years old about STD's.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

*sigh*

No it doesn't. The bill means teaching kids about STD's, and it calls for starting to teach kids about issues relating to their sexual health as young as 5 years old. It does *not* call for teaching kids as young as 5 years old about STD's.

Senate Bill 99:
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education 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."

I'm not sure how what the bill actually says supports your claim, or refutes McCain's. Again, I'm not the media and am just going to take Obama's word for it. They (and you) have the same ability to actually look up and find out what the bill actually says that I do.

[Dork.]

Again, if the class is even offered on the Kindergarten level, there is nothing in the bill that stated how the content should be taught. You can teach a kid as young as 5 how to stay away from situations where they might get a STD without specifically teaching him about STD's. The emphasis is on prevention, not on STD's.

This bill does *not* call for teaching kids as young as 5 years old about STD's.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I have to side with stupendousman on this one. The defense of this bill is supposedly that it allows abuses but they didn't plan to take advantage of them. That just means it's a badly written bill. The libs aren't excusing the Bushies for skirting civil rights rules just because they had no intention of targeting people who weren't already known bad guys. "But he's our man and he would Do The Right Thing" is a terrible excuse.

[ort888]

I'm going to start a thread called "Candidate Lies, members of their party cool with it, members of the other party outraged" to cover this topic for the rest of this election cycle.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Again, if the class is even offered on the Kindergarten level, there is nothing in the bill that stated how the content should be taught. You can teach a kid as young as 5 how to stay away from situations where they might get a STD without specifically teaching him about STD's. The emphasis is on prevention, not on STD's.

This bill does *not* call for teaching kids as young as 5 years old about STD's.

The bill's language is clear. I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm quoting from the bill itself. It specifically states that sex education for Grade K "shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections". You can debate how far this "instruction" would go all you want, but the bill does not mandate any specifics, and McCain's ad simply states the facts.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I'm going to start a thread called "Candidate Lies, members of their party cool with it, members of the other party outraged" to cover this topic for the rest of this election cycle.

That about sums it up!

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The bill's language is clear. I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm quoting from the bill itself. It specifically states that sex education for Grade K "shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections". You can debate how far this "instruction" would go all you want, but the bill does not mandate any specifics, and McCain's ad simply states the facts.

Learning how to prevent something is not the same as learning about something.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Learning how to prevent something is not the same as learning about something.

If that's the best you can do to support the notion that McCain "lied" in his ad, I'll be glad to let you have the last word.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Prior to this bill sex education was limited to 6-12. Afterword, it allowed for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners, which would included teaching them about condoms and AIDS, according to the wording of the bill.

It certainly seems like it *allows* for sex education to kindergartners (which I agree is too young), but it doesn't sound like it *mandates* sex education to kindergartners.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. The law does what the McCain ad says it does. I don't think you can call it a "lie" or misleading because the guy who voted for it claims he hoped it would be interpreted a specific way that is not mandated by law.

You're so insanely wrong that it's pathetic. It does not at all support sex ed for Kindergarten. It only states that if there is such a class, it should include certain content. They are completely and entirely different and it's patently ridiculous to state what McCain did. You're just toeing the line like a sheep. Think for yourself.

Disclosure: I'm a registered Republican.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If that's the best you can do to support the notion that McCain "lied" in his ad, I'll be glad to let you have the last word.

Well, I did say we were going to nitpick, didn't I?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It certainly seems like it *allows* for sex education to kindergartners (which I agree is too young), but it doesn't sound like it *mandates* sex education to kindergartners.

McCain's ad does not claim that it "mandates" it. Before the bill though, there was no "sex education to kindergartners". The law only allowed for 6-12. After, you could have sex education for kindergartners, which would include STD prevention education. McCain's ad never said it REQUIRED or MANDATED sex-ed for Kindergartners. So, while you are correct, that isn't evidence that anything in McCain's ad is a "lie".

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

You're so insanely wrong that it's pathetic. It does not at all support sex ed for Kindergarten. It only states that if there is such a class, it should include certain content.

Prior to the law in question, there WAS NO SEX ED FOR KINDERGARTEN. There was no caveat that "if there is such a class". The law specifically allowed for this to happen. The law that was passed allowed for sex education for kindergarteners which would include STD prevention education. That's not my opinion or my interpretation, but as you can see by the quotes above, that's exactly what the law says.

They are completely and entirely different and it's patently ridiculous to state what McCain did. You're just toeing the line like a sheep. Think for yourself.

I've stated the facts. The commercial stated the facts. You are regurgitating what the media and Obama has told you, despite the facts. When you talk of sheep, you should start talking into a mirror.

[ort888]

Can you at least admit that the commercial jumps to ridiculous conclusions based on the facts and then simplifies the message and packages it in a misleading way to infuriate uniformed nitwits?

Here's a few question for McCain supporters...

Do you think this commercial is a fair representation of the facts?

Do you approve of this ad?

Who do you think this commercial is targeted toward?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

McCain's ad does not claim that it "mandates" it. Before the bill though, there was no "sex education to kindergartners". The law only allowed for 6-12. After, you could have sex education for kindergartners, which would include STD prevention education. McCain's ad never said it REQUIRED or MANDATED sex-ed for Kindergartners. So, while you are correct, that isn't evidence that anything in McCain's ad is a "lie".

Gotcha. Not having seen the actual commercial, I won't say any more.

[Wiskedjak]

Al Gore: Inventor of the Internet
John McCain: Inventor of the Blackberry

[Dork.]

To be fair, that was one of his staffers saying that. (Perhaps now an ex-staffer?)

McCain's campaign actually called it a boneheaded joke.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Prior to the law in question, there WAS NO SEX ED FOR KINDERGARTEN. There was no caveat that "if there is such a class". The law specifically allowed for this to happen. The law that was passed allowed for sex education for kindergarteners which would include STD prevention education. That's not my opinion or my interpretation, but as you can see by the quotes above, that's exactly what the law says.

No, the law does not specifically allow this - it does not change or preempt prior laws regarding whether sex ed is offered to particular grades. It only specifies the content of any courses that are offered. It's clear as **** what it says.