McCain barbs stirring outcry as distortions

g under p

blackredyellow wrote:

They've learned from past campaigns, that there is no punishment for lying or putting deceptive info out there, so they will apparently keep doing it.

That's the nature of this political business that we're given, it it up to us to decifer what is the truth or not.

Peace

heartdesire

blackredyellow wrote:

They've learned from past campaigns, that there is no punishment for lying or putting deceptive info out there, so they will apparently keep doing it.

Sad but true.

I was so annoyed yesterday and today I actually called and left a message on McCain's line, called the Republican Campaign Office & spoke with some kind young gent who was rather polite though had no power and then left a message with this gent today ...

A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.” (From the NYTIMES article)

I didn't agree with this so I called him directly. As he wasn't in I shared my opinion via vm and left my number if he wanted to refute my claims. Of course I will never hear from the dude.

The phone number to the RC Headquarters is 703-418-2008 ... if you are left feeling as disgusted as I place a diplomatic call. Can't hurt. Probably won't change a freakin' thing, but a few thousand complaints wouldn't be such a bad thing. : )

DixieN

slightofjeff wrote:

A direct quote from the bill:

"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 mean, I'm not a genius like the Messiah ... but I can read.

You can read, but where does reasoning come in? In kindergarten, this would amount to telling kids that if they got bitten or got someone else's blood in your mouth, eyes, nose, or in a cut, you'd want to get medical attention. Everyone needs to know this. Teachers are given "bite kits" every year to keep them safe from HIV transmission. Why shouldn't our kids be kept safe? I don't think it's creepy to protect kindergartners from misery and death. Just because a disease can be sexually transmitted doesn't mean it has to be. And just because a disease is sexually transmitted doesn't mean you need to be explicit about sex.

Also, good touch bad touch is extremely important. That is part of being sexually educated at a young age. And kids need to know that if they are being touched in a bad way, they could be getting hurt in more than just obvious ways. If you knew how many kids were sexually abused from very young ages on, you might get on the "teach the kids" bandwagon. I've worked in law, and I've worked in education. It is heartbreaking to think of what happens to so many of our kids, and how so many of our kids don't know enough to tell an adult who cares about what is happening to them. Every year, in every grade level there are children being sexually abused. In the law office, I saw a case where a 5 year-old girl was being abused by every male member of her family, including her 3 brothers and her father. That's what I call creepy, and helping protect our kids against that is what every decent person in the US ought to be doing their utmost to do.

John McCain is acting like an enabler, not a crime fighter. And he's doing this in the name of winning an election. The doublespeak express? I don't know. I don't know. If I believed in Satan, I'd say that McCain is so hell bent on getting elected, he's turned to doing Satan's work for him. I do not see how else you could frame protecting children from abuse and disease as something bad by lying about what is being done to protect them.

g under p

heart&desire wrote:

Sad but true.

I was so annoyed yesterday and today I actually called and left a message on McCain's line, called the Republican Campaign Office & spoke with some kind young gent who was rather polite though had no power and then left a message with this gent today ...

A McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, said the campaign had evidence for all its claims. “We stand fully by everything that’s in our ads,” Mr. Rogers said, “and everything that we’ve been saying we provide detailed backup for — everything. And if you and the Obama campaign want to disagree, that’s your call.” (From the NYTIMES article)

I didn't agree with this so I called him directly. As he wasn't in I shared my opinion via vm and left my number if he wanted to refute my claims. Of course I will never hear from the dude.

The phone number to the RC Headquarters is 703-418-2008 ... if you are left feeling as disgusted as I place a diplomatic call. Can't hurt. Probably won't change a freakin' thing, but a few thousand complaints wouldn't be such a bad thing. : )

I'm just to see what will happen and that area code 703 that's a cross state# in VA.

Peace

heartdesire

g under p wrote:

I'm just to see what will happen and that area code 703 that's a cross state# in VA.

Peace

I first called the Washington Office listed on the RNC site and the gent I spoke with gave me the number directly. So there ya have it. : )

_

slightofjeff wrote:

The bill Obama voted for did include language about teaching STDs to kindergarteners.

Do you have a source for this? The bill I read didn't say this. Thanks.

SuzannePjam

blackredyellow wrote:

They've learned from past campaigns, that there is no punishment for lying or putting deceptive info out there, so they will apparently keep doing it.

The McCain campaign hired Karl Rove as a consultant, so it's no surprise that they're copying the same nasty gimmicks from the Bush 2000 and 2004 campaign. Some "mavericks", huh. Next thing you know they'll steal Obama's slogan of "change."

SuzannePjam

g under p wrote:

WELCOME to the board @ AMT.

Thank you! I've posted here on occasion in past years, but life has gotten so crazy I've been away for quite a while.

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

Got to say that although we have differing opinions, most of the time you back up what you're saying. But I must say, no offense, but this explanation is absolutely and completely full of it. There is not "one shred of truth" in the ad as you claim; a complete fabrication; "Teaching sex education to kindergarteners" while showing Obama in front of innocent schoolchildren? What is this, President Pedophile? Is he serious?

It was a bad ad. If I haven't already made that clear, I should have. It was sensational, and it was over the top.

I think the ad did have a point to make -- no matter how you slice it, the bill called for teaching STDs to kindergarteners -- but its point was completely obscured in the ridiculous, over-the-top way in which it was presented.

Fail, fail, fail.

_

slightofjeff wrote:

It was a bad ad. If I haven't already made that clear, I should have. It was sensational, and it was over the top.

I think the ad did have a point to make -- no matter how you slice it, the bill called for teaching STDs to kindergarteners -- but its point was completely obscured in the ridiculous, over-the-top way in which it was presented.

Fail, fail, fail.

Source??

ACCBootlegGoddess

Ok the Sex ed claim was only ONE of many false claims made in this ad. Just because one part may have some truth depending on ones interpretation of a...seemly poorly written bill....doesn't mean that one should excuse what said in the rest of the ad.

I guarantee you if Obama had released an Ad like this the republicans on this board would be crucifying him for it....double standard much???

Brain of J.Lo

I love how they're defending the sleazy ads. They're basically saying that if Obama had agreed to doing town halls across America with McCain, the campaign would have a different tone.

So...if they'd gotten their way, they wouldn't have to resort to character assassination.

Classy.

norm

scb wrote:

Source??

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

only posting for discussion purposes....:)

Dirtie_Frank

slightofjeff wrote:

Good to see Obama countering with the "The Viet Cong beat McCain so bad he can't use a computer, ha ha ha!" ad, though

DOn't see how this can help Obama. Might make him look just as bad

_

cutback wrote:

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

only posting for discussion purposes....:)

Thank you!!

_

slightofjeff wrote:

The sex-ed ad, however ... if you read the language of the bill, it did call for teaching sex-ed to kindergarteners beyond "good touching vs. bad touching." It called for teaching kindergarteners explicitly about sexually transmitted diseases, for one .. which I think is a bit creepy.

So, though Obama's intentions might have been pure with this bill ... the end result -- kindergarteners apparently learning that if you stick your wee-wee in a dirty girl's foofie, it might burn when you tinkle -- ain't so pure.

You keep repeating this, but it isn't true.

The bill only says that all comprehensive sex ed courses offered in any grade must include instruction about STIs. It does NOT, however, say comprehensive sex ed must be offered to kindergarteners.

But it DID say that no child is required to receive any instruction in sex ed, and that all instruction must be age-appropriate.