Campaign of lies disgraces McCain

[forestal]

Even the St. Petersburg Times calls it what it is..

This nation is facing real challenges on the economy, health care, jobs and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are significant differences between how Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain would address them. But McCain's recent campaign ads suggest the most vital issues are whether Obama wanted to teach sex education to kindergarten children and whether he derided the Republican's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, by talking about lipstick on a pig.

McCain's straight talk has become a toxic mix of lies and double-speak. It is leaving a permanent stain on his reputation for integrity, and it is a short-term strategy that eventually will backfire with the very types of independent-thinking voters that were so attracted to him.
​

 

[Nonno]

From The New York Times:
"The most disheartening aspect of a scurrilous Republican ad falsely accusing Barack Obama of promoting sex education for kindergarten children is its closing line: 'I'm John McCain, and I approved this message.' This from that straight-talker of yore, who fervidly denounced the 2004 Bush campaign's Swift Boat character attacks on John Kerry's military record." [Editorial, 9/12/08]


"John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election."

 

[edinsomd]

Oooo, more OpEds from lefty sources! This all you can come up with?
*yawn*
Ed

 

[aps45819]

From The New York Times:
"The most disheartening aspect of a scurrilous Republican ad falsely accusing Barack Obama of promoting sex education for kindergarten children is its closing line: 'I'm John McCain, and I approved this message.'

Isn't it a matter of public record that Obama voted for the sex ed bill that included 5 year olds?
What makes that a "false accusation"?

 

[2ndAmendment]

Isn't it a matter of public record that Obama voted for the sex ed bill that included 5 year olds?
What makes that a "false accusation"?

Because it makes their guy look bad.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Because it makes their guy look bad.

Naa, its because of George Bush

 

[PsyOps]

Here we go again with the "liar, liar pants on fire" crap.

 

[Xaquin44]

Isn't it a matter of public record that Obama voted for the sex ed bill that included 5 year olds?
What makes that a "false accusation"?

it wasn't sex ed like you're thinking ....

It was teaching younger kids about sexual abuse which at that age they probably wouldn't fully understand (hence the education)

also, the bill clearly stated that it was completely optional ....

he also, didn't sponsor or even co-sponsor the bill.

In short, try not to be stupid.

chain e-mails are hardly places to formulate intelligent thoughts about candidates.

 

[Xaquin44]

Because it makes their guy look bad.

no .... because it's false ....

factcheck.org people

 

[RadioPatrol]

no .... because it's false ....

factcheck.org people

oh yeah their not bias

 

[Xaquin44]

oh yeah their not bias

no .... they do the lies people make up about McCain and Palin too ....

 

[foodcritic]

it wasn't sex ed like you're thinking ....

It was teaching younger kids about sexual abuse which at that age they probably wouldn't fully understand (hence the education)

also, the bill clearly stated that it was completely optional ....

he also, didn't sponsor or even co-sponsor the bill.

In short, try not to be stupid.

chain e-mails are hardly places to formulate intelligent thoughts about candidates.

XANADU...Read the bill your self instead of telling us what fact check org espouses...

Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SB0099

I just can't help noticing how the left had to eliminate words like ABSTINENCE and MARRIAGE from the bill..

Also your factcheck.org site state's:

But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases.

Do you know how old a kindegartner is????? 5 Y/O Congrats....XANADU you made a great point.........

 

[itsbob]

it wasn't sex ed like you're thinking ....

It was teaching younger kids about sexual abuse which at that age they probably wouldn't fully understand (hence the education)

also, the bill clearly stated that it was completely optional ....

he also, didn't sponsor or even co-sponsor the bill.

In short, try not to be stupid.

chain e-mails are hardly places to formulate intelligent thoughts about candidates.

NOT optional, parents had to OPT-OUT two totally different things; Optional means you could chose to have your child enrolled in the course, opt out means you have to take deliberate steps to ensure your child doesn't take it, it's part of the normal curriculum not an extra or special class.. This includes having to put your wishes in writing, and presenting them to the school or school board prior to the first class. That is NOT optional.

And the way the bill read they talked about teaching about HIV infections and how to prevent them to ALL ages.

 

[Xaquin44]

This includes having to put your wishes in writing, and presenting them to the school or school board prior to the first class. That is NOT optional.

actually .... that is pretty much perfectly in line with the definition of optional.

opt out .... guess what the 'opt' part of that is short for.

 

[itsbob]

actually .... that is pretty much perfectly in line with the definition of optional.

opt out .... guess what the 'opt' part of that is short for.

You can OPT out to have your childs high school information sent to recruiters too..

It's NOT optional to have it sent to recruiters, it will be sent. You have to formally request it in writing to not have it released.. Now ask how many parents of High School students know that. The High School doesn't have to tell you that, and most don't because the release of information is not optional.

So the release of information, just like taking the course is NOT optional. There may be exemptions if you know, and take the proper steps, but the class is not optional.

 

[Xaquin44]

Sending info to recruiters wasn't optional at my high school .... I asked.

either way, it still an option if you know. Hopefully, you pay enough atention to hear things about your childs school.

(not directed specifically at anyone, just people in general)

 

[itsbob]

Sending info to recruiters wasn't optional at my high school .... I asked.

either way, it still an option if you know. Hopefully, you pay enough atention to hear things about your childs school.

(not directed specifically at anyone, just people in general)

What year did you graduate?

It's a federal law, not state of local.. FERPA.. Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. I believe dated 1974.

And you're right, it wasn't optional, the school was going to send it to the recruiters unless you opted out.

 

[itsbob]

Just FYI:

In addition, two federal laws require local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to provide military recruiters, upon request, with three directory information categories - names, addresses and telephone listings - unless parents have advised the LEA that they do not want their student's information disclosed without their prior written consent.(1)

 

[Xaquin44]

What year did you graduate?

It's a federal law, not state of local.. FERPA.. Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. I believe dated 1974.

And you're right, it wasn't optional, the school was going to send it to the recruiters unless you opted out.

97

and I tried, hehe

 

[Lenny]

Hmmmm, even your high school...

97

and I tried, hehe

...recognized you weren't worth listening to as well. Seems you have a congenital problem with believability and truth when it comes to communicating with people.