Does the Truth Matter Anymore?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

No, the McCain ad says Mr. Obama supports comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners which is what the bill that Mr. Obama voted for says. You wouldn't be bending the intent of the McCain campaign's ad to support your position would you?

I understand that Obama has said he doesn't think kindergarteners should be having explicit sex education, and that's a good thing, but he DID vote for the bill as written which mandates COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION STARTING IN KINDERGARTEN.

It's really not that tough to understand. I understand that you don't like the ad, it paints Mr. Obama into a position that he likely never meant to take. I'm sure when he voted for the bill that he never figured that it would come to this. I'm sure he had good intentions. I would say, though that he should have READ the bill he voted for. He voted yes to the bill and there is explicit language in that bill that supports the McCain ad.

Just one more example of the mullato messiah's buffoonery.

[Burnin' oil]

Originally Posted by kang

McCain states that Obama is in favor of explicit sex ed for kindergartners.

THAT is a flat out lie.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Nathans_Dad

He voted yes to the bill and there is explicit language in that bill that supports the McCain ad.

Too bad you can't vote "present" in the U.S. Senate. Of if you can, Obama wasn't aware of that option.

[rouxroux]

Originally Posted by kang

The issue is not what a given principle will decide. The issue is McCain’s ad. McCain states that Obama is in favor of explicit sex ed for kindergartners. That is not true. Obama has made it clear that he does not support that.

We could discuss the pros and cons of that bill, but that is not the issue. The issue is dirty politics.

Principal, principle....Choose your words wisely young Grasshopper. Remember, words MEAN things, as does one's "Principle".

[kang]

Originally Posted by Burnin' oil

THAT is a flat out lie.

Sorry, I should not have put it that way. My apologies.

[kang]

Originally Posted by rouxroux

Principal, principle....Choose your words wisely young Grasshopper. Remember, words MEAN things, as does one's "Principle".

Yikes! I meant school principle!

[nota]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

How do you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when 40% of Americans don't even pay any fed. income taxes? I think it's called welfare.

yes and we know the GOP HATES welfare EXCEPT when it goes to the CORPs

[rouxroux]

Well, in my decades of teaching, I met a few Principals without "principles".....(most were ex-coaches who had come up through the "good 'ol boy" system).

[nota]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

I thought it was the parents' responsibility to teach their kids about the birds, bees and other requisite issues. What happened to that concept?

see Sarah Palin kid's for how well that works

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by nota

yes and we know the GOP HATES welfare EXCEPT when it goes to the CORPs

Can you refute what I wrote and not hijack this into a thread on corp. welfare (aka consumer subsidies)?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by nota

see Sarah Palin kid's for how well that works

I thought you lefties were all for unwed mothers. The only step up from that is having an abortion, right?

[Mule]

Originally Posted by nota

yes and we know the GOP HATES welfare EXCEPT when it goes to the CORPs

Spin attempt warning!

[kstar]

Originally Posted by nota

see Sarah Palin kid's for how well that works

Admittedly I was very well informed in sex-ed when I had my first bit of unprotected sex. And we weren't trying to have a baby, but had hormones aplenty.

If you're argument is that a more comprehensive sex-ed could have prevented Palin's daughter from getting pregnant (without knowing the extent of Palin's daughter's sex-ed) , I and most every other person who has ever been a teen would probably enjoy such a debate.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Admittedly I was very well informed in sex-ed when I had my first bit of unprotected sex. And we weren't trying to have a baby, but had hormones aplenty.

If you're argument is that a more comprehensive sex-ed could have prevented Palin's daughter from getting pregnant (without knowing the extent of Palin's daughter's sex-ed) , I and most every other person who has ever been a teen would probably enjoy such a debate.

Those who couldn't get laid back then (or even now) use the school teaching as an excuse

Raging hormones man!!!!

[fintstone]

Is there a liberal reading comprehension disorder...or are they just plain dishonest?