Why McCain's Campaign Peddles Nonsense

Gee, Jeff-- biased a little?

Obama just ran an add criticizing McCain for not being able to use the internet (he can, it's just that his war injuries make typing difficult).  Obama gives campaign speeches in Europe (tried to do it at the Brandenburg Gate!), uses a Greek Temple for his nomination acceptance speech, blathers about change without actually saying anything and claims that he's going to cut taxes for people who aren't even paying them.

As to lipstick on pigs, wasn't that Obama's line?

And your line (right at the beginning of your snoozer article): "Is there any war McCain thinks can’t be won?" begs the question of whether there's any war you think can be won.  Do you liberals ever feel uncomfortable with your own hypocrisy, or is it just natural?

"So, what do you do when one of your core ideas is out of sync with the predispositions of the American public? You spend your days talking about lipstick on pigs."

Or you might consider talking about one of your other core ideas. Unless, of course, they're all out of synch with the Amrrican public's concerns. In which case, you probably should not be running.

Really, McCain's resorting to this scumbag discourse about lipstick because one of his ideas may not play? This is his only recourse? Riiiight.

Obama is a radical because he has radical views.

Here is one link to the program Obama supports for kindergarten kids.  Also note the irony here since Palin sends her kds to public school while Obama prefers a high priced private academy.

http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2008/9/14/obama-did-vote-to-teach...

As for preemption, sure it can be proudly sold.  Every time Obama Biden is asked abot a foreign policy call--they are so gosh darn thoughtful.  Being thoughtful requires a response.  There is never an actual response.  Clinton vowed to take down Sadaam Hussein because he really, really needed regime change. People see the fact that McCain-Palin act while Obama-Biden talk, discuss and look "thoughtful."  Yes, when this country is faced with a threat, we will act to defend ourselves--that is, if McCain-Palin win this election.

Otherwise, we will have a thoughtful discussion and engage in determined diplomacy to right the wrong.

But at least our kindergaten kids will know all about homosexuality.

To amend my thought here, Obama sends his kids to a charter school--which is not a private academy.  I regret the error.

"...McCain-Palin act while Obama-Biden talk, discuss and look
"thoughtful." "

it must be hard for you to distinguish between actually thinking instead of looking like your thinking (and talking loudly). Too much Fox News?

"when this country is faced with a threat, we will act to defend ourselves--that is, if McCain-Palin win this election."...correct, but more precisely, we will act irrationally as opposed to actually thinking about what is appropriate and useful.

Unfortunately this Bush (McCain/Palin) Doctrine foreign policy philosophy will only result in more mis-directed war. Where/when do you think the tipping point will occur? How many wars can we create/sustain in response to bogus threats like Saddams WMD's and support of Al Qaeda? Elect Palin-McCain and find out.

With Mr. McCains vulnerabilities, expect Sarah Palin to be the one who decides which "heathen" country next needs induced regime change... t 

p.s. Thanks for fact checking yourself. Keep up the good work and see if you can get a job with the McCain campaign. They need some in house fact checking as they don't seem to think before they speak (although they are good at looking thoughtful).

Nope, twm, I did not indicate that thinking is "bad"--I indicated that the mere appearance of thoughtfulness is empty and action that is the product of experience is desired.

Your protest over the war is misplaced and quite juvenile.  As a Carolina basketball fan, I can go on and on about our loss to Kansas and how we should have done this and might have done that--the fact of the matter it is over and we lost.  We will win a national championship this year.  Bush had the moderation and grace to have month after month of debate on whether or not we should enter Iraq, with no imminent threat and no assurance of how long we would be there.  His call was to weigh and balance the risk of going in with the risk of not going in--arguing correctly that Sadaam Hussein was a threat and the next attack could come from him if we did not remove him from power.  A few people protested and said it was not a good idea.  The overwhelming majority agreed it was a good idea and on the basis of that majority, we undertook this task and we are now victorious in our mission.  Sorry, if you don't like the effort or the victory--you lost the debate.  The loser is the man who can't make a call on the most important issue of the day and who even said, to his own demise, that it depended on how it would turn out!  I you admit that, you cannot be President.

David, perhaps you should read legislation before you make unfounded comments about it.  The legislation supported by Obama does nothing of the sort you suggest.  It makes recommendations for age-appropriate topics.  Moreover, it allows parents to opt out of sex-education curriculums for their children.  Of course, if you're a lying sack of shit, you can point to legislation that tries to protect children from predators and say that it supports teaching homosexuality to kindergarteners.  And if you're a hillbilly hick with 8 children to whom you can't read at night b/c you don't know how, then you'll certainly believe anything, even that a Harvard-educated presidential candidate with 2 daughters would support legislation to teach homosexuality to kindergarteners.  And that's pretty much what you and your shortsighted ilk are hoping will happen.  Too bad for you that the majority of undecided independent voters aren't the ignorant sheep you are hoping they are.

I suppose people always let others know wehere they are coming from.  I sent you the link to the piece of legislation Obama actually signed on--(indeed this is tough since he rarely shows up to vote) and anyone can read the bill.

The fact that parents can opt out hardly makes the curriculum more desirable and this assumes that, sure, the curriculum *is* offensive.  If it was fine and justified--it would be mandatory.  Parents are "allowed" to opt out so their kids can have the shame of not joining the other 97% of the class that is being given essential information--what a fair allowance!

Read the bill--it talks plainly about HIV-Aids and homosexuality.

I am guessing you are joking when you say ask how a Harvard educated con artist with two daughters could possibly promote homosexuality in schools!!  This is a joke isn't it?  The facts stand that homosexuality is promoted precisely by these elites and Obama is playing echo to the chorus.  If you want to learn about homosexual activism--the university campus is the indoctrination ground and this is why it is so terribly important for children as young as age 6 to get into the act as soon as possible.

Where is the main act?--I regret to say homosexual activism is the main event among leftist Jews and the Jewcy blog is loaded with homosexual activism.  Jews of today lobby on behalf of homosexuals as if homosexual "rights" were Jewish rights.To go further, leftist Jews have almost nothing important at stake at being Jews and a whole heck of a lot at stake in terms of defending gay marriage, gay parenting and literally anything homosexual.  The psychology of this stand is interesting.

The fact that Jews have abandoned their goal of defending Judaism is tragic.

Try to stick to the topic.  I know that's hard for you neocons since your shallow lies don't permit you to delve into any topic with any substantive arguments.  So, show me where it says in the bill that homosexuality and HIV is going to be taught to kindergarteners, or first graders, or second graders, or third graders, or fourth graders, or fifth graders!  Show me!  Where does it say that? 

I typed the link, Phantom.

Note that the media protectors for Obama argue that it is technically not true that Obama wants to teach kids sex-ed before they can read.  However, the legislation clearly states that a teacher "may" include the entirestated curriculum--as "age appropriate" or not.  The thought that homosexuality would not be age appropriate for a kindergaten student assumes a particular mindset and the minset is not that of a conservative--it is that of an elite.  Obama made it plain that the same accusation was leveled against him by Alan Keyes--another proof that it is true--and to cement the point, Obama indicated in a recent interview that yes, it is the right thing to do.  What is right?  Well he meant all of it, as it is *appropriate *to teach.  The propriety is left to the teacher and the curriculum is there for parents who object to keep their kids away from it.

This kind of social ostracism is the point--make it objectionable and put the burden on the parent to remove the student.  There is never the burden to make the curricula conform to community standards.

Therefore the ad is correct in its intent, although misleading to the point that Obama did not specifically mandate sex-ed before a child can read--the curriculum he supports allows for it so it may happen--not a big difference.

In other words, nowhere does the legislation state that homosexuality and AIDS shall be taught to Kindergarteners. 

Now here I will quote what you stated before: "Here is one link to the program Obama supports for kindergarten kids . . . But at least our kindergaten kids will know all about homosexuality."

The legislation does one thing:  It permits age-appropriate instruction about topics relating to human sexuality.  Now, I can tell you what would happen at my kids' school (and btw, I have 2 kids in kindergarten) if their kindergarten teacher decided with the principal's approval to teach homosexuality to them:  either (a) the teacher and the principal would be removed from their positions or (b) my children (and without doubt all of the others) would be moved to another school by their parents.  Now, perhaps there is a school somewhere where the parents want their 5 year olds to learn about homosexuality.  Who am I to stop them?  If they want that in their school, fine.  The parents can discuss it with the kindergarten teacher, review the curiculum before-hand to make sure that it is "age-appropriate" according to their standards, and teach it if that's what they want.  What is "age-appropriate" should be left to the parents and the teachers, and not some far-away lawmaker.  That is the essence of this legislation.  But that's not how ultra-conservative nutbags like you characterize it.  Instead, you twist it up so that it isn't even recognizable and then use it to try to paint Obama as a pedophile.  It's simply a lie, and the only one's you are going to fool are the ones who are already fooled by the Neocon bait and switch.  The majority of independents aren't going to believe that a responsible person with 2 young daughters is a pedophile who wants 5 year olds to learn about homosexuality and AIDs.  And they're not even going to have to read the legislation to not believe you.  But if they do read the legislation, then it will simply confirm that people like you are lying about it.  And, of course, that won't come as a surprise, since virtually everything that has come out of the McCain camp during this election has been a lie.

OK, Phantom--how deep is your denial?  Obama wants elaborate sex-ed taught to kids and all the details are in the link.  Your response is to say that the ad is wrong and we are lying?  Huh?  "Comprehensive sex-ed" is the right thing Obama promises and as US President, this guy will help make it happen. 

It is the conservatives that want these questions to be settled by teachers and parents and this is why thousands of people have abandoned the public schools and are forced to home school or send their kids to private schools they can barely afford.  Obama will help make this mandatory because he says it is the "right thing to do" and leftist morality rules supreme and the contrast here is stunning.

Palin is dragged over the coals because he believes in God as creator.  As Governor of Alaska, she has brought forward or proposed zero legislation that would impose her views on everyone--as neutral as those views happen to be.  By contrast, the left is ALWAYS pushing their morality down our throats and we can run screaming from the school and home-school our kids--paying for both the tax funds for the public schools and our own schools--while the left gets its version of "what is right."  If some school in Salt Lake City wants to sing a neutral song like "Friends" --the ACLU and dozens of lawyers will slap that song down and what parents and teachers want is thrown out the window.

The comprehensive sex-ed from the link includes all manner of discussion about homosexuality, AIDS, anti-religious discussion and explicit sexual instruction--that is why it is "comprehensive" and that it is controversial is obvious since we are told parents are permitted to remove their children from the program.

What kind of lie are you pointing to Phantom? --this is precisely the kind of overreach that disturbs many millions of Americans.  They want some power over their schools and national educrats are making all of our choices by using their own version of morality.  We want the freedom to choose and the only freedom of choice out there is the freedom to kill one's baby--not a nice choice or the one we want.

I ask again--do you mistake Obama for a conservative?  Preaching about homosexuality, gay marriage, the equivalence of any two people as parents is all part of the proposed currculum he has endorsed and is being followed.  Vote for Obama and it will quickly come to your school as well and then you will have to follow the thousands of people who have been forced into home school or private schools.  Is this your preference?

Astounding, David, it's almost as if you didn't even read Phantom's words. Why don't you give it the old once-over again, and this time try formulating an argument to what Phantom wrote instead of just bloviating on and on.

Craig, I read Phantom and he just makes no sense. Saying that he would not want HIV/AIDS and homosexuality taught in his school is not the question. The issue is that the candidate for the Presidency who has the full support of the gay rights lobby supports the full "progressive" platform regarding sex-ed.

Do you agree with Obama's stand or not? "Age appropriate" is an ever evolving standard and is is progressing downward. The curriculum approved and supported by Obama is on the record. Do you agree or disagree? Saying "to each his own" fails to answer the question.

What do you believe, Craig? Since educrats from Washington are not dictating all manner of things and setting national guidelines--it is really tragic that what kids are taught in public schools is now an issue for the Presidential candidates. This is not MY preference--I would abolish all Federal interest in education completely.

People are going crazy over the fact that Sarah Palin believes in God as creator. She had a chance to put forward that theory in front of students in her state and she did not. Now the left is throwing mud all over her for inflicting her values on everyone else--when she has done no such thing. Obama, by contrast, is happy to inflict his values on everyone else--he is open and even cocky about it. It is the right thing to do he implores. What do you think about this?

Speak to the topic, Craig.

There's nothing to say. I don't know what you're talking about. Your last post was all judgment calls and value statements, with inquiries as to my own opinions.

The only content I can derive from your words are that Barack Obama's support of gay rights apparently scares you.. As well, he supports the full "progressive" platform, apparently, something which I was unable to pin down (but understand is surely a terrifying entity to you).

You also do not support government intervention in academic curriculum.

Finally, you throw in some good blanket statements about Obama "inflicting his values" on everyone else, as well as being "cocky" about it. Touche. You win the "longest post / littlest content" award!

I honestly feel bad about the bitterness with which I'm writing, but I am so tired of these arguments. I find myself increasingly busier at work, and it just seems like you're not even putting in the effort anymore to make cohesive points. I dropped the last argument we were having (which I regret), and I know I can't do this one justice either, given how little free time I really should be devoting to this argument, and how little (again) I think you're even trying.. But at least I can answer your questions.

Yes. I agree with Obama's stand. "Age appropriate" is just what you want. You want the government to have no say in education. That can't happen because then people's civil liberties get trampled on. It's like deregulation of banking, except for schools.

Writing (the vague) "age appropriate" ensures the local municipalities get to make their own calls on what's appropriate. No one thinks sex education (explicit instruction in sex and sexuality, as we understand it) should be taught to Kindergarteners. You seem to be as America-loving as any conservative, so I'm surpised to hear that you think it's somehow possible that people in this country would allow something like that to happen.

That's what Phantom said. Obama's changes to the law were to ensure that the appropriate guidelines are in place to facilitate the SIECUS system. Yes: I believe 6th grade is too late to start learning about sex.

Anyway, it also says, plainly on Amy Proctor's blog, that Phase 1 is for K-3rd grade. There's a shit-ton of content listed there. By my judgment, almost all of it is inoffensive for a Kindergartener, especially if conveyed properly, the way the SIECUS handbook clearly specifies. The only thing I could possibly see people taking offense to is the part that says "Some people are homosexual" yadda yadda yadda.

And that's not a problem because (and I'll take a liberty here in assuming that I was in elementary school more recently than you were) by my recollection, we all knew what a "fag" was by 1st grade, and were happily calling each other it.

Should we have? There were gay kids back then. We all knew it. (..Certainly by 3rd grade, we knew it) We just didn't know what it was.

This damning evidence of Obama sexual deviancy makes the horrifying suggestion that, perhaps when kids are calling each other "faggot" in school, their teacher say, "You know, that's a hateful term, especially considering that there ARE actual homosexuals in this world and they are productive members of society." Depraved, huh?

Maybe the masturbation part's a problem. I knew a girl who used to lie on the floor of the gymnasium during recess with her hand in her crotch while we all just stared. The teachers had no clue what to say. A full-fledged "This is how you masturbate, kids. This is what a buttplug is used for, kids" lesson is not necessary. All they have to say is, "Stop that. Don't do that in public." Or are you concerned about the demon of masturbation too? Hairy knuckles and the like?

The rest is all about loving yourself and other people as humans. And a few things about changing bodies. My class all learned that in 3rd grade, and, what do you know, my hometown is still without a sex shop. Maybe the perversion will seep in later.

I don't have anything to speak to the Sarah Palin "point". She advocates creationism in the classroom. She didn't push it. What is she, a saint? No, she's an unqualified rube who thinks sass and panache can make up for lack of experience.

Obama (that cocky, self-aggrandizing South-Chicago public servant) makes up for his lack of experience by.. I don't know.. Not being woefully unaware of current politics.

JC, I couldn't have said it better.  And your post brought back a flash of memory of the exact day on which I learned what the word "gay" really meant.  I was 8, and I was arguing with my friend about the meaning of the word.  We were at my house, and I was arguing that it meant "happy", and he was arguing that it's when 2 men kiss each other on the lips and one of them is like the woman.  We both ran to my mom and we each argued our point to her.  Of course, she didn't know much English, but she knew enough to turn red, ignore our pleas for resolution of the argument and throw us out into the yard to play.  That's when I knew my friend was right.

It might have helped to get some basic, constructive, and age-appropriate information about the topic in school, which never happened, not even in high school.  There was one openly gay kid in my high school, and that guy was tormented and psychologically tortured for 4 years.  He was in some of my classes, and I saw him get ridiculed and harrassed almost every single day.  He had no friends.  Incidentally, he was also Jewish.  I felt awful for him, but I never stood up for him, and like everyone else I ridiculed him too, just not to his face.  Apparently those formidable years ruined his life forever since he's now a tax lawyer at a big firm in NY.

Anyway, what bothers me most about David and his ilk with respect to this election, is that they distort the language and the intent of good, meaningful, and humanistic legislation and use it to scare the crap out of the electorate.  This legislation is the prime example.  The legislation is several pages long and somewhere in those pages can be found the words "kindergarten" and "homosexual".  Conservatives take those facts and try to convince the American people that Obama wants to teach homosexuality to kindergarteners.  And it works with their base, because those people don't take the time to read anything, let alone legislation.  But I don't think it's going to fool enough people this time.