Obamaniacs, are you disturbed?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

And what else do you suspect they were going to teach kindergartners?
"G is for g-spot"?

Why do you suppose the bill's sponsor later proposed an amendment to change the language from K-12 back to 6-12?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Why do you suppose the bill's sponsor later proposed an amendment to change the language from K-12 back to 6-12?

because of the outcry from paranoid freaks.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

because of the outcry from paranoid freaks.

You mean like these?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

You mean like these?

Must you always change the subject when you can't keep up?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Must you always change the subject when you can't keep up?

Sorry, did she cite "paranoid freaks" in the amendment? I don't remember reading that ...

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And then kept the money? Good job, I guess?

So you've conceded it's not a lie.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And the particular that Jim left out was that it is a lie.

Keep repeating it. In the mirror, 10 times a day, as you are fitting your foil hat.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Much like Palin's continued statements that she opposed the bridge to nowhere are complete fabrications.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So she then opposed it.

Spoken like CG's most talented prevaricator. I tip my hat to your ability to speak both ways.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It was a lie. Even Fox News appears to get it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_126473.html

And no, that isn't conceding that the Palin claims on the bridge to nowhere are anything but a lie. Those are outright lies too. The problem with the bridge to nowhere isn't the bridge. It is the taxpayer money being spent on the bridge. Palin supported the bridge. Then it became politically impossible to get it built. So she then opposed it. But she kept the money. Nice reform. That'll teach people to send earmarks to Alaska.

Ohbama is the REAL bridge to nowhere. When Colon Powell states that having an AA as president would be 'electrifying', should we now vote for Ohbama simply because he is AA?

So I guess the converse should be acceptable as well? Vote for McCain, he's white and he won't electrocute you.

[Tex]

Obama has a new ad out distorting McCain's comment on economy's fundamentals:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...mentals_n.html

I hereby await Cali and Barbara's outrage at such outright distortion.

Meanwhile, via Fox News:

It is widely agreed in the mainstream media that John McCain falsely accused Barack Obama of supporting a bill that provided sex education for kindergartners. The McCain camp made the assertion in a campaign ad released last week.

The Washington Post called the ad "dishonest and deceptive," and The New York Times said, "At most, kindergartners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators."

But it appears those critics have not read the bill, which Obama backed as an Illinois state senator in 2003. It says curriculum in "any of grades K-12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

The Obama camp maintains the bill was intended to teach kindergartners only about inappropriate touching, but Byron York at the National Review writes, "The 'touching' provision did not have the prominence that team Obama has suggested it had, and certainly wasn't the bill's main purpose."

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Obama has a new ad out distorting McCain's comment on economy's fundamentals:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the...mentals_n.html

I hereby await Cali and Barbara's outrage at such outright distortion.

As for the ad, there was no distortion. There was a list of facts followed by a statement from John McCain. Fearmongering, yes. Distortion, no.

The Washington Post called the ad "dishonest and deceptive," and The New York Times said, "At most, kindergartners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators."

But it appears those critics have not read the bill, which Obama backed as an Illinois state senator in 2003. It says curriculum in "any of grades K-12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

The Obama camp maintains the bill was intended to teach kindergartners only about inappropriate touching, but Byron York at the National Review writes, "The 'touching' provision did not have the prominence that team Obama has suggested it had, and certainly wasn't the bill's main purpose."

And I, meanwhile, am curious as to why there was not a bit of outrage at Romney's sex-ed health curriculum (not bill, mind you, actual active curriculum), which states that students grades k-5 shall:

4.1 Identify the components, functions, and processes of the reproductive system Students label the functions and/or systems of the reproductive system on a blank diagram 4.2: Identify the physical changes as related to the reproductive system during puberty Invite the school nurse or a health care professional who specializes in children to discuss the changes that take place in boys and girls at puberty 4.3 Define sexual orientation using the correct terminology (such as heterosexual, and gay and lesbian)

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

As for the ad, there was no distortion. There was a list of facts followed by a statement from John McCain. Fearmongering, yes. Distortion, no.

Really? I disagree. Clearly the Obama campaign is trying to leave the impression that McCain thinks nothing is wrong with the economy. Cross-reference Obama and Biden's campaign stops today.

But ok ... how about the Obama email today linking to this Youtube ad, distorting Carly Fiorina's comments. The full context of her statement is here.

While I don't think either version is that helpful to McCain, clearly the Obama link distorts her comments by omitting the context.

Outraged yet?

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

And I, meanwhile, am curious as to why there was not a bit of outrage at Romney's sex-ed health curriculum (not bill, mind you, actual active curriculum), which states that students grades k-5 shall:

I don't know much about Romney's curriculum, but let's recall that I'm not the one getting my panties in a twist over campaigns that spin.