McCain/Palin's Straight Talk?: Media calls out McCain/Palin on Bald-faced Lies

College Confidential Community
1

<p>How many times can you basically tell the media that it's irrelevant when it points out your bald-faced campaign lies before it backfires on you?</p>

<p>I think the McCain campaign's about to find out.</p>

<p>McCain:</a> Mr. Straight Talk? - First Read - msnbc.com</p>

<p>For me, the ultimate whopper was the one suggesting Obama actually wants sex education for kindergarteners.</p>

<p>Now there's an ad coming out pointing that McCain's position with this ad suggests he support child molestation in the sense that he doesn't want kids to protect themselves from it -- and that he'll say ANYTHING to get elected.</p>

<p>You would think McCain would actually have more class an honor since he's been the victim of such scurrilous campaign tactics himself. Clearly his take-away was that the lies work....</p>

<p>He got roasted on the View today too for his lies. </p>

<p>YouTube</a> - John McCain on The View Sept. 12, 2008</p>

<p>Key point at 3:35 into video.</p>

2

<p>I'm glad nobody seems to be afraid of using the "L" word when it comes to McCain's dishonourable campaign.</p>

3

<p>I still see a lot of "he misspoke" kinds of comments in the media, but I think the chickens are coming home to roost....</p>

<p>And Obama's toughening up as well.</p>

<p>I think that McCain's lies will have resulted, perhaps, in short-term poll gains. But in the long-term, his credibility might be shot completely....</p>

4

<p>I think Obama's "Pig on a Lipstick" comment was a carefully-laid trap for the McCain campaign to overuse the sexism card. There are still 60 days until the election. That's eternity in politics. Do you remember what the state of the race was 2 months ago? I don't. Obama is rope-a-doping the lumbering McCain dinosaur into lashing out at every mosquito that comes by in order to exhaust the faux-outrage generator come late October when the race may be decided once and for all. Once the disingenuous bluster from the McCain campaign is gone, then Palin might actually be vetted and they might actually have to stop lying and talk about issues, and then they will lose.</p>

5

<p>^^^</p>

<p>I think that the "Lipstick on a Pig" issue was completely a case of Obama just using a common colloquialism. I'd like to think he was that clever. It got way overplayed in the media -- and by the McCain campaign.</p>

<p>And the thing about it is the John McCain that I used to once respect and really like would never have pinned his reputation and campaign on chiding Obama for such a thing. Wow, he has really gone way downhill fast.</p>

6

<p>The</a> Campaign Spot on National Review Online</p>

<p>“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.”</p>

<p>Condoms for kindergartners?</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>The Campaign Spot on National Review Online</p>

<p>“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.”</p>

<p>Condoms for kindergartners?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The planned education would have been more along the lines of discussing appropriate and inappropriate touching so as to curb child molestation. Not teaching children about sex.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
“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.”</p>

<p>Condoms for kindergartners

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Liars who lie and the lying liars who love them -- and lie down with them, in a bed of lies. ;)</p>

<p>FactCheck.org:</a> Off Base on Sex Ed</p>

<p>It starts:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Off Base on Sex Ed
September 10, 2008
A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.
Summary
A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004. </p>

<p>Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. And the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.</p>

<p>In addition, the ad quotes unflattering assessments of the Illinois senator's record on education but leaves out sometimes equally harsh criticism directed at McCain in the same forums.

[/quote]
</p>

9

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

<p>??? What kind of world are we living in when kids need to be told about STDs???</p>

<p>What did Fact Check dispute exactly?</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004: Well, I had noticed that, in your voting, you had voted, at one point, that sex education should begin in kindergarten, and you justified it by saying that it would be "age-appropriate" sex education. [It] made me wonder just exactly what you think is "age-appropriate." </p>

<p>Obama: We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Done, PugFug. It doesn't matter. McCain's lied on a lot more than this issue, so if you want to try to show that his lies aren't that, you're going to be on these boards all night.</p>

<p>I think you should face that McCain has not been honorable and has particularly been polluting the political process.</p>

11

<p>Obama supported legislation that mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases.</p>

<p>!!! Where is that disputed? What Obama wanted in the legislation and the actual legislation that he supported is two different things.</p>

12

<p>Illinois</a> General Assembly - Full Text of SB0099</p>

<p>Part 2, lines 12 and 13: "2) All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate."</p>

<p>Edit: While the text is ambiguous on what this means, I think any reasonable Kindergarten teacher would teach more in line with what Sen. Obama suggested, rather than what pugfug appears to believe they would be teaching.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Obama supported legislation that mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases.</p>

<p>!!! Where is that disputed? What Obama wanted in the legislation and the actual legislation that he supported is two different things.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Wow, let's take this to pathetic depths, shall we? Here is the language from the bill itself. Are you against stressing abstinence first, stressing that pre-adolescent sex is not desirable, etc. PugFug? Give this charade up. Stop believing a bunch of hyped up deceit from the National Review. I'd say this list is a laundry list of things conservatives -- in fact, Mitt Romney himself did support most or all of this kind of thing -- would want. Read through it, and stop LYING, LYING, LYING.</p>

<p>Think for yourself:</p>

<p><a href="105%20ILCS%205/27‑9.1">quote</a> (from Ch. 122, par. 27‑9.1)
Sec. 27‑9.1. Sex Education.
(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if his parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil. Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.
(b) All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) when transmitted sexually.
(c) All sex education courses that discuss sexual intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Course material and instruction shall be age<br>
appropriate. </p>

<pre><code> (2) Course material and instruction shall teach

honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage. 

(3) Course material and instruction shall stress

that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage. 

(4) Course material and instruction shall include a

discussion of the possible emotional and psychological consequences of preadolescent and adolescent sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the consequences of unwanted adolescent pregnancy. 

(5) Course material and instruction shall stress

that sexually transmitted diseases are serious possible hazards of sexual intercourse. Pupils shall be provided with statistics based on the latest medical information citing the failure and success rates of condoms in preventing AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. 

(6) Course material and instruction shall advise

pupils of the laws pertaining to their financial responsibility to children born in and out of wedlock. 

(7) Course material and instruction shall advise

pupils of the circumstances under which it is unlawful for males to have sexual relations with females under the age of 18 to whom they are not married pursuant to Article 12 of the Criminal Code of 1961, as now or hereafter amended. 

(8) Course material and instruction shall teach

pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances. Pupils shall be taught that it is wrong to take advantage of or to exploit another person. The material and instruction shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. 

(9) (Blank).

(d) An opportunity shall be afforded to parents or guardians to examine the instructional materials to be used in such class or course.
</code></pre>

<p>(Source: P.A. 93‑88, eff. 7‑2‑03; 94‑933, eff. 6‑26‑06.)

[/quote]
</p>

14

<p>All I can say is if McCain were in high school and he took the SAT's he would probably get about a 400-he doesn't listen, can't read, and can't abstract meaning from what is said or read.</p>

<p>I also don't think he would be invited to join the National Honor Society-he is one big bully and liar. </p>

<p>And on a serious note, little kids should be taught not to touch their classmates in inappropriate ways-it's part of respect and good manners; they also should know what is good and bad touch-it would be nice if parents taught this at home, but as a shrink I can tell you that parents don't do this and unfortunately, sometimes the parents are the ones doing the "bad" touching. I'm for protecting as best we can another generation of children from being wounded and sometimes damaged by sexual abuse.</p>

15

<p>I am baffled why people who claim to be good Christians can rally behind McCain.</p>

<p>I used to respect this man, but since nominating Palin his campaign has:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Filled Palin's stock speech with endless lies that have been disproven.</p></li>
<li><p>Spread viscious and complete lies about Obama.</p></li>
<li><p>Protected themselves from criticism by abusing the female gender and making Palin out to be a victim of abusive men and by hiding her naivete from the press.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Any good Christian or decent human being should be OUTRAGED at the thought of supporting this criminal behavior. And yet, somehow they are still doing Christ's work. </p>

<p>I would love to ask McCain face-to-face, "If you'll so blatantly lie to us now, how can we trust you as our employee?" </p>

<p>I am so outraged at this campaign preying on the ignorance of uneducated Americans who don't think for themselves. Only in America do people think they can all be president. They have no clue what it actually takes, so when they see someone like Palin, they think, "Well, if I could do it, she certainly could too. She hunts!"</p>

<p>Once again, the "godless heathen" Democrats take the high and ethical road, assuming most Americans share their intelligence and ability to differentiate blatantly lies, and they get shafted. Republicans seem to know just how easily Americans can be manipulated and they shamelessly do it.</p>

<p>Who are these people increasing the polls?</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
I am baffled why people who claim to be good Christians can rally behind McCain.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Many conservative Christians have long forgotten their actual theology. George Carlin called them "professional Christians". What a line!</p>

<p>"Christianity" in America mainly seems to involve the following tenets:</p>

<p>1) Abortion
2) Gay marriage
3) Abortion
4) Gay marriage
5) Over-idealization of white rural America
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
974) Something insignificant about being nice to people and helping them</p>

17

<p>^^^You really have no idea what you are talking about. Go into any church on any given Saturday and abortion and gay marriage do not come up. In fact they only usually come up in election years, because then it is relevant for how our society should be shaped.
Are you even America, are you even Christian?</p>

18

<p>I'm not an avid church attender, but as dbate said, church is about compassion, not politics.</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
I'm not an avid church attender, but as dbate said, church is about compassion, not politics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not anti-Christian at all, but the hateful bile spewed by Palin and the out-and-out lies she told don't serve as good witness to Christ for a whole lot of people. It doesn't come across as compassionate, in the least, but hateful and degraded.</p>

<p>You can think or say the church is mostly about compassion, but the realities of politics are bad advertising....</p>

20

<p>Then perhaps those who claim to be the "true" Christians should reflect compassion in their political aspirations. I have yet to see it and will hold them responsible for hypocrisy until I do. Thanks to the blantant hypocrisies of Bush, the younger evangelcial generation has begun to realize the merits of environmental protection and poverty eradication, but they are decades off from being in control of this church.</p>

<p>Are we prioritizing Commandments now? Have "Thou shalt not lie", "Thou shalt not steal", and "Thou shalt not kill" dropped in the annual rankings? Do we get to ignore those this year so that we can prioritize our own priorities?</p>

<p>Democrats, as deeply flawed as they are, resist war unless it's necessary (like invading Afghanistan), fight to protect the environment, and fight to build a society that serves the poor (reflecting over 2,000 Bible versus compared to zero about abortion, many supporting slavery, and one that could potentially be interpreted as against homosexuality if one were so inclined to seek that interpretation). And yet liberals are called "godless heathens". It's disgusting.</p>

<p>I know you're just died-in-the-wool conservative pugfug, but the solutions are neither cons or lib. These culture wars - reignited by Palin - are destroying us. We've had enough after Bush blew them up. There's easy ways to come together, but the Republicans know their power thrives in an "us versus them" dynamic. It's very primitive.</p>