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.National Review, it seems, was left to do the job that the MSM won't do: check the accuracy of the Obama's claims. How odd that McCain can put out an ad, Obama can call it a lie, and everyone in the MSM accepts on face value that the ad is a lie without actually looking at the bill in question. That's pretty poor journalism.
-------
With all the talk about how the world prefers Obama, I found these two items humorous and timely. You'll have to pardon me for therefore not being very interested in who the rest of the world thinks our President should be.
-------
I've been repeatedly hearing the assertion that McCain's entire ad campaign is based on lies. Lies, lies, lies. "Lies" seems to be the Democratic catchword of the moment. So I keep asking people: what lies? Could you list them? Some people mention the sex ed ad, but that turned out to be quite true. Most list nothing. "They're just lies!" Lies like what? In case one needs them, I'll provide three examples of campaign lies:
- The new Spanish language ad featuring Rush Limbaugh is based entirely on quotes taken out of context.
- A candidate has said that McCain advocates 100 years of war which is false. (See also this.)
- A candidate has also claimed that McCain said that the middle class ran up to an income of $5 million dollars a year, a statement explicitly identified as a joke at the time it was said.
------
I still hear people saying that Palin banned books or tried to ban books. No, she didn't. And in case you're interested, here is the official list of all books banned in Wasilla, Alaska.
------
Funny.
9 comments:
The sex ed ad, from what I've read, still seems misleading. For one, the ad claims it's Obama's "only accomplishment in education", even though (1) he wasn't a cosponsor of the bill, (2) it didn't pass anyway, and (3) he did sponsor other pieces of legislation in IL and in the Senate that did become law. (Wait: a politician focusing on something trivial and making it out to be his opponent's central position? Shocking, I know.) I thought the FactCheck.org piece on this one was pretty fair, and it's been updated to respond to the points in the National Review article as well.
I've also been annoyed by the "100 years of war" and "millionaire middle class" crap from Obama's camp. I hadn't seen the Limbaugh one yet, so thanks for pointing it out.
(I was also unaware that you were Sarah Palin. I clearly have not been keeping up with things.)
I'll agree insofar as the sex ed bill wasn't an accomplishment because it didn't pass. Otherwise I think that FactCheck is missing the point. The part I quoted out is the part that people find objectionable. I also agree that this bill certainly isn't a central issue. I bring it up because the Obama camp has been denouncing it as a vile smear, issuing a response (The bill was about inappropriate touching.) that is, in my opinion, less than honest.
As for being Sarah Palin, I must admit that it has been hard governing Wasilla and Alaska all the way from Arkansas, but I try to keep a can-do attitude about things.
I'm going to have to send you a message on Facebook to see what you've been up to these days.
I'm sure you've already heard this one ad nauseum, but since no one else has mentioned it, here is a quote from the Wall Street Journal:
"the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government 'thanks but no thanks' to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state... But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere."
If there's a good rebuttal to this, I'd be glad to hear it.
Oh, and one more thing.
I think the main thing that gets me is the popular refrain "he wants to raise your taxes".
The conservative Washington Post did an excellent graphic showing the exact difference between their tax plans. It seems pretty clear to me (at least based on this analysis alone) that the middle class wins much more of a tax cut with Obama's plan.
On the bridge:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2FiMjBlNWE0ZTJhNDBjZWExYzA2M2M5MWZkYmFlN2I=
As for the tax cuts, it is only McCain's plan that enacts cuts across the board. Obama's plan is pure income redistribution. Aside from such a plan being immoral (Stealing at the barrel of the government's gun. This is my main objection.), there are other problems. Obama's enormous increases on the top earners will stifle the economy by hurting small businesses who depend on those people as customers, stunting job growth by taking money out of the hands of people who will invest it in businesses, and encouraging both top and bottom earners to be less productive.
As for the bride article, it's clear that the author doesn't actually address Palin's original support of the bridge.
Instead he takes the tack "Obama and Biden supported it too." This just obfuscates the original point, which is that she did support it, vehemently, but then went against it "when it mattered."
As far as the wealth redistribution, this is a point that I think simply cannot be even addressed between people like you and I.
We hold far different fundamental idealogies on this particular issue. People like me think that the uber-rich get their massive riches at the expense of all others, which creates an inherent weakness in our entire society. Don't get me wrong, I am not a socialist at all, but on the issue of taxes, when considering the current state of the distance between the classes, I am more socialist than you.
I think it is immoral that one man can have so many houses that he doesn't know how many, while others can barely eat.
And I don't think we can argue on each others morals. We could try...but to what end?
Honestly, though, these aren't even the main issues for me. My issues are the state of education, reason, and intellectualism in the masses. But that's a whole other topic.
Cheers.
*bridge
lol - bride...
A quick note on the bridge article: Her support is addressed farther down.
I'm also interested in what you call your main issues, and I write about them on occasion, so I hope you stop by again sometime to comment.
Cheers to you too.
About teaching kindergartners about HIV transmission; I don't know if you realize this, but kids are born with HIV. These kids go to school and often face fear and humiliation by their peers because some people, even self professed doctors formerly in Congress, think that HIV can be transmitted by drinking from the same drinking fountain. I would expect that "age appropriate" discussion of something like that would be "IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!" (although without the yelling). This is something I am not surprised a representative for a south Chicago district would vote in favor of, seeing as the rates of such a situation occurring would be higher there. Maybe you and the National Review would rather kids be badly informed and bigoted. Maybe you would prefer, as Paul Begala asked George will, kids not know how to protect themselves from sexual predators. Personally, I think the National Review and George Will would rather sacrifice their honor (I don't know about NR, but I had some respect for Will until last week when he lied about not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was) and lie about anything in order to get their guy to win. I personally believe that you have been mislead and lied to by these same people, whom you trust.
As for the Bridge, Palin advocated for the money, after it was appropriated and appeared to be an albatross she said "No, we'll do it ourselves." Then she took the money and used it for other things, and now Alaska is asking for money to connect the island city to the airport again, maybe even with a bridge...
As for McCain's lies (do I have enough room? I haven't heard an honest ad in months- Battle ground state of MO):
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/706/
Anything he says about taxes. His plans will raise my taxable income by probably $10-$15k by taxing my health care benefits. I don't know what you call "not raising taxes" but that doesn't qualify.
"Obama is the Senate's 'most liberal.'" Common lie trotted out against every Democrat. If we had run Kucinich? Probably. Obama? No.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/639/
Or that of the 45 most recent statements attacking Obama listed on politifact (every one since McCain finished his primaries), 16 have been "false"(10) or "pants on fire"(6), 14 have been "mostly true"(8) or "true"(6), then there are the 15 that are either half or barely true.
As a comparison, for Obama's attacks on McCain, 1 "pants on fire", 1 "false", 13 "true", 6 "mostly true" and 11 in between.
I'm sure you will find similar numbers on other non-partisan fact websites.
Post a Comment