Pigs In Lipstick?

[JustDoIt 10]

QUOTE(copernicus @ Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 8:15 PM) *sex ed ad that is not an "attack". Obama supported the bill. the curriculum from that bill is far from age appropriate, and sex ed for 5 years olds is asinine.Do you have a copy of the ACTUAL curriculum or are you just believing what the right wing websites say is in there. Because my understanding is that it teaches 5 year olds how to protect themselves against sexual predators. And I say it's needed along with more watchful parenting here because I talked to a little girl that just came up to our house with no caution about me being a stranger or anything. She'd have come right in the house if I'd let her.internet rumors who funds moveon, dailykos and huffington post, the biggest purveyors of those rumors?Where do you have any substantive proof that the Obama campaign has supported these organizations in any way?lipstick regardless of intent it was stupid, and his supporters onsite clearly thought it was directed at PalinSo because the people there were ignorant, you promote McCain being ignorant also? And now we're stuck listening to this discussion on a NON ISSUE? Here is the Billhttp://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.a...s=&Session=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr8GW7bCyMQ

[Nimue1995 1]

I've not seen the Republicans take the high road in a long time. The dirty fighting works. Only reason that Bill Clinton won twice was that he was willing to get down and dirty with them. And the Republicans couldn't take it as well as they could dish it out. And the reason that Al Gore and John Kerry lost was that they weren't willing dish the dirt back. It's a sad state our country's in but from what I've seen of some of the newspaper ads from back before the days of TV, it's not much different from when it was back then. Only difference is that more people get to see it.

[copernicus 0]

QUOTE(copernicus @ Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 8:15 PM) *Do you have a copy of the ACTUAL curriculum or are you just believing what the right wing websites say is in there. Because my understanding is that it teaches 5 year olds how to protect themselves against sexual predators. And I say it's needed along with more watchful parenting here because I talked to a little girl that just came up to our house with no caution about me being a stranger or anything. She'd have come right in the house if I'd let her.

then her parents should be reported. I havent seen the curriculum but a school board member friend back East has, and she confirmed the content.

[RonBurgundy 0]

wrong. look at the curriculum. They talk about masturbation, gay sex, biological names for the genitals...before they can read. thats asinine.

link to where it says kindergarteners will be learning this?its a k-12 program and if youre taking the later years curriculum out of context youre being silly againalso, the bill has a clause that says parents can choose not to have their kids take the class.regardless, i still dont think its a bad thing to start sex education early. its a new generation, kids are having sex younger and younger, and the kneejerk parental reaction that kids dont need sex ed until middle or high school is outdated, naive, and dangerous.

[brvheart 1,753]

The GOP is pure scum dude, absolute scum when it comes to the way they play the political game.

I NEVER said the Dem's didn't play dirty and I sincerely HOPE they get even more dirty!

This is absolutely classic.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

This is absolutely classic.

I see nothing wrong with my statement whatsoever. In this country there are too many people that are affected by negative attacks and since the GOP has been so good at it, I mean they got you people to vote in George W.... twice, the only way to defend yourself against it is to get in there and FIGHT BACK. Unfortunately, issues and pointing out your energy and economic plans don't resonate quite as well with many Americans as saying, "Obama wants kindergarten kids to have sex," or "Obama is a sexist, calling Palin a pig." Those types of ads have worked for the GOP. The fact that they are lies is often irrelevant. The DEM's have always sucked at defending themselves from the attacks, but not this year. This year they need to fight back and go right after the GOP.

[brvheart 1,753]

I see nothing wrong with my statement whatsoever. In this country there are too many people that are affected by negative attacks and since the GOP has been so good at it, I mean they got you people to vote in George W.... twice, the only way to defend yourself against it is to get in there and FIGHT BACK. Unfortunately, issues and pointing out your energy and economic plans don't resonate quite as well with many Americans as saying, "Obama wants kindergarten kids to have sex," or "Obama is a sexist, calling Palin a pig." Those types of ads have worked for the GOP. The fact that they are lies is often irrelevant. The DEM's have always sucked at defending themselves from the attacks, but not this year. This year they need to fight back and go right after the GOP.

You're saying that it's bad... so 'we' should do it. That makes no sense unless hypocrisy is mentioned.

[johns76222 0]

Oh COOOOOOOOOOOOOOME ON?? Don't be a completely blind fool! Seriously, you must be completely brainwashed to believe that the GOP is taking the high road in any way, shape, or form. That's just too much, even for you dude. Even the lipstick on a pig thing, you think the GOP is taking the high road here? They are disgusting. Both Dick Cheney and John McCain have BOTH used this phrase in the past and Obama was referencing McCain's economic plan. That is clear as day, yet the GOP is trying to make it a big deal and play the gender card. The GOP is pure scum dude, absolute scum when it comes to the way they play the political game. Karl Rove is a greasy dirt bag...

The problem is that when the crowd re-acted to the comment as they all though he was talking about Pali. Obama did nothing to dispel it and even chuckeled -- Obama should have stopped it and said ... "Folks, I am not talkong about Sarah Palin here I am talking about McCain's Economic Plan" Instead he allowed the crowd to go with it and opened himself up to attack from McCain.American Politics 101 Daniel

[brvheart 1,753]

The problem is that when the crowd re-acted to the comment as they all though he was talking about Pali. Obama did nothing to dispel it and even chuckeled -- Obama should have stopped it and said ... "Folks, I am not talkong about Sarah Palin here I am talking about McCain's Economic Plan" Instead he allowed the crowd to go with it and opened himself up to attack from McCain.American Politics 101 Daniel

FYP

[gobears 0]

link to where it says kindergarteners will be learning this?its a k-12 program and if youre taking the later years curriculum out of context youre being silly againalso, the bill has a clause that says parents can choose not to have their kids take the class.regardless, i still dont think its a bad thing to start sex education early. its a new generation, kids are having sex younger and younger, and the kneejerk parental reaction that kids dont need sex ed until middle or high school is outdated, naive, and dangerous.

Basically the ad is BS: Summary from link belowA 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.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.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.FactCheck.org: Off Base on Sex Ed

[copernicus 0]

Basically the ad is BS: Summary from link belowA 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.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.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.FactCheck.org: Off Base on Sex Ed

I can only speak to the curriculum outline that was used to promote the bill with educators. It included all of the things I mentioned in kindergarten. If Obama wants to claim that he was ignorant of the specifics of the curriculum, then I applaud his recognizing his ignorance. Note that in his comments he is very clear that the sexual predator/inappropriate touching is just an example of what would be taught at K.

[copernicus 0]

You're saying that it's bad... so 'we' should do it. That makes no sense unless hypocrisy is mentioned.

mind boggling, isnt it?

[vbnautilus 48]

I can only speak to the curriculum outline that was used to promote the bill with educators. It included all of the things I mentioned in kindergarten. If Obama wants to claim that he was ignorant of the specifics of the curriculum, then I applaud his recognizing his ignorance. Note that in his comments he is very clear that the sexual predator/inappropriate touching is just an example of what would be taught at K.

Well here's the full text of the bill:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.a...s=&Session=It does include(2) All course material and instruction in classes 8 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or 9 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.But it wasn't even passed so this is all a non-issue, and you can see here that Obama was not a co-sponsor:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus...nID=3&GA=93McCain is really digging deep, lol.

[brvheart 1,753]

Well here's the full text of the bill:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.a...s=&Session=It does include(2) All course material and instruction in classes 8 that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or 9 behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.But it wasn't even passed so this is all a non-issue, and you can see here that Obama was not a co-sponsor:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus...nID=3&GA=93McCain is really digging deep, lol.

What's happening at the liberal electoral vote site? The dem number shouldn't be dropping should it?

[vbnautilus 48]

What's happening at the liberal electoral vote site? The dem number shouldn't be dropping should it?

Check my sig. It has gone down a bit, but it goes by state polls so it only gets updated as those come in.

[brvheart 1,753]

Check my sig. It has gone down a bit, but it goes by state polls so it only gets updated as those come in.

Apparently "a bit" = 20%

[vbnautilus 48]

Apparently "a bit" = 20%

How so? Obama was at 301 all of last week, now he's at 281. That's under 7%.You know that's not Palin on the button in your sig, right?

[copernicus 0]

How so? Obama was at 301 all of last week, now he's at 281. That's under 7%.You know that's not Palin on the button in your sig, right?

I dont remember last weeks ties and GOP but I assume hes taliking about the spread dropping 20%

[SlapStick 0]

I dont think he thought about it at all, its just a cliche that came rolling out. It may have had subconcious impetus due to SPs joke, of course. Like his Muslim faith and the 57 states.

This was good

[brvheart 1,753]

How so? Obama was at 301 all of last week, now he's at 281. That's under 7%.

this:

I dont remember last weeks ties and GOP but I assume hes taliking about the spread dropping 20%

I didn't run the numbers, I just winged the spread.

You know that's not Palin on the button in your sig, right?

1) I don't care, it's a funny line.2) I don't care, because I hate big pictures in sigs and I'm changing it quickly anyway.

[jmkiser 0]

People need to understand the sad reality of American politics. All sides do what needs to be done to win.If both sides looked from a third party (non-emotional) perspective, the best strategy that McCain/Palin can use is to dress down Obama as hard as they possibly can. Running on his own policies or historical voting record doesn't count and won't work. It's too easy to line him up with the last 8 years and for a pro-active strategy, it's very weak. A pro-active strategy that will produce results is the "beat the shit out of Obama" one. Everyone has to remember, one of McCain's biggest weaknesses in February was that his base was very rocky about him. That includes a LOT of independents, too. His record is one that has upset a large number of people on the right. So how do you circumvent that? You make Obama look like Satan's right-hand man in the eyes of your base and the people who might vote for you. Palin, a purely political choice, is the cherry on top to get the entire GOP pushing on his side. Now, all he has left to do is keep up the barrage until election day.Obama has political leeway to make himself look good and use this "Change" campaign to his advantage. His best offensive weapon is to show everyone exactly how McCain is lined up with Bush. While he does that, another successful tactic is for him to go on and on with telling the American people exactly what he's going to do when he's in office. Why? Because his biggest weakness when he started this whole thing is that he is very very very unknown. He HAD to go on stage and give exact details on everything he wants to do in the White House or else he was leaving himself open for "Who the **** are you" attacks. Obama has been successful at getting rid of that possible attack.

[jmkiser 0]

McCain has a bit of an upper hand when it comes to the offensive battles. McCain does NOT need to be in the limelight for anything more then photo ops because the most successful thing he can be doing right now is to launch a barrage of attacks against Barack Obama. This leaves very little room for Obama's camp to find day by day McCain gaffes. If he's not in the news, you can't attack him. On the other hand, Obama HAS to be on stage all the time to convince everyone to join his movement. That leaves him open for ANYTHING.etc etc etc... We can dissect these politics all day, but what no one addresses is:NONE OF THIS DOES ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE STATE OF OUR GOVERNMENT/COUNTRY. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO BE IN THE POLITICAL BUSINESS OF ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING FOR AMERICA INSTEAD OF WINNING ELECTIONS?!?!?!?!?!?

[ThaKid 0]

far left fools like Negreanu, and loads of the other dem crazies make far more rational and intelligent people vote republican, to make sure these loons don't get control.....doing well daniel.

[CaneBrain 95]

You're saying that it's bad... so 'we' should do it. That makes no sense unless hypocrisy is mentioned.

no he is saying that they either have to do it or lose. so they should hold their noses and do it. just because hypocrisy and reality both end with the letter y does not mean they have the same definition.

[Mercury69 3]

far left fools like Negreanu, and loads of the other dem crazies make far more rational and intelligent people vote republican, to make sure these loons don't get control.....doing well daniel.

You're a fckn retard.