We’re hostile to Facts AND we disdain the NY Times?!?

…wow, that pretty much covers the whole spectrum – from fact to lie, doesn’t it?

And what do you know? It does.

And, SHOULDN’T we ban “comprehensive” sex ed for kindergarteners. Well, Obama’s own spokesperson didn’t seem terribly keen on the idea:

“The intent of the language and inclusion of kindergarten was simply to make it possible to offer age-appropriate, not comprehensive, information for kindergartners so that those young children could be given basic information so that they would be aware of inappropriate behavior by adults”

Except of course, the statute specifically authorizes what he claims the law is opposed to.

And as noted here (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=), while most of the bill’s sponsors were not returning calls on the subject, one admitted that it was not inappropriate touching at all, but rather just what it says “comprehensive sex ed.”

And let me say, i am a very pro-birth control, pro-sex ed kind of guy. But even people like me go, “Kindergarten? Really?”

There is a reason why when they finally did pass a law essentially identical to it, that they changed it to 6th grade. Because sex ed for kindergardeners is just plain messed up. And that is why the left is trying to hard to deny it: because they know it is too messed up to defend.

> 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 AIDS.[/quote]

Take notice: the law states that “each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include…”

This doesn’t MANDATE sex education for kindergarten; which is what McCain’s statement is proposing. It simply specifies what lessons a sex ed program in the range of grades K-12 should consist of, IF in place at the school in question. So yes, clearly, it is not supporting comprehensive sex ed in K-12.

Nah, of course not.

Then you go on to claim that Swift Boat veterans were liars.

Based on what proof? In fact, I recall that in their first salvo they exposed an outright lie told by Kerry. Kerry claimed that on Christmas of 1968, he was in Cambodia and heard “President Nixon” on the radio saying there were no troops in Cambodia. Only there’s a small problem with that story; Nixon wasn’t president at the time.

There were a few other cases of he-said, he said disputes, that don’t really allow us to pretend to know what the truth was. And then when it came to Kerry’s shameful testimony before congress, well that is undisputed truth. So all told, it seems like the Swifties came out ahead, and despite how things are seen in Democratic think tanks, they were not discredited.

The same is clearly happening with McCain’s ads. For instance, for the claim that Obama voted to teach kindergarteners “comprehensive sex ed” it is quickly becoming an article of faith that this is a lie. But is it, now. Look at what the proposed law said:

> 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 AIDS.

Gosh, clearly it was not supporting comprehensive sex ed. My bad.

The cognitive dissonance on this blog whenever it touches on politics is pretty amazing. Its not exactly tedious but annoying to watch how the left fails to ever turn the mirror on themselves.

Thanks for the interesting, reason-based posts.

Jack

Ditto

Hmmmm. Sounds like what John McCain has been doing ever since picking Sarah Palin.