<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FactCheck Sex-Ed Ad Response - Correction Still Needed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 03:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ObamaWonAlready</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-5355</link>
		<dc:creator>ObamaWonAlready</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-5355</guid>
		<description>Oh well......
Half of you people don't even know what Acorn really is, or who Ayers really is. Just keep getting your talking points from Bill Orally, and Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh. It's helping the Obama campaign more than you know.. hahha

Educate yourselves on how the GOP deceived you in the last two elections on the Acorn issue. And how A.G. Gonzales fired attorneys because they wouldn't lie to cover up the GOP's false claims of voter fraud and voter manipulation in '04. And yet, the GOP continues this tactic.

I find it hilarious... You people nitpick over NON-FACTS, NON-ISSUES and not the REAL issues... Because, it's all you have. Because you know McCain is a major failure when it comes to real issues. Or is it you don't want to talk about your Messiah #2 Palin doing (and being charged by a bi-partisan review) in exactly what she is campaigning against? Some change there.. haha. 

Oh....And what is that coming around the corner, you ask? 
Obama at the finish line! 
Your Neo-Con days of ruining this country are OVER! 

But don't worry, we still love you. We will still give you affordable health care, jobs in this country, and benefits if you are ever down on your luck.

They won't be taken away from you, like they have been to 95% of Americans currently.. Just this time around, it will be for all - and not just the few rich neo-cons. Nothing to be scared of my neo-con friends.

Please, all my neo-con friends. Take the fancy bed-linen off of your heads, put away your stuffed toy monkeys with Obama stickers on them and go home. A true patriot will soon be in the White House.. Don't fear him, even your Messiah #1 McCain says he's an upstanding man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_HcBQfPDto</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh well&#8230;&#8230;<br />
Half of you people don&#8217;t even know what Acorn really is, or who Ayers really is. Just keep getting your talking points from Bill Orally, and Rush &#8220;Oxycontin&#8221; Limbaugh. It&#8217;s helping the Obama campaign more than you know.. hahha</p>
<p>Educate yourselves on how the GOP deceived you in the last two elections on the Acorn issue. And how A.G. Gonzales fired attorneys because they wouldn&#8217;t lie to cover up the GOP&#8217;s false claims of voter fraud and voter manipulation in &#8216;04. And yet, the GOP continues this tactic.</p>
<p>I find it hilarious&#8230; You people nitpick over NON-FACTS, NON-ISSUES and not the REAL issues&#8230; Because, it&#8217;s all you have. Because you know McCain is a major failure when it comes to real issues. Or is it you don&#8217;t want to talk about your Messiah #2 Palin doing (and being charged by a bi-partisan review) in exactly what she is campaigning against? Some change there.. haha. </p>
<p>Oh&#8230;.And what is that coming around the corner, you ask?<br />
Obama at the finish line!<br />
Your Neo-Con days of ruining this country are OVER! </p>
<p>But don&#8217;t worry, we still love you. We will still give you affordable health care, jobs in this country, and benefits if you are ever down on your luck.</p>
<p>They won&#8217;t be taken away from you, like they have been to 95% of Americans currently.. Just this time around, it will be for all - and not just the few rich neo-cons. Nothing to be scared of my neo-con friends.</p>
<p>Please, all my neo-con friends. Take the fancy bed-linen off of your heads, put away your stuffed toy monkeys with Obama stickers on them and go home. A true patriot will soon be in the White House.. Don&#8217;t fear him, even your Messiah #1 McCain says he&#8217;s an upstanding man:<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_HcBQfPDto" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_HcBQfPDto</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4872</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:24:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4872</guid>
		<description>Speaking of Factcheck.org...

This regarding McCain most recent &lt;strike&gt;lie&lt;/strike&gt; ad.
&lt;blockquote&gt;A McCain-Palin ad says that Obama was "born of the corrupt Chicago political machine" and implies that the candidate himself is corrupt by association with four local political figures. But the ad's implication and many of its supporting details are false. In fact, this is a particularly egregious example of ricochet sliming:

William Daley, the first figure mentioned in the ad, is indeed related to the other famous Chicago Daleys, but he's never been accused of any wrongdoing. And the former commerce secretary isn't Obama's only economic adviser, as the ad implies.


Emil Jones, Illinois state Senate leader, may indeed have been Obama's "political godfather." But he, too, hasn't been charged with or even seriously accused of misdeeds despite the ad's claim of an "ethical cloud."


Obama did have a past relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko, but he is no longer Obama's "money man." Obama hasn't been associated with him since his indictment for wire fraud, bribery, money laundering and attempted extortion, and Obama donated all of the disgraced businessman's previous campaign contributions to charity. 
Rod Blagojevich has been touched by plenty of scandal but his relationship with Obama doesn't extend much beyond being "his governor." In fact, Obama has worked on ethics legislation triggered by some of the Blagojevich's questionable moves.  
Most important, the ad offers no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama himself in connection with any of these relationships, however close or distant.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

The great thing about Factcheck is that they will tell you if something is wrong regardless of who the candidate is saying it.  They bring up plenty of things that Obama has said as well.

What I find funny is that Obama's falsehoods are things like saying McCain took $2mil from "big oil" and Factcheck says that isn't true, he only took $1.3 mil.
Meanwhile McCain's are flat out lies.  

It would be good to at least have some semblence of truth in your ads.  The more blatant the lie, the more people that are going to distrust you. 

This "straight talk express" ain't too freakin straight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Speaking of Factcheck.org&#8230;</p>
<p>This regarding McCain most recent <strike>lie</strike> ad.</p>
<blockquote><p>A McCain-Palin ad says that Obama was &#8220;born of the corrupt Chicago political machine&#8221; and implies that the candidate himself is corrupt by association with four local political figures. But the ad&#8217;s implication and many of its supporting details are false. In fact, this is a particularly egregious example of ricochet sliming:</p>
<p>William Daley, the first figure mentioned in the ad, is indeed related to the other famous Chicago Daleys, but he&#8217;s never been accused of any wrongdoing. And the former commerce secretary isn&#8217;t Obama&#8217;s only economic adviser, as the ad implies.</p>
<p>Emil Jones, Illinois state Senate leader, may indeed have been Obama&#8217;s &#8220;political godfather.&#8221; But he, too, hasn&#8217;t been charged with or even seriously accused of misdeeds despite the ad&#8217;s claim of an &#8220;ethical cloud.&#8221;</p>
<p>Obama did have a past relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko, but he is no longer Obama&#8217;s &#8220;money man.&#8221; Obama hasn&#8217;t been associated with him since his indictment for wire fraud, bribery, money laundering and attempted extortion, and Obama donated all of the disgraced businessman&#8217;s previous campaign contributions to charity.<br />
Rod Blagojevich has been touched by plenty of scandal but his relationship with Obama doesn&#8217;t extend much beyond being &#8220;his governor.&#8221; In fact, Obama has worked on ethics legislation triggered by some of the Blagojevich&#8217;s questionable moves.<br />
Most important, the ad offers no evidence of wrongdoing by Obama himself in connection with any of these relationships, however close or distant.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The great thing about Factcheck is that they will tell you if something is wrong regardless of who the candidate is saying it.  They bring up plenty of things that Obama has said as well.</p>
<p>What I find funny is that Obama&#8217;s falsehoods are things like saying McCain took $2mil from &#8220;big oil&#8221; and Factcheck says that isn&#8217;t true, he only took $1.3 mil.<br />
Meanwhile McCain&#8217;s are flat out lies.  </p>
<p>It would be good to at least have some semblence of truth in your ads.  The more blatant the lie, the more people that are going to distrust you. </p>
<p>This &#8220;straight talk express&#8221; ain&#8217;t too freakin straight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4806</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:01:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4806</guid>
		<description>By the way...

You people are getting your panties in a twist over something ridiculous.
People are losing their freaking homes.  The financial markets in a mess.  The Fed spending BILLIONS bailing out Wall St sticking us with the bill while the fat cats walk away with millions.  Gas is still $3.70 a gallon and the winter heating crisis is on the way.  Healthcare is still costing a fortune and thousands are uninsured.  
Oh... and by the way... we are still spending $12 BILLION a month in Iraq as Afghanastan slowly becomes more and more of an issue.

But hey... keep worrying about an Illinois bill that didn't even pass the state Senate BACK IN 2003!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way&#8230;</p>
<p>You people are getting your panties in a twist over something ridiculous.<br />
People are losing their freaking homes.  The financial markets in a mess.  The Fed spending BILLIONS bailing out Wall St sticking us with the bill while the fat cats walk away with millions.  Gas is still $3.70 a gallon and the winter heating crisis is on the way.  Healthcare is still costing a fortune and thousands are uninsured.<br />
Oh&#8230; and by the way&#8230; we are still spending $12 BILLION a month in Iraq as Afghanastan slowly becomes more and more of an issue.</p>
<p>But hey&#8230; keep worrying about an Illinois bill that didn&#8217;t even pass the state Senate BACK IN 2003!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4805</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:51:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4805</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;so its not optional….its a requirement&lt;/i&gt;

Where do you see it is a requirement?
You even quoted this part of the bill...

&lt;b&gt;No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s 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&lt;/b&gt;

Damn people... read the &lt;a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&#38;SessionId=3&#38;GA=93&#38;DocTypeId=SB&#38;DocNum=0099&#38;GAID=3&#38;LegID=734&#38;" rel="nofollow"&gt;&lt;b&gt;bill&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.

And those of you all up in arms over teaching sex in kindergarten, the bill clearly says...
&lt;blockquote&gt;(2)  All  course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual  activity  or behavior &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;shall be age and developmentally appropriate&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt;.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Plus it says that it will &lt;b&gt;"STRESS"&lt;/b&gt; abstinence as the only sure prevention.  Isn't that what you people want?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>so its not optional….its a requirement</i></p>
<p>Where do you see it is a requirement?<br />
You even quoted this part of the bill&#8230;</p>
<p><b>No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil’s 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</b></p>
<p>Damn people&#8230; read the <a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&amp;SessionId=3&amp;GA=93&amp;DocTypeId=SB&amp;DocNum=0099&amp;GAID=3&amp;LegID=734&amp;" rel="nofollow"><b>bill</b></a>.</p>
<p>And those of you all up in arms over teaching sex in kindergarten, the bill clearly says&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>(2)  All  course material and instruction in classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual  activity  or behavior <b><i>shall be age and developmentally appropriate</i></b>.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Plus it says that it will <b>&#8220;STRESS&#8221;</b> abstinence as the only sure prevention.  Isn&#8217;t that what you people want?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: js</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4804</link>
		<dc:creator>js</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4804</guid>
		<description>(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate  in any  class  or  course  in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's 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.  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 activity   or   behavior      emphasize  that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended  teenage  pregnancy,  sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV  acquired  immune  deficiency  syndrome  (AIDS)  when transmitted sexually.





so its not optional....its a requirement...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate  in any  class  or  course  in comprehensive sex education if the pupil&#8217;s 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.  Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.<br />
      (b)  All  public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education  and  discuss  sexual activity   or   behavior      emphasize  that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended  teenage  pregnancy,  sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV  acquired  immune  deficiency  syndrome  (AIDS)  when transmitted sexually.</p>
<p>so its not optional&#8230;.its a requirement&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: js</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4802</link>
		<dc:creator>js</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:03:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4802</guid>
		<description>if you read the bill...you would know that it "requires" the teaching about aids prevention and a long list of "shall be included"'s in its language...if "any" sex-ed is introduced in to all classes grades K up...so...effectively...the idea that obama was citing a need to educate young children about touchy feely issues so common already....is a farse...because the explicit language of the bill requires the educators to go far deeper than that...

so it is a lie...and its context is its own proof...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if you read the bill&#8230;you would know that it &#8220;requires&#8221; the teaching about aids prevention and a long list of &#8220;shall be included&#8221;&#8217;s in its language&#8230;if &#8220;any&#8221; sex-ed is introduced in to all classes grades K up&#8230;so&#8230;effectively&#8230;the idea that obama was citing a need to educate young children about touchy feely issues so common already&#8230;.is a farse&#8230;because the explicit language of the bill requires the educators to go far deeper than that&#8230;</p>
<p>so it is a lie&#8230;and its context is its own proof&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4736</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:54:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4736</guid>
		<description>Fair enough KM.  I guess you could say they are fact checking what is "implied".  To me, what the ad implied is as much as saying it as fact.

We can agree to disagree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fair enough KM.  I guess you could say they are fact checking what is &#8220;implied&#8221;.  To me, what the ad implied is as much as saying it as fact.</p>
<p>We can agree to disagree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KMorrison</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4735</link>
		<dc:creator>KMorrison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4735</guid>
		<description>If they want to call themselves interpretation check then that's fine, but if they want to say they are an objective fact checker then stick to facts.

Again, I understand if people don't like the ad, but outrage grand misinterpretations from organizations that claim objectivity is ridiculous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If they want to call themselves interpretation check then that&#8217;s fine, but if they want to say they are an objective fact checker then stick to facts.</p>
<p>Again, I understand if people don&#8217;t like the ad, but outrage grand misinterpretations from organizations that claim objectivity is ridiculous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4685</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:52:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4685</guid>
		<description>able to post on that CNN thread now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>able to post on that CNN thread now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4680</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mccain.blogsforvictory.com/2008/09/19/factcheck-sex-ed-ad-response-correction-still-needed/#comment-4680</guid>
		<description>KM,
First off… I can’t believe this topic has come up again.
Factcheck acknowledges that people have sent in items to rebuke their piece, but they shoot them down too.

1.	&lt;i&gt;”The statement, “Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’.” is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’”&lt;/i&gt;
The McCain ad says:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read?&lt;/blockquote&gt;
That (to most people) would make it sound like Obama wants to teach kindergarteners all about sex.  It doesn’t say what it was &lt;i&gt;really&lt;/i&gt; meant to do.  That is to teach kids how to recognize inappropriate behavior.
 
2.	&lt;i&gt;“The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.”&lt;/i&gt;
The McCain ad says:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Again, to MOST people, saying this was his “accomplishment” would mean he didn’t just support the bill, he authored or sponsored it.

3. &lt;i&gt;“Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.”&lt;/i&gt;
I don’t think Factcheck said the ad is “false” because of the quotes.  Factcheck is pointing out that the quotes used, while yes… they were talking about Obama’s education record, those same people turned around and spoke of John McCain’s record in less than flattering ways.
So you can complain about this one, but this really isn’t the point of the factcheck article and is rather nitpicky.

3.	&lt;i&gt;“If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence”&lt;/i&gt;
Yes… debunking that it was his only accomplishment is pretty weak as that is rather debatable.  My problem with your comment is that they haven’t provided any other real evidence of anything.

There aren’t a whole lot of facts in McCain’s ad to prove one way or the other.  The ad makes factless points like “Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners.”.  That is a statement that implies one thing to the rational person and that insinuation is what was debunked.
The ad says Obama is  “elusive” on accountability.  First off, that came from an editotial.  Second, Factcheck is pointing out that that same newspaper had another editorial that shot down McCain’s record on Education.

So the whole thing is debunking innuendo.  Seriously though, does anyone really, honestly believe that Obama believes Sex as you, me and every adult knows it, should be taught to kindergarteners?  No.  Nobody in their right mind could seriously believe that.

Time for Eric to chime in on teaching kids how to be gay!

By the way KM… I couldn’t post to that CNN article today or yesterday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>KM,<br />
First off… I can’t believe this topic has come up again.<br />
Factcheck acknowledges that people have sent in items to rebuke their piece, but they shoot them down too.</p>
<p>1.	<i>”The statement, “Obama has also said he does not support, ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’.” is an interpretation by Factcheck of the McCain ad, the ad itself does not claim that Senator Obama does support ‘explicit sex education to children in kindergarten’”</i><br />
The McCain ad says:</p>
<blockquote><p>Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners. Learning about sex before learning to read?</p></blockquote>
<p>That (to most people) would make it sound like Obama wants to teach kindergarteners all about sex.  It doesn’t say what it was <i>really</i> meant to do.  That is to teach kids how to recognize inappropriate behavior.</p>
<p>2.	<i>“The reason Senator Obama supported this bill is irrelevant. The ad never states the reason for Senator Obama’s support, and this makes Factcheck’s article misleading.”</i><br />
The McCain ad says:</p>
<blockquote><p>Obama’s one accomplishment? Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners.</p></blockquote>
<p>Again, to MOST people, saying this was his “accomplishment” would mean he didn’t just support the bill, he authored or sponsored it.</p>
<p>3. <i>“Cherry picked quotes do not make an ad false. Certainly fair to point out context, but the quotes were not false, and they do not make the ad false.”</i><br />
I don’t think Factcheck said the ad is “false” because of the quotes.  Factcheck is pointing out that the quotes used, while yes… they were talking about Obama’s education record, those same people turned around and spoke of John McCain’s record in less than flattering ways.<br />
So you can complain about this one, but this really isn’t the point of the factcheck article and is rather nitpicky.</p>
<p>3.	<i>“If Factcheck wants to claim the article is false because it was not Senator Obama’s only educational accomplishment than that is a legitimate complaint. However, in that case the article needs extensive editing as that is the only argument where they have provided any real evidence”</i><br />
Yes… debunking that it was his only accomplishment is pretty weak as that is rather debatable.  My problem with your comment is that they haven’t provided any other real evidence of anything.</p>
<p>There aren’t a whole lot of facts in McCain’s ad to prove one way or the other.  The ad makes factless points like “Legislation to teach “comprehensive sex education” to kindergarteners.”.  That is a statement that implies one thing to the rational person and that insinuation is what was debunked.<br />
The ad says Obama is  “elusive” on accountability.  First off, that came from an editotial.  Second, Factcheck is pointing out that that same newspaper had another editorial that shot down McCain’s record on Education.</p>
<p>So the whole thing is debunking innuendo.  Seriously though, does anyone really, honestly believe that Obama believes Sex as you, me and every adult knows it, should be taught to kindergarteners?  No.  Nobody in their right mind could seriously believe that.</p>
<p>Time for Eric to chime in on teaching kids how to be gay!</p>
<p>By the way KM… I couldn’t post to that CNN article today or yesterday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
