RobVarak wrote:
The commercial made a number of mistakes, but technically he does. He supported a bill to update the curriculum for sex ed. to lower the age of instruction to K in an "age appropriate" fashion using "medically accurate" instruction. The commercial should not have said "comprehensive" sex ed., and really was gilding the lily by doing so. I think there's enough hay to be made from the actual content of the legislation, as I think much of the public may reasonably believe that the only age appropriate sex ed. instruction for kindergartners is none.
That commercial was extremely misleading. The sex education bill was for K thru 12th grade (They didn't mention that, did they?) and obviously we wouldn't be teaching the same subject matter to K as to 12th. What was planned for K kids was teaching kids how to be safe from sexual predators. The commercial made Obama sound like some kind of pervert.
Even Karl Rove has been commenting lately how McCain's campaign has gone too far. That's pretty bad.
This whole Palin/hacking thing brings up an interesting question....
Let's say for argument's sake, some seriously troubling info is uncovered in Palin's emails....can it be legally be used against her or would it just hurt the general public's perception of her? Since this info was obtained illegally does that nullify the whole thing? I mean if it was in fact her emails, what..if any...consequences could result?
Jared wrote:The law says that all course material should be age appropriate, so my guess is that that point trumps the later 15 point list (or that a later revision, considering that this law died in the Senate) would have taken care of it. Regardless, McCain is pushing something that is highly dishonest, as Obama has been clearly for age-appropriate sex ed, and not teaching kids sex before they can read.
The commercial, as I said earlier, is poor and misleading.
The Facthcheck "correction" is in itself misleading, however.
The reality is that when construing statutes, specific always trumps over general ("generalia specialibus non derogant"). He may "clearly be for age-appropriate sex ed.," but that's debateable given his support of this particular statute.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
JackB1 wrote:This whole Palin/hacking thing brings up an interesting question....
Let's say for argument's sake, some seriously troubling info is uncovered in Palin's emails....can it be legally be used against her or would it just hurt the general public's perception of her? Since this info was obtained illegally does that nullify the whole thing? I mean if it was in fact her emails, what..if any...consequences could result?
I'm not a lawer you would have to ask Ogre Law (Ya I saw the pictures...competely destroyed my image of Rob.)
I would imagine no. On top of that, the people the broke into the email should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Let's say the emails had information that Palin pulled a mini Dick Nixon. That would still be abhorrent in my book. You can't break the law in order to up hold it.
As for the investigation, it went political the moment Palin was announced as the VP. What started out as oversight (this is the role of most state legislatures and the Congress) turned into a hot potato.
Then again there's so such thing as an independent investigation (see Clinton Whitewater).
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
Jared wrote:The law says that all course material should be age appropriate, so my guess is that that point trumps the later 15 point list (or that a later revision, considering that this law died in the Senate) would have taken care of it. Regardless, McCain is pushing something that is highly dishonest, as Obama has been clearly for age-appropriate sex ed, and not teaching kids sex before they can read.
The commercial, as I said earlier, is poor and misleading.
The Facthcheck "correction" is in itself misleading, however.
The reality is that when construing statutes, specific always trumps over general ("generalia specialibus non derogant"). He may "clearly be for age-appropriate sex ed.," but that's debateable given his support of this particular statute.
Just construct a hypothetical using the same situation applying to a member of a different political party and it will be easier for people to understand.
I really don't see what the argument is. The law as written explicitly requires certain topics to be covered in all K-12 sex ed classes, including stuff that goes well beyond "inappropriate touching." Would a kindergarten class that taught children about how to avoid "inappropriate touching" and nothing else satisfy the requirements of the bill? Nope, it wouldn't be compliant.
The only legitimate beef here is that Obama wasn't, as he claimed in 2004, a co-sponsor of the bill. That's what you get when you go on what he says in a speech instead of looking it up for yourself, I guess.
JackB1 wrote:This whole Palin/hacking thing brings up an interesting question....
Let's say for argument's sake, some seriously troubling info is uncovered in Palin's emails....can it be legally be used against her or would it just hurt the general public's perception of her? Since this info was obtained illegally does that nullify the whole thing? I mean if it was in fact her emails, what..if any...consequences could result?
I'm not a lawer you would have to ask Ogre Law (Ya I saw the pictures...competely destroyed my image of Rob.) .
I may resemble that remark, but hey no personal attacks!!!
Some discussion of the legalities of the Palin e-mail issue available here. Some of the comments are informative as well.
I only saw laws relating to the people that did the hacking....not about anything Palin herself may be prosecuted about.
That's because the hacking IS the only issue, Jack...the rest is speculative and reaching at this point. This is smelling like a witch hunt more and more.
I only saw laws relating to the people that did the hacking....not about anything Palin herself may be prosecuted about.
That's because the hacking IS the only issue, Jack...the rest is speculative and reaching at this point. This is smelling like a witch hunt more and more.
I understand that. I was just proposing a "what if"? Also, I would think Yahoo has a backup of everything that was deleted by Palin.
Well it looks like the election has taken another turn.
The Palin bounce is over. See fivethrityeight.com. There's quite a bit of empherical data that shows the polls turning the other way.
What's more alarming is that McCain is doing enough Kerry's to make Kerry blush. Regardless what you think of Obama, there are things you just can't say on the campaign trial. And you absolutely can't flip-flop in the span of minutes [Kerry] or hours [McCain]. Monday was a terrible day for McCain becuase of the bank/lending problems and because McCain's message is all over the place.
Anyone that knows anything about campaigns knows that when your message is incoherrent of absent it shows and hurts the candidate.
Lastly, McCain is getting the reputation this cycle of lying. The media, regardless if you find it liberal, drives public perception in this country. Bush/Cheney used this tool to their advantage and smacked around Gore and Kerry. Even Bush was remarkably on message for his two campaigns and needled Kerry throughout 04. They seized upon any one of Kerry's gaffes some intentional, some just really poor campaign decision (sailing photo anyone). When McCain/Palin make any mistake they jump on it and make them play defense.
Again, regardless if you think Trooper-gate is fair, it takes away time from McCain/Palin to talk about their issues and positions. Instead they have to waste precious media time defending records and selections.
Obama is running a very tough campaign. And he's going on the attack every day. Attacking doesn't mean negativity, it just simply means right now McCain is defending his positions while Obama is not. It was the reverse dynamic in 04. Kerry was put in a position of defense not Bush. This is the position campaigns strive to stay in.
After the convention, McCain's pick of Palin but Obama on defense. We didn't hear from Biden. And Obama couldn't gain traction on his message.
Five weeks to go...
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
There are enough lawyers on this board to establish a DSP Law firm. First case could be hiring all the OS kiddies who want to sue EA for making Madden sucky.
