I need YOUR help! Examples of lies by Republicans

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Oh, and in Africa little kids really do get HIV from grown ups, but I suppose you'd be against anyone trying to teach the tykes not to play those games, eh?

As if the little kids involved would have any choice on the matter.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It seems like it. After all, they changed it from 6 to K in that section detailing "comprehensive sex ed". Perhaps Obama didn't intend it, but it most definitely can be read that way.

Must it though?

(And I was asking for your interpretation of the terms, not your interpretation of the use of the terms.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who cares if it must be read that way or can be read that way. It changes the view of the ad from one that is a "blatant lie" which is the way the media has been reporting it, to perhaps plausible.

My personal interpretation, based on the words of the law, is that kids in kindergarten are taught about more than just inappropriate touching.

[Aeson]

Third time maybe... Your interpretation of the terms...

Do you personally think "comprehensive sex ed" is "age appropriate material" (for K)? It's an important distinction because the specific guideline you are talking about is for classes which teach "comprehensive sex ed", and there doesn't seem to be anything in the bill which requires "comprehensive sex ed" to be taught to K. (Technically, I don't even see where a sex ed class of any age must be "comprehensive", only that if it is, it must include...)

I would also like to remind you that you are not arguing against the media, but rather took issue with Z's specific statement, and he has clarified he was classifying it as "unethical", not a "blatant lie". (I myself have classified the statements in the ad, but you have not responded to those classifications.)

The statement that this bill "teaches" directly is of course technically false as I've already stated.

[Vesayen]

I cannot believe this crap has gone on for 3 pages.

There are 3 explanations for the people who believe that this resulted in inappropriate things being taught to children. Pick one of the following:

1. The person who takes the view is a troll who just wants to stir up controversy.

2. The person who takes the view is is opposed to Obama/the democrats/some political view and they think that this is a way to "stick it to them."

3. They are mentally defective. Do you think any politician or any teacher is going to be teaching what is actually sexual education to a 5 year old?

Anyone who has any experience in actually reading legislation and virtually everyone else can clearly tell the intention of the bill. On a regular basis, bills are written for a common sense understanding. If you are reading it another way, your either a troll, a partisan or a moron.

Stop threadjacking and get back on topic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ugh.. I had an indepth response that was eaten by the board.

Basically, Zkrib was calling just the FEMA thing as "unethical". Ves is obviously not a lawyer or politician if he believes "bills are written for common sense understanding" (may be the intent, but it never works).

And basically the language of the bill had changed the min age from 6 to K in section (a), which was the section that dealt with comprehensive sex ed. They could have simply changed the min age elsewhere, but they did it there for some reason.

And I am willing to accept that the law is just poorly written.

And personally, I don't think comprehensive sed ed is age appropriate for K, which is why I wouldn't have written the law the way they did.

[Zkribbler]

I need YOUR help! Examples of lies by Republicans

(A) Mantra-like repition that: (i) we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11; (b) Saddam Hussein supports terrorists -- to create the impression that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks; believed by 80% of the American people by the time of our invasion of Iraq.

(B) Creation of the term "Islamofascist" to blur the difference between bin Ladin's Islamic fanatics and Hussein's neo-fascist Baathist Party, further "justifying" our invasion of Iraq.

(C) Creating the Department of Homeland Security. If it truely were to provide homeland security, then the CIA and FBI would be parts of it. There are not. The sole purpose of creating the department was to strip its employees of the civil service and union rights.

[DinoDoc]

None of those are actually lies, Z. Also the last one was forced on the Republicans by the Democrats.

[Patroklos]

(A) (i) is not a lie either.

Interesting numbering convention you are using there btw Zkib

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
None of those are actually lies, Z. Also the last one was forced on the Republicans by the Democrats.

A half truth = whole lie

Don't you remember the deadlock with the Dems refusing to vote for Homeland Security because of the lack of worker rights? Bush & Company bashed them endelssly for being "unpatriotic." Finally, the Dems caved. We didn't force nothin' on no one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This one:

we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11

Is not even a half lie. It be the truth.

Creation of the term "Islamofascist" to blur the difference between bin Ladin's Islamic fanatics and Hussein's neo-fascist Baathist Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascist

The origins of the term are uncertain. Earlier comparisons between fascism and Islam exist, such as Edgar Alexander's comparison of Nazism with 'Mohammedanism' in 1937,[4] and Manfred Halpern's 1963 comparison of "neo-Islamic totalitarian movements" with fascist movements.[5]

In a 1979 debate with Michel Foucault in the pages of Le Monde over the character of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the French Marxist historian Maxime Rodinson wrote that the Khomeini regime and organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood represented a type of "archaic fascism" ("un type de fascisme archaïque").[6] Albert Scardino claims that "Islamo-fascism" was coined by Muslim scholar Khalid Duran in a Washington Times piece, where "the word was meant as a criticism of hyper-traditionalist clerics".[7] In 1990 the term was also used by Scottish historian Malise Ruthven who wrote in The Independent that, "authoritarian government, not to say Islamo-fascism, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan."[8]

The related term, Islamic fascism, was adopted by journalists including Stephen Schwartz[9] and Christopher Hitchens,[10] who intended it to refer to Islamist extremists, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, although he more often tends to use the phrases "theocratic fascism" or "fascism with an Islamic face" (a play on Susan Sontag's phrase "fascism with a human face", referring to the declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981). [11] The terms Islamic fascism and Muslim fascism are used by the French philosopher Michel Onfray, an outspoken atheist and antireligionist, who notes in his Atheist Manifesto that Ruhollah Khomeini's Islamic Revolution "gave birth to an authentic Muslim fascism".[12]

So, no, they didn't create it. They may have used it for descriptive purposes, but unless you are going to start calling Foucault, Edgar Alexander, and Manfred Halpern as modern Republicans, you are being quite silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Don't you remember the deadlock with the Dems refusing to vote for Homeland Security because of the lack of worker rights? Bush & Company bashed them endelssly for being "unpatriotic." Finally, the Dems caved. We didn't force nothin' on no one.

You mean the Dems only balked at not including Homeland Security as under the governmental workers union and that absolves them from its creation?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Is not even a half lie. It be the truth.

Taking half of something said, and treating it as if the other half didn't exist, is rather on-topic though... so good work!

[Patroklos]

He used the entire (i), unless you mean repeating, and since when does repeating truth make it a lie?

[Zkribbler]

The whole truth would have been (1) we were attacked by al Qaeda; (ii) Saddam supports the families of Hezbullah suicide bombers of Israeli targets.

But the drawback of telling the whole truth is that it wouldn't have drawn the U.S. pupoluation into war with Iraq.