Obama's Speech in Schools Biased Ideology?

[BriarFox]

Obama will be delivering a "stay-in-school and get a good education" speech at noon on Tuesday at a high school in Virginia. The text of the speech will be released Monday. Despite not even having seen the speech yet, some school districts (in Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, etc) have decided not to air the speech because of angry parent feedback who think Obama will be brainwashing their kids.

What do you think?

[Hulkein]

I voted for the socialist option just because you made it ridiculous.

If the speech is released and isn't a partisan type speech then I guess it could be slightly helpful for the children. Apparently George H. W. wanted or did do it when he was president and got backlash from Democrats for the same reason.

[Fallen]

I think that it is retarded that there is even much of a debate about it. As long as Obama stays completely non-partisan, and doesn't speak on issues like universal healthcare or any other legislation, I think he should damn well speak to the children of America when he pleases. Brainwashing your kids? Are your kids so dumb as to be taken in by a 10-30 minute speech of any kind? What, do they not watch television? Do you want to make sure the only one "brainwashing" your kids is a priest/pastor every Sunday?

The man wants to encourage kids to stay in school. He will also be attempting to fill your children's heads with such evil ideas as the importance of education, and the consequences of dropping out. There wont be any partisan crap in the speech. Obama isn't that stupid. If you wanted to try to "brainwash" my kid* into staying in school, hell, I would probably thank you for it. I'm no huge Obama fan, and I still feel strongly that if the President of the United States of America wants to address the children of the nation, he should be given that opportunity.

* I don't have children, and I am not batshit insane, so I may be bias on this issue.

P.S. - Am I the only one that thinks they should bring back the pledge of allegiance into public schools?

[BriarFox]

I voted for the socialist option just because you made it ridiculous.


It is pretty ridiculous. Sadly, that's exactly the response to the speech by a number of people on a public poll the Columbus Dispatch was running.

[Parkbandit]

Obama will be delivering a "stay-in-school and get a good education" speech at noon on Tuesday at a high school in Virginia. The text of the speech will be released Monday. Despite not even having seen the speech yet, some school districts (in Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, etc) have decided not to air the speech because of angry parent feedback who think Obama will be brainwashing their kids.

What do you think?

I think it's dumb. He's the President of the United States.

As long as shit like this isn't being shown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0

I'll wait to read the transcript of the speech first before I have a talk with my kids.

[BriarFox]

I think it's dumb. He's the President of the United States.

As long as shit like this isn't being shown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0

I'll wait to read the transcript of the speech first before I have a talk with my kids.

"I pledge allegiance to the funk, of the United Funk of Funkadelica." :rofl:

[Fallen]

When was it stopped? I'm sure it's up to each state, but I'm pretty sure most states still have kids, at least in grade school, recite it. Not that forced nationalism actually means anything--when it's said by force (or at least, by force of pressure/conformity), the words have no meaning.

The practice stopped somewhere mid-grade in Michigan. No one ever put a ruler to my head and said "say this or we fail you." You were simply required to rise and place your hand over your chest. Whether you said it or not was up to you. I remember being none too thrilled with the "under god" part, so I simply didn't say it, and recited the rest. Problem solved.

[BriarFox]

The practice stopped somewhere mid-grade in Michigan. No one ever put a ruler to my head and said "say this or we fail you." You were simply required to rise and place your hand over your chest. Whether you said it or not was up to you. I remember being none too thrilled with the "under god" part, so I simply didn't say it, and recited the rest. Problem solved.

Ironically, that phrase was only added in the Fifties. The original version, written by a Baptist minister no less, made no reference to God.

[Parkbandit]

"I pledge allegiance to the funk, of the United Funk of Funkadelica." :rofl:

I was mostly talking about the stars pledging their loyalty and service to Barack Obama. Not only does it sound eerie as hell, but it's a 180 degree turn from a core foundation of what this country was founded upon.

[BriarFox]

I was mostly talking about the stars pledging their loyalty and service to Barack Obama. Not only does it sound eerie as hell, but it's a 180 degree turn from a core foundation of what this country was founded upon.

No, no. I got your point. I just thought that line was funny.

I'm not sure the stars were pledging their service to Obama, though - it was more a statement of agreement with the idea of public service that Obama was putting forward. Each of the stars pledged to take part in something they believed in.

[Parkbandit]

No, no. I got your point. I just thought that line was funny.

I'm not sure the stars were pledging their service to Obama, though - it was more a statement of agreement with the idea of public service that Obama was putting forward. Each of the stars pledged to take part in something they believed in.

Actually 3-4 of them pledged "to serve Barack Obama". This is from memory.. so it might be more or less.

[BriarFox]

Actually 3-4 of them pledged "to serve Barack Obama". This is from memory.. so it might be more or less.

Hrm. Maybe. I only watched the first 2 minutes or so. Tad monarchical, but I'm sure there have been supporters of other presidents in similar fashions.

[Parkbandit]

Hrm. Maybe. I only watched the first 2 minutes or so. Tad monarchical, but I'm sure there have been supporters of other presidents in similar fashions.

Oh, I'm sure we could definately find some. Maybe not to that level of hero worship.. but I'm sure there are some.

[TheEschaton]

I believe Ashton and Demi were the only ones who said it (seriously). What's-his-name from Red Hot Chili Peppers said it too, but he said it like this, "I pledge to serve Barack (kisses left bicep) Obama (kisses right bicep)". I think he was joking.

In terms of the issues brought up, the only possibly objectionable one from an ideological standpoint was to advance stem cell research, the rest were all plain vanilla. Yet the vitriol of the comments is hilarious.

[Methais]

Are they still doing the "assignment" where kids have to write a letter to themselves titled "What can I do to help Barack Obama"? Or did the WH come to their senses (lul) and axe that part?

[BriarFox]

Are they still doing the "assignment" where kids have to write a letter to themselves titled "What can I do to help Barack Obama"? Or did the WH come to their senses (lul) and axe that part?

They changed it to "What can I do to help me achieve my educational goals?"

[4a6c1]

"Let the kids analyze and discuss the speech"

Do we let our kids analyze and discuss eating too much sugar? Or smoking cigarettes? How bout watching rated R movies? Or dancing with strange undead men who wear a single white glove?

Good parents protect their kids from things that are bad for them and some things are not open for discussion until you are old enough to make rational decisions for yourself. Listening to speeches given by limp noodles is on the list of punishable offenses.

[Methais]

They changed it to "What can I do to help me achieve my educational goals?"

With the "correct" answer being "Do everything Obama says without question like a good American."?

I wonder if any students will get an "F" for writing a paper that doesn't jive with Obama's jive.

[BriarFox]

"Let the kids analyze and discuss the speech"

Do we let our kids analyze and discuss eating too much sugar? Or smoking cigarettes? How bout watching rated R movies? Or dancing with strange undead men who wear a single white glove?

Good parents protect their kids from things that are bad for them and some things are not open for discussion until you are old enough to make rational decisions for yourself. Listening to speeches given by limp noodles is on the list of punishable offenses.

You really want to compare an education speech by the president to a carcinogen? You've got to stop listening to O'Reilly. Also, I think I give kids a lot more credit than you do. I tutor middle school and high school kids in my spare time, and they're plenty smart enough to make a decision about what to believe.

On a fun side note, the "Age of Reason" (where you were competent to make decisions) in the Middle Ages was usually considered to be seven.

[Fallen]

"Let the kids analyze and discuss the speech"

Do we let our kids analyze and discuss eating too much sugar? Or smoking cigarettes? How bout watching rated R movies? Or dancing with strange undead men who wear a single white glove?

Good parents protect their kids from things that are bad for them and some things are not open for discussion until you are old enough to make rational decisions for yourself. Listening to speeches given by limp noodles is on the list of punishable offenses.

Do you really believe children need protection from the President of the United States of America, and his views on the importance of education? I can't see how you are equating discussing an Obama speech to that of an R rated movie, or cigarettes.

[Methais]

I think I give kids a lot more credit than you do. I tutor middle school and high school kids in my spare time, and they're plenty smart enough to make a decision about what to believe.

Isn't he speaking to elementary school kids though, who are usually much easier to influence than middle-high school kids?

Obama should buy a cookie from the special ed room and tell them their cookies taste like special olympics concessions. And then spit it all over their face and tell them they'll never have a jump shot like him.

[BriarFox]

Isn't he speaking to elementary school kids though, who are usually much easier to influence than middle-high school kids?

Obama should buy a cookie from the special ed room and tell them their cookies taste like special olympics concessions. And then spit it all over their face and tell them they'll never have a jump shot like him.

All ages, I think. He's delivering the speech in a high school.

[Daniel]

"Let the kids analyze and discuss the speech"

Do we let our kids analyze and discuss eating too much sugar? Or smoking cigarettes? How bout watching rated R movies? Or dancing with strange undead men who wear a single white glove?

Good parents protect their kids from things that are bad for them and some things are not open for discussion until you are old enough to make rational decisions for yourself. Listening to speeches given by limp noodles is on the list of punishable offenses.

Seriously?

This is a joke right?

[4a6c1]

Absolutely not.

The ingestion of Obama should be regulated and monitored.

Studies have shown that too much Obama can cause cancer.

[Hulkein]

I tutor middle school and high school kids in my spare time, and they're plenty smart enough to make a decision about what to believe.

Yeah, kids are known for their independent thought in the face of peer/adult pressure. :help:

[BriarFox]

Yeah, kids are known for their independent thought in the face of peer/adult pressure. :help:

Wait, what? Your avatar's heaving bosom is distracting me.

Really, though, you guys are seriously over-reacting if you think Obama's going to try to tell your kids to grow up and become mindless hippies or something. We'll see what the speech says when it comes out on Monday.

[Parkbandit]

Wait, what? Your avatar's heaving bosom is distracting me.


Seriously... I think I love her.

I saw that same picture again on the World of Beer site:

http://westchase.wobusa.com/Events/WOBtoberfest2009.aspx

[Hulkein]

Wait, what? Your avatar's heaving bosom is distracting me.

Really, though, you guys are seriously over-reacting if you think Obama's going to try to tell your kids to grow up and become mindless hippies or something. We'll see what the speech says when it comes out on Monday.

I don't think Obama is trying to brain wash anyone. He has good intentions in this case, IMO. I can still disagree with your statement :shrug:

And yes, the girl in my avatar is awesome. I saw that picture walking out of a bathroom at a bar in some advertisement about a month ago when I was wasted. It was weird to see it outside of the PC context.

[Mabus]

I have no issue with a president speaking to school children, as long as partisan political agendas are left at the door. The Department of Education's first "lesson plan" was rightfully withdrawn.

There is nothing wrong (in my view) with a pep-talk, "Stay in school. Get good grades. Set goals. Anyone can succeed." etc. Anything beyond that can border on interfering with local and parental control of a child's education.

This may be a non-issue to anyone without children. They will follow their previous political whims. People with children will feel stronger about what their children are exposed to, and then most will still send them off to the union-ran public schools with the partisan teachers.

[Deathravin]

I highly doubt he's going to start saying that they need to support his healthcare plan or that republicans are evil.

I don't remember this much fuss happening when GHWB spoke to schools.


But I forgot; having democratic thoughts is like being gay or not believing in God... it's highly contagious and if even a single socialist word enters your ear, you'll have to go to bible camp for years to get it out.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I have no issue with a president speaking to school children, as long as partisan political agendas are left at the door. The Department of Education's first "lesson plan" was rightfully withdrawn.

There is nothing wrong (in my view) with a pep-talk, "Stay in school. Get good grades. Set goals. Anyone can succeed." etc. Anything beyond that can border on interfering with local and parental control of a child's education.

This may be a non-issue to anyone without children. They will follow their previous political whims. People with children will feel stronger about what their children are exposed to, and then most will still send them off to the union-ran public schools with the partisan teachers.

I agree with the gist of this.. though I can say I don't understand trying to 'shield' your children rather than using it as a learning opportunity. I.E. Talk to them about the speech afterward and use it as an example of how you can agree with some things that someone says but not subscribe to every belief they have and so forth.

[Xanator]

But I forgot; having democratic thoughts is like being gay or not believing in God... it's highly contagious and if even a single socialist word enters your ear, you'll have to go to bible camp for years to get it out.

It's funny that people so often think fighting an overblown exaggeration with a similarly overblown exaggeration can somehow lend credence to their argument. Yikes.

[Mabus]

I agree with the gist of this.. though I can say I don't understand trying to 'shield' your children rather than using it as a learning opportunity. I.E. Talk to them about the speech afterward and use it as an example of how you can agree with some things that someone says but not subscribe to every belief they have and so forth.
A lot of this would depend on the age (and ability to understand) of the child.

For the very young it may be impossible to have a meaningful discussion on variant political beliefs and how they impact our society (if anything political was even discussed).

Most (the mass majority) of the parents will not be with their children during the speech, and the time between them hearing it, peer reinforcement, classroom instruction and other external influences could render later discussions mute, as the "lesson" will already be absorbed.

I have no doubt that in some classrooms the teachers would support anything that was said, and this presents its own issues. If a child disagrees with something in the speech, for instance (and for whatever reason), would they get a bad grade, be thought less of by their teacher, publicly ridiculed in front of their peers? How would a parent even know?

I may not agree with many of the policies of the current president (surprise there, eh?) but I do find him a transformative figure that could be quite an inspiration to many of our youth. I have no issues with him giving an inspirational speech to schoolchildren, and I find the current situation merely a distraction from much larger issues and frankly kind of silly.

If he does "cross the line", which I doubt he will, then we can deal with it. If he does what I would hope any decent leader would do and attempts to inspire our children I will applaud his efforts.

[Back]

You will all be assimilated.

[Gan]

I dont mind my son seeing the speech as long as I can preview what is going to be said, beforehand. This goes with any politician, or any non-educational material that is to be 'introduced' into the classroom. If my son's school does not give me that option, then my child will either go to school late (after the speech is broadcasted) or will go on a field day with his father (me).

The other thing to note is that Obama is choosing probably one of the worst times in the school year to give an innocuous speech on staying in school to students. We're in week 3 of starting the year's curriculum and grades 3, 5, etc. are trying to prepare for the TAKS test that is immenent.

Here's an option, make a video (instead of a live broadcast), put it up on the website, and allow parents to approve and make it available when each class can afford the time to view it and discuss it as it relates to the child's classroom discussion.

Why does it have to be live?

Why does it have to be now?

Why has the subject matter changed from the initial announcement to several 'corrected' versions of suject/topics (heard that on NPR today)?

Simple non conspiratory questions that really have not seen any sufficient answers.

PS. The poll sucks.

[Deathravin]

I'm confused... Everywhere I've read said the address IS on the web, NOT live.

[Gan]

I'm confused... Everywhere I've read said the address IS on the web, NOT live.

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-school-speech-controversy/655701

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html

[Back]

It amazes me that some people are afraid of our president addressing our youth. We live in America, right?

[Gan]

It amazes me that some people are ok with politicians addressing our youth without screening what is said beforehand, especially in a classroom setting where attendance is not an option for the youth being addressed.

[Keller]

I voted the first option to mock the idiots who would actually choose it.

Seriously? People?

One of the MOST educated presidents in recent memory is addressing some school children and your only response, "OMG HE IS A SOCIALIST!!!!1oneoeneo!"

I hate to echo Backrash, but we live in America, right?

[Euler]

I saw a copy of the speech. He is going to tell kids to report their parents to the new Health Dept's death panels if they are sick so that we can save tax dollars with his socialized health care programs. Also he is a muslim and does't have a birth certificate and shouldn't have been allowed to run for president. Also his friends are terrorists. Also he will talk to Iran instead of just bombing them. He hates white people. Do we really want this kind of uppity so-and-so in our schools?

[Keller]

I saw a copy of the speech. He is going to tell kids to report their parents to the new Health Dept's death panels if they are sick so that we can save tax dollars with his socialized health care programs. Also he is a muslim and does't have a birth certificate and shouldn't have been allowed to run for president. Also his friends are terrorists. Also he will talk to Iran instead of just bombing them. He hates white people. Do we really want this kind of uppity so-and-so in our schools?

Glen? Is that you?

[Back]

It amazes me that some people are ok with politicians addressing our youth without screening what is said beforehand, especially in a classroom setting where attendance is not an option for the youth being addressed.

You’re quite jaded and far too paranoid, my old friend.

[Deathravin]

It amazes me that some people are ok with politicians addressing our youth without screening what is said beforehand, especially in a classroom setting where attendance is not an option for the youth being addressed.

Did you have a problem with it when Regan and GHWB did it?

Regan chatted to our kids about the needs for tax cuts, and furthered his own political agenda a bit in his speech (actually I think he did it twice? Or was the Daddy bush?). It wasn't overblown, and I don't recall anybody freaking out back then.

[Latrinsorm]

I dont mind my son seeing the speech as long as I can preview what is going to be said, beforehand.I understand the desire to monitor what goes on in your child's life, but you must recognize how that ship has long since sailed, right? If the worst thing your child picks up is something the President says, it's fair to say you'll be in pretty good shape.
The other thing to note is that Obama is choosing probably one of the worst times in the school year to give an innocuous speech on staying in school to students. We're in week 3 of starting the year's curriculum and grades 3, 5, etc. are trying to prepare for the TAKS test that is immenent.To be fair, he is giving the speech in Virginia and only requested that other states/schools carry the broadcast.
Here's an option, make a video (instead of a live broadcast), put it up on the website, and allow parents to approve and make it available when each class can afford the time to view it and discuss it as it relates to the child's classroom discussion.Not all parents have access to the internet, and it would be incredibly elitist for the President to make that presumption.

[Xanator]

I voted the first option to mock the idiots who would actually choose it.

Seriously? People?

One of the MOST educated presidents in recent memory is addressing some school children and your only response, "OMG HE IS A SOCIALIST!!!!1oneoeneo!"

I hate to echo Backrash, but we live in America, right?

Please tell us all how much more educated Barack Obama is than George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Gerald Ford. You can also include relevant political experience, if you believe on-the-job training is at all important.

To me, Barack Obama is not as much a frightening figure as the people he's surrounded himself with. But he does have tax evaders, admitted communists, radical extremists, and maybe a domestic terrorist in his ear. I hate to echo every neo-con pundit, but do you want to just sweep that under the rug? Is that just a happy coincidence, and can it not possibly have even the slightest effect on his policy? I think you're ignorant to NOT exercise a little bit of discretion at this point.

It's because we live in America that we have the right to raise these sorts of questions, and we ought to be celebrating that fact, rather than chastising our opposition for it. It's the sort of thing that civil rights attorney Barack Obama would have championed a decade or so ago.

[Back]

Ya’lls better start monitoring the teevee and radio and every other thing your child might/could/will hear.

There is far worse than the president of the United States out there.

[Xanator]

Ya’lls better start monitoring the teevee and radio and every other thing your child might/could/will hear.

There is far worse than the president of the United States out there.

This is true, but I think that parents who take a proactive/responsible approach to child-rearing do take at least a moderate interest in what their children are exposed to, at least in the earlier formative years. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. You're entitled to raise your children however you see fit, and they will one day be entitled to choose whether they want to subscribe to your set of beliefs or not. Should I be exposing my 20-month old son to as much of the "far worse than the president" content out there as I possibly can now because he's eventually going to encounter it anyway?

The facetious way you employed a southern accent up top just makes me feel like you pay cash for stereotypes and makes it really difficult for me to take you seriously. I think it's really sad that people out there have anything even bordering on a legitimate reason to want the president's message to their children pre-screened, but they DO. Because of shit like this, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb8ntODQha4&feature=PlayList&p=FED024C06C93239C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=34) they DO. But you go ahead and cling to the notion of America being this infallible power that is somehow completely different from a Weimar Republic Germany, or the Romanovs' Russia, or the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, etc. We han't been hurr ferever, and we ain't here t'stay, ya'll.

I was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama. My grandparents were George Wallace supporters. Both of my parents were southern Baptists, and I grew up going to church at least once a week. I'm not religious, and if I had to assign myself a political agenda, I would probably consider myself a very moderate liberal. Were your parents fucking tools, or am I correct in my assumption that we aren't all carbon copies of our forebears?

[Back]

This is true, but I think that parents who take a proactive/responsible approach to child-rearing do take at least a moderate interest in what their children are exposed to, at least in the earlier formative years. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. You're entitled to raise your children however you see fit, and they will one day be entitled to choose whether they want to subscribe to your set of beliefs or not. Should I be exposing my 20-month old son to as much of the "far worse than the president" content out there as I possibly can now because he's eventually going to encounter it anyway?

The facetious way you employed a southern accent up top just makes me feel like you pay cash for stereotypes and makes it really difficult for me to take you seriously. I think it's really sad that people out there have anything even bordering on a legitimate reason to want the president's message to their children pre-screened, but they DO. Because of shit like this, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb8ntODQha4&feature=PlayList&p=FED024C06C93239C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=34) they DO. But you go ahead and cling to the notion of America being this infallible power that is somehow completely different from a Weimar Republic Germany, or the Romanovs' Russia, or the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, etc. We han't been hurr ferever, and we ain't here t'stay, ya'll.

I was born and raised in Mobile, Alabama. My grandparents were George Wallace supporters. Both of my parents were southern Baptists, and I grew up going to church at least once a week. I'm not religious, and if I had to assign myself a political agenda, I would probably consider myself a very moderate liberal. Were your parents fucking tools, or am I correct in my assumption that we aren't all carbon copies of our forebears?

This deserves an answer.

Episcopalian here. Family from Texas. We are both American though and come from similar backgrounds. SURPRISE!

It just baffles me why we can’t get on the same page as our forefathers did. This is America.

[Parkbandit]

There is far worse than the president of the United States out there.

Like the people he surrounds himself with.

I agree.

[Gan]

You’re quite jaded and far too paranoid, my old friend.
When it comes to politics, yes I am quite jaded.

Did you have a problem with it when Regan and GHWB did it?

Yes I did/do. Retrospectively with Reagan and Bush since my son was not in school yet with Bush. I have a problem anytime a politician wants to deliver a message to my child, especially live without my ability to screen said message. Adults have the ability to choose to see the speech or not. Children in a school setting, without my internvention, do not have that choice (especially in such an authoritative setting) - therefore I intervene as is my right as a parent. Not to mention I damn sure did not want a politician who believes in intelligent design speaking directly to my children in a school setting. FFS.


Regan chatted to our kids about the needs for tax cuts, and furthered his own political agenda a bit in his speech (actually I think he did it twice? Or was the Daddy bush?). It wasn't overblown, and I don't recall anybody freaking out back then.
I like to think that I'm improving the effort of parenting, one small step at a time. ;)


I understand the desire to monitor what goes on in your child's life, but you must recognize how that ship has long since sailed, right? If the worst thing your child picks up is something the President says, it's fair to say you'll be in pretty good shape.
I'm thinking you really dont understand my parental desire to screen what my child is exposed to, especially based on the context of your next sentence. In fact, I really dont expect you to fully understand this matter until you have children of your own.


To be fair, he is giving the speech in Virginia and only requested that other states/schools carry the broadcast. I bolded the part you should pay attention to.


Not all parents have access to the internet, and it would be incredibly elitist for the President to make that presumption. All schools have internet access as well as public libraries. A concerned parent will make the effort. What's elitist is expecting all schools to interrupt their curriculum for an attaboy speech about staying in school while not expecting parents not be interested or concerned about the interruption, about the content, or that the message's delivery directly to children instead of through their parents. My son's school is making a printout of the text of the speech available to all parents to help them in deciding if they want their child to view the speech in a taped broadcast. My son's school has elected not to show the speech live.


Ya’lls better start monitoring the teevee and radio and every other thing your child might/could/will hear.

There is far worse than the president of the United States out there.
:(


This deserves an answer.

Episcopalian here. Family from Texas. We are both American though and come from similar backgrounds. SURPRISE!

It just baffles me why we can’t get on the same page as our forefathers did. This is America.
And as Americans we have the freedom to choose what our children are exposed to as long as they are our children. Are you implying that its unAmerican to choose otherwise when it comes to political broadcasts and children?

[Latrinsorm]

In fact, I really dont expect you to fully understand this matter until you have children of your own.I don't need to have kids to do basic math. Observe, if you will:
All schools have internet access as well as public libraries.A national survey indicates only 99% of libraries provide internet access, of which only 17% have sufficient resources to allow anyone walking in the door internet access, which doesn't even take into account when the libraries are closed (and I can assure you, they do close).

As for schools, 73% of the aforementioned libraries report they are the only provider of public access terminals in their respective areas.
What's elitist is expecting all schools to interrupt their curriculum for an attaboy speech about staying in school while not expecting parents not be interested or concerned about the interruption, about the content, or that the message's delivery directly to children instead of through their parents.There's no curriculum in the world that can't sustain a half-hour interruption. You have snow in Texas, right? I can only imagine how your educational system can survive missing a whole day if this interruption is so grievous.
And as Americans we have the freedom to choose what our children are exposed to as long as they are our children.Wherever did you get that idea?

[Gan]

Let me know when you have that math baby, then we'll talk about parental concerns.

Edit:
Yea, thats a cheap shot.

The idea behind this is simple. As a parent I decide what my child is exposed to, that is my right. I expect to be able to exercise that right when it comes to any message, especially political, being delivered directly to my child in an authoritative (school) setting without my preview or concent. This is done at home and a school setting should be no different.

[Xanator]

This deserves an answer.

Episcopalian here. Family from Texas. We are both American though and come from similar backgrounds. SURPRISE!

It just baffles me why we can’t get on the same page as our forefathers did. This is America.

I can tell that we come from at least broad blanket-statement similar backgrounds, as we're both from the southern half of the United States and have been exposed to one of the many denominations of the Christian faith. Which page should we be on, exactly? There have been precious few moments in American history where the people of our nation have come together as one, and the charisma/star-power of President Obama hardly seems cause for us to abandon reason. You could raise questions about how American or un-American a number of the members of the Obama administration are. And you have a right to, and it doesn't make you a bad American or an anti-patriot.

[Daniel]

It amazes me that some people are ok with politicians addressing our youth without screening what is said beforehand, especially in a classroom setting where attendance is not an option for the youth being addressed.

It amazes me that you really expect people to believe that this is your issue, and not due to your own political leanings.

If you don't have enough faith in America that you can't\won' t believe that the President won't try and brainwash your children, then maybe you should just leave it, hmm?

[Methais]

It amazes me that you really expect people to believe that this is your issue, and not due to your own political leanings.

If you don't have enough faith in America that you can't\won' t believe that the President won't try and brainwash your children, then maybe you should just leave it, hmm?

People (nobody in particular) who have a problem with capitalism should also leave the country.

Same for people who like the Jonas Brothers.

[Xanator]

It amazes me that you really expect people to believe that this is your issue, and not due to your own political leanings.

If you don't have enough faith in America that you can't\won' t believe that the President won't try and brainwash your children, then maybe you should just leave it, hmm?

Who exactly is America, and what does he/she have to do with brainwashing your children? I think the only people whose integrity/intentions are in question--with not only this issue, but in the much grander scheme of things--are the president and the cadre of associates he's assembled. It doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or dislike our democratic system or think our economy benefits a few at the expense of many. It means I don't trust a guy that I didn't vote for on the grounds of my lack of trust. Not just to make a speech to a bunch of school children, but to run this country in the way that will best benefit the greatest number of its citizens.

[Daniel]

Who exactly is America, and what does he/she have to do with brainwashing your children? I think the only people whose integrity/intentions are in question--with not only this issue, but in the much grander scheme of things--are the president and the cadre of associates he's assembled. It doesn't mean I think you're a bad person or dislike our democratic system or think our economy benefits a few at the expense of many. It means I don't trust a guy that I didn't vote for on the grounds of my lack of trust. Not just to make a speech to a bunch of school children, but to run this country in the way that will best benefit the greatest number of its citizens.

Well, I'm going to conjecture to say that the President is the chief representative of what America is, as he was duly elected through the mechanism of governance that we chose for ourselves.

It doesn't matter if you yourself voted for him, as this is not about you. It's about America.

[Methais]

Well, I'm going to conjecture to say that the President is the chief representative of what America is...

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/l/lol_cat-12926.jpg

[Gan]

It amazes me that you really expect people to believe that this is your issue, and not due to your own political leanings.

If you don't have enough faith in America that you can't\won' t believe that the President won't try and brainwash your children, then maybe you should just leave it, hmm?

A predictable response at best from you. So you're saying I really hate Obama and thats why I dont support this 'message'?

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how fucked up it is.

:lol:

[Daniel]

A predictable response at best from you. So you're saying I really hate Obama and thats why I dont support this 'message'?

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how fucked up it is.

:lol:

Yea. Basically.

[Gan]

Yea. Basically.

Since you really dont know me, I'll let you remain standing in your own stupidity.

[Daniel]

Since you really dont know me, I'll let you remain standing in your own stupidity.

Brilliant rebuttal.

[Gan]

Brilliant Opinion!

[Xanator]

Well, I'm going to conjecture to say that the President is the chief representative of what America is, as he was duly elected through the mechanism of governance that we chose for ourselves.

It doesn't matter if you yourself voted for him, as this is not about you. It's about America.

So America is chiefly Ivy league-educated, African American, 40-something, cigarette-smoking...?

If it doesn't matter if I voted for him or not, then why do I bother going to the polls? I think the point YOU'RE missing here is my entire issue with the man as the leader of our country. No, it's not about me, and it's not about you or any of the other hundreds of millions of our fellow Americans, nor is it about the nation itself or any of its interests, because it's about President Barack Obama. The Letterman appearances, the ESPN spots, the book deals, all about Barack Obama.

And you're foolish if you think Barack Obama was elected because he accurately represents the greatest cross-section of our society. Barack Obama was elected because he won the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2008 election, and no Republican candidate stood a chance in hell after the eight-year bad taste left in the collective mouth of Americans. And good for America. The time was ripe for a change, as I think everyone can agree, and change presented itself. Just keep in mind that throughout history, similar opportunities have been capitalized upon by the Vladimir Lenins and Adolf Hitlers and Saddam Husseins of the world. I do not personally think Barack Obama has any totalitarian leanings, but the way some people in this nation have exhibited such maniacal dedication to him (going as far as to press their childrens chorus into his service, see above link) is fascinating and terrifying.

I did not at any point try to express that my opinion should be held by everyone. I merely stated my own opinion, and I only mentioned my vote because I had reservations about this particular candidate that I have thusfar seen nothing to assuage. But in all of this, I'm just supposed to accept that you're right, that my vote and opinion really count for nothing as you've informed me, and that the president can truly do no wrong. Why?

[4a6c1]

So America is chiefly Ivy league-educated, African American, 40-something, cigarette-smoking...?

If it doesn't matter if I voted for him or not, then why do I bother going to the polls? I think the point YOU'RE missing here is my entire issue with the man as the leader of our country. No, it's not about me, and it's not about you or any of the other hundreds of millions of our fellow Americans, nor is it about the nation itself or any of its interests, because it's about President Barack Obama. The Letterman appearances, the ESPN spots, the book deals, all about Barack Obama.

And you're foolish if you think Barack Obama was elected because he accurately represents the greatest cross-section of our society. Barack Obama was elected because he won the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2008 election, and no Republican candidate stood a chance in hell after the eight-year bad taste left in the collective mouth of Americans. And good for America. The time was ripe for a change, as I think everyone can agree, and change presented itself. Just keep in mind that throughout history, similar opportunities have been capitalized upon by the Vladimir Lenins and Adolf Hitlers and Saddam Husseins of the world. I do not personally think Barack Obama has any totalitarian leanings, but the way some people in this nation have exhibited such maniacal dedication to him (going as far as to press their childrens chorus into his service, see above link) is fascinating and terrifying.

I did not at any point try to express that my opinion should be held by everyone. I merely stated my own opinion, and I only mentioned my vote because I had reservations about this particular candidate that I have thusfar seen nothing to assuage. But in all of this, I'm just supposed to accept that you're right, that my vote and opinion really count for nothing as you've informed me, and that the president can truly do no wrong. Why?

Good post. I give it a B plus because there was no hairy moobs or disco colored jockstraps.

[Gan]

I did not at any point try to express that my opinion should be held by everyone. I merely stated my own opinion, and I only mentioned my vote because I had reservations about this particular candidate that I have thusfar seen nothing to assuage. But in all of this, I'm just supposed to accept that you're right, that my vote and opinion really count for nothing as you've informed me, and that the president can truly do no wrong. Why?

What you're missing is the Daniel interpretation factor. Its a frequently seen but seldomly understood phenomena here on the PC that is employed against anyone who speaks ill against our current President or any of his cabinet, issues, or projects. That phenemona is no matter what your opinion is, no matter what your personal goals are, its all a sham and that you're secretly an Obama hater, astro-turfer, and right wing activist who's sole presence here on the PC is to stir up anti-Obama rhetoric sentiments in order to sabotage any support that might exist for Obama or what he stands for, regardless of any lack of evidence he might have at is disposal. You are secretly unAmerican because of this and worthy of his efforts to expose you for what you really are.

Welcome to the Daniel zone.

[Xanator]

I'm not religious, and if I had to assign myself a political agenda, I would probably consider myself a very moderate liberal.

...heh?

[Gan]

Daniel does not care what you claim to be. You are what Daniel says you are.

[Daniel]

So America is chiefly Ivy league-educated, African American, 40-something, cigarette-smoking...?

If it doesn't matter if I voted for him or not, then why do I bother going to the polls? I think the point YOU'RE missing here is my entire issue with the man as the leader of our country. No, it's not about me, and it's not about you or any of the other hundreds of millions of our fellow Americans, nor is it about the nation itself or any of its interests, because it's about President Barack Obama. The Letterman appearances, the ESPN spots, the book deals, all about Barack Obama.

And you're foolish if you think Barack Obama was elected because he accurately represents the greatest cross-section of our society. Barack Obama was elected because he won the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2008 election, and no Republican candidate stood a chance in hell after the eight-year bad taste left in the collective mouth of Americans. And good for America. The time was ripe for a change, as I think everyone can agree, and change presented itself. Just keep in mind that throughout history, similar opportunities have been capitalized upon by the Vladimir Lenins and Adolf Hitlers and Saddam Husseins of the world. I do not personally think Barack Obama has any totalitarian leanings, but the way some people in this nation have exhibited such maniacal dedication to him (going as far as to press their childrens chorus into his service, see above link) is fascinating and terrifying.

I did not at any point try to express that my opinion should be held by everyone. I merely stated my own opinion, and I only mentioned my vote because I had reservations about this particular candidate that I have thusfar seen nothing to assuage. But in all of this, I'm just supposed to accept that you're right, that my vote and opinion really count for nothing as you've informed me, and that the president can truly do no wrong. Why?

Godwin.

[Daniel]

Daniel does not care what you claim to be. You are what Daniel says you are.

Oh yea. Because saying that a comparison of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Lenin is such a stretch of objective reality.

How's that bomb shelter coming?

[Gan]

Dont need one, I'm betting on first strike scenarios.

I mean Jesus will protect me.

I mean nuclear bombs only kill black people...

Well shit, too many reasons to list here.

[Methais]

win.

Fixed.

[Daniel]

Fixed.

Rofl


Sure thing buddy.

[Xanator]

Oh yea. Because saying that a comparison of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Lenin is such a stretch of objective reality.

How's that bomb shelter coming?

Yeah, Godwin, tee-hee. So defer the entire argument rather than presenting a perspective of your own that amounts to something more than Barack Obama hero worship.

How does it seem like such a "stretch of objective reality," exactly? Because in the present day, you have the benefit of hindsight on your side. That's it, period. We're told to learn history so we don't repeat its mistakes. You choose to scoff at history and act as though you're immune to it. It's incredibly narrow-minded, and it makes you sound like a fool.

A pair of quotes from my post, which you apparently chose to ignore:

"I do not personally think Barack Obama has any totalitarian leanings..."
"I had reservations about this particular candidate that I have thusfar seen nothing to assuage."

Reservations. Not paranoia, not suspicions, not antipathy, not prejudice. Reservations. How do you not question even the leaders that you feel you identify strongly with?

Do you agree with every single statement Barack Obama has made (Joe the Plumber, Nancy Reagan, Special Olympics, Prof. Gates) and every single decision his administration has made? It sure sounds like you do, without pause. I hope he succeeds! It would be extremely un-American to wish failure on our own President, or to set about actively forestalling him in his duty.

But anyone who raises a question about his integrity is a foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist. You toss this accusation over a nice, tall glass of Kool-Aid, my man.

[Xanator]

Well, I'm going to conjecture to say that the President is the chief representative of what America is, as he was duly elected through the mechanism of governance that we chose for ourselves.

It doesn't matter if you yourself voted for him, as this is not about you. It's about America.

On the topic of learning your history, you are aware that the President of the United States of America is not in fact chosen by a popular vote, but by electors chosen via popular vote on Election Day? Those electors are nominated by their state political parties, and are usually chosen based on a promise to vote for a particular candidate. Some states, but not all, do have laws to punish "faithless electors," or electors who do either don't vote for the candidate they promised to, or refuse to cast a vote.

On three separate occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College winner (and therefore winner of the office of presidency) did not win the popular vote. In 1824, no candidate (of four) received a majority of Electoral College votes, and President John Quincy Adams was appointed by the House of Representatives.

The spirit of our presidential election was certainly true to that of a democratic system of government, and Barack Obama's landslide victory in 2008 is indisputable, but often in history the President has been far from "the chief representative of what America is."

[Daniel]

Yeah, Godwin, tee-hee. So defer the entire argument rather than presenting a perspective of your own that amounts to something more than Barack Obama hero worship.

.


Dude. Seriously. Step off the ledge for a second.

There is a wide chasm between acknowledging that someone is the justly elected President and worshiping said person as a Hero.

There is nothing wrong with "having reservations". There is nothing wrong with even disagreeing with his policies.

However, there is something wrong when you are either too scared of a dissenting opinion that you would shield your children from hearing a speech from the President about staying in school.

There is definitely something wrong when you allude to perceived similarities between someone like Saddam Hussein (who was not elected, and in fact killed his way into power) or Adolf Hitler's ascension to power and someone who was justly elected by the system of governance that we as Americans have chosen for ourselves.

You lost an election. It's okay. Get over it. You get another shot in 3 years.

If, and when, Obama starts taking steps to subvert the constitutionally mandated system of governance to expand or extend his power, then come talk to me.

Until then, please stay away from the Tin foil and please for the fuck of christ, refrain from the totalitarian dictator comparisons.

[Daniel]

On the topic of learning your history, you are aware that the President of the United States of America is not in fact chosen by a popular vote, but by electors chosen via popular vote on Election Day? Those electors are nominated by their state political parties, and are usually chosen based on a promise to vote for a particular candidate. Some states, but not all, do have laws to punish "faithless electors," or electors who do either don't vote for the candidate they promised to, or refuse to cast a vote.

On three separate occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College winner (and therefore winner of the office of presidency) did not win the popular vote. In 1824, no candidate (of four) received a majority of Electoral College votes, and President John Quincy Adams was appointed by the House of Representatives.



Thanks for the civics lesson "teach". Considering that Obama handily won the popular vote, that's not really relevant now is it?

As is, even if I took your point as fact, how does that change what I said? Even without the popular vote, the person elected to President has been elected as the leader of the nation. Does that not in fact make him the chief representative of the United States?

Regardless of the particulars, the person still has the power, authority and respect accorded to a person of that position.

[Methais]

Rofl


Sure thing buddy.

http://www.campgray.com/images/spa2.JPG

[Xanator]

Dude. Seriously. Step off the ledge for a second.

There is a wide chasm between acknowledging that someone is the justly elected President and worshiping said person as a Hero.

There is nothing wrong with "having reservations". There is nothing wrong with even disagreeing with his policies.

However, there is something wrong when you are either too scared of a dissenting opinion that you would shield your children from hearing a speech from the President about staying in school.

There is definitely something wrong when you allude to perceived similarities between someone like Saddam Hussein (who was not elected, and in fact killed his way into power) or Adolf Hitler's ascension to power and someone who was justly elected by the system of governance that we as Americans have chosen for ourselves.

You lost an election. It's okay. Get over it. You get another shot in 3 years.

If, and when, Obama starts taking steps to subvert the constitutionally mandated system of governance to expand or extend his power, then come talk to me.

Until then, please stay away from the Tin foil and please for the fuck of christ, refrain from the totalitarian dictator comparisons.

Saddam Hussein actually rose to power as a middle-ranking member of Ba'ath party, which took power in Iraq via bloodless coup. He had already assumed the presidency following his predecessor's resignation at the time of the 1979 executions of his opposition within the party, to which I assume you're referring.

Also, "we" didn't choose the method of presidential election. A group of men who thought the unwashed masses weren't intelligent enough to choose their own leader decided that for us over 200 years ago. There have been a number of attempts to change this process over the years, but none has ever made it through Congress.

And I don't think I've ever stated here that I intended to shield my children from this speech. I did vote for the ridiculous first option on this survey, but it's sort of structured to make the answerer look stupid, no? All I've tried to do is defend a person's right to do that, which is a proposition that apparently has all of Obama Nation enflamed.

I also never compared Obama to Lenin, Hitler, Hussein, etc. I compared the political landscapes of the countries in which they came to power. Our nation is also (and not for the first time in its history) in a vulnerable position as a result of a deep recession. You are apparently blind to this and instead throw around big words like "POWER" and "AUTHORITY" in reference to someone who's supposed to be in your own words a "representative" of the people of America. I have also not denied him any of the respect accorded to him, as I do recognize him as the Commander in Chief.

I am absolutely not scared of or offended by any dissenting opinion. I think you've got that more than covered.

[Gan]

:lol:

Remember, you are what Daniel says you are...

[radamanthys]

If, and when, Obama starts taking steps to subvert the constitutionally mandated system of governance to expand or extend his power, then come talk to me.

That's exactly what some of us are saying. Bush did the same shit and liberals were shitting barbed wire over it.

[Daniel]

That's exactly what some of us are saying. Bush did the same shit and liberals were shitting barbed wire over it.

The same shit = ?

Starting a couple wars?
Significantly expanding the powers of intelligence and investigative agencies beyond the traditional scope of their authority without any oversight?

I'm sorry. I'm failing to see a valid comparison with Cash for Clunkers. Please enlighten me.

[CrystalTears]

My God, Cash for Clunkers is like water has been turned into wine or something.

Yes it was a great idea... and now it's over. Great. Now all the people blew their wad during the summer buying cars and the fall and winter sales are probably going to royally suck now.

We can only hope that it was just enough to keep momentum going... but it's hardly the best idea since sliced bread.

[Daniel]

Saddam Hussein actually rose to power as a middle-ranking member of Ba'ath party, which took power in Iraq via bloodless coup. He had already assumed the presidency following his predecessor's resignation at the time of the 1979 executions of his opposition within the party, to which I assume you're referring.

Yea. That's pretty much what I'm referring to. Feel free to give a few examples of Obama murdering and torturing his political opponents.




Also, "we" didn't choose the method of presidential election. A group of men who thought the unwashed masses weren't intelligent enough to choose their own leader decided that for us over 200 years ago. There have been a number of attempts to change this process over the years, but none has ever made it through Congress.


Which means all of what? As we've established, the President won the election with a margin greater than any president in some time. So, I fail to see how this is even remotely relevant.



And I don't think I've ever stated here that I intended to shield my children from this speech. I did vote for the ridiculous first option on this survey, but it's sort of structured to make the answerer look stupid, no? All I've tried to do is defend a person's right to do that, which is a proposition that apparently has all of Obama Nation enflamed.


You must be mistaken. I've never said that someone can't be "afraid" or can't do whatever the hell it is they want. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and\or not think it's all full of stupid.



I also never compared Obama to Lenin, Hitler, Hussein, etc. I compared the political landscapes of the countries in which they came to power. Our nation is also (and not for the first time in its history) in a vulnerable position as a result of a deep recession. You are apparently blind to this and instead throw around big words like "POWER" and "AUTHORITY" in reference to someone who's supposed to be in your own words a "representative" of the people of America. I have also not denied him any of the respect accorded to him, as I do recognize him as the Commander in Chief.

Oh right. My bad. I'm obviously the one jumping to conclusions when you "compare the political climate" to ones in which dictators have taken control as opposed to say the dozens of other times power has transitioned peacefully in America from one dominant party to another.

It's not as if you're willfully ignoring the other examples where someone lost an election and instead jump directly to those that have marginal relevancy to the issues at hand and invoke extreme images of fear in most reasonable individuals.

I'm sure that's just a "coincidence".




I am absolutely not scared of or offended by any dissenting opinion. I think you've got that more than covered.

Or, I could just have an extreme aversion to stupid people.

[radamanthys]

The same shit = ?

Starting a couple wars?
Significantly expanding the powers of intelligence and investigative agencies beyond the traditional scope of their authority without any oversight?

I'm sorry. I'm failing to see a valid comparison with Cash for Clunkers. Please enlighten me.

Just because you have a moral problem with the area in which influence was abused, doesn't mean that it's any less of a problem.

Is Obama attempting to expand his (and resultantly his party's) influence? The answer is obvious. Especially when he attempts to indoctrinate children into drinking the kool-aid.

[Daniel]

My God, Cash for Clunkers is like water has been turned into wine or something.

Yes it was a great idea... and now it's over. Great. Now all the people blew their wad during the summer buying cars and the fall and winter sales are probably going to royally suck now.

We can only hope that it was just enough to keep momentum going... but it's hardly the best idea since sliced bread.

Thanks again for completely missing the point.

In fact, if you had even read my post instead of zeroing in on "Cash for Clunkers", you would have realized I even went as far to give it a negative connotation. And you people say I can't reach across the aisles!

[Daniel]

:lol:

Remember, you are what Daniel says you are...

Hey Gan,

Since you insist on following me around this thread, does this mean we can get a moratorium on your retard posts saying I have nothing better to do than following you around thread to thread, or whatever gay shit is your insult of the month?

I mean, being a blatant hypocrite has never stopped you before, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Amirite?

[Daniel]

Just because you have a moral problem with the area in which influence was abused, doesn't mean that it's any less of a problem.

Is Obama attempting to expand his (and resultantly his party's) influence? The answer is obvious. Especially when he attempts to indoctrinate children into drinking the kool-aid.

Okay. So you gave one example "Indoctrinating children".

Allow me to shorthand that to talk to kids from here on out. Can you please find an example of liberals "shitting barbed wire" over President Bush speaking to Children.

While you're at it. Can you find me the law or stipulation in the constitution that says it's illegal for the President to speak to people?

I'd really appreciate that.

Thanks.

[CrystalTears]

And you're missing MY point that the program... which lasted a whopping month... is not this grand idea and you wanting a comparison of a republican president doing something along those lines. BFD. You people keep bringing it up and it's making me nauseous.

[Xanator]

On the topic of learning your history, you are aware that the President of the United States of America is not in fact chosen by a popular vote, but by electors chosen via popular vote on Election Day? Those electors are nominated by their state political parties, and are usually chosen based on a promise to vote for a particular candidate. Some states, but not all, do have laws to punish "faithless electors," or electors who do either don't vote for the candidate they promised to, or refuse to cast a vote.

On three separate occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College winner (and therefore winner of the office of presidency) did not win the popular vote. In 1824, no candidate (of four) received a majority of Electoral College votes, and President John Quincy Adams was appointed by the House of Representatives.

The spirit of our presidential election was certainly true to that of a democratic system of government, and Barack Obama's landslide victory in 2008 is indisputable, but often in history the President has been far from "the chief representative of what America is."


Obama's Speech in... | 09-06-2009 10:48 PM | Whine whine whine. Get over it Republican. You were complaining about BS posts like this when the Democrats were bushwacking Bush.

Please reread the first post and note the fact that I did not dispute Barack Obama's victory of the 2008 presidential election at any point. This was merely a brief overview of the Electoral College for the benefit of someone who incorrectly represented the process of American presidential election. I am personally a proponent of abolishing the Electoral College and choosing a president directly via popular vote. This would have resulted in an Al Gore presidency in 2000, and it would have been fair and perfectly ok with me.

I am also not a Republican, but am sort of amused that you used it as a slur.

Aaaaand I didn't complain about any sort of posts in 2000 because a) I wasn't a member of these boards (did they even exist yet?), and especially b) I wasn't of legal age to vote in that election, and so did not.

Some of us approach reading comprehension like we approach presidential election, apparently.

[Xanator]

It's not as if you're willfully ignoring the other examples where someone lost an example and instead jump directly to those that have marginal relevancy to the issues at hand and invoke extreme images of fear in most reasonable individuals.

What does this sentence actually mean?

[Daniel]

And you're missing MY point that the program... which lasted a whopping month... is not this grand idea and you wanting a comparison of a republican president doing something along those lines. BFD. You people keep bringing it up and it's making me nauseous.

Uhhh...

Please, take a step back, breath in, put down the hot dog if neccessary and read what I said again.

[Daniel]

What does this sentence actually mean?

It means that trying to equate the atmosphere surrounding the elections of 2008 to that of Pre-WWII Germany is retarded.

It also means you should change the second example to election and it will make more sense.

My bad.

[Stretch]

I dislike anyone that isn't white.

[Xanator]

Yea. That's pretty much what I'm referring to. Feel free to give a few examples of Obama murdering and torturing his political opponents.

I never said he did. You said that Saddam Hussein "killed his way into power." This isn't true. He lawfully succeeded the outgoing president. If I mispoke in that way, you'd have a field day with it.



Which means all of what? As we've established, the President won the election with a margin greater than any president in some time. So, I fail to see how this is even remotely relevant.

That's because you're trying to make it out like I'm contesting the Obama presidency, which I'm not. I was just correcting your apparent perception of the process of election to the presidency, as I've already clarified in an above post. Step back from the ledge, or whatever you told me to do.


You must be mistaken. I've never said that someone can't be "afraid" or can't do whatever the hell it is they want. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and\or not think it's all full of stupid.

If G. W. Bush wanted to speak to school children about what a noble and honorable thing it was to enlist in military service, would that be ok because of the power, authority, and respect he deserves as President? Apparently, some of us only think it's not ok for Obama to speak without a filter to our children because we hate Barack Obama. Ditto for you under an only slightly different set of circumstances?


Oh right. My bad. I'm obviously the one jumping to conclusions when you "compare the political climate" to ones in which dictators have taken control as opposed to say the dozens of other times power has transitioned peacefully in America from one dominant party to another.

You're right, you are. Let me let myself do the talking, circa a short time ago.


And you're foolish if you think Barack Obama was elected because he accurately represents the greatest cross-section of our society. Barack Obama was elected because he won the Democratic presidential nomination in the 2008 election, and no Republican candidate stood a chance in hell after the eight-year bad taste left in the collective mouth of Americans. And good for America. The time was ripe for a change, as I think everyone can agree, and change presented itself. Just keep in mind that throughout history, similar opportunities have been capitalized upon by the Vladimir Lenins and Adolf Hitlers and Saddam Husseins of the world. I do not personally think Barack Obama has any totalitarian leanings, but the way some people in this nation have exhibited such maniacal dedication to him (going as far as to press their childrens chorus into his service, see above link) is fascinating and terrifying.

Nope, still doesn't look like I called Obama a dictator. And hey, if you want to get really specific, there wasn't even party transition in the ascensions of Stalin or Hussein. Hitler and the Nazis even eventually legitimately achieved power for their party. I'm not saying Barack Obama is a Nazi, which is all you're hearing. I'm just stating historical fact, which you choose to ignore.


Or, I could just have an extreme aversion to stupid people.

Well, you're the one who suffers from a real issue with interpretation and resorts to personal attacks when faced with simple logic and fact. What's it like looking in the mirror?

[Daniel]

I never said he did. You said that Saddam Hussein "killed his way into power." This isn't true. He lawfully succeeded the outgoing president. If I mispoke in that way, you'd have a field day with it.



Wow. Talk about revisionist history.

A "Coup" is not a lawful succession. Bloodless or not.




That's because you're trying to make it out like I'm contesting the Obama presidency, which I'm not. I was just correcting your apparent perception of the process of election to the presidency, as I've already clarified in an above post. Step back from the ledge, or whatever you told me to do.


As we've established, your perception of how I feel is moot. Obama won the popular vote, so your whole aside about the electoral college is entirely irrelevant.





If G. W. Bush wanted to speak to school children about what a noble and honorable thing it was to enlist in military service, would that be ok because of the power, authority, and respect he deserves as President? Apparently, some of us only think it's not ok for Obama to speak without a filter to our children because we hate Barack Obama. Ditto for you under an only slightly different set of circumstances?

Yea. It would be okay with me.

You're talking to a man who served in the military under Bush, in a war. You're not going to get some liberal hippy reaction from me regarding military service.

Sorry. Nice try though.

Next question?







You're right, you are. Let me let myself do the talking, circa a short time ago.



Nope, still doesn't look like I called Obama a dictator. And hey, if you want to get really specific, there wasn't even party transition in the ascensions of Stalin or Hussein. Hitler and the Nazis even eventually legitimately achieved power for their party. I'm not saying Barack Obama is a Nazi, which is all you're hearing. I'm just stating historical fact, which you choose to ignore.



Well, you're the one who suffers from a real issue with interpretation and resorts to personal attacks when faced with simple logic and fact. What's it like looking in the mirror?

Oh okay. There is *nothing* disingenuous when using those examples when there are far more relevant ones that are directly related to the current situation.

Sure thing.

[TheEschaton]

Say that, hypothetically, GW was giving a speech to children in a school, and that I was concerned with the possibility of it being vile, hateful bile.

While I, as a rabid frothing liberal, would think everything he said is stupid, I would be confident in my ability to reassure my child that the President is actually a high-functioning moron, and would want my child to witness it so (s)he could see what an abuse of legacy looks like. I'd love to see any moment where any true liberal has advocated for the censure of the President speaking anywhere, let alone to school children.

The difference here is that such calls for censure and screening are based solely on fear of something different. If any other President was speaking to children, even if he mixed in jingoistic nationalism AND/OR comments on how we all need to take care of each other, no one would give two shits.

It's all fear-mongering, plain and simple. McCarthyism lives, except now the insidious Communists and Socialists and TERRORISTS (which is the company people in this very thread have accused Obama of keeping) have managed to get their Manchurian candidate in place to the detriment of all us normal folks.

Please. It's pathetic. If you think Obama is going to brainwash children, or even speak anything political to them, I think you're being paranoid.

Oh, and if you think telling children about the golden rule of caring for each other is socialist brainwashing, I'd seriously call into question your judgment.

[Back]

Seriously... why bother?

If people don’t like it keep your kid home. You should be raising it anyway.

[Xanator]

Wow. Talk about revisionist history.

A "Coup" is not a lawful succession. Bloodless or not.

He was a member of the Ba'athist Party that took power via bloodless coup, yes, as a ranking member of the military. He rose to personal power--the office of President--via lawful succession. Did you know that after a coup is successfully performed, the coup-ers get to make new laws?

The United States recognized Saddam Hussein's government, and he received rewards from UNESCO for his campaigns for free education and improved health care for his people. His Presidency was lawful and lauded, really.


As we've established, your perception of how I feel is moot. Obama won the popular vote, so your whole aside about the electoral college is entirely irrelevant.

This, I think, is the most frustrating of all your sticking points. I was making no connection between the 2008 election and any sort of Electoral College tomfoolery. I was informing you of the process of presidential election, since you MADE IT SOUND LIKE you and I put our heads together and came up with a great way to pick a president. So, yes, as far as the topic of this thread goes, it's irrelevant. Still, the more you know!


Yea. It would be okay with me.

You're talking to a man who served in the military under Bush, in a war. You're not going to get some liberal hippy reaction from me regarding military service.

Sorry. Nice try though.

Next question?

Very good, and thank you for your service. Our President has undermined it a number of times, but I am personally grateful.


Oh okay. There is *nothing* disingenuous when using those examples when there are far more relevant ones that are directly related to the current situation.

Sure thing.

This is what I've been waiting for. You haven't done much more than blast everyone else's examples, so let's hear 'em!

[TheEschaton]

P.S. Xanator, from what you've posted, you may be a moderate liberal in Alabama, but you certainly are not liberal in any sense of the word as it applies to the political spectrum in general.

[Methais]

Hey Gan,

Since you insist on following me around this thread, does this mean we can get a moratorium on your retard posts saying I have nothing better to do than following you around thread to thread, or whatever gay shit is your insult of the month?

I mean, being a blatant hypocrite has never stopped you before, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Amirite?

OMG U SAID GAY UR A BIGOT!

[Xanator]

P.S. Xanator, from what you've posted, you may be a moderate liberal in Alabama, but you certainly are not liberal in any sense of the word as it applies to the political spectrum in general.

Please keep in mind that I'm not in favor of censoring the president's speech. Especially in light of the controversy that arose surrounding it (some of which was acknowledged by Obama's people, remember, by way of reworking a section of the speech that was "poorly worded,"), I don't approve of the President's insistence on delivering his speech in an environment where attendance is not voluntary. I think it's irresponsible and inconsiderate, which is something of a metaphor for Obama's presidency thusfar.

I'm actually anti-censorship, but you can't possibly have known that, because this discussion hasn't ventured anywhere near "the political spectrum in general." I can only imagine that I don't seem like a garden-variety liberal to you because I don't walk around with my chest puffed out proclaiming myself a liberal, and because I'm capable of constructing a coherent argument and do not overreact and resort to threats/threatening language when confronted with an opposing viewpoint. What you did there was jump to a completely unfounded conclusion, which makes you as ignorant as it would appear you're accusing me of being.

I think the definitions are the same in Alabama and in Boston, MA, my home of the past four years. If anything, living here has probably pushed me closer to the middle from the left.

[Xanator]

OMG U SAID GAY UR A BIGOT!

Yeah, I was gonna point that out. He also served in the military. Doesn't that make him a really bad liberal?

[Ravenstorm]

And here's (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/obama-speech-to-school-children-you-make-your-own-future/) the text of the speech. Hot off the presses! Get your socialist indoctrination while it lasts!

[Gan]

Hey Gan,

Since you insist on following me around this thread, does this mean we can get a moratorium on your retard posts saying I have nothing better to do than following you around thread to thread, or whatever gay shit is your insult of the month?

I mean, being a blatant hypocrite has never stopped you before, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Amirite?

I'm having fun trolling you like you troll me. Cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ya big pussy. (Speaking of being a blatant hypocrite and asking someone else to stop trolling)

:lol:

Oh wait, what I meant to say was...

Sure thing buddy!

[Gan]

Well, you're the one who suffers from a real issue with interpretation and resorts to personal attacks when faced with simple logic and fact. What's it like looking in the mirror?
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Someone else thinks Daniel has issues with interpretation. Careful! He'll start calling you Gan Jr. soon. :lol:


P.S. Xanator, from what you've posted, you may be a moderate liberal in Alabama, but you certainly are not liberal in any sense of the word as it applies to the political spectrum in general.
/Agreed. Especially when compared to TheE and Back.


And here's (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/obama-speech-to-school-children-you-make-your-own-future/) the text of the speech. Hot off the presses! Get your socialist indoctrination while it lasts!
Thanks Raven. Reviewing that is on my agenda for today since I have to decide whether I let my 1st grader watch it tomorrow.

[Back]

/Agreed. Especially when compared to TheE and Back.

Whats your point here? I feel like I should respond.

[Gan]

Whats your point here? I feel like I should respond.

R E A D the quoted text, then read what I wrote below it - its very self explanatory. A response, while not required, is certainly not discouraged.

[Back]

R E A D the quoted text, then read what I wrote below it - its very self explanatory. A response, while not required, is certainly not discouraged.

This whole thread is nonsense anyway.

[CrystalTears]

Uhhh...

Please, take a step back, breath in, put down the hot dog if neccessary and read what I said again.
Well that was really mature. Good job at being insulting for no reason since I didn't insult you.

[Gan]

And here's (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/obama-speech-to-school-children-you-make-your-own-future/) the text of the speech. Hot off the presses! Get your socialist indoctrination while it lasts!

Based on the transcript as its presented, I have no issue with my son seeing the speech. I agree with everything that was in the transcript. And I look forward to discussing it with my son that afternoon during dinner.

[Gan]

Well that was really mature. Good job at being insulting for no reason since I didn't insult you.

Clearly your expectations are set way too high.

[Xanator]

And here's (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/obama-speech-to-school-children-you-make-your-own-future/) the text of the speech. Hot off the presses! Get your socialist indoctrination while it lasts!

And it turns out it's a very nice speech, and that's a-ok with me.

[Ravenstorm]

Based on the transcript as its presented, I have no issue with my son seeing the speech. I agree with everything that was in the transcript. And I look forward to discussing it with my son that afternoon during dinner.

One thing I would have liked to have seen included in the speech is more reference - any reference - to electricians, mechanics or more blue collar occupations so that those kids who aren't up to being doctors and lawyers aren't immediately 'failures'.

[TheLastShamurai]

One thing I would have liked to have seen included in the speech is more reference - any reference - to electricians, mechanics or more blue collar occupations so that those kids who aren't up to being doctors and lawyers aren't immediately 'failures'.

Dr. or bust!

[Daniel]

I'm having fun trolling you like you troll me. Cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen ya big pussy. (Speaking of being a blatant hypocrite and asking someone else to stop trolling)

:lol:

Oh wait, what I meant to say was...

Sure thing buddy!

You seem to confuse blantent mocking and me having an issue with something.

And you say I have interpretation problems.

[Daniel]

This is what I've been waiting for. You haven't done much more than blast everyone else's examples, so let's hear 'em!


Lol. I'm sorry. I didn't think you would need much help finding the last time a party was voted out of power.

So, let's go with 2000, 1992, 1980 and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

I hope this means you won't resort to retarded comparisons in the future.

The more you know!

[Daniel]

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Someone else thinks Daniel has issues with interpretation. Careful! He'll start calling you Gan Jr. soon. :lol:



Awww lookit that. Some looney agrees with you. This must be a high point in your PC political career.

God knows you haven't been right about jack shit in the past few years.

[Daniel]

Well that was really mature. Good job at being insulting for no reason since I didn't insult you.

I'm torn CT. Really. Distraught even.

God knows you've always taken the high road on these boards and stepped in when someone has said something inappropriate to me.

I don't know what got into me.

[Xanator]

Awww lookit that. Some looney agrees with you. This must be a high point in your PC political career.

God knows you haven't been right about jack shit in the past few years.

Now I'm a looney.

I'm going to post a reply to one of your posts in my best impression of you, and you tell me if that's better, alright?


It means that trying to equate the atmosphere surrounding the elections of 2008 to that of Pre-WWII Germany is retarded.

It's not retarded, you idiot. Just because want to reject the fact that it's true or provide some alternate version of history to make you look better doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You're such a fucking idiot, thanks for playing, douche. Thought so. Thanks.


It also means you should change the second example to election and it will make more sense.

My bad.

lol yeah dude and maybe you should learn to type. Fucking douche.

Personal attacks, total omission of facts, use of the word "dude." All present and accounted for. Better?

[Daniel]

Now I'm a looney.

I'm going to post a reply to one of your posts in my best impression of you, and you tell me if that's better, alright?



It's not retarded, you idiot. Just because want to reject the fact that it's true or provide some alternate version of history to make you look better doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You're such a fucking idiot, thanks for playing, douche. Thought so. Thanks.



lol yeah dude and maybe you should learn to type. Fucking douche.

Personal attacks, total omission of facts, use of the word "dude." All present and accounted for. Better?


A whole lot better than using hyperbole to make your point that tin foil hats should be in season.

Personal opinion though.

[Gan]

Awww lookit that. Some looney agrees with you. This must be a high point in your PC political career.

God knows you haven't been right about jack shit in the past few years.

No, the high point is laughing at you.

[Gan]

One thing I would have liked to have seen included in the speech is more reference - any reference - to electricians, mechanics or more blue collar occupations so that those kids who aren't up to being doctors and lawyers aren't immediately 'failures'.

I would love to see a renewed push for vocational options to college for those who want to learn a skill/trade that can/will support a family.

[Tsa`ah]

Now I'm a looney.

I'm going to post a reply to one of your posts in my best impression of you, and you tell me if that's better, alright?



It's not retarded, you idiot. Just because want to reject the fact that it's true or provide some alternate version of history to make you look better doesn't mean that it didn't happen. You're such a fucking idiot, thanks for playing, douche. Thought so. Thanks.



lol yeah dude and maybe you should learn to type. Fucking douche.

Personal attacks, total omission of facts, use of the word "dude." All present and accounted for. Better?


I'm sorry, but you've presented yourself as a nut case trying (but not really drawing exact lines) between some pretty heinous figures in world history ... and one villainized for the sake of political propagation.

When you mention the duly elected president in the same breath as Saddam or Hitler without framing a context for doing so, well you've hung the "I'm a dumbass nut job" sandwich board over yourself. Any further reading by those you're trying to debate is useless at that point.

You're tossing around a great deal of labels and names and not really showing any indication that you know what they mean ... it's as if you're reading off of some sort of "conspiracy" card and believing every word of it.

[Back]

Godwined.

[Xanator]

I'm sorry, but you've presented yourself as a nut case trying (but not really drawing exact lines) between some pretty heinous figures in world history ... and one villainized for the sake of political propagation.

When you mention the duly elected president in the same breath as Saddam or Hitler without framing a context for doing so, well you've hung the "I'm a dumbass nut job" sandwich board over yourself. Any further reading by those you're trying to debate is useless at that point.

You're tossing around a great deal of labels and names and not really showing any indication that you know what they mean ... it's as if you're reading off of some sort of "conspiracy" card and believing every word of it.

Wow, really? Because I've tempered each and every single one of those statements and reiterated over and over again that it isn't the opinion that I personally hold. I'm also going to let the bolded statement slide, unless you want to point out some discrepancies in anything that I've said here. I've actually corrected a number of Daniel's, as he is no great scholar of history.

Unless you're accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist because I...

-Explained the Electoral College and its role in the election of our president (but with absolutely no commentary on the 2008 election--please re-read the post and see that it was made solely for Daniel's benefit)

-Defended the legal ascension of Saddam Hussein to the presidency of Iraq (are you going to deny this is true, or am I going to get accused of revisionist history for correcting someone else's revisionist history again?)


My third or fourth post in this thread states that my problem with Barack Obama is his obsession with his own image. Something along the lines of, "Letterman appearances, book deals, ESPN spots..." I don't draw "exact lines" between Obama and any totalitarian dictator because, as I've repeated OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I don't see any similarities between the two of them. All I said was "question your leaders," and why wouldn't you? Accept the fact that our president was not an awfully viable candidate who has thusfar not lived up to the weighty promises he tossed around during his campaign. Don't go accusing people of being conspiracy theorists just because they don't take the party line here. Honestly, I'm the one wearing a tinfoil hat?

Your entire post is accusing me of the complete opposite of everything I've posted in this thread. I know some people on these boards post a lot of mindless hate that they don't/can't substantiate. I am CLEARLY not one of these, regardless of whether a few of the speed-readers among you want to paint me that way.

[Daniel]

-Explained the Electoral College and its role in the election of our president (but with absolutely no commentary on the 2008 election--please re-read the post and see that it was made solely for Daniel's benefit)



Which by the way was completely unnecessary and besides the point.

As has been reiterated countless times.




-Defended the legal ascension of Saddam Hussein to the presidency of Iraq (are you going to deny this is true, or am I going to get accused of revisionist history for correcting someone else's revisionist history again?)


Dude. Seriously. Stop.

Saddam Hussein cemented his power through the usage of clandestine security forces, forced the President to resign through a threat of force, then executed many of his political rivals upon ascension to point and then maintained his dictatorship for several decades through force and intimidation.

There is no connection, whatsoever, between what he did and how Obama came into power himself. End of story.




My third or fourth post in this thread states that my problem with Barack Obama is his obsession with his own image. Something along the lines of, "Letterman appearances, book deals, ESPN spots..." I don't draw "exact lines" between Obama and any totalitarian dictator because, as I've repeated OVER AND OVER AGAIN, I don't see any similarities between the two of them. All I said was "question your leaders," and why wouldn't you? Accept the fact that our president was not an awfully viable candidate who has thusfar not lived up to the weighty promises he tossed around during his campaign. Don't go accusing people of being conspiracy theorists just because they don't take the party line here. Honestly, I'm the one wearing a tinfoil hat?

Your entire post is accusing me of the complete opposite of everything I've posted in this thread. I know some people on these boards post a lot of mindless hate that they don't/can't substantiate. I am CLEARLY not one of these, regardless of whether a few of the speed-readers among you want to paint me that way.

If you really believe this, then do yourself a favor and avoid the comparisons between heinous dictators and Obama himself.

You're not going to get very far when you're going in point is, Yea, well I have reason to be afraid because he came into power the same way Hitler did.

Not only is it false, but it's a blantant attempt to conjure up images of socialism\fascist\dictatorship, etc. If it's not, then well it comes across that way, so you might want to come up with some new talking points.

[CrystalTears]

I'm torn CT. Really. Distraught even.

God knows you've always taken the high road on these boards and stepped in when someone has said something inappropriate to me.

I don't know what got into me.
Give me a break. I've never stated I take the high road, however I don't see how that excuses you from being insulting when I'm discussing something. In this case, you are the one resorting to insults just because you don't like where I took the conversation. Too bad.

[Daniel]

Obama's Speech in... 09-08-2009 01:36 AM all that rap music not good for your brains moran

Thanks for the lulz in the morning.

[Daniel]

Give me a break. I've never stated I take the high road, however I don't see how that excuses you from being insulting when I'm discussing something. In this case, you are the one resorting to insults just because you don't like where I took the conversation. Too bad.

Or it could be that you came out of left field with a strawman argument that had absolutely no relation to anything I said in this thread. In which case, I didn't really feel the need to beat around the bush too much and just decided to confront your sniping head on.

I'm sorry that upset you so.

[CrystalTears]

You had no business bringing it up. Talk about strawmans.

[Daniel]

You had no business bringing it up. Talk about strawmans.

Lol. Really?

Do you even know what "strawman" means?

Who are you in the first place telling me what I do and do not have business bringing up? Last time I checked you were some fat bitch on the internet, not my mother.

Finally, something you've failed to catch this entire time: there was no value judgement attached to its usage. It was brought up as an example program of Obama's. No more, no less.

So please, shut the fuck up and take your midol or something.

[CrystalTears]

Daniel called someone fat. He wins the internet.

You're such an asshole.

[Parkbandit]

I just read Obama's speech.. and it's pretty good. I saw nothing in that speech that is worth keeping your kid home from.

[CrystalTears]

I just heard that they're not showing his speech in the elementary schools in my area because they felt it was inappropriate for younger children.

[Xanator]

Which by the way was completely unnecessary and besides the point.

As has been reiterated countless times.

Not germane to the argument, no, but something you needed to know. This is now the third time I've agreed that it had nothing to do with this particular topic. I'm hoping it'll be the first time you open your fucking eyes and read the above two sentences.



Dude. Seriously. Stop.

Saddam Hussein cemented his power through the usage of clandestine security forces, forced the President to resign through a threat of force, then executed many of his political rivals upon ascension to point and then maintained his dictatorship for several decades through force and intimidation.

There is no connection, whatsoever, between what he did and how Obama came into power himself. End of story.

The words in bold are "cemented his," which don't mean the same as "ascended to." The underlined portion is a theory believed by many people, including myself, though it is strictly based on some witness accounts. President Al-Bakr officially stepped aside due to lingering health issues. Hussein had been in effect the president for a few years prior to this. I'm not saying I like him! I'm just telling you historical fact! Doesn't mean it's my opinion, or that I even have an opinion on it! Just historical fact!

And you're right, there's no connection between his execution of supposed in-party conspirators and Barack Obama's election to the office of presidency. I never compared these two things, and they aren't even actually the same thing at all. This is a fine example of you fabricating a supposed comparison which you claim I've tried to draw, which I, in fact, haven't. I challenge you to either find where I compared those two things, or to go fuck yourself because I'm tired of trying to reach that space between your ears.


If you really believe this, then do yourself a favor and avoid the comparisons between heinous dictators and Obama himself.

You're not going to get very far when you're going in point is, Yea, well I have reason to be afraid because he came into power the same way Hitler did.

Not only is it false, but it's a blantant attempt to conjure up images of socialism\fascist\dictatorship, etc. If it's not, then well it comes across that way, so you might want to come up with some new talking points.

HEY SHITHEAD! I DIDN'T COMPARE OBAMA AND HITLER! I DIDN'T COMPARE OBAMA AND HUSSEIN! HEY SHITHEAD! READ THE MOTHERFUCKING POSTS YOU FUCKING SHIT-FOR-BRAINS! THERE IS NO WAY IT DOES OR DOESN'T COME ACROSS BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY FUCKING STATED IN THE MOTHERFUCKING TEXT! LEARN TO READ! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS! AND IT'S NOT BLANTANT OR BLANTENT, IT'S BLATANT, DOUCHEBAG!

[BriarFox]

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.
It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.
So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

That pretty much sums it up. It's a great speech, and it's not at all partisan.

[Parkbandit]

That pretty much sums it up. It's a great speech, and it's not at all partisan.

Completely agree.

HOPEFULLY, he will use this same strategy on Wednesday, when he gives a speech to Congress and America... though I highly doubt it.

[BriarFox]

I wonder how the kids will react to the nationalistic theme of his speech. I don't think this is a particularly patriotic generation. A good jolt or two of patriotism can be pretty useful, though.

[Gan]

That pretty much sums it up. It's a great speech, and it's not at all partisan.

/Agreed


Imagine all the avoided drama if he would have just released the transcript at the same time he announced he would be addressing schools. Although its my understanding that the speech underwent several revisions based on public pressure/discontent with some of the language therein.

In some cases, even if you're the President of the most powerful nation in the world, its wise to ask permission and be a little transparent. A little humility goes a long way sometimes.

[Daniel]

/Agreed


Imagine all the avoided drama if he would have just released the transcript at the same time he announced he would be addressing schools. Although its my understanding that the speech underwent several revisions based on public pressure/discontent with some of the language therein.

In some cases, even if you're the President of the most powerful nation in the world, its wise to ask permission and be a little transparent. A little humility goes a long way sometimes.

rofl. Way to put the prez in his place.

Or, we could have avoided Drama by not assuming he was going to further his socialist empire.

Either or.

[Gan]

rofl. Way to put the prez in his place.

Or, we could have avoided Drama by not assuming he was going to further his socialist empire.

Either or.

That was not the aim nor goal of my concern. My concern is pretty simply spelled out here in this thread, in terms that even you can understand without intentionally misinterpreting it.

Its no surprise that you think there's an ulterior motive to my posts, and yet you continuously have no proof to back up your claims.

Its simply your misguided and deluded opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tsa`ah]

Wow, really? Because I've tempered each and every single one of those statements and reiterated over and over again that it isn't the opinion that I personally hold.

No need to go further.

If you "tempered" each statement and pointed out that it wasn't your opinion ... then why make it? Why would you make those additions?

If I were to say ... "Xanator is presents his opinion in a fairly passionate manner on the internet, but then again so do child molesters." ... would you not suspect that I was grouping you together with child molesters?

Your posts aren't lining up with the claim you're trying to attempt.

[Clove]

Either your kid is still impressionable in which case you ought to be the most relevant influence in her life; if not it is your failure. Or your child is old enough to start learning to think for herself; if you prevent her from opportunities to do so, it is your failure.

Frankly I think hoopla over what the President will or will not speak is a lesson against the principles of our country.

No. I don't have children, but I do have experience with assinine behavior.

[Tsa`ah]

Obama's Speech in... 09-08-2009 12:56 PM You can't write for shit. Please stop. It's YOUR, you dumbass.

Timing is irony.

Tell you what ... stop reading it or just stop trying to suck me off every time you log on.

[IorakeWarhammer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

[Xanator]

No need to go further.

If you "tempered" each statement and pointed out that it wasn't your opinion ... then why make it? Why would you make those additions?

If I were to say ... "Xanator is presents his opinion in a fairly passionate manner on the internet, but then again so do child molesters." ... would you not suspect that I was grouping you together with child molesters?

Your posts aren't lining up with the claim you're trying to attempt.

It seems to me that your point of view is, if it isn't in line with your way of thinking, you don't want to hear it. I apologize if we're not on the same page there. Unlike you, I'm not as scared of a dissenting opinion as you're accusing me of being.

And I'm not sure where the "child molesters" bit is headed, but I see that as you drawing a line between the degrees of passion to which the two parties (in this case, me and child molesters) are arguing. In your scenario, that's a fair comparison. Nowhere there did you say I was a child molester. It's funny, because that actually proves MY point. I said, and here are quotes:



But you go ahead and cling to the notion of America being this infallible power that is somehow completely different from a Weimar Republic Germany, or the Romanovs' Russia, or the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, etc.

and later...


Just keep in mind that throughout history, similar opportunities have been capitalized upon by the Vladimir Lenins and Adolf Hitlers and Saddam Husseins of the world. I do not personally think Barack Obama has any totalitarian leanings, but the way some people in this nation have exhibited such maniacal dedication to him (going as far as to press their childrens chorus into his service, see above link) is fascinating and terrifying.

I suppose the former comment actually is my opinion, but the election of Barack Obama has no bearing on it. America is also no different in the grand global scheme of things than ancient Rome, dynastic China, Incas/Mayas/Aztecs, so forth.

According to Daniel, however, I directly compared Barack Obama to Saddam Hussein in the above statements. I don't personally see it. You tell me.

[Daniel]

It seems to me that your point of view is, if it isn't in line with your way of thinking, you don't want to hear it. I apologize if we're not on the same page there. Unlike you, I'm not as scared of a dissenting opinion as you're accusing me of being.

And I'm not sure where the "child molesters" bit is headed, but I see that as you drawing a line between the degrees of passion to which the two parties (in this case, me and child molesters) are arguing. In your scenario, that's a fair comparison. Nowhere there did you say I was a child molester. It's funny, because that actually proves MY point. I said, and here are quotes:



and later...



I suppose the former comment actually is my opinion, but the election of Barack Obama has no bearing on it. America is also no different in the grand global scheme of things than ancient Rome, dynastic China, Incas/Mayas/Aztecs, so forth.

According to Daniel, however, I directly compared Barack Obama to Saddam Hussein in the above statements. I don't personally see it. You tell me.


Honest question: Are you Austistic?

Lulz. Autistic

[BriarFox]

Honest question: Are you Austistic?

...

General advice. Never insult someone's intelligence, grammar, spelling, etc. and fuck up your own knowledge, grammar, spelling, etc.

[Daniel]

Not germane to the argument, no, but something you needed to know. This is now the third time I've agreed that it had nothing to do with this particular topic. I'm hoping it'll be the first time you open your fucking eyes and read the above two sentences.


The issue is I already knew it. I made the statement I did because it didn't rightly matter. Please, try and keep up.






The words in bold are "cemented his," which don't mean the same as "ascended to." The underlined portion is a theory believed by many people, including myself, though it is strictly based on some witness accounts. President Al-Bakr officially stepped aside due to lingering health issues. Hussein had been in effect the president for a few years prior to this. I'm not saying I like him! I'm just telling you historical fact! Doesn't mean it's my opinion, or that I even have an opinion on it! Just historical fact!

And you're right, there's no connection between his execution of supposed in-party conspirators and Barack Obama's election to the office of presidency. I never compared these two things, and they aren't even actually the same thing at all. This is a fine example of you fabricating a supposed comparison which you claim I've tried to draw, which I, in fact, haven't. I challenge you to either find where I compared those two things, or to go fuck yourself because I'm tired of trying to reach that space between your ears.



You've essentially said people should be concerned because there are parralells to the environment in which the two people came into power. This leaves someone the room to "read between the lines". Across the board it's an invalid comparison and you equivocating isn't really helping you much. Neither is trying to rationalize the ascension of someone like Saddam Hussein to make your invalid comparison more palatable.





HEY SHITHEAD! I DIDN'T COMPARE OBAMA AND HITLER! I DIDN'T COMPARE OBAMA AND HUSSEIN! HEY SHITHEAD! READ THE MOTHERFUCKING POSTS YOU FUCKING SHIT-FOR-BRAINS! THERE IS NO WAY IT DOES OR DOESN'T COME ACROSS BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY FUCKING STATED IN THE MOTHERFUCKING TEXT! LEARN TO READ! GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS! AND IT'S NOT BLANTANT OR BLANTENT, IT'S BLATANT, DOUCHEBAG!

Still on that ledge I see.

[Daniel]

...

General advice. Never insult someone's intelligence, grammar, spelling, etc. and fuck up your own knowledge, grammar, spelling, etc.

It was an honest question. Unfortunate typo aside. If someone can't see how comparing something with Hitler, Saddam or child molesters doesn't give somehow prejudice their statement then I question their ability to interact with people on a social level.

[Clove]

Let me know when you have that math baby, then we'll talk about parental concerns.

Edit:
Yea, thats a cheap shot.

The idea behind this is simple. As a parent I decide what my child is exposed to, that is my right. I expect to be able to exercise that right when it comes to any message, especially political, being delivered directly to my child in an authoritative (school) setting without my preview or concent. This is done at home and a school setting should be no different.You haven't any such right. Sincerely you don't. Try exposing your child to pornography. Try dictating that your child not be exposed to English, Math, Science, Social Studies.

[Mabus]

Try exposing your child to pornography. Try dictating that your child not be exposed to English, Math, Science, Social Studies.
Most people do these, as they send their children to public schools.

;)

[radamanthys]

It was an honest question. Unfortunate typo aside. If someone can't see how comparing something with Hitler, Saddam or child molesters doesn't give somehow prejudice their statement then I question their ability to interact with people on a social level.

You, who couldn't have a civil debate to save his life, have the audacity to question someone's ability to interact socially?

That's not even 'so sad it's hilarious'. That's just fucking pathetic.

[Daniel]

You, who couldn't have a civil debate to save his life, have the audacity to question someone's ability to interact socially?

That's not even 'so sad it's hilarious'. That's just fucking pathetic.

Don't be jealous that I'm a bigger asshole than you.

You started out by picking fights with me and then you get upset about it. Yea, that's not pathetic.

[4a6c1]

Don't be jealous that I'm a bigger asshole than you.



Quotable!

[Tsa`ah]

It seems to me that your point of view is, if it isn't in line with your way of thinking, you don't want to hear it. I apologize if we're not on the same page there. Unlike you, I'm not as scared of a dissenting opinion as you're accusing me of being.

You're not asserting a dissenting opinion, you're drawing parallels between a presiding president and monsters (some) in world history ... based on nothing. Then when someone points it out you're running to the "that's not my belief" ... yet you still attempt to defend the parallel.


And I'm not sure where the "child molesters" bit is headed, but I see that as you drawing a line between the degrees of passion to which the two parties (in this case, me and child molesters) are arguing. In your scenario, that's a fair comparison. Nowhere there did you say I was a child molester. It's funny, because that actually proves MY point. I said, and here are quotes:

It doesn't prove your point. It wouldn't prove your point on a grade school playground, a high school gymnasium .... a college lecture hall ... ANYWHERE.

You suggest you're not making the comparison ... but you still make the comparison. This is the crux of an apples to oranges situation. Yes, both are living, plants, and part of the reproductive cycles of specific trees ... beyond that there's no comparison.

The child molester line was to demonstrate that. A few parallel lines does not a similarity make. If it's not your belief and if it doesn't fit ... there's no need for it UNLESS it is your belief and you WANT it to fit.

[Mabus]

Just found these funny:
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,"

"As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

Oh, those were back when GHWB gave a speech to schoolchildren. The House ordered the GAO to investigate, and held House hearings, because they questioned the legality of him speaking to the kids.

The first quote was Rep. Richard Gephardt (D) (then House Majority Leader), and the second was Rep. William Ford (D) (then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee).

That event cost $26,750. How much did this one cost?

Hypocrisy, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

[Parkbandit]

You're not asserting a dissenting opinion, you're drawing parallels between a presiding president and monsters (some) in world history ... based on nothing. Then when someone points it out you're running to the "that's not my belief" ... yet you still attempt to defend the parallel.


Seriously Xanator... come on. Why can't you be more like me:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/change-to-socialism-1.jpg

[Xanator]

It was an honest question. Unfortunate typo aside. If someone can't see how comparing something with Hitler, Saddam or child molesters doesn't give somehow prejudice their statement then I question their ability to interact with people on a social level.

And once again, you demonstrate your total refusal to read any actual content here. Tsa'ah brought up "child molesters" in an entirely different context to illustrate a point, and I was responding to him. You're obviously wasting your time here, because you have no regard for the actual arrangement of letters and punctuation marks that comprise these posts. You should just go watch some fucking cartoons or something.

It is obvious that you contribute absolutely nothing here, and the fact that you have even dared to insult my intelligence once, not to mention a number of times, is fucking LAUGHABLE. You have no reaction to a different viewpoint outside of a defense mechanism. You're narrow-minded, poorly spoken, quick to judge, apparently an inattentive reader, and may be the most frustratingly idiotic person I've come into contact with here. I have no respect for your opinions, and though I am well aware that you'll quickly assure me you don't care if I do or not, I feel pretty confident assuming no one else on Earth does, either.

Since labels seem to mean a lot to you, you are what I think of as a "bad liberal." Fifteen minutes of reading your mindless drivel is enough to turn someone against their own politics. Your hard-on for the president transcends what you like to call "objective reality." Your only response is insult and personal attack. When you have ANYTHING relevant or containing even an ounce of substance to say, come see me. Until then, fuck yourself.

[Daniel]

And once again, you demonstrate your total refusal to read any actual content here. Tsa'ah brought up "child molesters" in an entirely different context to illustrate a point, and I was responding to him. You're obviously wasting your time here, because you have no regard for the actual arrangement of letters and punctuation marks that comprise these posts. You should just go watch some fucking cartoons or something.

It is obvious that you contribute absolutely nothing here, and the fact that you have even dared to insult my intelligence once, not to mention a number of times, is fucking LAUGHABLE. You have no reaction to a different viewpoint outside of a defense mechanism. You're narrow-minded, poorly spoken, quick to judge, apparently an inattentive reader, and may be the most frustratingly idiotic person I've come into contact with here. I have no respect for your opinions, and though I am well aware that you'll quickly assure me you don't care if I do or not, I feel pretty confident assuming no one else on Earth does, either.

Since labels seem to mean a lot to you, you are what I think of as a "bad liberal." Fifteen minutes of reading your mindless drivel is enough to turn someone against their own politics. Your hard-on for the president transcends what you like to call "objective reality." Your only response is insult and personal attack. When you have ANYTHING relevant or containing even an ounce of substance to say, come see me. Until then, fuck yourself.



Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Seriously dude, You might want to take a break from the computer for a while. Learn to "contribute" without making allusions to evil dictators and maybe someone will take you seriously.

[Parkbandit]

Just found these funny:
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,"

"As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

Oh, those were back when GHWB gave a speech to schoolchildren. The House ordered the GAO to investigate, and held House hearings, because they questioned the legality of him speaking to the kids.

The first quote was Rep. Richard Gephardt (D) (then House Majority Leader), and the second was Rep. William Ford (D) (then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee).

That event cost $26,750. How much did this one cost?

Hypocrisy, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

Did Clinton ever talk to the kids.. because if he did, I'm sure the Republicans said pretty much the same thing.

Hypocrisy is on both sides of the isle.

[Daniel]

Did Clinton ever talk to the kids.. because if he did, I'm sure the Republicans said pretty much the same thing.

Hypocrisy is on both sides of the isle.

In either case it's silly.

[Parkbandit]

In either case it's silly.

We'll see if you say the same thing when there's a Republican in the WH.

:shrug:

[Daniel]

We'll see if you say the same thing when there's a Republican in the WH.

:shrug:

but I'll be an old man by then!

[Mabus]

Did Clinton ever talk to the kids.. because if he did, I'm sure the Republicans said pretty much the same thing.
George Herbert Walker Bush was the last one to do an address like this (1991).


Hypocrisy is on both sides of the isle.
I agree with that.

[Mabus]

but I'll be an old man by then!
Just imagine how old PB will be!
;)

[Parkbandit]

Just imagine how old PB will be!
;)

I just googled up "You son of a bitch".. and found this..

http://i14.tinypic.com/4h9j0k1.gif

[Tsa`ah]

Seriously Xanator... come on. Why can't you be more like me:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/change-to-socialism-1.jpg

Your ignorance is showing.

[Gan]

Just found these funny:
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students,"

"As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

Oh, those were back when GHWB gave a speech to schoolchildren. The House ordered the GAO to investigate, and held House hearings, because they questioned the legality of him speaking to the kids.

The first quote was Rep. Richard Gephardt (D) (then House Majority Leader), and the second was Rep. William Ford (D) (then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee).

That event cost $26,750. How much did this one cost?

Hypocrisy, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

Outstanding!

[Parkbandit]

Your ignorance is showing.

And your lack of sarcastic understanding has been painfully obvious for as long as you have posted here.

I even made it as transparent as possible for people like you.. guess I didn't dumb it down enough. My apologies. :(

[Cephalopod]

Nothing to contribute (as usual), but this made me chuckle a teensy bit:
http://imgur.com/A9mDD.jpg

[Methais]

Nothing to contribute (as usual), but this made me chuckle a teensy bit:
http://imgur.com/A9mDD.jpg

Clearly you're racist.

[Cephalopod]

Clearly you're racist.

Duh.

[Gan]

Where's the chuckle from?

:puzzled:

[Cephalopod]

Where's the chuckle from?

:puzzled:

The fact that leading up to the speech, parents were expecting their children might turn into a communist (Castro) or a Marxist (Che)?

I did say a teensy bit!

[Xanator]

Where's the chuckle from?

:puzzled:

You might need to scroll to the right. Huge image.