Is the President attempting to indoctrinate children?

[blue]

Link (http://www.newsvine.com/_question/2009/09/03/3221402-is-president-barack-obama-attempting-to-indoctrinate-children-with-his-upcoming-back-to-school-speech).

If you arent aware of what is the POTUS is planning for o9/08/09....


A suggested lesson plan that calls on school kids to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help President Obama is troubling some education experts, who say it establishes the president as a "superintendent in chief" and may indoctrinate children to support him politically.

Obama will deliver a national address directly to students on Tuesday, which will be the first day of classes for many children across the country. The address, to be broadcast live on the White House's Web site, was announced in a letter to school principals last week by Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Obama intends to "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. Obama will also call for a "shared responsibility" among students, parents and educators to maximize learning potential.

But in advance of the address, the Department of Education has offered educators "classroom activities" to coincide with Obama's message.

Students in grades pre-K-6, for example, are encouraged to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."

Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."

During the speech, "teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful."

For grades 7-12, the Department of Education suggests teachers prepare by excerpting quotes from Obama's speeches on education for their students to contemplate -- and ask as questions such as "Why does President Obama want to speak with us today? How will he inspire us? How will he challenge us?"

Activities suggested for after the speech include asking students "what resonated with you from President Obama's speech? What lines/phrase do you remember?"

Obama announced his intention to deliver the address to students during an interview with Damon Weaver, a middle school student from Florida who gained a following of his own last year on the campaign trail for his interviews of high-profile figures.

The Department of Education is using the president's address to kick off a video contest titled, "I Am What I Learn," in which students are invited to submit videos of up to two minutes on the importance of education in achieving their dreams.

Obama's critics say the lesson plans and the president's calls for a "supportive community" are troubling on many levels.

"In general, I don't think there's a problem if the president uses the bully pulpit to tell kids to work hard, study hard and things like that. But there are some troubling hints in this, both educationally and politically," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.

Among the concerns, McCluskey said, is the notion that students who do not support Obama or his educational policies will begin the school year "behind the eight ball," or somehow academically trailing their peers.

"It essentially tries to force kids to say the president and the presidency is inspiring, and that's very problematic," McCluskey said. "It's very concerning that you would do that."

Parents of public school students would also have to pay for that "indoctrination," regardless of their political background, he said.

"That's the fundamental problem. They could easily be funding the indoctrination of their children."

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the suggested lesson plans cross the line between instruction and advocacy.

"I don't think it's appropriate for teachers to ask students to help promote the president's preferred school reforms and policies," Hess said. "It very much starts to set up the president as a superintendent in chief."

Amid the debate on the federal government's level of involvement on issues like health care and others, Hess said, "There's a lot of people" on both sides of the political spectrum who will rightfully be concerned with the president's call to action.

"It shows exactly what the problem is," he said. "This is going to open the door to all kinds of concerns."

Messages to the White House seeking comment were not immediately returned early Wednesday.

After reading the Department of Education lesson plans for the speech, McCluskey said he noticed several passages that should set off "alarm bells," including language that attempts to "glorify President Obama" in the minds of young students.

"It could be a blatantly political move," he said. "Nobody knows for sure, but it gives that impression."

McCluskey also noted that the lesson plans for young students contain suggestions to write letters to themselves on how they can help the president, but that suggestion is not in the lesson plan for middle and high schoolers -- perhaps due to the likelihood of increased political ties at that age.

"You don't want to see this coming from the president," McCluskey said. "You don't want to see this coming from the federal government."

[RICHARD]

have to give the nod to the kids. They are a great deal smarted than we give them credit for, plus they can smell a stinker when they see it.;)

[Puckstop31]

LOL @ Arne Duncan Can we say "Nanny State" class?


This article is reason 1,284,391 Hannah is not going to public schools.

[JenBKR]

I'm not crazy about this plan. If he wants to address kids, that's fine, but he should do that with their parents present. It just makes me uncomfortable.

[Lady's Human]

Thankfully, our local schools don't begin session until 2 days after this little gem.

Republican or Democrat, I don't care, school is for teaching, not politics.

Pres. Bush caught hell from the Democrats for doing this in 1991, but it's okay now?

Keep the nitwits from DC in DC, and out of the classroom.

[lizbud]

Lets see, it was ok for President H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to
address school children, but not ok for President Obama??? This is just
more fodder to feed the paranoid fantasies of the seriously unhinged.

[Lady's Human]

Liz, let me repeat.....

President Bush caught hell from the Democrats for doing this in 1991, but it's okay now?

[RICHARD]

I had a wonderful epiphany last night.

BO had this 'vision' of being a Pied Piper and leading the U.S. on a wonderful journey to enlightenment, team work and all things utopian.

His 'business model' was based on all the work he had done in Chi-town.

I don't know if to laugh at, or feel sorry for his naivete.

This is another example of his speaking before thinking, backtracking, then thinking about speaking.

God, this is another reason to really look at exactly what this guy wants from us and to let him know that if his kids are 'off limits', so are the rest in the country.

The last thing that bugs me about his 'talking the talk' was all the BS about his kids going to a public school.......

Hehehehehe.

[lizbud]

Liz, let me repeat.....

President Bush caught hell from the Democrats for doing this in 1991, but it's okay now?


Repeat???


Please elaborate. What did HW Bush say in his speech? Which Democrats,
and what was their criticism? Enquiring minds want to know.:)

[Lady's Human]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/03/flashback-1991-gephardt-called-bushs-speech-students-paid-political-a

The uproar from that speech is also mentioned in every AP article about the speech I've seen.

[lizbud]

Thank you for the article. It seems the main criticism then was the Dems were PO'ed at Bush's lack of attention to issues they thought more important. They never accused the President of having a "secret agenda" to bend the minds of young children.

[Lady's Human]

No, the main criticism was using his position as President to address the school children for political purposes and wasting money to do so.

He was also accused of using the address to use the children to try and influence their parents.

I can think of a much better use for a day in school than listening to a piped in broadcast from D.C.........

Possibly teaching reading, writing, science.......

You know, the things schools are supposed to do?

[Medusa]

People should be able to disagree w/Obama and to protest and/or keep their kids home from school that day w/out being villified. He should address school kids if he so desires as other presidents before him have done. However, "Teachers are also given guidance to tell students to "build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama."" This is unnecessary. If he wants to do a PSA, sure, why not? To "give teachers guidance" is out of his realm and he should stay out.

[blue]

At least the timing of his speech isnt questionable. Link (http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2009/09/03/obamas-choice-of-september-8th-to-address-children-has-a-vital-hidden-agenda-same-day-as-obama-eligibility-case/).

[Karen]

Just reading the title of the thread makes me think one person's "teaching" is another's "indoctrination," and where the line between the two falls is purely subjective.

Ain't human beings funny?

[blue]

It is alot of subjection, and it will be untill monday when the WH releases the transcript of BHO's speech.

The whole public school system is allready a socialist system, and has been for a long time.

[Karen]

The whole public school system is allready a socialist system, and has been for a long time.

How do you define Socialist?

And what alternative do you think would be better for public schools?

[blue]

so⋅cial⋅ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun 1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

There are alot of alternatives to public schooling, yet allmost everybody is forced to fund public schools. People home schooling, or utilizing private schools still have to fund the public schools, even though they are paying for their own childrens education.

Impliment a voucher system so that families who dont want their kids to go to public school can go to a private school, a charter school, or be home schooled.

[Grace]

Impliment a voucher system so that families who dont want their kids to go to public school can go to a private school, a charter school, or be home schooled.

What do you suggest for those of us who have no children in the local school district? The last time we had a kid in public schools was over 25 years. Yet we have been paying school taxes right along.

[blue]

What do you suggest for those of us who have no children in the local school district? The last time we had a kid in public schools was over 25 years. Yet we have been paying school taxes right along.

I dont have kids at all, and I am forced to pay into the system. What do you suggest I do?

[Grace]

I dont have kids at all, and I am forced to pay into the system. What do you suggest I do?

I asked first :)

[blue]

I asked first :)

OK. You should stop paying any and all taxes that go to public schooling. THat will show them.

[Karen]

I dont have kids at all, and I am forced to pay into the system. What do you suggest I do?

I suggest you be glad that the people around you are better educated than they would otherwise be, that there is no underclass of people too poor to attend any kind of school, that there are people in jobs that serve you that can add and subtract, and that you live in a better society than you otherwise would.

Guess what? I have no children. I live in a town with high taxes. We are building a new hugely expensive and controversial high school, whose construction effects me basically every time I leave my own small street. But am I griping and complaining about it because I don't have children? No. I chose to live here. And, as a matter of fact, I like the children on my street, some of whom attend public school, some who attend private school, but all of whom are my neighbors, and are good, decent, respectful human beings, and all over the age of three learned the proper way to pet a rabbit from Miss Hoppy.

[blue]

I suggest you be glad that the people around you are better educated than they would otherwise be, that there is no underclass of people too poor to attend any kind of school, that there are people in jobs that serve you that can add and subtract, and that you live in a better society than you otherwise would.

You are assuming kids wouldnt get an education if there wasnt the public option.

There are kids that graduate public school that cant read, do basic arithmetic, or even find their state on a globe. Heck some of them even graduate college.

[Grace]

You are assuming kids wouldnt get an education if there wasnt the public option.

There are kids that graduate public school that cant read, do basic arithmetic, or even find their state on a globe. Heck some of them even graduate college.

I agree with Karen.

I dare say that there are also home-schooled kids who can't read, do basic math, or find their state on a globe.

Personally, I don't mind paying taxes that support schools. I've been a volunteer in a local school library for 10 years, and I see what can happen when a dedicated teacher works magic on children. To instill a love of learning in a child is a God-given gift.

[blue]

I agree with Karen.

I dare say that there are also home-schooled kids who can't read, do basic math, or find their state on a globe.

Personally, I don't mind paying taxes that support schools. I've been a volunteer in a local school library for 10 years, and I see what can happen when a dedicated teacher works magic on children. To instill a love of learning in a child is a God-given gift.

Im sure you are proud for steering this thread off course.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Datdude11/Internet%20messages/offtopic.jpg

[Grace]

I'm sure you are proud for steering this thread off course.


Poor blue - I have no doubt you will get everyone strictly on topic again - without delay :)

[blue]

Why would I bother?

Go ahead and further derail it.

BTW: Was it Marx or Stalin who kept repeating "The Greater Good, For The Greater Good, The Greater Good, For The Greater Good"?

[Karen]

And your original topic was accusing the President of Indoctrinating children ... and again, I asked where you would draw the line between teaching and indoctrination.

And don't you go quoting some dictionary definition at me - anyone can find a definition on the Internet - that's not what I am interesting in. For example, I didn't ask you for a textbook definition of Socialism, but your definition.

Yes, there are always children who end up illiterate, but look at the percentages of literacy in countries with public education systems, versus those without one.

[blue]

And your original topic was accusing the President of Indoctrinating children ... and again, I asked where you would draw the line between teaching and indoctrination.

And don't you go quoting some dictionary definition at me - anyone can find a definition on the Internet - that's not what I am interesting in. For example, I didn't ask you for a textbook definition of Socialism, but your definition.

Yes, there are always children who end up illiterate, but look at the percentages of literacy in countries with public education systems, versus those without one.

Where did I accuse the president of anything? I asked a question.

Sorry to pull a lefty tactic but you left it open.

My definition of socialism?

Instead of teaching a man to fish, you take, by force, fish from the fisherman and give it to those who dont know how to fish.

Socialism is a forced, false, system of equality.

ETA: How in the heck did socialism become part of this discussion? It wasnt even part of my OP!
Further ETA: I brought socialism into this dang it.

[Grace]

ETA: How in the heck did socialism become part of this discussion? It wasnt even part of my OP!
Further ETA: I brought socialism into this dang it.



http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Datdude11/Internet%20messages/offtopic.jpg

[blue]

My thread lady, not yours. It doesnt change the fact that the public school system is a socialist system.

[Karen]

Where did I accuse the president of anything? I asked a question.


"Is the President attempting to indoctrinate children?"

is your title of this thread, so while technically you are asking a question, you are implying an accusation.




Sorry to pull a lefty tactic but you left it open.

My definition of socialism?

Instead of teaching a man to fish, you take, by force, fish from the fisherman and give it to those who dont know how to fish.

Socialism is a forced, false, system of equality.

And so how are public schools socialism? Ain't no American school that turns out all "equal" students, but they do attempt at least to provide students with a a basic education, to do with what they will.

And your definition of socialism sounds more like communism to me.

[Grace]

My thread lady, not yours.

Quoted before you edited -

natürlich, mein herr

[blue]

natürlich, mein herr

"Of course, my wonderful"???

[Grace]

"Of course, my wonderful"???

Try mine sir. Meaning you are male, as opposed to female.

[blue]

Meh, derail as you seem fit. Go nuts.

[RICHARD]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Datdude11/Internet%20messages/offtopic.jpg

Are we there yet?
I have to number 1......;):eek:

Pull over here.............NOW!

[blue]

"Is the President attempting to indoctrinate children?"

is your title of this thread, so while technically you are asking a question, you are implying an accusation.

Asking questions is now accusatory? I did not attach my own bias to the question, nor did I imply my bias to the question.


And so how are public schools socialism? Ain't no American school that turns out all "equal" students, but they do attempt at least to provide students with a a basic education, to do with what they will.

Not socialism, its a socialist system. Take from everybody to benifit a few.


And your definition of socialism sounds more like communism to me.

The end result is the same, so why split hairs?

[blue]

Are we there yet?
I have to number 1......;):eek:

Pull over here.............NOW!

No stops on this ride.

[Karen]

Asking questions is now accusatory? I did not attach my own bias to the question, nor did I imply my bias to the question.

Not asking a question, the word choice holds its own bias.

Do not these three questions sound different?

"Is the President trying to indoctrinate children?"
"Is the President trying to teach children?"
"Is the President trying to speak to children?"



Not socialism, its a socialist system. Take from everybody to benifit a few.

How does public education "benefit a few?"


The end result is the same, so why split hairs?

Wars have been fought over socialism versus communism. I hardly call that splitting hairs.

[blue]

Not asking a question, the word choice holds its own bias.

Do not these three questions sound different?

"Is the President trying to indoctrinate children?"
"Is the President trying to teach children?"
"Is the President trying to speak to children?"

The title of the linked poll is "Is President Barack Obama attempting to indoctrinate children with his upcoming back-to-school speech?". Ild say the title of this thread is much less biased.





How does public education "benefit a few?"

More taxpayers then students.


Wars have been fought over socialism versus communism. I hardly call that splitting hairs.

Wars have been fought over liberty versus tyranny, socialism and communism have more in common then not. I would call it splitting hairs.

[Lady's Human]

For someone who is normally strict a constructionist, your stance on public education is puzzling.

It is mandated, first and foremost ,in the constitutions of the many states. This is the ultimate expression of states' rights, as Washington D.C. has helped enforce educational requirements in the state constitutions. Just as certain federal agencies are mandated through the US Constitution and taxes/revenue collection methods are mandated to maintain them, education requirements and taxes to fund them are mandated in state constitutions.

[blue]

For someone who is normally strict a constructionist, your stance on public education is puzzling.

It is mandated, first and foremost ,in the constitutions of the many states. This is the ultimate expression of states' rights, as Washington D.C. has helped enforce educational requirements in the state constitutions. Just as certain federal agencies are mandated through the US Constitution and taxes/revenue collection methods are mandated to maintain them, education requirements and taxes to fund them are mandated in state constitutions.

Not first and formost, from article 7.


§ 1. Public Education

The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control. No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.

What about parents who dont want to take the public option for their childrens schooling? They still pay taxes, and then they have to pay extra to have their children schooled outside of the public system. In effect they are being punished for educating their children outside of the states controll.

[Lady's Human]

No, they are making a choice.

Before we had children, my wife and I paid taxes to support a school system.

Should we have been exempt from taxes as we had no children in the system? No, as education produces better citizens. (which could be easily interpreted as being for the general welfare of the state)

If your schools are failing, get involved, whether you have children or not. There's no clause in school district meetings that I'm aware of which require you to have children in the system to attend the meetings, speak your peace, and exercise your rights as citizens.

School board officials are elected, not appointed. Don't like the way the school system in your municipality is being run? Vote 'em out.

The failure of schools is as much the fault of the parents and other citizens in the school districts as it is the teachers, if not more so.

[blue]

No, they are making a choice.

Before we had children, my wife and I paid taxes to support a school system.

Should we have been exempt from taxes as we had no children in the system? No, as education produces better citizens. (which could be easily interpreted as being for the general welfare of the state)

The Marxist cause, "For the greater Good". I have to agree however, its better they get any education then none.


If your schools are failing, get involved, whether you have children or not. There's no clause in school district meetings that I'm aware of which require you to have children in the system to attend the meetings, speak your peace, and exercise your rights as citizens.

School board officials are elected, not appointed. Don't like the way the school system in your municipality is being run? Vote 'em out.

The failure of schools is as much the fault of the parents and other citizens in the school districts as it is the teachers, if not more so.

Every chance I get I try to vote out everybody, be it a judge, school board official, heck anybody, even on the utility boards. Give me the chance and Ild vote my own mom off the board of directors of my old credit union.

[Lady's Human]

Yeah, John Adams was one hell of a Marxist.

Pres. Adams wrote the Massachusetts State Constitution of 1780, which served as the role model for much of the rest of the United States.

To quote:


Chapter V, Section II.
The Encouragement of Literature, etc.

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.


Yeah, a real Marxist (well before Marx was born), wanting people to be educated so that they could exercise their rights and flourish as citizens.

[Puckstop31]

Just reading the title of the thread makes me think one person's "teaching" is another's "indoctrination," and where the line between the two falls is purely subjective.

Ain't human beings funny?


All the more reason the federal government should not be involved in the education of our children. Reason #1 why we are going to home school Hannah.

And yes, people ARE funnay. Tell me you don't like to "people watch" at malls and airports. LOL :D

[Puckstop31]

For someone who is normally strict a constructionist, your stance on public education is puzzling.

It is mandated, first and foremost ,in the constitutions of the many states. This is the ultimate expression of states' rights, as Washington D.C. has helped enforce educational requirements in the state constitutions. Just as certain federal agencies are mandated through the US Constitution and taxes/revenue collection methods are mandated to maintain them, education requirements and taxes to fund them are mandated in state constitutions.

Thanks LH. I was hoping smoebody would jump in with this.

Personally. I have no problem paying taxes at a LOCAL level to fund a public school system. Further allowing that LOCAL authority the ability to define the curriculum. This would in effect give parents some level of choice.

I take a large issue with fedzilla getting invovled. They place unfunded mandates on the states. They also hold states hostage by not providing other "funding" if they do not teach as fedzilla says they should. Fedzilla makes education a very political thing. What politician runs for office wihtout talking about "money for education", as if MORE money will fix all the "problems"?

All in all, just my $.02. Our children will be homeschooled until at least age 12, at which time will be given a choice, if we think they are ready to really think for themselves. I'd be willing to guranteee that should they choose to go to public schools at that time, it will either be short lived or they will be way ahead of the others. Thats not me simply thumping my chest as a proud parent... Home schooling offers the ability to adjust curriculum to the childs learning style. Personalized education if you will. It takes a dedicated parent who has the time to do all the work involved. We as a family are fortunate to be able to provide that to Hannah and "the next one". :) Also, I am inspired by my best buddies kids. He has 4 home schooled daughters who are simply amazing. They are smart, polite, have many friends and do all the normal kid things. The oldest, 13, takes a college level Latin class.


Blue - I think it really does behoove you to pay those dang taxes, on the local level, to provide public schools. In today's world, it is just not realistic that all parents can provide for their own kids education. But it is very important for us as a country to have a educated population. Please take into account everything else I have said in this post though. :) Keep fedzilla OUT of it. It would be nice if we could ditch the public school unions too. I might send Hannah to a public school then.

[RICHARD]

All in all, just my $.02. Our children will be homeschooled until at least age 12, at which time will be given a choice, if we think they are ready to really think for themselves. I'd be willing to guranteee that should they choose to go to public schools at that time, it will either be short lived or they will be way ahead of the others. Thats not me simply thumping my chest as a proud parent... Home schooling offers the ability to adjust curriculum to the childs learning style. Personalized education if you will. It takes a dedicated parent who has the time to do all the work involved. We as a family are fortunate to be able to provide that to Hannah and "the next one". :) Also, I am inspired by my best buddies kids. He has 4 home schooled daughters who are simply amazing. They are smart, polite, have many friends and do all the normal kid things. The oldest, 13, takes a college level Latin class.



DUDE!

I don't have any kids so this will come as BS and not worth much.

I was pretty much against home schooling from the standpoint of "only people in cults chose that road". The next opinion was the way of the over protective parent-I don't want my kids to get involved with XXXXXX- fill in your phobia here.:rolleyes:

Not any more.

My parents spent GOOD money to send us kids thru the 'boot camp of Catholic School'. Only my sister got thru the k-11 experience, LOL she turned out the be the most defective.;):eek::o

The rest of us stayed in until they found it was way too expensive and the "your Third, fourth fifth six, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth kids learn free!" coupons/offers were no good anymore.

My parents were not THAT prolific, but paying for two kids and getting the other two educated for free was a good deal.

---------------------

I went into Jr. High about two grades above what my peers were at. Because I came from an enviroment where you were taught to 'be smart' and compete for your grades, I was picked on because I made the people in my classes look stupid.

It wasn't that they were stupid. They just didn't come from the place that demanded they learn and take pride in it. I skated thru high school and the college courses that I took for my job.

Why? Sister Mary Torquemada's way of beating info into me.
Sister Mary H. Himmler's way of running the cam-ah, school.

I am being facetious here. Looking back on the experience? I didn't really enjoy all the BS around learning, but am thankful that I did attend that school.

I am a huge proponent of schools and probably could afford to pay another dollar or two-literally-for the local school system.

If everyone tossed a dollar into the hat, how much money would come from the community as large as the City of El Lay?

Even to save the 'small' classes like Music, Art and Science- I am a huge science geek and nothing would make me happier than seeing a few bucks get kicked down for THAT part of schooling....

Anyway,
With all the budget cuts and the teacher's getting beat down for trying to get kids to learn?

Keep the kids at home, where the parents can control what the kiddies learn!

---------------------------

Here's a little side light to the topic.


TEACH KIDS CIVICS. I have nieces and nephews that are very bright and when we get into conversations about current events I cringe when they ask me an honest question about stuff I learned when I was a kid.

I could probably whip the arse of any fifth grader on paper, in a quiz or spelling bee?

But, seeing the 'adults' that should have two to three times the wisdom and smarts of the next generation, fail miserably when it comes to providing a good base for learning, competition and instilling a good work ethic for their children?

I am glad I have no children.

I am an 'intelligence whore' and probably would have had the kid who graduated college at the age of 11. Then died when the kid flipped out and stabbed me in my sleep, all because he would have been forced to learn 26 out of the 24 hours in a day.;):rolleyes::eek:

[Catty1]

OK...I am nowhere near as well-informed as everyone here, especially since I don't live in the You-Ess-Eh ;) (my dad's mom was born in 'Warshington' state, though)...but is one address by the President and several days work on his speech really going to brainwash kids for life?

I would hope that some kids, especially if their parents didn't vote for Obama, would create some interesting "discussions" in the classroom.

Even if misguided, it seems to me part of this is to encourage young people to be a part of the solution - national citizen teamwork was something Obama mentioned in his Inaugural speech.

On the other hand - Canada has not had to face first-hand real fears and threats such as the Bay of Pigs, and refugees from Cuba. I can see that anything that smacks remotely of the government taking charge would cause great concern - because no one wants to live in Cuba or Russia!

Canadians have a similar thing going right now - and hope to boot the dictatorial Harper out at the next election (this fall?). Except - there are a lot of cattle that follow the promised decrease in our national sales tax and say that Harper is a good guy. Better look under the carpet of that tax decrease, my fellow Canucks...lot of crap there.

That's it for me. :)

[Miss Z]

OK...I am nowhere near as well-informed as everyone here, especially since I don't live in the You-Ess-Eh ;) (my dad's mom was born in 'Warshington' state, though)...but is one address by the President and several days work on his speech really going to brainwash kids for life?

I would hope that some kids, especially if their parents didn't vote for Obama, would create some interesting "discussions" in the classroom.

Even if misguided, it seems to me part of this is to encourage young people to be a part of the solution - national citizen teamwork was something Obama mentioned in his Inaugural speech.


I agree with this. I find it slightly strange that something that those kids may actually have enjoyed, or been inspired by, is being taken as something so evil.

I am currently in private education and my parents too pay for the state schools as part of their taxes. We don't particularly like that our money is being spent on someone else's kid when we are forking out fortunes for my education, but we don't begrudge the teaching they are receiving. Even as an independent school, it is mandate that we adhere somewhat to the National Curriculum for the National Qualifications. Gosh, I feel that with our nationalised health system and examinations, we must be such a funny little Marxist country. :rolleyes:

I spent a couple of years studying the Red Scare and from some of your posts, blue, it appears as if you're still living in it.

[blue]

Yeah, John Adams was one hell of a Marxist.

Pres. Adams wrote the Massachusetts State Constitution of 1780, which served as the role model for much of the rest of the United States.

To quote:


Chapter V, Section II.
The Encouragement of Literature, etc.

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

Good quote, but Mr Adams was referring to the greater good for individuals, not the Marxist ideal of the greater good for the greater good. I still agree that any education is better then none.

Chapter 5 is not first and foremost.


Blue - I think it really does behoove you to pay those dang taxes, on the local level, to provide public schools. In today's world, it is just not realistic that all parents can provide for their own kids education. But it is very important for us as a country to have a educated population. Please take into account everything else I have said in this post though. :) Keep fedzilla OUT of it. It would be nice if we could ditch the public school unions too. I might send Hannah to a public school then.

Actually I have much less issues with my property taxes going to public schools since I moved out of Anchorage. The Mat Su Borough has much less waste and frivolous spending then A-Town when it comes to the public school system.

[Lady's Human]

:rolleyes:

First and foremost:

Primarily.

As in the primary place that a public education system is codified is in the constitutions of the states of the United States of America.

The state assuring the greater good for individuals........hmmmmmm......

I know perfectly well what Pres. Adams was referring to, you seem to miss the concept completely. There is nothing Marxist about what I stated, and there cannot, by definition, be anything Marxist about what Pres. Adams was stating.

[blue]

:rolleyes:

First and foremost:

Primarily.

Im not trying to start a pissing contest.


I know perfectly well what Pres. Adams was referring to, you seem to miss the concept completely. There is nothing Marxist about what I stated, and there cannot, by definition, be anything Marxist about what Pres. Adams was stating.

I agreed with you on that. Adams was stating for the individual, absoloutely nothing marxist in his quote.

[Lady's Human]

Another very marxist concept from the founders:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which is what I was referring to when you brought up the specter of Marxism.

If providing an education isn't promoting the general welfare, I don't know what is.

[blue]

What part of I dont want a pissing contest dont you get?

Yes promoting the general welfare for individuals is a good thing, not promoting the greater good for the sake of the greater good. Again I agree. Promoting general welfare, on its own, is not a Marxist concept.

You brought up a quote by Mr Adams in response to my specter of Marxism, a quote that I agreed with.

ETA: If you want a pissing contest over my replys to post #43 or 45, you can go cross swords with someone else. I agreed with you on following posts, its rare that someone argues with me for agreeing with them.

[RICHARD]

I spent a couple of years studying the Red Scare and from some of your posts, blue, it appears as if you're still living in it.

What part of the red scare are you talking about?

Also, could you explain the nat'l quals?

I paid for my education and alas, my poor parents and I paid for my nieces and nephews public schooling, So I am behind the cue ball on this topic.

[blue]

blue, it appears as if you're still living in it.

I want to make sure we dont revisit those days.

I dont know enough about the UK to call it Marxist, it can be funnay though.

[Puckstop31]

Another very marxist concept from the founders:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which is what I was referring to when you brought up the specter of Marxism.

If providing an education isn't promoting the general welfare, I don't know what is.

PROMOTE is a very different word than PROVIDE. From what I have read and understand about the men... They wanted conditions that allowed the people to take care of themselves, with the absolute minimal government interference, especially from the Federal level.

But as I have said before.... I get the concept of public schools, provided it is funded and managed from the most local level possible.

[Lady's Human]

Yes, Promote is very different than provide, however,providing a basic level of education to all citizens (give a man a fish/teach a man to fish) would definitely be promoting the general welfare of the state. I would again refer you to the Constitution of 1780 of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, written by Pres. Adams. If a founder didn't have an idea of what the founders wanted, who does?

[lizbud]

This update just in...............:D

The Tonight Show
Conan O'Brien: President Obama plans to make a televised speech to the nation's students during school hours. Many Republicans are planning to keep their kids home from school in protest. As a result, those kids have voted Obama "Best President Ever."

[Edwina's Secretary]

On the other hand - Canada has not had to face first-hand real fears and threats such as the Bay of Pigs, and refugees from Cuba. I can see that anything that smacks remotely of the government taking charge would cause great concern - because no one wants to live in Cuba or Russia!

Catty - sweet of you to care but ...Bay of Pigs was an attempt by the US to send people to Cuba to kill Castro. Refugees from Cuba - most of whom came over in the late 50's were not a threat - well except to the English language in Miami. There was another influx later when Castro let folks leave Cuba - many criminals he wanted rid of. Still not an invasion and still not a threat.

The Cuban missile crisis that occurred after the failed invasion of Cuba involved the Soviet Union - not Russia. And it was about the Soviet Union putting nuclear weapons in Cuba.

I was a very young child when these things happened (although I do remember the drills) and I really, really doubt the fear of Cuba ever existed (it is a poor poor small country) or that the memories of huddling under our school desks because of the missile crisis is what is driving any behavior today. A takeover of the US government was never a part of the equation.

[pomtzu]

I was a very young child when these things happened (although I do remember the drills) and I really, really doubt the fear of Cuba ever existed (it is a poor poor small country) or that the memories of huddling under our school desks because of the missile crisis is what is driving any behavior today. A takeover of the US government was never a part of the equation.

Unfortunately, I remember this all too well. My ex was a Marine stationed at Pendleton and we were newlyweds. I arrived at Pendleton on a Friday morning, and since base housing would not be available for a couple of weeks, we were staying at the Hostess House on base. On Saturday, hubby's brother drove up from San Diego (he was stationed there in the Navy) and drove us down there to stay with him and his family for the weekend (we had no car). When we got back on Sunday night, there was a note on our room door for hubby to report to his c.o. - he was being shipped out to Cuba on Monday morning. Fortunately hubby always had a way with words, and when he explained the situation that he and I were in, he got out of going. I was frantic - imagining I was going to be a widow before I had a chance to be a wife. When we did get housing - it was very strange indeed. It was like a community devoid of men - you basically saw just women and children (and an occasional man) - since the rest had shipped out.
So were we afraid of Cuba?? - I doubt it. But were we afraid of Cuba's leader and what he was capable of?? - you bet. We could have faced annihilation at his hands, so there wouldn't have been any government left to take over.

[Grace]

I was in NYC, a newly graduated RN, when the Cuban Missile crisis happened. My soon-to-be husband was stationed on a Destroyer in Norfolk, Virginia - all leaves were canceled.

I admit, I was more than a wee bit nervous. I figured NYC would be a grand target for one of their missiles. Each night I went to bed, wondering if the city would be there when/if I woke up in the morning.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I still have mushroom cloud nightmares.

I just don't think the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban Missile crisis has anything to do with why some parents are afraid to let their kids listen to Obama. Or think he is a socialist.

I doubt if many parents of school age children today remember 1961 and 1962.

[RICHARD]

LOLOLOLOLOL

Adult please.

COMMUNISM happened to be the 'best' thing for the United States from the early sixties until the wall fell.

All you all remember 13 days where a piece of wood over your head would save you......It's not just about you, you and you.



Bwahahahahahhahahahaha.
Fear of Cuba or the nukes they had pointed at us?


Read HIROSHIMA by John Hershey. Make sure you reread the parts about the
soldiers who were at the anti aircraft batteries when the bomb went off.

It's a pretty good arguement against using an effing nuke again.

Grace.
Nervous or scared poopless?:eek:

[pomtzu]

I still have mushroom cloud nightmares.

I just don't think the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban Missile crisis has anything to do with why some parents are afraid to let their kids listen to Obama. Or think he is a socialist.

I doubt if many parents of school age children today remember 1961 and 1962.

I was simply commenting on your statement where you said you doubt the fear of Cuba ever existed.

And as far as remembering 1961 and 1962 - I wonder how many people are aware of how truly close to the end that we really were??? :eek:

[Edwina's Secretary]

I agree with you. It was a terrifying time and incredible close to disaster.

But I believe it was the Soviet Union that was feared - and that was the threat!

I was responding to the suggestion that we feared a Cuban invasion.

[Grace]

I agree with you. It was a terrifying time and incredible close to disaster.

But I believe it was the Soviet Union that was feared - and that was the threat!

I was responding to the suggestion that we feared a Cuban invasion.

Yes, it was the Soviet Union, not Cuba. Cuba just happened to be the proposed launching point.

[pomtzu]

But I believe it was the Soviet Union that was feared - and that was the threat!



Cuba~Soviet Union - back then it was the same equation. Remember the song "Sixteen Tons"? - if the right one don't getcha then the left one will

[Edwina's Secretary]

and...the Bay of Pigs was the US trying to invade Cuba - not Cuba trying to invade the US.

[pomtzu]

and...the Bay of Pigs was the US trying to invade Cuba - not Cuba trying to invade the US.

Yes - I know......

[RICHARD]

Here we go again with people not knowing history.:rolleyes:

It was not the U.S. that was trying to invade Cuba.

The U.S. helped the Cube Ex-pats try to invade the island.

They 'helped', then wussed out of the whole deal leaving the ex-p's to go at it alone.

Don't forget to blame the U.S. for the Tunguska incident on 1908.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Here we go again with people not knowing history.:rolleyes:

It was not the U.S. that was trying to invade Cuba.




You are right on the first point.

CIA....helping Cuban exiles ...Are you suggesting the CIA is not a part of the US?

Give it a rest. My point was...still is...I do not believe the Anti-Obamans are not driven by a lingering fear of an invasion of the US or Russia.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Edwina's Secretary]

On March 16, 1960, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to use their elite Special Activities Division to equip, train and lead Cuban exiles in an amphibious invasion of Cuba, to overthrow the new Cuban government of Fidel Castro. Eisenhower stated it was the policy of the U.S. government to aid anti-Castro guerrilla forces.The CIA was initially confident it was capable of overthrowing the Cuban government, having experience in actions such as the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. The plan (code-named Operation Pluto) was organized by Richard Mervin Bissell, Jr., CIA Deputy Director for Plans, under CIA Director Allen Dulles.

The original CIA plan called for a ship-borne invasion at the old colonial city of Trinidad, Cuba, about 270 km (170mi) south-east of Havana, at the foothills of the Escambray Mountains in Sancti Spiritus province. Trinidad had good port facilities, and arguably was close to much existing counter-revolutionary activities. The CIA later proposed alternative plans, and on 11 March 1961 President Kennedy and his cabinet selected the Bay of Pigs option (also known as Operation Zapata), because it had an airfield suitable for B-26 bomber operations and it was less militarily "noisy", so potentially more plausible deniability of US direct involvement. The invasion landing area was changed to beaches bordering the Bay of Pigs in Las Villas Province, 150 km south-east of Havana, and east of the Zapata peninsula. The landings were to take place at Playa Girón (code-named Blue Beach), Playa Larga (code-named Red Beach), and Caleta Buena Inlet (code-named Green Beach).

In March 1961, the CIA helped Cuban exiles in Miami to create the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC), chaired by José Miró Cardona, former (Jan 1959) Prime Minister of Cuba. Cardona became the de facto leader-in-waiting of the intended post-invasion Cuban government.

[Cataholic]

I have a near school aged child, and I do not remember 1961, 1962 nor any of the 60's for that matter.

And, I don't care if Obama himself came into my son's classroom to give a lesson. I would prolly call off work that day myself, to attend J's school!

[RICHARD]

I have a near school aged child, and I do not remember 1961, 1962 nor any of the 60's for that matter.




Well there ya go, Since you don't remember the past, you aren't doomed to repeat it.

And some inside advice?

Don't stand up while the ride is in motion and please keep your arms and legs inside the car at all times.:confused:

[Cataholic]

^^Keep your advice, I keep my own counsel. ^^

[RICHARD]

bwahahahahahahhahahhahahhahahaha.

meh.

What was the line about representing yourself and counsel?

------------------

See what happens when you do not remember the past?http://www.postchronicle.com/news/strange/article_212255028.shtml

[blue]

On March 16, 1960, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to use their elite Special Activities Division to equip, train and lead......

If you're going to cut and paste you should at least link your source.

[Edwina's Secretary]

If you're going to cut and paste you should at least link your source.

Why?

[blue]

Why?

Plagiarism is dishonest. Or did you want people to think you actualy were the original author of post 76?

[lizbud]

I urge everyone reading to look at the last few posts and tell me who
was the first to go negative with snide remarks?

[Cataholic]

^^It is the same way 99% of the time^^.

I never understood this 'thing' about posting links, sources, etc. If someone cites their 'source' to some ridiculous comment, does someone really think that beefs up the credibility of the ridiculous comment? This isn't school, no one needs to link or cite anything they post.

As for plagiarism...that comment is funny. Only claiming yourself as the author, or passing it off as your own thought, makes it plagiarism. There are probably about .002% of the population having original, first, 'virgin' thoughts. Chances are, if you thought it, so did about 500,000 other people, two weeks ago.

[pomtzu]

I urge everyone reading to look at the last few posts and tell me who
was the first to go negative with snide remarks?

So if that poster jumps out of a plane without a parachute, are you going to follow suit?

As I told my kids when they were growing up, and am telling my grandson now:
If you encounter a person or persons harassing you and trying to start trouble by what they say - just ignore them. They want a response back so they can keep it going. If you ignore them, they'll eventually get tired of a one way fight and move on to someone or something else, and leave you alone. I'm sure that many here have told their kids basically the same thing. So why can't the same be applied to what is, or is not, posted here? All that worldly advise just goes out the window, and the war of words begins.

Idiotic! :mad:

And I am not calling any person idiotic - only the childish actions of some. :(

[Edwina's Secretary]

^^It is the same way 99% of the time^^.

I never understood this 'thing' about posting links, sources, etc. If someone cites their 'source' to some ridiculous comment, does someone really think that beefs up the credibility of the ridiculous comment? This isn't school, no one needs to link or cite anything they post.

Gosh Jo...if something is on the internet...it must be true:D;)

You are exactly right. I am not writing a college paper or an article for a newspaper. If someone choses not to believe what I posted or that I wrote it or didn't write it ...doesn't mean a hill of beans.

I get tired of these czars who unilaterally establish rules that must be followed. If Karen tells me a rule - it is her website - she gets to make the rules. Other than that...whatever:rolleyes:

[Miss Z]

What part of the red scare are you talking about?


The McCarthyism era, mainly. Trying to see 'evil' where there is none. The whole attitude of suspecting every new concept as disturbing and something to be avoided. The idea that those who step out of the ordinary way of things should be ratted on, and that they should withdraw their presence, or have their presence withdrawn, from everyone around them.

Maybe my comparison is extreme. It's just what I was reminded of.

[RICHARD]

The McCarthyism era, mainly. Trying to see 'evil' where there is none. The whole attitude of suspecting every new concept as disturbing and something to be avoided. The idea that those who step out of the ordinary way of things should be ratted on, and that they should withdraw their presence, or have their presence withdrawn, from everyone around them.

Maybe my comparison is extreme. It's just what I was reminded of.

"Mc Carthyism" was a witch hunt.

The "Red Scare" of Communism in places across the planet was a real threat to the countries that were subjected to invasion, coups and Communist influence on the govenerments.

The Mac Red Scare was just a pbunch of paranoid men, with good cause, to try and keep the idea of Communism from infesting our country.

Was it right? Nope. but it's the same freak out mode that most people have had against all polticians and their ideals.


----------------------

HCR is a known evil, we see it, feel it and pay for it. IT's not a cloud of smoke we cannot put our hands around and disappears after a few seconds, like the threat of Communism IN our country at that time was.


The boob in the WH wants to slap a coat of white wash over the shiat he'll use to patch the cracks in the system. It will work until the walls get washed or humid weather shows up. Then you get the experience of having sub-standard work done on your home.

Going back to the M era? That was the start of a more 'refined' view of who the Commies were and why we did need to be scared.

I think you also had a bit of the McCarthy song and dance in your country's history? I guess you can compare it to the Religion vs. Science debates the GB of yore sponsored?;)

Not too many winners in those days.

(P.S. Check out the Salem witch hunts.)

---------------------------------

I worked a few years in the HC industry and way to 'fix' the system is to reform the insurance/tort/malpractice industries.

Leave the actual 'service providers' alone until you fix the boat underneath them.

For the media and elected officials to portray the people who are against the prez' reform as radicals and working against any changes is a patently stupid and dishonest bunch of horse crap.

We want the reform also, but we want a more well thought out attempt at it.
Not some half hearted and ill formed patch work fix.

I venture to say we, as all good Americans are apt to do, don't care about Canadian or Brit HC, we want our own and we want it to be affordable.


Lastly, one of the members of the Dem Party doesn't want to take on the lawyers, who make money hand over fist taking cases where they want to suck millions out of the hospitals, insurance companies, drug manufacturers, medical supply companies and finally the doctors.

IT's amazing how intelligent the people who are behind the prez and his ideas for reform. It's also amazing that the basics of the HC industry can be overlooked. The reformers only see the surface of the pond.

Any trash, muck or potential 'health hazards' stay underwater away from any prying eyes. If you want to know what's underwater you have to roll up your pant legs and go a wading.

Obama is trying to impress upon people that he and they can walk across the pond and not have to worry about any of the crap under their feet.:rolleyes:

[Grace]

Getting back to the President's address to school kids. I just read this -


The Florida Republican party chairman who last week accused the president of trying to “indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda” now says he’ll let his children watch what he calls a “good speech,” one the president “should give.”

“It’s a good speech,” Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer said Monday. “It encourages kids to stay in school and the importance of education and I think that’s what a president should do when they’re gonna talk to students across the country.”

In a telephone interview as he headed to Tallahassee for a round of TV interviews ahead of tonight’s FSU-Miami football game, Greer said the White House made “changes” to teacher prep materials – and the speech itself – as a result of the political pressure he applied.

“The speech that’s out today is one that he should give, and I’m pleased to see that the White House has made changes to what was gonna happen.”

and this -


Former first lady Laura Bush is defending President Obama's decision to address the nation's school children, telling CNN Monday that it is "really important for everyone to respect the President of the United States."

"I think that there is a place for the President of the United States to talk to school children and encourage school children, and I think there are a lot of people that should do the same," she told CNN's Zain Verjee, in an interview set to air Monday on The Situation Room. "And that is encourage their own children to stay in school and to study hard and to try to achieve the dream that they have."

The former first lady said she believed criticism of the speech had arisen because of the accompanying lesson plans. If parents are opposed to the address, said Bush, "That's their right. You know that certainly is the right of parents to choose what they want their children to hear in school… (But) I think it's also really important for everyone to respect the President of the United States."

[Edwina's Secretary]

"Mc Carthyism" was a witch hunt.

The "Red Scare" of Communism in places across the planet was a real threat to the countries that were subjected to invasion, coups and Communist influence on the govenerments.

The Mac Red Scare was just a pbunch of paranoid men, with good cause, to try and keep the idea of Communism from infesting our country.

With good cause...never...have I ever heard good cause in the same sentence with the name of Joe McCarthy! Or that he was trying to keep the idea of Communism from infesting the US.

Communism had far more of a chance of catching on during the depression. McCarthy was a drunken baffoon who was trying to make a name for himself using cold war fears. Destroying people's lives.

Good cause indeed!

[Catty1]

I am gently suggesting - only suggesting - that when it comes to anything that might hint of Marxism, Communism or Socialism...many Americans get a case of PTSD, and with good reason.

All the "Socialist" etc countries had a dictatorship-like situation almost from the beginning of their history.

I don't believe it would ever take hold to such an extent in the U.S.A. It doesn't have the long history attached to it in America.

If this health bill is being rammed through without adequate reading, preparation and amendment, then yes, loud protest is needed. I don't think that is right.

Factual change is a good thing, I think; but protest due to a knee-jerk fear reaction because one perceives a possible shade of pink in the proceedings is scary.

JMO. I'm not there, so it's only MO.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I am gently suggesting - only suggesting - that when it comes to anything that might hint of Marxism, Communism or Socialism...many Americans get a case of PTSD, and with good reason.

All the "Socialist" etc countries had a dictatorship-like situation almost from the beginning of their history.

I don't believe it would ever take hold to such an extent in the U.S.A. It doesn't have the long history attached to it in America.
so it's only MO.

I cannot imagine what possible reason - good or bad - many Americans would have post traumatic stress about Marxism, Communism, or Socialism. The country had never been invaded by any of those or any dictatorship like situation.

I have been trying to remember if I have ever even MET a communist or marxist - best I can come up with is I suppose I did when visiting the nominally communist former Yugoslavia. And I suppose somewhere in my life I have met a socialist. But trauma??? Stress??

Not only is there not a long history of dictatorship, socialism, communist or marxism - there isn't any.

Are there people running around Canada suffering from Post Traumatic Stress because of communism, marxism or socialism?

[RICHARD]

I am gently suggesting - only suggesting - that when it comes to anything that might hint of Marxism, Communism or Socialism...many Americans get a case of PTSD, and with good reason.

If this health bill is being rammed through without adequate reading, preparation and amendment, then yes, loud protest is needed. I don't think that is right.

Factual change is a good thing, I think; but protest due to a knee-jerk fear reaction because one perceives a possible shade of pink in the proceedings is scary.

JMO. I'm not there, so it's only MO.

We ain't gonna turn turtle after 233 years of fighting off the jokers who do not like us.

The 'thing' the media and people do not realize is that we want HCR, we don't want the "Force it in/out" mentality.


The people who are enamoured of the prez and his wacky 'change' mentality do not realize the depth nor the scope of what the delivery of a sound, progressive, modern and cheap health care program is.

If you want to climb Mt Everest you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. BO wants to airlift everyone and everything to the top of the hill and let things trickle down.

Ah, Mister Prez?
Helicopters don't fly that high and you may be suffering from hypoxia.

It has nothing to do with knee jerk reactions.

It has to do with the citizens being given a chance to have a voice in the decision that the prez wants to make. That's it.

IT's the same with the "school talk" at the kids. I sure a shiat don't want some politician getting buddy buddy with my kids and whispering anything in their ears.

If you have small children ask you local reps if they would like to care for them for a few days. I trust them like I'd trust the moron who kidnapped the gal and held her for 18 years. They are worse than that type of criminal-Our politicians lie to our faces and say it's for our 'own good'.

If anyone questions what the prez is trying to 'push through', we are labeled as "racists" and "old crazy people".


So, If were are racist and crazy, that must mean the supporters of the regime in power right now are brainless fools -sheeple- who cannot and will not question any moves made by them.

No one knows what exactly is in the HCR/HIR bills, how they will affect the future of delivered HC in the future and how the costing will be affected, so for them to support something as ill-thought out as a Obama inspired reform?
They should be ready to accept the consequences of that bill and should be held responsible for it's failure.

I ONLY CARE ABOUT HOW THE HCR WILL AFFECT THE MASSES.
I don't care about Obama and his race, creed or family.

I just don't like the idea that this jerk wants to go over the heads or the people who object to his ideas and has his supporters trying to force it down my piehole.


-----------------

Watch how fast this paragraph is ignored.:confused:




IF you support BO's HCR take some money and put it into the bank.

I'll check in later with you. Should the bill fail and eff up the HC industry give me the money, If not, keep you money and laugh at me.

Show how much you believe in this clown show, put you money where your mouth is.


P.S. the fact that I am not betting on this? Should you win the bet and get to laugh at me, will it be enough to make it worth your while?

Don't just put faith in your party, Fund the action. Make a stand. Yes, you can-but how long can you?

God knows we could all use a rip-roaring shin dig?

[IRescue452]

to play devil's advocate, kids do need a kick in the pants to start caring about their education. Politics aside, the education part is fine.

[Edwina's Secretary]

The 'thing' the media and people do not realize is that we want HCR, we don't want the "Force it in/out" mentality.


The thing people don't realize is that we??? Now who would those people be who don't know what we want?

Gosh..."we" are you the Pope or the Queen of England. Because I sure don't remember electing you to represent me!

[RICHARD]

to play devil's advocate, kids do need a kick in the pants to start caring about their education. Politics aside, the education part is fine.

I have to chime in here.


The only thing that comes out of the 'inspirational' Horse Shiat for tomorrow is the parents who voted for BO are going to do the PPS/E with the kids when they get home.

(Say this like you are gasping for air after a sprint.....)

OHOHOHOH, what did the prez say?
Did you pay attention?
What did you think?


Please, for most of the kids it will be time to eff off and text.

Do you think that the Omnipotent One will hold sway over children that age?

Again, do not underestimate kids.

They know the BSers and Knuckleheads when they see them.

Also, you get a child to listen to an "inspirational" talk- I have to edit myself here!!!!!


bye!;)

[jennielynn1970]

We have a whole list of kids at school who are NOT allowed to view the address. Can't say I blame the parents really.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Again, do not underestimate kids.


bye!;)

Sounds to me as if you are the one underestimating kids.

I remember, when I was a kid, parents who would not let their children be in school for sex education -- didn't want them exposed! Wouldn't let them be around children of a different faith or a different race.

You can put blinders on a child I suppose...but I am not sure what that accomplishes.

I would rather a parent let a child see the world and decide what they value, what they don't. You know...trust you kid to make the right choice based on the values you have taught them? That is what my parents did.

So good bye and so long!

[blue]

who was the first to go negative with snide remarks?

Post #84. :)


As for plagiarism...that comment is funny. Only claiming yourself as the author, or passing it off as your own thought, makes it plagiarism. There are probably about .002% of the population having original, first, 'virgin' thoughts. Chances are, if you thought it, so did about 500,000 other people, two weeks ago.

I believe in giving credit when and where credit is due. By not giving credit or posting the source, people are plagiarising when simply cutting and pasting.
______________

Am I the only one who read the speech? I probably am.

If this was the same speech that went with the original "lesson plan", why wasnt it released last week? Releasing it earlier would have been a much wiser thing to do then to let this all build up over the weekend. Ild like to see the speech, or layout, that went with the original lesson plan, but the transparency of this administration wont allow that.

[moosmom]

I saw exactly what Obama was going to say to all the school children. He is an AWESOME role model, and if it helps get some of these kids to stay in school, get an education and makes them better people, then I say

HELL YEAH!!!!

[sasvermont]

I agree 100%, Moosmom. I don't know why so many people were worked up about their children watching or listening to a President. I was not a fan of either President Bush, and yet I watched every speech that was on TV, so that I could stay informed. Even if parents didn't support the current President, I would have encourage the children to listen/watch and then form their own opinions.

Much ado about nothing.:rolleyes:

[Cataholic]

I agree 100%, Moosmom. I don't know why so many people were worked up about their children watching or listening to a President. I was not a fan of either President Bush, and yet I watched every speech that was on TV, so that I could stay informed. Even if parents didn't support the current President, I would have encourage the children to listen/watch and then form their own opinions.

Much ado about nothing.:rolleyes:


It is much ado about nothing. When you consider the horrible retention rate of children these days, kids graduating without knowing their ABC's, dropouts, general decline in education because of a lack of parenting (IMO), everyone is all of a sudden concerned about a child listening to a president? As if the child will listen, become en-culted (I made that word up), and rebel against the household politics, all because of a speech? If that were the case, our educational system would not be where it is.

[pomtzu]

Even if parents didn't support the current President, I would have encourage the children to listen/watch and then form their own opinions.

Much ado about nothing.:rolleyes:

I agree with the much ado............:eek:

And unfortunately, I believe if the children form any opinion at all, it will be based on what they are hearing (if anything) at home from their parents.

[Edwina's Secretary]

A parent was interviewed on the radio this morning. He said he is afraid his child will want to become a community organizer if she listens to the speech.

I am not making that up.

[pomtzu]

I just watched the live broadcast - here's my view on it, for what it's worth.

It wasn't anything more than a pep rally, geared toward middle schoolers and above. Children younger than that, I'm sure had little comprehension of what he was saying, nor will they retain any of it. And having a kindergartner view it - why???

Unless the teachers of these younger children take the time to go over some of the points on a level that is understandable to them, then it was pointless for them to even view it.

Get with the program Mr President. You can't talk to a first grader and a senior in high school on the same level. :( Your intentions may have been good, but your delivery was sadly deficient. :p

[Cataholic]

A parent was interviewed on the radio this morning. He said he is afraid his child will want to become a community organizer if she listens to the speech.

I am not making that up.

Parent prolly meant communist and was afraid to say it....

[pomtzu]

So my grandson (7th grade and low end in my opinion of the comprehend scale), just got home from school, and the first thing he asked, was if I saw the President's talk. Told him I did, and asked him if his teachers had any discussion with the students about it. "No"! Boy, wasn't that a surprise! :rolleyes:
So I asked him what he got out of it. "Nothing". Then after thinking for a minute, said how he had to be responsible for himself, ask for help if needed, and a few other like answers. Duh - this is what we've been telling him all along. Maybe coming from Mr President it will have more meaning??? Afterall, what do parents and grandparents know??:rolleyes: Today is the first day of a long school year, so we shall see. :p

[RICHARD]

After further review?

Maybe it is a good thing that the kids listen to the prez as opposed to taking
direction from their parents.

God knows the stupid ideas that the folks would try to put into the kid's heads.:D

"You are so Special!" read SPOILED.

"You have a voice" read Shut UP Before the ticked off chopped slaps you!

"You can be anything you want!" read a malicious little turd that can grow up to be president.


GOD I wish I had kids.

[pomtzu]

After further review?

Maybe it is a good thing that the kids listen to the prez as opposed to taking
direction from their parents.

God knows the stupid ideas that the folks would try to put into the kid's heads.:D

"You are so Special!" read SPOILED.

"You have a voice" read Shut UP Before the ticked off chopped slaps you!

"You can be anything you want!" read a malicious little turd that can grow up to be president.


GOD I wish I had kids.

You say it so much more eloquently than I ever could..........:D

[RICHARD]

You say it so much more eloquently than I ever could..........:D

I misspelled 'shopper'.:eek::D

Parents really have abdicated their seat as "the voice" of the home.

We began with the line "do not talk to strangers" and ended with, "Listen to the prez-He'll give you the proper guidance for your future".




------------------------------

Media bias? You bet.

The local news outlets did a little post-game wrap up with the kids at schools in the area.

Guess who was missing from the interviews.?:confused::o

[pomtzu]

I misspelled 'shopper'.:eek::D




I don't feel the need to correct people's spelling.......:eek::D

[RICHARD]

I don't feel the need to correct people's spelling.......:eek::D

You can for me. I don't mind.

If us guys didn't have you gals to correct/proctect us, where would we be?;)

That's a lascivious winkie.:D

[Puckstop31]

If us guys didn't have you gals to correct/proctect us, where would we be? ;)

More true words have never been spoken by mankind.

But as with most "rules" mankind comes up with, there ARE exceptions. ;)

[RICHARD]

More true words have never been spoken by mankind.

But as with most "rules" mankind comes up with, there ARE exceptions. ;)

I cringed everytime mom reminded me she 'cleaned my behind'. :D:eek::o