What's your thoughts on Pres. Obama speech to students?

[Todd#43]

Maybe people could shelter themselves (and their kids) in their underground bunkers with their guns until this speech blows over.

This isn't nuclear winter.

Like fusion said, if you're worried this single day will change your son/daughters opinions and 'brainwash' them into educating themselves and asking questions seeking the truth rather than an agenda, then you need to take a hard look at yourself as a parent.

Also, Aerik's post needs to be quoted again, just for merit.

You're right - its not nuclear winter.

Its about MY kids. I'm pretty sure that you and fusion have absolutely NO idea what that means.

I think if you ask most people that know me, I'm a pretty good parent. I'd even bet that my kids would agree.

For the record, I keep my kids from being exposed to all sorts of things that I dont approve of. ITS MY JOB AS A PARENT! If subscribed to your theory, I probably ought to take my son down to a crack house so he can experience that little slice of Americana.

I send my kids to school to learn concrete things - science, math, history, proper use of the English language. Social commentary and moral values come from the home - not from the school, and certainly not from someone who's values dont match mine.

Quite frankly, someone who has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT ITS LIKE BEING A PARENT has no business whatsoever telling ME how to be one.

[Disclaimer]

So, all I need to do is practice unsafe sex to have any validity? (Granted, this is assuming you're not intentionally trying to have a child, but even then... I can pee in a chick's vajay just as easy as the next guy)

That's not that difficult.

Edited September 5, 2009 by JRMMiii

[cmoosego]

I say let the guy talk... it'll go in one ear and out the other with these kids today just like everything their parents say...

[Uncle Punk]

I say let the fucker talk. If he says something that helps the kiddies out that would be great. Chances are he will say something fucked up that will give parents something to show their kids how out of touch he is with their own sensibilities. If he can persuade them in one speech that mommy and daddy are all wrong and he is the messiah then mommy and daddy haven't been doing a very good job of teaching their kids to think.

[Todd#43]

So, all I need to do is practice unsafe sex to have any validity? (Granted, this is assuming you're not intentionally trying to have a child, but even then... I can pee in a chick's vajay just as easy as the next guy)

That's not that difficult.

If that's what you believe, your level of maturity is far lower than I thought. There's a big difference between being a sperm donor and being a parent.

[fusion]

You're right - its not nuclear winter.

Its about MY kids. I'm pretty sure that you and fusion have absolutely NO idea what that means.

WTF does that mean?

[Aerik]

Quite frankly, someone who has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT ITS LIKE BEING A PARENT has no business whatsoever telling ME how to be one.

Sorry, I don't really buy into the whole 'I have kids and you don't therefore your argument is invalid' argument. I could tell you not to abuse your kids, and it would be valid, even though I don't have kids of my own. What I'm saying is simple common sense. And anyway, given that all of us were children at one point, we should have some idea what went right and what went wrong during that time, provided we were paying attention.

I was.

And anyway, like anything else on here, we voice our opinions based upon our own experiences and perspectives. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to think my argument has merit, and certainly don't have to like me.

But, whether you like it or not, I get to have a say here just as much as you do, and there's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.

And the crackhouse analogy is not a valid one. There are clear, present, and immediate dangers associated with a crackhouse. A speech, a political perspective, these things are only dangerous when someone doesn't know how to think critically about what they hear before agreeing with it.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Aerik

[kawi kid]

my view (even though it means shit) is as long as he dont start talking about listen to your government its knows best, and tell your mommy and daddy to vote on such and such im cool with it. he isnt the first president to address students so its not like this is ground breaking shit here. nobody made much of a stink when bush1 did it, and i believe thats where they came up with the cheesy stay in school line sat night live used to use on him all the time.

[Todd#43]

WTF does that mean?

WTF do you think it means?

Sorry, I don't really buy into the whole 'I have kids and you don't therefore your argument is invalid' argument. I could tell you not to abuse your kids, and it would be valid, even though I don't have kids of my own. What I'm saying is simple common sense. And anyway, given that all of us were children at one point, we should have some idea what went right and what went wrong during that time, provided we were paying attention.

I was.

Yes, I'm sure that as a child you had complete knowledge of right and wrong, good and bad, etc. I guess your parents had NO influence on who or what you are today? Great job raising yourself.

By the way, I'm not here to get you to "buy into my argument".

If you live long enough to be a parent (not a sperm donor) I'm sure you'll be singing a different tune.

And anyway, like anything else on here, we voice our opinions based upon our own experiences and perspectives. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to think my argument has merit, and certainly don't have to like me.

But, whether you like it or not, I get to have a say here just as much as you do, and there's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.

And my opinion is that since you don't have children your observations are worthless. Has nothing to do with you as a person.

And the crackhouse analogy is not a valid one. There are clear, present, and immediate dangers associated with a crackhouse. A speech, a political perspective, these things are only dangerous when someone doesn't know how to think critically about what they hear before agreeing with it.

So, because the "danger" isn't clear, present, and immediate I shouldn't exercise my duty as a parent and keep my child from it? Again, show me a grade school aged child that has learned how to think critically about ANYTHING. How critical was your thinking when you were 10 or 12?

The real bottom line is this - the party of "choice" in female reproductive issues thinks that I should have no "choice" to keep MY children from hearing the speech without having me as a buffer. THAT is bullshit.

[chevysoldier]

"

The first President George Bush, a Republican, made a similar nationally broadcast speech from a Washington high school in 1991, urging students to study hard, avoid drugs and to ignore peers “who think it’s not cool to be smart.” Democrats in Congress accused him of using taxpayer money — $27,000 to produce the broadcast — for “paid political advertising"

"An early version of the lesson plan suggested that students write letters to themselves saying “what they can do to help the president.” That wording was changed to suggest students write letters laying out how they can “achieve their short-term and long-term educational goals.”"

[fusion]

WTF do you think it means?

I asked for a reason. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm certainly not the only person that expressed the views I had in this thread but for some reason I'm the one you felt the need to drag into your discussion with Justin.

[Todd#43]

my view (even though it means shit) is as long as he dont start talking about listen to your government its knows best, and tell your mommy and daddy to vote on such and such im cool with it. he isnt the first president to address students so its not like this is ground breaking shit here. nobody made much of a stink when bush1 did it, and i believe thats where they came up with the cheesy stay in school line sat night live used to use on him all the time.

That's the problem, the "speech" hasn't been released and wasn't going to be released prior to the event. There are a couple of books that were "suggested reading prior to the speech:

http://www.puma08.com/2009/09/02/sept-8th-here-are-two-of-the-books-on-obama-your-kids-are-expected-to-read/

Fortunately, due to all the flap over this it will be released Monday.

By the way, he IS the first president to make this type of entry into the public schools.

[fusion]

"

"An early version of the lesson plan suggested that students write letters to themselves saying “what they can do to help the president.” That wording was changed to suggest students write letters laying out how they can “achieve their short-term and long-term educational goals.”"

I actually have no problem with the original wording. Why? Well because any intelligent person could see it as a generic office of the president, help their country type of thing, civics. Of course when you have a bunch mental midgets who over politicize everything it becomes brain washing and recruitment. The GOP is increasingly becoming a incredible embarrasement to American politics every time they open their mouths.

[Todd#43]

Wow if you have a real problem with your kids listening or watching the president speak in school you might want to take a hard look at yourself as a parent.

h

While talking with your children is a good thing, you didn't supply any evidence you merely provided a personal opinion backed by no verifiable sources that could be construed as facts.

It was nothing but

I asked for a reason. I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm certainly not the only person that expressed the views I had in this thread but for some reason I'm the one you felt the need to drag into your discussion with Justin.

Please see the "reasons" above.

[kawi kid]

That's the problem, the "speech" hasn't been released and wasn't going to be released prior to the event. There are a couple of books that were "suggested reading prior to the speech:

http://www.puma08.com/2009/09/02/sept-8th-here-are-two-of-the-books-on-obama-your-kids-are-expected-to-read/

Fortunately, due to all the flap over this it will be released Monday.

By the way, he IS the first president to make this type of entry into the public schools.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/

i think he is the first one to address them in this manner but not the first to address kids.

[Disclaimer]

By the way, he IS the first president to make this type of entry into the public schools.

O rly?

Talking to Schoolchildren? Okay When Uncle Ronnie Explained Why Low Taxes Were Key to Freedom!

While we all know facts haven't a damn thing to do with the manufactured outrage about that Communist Negro in the White House talking to our poor defenseless children, this might put matters into perspective for the rest of us.

From Media Matters:

On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marvin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “t o schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes:

Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following

America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade.

These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.

I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade.

The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor.

Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

Oh. My. God. Now I understand. Reagan indoctrinated all those schoolchildren, and they grew up to be... tea baggers!

During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Reagan returned to the topic, this time telling the students that lowering taxes increases revenue:

Q My name is Cam Fitzie and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?

PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do. That's a big argument that's going on in government and I definitely believe it is because one of the principle reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes, we reduced them.

Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government.

And what we have found is that at the lower rates the government gets more revenue, there are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs and there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it, so today, we're getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher.

And do you know something? I studied economics in college when I was young and I learned there about a man named Ibn Khaldun, who lived 1200 years ago in Egypt. And 1200 years ago he said, in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low, the tax rates were low, but the revenue was great. He said in the end of empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great and the revenue was low.

The students probably didn’t know any better, but this is an idea that has been rejected by virtually every economist not named Larry Kudlow.

[Todd#43]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/

i think he is the first one to address them in this manner but not the first to address kids.

Thats what I said

O rly?

Talking to Schoolchildren? Okay When Uncle Ronnie Explained Why Low Taxes Were Key to Freedom!

Rly....

When Reagan did it, everyone knew in advance what he was going to talk about. He took questions from four different schools and the response to those questions was broadcast on C-Span.

How is this the same?

Oh that's right, it isn't.

[chevysoldier]

I actually have no problem with the original wording. Why? Well because any intelligent person could see it as a generic office of the president, help their country type of thing, civics.

So why not say something to the effect of "Ask what you can do for your country."? He knows he is being scrutinized on everything. Maybe he doesn't want to become a socialist country(I think he does but irrelevent right now) Wouldn't his 7(ish) speech writers make sure he doesn't sound like a socialist scumbag?

Other presidents have given speechs to kids. Thats cool. But stick to "stay in school, open your mind to learning" yada yada. And release the speech in advance. Not the morning of it going live. This gives parents and teachers no time to check it out.

[chevysoldier]

Q My name is Cam Fitzie and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?

PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do. That's a big argument that's going on in government and I definitely believe it is because one of the principle reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes, we reduced them.

Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government.

And what we have found is that at the lower rates the government gets more revenue, there are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs and there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it, so today, we're getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher.

And do you know something? I studied economics in college when I was young and I learned there about a man named Ibn Khaldun, who lived 1200 years ago in Egypt. And 1200 years ago he said, in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low, the tax rates were low, but the revenue was great. He said in the end of empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great and the revenue was low.

So when the price of milk goes down, you don't stock up on it? Or the fact the people have tried to increase the taxes on cigarettes to lower the number of people that smoke?

[fusion]

So why not say something to the effect of "Ask what you can do for your country."?

Easy...because the president is speaking and it's a position our children SHOULD be able to look up to and want to support. Also, it's not unusual to ask questions in the context of the speaker.

He knows he is being scrutinized on everything. Maybe he doesn't want to become a socialist country(I think he does but irrelevent right now) Wouldn't his 7(ish) speech writers make sure he doesn't sound like a socialist scumbag?

You'll have to provide evidence that he will sound like a "socialist scumbag" in his speech. I have only seen opposition members spin what is being said at any given chance. I'm trying to avoid a "OMGWTFCOMMIE Obama wants us to be socialists!" here as well.

Other presidents have given speechs to kids. Thats cool. But stick to "stay in school, open your mind to learning" yada yada. And release the speech in advance. Not the morning of it going live. This gives parents and teachers no time to check it out.

I think he will stick to a stay in school type message. I also think they should have released the speech a little earlier only because of the climate as of late surrounding certain parties taking every chance to attack the president no matter the validity of their argument.

I think also he should encourage an increased learning of civics early in school. The only probably is if even mentions phrases similar to like "civic duty" (which is a good thing) it will be spun into some BS whargarbl.

[RFM]

The most dangerous thing I've done in my life was listen to a speech by the Queen of England. I hate it that my parents put me through that. I'm practically retarded now because of it.

[kawi kid]

Thats what I said

ok i misunderstood then.

[Disclaimer]

Rly....

When Reagan did it, everyone knew in advance what he was going to talk about. He took questions from four different schools and the response to those questions was broadcast on C-Span.

How is this the same?

Oh that's right, it isn't.

What's not the same. Obama is releasing the speech tomorrow for all you "concerned parents" to read. I can't find if Reagan even did that - and if he did, how many people had access to the 'net in 1988 to pre-read it (or that it was published in the news in the paper or on TV the night before)? So, I'm calling bullshit on that - he did it live on CSPAN along with a rebroadcast later.

And my link even says he went on a tangent about taxes mid-speech, regardless of the Q&A at the end.

So again, point out the differences? If anything the 'concerned parents' on the democrat side didn't get the pre-prep their kids to plug their ears when the bad actor/president came on the TV... and I highly doubt most of the democratic parents would do that. They'd do what Aerik said, have their kids listen to an opposing viewpoint and have a discussion about it.

The GOP is like the Vancome Lady @ 2:21 -- "ah la la la la la"

(In fact, she kinda reminds me of Palin)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV4u-WajFtA

Edited September 5, 2009 by JRMMiii

[fusion]

Please see the "reasons" above.

I guess I'm a little slow today and you'll have to spell it out. I'm not the only to express what's in the first quote.

The second merely says he didn't supply any evidence to claims he was making in order to support his side. For what it's worth, he said in his response that it was merely his opinion he was stating.

So continue to color me confused.

[Todd#43]

Wow if you have a real problem with your kids listening or watching the president speak in school you might want to take a hard look at yourself as a parent.

huh?

j/k

While talking with your children is a good thing, you didn't supply any evidence you merely provided a personal opinion backed by no verifiable sources that could be construed as facts.

It was nothing but

I guess I'm a little slow today and you'll have to spell it out. I'm not the only to express what's in the first quote.

The second merely says he didn't supply any evidence to claims he was making in order to support his side. For what it's worth, he said in his response that it was merely his opinion he was stating.

So continue to color me confused.

Sorry you're so confused.

I'll type real slow - try to keep up.

Your first statement has NO BASIS IN FACT. Its your OPINION.

You offer your opinion like its gospel, then disparage another for offering his opinion.

So, if opinions dont matter, please provide some supporting facts that say because someone doesnt want their child listening to a speech of unknown content from a guy they already know plenty about they are a bad parent, or that they need to re-evaluate their parenting skills?