billvon 2,998 #76 September 3, 2009 >Why are we having political figures address school children at all? For the same reason we have policemen, firemen, civic leaders, sports heroes, researchers etc address them I suppose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #77 September 3, 2009 Quote edited to add, If Obama had earned trust and was going to talk about the needs of education I would have no problem, But he has lied to many times and has proven himself untrustworthy. The origonal script was political and agenda pushing then got changed. Why should I believe or trust a prooven liar to not wiggle his origonal agenda into the speech somehow? therefore kids in my house will not attend. What is this "original agenda" that you keep referring to? How did the changes impact the content of the intended message? And I'm not about to tell you how to raise your kids but don't you think that they would be better served by hearing the actual message and then discussing it with you afterward? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #78 September 3, 2009 Quote>Why are we having political figures address school children at all? For the same reason we have policemen, firemen, civic leaders, sports heroes, researchers etc address them I suppose. Which is? Is there an actual pedagogical reason for it?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #79 September 3, 2009 >Which is? Taking an opportunity to teach kids something. When I was in school, we'd often have assemblies where a policeman, local sports hero, local successful businessman etc addressed the kids, to talk about 'being a crimestopper' or working hard to get what you want or helping out your community. Didn't seem all that sinister to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #80 September 3, 2009 QuoteDidn't seem all that sinister to me. SHEEPLE! - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #81 September 3, 2009 Quote>Which is? Taking an opportunity to teach kids something. When I was in school, we'd often have assemblies where a policeman, local sports hero, local successful businessman etc addressed the kids, to talk about 'being a crimestopper' or working hard to get what you want or helping out your community. Didn't seem all that sinister to me. You'll forgive my skepticism. I've found that most of the time, when politicians are "just talking" to people, the results can actually be pretty sinister.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #82 September 3, 2009 Quote I think (prediction here) the message with be very controversial. Anybody want to make a bet? A bet that you'll find something Obama says controversial? Sorry, I already give enough hand-outs. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #83 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote I think (prediction here) the message with be very controversial. Anybody want to make a bet? A bet that you'll find something Obama says controversial? Sorry, I already give enough hand-outs. Blues, Dave Read a little more/further and you will catch up. Thats ok, we will wait"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #84 September 3, 2009 Quote And no, I'm not calling anyone a four-year old, just the mindset that Obama MUST have an ulterior motive for everything he does is akin to the irrational fear of a child. Oh - so you are in the opinion that he has no agenda then.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #85 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote Didn't seem all that sinister to me. SHEEPLE! Wow! Because you think that this is a good Marxist strategy, you condone and are actually offended enough to call large groups of people by names I haven't heard since grade school. Perhaps you might want to step back and let all that frustration ebb a little. Parents have the right, even the RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that the influences on their children meet their moral values. We should be celebrating the fact that parents are taking this much notice, and are actually being parents. Now to sour the sentiment for most here - It is my opinion that the right leaning populace always took better care of their children anyway.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #86 September 3, 2009 Now to sour the sentiment for most here - It is my opinion that the right leaning populace always took better care of their children anyway. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #87 September 3, 2009 I can remember what Mary said about you posting in dz.com and saying "stirring the pot, stirring the pot" That said, how do you define "took better care of their children?" Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #88 September 3, 2009 Wow is right. We really need a sarcasm thingy. You're not new to SC, I can't believe you've never seen a right-winger decry the sheep/people (sheeple) following thier messiah. I was commenting on that. I am not a Marxist, and neither is Obama. I think having someone who provides a positive example for kids to work hard, stay in school, and perservere is a good educational strategy. Marxist, probably not. If the right's moral values don't include hard work, education, and perserverence in the face of adversity, then I suppose you are right that Obama's example might have a corrupting influence. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #89 September 3, 2009 Quote I can remember what Mary said about you posting in dz.com and saying "stirring the pot, stirring the pot" That said, how do you define "took better care of their children?" Wendy P. Well, this is going to stir it up for sure . . . Statistically speaking, there are fewer single mothers on the right. Fewer divorces. Less school dropout. More educational degrees earned. There is generally a more structured environment that allows the children to become more successful. There are all kinds of exceptions to each - but statistically speaking, what I have said is fact.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #90 September 3, 2009 Great. Got any data to back that up? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #91 September 3, 2009 Quote If the right's moral values don't include hard work, education, and perserverence in the face of adversity, then I suppose you are right that Obama's example might have a corrupting influence. Then we agree that it is a bad thing that he is doing. Do the democrats nlot support more welfare? Upping welfare keeps the necessity to work down and the desire to work is boud to diminish. Take away competition in schools and mediocrity breeds like wildfire. Dumb down the school system and education becomes a joke. I believe that takes care of all your points. So - yes - it would be a very corrupting influence.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #92 September 3, 2009 We don't agree about much, apparently. The democrats do not support more welfare. If that's the simplistic view of the whole party you hold, then it will be pretty hard to convinve you otherwise. I certainly don't agree that what he is doing is wrong. Not sure how you made that leap in the argument. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #93 September 3, 2009 QuoteGreat. Got any data to back that up? Wendy P. No - unfortunately, other than the conversations and experiences I have. I remember seeing some actual spreadsheets and breakdowns, but I cannot seem to find them. There are some census reports out there, but they don't quantify the political leaning as a field.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #94 September 3, 2009 Well, my experience, based in part on spelling and grammar in SC, would indicate otherwise. Not to mention all those elite (generally college-educated) media folks, college professors, and their brainwashed students. Whose experience trumps whose? That's why actual data is handy. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #95 September 3, 2009 >Oh - so you are in the opinion that he has no agenda then. Of course not. He has an EVIL SOCIALIST AGENDA. Sorta like the militant gay agenda but more dangerous and less fashionably dressed. Good commentary on this: =========== A new front opens in the GOP's war on sanity! I seem to recall that for many years it was American conservatives out there yearning for a message of personal responsibility to the nation's school children. Next Tuesday, President Obama says he wants to deliver exactly that, a televised address in classrooms that will "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning." But now that the president is Obama, apparently conservatives don't want that message anymore. In fact, the chairman of the GOP in the 4th most populous state in America is calling Obama's address to the kids "socialist indoctrination." I kid you not. In the interest of fairness and balance, I now bring you the entire unedited statement of Jim Greer, chairman of the Republican Party of Florida: For Immediate Release Contact: Katie Gordon September 1, 2009 (850) 339-7087 Greer Condemns Obama’s Attempt to Indoctrinate Students Tallahassee – Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer today released the following statement condemning President Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda. =============== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #96 September 3, 2009 > I've found that most of the time, when politicians are "just talking" to >people, the results can actually be pretty sinister. Then perhaps your primary school assemblies were a lot scarier than mine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #97 September 3, 2009 QuoteWell, my experience, based in part on spelling and grammar in SC, would indicate otherwise. Not to mention all those elite (generally college-educated) media folks, college professors, and their brainwashed students. Whose experience trumps whose? That's why actual data is handy. Wendy P. Ok - then look at it this way - would you agree that most (By a vast majority) minorities and welfare recipients are democtrats?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #98 September 3, 2009 QuoteOk - then look at it this way - would you agree that most (By a vast majority) minorities and welfare recipients are democtrats? Your prejudice is showing in lumping the two together AND calling them uneducated. Wow.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #99 September 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteOk - then look at it this way - would you agree that most (By a vast majority) minorities and welfare recipients are democtrats? Your prejudice is showing in lumping the two together AND calling them uneducated. Wow. Everyone has predudice - some hide it better.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #100 September 4, 2009 QuoteStatistically speaking, there are fewer single mothers on the right. Fewer divorces. Less school dropout. More educational degrees earned. I don't really think that family structure or divorce rate is something I want the government involved in. Those are intensely personal decisions, best left to individuals (and their families)--not government functionaries. I've made choices about how I want to raise my children, what family structure I want to live in (and want to raise them in), and what emphasis I want to put on education for me, and for them. Everyone else has a right to make those choices for themselves, too. If that means they make decisions I wouldn't, then that's their right.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
