ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 1 Users Online   
   
                 09/23/2014 08:20 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
Scotland Votes "No" on Independence
Obama: No U.S. Ground Combat Troops in Iraq
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you support stricter gun laws?
  Latest Events
09/23/2014 08:00 AM
emrestava receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Tribe: What there is to Know about Personal Accident Policies'
09/22/2014 07:27 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Single Dose of Antidepressants Changes the Brain'
09/22/2014 07:26 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'China´s CO2 Emissions Almost Twice U.S.´s'
09/22/2014 07:26 PM
edie receives 10 Points for good Assessment of 'Celebrity Nude Photos Leak - Again'
09/22/2014 07:26 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'White House Intruder Jumps Security Fence, Has a Knife'
09/22/2014 06:59 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Single Dose of Antidepressants Changes the Brain'
09/22/2014 06:32 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'China´s CO2 Emissions Almost Twice U.S.´s'
09/22/2014 06:03 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'Celebrity Nude Photos Leak - Again'
09/22/2014 05:35 PM
edie receives 100 Points for News Submission of 'White House Intruder Jumps Security Fence, Has a Knife'
  2.267 Visits   8 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/07/2009 06:54 PM ID: 80577 Permalink   

Obama's Controversial Address to Students: 'Pay Attention to Those Teachers'

 

In an address that has caused a firestorm of controversy, President Barack Obama will tell American students that he "expects great things from each of you." The script of the address is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/... .

Conservatives have expressed outrage at Obama's address, in which he tells students that their parents' and teachers' hard work won't matter unless they show up and pay attention, and encourages them to develop their interests and set goals.

Several conservative organizations and individuals have accused Obama of trying to delve too directly into children's education with the address, in which he talks about how he's glad his mother made him work hard in his studies.

 
  Source: news.yahoo.com  
    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  107 Comments
  
  @Ben_Reily  
 
Thank you for this story. Bet you never thought you would hear that from me. But I am very glad that, amid the "firestorm of controversy", he has published the contents of his speech. You have to admit that this President is the most controversial President is a very long time. At least now I will be able to argue the points of his speech to my kids. With this, I cease to have a problem with his address to children.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/07/2009 07:05 PM     
  @TIU  
 
This president has a positive approval rating. He is far less controversial than George W. Bush, who had a disapproval rating of 66-75 percent through much of his second term.

To put this bluntly -- and I hope you get past the sting of my words and see the truth of them -- you and many others have been making complete asses and fools of yourselves over this matter. Grow up.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/07/2009 07:08 PM     
  ....  
 
I read the transcript posted on CNN.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama. There are some things I disagree with, but that is normal I think.

This transcript brought tears to my eye. I truly hope that my daughters school doesn't elect not to show it. I want her to hear from someone other than me how important it is to go to school, do well in school, and how big of a role she will play in our future.

I feel sorry for all of those people who are so blinded by hatred that they started protesting this as soon as they got word of it. I'm sorry if the president wanting to tell your child that they are special and can be successful if they work at it offends you so much. I can see how encouraging intellegence and hard work might cause some controversy in some households.

Kudos, Mr. President.
 
  by: deadvenusblue     09/07/2009 07:10 PM     
  how?!  
 
How is this controversy? This is GOOD that he is telling kids to set goals. How often do you see kids barely pass highschool, get a job at mcdonalds, party for 10 years and all of a sudden they are 30 years old and have 2 kids. Its because they had to goals and no expectations. Their parents most likely dropped out of highschool and got some good paying job back in the day and that's all these kids know now. They don't know what to do after highschool so they stay in that phase.

It's pretty standard for european kids to go straight to a secondary education and their competency in everything? is higher across the board.

When I was in highschool I always hated that planning class, setting goals, I was pretty stubborn but not stupid.
Anyways, I think goal setting should be pushed more in school. Its a skill that can be applied to everything and gives people things to look forward too, milestones.

The song from the offspring explains it well too, "the world you get is the world you give away, it all just happens way down the line."
 
  by: JayWar   09/07/2009 07:14 PM     
  *mistake  
 
should be "no goals..." not "to goals..."

:P
 
  by: JayWar   09/07/2009 07:17 PM     
  Assessment?  
 
I can't rate the story. Weird.
 
  by: deadvenusblue     09/07/2009 07:22 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
The big controversy was that

1) he seemed to be going around me and the school to do this. He also seemed to be making a huge secret of the contents of his speech.
2) he has made many speeches in the past that have encouraged CHANGE in places where non is needed.

3) his past affiliations with controversial groups and individuals has made it almost impossible to trust his motives.

Add all of this up, and I think that you can see where all of the flak was coming from. Or maybe not. But I think it would have been foolish to not question his agenda.

Let me reiterate though, that I am very glad that this controversy is over. I still have not had time to read the whole speech, but at least now I have the opportunity.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/07/2009 07:29 PM     
  @TIU  
 
The amount of fear and mistrust that you and many others have for this president is quite unreasonable. I can only assume that you find everyone who doesn't think almost exactly the same as you to be highly suspicious. That is a quite intolerant position to take, and it creates nothing positive in your life.

I really do feel sorry for all the people who now live in constant fear because they accept every outlandish lie that Obama's political opponents say about him. And I do feel sorry for those who can't accept that you don't have to subscribe to a certain political philosophy to be a decent human being.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/07/2009 07:39 PM     
  Whats the big deal  
 
I dont see what the big deal is the basic summary is to work hard in school and stick with your studies otherwise your dreams and aspirations will never come to reality.

Sounds like common sense and good encouragement, too many kids expect things to be handed over to them with little or no effort on their behalf.
 
  by: juggalotoka   09/07/2009 07:40 PM     
  ...  
 
Conservatives are angry at this?
Maybe the all need a dose of laxatives, so they can stop talking a load of crap
 
  by: captainJane     09/07/2009 07:46 PM     
  @ Ben  
 
The page has been removed, why?
 
  by: captainJane     09/07/2009 07:47 PM     
  @captainJane  
 
It hasn't been. I can access the page without issue.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/07/2009 08:11 PM     
  My favorites  
 
"Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is."

"Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you."

"These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time."

Just beautiful.
 
  by: deadvenusblue     09/07/2009 08:30 PM     
  I like it  
 
good stuff, thxs Ben. Like I said before I dont care if he talks these things but if he were to venture into other things is when I would have a problem
 
  by: willyshawker     09/07/2009 08:51 PM     
  Personally..  
 
I think children that all of them have 'something they're good at' has more of a negative effective on child psychology. Often times, if they can't find something they consider themselves 'good at', they can feel that adults are trying to tell them that they need to find something that they are *better at than anyone else* (which is basically never the case -- you're only above average at something, or sometimes even not any better at something than anyone else but you're willing to do it and they aren't) and that if they can't find that mysterious 'thing', they have failed themselves and the expectations of the adults around them.
 
  by: velger   09/07/2009 10:13 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
Maybe if the right wingers had been so paranoid when Bush was president the patriot act would've never been passed.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/07/2009 10:18 PM     
  @TIB  
 
Physician, heal thyself
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/07/2009 10:18 PM     
  No surprise...  
 
....at the standard Conservative's 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach. But the saddest thing is that most never learn and these actions will just be repeated. (Ironic, considering the speech :) ).
 
  by: agnaram   09/07/2009 10:51 PM     
  Wow  
 
he has a hell of a good speech writer,must be worth his or her weight in gold.
 
  by: Jammy-Doger   09/07/2009 11:04 PM     
  @Jammy-Doger  
 
Can I assume that was a back handed compliment? ;)
 
  by: agnaram   09/07/2009 11:09 PM     
  @TIU  
 
"You have to admit that this President is the most controversial President is a very long time."

Huh??? WOW...is that a troll job?
 
  by: t-bagger   09/08/2009 03:39 AM     
  @t-bagger  
 
Did you spot his 'analysis' of the 'controversy', a few posts up? Apparently, Obama was 'secretive' about the contents of his speech, because, like all other Presidents before him, he didn't release the script he would be reading from.

I've basically stopped paying attention to him. He's either a troll, or very very scared of his own shadow.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/08/2009 03:44 AM     
  @ben reilly  
 
Not that Obama's speech is a bad thing, actually it is a good thing but you said,"This president has a positive approval rating.
Hmm..
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13

You know what Ben??, you are such a two faced person.


QUOTE:The amount of fear and mistrust that you and many others have for this president is quite unreasonable.

You have to be kidding, this was you 10 fold in the last 8 years. Every thing you accuse people of, you are in fact guilty of. Difference is you changed your tone now that it isn't Bush in office. Actually you are quite the opposite, nothing Obama does is wrong. Imagine that! Now you come off like you're some sort patriotic American.

*ROFLMA*
Quote: .. I really do feel sorry for all the people who now live in constant fear because they accept every outlandish lie that Obama's political opponents say about him. And I do feel sorry for those who can't accept that you don't have to subscribe to a certain political philosophy to be a decent human being.

My God I thought you were talking about yourself when I first read this. It fit your personality like a glove for the last 8 years. Truth is you should feel sorry for yourself. Stop harping on people until you learn to practice what you preach.
 
  by: Hellblazer     09/08/2009 03:45 AM     
  Controversy  
 
I don't understand how he is so controversial. He campaigned on "change" He won...so guess what? That's what he is trying to do. Did people think it was just standard rehtoric and he was gonna sit on his ass for 4 years status quo.

I dont see any controversy except for pathetic lies from the right. Until he does something retarded I would support his agenda.

I was the same way with Bush, even after the bogus election. Supported him until he invaded Iraq. How anybody can support Bush after the invasion is a complete partisan retard that should have to take an IQ test to vote in elections...lol sorry for the tangent.
 
  by: t-bagger   09/08/2009 03:50 AM     
  arrest the kids when they come out of school  
 
.. they've all turned into dirty pinko commies now.
 
  by: redstain   09/08/2009 03:56 AM     
  A few of TIU's paranoid comments  
 
"Does anybody know why President Obama won't reveal the contents of his speech? Does anybody know why the teachers we given materials that were to be done as class assignments in concert with the speech? Does anybody know why President Obama thinks that he can ignore the proper channels for this kind of address? Does anybody know why he would purposely try to generate distrust of his motives by not sidestepping the parents, and not allowing them to preview even the points of his speech. Does anybody in the Democrat party question him at all? "

"Why can the Democrats not understand this? Why do they call it fear-mongering?"

"I have more reason to distrust this particular president than I have of any other president in the past."

"purposely try to generate distrust of his motives" Among you zombie slaves his every exhale is controversial.


If this was about his entire presidency then maybe it might be worth discussion. But it's not. It's about "one" speech that TIU hadn't even seen yet. Sheesh!

Paranoid much?

 
  by: VermiciousG     09/08/2009 03:59 AM     
  More obstructionist politics from the Republicans  
 
The Republicans have been raising hell since Obama announced that he would be addressing students. Not that they knew what he would be saying, not that they had any real complaints, they just didn't want the man in the 'Black House' influencing their children. I am so sick of the hate mongering, the deception, the lies, the accusations it makes me sick.

The more I watch the actions of the Republicans the more it reminds me of Heady Lamar and the Rail Road crew in the movie Blazing Saddles. We all know who the new sheriff is. I think we should cast Al Franken as the deputy. I just have to wonder who the Republicans will cast as Mongo?
 
  by: valkyrie123     09/08/2009 04:05 AM     
  ?????????  
 
"You have to admit that this President is the most controversial President is a very long time."

I couldn't disagree more with that statement. The fringe right has him controversial in their little world, but not in the real world. Please, people come into the 21st Century and stop regressing to the stone age!! You people are an embarrassment to the world.
 
  by: Lurker     09/08/2009 04:07 AM     
  Well as the old saying goes....  
 
fool me once...shame on...shame on you...you fool me - can't get fooled again...
 
  by: groovedaddy   09/08/2009 04:11 AM     
  @Future  
 
The only way America will get on the same page is when Rupert Murdoch has a change of heart. If you believe what Hannity or Beck have to say, or for that matter anybody on Fox, your gene's have a long way to go in the evolution phase before you can identify polital hackery.

It's News-o-tainment...they get paid big bucks to start drama, and people believe it too. It's like "Days of our Lives" with politics and people eat it up, because their dumb, just plain dumb
 
  by: t-bagger   09/08/2009 04:19 AM     
  @t-bagger  
 
I'd have thought you were new here but I see by your start date that you're not. I like you. We should go bowling or somethin'
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/08/2009 04:41 AM     
  Well after reading the "Full Text" of the speech..  
 
I guess the Repub's were right.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
 
  by: valkyrie123     09/08/2009 05:04 AM     
  @ben_reilly  
 
I rarely rate, but thank you for a summary well written.

TIU is a freaking apologist for slanderers.
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   09/08/2009 05:10 AM     
  @Hellblazer  
 
Me: "The amount of fear and mistrust that you and many others have for this president is quite unreasonable."

You: "You have to be kidding, this was you 10 fold in the last 8 years. Every thing you accuse people of, you are in fact guilty of. Difference is you changed your tone now that it isn't Bush in office."

The Dictionary: un*rea*son*a*ble
–adjective
1. not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person.
2. not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate: His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich.
3. excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable: an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands.
4. not having the faculty of reason.

It was reasonable to complain long and loudly about Bush. He did damage to this country that almost defies description.

It is not reasonable to compare Obama to Hitler just because you don't like Democrats. Republicans are making total asses of themselves.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 05:31 AM     
  wow  
 
Apologist? Paranoid? Neither. Realist maybe. I kind of suspected that my comments about this speech would draw fire. And the truth of the matter is that I really don't care much. I won't change your minds about it, and you certainly won't change mine. But I really would like to know how some of you just don't find anything wrong with the way Obama went about it. He's supposed to be smart, and his advisers are supposed to be smart also. You can't tell me that they were all blind-sided by this reaction. Like me, they all knew that their wording would draw fire. That they allowed it to go out in that form says something not nice about them. Since Ben_Reily pointed out that Rassmusen poll on Friday, I believe it was, his approval rating has dropped to 28%, by the same pollsters. So this has definitely had an effect on him. They couldn't see this coming?

I am not the President, and I'm fairly certain that I will not be. But if I were, and my advisers couldn't do any better than this, I would fire them and start looking elsewhere. It took Bush over 4 years to get his approval rating down this low. Guess I'm not "in the minority" any more. Either that or there are a lot more "paranoid" people out there than there were last week.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 05:49 AM     
  @TIU  
 
As I have said many times, and will probably say many other times, Rasmussen is run by a former employee of George W. Bush. It has a well-known conservative bias and is a consistent outlier -- never agrees with any of the dozens of other polls out there.

You want a good polling site? Check out pollingreport.com. They list just about every poll out there, so you can compare them and draw conclusions. Rasmussen has become the Lewin Group of pollsters.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 05:56 AM     
  Here you go, TIU  
 
Rasmussen's affiliation with one of the most far-right whack job jibberish Web sites known to mankind:

http://www.wnd.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 06:08 AM     
  @TheIdiotRightNextDoor  
 
Yup! Paranoid!!!
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/08/2009 06:13 AM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but at the bottom of the page that you pointed to, it says that "Scott Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Research, ranked No. 1 in accuracy by the Washington-based Progressive Review in an independent review of polling firms. His site, Portrait of America offers a look at public opinion on everything from politics and national news stories to sports, investor attitudes, fashion, and fads."

That Progressive Review that is mentioned seems to me to be a left-leaning site, not right-leaning. And yet they endorsed the Rasmussen polls as number 1 in accuracy. Wonder why they would do that.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 06:48 AM     
  @vermicious  
 
"I'd have thought you were new here but I see by your start date that you're not. I like you. We should go bowling or somethin'"


hahaha I like you too...I just lurked never really bothered to put my .02 in.
Maybe we could go for a walk sometime
 
  by: t-bagger   09/08/2009 07:18 AM     
  @Obama  
 
This man is brilliant. I was just thinking...

This President is goin to make such an impression on these kids-teens with his motivational/straight talk , that when they get older and start thinking about politics, they will remember the time that Obama talked to them personally(kinda)and how it makes so much sense. They will think "what party was he?"

BAM!!! a whole generation of fresh new Democrats.

While Republicans we worried about indoctrining(sp) the kids about scary socialist policy(Man republican politicians are dumb, like a 10 year-old gives a s%^t about health care policy or can even understand it)Republicans missed the bigger picture of how hw will make an impression on them. Have you heard those stories of a kid who had Derek Jeter sign his glove and gave him a *wink*, and that kid grew up to be a Yankee for life because of that special moment.

Hannity and Beck will be spinnin and I'm gonna love watching it, speaking of which, how will they spin this, kids dont watch the news...
 
  by: t-bagger   09/08/2009 07:47 AM     
  @republican party  
 
Death to the Whigs! Bush was the last of the Republicans. They have beaten themselves in the game of political maneuvering and manipulation. Hopefully something progressive and beneficial will come from the demise.
 
  by: rj712   09/08/2009 09:41 AM     
  @TIU  
 
The Progressive Review looks like an online version of The Quibbler -- complete with a lovely long article on how Barack Obama apparently once worked for the CIA.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 04:07 PM     
  also  
 
If you want a *real* left-leaning site's perspective on Rasmussen, enjoy: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 04:10 PM     
  Hypocrites, hypocrites hypocrites  
 
Right wing idiots you are hypocrites:

http://www.rbguy.dailykos.com/...
 
  by: Lurker     09/08/2009 04:41 PM     
  Brilliant  
 
Just watched it, and I would be willing to bet a significant sum of money that the White House was secretly thrilled that right-wingers screamed and hollered about this address.

The Republicans made what was intended to be a low-key, you-can-do-it speech to schoolchildren into must-see TV, and I'm betting that millions of Americans just did what I did, tuning in and watching the President behave like someone you'd love to have your kids look to as a role model.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 06:27 PM     
  Say...  
 
Not to say I told you so... But I told you so.

When Obama was first running for president and everyone was heralding this man that was going to bring change to our nation I said it here first. I said that he is going to have the toughest time of any president because the public and the media has set the bar so unrealistically high that he is doomed to fail in the publics eyes. Now all of a sudden he is "one of the most controversial presidents" and the man can't even give a speech without it being pre-approved by the Republicans.

I made a joke a long time back about how we can't elect Obama because in movies the sh*t always hits the fan with a black President. Now it seems like less of a joke because the ignorant bigots of our nation are blaming this man for all the current problems and dividing our nation.

Only when you can think freely for yourself can you be free. Obviously some people can't do that and just go along with whatever the media tells them to feel.
 
  by: teh_epic     09/08/2009 06:31 PM     
  Fear  
 
When the right doesn't have anything to bitch about they create fear and social panic with their hypotheses. "the president COULD say some stuff in his speech that MIGHT be against what we believe in - although we know he won't -but let's deny our children the opportunity to hear their president speak and tell everyone he's just trying to brain wash our children... oh, and throw in something about killing their grandparents.

Be afraid... be very afraid.
 
  by: barryman9001   09/08/2009 06:59 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
I agree with you about the polls. Penn and Teller did an episode of Bullshit! that included a look at polls. There was an experienced pollster out in the field asking people questions. He was pretty skillful. He demonstrated that the answers you receive are entirely dependent, not on the question you ask, but how you ask it. He actually had one guy answering yes and no to the same question, and admitting it.

For instance, you could ask the question "Do you think that Omaba is doing a good job in the White House?" But you could also phrase it differently, such as "Do you think there's room for improvement in the job that Obama is doing in the White House?" Basically the same question, but with different connotations.

I never rely on polls, and I only bring them up when someone else does. Most of them are shams, and really don't mean anything unless it's a yes or no question about facts, like "Did you vote for Obama?" This really can't be slanted. Another question that would be hard to slant would be, "If McCain runs against Obama again, who would you vote for?"

I don't remember this speech from Ronald Reagan. However, I would like to point out that, a few years ago (it might have been longer) someone in the government decided that "In God We Trust" would be printed on all of our money, and even went so far as to make that the motto of this great nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Also, did you know that the US Senate starts each session with a prayer?

While I may not agree with this, in particular, it seems that if Ronald Reagan mentioned a "nation under God", like in the Pledge of Allegiance as it was in those days, or of a people chosen by God, then he was really only promoting the message that seems to be the common theme for this country. Of course, today's public would be up in arms about it, but I believe that back almost 30 years ago, the public had an entirely different attitude towards this kind of thing. You really can't fault him for that part of the speech. Even Obama mentions God sometimes.

And one other point: If this site is accurate, Reagan wasn't president any more when he gave this speech. The site claims that the video is from 1989, which was after his term. This would be equivalent to George Bush or Bill Clinton giving a speech, now that they are out of office.

Flame away!
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 07:04 PM     
  @TIU  
 
He was president in January 1989. He says in the very first video clip on Lurker's link that it's "the first in a series of speeches that I'll be giving before I leave office."

Do you care about accuracy at all?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 07:22 PM     
  Forgot  
 
This is the year 2009. That was the year 1989.

20 years is only "almost 30 years" if you're counting in tens.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 07:23 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
I could have done better with a transcript than a video. My situation during the day, in a room full of doctors, prohibits me from playing videos at a level that's more than barely audible. The "3" was a typo, but I guess you've never done that, huh?

I did re-view the first video in the list, and this time caught the end of it where he says that it will be the first in a series of speeches.

This guy didn't even bother to try to take Reagan out of context. Let's tick off a few points (damn, you're fun to argue with):

He starts out by saying that that it's National Education Week, which is the reason that he's addressing them. Maybe they changed that to sometime in September so that Obama could do it then.

That page is absolutely correct when it accuses Reagan of talking about a vision. Reagan doesn't actually say that it's his vision, only that it was the vision of the people who founded the country. What were those founding fathers thinking, injecting their belief system into government like that? With all of those pesky rights and stuff. The truth of the matter is that in that time, nobody could reasonably envision a world without religion, or at least a belief in some kind of deity.

I guess this site owner must think that it would be the highest order of crime to actually force the government to have a balanced budget every year. I actually think that it's a pretty good idea. We wouldn't be in the financial position that we are in if that were the case. I would like to see how you can say that it's a bad thing. That site owner is obviously horrified at the prospect of a balanced budget. Reagan isn't politicking. He's simply trying to teach fiscal responsibility, which this government could use more of.

I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere where Reagan is telling kids how to vote. He was discussing the fall of the Roman Empire, and making a statement that if we continue spending irresponsibly, we, as a nation, are doomed. Looks like his projections were pretty close to right, no matter whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans doing the spending.

And that last one must be close to a hate-crime. He actually used the same word that the United Negro College Fund uses. At least he didn't use the word "colored", as in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. And I guess that the scientific word for Black people, Negroid, shouldn't be used either when trying to describe someone's race. As I've stated before, not all black people come from Africa (Jamaicans), so describing someone as African-American won't always be correct. And let me point out that I am an American. If I wanted to set myself apart from the rest of America, I would call myself an Irish-American. African-American would be a phrase to describe someone who has dual citizenship. It's the black population that has chosen to keep using these words. I know that I would prefer it if nobody considered race as an important factor in daily life.

Now, I have to ask you a question: is that site a joke? Is is some kind of hoax to try to make a point? I know I found myself laughing out loud at a couple of the comments made by this individual. And now I can see how you would laugh at people who see a dark overtone to Obama's speeches, including me.

Reagan won by a landslide in his second term. People obviously loved his policies, even enough to elect his vice-president to president after Reagan was done. It was only after Bush Sr. failed to live up to his predecessor that Bill Clinton had his opening. Clinton got into so many scandals that Americans elected Dubbya to office, rather than chance more of the same from Al gore. And now the tides have turned again. Dubbya got so mired in the war in Iraq, that part of Obama's campaign centered around getting the troops out of there. It all goes around and around. I can say one thing with some certainty: if Obama doesn't stop trying to CHANGE the way Americans live, he won't be elected to another term.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 08:39 PM     
  @TIU  
 
I'm not going to enter this entire debate with you, but a couple of things jumped out.

"truth of the matter is that in that time, nobody could reasonably envision a world without religion, or at least a belief in some kind of deity."

Really? Once again, you throw all these vague assumptions without any evidence. I think you'll find that it wasn't a case of people not being able to envision it, rather people were often persecuted for not believing. It's also important to note that the founding fathers wanted a secular government as mentioned in the other post. So, no, they weren't "injecting their belief system".

"He was discussing the fall of the Roman Empire, and making a statement that if we continue spending irresponsibly, we, as a nation, are doomed. Looks like his projections were pretty close to right, no matter whether it's the Democrats or the Republicans doing the spending."

I just found this quite funny simply because you used the word "projection". It's like he predicted that if money is spent irresonsibly, then that's not a good thing for the nation. A five year old could have 'projected' that.

". I can say one thing with some certainty: if Obama doesn't stop trying to CHANGE the way Americans live, he won't be elected to another term."

I didn't realise America is living in a paradise at the moment?

 
  by: agnaram   09/08/2009 09:08 PM     
  @TIU  
 
Wow, there's so much wrong with your post that you've created quite a bit of work for me. I'll give it the old college try, though:

"My situation during the day, in a room full of doctors,"

Ha! I knew you were locked up in a mental ward somewhere.

"The "3" was a typo, but I guess you've never done that, huh?"

Don't know what a typo is, to be honset.

"Maybe they changed that to sometime in September so that Obama could do it then."

Obama's address comes on a lot of kids' first day of school.

"That page is absolutely correct when it accuses Reagan of talking about a vision."

Which is exactly what Republicans got so panicked that Obama was going to do. Obama gave a standard "get your education" speech, whereas Reagan pushed politics on kids. Although I'm sure some conservatives will find something "liberal" that Obama said ... he did mention Indonesia, after all ...

"Reagan doesn't actually say that it's his vision, only that it was the vision of the people who founded the country."

Actually, Reagan says that his vision is the vision of the founding fathers. Big difference. As I've said before, comparing yourself to the Founding Fathers is like comparing your enemy to Hitler. It's cheap, empty and childish.

"The truth of the matter is that in that time, nobody could reasonably envision a world without religion, or at least a belief in some kind of deity."

Yes, surely atheism didn't exist in the time of our founding fathers. I believe atheism was invented by Timothy Leary and Jane Fonda back in '66 when they were dropping acid with the North Vietnamese one day.

"I guess this site owner must think that it would be the highest order of crime to actually force the government to have a balanced budget every year."

No, the site owner actually writes what he thinks -- that the balanced budget proposal was a highly partisan political issue in '89. The speecher movement screamed that Obama was going to inject partisan political stances into his speech. Do you see the writer's point now?

"I actually think that it's a pretty good idea."

So do I. And it's really nice that Reagan saw the light on this issue, after exploding the federal deficit for eight years, in his last three week in office.

"That site owner is obviously horrified at the prospect of a balanced budget."

I think it's only obvious to you. Then again, the imaginary site owner didn't talk to the rest of us in our heads like he did for you.

"And that last one must be close to a hate-crime. He actually used the same word that the United Negro College Fund uses."

Yes, and the only difference was that the times had changed drastically since the organization was given that name!

"Reagan won by a landslide in his second term."

First term, too!

"Clinton got into so many scandals that"

He left office with a 66 percent approval rating? (http://www.pollingreport.com/...

"Americans elected Dubbya to office, rather than chance more of the same from Al gore."

That's pretty funny, seeing how Al Gore won the popular election by more than half a million votes (http://en.wikipedia.org/...

"And now the tides have turned again. Dubbya got so mired in the war in Iraq, that part of Obama's campaign centered around getting the troops out of there. It all goes around and around. I can say one thing with some certainty: if Obama doesn't stop trying to CHANGE the way Americans live, he won't be elected to another term."

He was elected by a large majority -- much larger than the majority that elected Bush in 2004. He campaigned on a message of change.

I guess what I'm trying to ask here is, what is wrong with you? How can reality be roughly here, and you keep winding up














here?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/08/2009 09:22 PM     
  @agnaram  
 
Without drawing you entirely into the debate once again, I would like to say that America was founded before Darwin ever rode the Beagle. So, I can reiterate, and even in what you said I can see a glimpse of it. For whatever reason (persecution, belief, etc.) the founding fathers couldn't envision a nation without religion. So, they chose Christianity as the one to go with. Maybe it was the least threatening, or maybe it allowed them enough leeway to go on about their business without to much to hamper them.

And paradise is such a relative word. And so subjective and arbitrary. Compared to almost every other nation on Earth, America really is a paradise. We don't have cameras on every street corner tracking our every move (UK). We don't have rampant abject poverty (Haiti). We don't (yet) have a dictator (Cuba). We aren't limited (yet) to having ony one child (China). No matter your background or upbringing or political views, you can become the leader of the country (Obama). We don't have complete social upheaval (most of Africa). We don't get our hands cut off for stealing, or get stoned to death for audultery (UAE). Anybody can walk into a church and ask for food and receive it. Anyone can go to the Salvation Army and ask for a place to stay and receive it. If you are dying of a heart attack, you can walk into a hospital, and they are required by law to treat you, not just let you die (Africa again). We don't have trash lining almost every street (Philippines). We don't suffer from wide outbreaks of lethal diseases (Taiwan). We don't have drug lords running the country (Mexico). We don't have leaders who advocate genocide (Milosevic). Our economy hasn't (yet) completely collapsed (Iceland). Our population isn't in decline just because people are too poor to afford to have babies (Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan). We don't have public animal cruelty (Spain, with the running of the bulls). What we do have is a country that very nearly every other nation on the planet is envious of. They express it in different ways. But this is a country that people will risk their lives to get into (Cuba, Mexico).

And all some greedy people can do is ask for more. In my opinion, this nation really is paradise. We want health care, we want redistribution of wealth, we want gay marriage, we want this, and we want that. It almost makes me sick sometimes. Wise up people.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 09:40 PM     
  @TUI  
 
"So, they chose Christianity as the one to go with."

No, they emphatically didn't. You loon.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/08/2009 09:43 PM     
  @ec5618  
 
Is the god in the national motto "In God We Trust" is referring to a different god that the Christian god?
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 09:59 PM     
  @TUI  
 
You're an ignorant little man, aren't you?

Please, enlighten us, which of the Founding Fathers added that phrase, and when did he do so?
 
  by: Ec5618   09/08/2009 10:05 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
Ike was a Founding Father? Man, learn something new every day.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/08/2009 10:18 PM     
  @TIU  
 
I always like the founders argument.

Did you kno wthat Thomas Jefferson, who was President of the Unted States and a original author of the Declaration of Independance and Constitution at the age of 46 was sleeping with and had children with a 14 yr old girl. Well not only a girl but one of his slaves.

Good ole fashioned founding father for ya.

To bad Pedophilia and Slavery is illegal now. Darn them.
 
  by: DRHunk     09/08/2009 10:28 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
"The polticking gets into full gear as the President campaigns before the children on a particulaly partisan topic of the time -- a proposed constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget." From this phrase, quoted from the website, what do you suspect he thinks of the balanced budget amendment? Just curious. Trying now to not make snap judgments based only on what some publicly says.

The difference between Ronald Reagan talking about vision and Barak Obama talking about his own vision is this: The vision that Ronald Reagan was talking about was pretty much in line with the vision that the country was founded on. I'm not saying that he adhered to that vision, only that he publicly supported it.

Obama's speech came on a day that wan't the first day of school for a lot of kids too.

The Gore/Bush election does highlight something that actually could be changed about this country. I believe it's time to do away with the electoral college. Communications technology is good enough now that we can count every vote. In retrospect, it's a good thing he didn't get elected. What would we all do without "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Um, I have to call "Whoa, there" on the deficit statement. He had to deal with a Democrat-controlled Senate and House, the ones that actually have to approve the budget. It was after all of those years of wrestling with them that he finally called for the balanced budget amendment, in 1986, two years before the end of his term. And since then, it has always been stopped in in the works. Too many congressmen and senators make their livings from the pork that is introduced in every bill.

And lastly, I wouldn't call 53% to 46% a large majority in any election. I was one of that 1% in the middle. But to see the large majority, we can go back to the electoral college once again. The difference, even with an albatross like Palin hanging from his neck, was only 8 million votes out of about 125 million. That's like saying that a basketball score wasn't even close if the score ended up being 66 to 58. It was close. The big difference was that Obama took a lot of the votes that normally wouldn't even have been cast. CNN reports that in the 2004 election, only 117 million votes were cast. Compare this with the 1980 election results where Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by the same 8 million votes, when there were only about 80 million people voting. I can think of another reason that Clinton won his first election, too. Dan Quayle. Same story with him as it was with Palin. Some people still to this day shudder when they think that if something had happened to Bush, Sr., Quayle would have been president.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 10:32 PM     
  Wow  
 
A speech full of hate and Liberal ideas! /sarc

Seriously I am glad he is backing up what many of us parents say. I agree with DVB (no surprise) Kudos and I hope people let their children see a postive message we all need to be telling our kids.
 
  by: TaraB     09/08/2009 10:32 PM     
  @ec5618  
 
Annuit Coeptis. That's the phrase exactly that was added to the original Great Seal of the United States. Literally translated, it means "He approves (or has approved) [our] undertaking(s)". This is where the phrase "In God We Trust" comes from, only slightly rephrased, and it's directly in line with the original statement. I wonder who you think is meant by "He".
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 10:40 PM     
  @ec5618  
 
BTW: I forgot to mention that this was approved for the Great Seal in 1782, by the founding fathers.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 10:41 PM     
  Christian God?  
 
There is no such thing!! If there is a god, He is just God!!! You insecure humans put the labels on him.
 
  by: Lurker     09/08/2009 10:48 PM     
  Lurker  
 
Good point. I was watching a 2 part documentary about Jesus and the possibility that many of his disciples were actually family and in the documentary they had them speaking Aramic and they looked middle eastern as they were in the time. I thought to myself if some "Christians" were to actually see Jesus return in this day and time they would label him a terrorist before he could tell them who he was. Even after he did tell them he would not be believed because he has to be white I mean how could Jesus look like he is middle eastern?

Of course I would like to see the looks on some of the cult's faces like Westboro Baptist.
 
  by: TaraB     09/08/2009 11:02 PM     
  @TheIdiotUpstairs  
 
I think what you meant to say there was 'I was wrong, and I apologise'. Message received.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/08/2009 11:03 PM     
  @ec5618  
 
No. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not sure which part you have a problem with. Did you mean that they didn't choose this particular religion? Or did you mean that they weren't the ones to choose it? Or maybe you don't think that it was the founding fathers that designed the original Great Seal? I would consider anyone who had political influence back then to be a "founding father". If I'm wrong about any of this, I am always happy to learn something. I did revise my earlier statement about "In God We Trust" to include the original sentiment. But I am starting to realize the accuracy of the statement "Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics." Here's a Wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...


I'm still curious as to who you think they were referring to when they wrote of "He". I can't demand an answer, but I really would like to know.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/08/2009 11:42 PM     
  @TIU  
 
"Did you mean that they didn't choose this particular religion?"
The Founding Fathers didn't choose any particular religion.

"Or did you mean that they weren't the ones to choose it?"
'They' wrote the constitution to explicitly choose no religion.

"Or maybe you don't think that it was the founding fathers that designed the original Great Seal?"
Congress asked an artist to design the seal. 'They' didn't design anything.


"But I am starting to realize the accuracy of the statement 'Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.'"
I imagine that's particularly true for special people.

You were wrong to suggest that the US was founded on Christianity. Full stop.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/08/2009 11:58 PM     
  @TIU  
 
" I would like to say that America was founded before Darwin ever rode the Beagle. So, I can reiterate, and even in what you said I can see a glimpse of it. For whatever reason (persecution, belief, etc.) the founding fathers couldn't envision a nation without religion. So, they chose Christianity as the one to go with. Maybe it was the least threatening, or maybe it allowed them enough leeway to go on about their business without to much to hamper them."

Sorry, but LOL!! That's absolute rubbish. Yes, America was founded before Darwin rode the Beagle. No, Darwin did not invent atheism. Darwin has nothing to do with atheism, in this case. Right now, we can't create life from nothing, but there are still people who don't believe in a God. What's the difference between that situation and this? What's Darwin got to do with it? And, for the last time, they did not choose Christianity to be included in the government (nor on a whim because its the least resitant religion). See, if you truly believe this, you're the perfect example of someone who has a sheltered upbringing that wasn't allowed to learn the real world, just their parent's/guardian's view of the world. I'm surprised the world isn't still flat, in your opinion, as I would've expectated that to be passed down from generation to generation.

"And paradise is such a relative word....."

You said it yourself. It is all relative. Therefore, for example, gay rights is probably considered more important in America than in Ethiopia. So your rant about random things happening in other countries is pointless as this is about relative improvements.

"And all some greedy people can do is ask for more. In my opinion, this nation really is paradise. We want health care, we want redistribution of wealth, we want gay marriage, we want this, and we want that. It almost makes me sick sometimes. Wise up people."

'We want X, we want y'. Annoying when the majority want something, right? Then how about you stop living in a democratic country.
On a side note, why am I not surprised you oppose gay marriages? Funny, because IIRC, you're not religious either but you say you have excellent morals. Just a quick question (and quick reply, please), what's wrong with gay marriages for you? A lot of people who oppose it are religious and use that as their reason. Why do you have a problem?

 
  by: agnaram   09/09/2009 12:10 AM     
  @TIU  
 
Every treaty the United States enters into is part of the supreme law of the land, according to the constitution (Article 6).

Here's the part of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law in 1797, that totally undercuts your entire argument. And I quote, from Article 11:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

http://www.wallbuilders.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/09/2009 12:16 AM     
  controversial  
 
"You have to admit that this President is the most controversial President is a very long time."

Yes of course. Record number of baseless conspiracies in a record short time.
 
  by: Kaleid   09/09/2009 12:26 AM     
  @agnaram  
 
Ok. A quick reply. I don't have anything against gay marriage at all. I'm just sick of people always bitching that this country isn't good enough. They're never satisfied, and always want more. This was just the first group of people that popped into my head as chief complainers right now.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 12:27 AM     
  Blatant Political Propaganda  
 
Its obvious if you read between the lines that he is saying that the young people should bump the oldies off and let the atheist, commy, pinko fascist, socialist immigrants and the gays run the country. Wake up people before its to late. They are coming after our god fearing kids.
 
  by: ichi     09/09/2009 12:28 AM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
I would like to point you to the the link in the Wiki that I pointed to above, specifically the phrase in that page:

"Annuit Cœptis is translated by the U.S. State Department, The U.S. Mint,[4] and the U.S. Treasury[5] as 'He (God) has favored our undertakings.' (brackets in original).[6]" Pretty strong words on the Great Seal for a country that wasn't based on Christianity.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 12:30 AM     
  @TIU  
 
READ damn you. Annuit cœptis does not mean that the US is founded on Christianity. It means that an artist hired by Congress was a Christian.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/09/2009 12:35 AM     
  I'm not a Christian  
 
But I was under the impression that Christians prayed, by name, to Jesus.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/09/2009 12:38 AM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
Here's another line from the link you provided.

"Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation."
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 12:40 AM     
  @ec5618  
 
So are you saying that they didn't know what that phrase meant? Or that they didn't care? What part of this am I missing?
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 12:41 AM     
  @TIU  
 
Yeah, but as I showed, the United States is not legally a Christian nation. That doesn't mean Christianity or religious expression is banned; hence things like "In God We Trust" and whatever that thing is you keep babbling about. But it doesn't in any way mean that Christianity is the country's official, legal religion, nor that our country was founded on Christianity.

And I keep finding more wrong in your writings, so I'm sorry to have to go back to this:

"African-American would be a phrase to describe someone who has dual citizenship."

Are you suggesting that Africa is a nation? Of which one can be a citizen? Because you can't be a citizen of a continent.

No *wonder* you guys like Palin so much ...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/09/2009 12:43 AM     
  @TIU  
 
Are you suggesting that the US congress has declared that God is the Eye of Providence?

Failing to object to an artist's vision does not imply embracing that vision. Obviously.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/09/2009 12:54 AM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
No. That was on purpose. It's good that you picked up on that. Just making a point. They are the only group of Americans that use a prefix like that. And before you point out the Native Americans, most of them don't call themselves that. If they are aware of their heritage, they use the proper name of the tribe that their ancestors were from.

You are right that the US cannot legally be a Christian nation. But (and there's always a 'but'), it's really the first line that says it. "Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation".

And here is another link for you:

http://www.ushistory.org/...

The Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, and the treaty that you pointed to were both signed after America became a country. The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787 or 1788, after the country had been founded and won its independence.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 01:05 AM     
  @TIU  
 
Yeah, I remember a black man I met one time who was telling me about his home. It was built on the 40 acres his family got when they were freed from slavery, and presumably worked by the mule they got, too.

He asked me where my ancestors came from, and I told him Ireland. He asked my friends who were with me, and they told him Poland and France.

He pointed out that all he knows of his ancestry before slavery is that his people came from the continent of Africa. He doesn't know which of the 50-plus countries on that massive continent his family came from; or whether it was from the north, south, east or west. All that information was lost during the quarter of a millennium that black people were bought and sold as beasts of burden in America.

As far as I'm concerned, if he wants to call himself an African-American, more power to him.

As far as the whole "Christian Nation" thing goes, I have no problem with the United States being considered culturally Christian -- it is, after all, predominantly Christian. But it is clear that that has nothing to do with our laws and is prohibited from having anything to do with our laws.

Separation of Church and State protects religious establishments from government interference. If we didn't have that, the government could conceivably regulate worship. It would certainly tax churches, putting thousands of small, poor churches out of operation. Separation of Church and State is a good thing.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/09/2009 01:27 AM     
  Ben and TIU  
 
I truly believe the term African American furthers racisim. They are not African Americans anymore unless a person migrates from africa to america in present day.

It should be a simple American. Obama isn't an African American he is an American. I'm not an Irish American I am an American thats the way it should be.

The term African American brings out alot of emotions for some people. Its ok to be proud of your heritage but if there is a checkmark for African American it should be one for Irish American, German American etc......

I'm really getting tired of the slavery excuse its done with was it wrong yes but alot of blacks now have more opurtunities then whites so where is the equality in that?

Slavery is just an excuse for people to get a free ride nowadays plain and simple. The opurtunitys are there but quite frankly some people in the inner cities are just to lazy to take them and are just looking for a free ride.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are perfect examples of people creating racial divides. They are older and took the opurtunites they had to get educated and even gain some power (there are even more opurtunities now) but they keep preaching to the uneducated blacks the white man is holding you down.

They uneducated don't stop to think if the white man is holding the black man down why are Sharpton and Jackson up there speaking to them with a full education?

Alot of the blacks complain the way they are portrayed in the media and movies but hell look around. The way your being portrayed are the ways you dress and act in the real world your giving that image to yourself. The rappers portray themselves as black men who sleep around,call woman bitches, shoot people, in gangs etc and then those same guys want to complain when they are portrayed in the media as those things.

They present thier own imagine don't blame the white man for that.

@TIU.

The USA was not founded on the sole purpose of Christianity it was found on the freedom of religion no matter if it was Christianity or Satanisim
 
  by: willyshawker     09/09/2009 01:53 AM     
  @TIU  
 
Did you just say all that without any sense of irony?

" I'm just sick of people always bitching that this country isn't good enough. They're never satisfied, and always want more. "

Seeing as taxes are being paid by people, why do they not deserve to get their moneys worth? Also, I'm pretty sure you've made a few posts regarding ways you would like to see the country run. You want improvements, right? So I'm guessing you fall into that category too.
 
  by: agnaram   09/09/2009 02:05 AM     
  @agnaram  
 
But that's where I agree with TIU. I too am sick of his bitching.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/09/2009 02:08 AM     
  @Obama  
 
I watched his speech today and the first thing to pop into my head was "what a pinko" no wonder Republican politicians were up in arms.

This is gonna be a long 4 years if the President gets flak for talking to students. I mean come on, its the President. Obama can't do anything right in eyes of the right-wing. They are just lunatics.

I hope South Park spoofs Hannity and Beck one episode, and makes them look just as crazy as Mel Gibson. I can just picture Hannity and Beck having a feces fight.

If Republicans keep this up about every single issue, people will start to drown them out. And when they is an actual controvery, nobody will listen cause they cried wolf too many times and think they are babies.

To put in perspective
Bush Administration controversies=
1.Abu Ghraib torture
2.Iraq war
3.Plame affair
4.War crimes
5.Illigal wire-tapping
6.9/11 commission
7.Halliburton
8.Katrina
9.Patriot Act

Just to name a few...So Bush Adm. has Started a War that was not necessary 1 million dead, tortured prisoners, stole Civil liberties, stole tax-payers money with Halliburton 2.3 Trillion roughly, incompetent with Katrina. Not a bad record. I'd have their back too if I was Republican

Obama Administration controversies=
1.Talking to students
2.Health care for all
3.Knew a domestic terrorist like 30 years ago
4.Not born in USA
5.Had Czar that qustioned the truth about 9/11, just like everybody else.

Thats all I can think of. It sounds to me that Obama needs to go. Those controversies are way to destructive for the good of the USA.
 
  by: t-bagger   09/09/2009 02:12 AM     
  @willy  
 
Why can't people just exercise their freedom to call themselves whatever they like? Why do you have such a problem with what some people choose to call themselves?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/09/2009 02:21 AM     
  Ben  
 
I didn't say I had a problem with it. I said for some it causes a racial divide.

I do think the title shouldn't exist because as far as I'm concerned we are all Americans. We arent African Americans or Irish Americans we are AMERICANS.

There is a difference between thinking the title shouldnt be used and having a problem with it being used
 
  by: willyshawker     09/09/2009 02:36 AM     
  Good Job Ben  
 
Conservatives have made a complete ass out of themselves.

This is disgusting, but good for independents who have been slowly slipping more and more away from Republicans -- and it's their own faults.

-np-
 
  by: NicPre     09/09/2009 02:47 AM     
  Ahhhhh  
 
while I didnt mind Obama Speech some here said when Bush spoke to the kids in 1991 the democrats were ok w/it. WRONG

They wanted to investigate it. Liberals are so soon to forget

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...

 
  by: willyshawker     09/09/2009 04:21 AM     
  @willyshawker  
 
I'd like to see a transcript of that speech. I certainly never heard of this issue, but I do gather from your source that Bush Senior wasn't criticised in advance for failing to submit a script for review, but rather in hindsight for the content of his speech.
 
  by: Ec5618   09/09/2009 04:52 AM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
Still wondering why people might worry about what the kids are being shown?

http://www.youtube.com/...

Here's a good one. If those Reagan speeches made you upset, this one ought to make you go "OMG! WTF?"
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 05:24 AM     
  @willyshawker & Ben_Reily  
 
Here's the full video on youtube.com. There's in addition to the part about "I pledge to serve President Obama", there's a very interesting part at time index 1:07 - 1:11.

Hope you all enjoy.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 05:44 AM     
  oops!  
 
Forgot the link for the above comment. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 05:45 AM     
  @Idiot  
 
You never cease to amaze me with how you can twist something up so completely.

In the video you linked to, a principal at one school chose to show a video which was not made for schoolchildren to an assembly. The principal admitted to not having watched the video before showing it at the assembly (check out the two-minute mark).

This wasn't something the Obama administration made for schools, and it was only shown in one school in the country. Don't make it out like this was anything more than a principal who should have watched a video before playing it to an assembly.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/09/2009 08:39 AM     
  @willy  
 
At one point in Bush's speech, he shows kids a report from USA Today on how bad education in the U.S. got under him and Reagan, then proceeds to defend their record. That's dangerously close to political propaganda like what his son did, and you're damn skippy he should have been investigated for it.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     09/09/2009 08:46 AM     
  @TIU  
 
If you're so keen to show videos, then take a look at 3:45 (Bush's section).
http://www.youtube.com/...
Funny, that sounded like a policy...in a speech....to school children.

That's different from your video because, as Ben pointed out, your video was not made for school children to watch. If you have a problem with that video, then you should be angry at the headmaster showing it, not the president.

How much more rubbish are you managing to pick out from the bottom of that barrell?
 
  by: agnaram   09/09/2009 11:48 AM     
  @Ben_Reily, agnaram  
 
You two still don't get it, do you? This kind of video, along with the handouts that were given, asking children how they can help President Obama were exactly the reasons that parents were worried. And apparently, you two still don't see the connection. This isn't just a matter of policy in a speech geared towards children. This is also a matter of "Obama is great, show us how we can worship him". And given the recent stories of how the left wingers got up in arms about Bush's speech, even going so far as to try to take legal action against him, nobody will be able to convince me that if Dubbya had had videos like this going around, there wouldn't have been a general outcry from the left equal to or greater than what is happening right now. And there would have been a great concern amongst liberal parents about it.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 01:12 PM     
  @TIU  
 
What I don't get is how you just jump from one thing to another, without responding to anything that proves you wrong.

"This is also a matter of "Obama is great, show us how we can worship him"."

You've done your trademark 'make stuff up and hope the other person doesn't ask for a link'. Link please. Where is the evidence for this? I would also like details as simply saying "handout" doesn't count.

" And given the recent stories of how the left wingers got up in arms about Bush's speech, even going so far as to try to take legal action against him, "

I've missed this. Could you please show me where this is the case.

"nobody will be able to convince me that if Dubbya had had videos like this going around, there wouldn't have been a general outcry from the left equal to or greater than what is happening right now."

He has a library in a university. It's undoubtedly bias, but I don't know of much resistance to it. This promo video of him looking like a great president made rounds. Once again, not much resistance.
http://xrefer.blogspot.com/...

The question is, why should there be?

"And there would have been a great concern amongst liberal parents about it."

Oh, would there? How do you know? (That's not a rhetorical question, btw. I would like evidence for your statements as you seem to just ignore points you can't answer).
 
  by: agnaram   09/09/2009 04:42 PM     
  @agnaram  
 
Ok. Since you insist, I will respond to all of your points.

Your Quote:
"simply saying "handout" doesn't count."

Quote:
"Among the activities, the government suggests that students from pre-kindergarten to sixth grade 'write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.' The material includes a suggestion that teachers then collect the letters and redistribute them at a later time "to make students accountable to their goals." from this link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/...
Notice this doesn't say help him achieve any particular point.

Your Quote:
"I've missed this. Could you please show me where this is the case."
You sure did.
Quote: "Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance." from this site: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...
Guess that counts as legal action.

Your Quote: "The question is, why should there be?"

Answer: Exactly. This is only, as you say, a promo video. It's not an official speech. He's stating his agenda and his plans, and he's giving people a chance to argue about them, just like you and I are doing right now.

Your Quote: "Oh, would there? How do you know? (That's not a rhetorical question, btw."

Answer: Ok. My grammar wasn't perfect there. The sentence that starts with the word "And" was actually a continuation of the previous thought, which began with the words "nobody will be able to convince me". Maybe you can prove that someone will be able to convince me.

A lot of what I post on here, like a lot of what other people post, is opinion. It's an extrapolation of data available to express what I believe will most likely occur. An as it turns out, opinions of Barak Obama that see him in any light other than god-like just aren't popular with some people (like you). I don't buy into the idea that he's the answer to all of our problems. And I don't buy into the idea that we should serve him, or have our kids write letters to him telling him how we can help further his agenda. And yes, I downloaded the class assignments (handouts, I believe I called them) before they changed the wording.

Did I miss a point there? Just want to be sure that I provided quotes and links that would satisfy your hunger for the knowledge that only Google can provide. If I'm incorrect, I will acknowledge the correction, and in some cases even apologize (Ben_Reily can vouch for that). But it seems like some people here won't read some information just because it's on a Republican or conservative site.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 07:39 PM     
  Ben, Willy  
 
Mind if I jump in quickly.

Calling ourselves Americans is so damned egotistic. It is like we of the North American continent , but under the 49th parallel are the only Americans. This is a gigantic continent just like the African continent.
All people of the North and south Americas are Americans.
 
  by: ichi     09/09/2009 07:51 PM     
  Re: oops!  
 
Apparently my copy and paste didn't work for that link. Here's the real link:

http://www.youtube.com/...

Sorry about that.
 
  by: TheIdiotUpstairs   09/09/2009 07:51 PM     
  @ichi  
 
Where I largely agree with that we are, I think, the only country with "America" in it's name.
 
  by: VermiciousG     09/09/2009 08:15 PM     
  @ichi  
 
never thought of it that way but we are all raised to be considered as Americans plus we have America in our name The United States of America just like people in Germany are called Germans we are Americans
 
  by: willyshawker     09/09/2009 09:19 PM     
  God / linguistics  
 
Couple of things I wish to add.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear
(Thomas Jefferson 1787)"

On to linguistics.

I reckon that the only people worthy of being called "American" are various indigenous people (Indians). I don't reckon emigrating from England makes you either American or "European-american," no matter what the date. I don't reckon being enslaved and shipped to American makes one American or "African-american." We can hardly doubt that the United States has a culture all of its own, but "American," I reckon belongs to the land and its ancient residents alone.

Of course that leaves the United States without an adjective for the people. Indeed, what are they? They come from every country in every place. Generalising them is wrong.
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   09/12/2009 02:54 AM     
  you wont understand it  
 
until you understand that there are No political parties, republicans and democrats are the same, doesn't matter who you vote for, whoever the people who are really in power want for president will become president, and then they're just a puppet for their own goals. we live in a dictatorship thats becoming pure socialism where everything horrible that happens only happens so they scare us into accepting them taking away more of our rights. soon the fed's gonna cash in, everything you own will belong to the government. guess who's gonna be the terrorists then. us - the people who try to stop them, stand up to them, say it's unconstitutional. world war 3 will usher in a new world order and 1 world army and 1 world bank. we all be slaves, if we aren't killed off in the 3.5 billion they get rid of to bring population down to a manageable 500 million. buy a gun today!
 
  by: djskagnetti     09/12/2009 07:30 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com