I understand that a speech the president made has got some republicans in a tizzy. Out of curiosity I took a look at what he said. The speech is below and I've read it carefully 3 times.
I don't get it. I just don't. The speech is well written, it's inspirational, It encourages self discovery and hard work, It tells these kids that they all have something to offer and most importantly that they should not give up at the first failure. It's a great speech, it seems to embody all the stuff that I though Americans love, and it the kind of message every teacher should be giving out to their pupils.
Just what on earth is everyone's issue with it?
The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with
students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students
tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you
all could join us today.
I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in
kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so
it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out
there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no
matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer,
and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.
I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years,
and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to
school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at
4:30 in the morning.
Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right
there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me
one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."
So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today
because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to
talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new
school year.
Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about
responsibility.
I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to
learn.
I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and
get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or
with that Xbox.
I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards,
supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working
where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most
supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter
unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools;
pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults;
and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your
education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.
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. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.
Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or
articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your
English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good
enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you
might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a
mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you
join student government or the debate team.
And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an
education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want
to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to
need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of
school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and
learn for it.
And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make
of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re
learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest
challenges in the future.
You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math
to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and
protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain
in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and
discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the
creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that
will create new jobs and boost our economy.
We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you
can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school
– you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.
Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have
challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.
I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old,
and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t
always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed
having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit
in.
So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud
of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a
turn for the worse.
But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to
college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle
Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t
have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the
best schools in this country.
Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your
life who give you the support that you need.
Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go
around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends
who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.
But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where
you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home –
that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no
excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of
school. That’s no excuse for not trying.
Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s
written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make
your own future.
That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English
when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and
neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a
scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public
health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.
I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain
cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of
which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to
do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall.
And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when
bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she
managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out
of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.
Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced
challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to
take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of
you to do the same.
That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education
– and to do everything you can to meet them.
Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention
in class, or spending time each day reading a book.
Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your
community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied
because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids
deserve a safe environment to study and learn. Maybe you’ll decide to take better care
of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all
wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we
can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.
Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at
it.
I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful
without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball
or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those
things.
But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you
study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will
seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily
succeed at everything the first time you try.
That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had
the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times
before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school
basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during
his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my
life. And that is why I succeed."
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.
If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to
try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just
means you need to spend more time studying.
No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard
work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit
every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with
your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it
right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a
paper before it’s good enough to hand in.
Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do
that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It
shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn
something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach
or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.
And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like
other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when
you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.
The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about
people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do
anything less than their best.
It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a
revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who
overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a
man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google,
Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.
So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are
you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who
comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for
this country?
Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you
have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up
your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to
learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I
expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from
each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself
down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
The problem is that he is a politician. Doesn't matter if he's democrat, republican, or some other piece of crap party. Politicians are loved by few, hated by many, and blamed by everyone.
Very Cheesy speach but a good one. Seemed like a lot of pressure he was putting on children when he mentioned there be letting America down if they dont study hard.
Frazzled has the right of it. It's not what he's saying, but the fact that it's him saying it. Simple as that. Unfortunate, but difficult to solve. It's the same reason why there are still people trying to claim he's not an American citizen.
Those parents upset that the President of the United States spoke directly to their children are perfectly capable of retiring to the bomb shelters in their backyards and shutting out the outside world for the next decade. Their tinfoil hats would work equally well.
I don't see the issue.
(edit) Taking my tongue out of my cheek, some of it's probably invented outrage along the lines of the "astroturf" tea parties and protests at town halls.
I'm not sure which is more fun to watch -- the Dems devouring their own when backed into a corner, or the GOP going Manson-loony when backed into a corner.
Once the Education recommendations were adjusted I didn't care.
I like our school district which said in a bastardized way "We've received a bunch of calls from all you nutjobs on the left and right. Why? its not like we have TV's for every classroom. You losers sort it out. Go timber wolves."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frankly this one really is the call of the parents, not Grotsnik (ferners!!!), not Gorgon (young punk!), or even me (shut up old man!). The original lesson plan was OT for those who didn't vote for Obama, and played into the midset of the "less willing to believe you" crowd.
Frankly, who cares. Its not like the kids were going to pay attention anyway. Except for Genghis Connie of course, who would begin feverishly drawing invasion routes to this "land of Washginton." Looks like it has good grazing land for steppe horses on their way to taking over Canada.
Kilkrazy wrote:The key problem is that he is a Democrat. It was the same with Clinton.
Automatically Appended Next Post: According to my American sister-in-law, Bush gave speeches to school children and it was never a problem.
Actually, when Bush spoke to schoolchildren there were Congressional hearings and the Dems made a big stink.
One of the main problems I see many Americans having with this is Obama's cult of personality. Many parents, especially independents, value their freedom from party thinking and don't want their children being told different. They especially don't want their kids to turn out like this...
Kilkrazy wrote:The key problem is that he is a Democrat. It was the same with Clinton.
Automatically Appended Next Post: According to my American sister-in-law, Bush gave speeches to school children and it was never a problem.
Actually, when Bush spoke to schoolchildren there were Congressional hearings and the Dems made a big stink.
One of the main problems I see many Americans having with this is Obama's cult of personality. Many parents, especially independents, value their freedom from party thinking and don't want their children being told different. They especially don't want their kids to turn out like this...
After, not before, if it makes a difference. Reagan also made a speech to schoolchildren.
Here are the reasons why Obama is hated: he's black, he's the president, he's a democrat, his name sounds like a terrorist's to the people who voted Bush and wanted America Strikes Back in Iraq, he's a politician, and did I mention he's black?
Partisan politics is the biggest drawback to the American system since those with power have turned paramount and complex issues into nothing more than Red versus Blue. You find a similar mentality in sports hooligans and riots when people simply hate and despise the other team and its fans because thats the jersey they wear.
Hopefully you're not too bummed out after reading this cynical post but its imo the unfortunate reality.
Cane wrote:Here are the reasons why Obama is hated: he's black, he's the president, he's a democrat, his name sounds like a terrorist's to the people who voted Bush and wanted America Strikes Back in Iraq, he's a politician, and did I mention he's black?
Partisan politics is the biggest drawback to the American system since those with power have turned paramount and complex issues into nothing more than Red versus Blue. You find a similar mentality in sports hooligans and riots when people simply hate and despise the other team and its fans because thats the jersey they wear.
Hopefully you're not too bummed out after reading this cynical post but its imo the unfortunate reality.
Your logic really defeats itself at this point. If as many people disapproved of/hated him during the election cycle as you claim, he never would have been president. The racism card is so dead and overplayed, sure there are some who are racist, but I definitely don't appreciate being called one, not by you necessarily, because I disagree with him. You should understand that the majority of Americans don't trust the Federal government, and many, not just Republicans either mind you, see this as another example of the government moving into our personal lives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
After, not before, if it makes a difference. Reagan also made a speech to schoolchildren.
Well they also had Congress' that were controlled by an opposing party. They also didn't address all the nation's schoolchildren via TV. I think that people are overreacting a bit, but I don understand parents being outraged over their lack of control on this issue.
Cane wrote:Here are the reasons why Obama is hated: he's black, he's the president, he's a democrat, his name sounds like a terrorist's to the people who voted Bush and wanted America Strikes Back in Iraq, he's a politician, and did I mention he's black?
Partisan politics is the biggest drawback to the American system since those with power have turned paramount and complex issues into nothing more than Red versus Blue. You find a similar mentality in sports hooligans and riots when people simply hate and despise the other team and its fans because thats the jersey they wear.
Hopefully you're not too bummed out after reading this cynical post but its imo the unfortunate reality.
Your logic really defeats itself at this point. If as many people disapproved of/hated him during the election cycle as you claim, he never would have been president. The racism card is so dead and overplayed, sure there are some who are racist, but I definitely don't appreciate being called one, not by you necessarily, because I disagree with him. You should understand that the majority of Americans don't trust the Federal government, and many, not just Republicans either mind you, see this as another example of the government moving into our personal lives.
Right, I tried to pre-emptively address this response by also including "he's a politician" to the list. As for votes and the like, IIRC most Americans don't vote still and if thats true then most Americans didn't vote for Obama. As for the part of the argument dealing with population numbers and the like; I don't agree here since you don't need all or the majority of the population in order to make a segment of the population's voice seem louder than the rest aka town hall meetings and calling Obama/dems Nazi's. Those with power can easily fan the flames of hate which is why imo we've hardly seen crazier media than the right wingers' this adminstration (death panels). Red versus Blue mentality coupled with any or all of the reasons listed in the other post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for race, its an issue that definitely has gotten its share of attention but even living in the 2000's racism is still very prevalent in American society. Although this is an internet example, in just a few minutes/hours time you can easily find several gaming servers of people discriminating and using racial slurs. Its to the point where most servers actually have it in their "rules" that you can't be racist or you'll get banned/kicked...something that really should just be assumed and expected but thats the kind of people we got raising and being raised. And when you consider that most gamers are white, middle-class people...well, doesn't help with the Repub's image.
It just seems disingenuous to me to give a speech like this while strengthening the teachers union, probably the greatest force for dumbing down Americans in existence. Considering he is also not giving one penny of stimulus to NASA, one of the great education motivators of all time, it is pretty obvious he is just trying to score some poll points after getting walloped by the opposition in August.
Cane wrote:As for race, its an issue that definitely has gotten its share of attention but even living in the 2000's racism is still very prevalent in American society. Although this is an internet example, in just a few minutes/hours time you can easily find several gaming servers of people discriminating and using racial slurs. Its to the point where most servers actually have it in their "rules" that you can't be racist or you'll get banned/kicked...something that really should just be assumed and expected but thats the kind of people we got raising and being raised. And when you consider that most gamers are white, middle-class people...well, doesn't help with the Repub's image.
How often are those slurs directed at people known to be of the relevant race?
Frazzled wrote:Had little to do with the speech initially, but with the materials the Education Department tried to foist on it.
Plus Obama is disliked by a good portion of the populace at this time. A live speech to their kids unfiltered by their parents freaked them out.
what was wrong with the education stuff?
AND.... I think anyone that has to job of president during these economic hard times would have the same rap... even tho he is pretty much loved by most of the area I live in. (east coast)
I think it's mostly that people don't want the Pres. telling their children what they themselves can tell them.
Not to mention to say to the kids "if you fail at school you fail the country." Kind of a crappy ultimatum to tell such young students.
Also the mention of having to graduate HS to succeed in life. Yeah it helps but around here pipe liners make around $30-40/hour for general laborer. Not alot of money if you live in FL or Ca but those wages will let you live a really nice life here in Minnesota.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Your logic really defeats itself at this point. If as many people disapproved of/hated him during the election cycle as you claim, he never would have been president.
Only about 60% of the country voted (allowing much of the dissent to potentially hide in anonymity), and it was an election which took place in the wake of a hotly contested Republican President. Least-like-Bush has been thrown around by several credible analysts as the deciding factor in the election.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
The racism card is so dead and overplayed, sure there are some who are racist, but I definitely don't appreciate being called one, not by you necessarily, because I disagree with him.
Its overplayed, but it isn't dead. The twin 'issues' of his citizenship, and his middle name, turn (at least partially) on either racism, or ethnocentrism; depending on how you formulate the argument
Fateweaver wrote:
Also the mention of having to graduate HS to succeed in life. Yeah it helps but around here pipe liners make around $30-40/hour for general laborer. Not alot of money if you live in FL or Ca but those wages will let you live a really nice life here in Minnesota.
There are some exception, true, but I think its a broad enough truth to be considered useful advice.
dogma wrote: Only about 60% of the country voted (allowing much of the dissent to potentially hide in anonymity), and it was an election which took place in the wake of a hotly contested Republican President. Least-like-Bush has been thrown around by several credible analysts as the deciding factor in the election.
So you say we should assume that the 60% that didn't vote was racist? Or were they too lazy to use their racism at the ballot? I doubt that if they were truly racist they would have just let him get elected. And since we have secret voting the whole anonymity thing isn't really a strong argument. While some analysts gave the least like Bush argument, most never gave that much credit, and I think it is a disservice to his brilliant campaigning and oratory skill. President Obama won because he was able to inspire so many people, even if it was with empty rhetoric. The truth is this: racism is a strong motivator. If people can't or won't vote, then they don't care enough about the system to participate. Also, while only 40% of the country voted, only about 60-65% is eligible to vote anyway. So with a 2/3 turnout rate, that is pretty indicative of the mood of society.
dogma wrote: Its overplayed, but it isn't dead. The twin 'issues' of his citizenship, and his middle name, turn (at least partially) on either racism, or ethnocentrism; depending on how you formulate the argument
It is dead, even liberal commentators, like my favorite Camille Paglia, have decried this overly used, and dead excuse. Race is certainly no excuse for his failures, as he has the greatest control over the government any president has had in decades. Here is a quote from Ms. Paglia's latest column, "Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue." As a person who comes from a minority family I despise the term racist, and I think that it is a waving of the bloody shirt that is years out of date. Having lived in California and Texas, I can tell what is definitely the more "racist" of the two, and it isn't the one with the Alamo Dome. If he has a problem with people saying his middle name, than change it, but there is no problem in saying it, it is his middle name after all. I thought that President Obama's election, at least according to almost everyone I have heard from, moved us past the race issue, yet I see it being brought up again and again, not by dissidents, but by the left.
JEB_Stuart wrote:]Your logic really defeats itself at this point. If as many people disapproved of/hated him during the election cycle as you claim, he never would have been president. The racism card is so dead and overplayed, sure there are some who are racist, but I definitely don't appreciate being called one, not by you necessarily, because I disagree with him. You should understand that the majority of Americans don't trust the Federal government, and many, not just Republicans either mind you, see this as another example of the government moving into our personal lives.
I think it is fair to say that race probably wasn't a major factor in getting people to vote for McCain over Obama. It was at least nullified by the numbers who voted for Obama because of race.
However, among the small but highly vocal few who are freaking out over everything Obama has suggested, it’s probably safe to say race is a significant factor. It’s certainly a factor in the birther thing.
Fateweaver wrote:I think it's mostly that people don't want the Pres. telling their children what they themselves can tell them.
The idea that a president shouldn’t talk to kids is bizarre. Sure, he shouldn’t use the opportunity to score political points (and as such I understand the complaints about the teaching material, some of which were pretty dodgy), but opposition to the president talking to them at all? The president is supposed to be an aspirational figure, having him give a non-political message about the importance of hard work and all that stuff is a lot of what he is supposed to be doing.
Also the mention of having to graduate HS to succeed in life. Yeah it helps but around here pipe liners make around $30-40/hour for general laborer. Not alot of money if you live in FL or Ca but those wages will let you live a really nice life here in Minnesota.
There is more to education than securing a reasonable paying job.
I have always refused to vote in the Presidential Election, and will continue to do so for 2 reasons:
The first and most important reason: I will not vote until my vote carries just as much or as little weight as the vote of another citizen from any other state in the Union; The electoral system is not truly representative of the people's choice. For instance: Had I voted in the last election (because say, I was required) my vote wouldn't have affected the outcome one bit, the candidate I would have chosen won my state anyway. How many votes are simply discounted because of this method of election? Of course nobody complains when it's their candidate who wins in this system, and perhaps my perception of the discrepancies in the process isn't in line with the actuality of it. It simply makes me uncomfortable that our system has a process that decides "Enough votes in this region have been counted, this candidate has 'won' here. Toss ALL the dissenting votes by the wayside, they don't matter anymore."
The second is almost as important: I have never felt that any candidate has put the country before the agenda; Special interest groups and campaign contributors play too big a role in who gets elected. A two party system is just flawed, and although we have a mechanism in place for a third or fourth (or more) party, those gears don't recieve enough grease (money) to turn properly, and can't pose a big enough threat to make the Rep or the Dem's sweat. Without this pressure from outside party lines there will never be any true change in our country. There's a reason that the adage is 'Buisiness as usual.' /Rant
BACK OT: I don't see a problem with what Obama said, but I agree with the parents who wanted a chance to review the speech before exposing their kids to it. A lot of people don't agree with Obama on a lot of issues; blindly exposing their children to the orations of a man they don't (always) agree with is just bad parenting, considering that a lot of the target audience lacks the experience to have formed a worldview of their own, or if they have, likely lack the wherewithal to properly assess new information and incorporate it accordingly, especially when it's coming from the leader of the country.
JEB_Stuart wrote:So you say we should assume that the 60% that didn't vote was racist? Or were they too lazy to use their racism at the ballot?
I'm not saying we should assume anything. I'm saying we have to recall that 40% of the population didn't vote, and that the discrepancy can account for at least some of the gap between the perceived hate for Obama, and his electoral victory.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I doubt that if they were truly racist they would have just let him get elected.
Racism can be a subtle thing. Not all the world's racists are KKK members, neo-Nazis, etc.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
And since we have secret voting the whole anonymity thing isn't really a strong argument.
We have relatively secret voting. Voter registration naturally limits secrecy.
That said, I was speaking specifically to the anonymity provided by being a unregistered, eligible, voter.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
While some analysts gave the least like Bush argument, most never gave that much credit, and I think it is a disservice to his brilliant campaigning and oratory skill. President Obama won because he was able to inspire so many people, even if it was with empty rhetoric.
Much of his brilliant campaign turned on being very much the opposite of Bush. This was further illustrated by the fervor of the Hillary and Obama camps in primaries. That dispute was almost entirely constructed on the premise of 'Who will be a more significant change?' I remember being on campus during the primaries; laughing at all my classmates who were in love with Obama, but hated Hillary despite the lack of any substantive positional differences between the two.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
The truth is this: racism is a strong motivator. If people can't or won't vote, then they don't care enough about the system to participate. Also, while only 40% of the country voted, only about 60-65% is eligible to vote anyway. So with a 2/3 turnout rate, that is pretty indicative of the mood of society.
I went back and checked my numbers. 56.8% of the eligible population voted in 2008, and while a 2/3 turnout rate is high, it doesn't escape my initial criticism.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
It is dead, even liberal commentators, like my favorite Camille Paglia, have decried this overly used, and dead excuse.
Overused doesn't mean dead. It simply means that the criticism has been stripped of colloquially meaning by excess repetition. Dead implies that it no longer has merit, which isn't true.
Racism is useless in political discourse because its so often thrown around that it appears as a crutch whenever its actually brought up. However, that doesn't render it baseless from an analytical standpoint.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Race is certainly no excuse for his failures, as he has the greatest control over the government any president has had in decades.
True, though he never really had a filibuster proof majority as Franken wasn't seated until Jul 7th, by which time Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in a month.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Here is a quote from Ms. Paglia's latest column, "Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue."
As a graduate one of the "New Ivies" I find that criticism more than slightly off-base. It betrays a great deal of ignorance of the concepts discussed in American Studies, and Gender Studies departments across the nation. You don't teach social theory by spouting off only the latest stuff to come out of the academy, you teach it as a process; something which means covering everything from first wave liberation theory, to the antithetical rejection theory which Paglia is so fond of.
She doesn't want America's university system to teach critical thinking, she wants it to teach what she believes.
JEB_Stuart wrote:It is dead, even liberal commentators, like my favorite Camille Paglia, have decried this overly used, and dead excuse. Race is certainly no excuse for his failures, as he has the greatest control over the government any president has had in decades. Here is a quote from Ms. Paglia's latest column, "Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it's invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote "critical thinking," which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms ("racism, sexism, homophobia") when confronted with any social issue." As a person who comes from a minority family I despise the term racist, and I think that it is a waving of the bloody shirt that is years out of date. Having lived in California and Texas, I can tell what is definitely the more "racist" of the two, and it isn't the one with the Alamo Dome. If he has a problem with people saying his middle name, than change it, but there is no problem in saying it, it is his middle name after all. I thought that President Obama's election, at least according to almost everyone I have heard from, moved us past the race issue, yet I see it being brought up again and again, not by dissidents, but by the left.
Looking straight at the numbers, you can say that Obama had the greatest control over government in decades. But it'd be a superficial analysis, ignoring that it's the Democrats holding power. Squandering majority positions is kind of their thing.
And it takes a incredible degree of willful ignorance to pretend there is no racial motivation in mentioning Obama's middle name. Yes, it is his name, and when read out as part of a formal address there's no racist intent. When he's directly referred to as Hussein, often as Hussein Osama, by people on sites like Stormfront, it's very obviously being used to attach him to race.
I think this whole thing is a bit silly... of course I think the same thing about most politics... A BANANA!!! LOOK OVER THERE!!! Did I get that backwards?
I choose not to vote as do many people, because I basically think the voting system is a fraud. This is not to say that the whole system is by any means, but I cannot help but be astounded at the synchronicity of the "debates" that some of these two-party disputes tend to spring from.
Am I wrong to think that these politicians are working together? No, because it is their job too, but they seem to forget about why they were supposedly elected more than on a regular basis. I fail to see a positive future for this country, but I shall wait and see I suppose.
If Obama does provide real change, or at the very least fight for it sincerely (he is not a very sincere guy, no offense, smart does not mean genuine) I will vote for him. But if all my vote turns out to be is some sort of mythological lie, that I have been trained to mentally fantasize about; then I could give a good god damn, the decisions are being made with or without my input. We get less and less choice in everything, and all we have left is computers, cable tv, and a relatively poor market for jobs; which is a problem that has been developing for decades. I can grow my own blueberries, and I do not care about getting more types of tasteless or overpriced vegetables and fruit. If the price we pay for government and corporate interests basically running this country in tandem is a continuing flow of half-truths and broken promises... what is the point of any of it?
I understand that both corporate and government interests do "fight" for the people of this country, but in the long run which of them are they fighting for? The upper 2%, backed up by a hefty portion of the middle/upper class? Perhaps.... perhaps that is all they need to keep everyone in line.
Fateweaver wrote:I think it's mostly that people don't want the Pres. telling their children what they themselves can tell them.
Not to mention to say to the kids "if you fail at school you fail the country." Kind of a crappy ultimatum to tell such young students.
Also the mention of having to graduate HS to succeed in life. Yeah it helps but around here pipe liners make around $30-40/hour for general laborer. Not alot of money if you live in FL or Ca but those wages will let you live a really nice life here in Minnesota.
I am confused by this...
So you can make up to 40$ an hour for LABOR? That sounds totally ridiculous. Working in a municipal system with experience in water/sewage maintenance can easily net you 40$ an hour plus benefits. I am guessing that you would be netting around 60-80k or something like that after 5 years on the job or so. Forty bucks an hour is great money, I wish there was work like that to go around here in California.
Everyone is just scrambling for jobs right now, which is understandable, but totally inefficient. If I know that I am competing with a thousand people to get one labor job, I have already lost because I will simply not destroy myself for ten bucks an hour, especially when it is under the table more often than not. I got fed up with most of the contractors out here simply because they will do anything to cut corners, and the ones that have been professional charge so much it is crazy.
If everyone goes to college, there will be millions of people that would have just spent more than a decade training for a job competing with the other slightly more qualified (no life?) millions of people that just gave up that much more. Approaching life from this set in stone prescription to success is not only stupid, it is forcefully ignorant of the reality associated with living in a functional society. More immigrants... No immigrants... NO SOLUTIONS!!! , totally hilarious on the cuff of it all... seriously though, it is a madhouse.
dogma wrote:
I'm not saying we should assume anything. I'm saying we have to recall that 40% of the population didn't vote, and that the discrepancy can account for at least some of the gap between the perceived hate for Obama, and his electoral victory.
Hate is something that can always be perceived as a gap, regardless of whether its race or not though shouldn't matter. Plenty of people hated Bush, but he managed to get enough people to like him. I really don't think it is enough of an issue to be brought up. Now if people were threatening to lynch him in the halls of Congress, I would sing a different tune, but the reality is the vast majority of those who don't agree with him aren't racist.
dogma wrote:
We have relatively secret voting. Voter registration naturally limits secrecy.
As far as I am concerned, that is secret voting. No one checks what your record is, unless you are a member of Congress. You don't have to vote party line, or even register for a party. Your preference for voting is never made public and it is definitely not used for political bullying. For people who donate money to a party, that's a whole different bottle of whiskey....
dogma wrote:
Much of his brilliant campaign turned on being very much the opposite of Bush. This was further illustrated by the fervor of the Hillary and Obama camps in primaries. That dispute was almost entirely constructed on the premise of 'Who will be a more significant change?' I remember being on campus during the primaries; laughing at all my classmates who were in love with Obama, but hated Hillary despite the lack of any substantive positional differences between the two.
I am glad to hear someone else thought the Democratic primary had a hilarious effect on our peers. I never understood the average college student's love of Obama, but disdain for Hillary... I am more referring to his post-primary campaigning. He was more spouting rhetoric about change, although his change was never defined. And instead of painting himself as a liberal to counter George Bush's neocon ideology, he portrayed himself as a moderate.
dogma wrote:
I went back and checked my numbers. 56.8% of the eligible population voted in 2008, and while a 2/3 turnout rate is high, it doesn't escape my initial criticism.
Considering our nation's average voter turnout, we should be thankful....
dogma wrote:
Overused doesn't mean dead. It simply means that the criticism has been stripped of colloquially meaning by excess repetition. Dead implies that it no longer has merit, which isn't true.
Racism is useless in political discourse because its so often thrown around that it appears as a crutch whenever its actually brought up. However, that doesn't render it baseless from an analytical standpoint.
It is dead because in the grand scheme of things, racism simply isn't a factor. It is a known fact that Americans as a society are generally distrustful of the Federal government, especially when it messes with our lives. There will always be right wing and left wing nut jobs, and I never really consider their opinions as a major factor in the obstruction of a president's agenda.
dogma wrote:
True, though he never really had a filibuster proof majority as Franken wasn't seated until Jul 7th, by which time Kennedy hadn't cast a vote in a month.
Not my problem if he can't steal just one vote away from the Republican party, or keep his own unified for that matter....
dogma wrote:
As a graduate one of the "New Ivies" I find that criticism more than slightly off-base. It betrays a great deal of ignorance of the concepts discussed in American Studies, and Gender Studies departments across the nation. You don't teach social theory by spouting off only the latest stuff to come out of the academy, you teach it as a process; something which means covering everything from first wave liberation theory, to the antithetical rejection theory which Paglia is so fond of.
She doesn't want America's university system to teach critical thinking, she wants it to teach what she believes.
Having had a small amount of correspondence with her, I can assure you this is not the case. I found that at my school, Baylor University, there was a great deal of freedom to discuss the nature of almost every topic and its merits. Nearly all of my professors, even my favorite who spent his undergraduate and doctoral studies at UC Berkeley, agreed that the level of academic freedom, which I believe is essential for truly critical thinking, to be much less at other schools. Not many universities would allow students to research and debate the merits of the Crusades, or even the Spanish Inquisition for that matter. In my experience, especially from friends who attended other schools, professors were much less open to criticisms of their own ideas and beliefs, but I don't know about every school...
sebster wrote:
Looking straight at the numbers, you can say that Obama had the greatest control over government in decades. But it'd be a superficial analysis, ignoring that it's the Democrats holding power. Squandering majority positions is kind of their thing.
Again, not my problem. If they can't get their own party together then that is an internal issue over, and not something they should blame on others.
sebster wrote:
And it takes a incredible degree of willful ignorance to pretend there is no racial motivation in mentioning Obama's middle name. Yes, it is his name, and when read out as part of a formal address there's no racist intent. When he's directly referred to as Hussein, often as Hussein Osama, by people on sites like Stormfront, it's very obviously being used to attach him to race.
I have never heard him referenced as Hussein Obama, and that would be just plain wrong. It only further stokes the controversy though when his team tells people to not use the name, as if they are ashamed of it.
JEB_Stuart wrote: Hate is something that can always be perceived as a gap, regardless of whether its race or not though shouldn't matter. Plenty of people hated Bush, but he managed to get enough people to like him. I really don't think it is enough of an issue to be brought up. Now if people were threatening to lynch him in the halls of Congress, I would sing a different tune, but the reality is the vast majority of those who don't agree with him aren't racist.
I don't know why you have it in your head that I think anyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. You're arguing a strawman because that's nothing akin to what I've said here.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I am glad to hear someone else thought the Democratic primary had a hilarious effect on our peers. I never understood the average college student's love of Obama, but disdain for Hillary... I am more referring to his post-primary campaigning. He was more spouting rhetoric about change, although his change was never defined. And instead of painting himself as a liberal to counter George Bush's neocon ideology, he portrayed himself as a moderate.
That's why he was so popular with college kids, he used the academic tactic of rejecting the original liberal/conservative debate altogether. Though I don't think he really painted himself as a moderate. He spit a conciliatory game, which isn't necessarily the same thing as political moderation.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
It is dead because in the grand scheme of things, racism simply isn't a factor. It is a known fact that Americans as a society are generally distrustful of the Federal government, especially when it messes with our lives. There will always be right wing and left wing nut jobs, and I never really consider their opinions as a major factor in the obstruction of a president's agenda.
The thing is, people who say nutty things start to sound a whole lot more credible when they can use kernels of truth, and a general dislike of the Federal Government, to amplify the significance of an issue. The whole 'death panels' thing is a good example.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Not my problem if he can't steal just one vote away from the Republican party, or keep his own unified for that matter....
It does speak to the poor nature of the critique from congressional dominance; especially given that the Democrats tend to operate as a contiguous political party in only a tenuous sense. The Republicans too, as of late anyway.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Having had a small amount of correspondence with her, I can assure you this is not the case. I found that at my school, Baylor University, there was a great deal of freedom to discuss the nature of almost every topic and its merits. Nearly all of my professors, even my favorite who spent his undergraduate and doctoral studies at UC Berkeley, agreed that the level of academic freedom, which I believe is essential for truly critical thinking, to be much less at other schools.
To a man, I have heard that from every professor I have ever broached the subject with.
This leads in three directions:
1) Academic freedom is largely an illusion, which no one truly understands how to judge.
2) Academic freedom is alive and well, with plenty of defenders proffering their own take on it.
3) Freedom has come to mean 'unchallenged'
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Not many universities would allow students to research and debate the merits of the Crusades, or even the Spanish Inquisition for that matter.
That's partially a function of specialization. Sure, most schools have history departments, but most of them aren't very good. They're there because they possess some kind of land-grant mandate, or the administration feels that any respectable school should possess a history department.
Truth be told, I feel that the educational system is over-specialized in many ways. It turns out very competent vertical thinkers, but very poor horizontal ones. That said, I'm not sure how to fix it. Generalization costs money, and uni is already ungodly pricey.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
In my experience, especially from friends who attended other schools, professors were much less open to criticisms of their own ideas and beliefs, but I don't know about every school...
To be honest, its usually not a good idea to critique the positions of your professor unless you're ready for a fight. He almost certainly knows the material better than his students, and will defend it. It is his livelihood after all.
Inevitably a lot of this simply comes down to human nature. You're not always going to agree with your professor, and he isn't always going to agree with you. This will affect the grades you get, though hopefully not much (the alternative is grade inflation, which is almost as bad as biased instruction). Besides, if grades are really that important to you, just parrot something for the prof. and collect your views in private. No one's going to care what you wrote in undergrad anyway.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Again, not my problem. If they can't get their own party together then that is an internal issue over, and not something they should blame on others.
Blame is part of the corrective process in American politics.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Again, not my problem. If they can't get their own party together then that is an internal issue over, and not something they should blame on others.
It's true that it isn't your problem. But it's the difference between 'the Democrats are floundering, that Obama must be useless' and 'the Democrats are floundering, and in other news water is wet'.
I have never heard him referenced as Hussein Obama, and that would be just plain wrong. It only further stokes the controversy though when his team tells people to not use the name, as if they are ashamed of it.
It isn't about being ashamed of it, it's about understanding that it's an unusual name mostly made famous for its relation to a famous dictator. It would be like if Reagan's middle name was Adolf... I can guarantee plenty of left wingers would have been calling him Adolph, and they would have been doing it because of the famous person who shared that name.
The bigger question is why would anyone use it, who uses their middle name as a switch in for their first name?
The bigger question is why would anyone use it, who uses their middle name as a switch in for their first name?
Not too sure really... I think they are talking about a fire in the theater next show though... hmmm, very interesting take on this whole debate O'reilly... yet again.
There is this strange new cultural development in the U.S. (and in some ways the entire world... damn reality TV) where people think that attention = money, which in turn somehow amounts to automatic success. To the individual it may not seem like success, but on the whole it sets a goal for everyone to attain, simply because it has been such a successful marketing strategy in the past. You see this sort on nonsense everywhere, and in many ways all of us play a role in keeping the "cult of individual personality" going. No one gives a flying feck about you unless they are family or friends.
The government only cares when it is forced to, and in this same way many corporations force the market to respond only when it becomes a serious problem.
When you talk about the mainstream media basically hogging the media feed bucket, there is an obvious reasoning behind their madness. This in turn reflects on individuals, and ultimately groups as a whole, demographics rather. So you get your minute following to appear to be much much more important than it actually is, by a simple turn of the wrist that is more often than not made for you. Options today are basically limited to, keep listening and being incredibly confused by the very messy processes involved in all of the problems that we hear about; or you can learn some google-fu and start to filter through the information that is presented to you. There is already an individualist movement, alongside some rather unimportant bloggers/vloggers/indy news and the like, pushing for a more "transparent" view of the world.
Many problems with this arise in the interpretations that all of these different sources reach, but in the end it is worth it to keep an open mind, but filter out the obvious nonsense. "Deathers" and "Birthers"... are a pretty clear example of this. "Truthers" are much more "covert", if you can call it that, but after 30 minutes of conversation with a "Truther" the truth is plain to see that they are basically anarchists bent on twisting the facts as much as humanly possible.
We do have a bit of a middle ground in the U.S., to be sure, but even then people like Micheal Moore are at the forefront, and my respect for him as a film-maker aside, I am not sure how much his work reinforces the fringe. Free speech is an amazing thing, and I think the louder people are the quicker most problems can be resolved, due mainly to the fact that we all get a serious reality check about the complexities involved in some of this stuff; on top of which there are many questions left to be asked of the government in general, and furthermore to be asked of the corporate interests. Where Glenn Beck may be completely wrong, he is damn loud, and people do listen, whether laughing at the same time, or simply agreeing with a rather nervous grin.
I didn't watch the speech. My teacher couldn't figure out how to work the tv. Way i see, he's a president, albeit a black one. He's like every other politician. You know when he's lying? When his lips are moving.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I didn't watch the speech. My teacher couldn't figure out how to work the tv. Way i see, he's a president, albeit a black one. He's like every other politician. You know when he's lying? When his lips are moving.
And yes, I hate politicians.
A politically unengaged teenager? STOP THE PRESSES!
Frazzled wrote:Frankly this one really is the call of the parents, not Grotsnik (ferners!!!), not Gorgon (young punk!),
Young punk? Young punk?!? LOL. I think I may be older than you, sir, and in fact entitled to tell you to get off MY lawn.
Don't mistake me for a young 'un just because we in the Northeast don't get married and start poppin' out babies right after high school or college like y'all. We sow our oats nice and good. Ooooooh yeah.
I witness first hand every day the stupidity of youth and it makes me scared for the future of this country.
I hope I'm dead when todays 15yo (no offense to those 15) is President in 20 years. At least in my home town I wouldn't doubt mom or dad have to help them put their shoes on the right foot.
You know that feeling you get when you find an opening for a nice solid kick in a fight? Yeah, the one where you know they are just going to drop down and pray?
Fateweaver just gave me one, albeit one that he would have to tie himself up in hypocrisy to get out of... I can smell it...
I think the situation our country is in speaks for itself quite frankly, and the level of public education is... erm, VERY low quality. The math is 2+2, you finish this problem...
BACK OT: I don't see a problem with what Obama said, but I agree with the parents who wanted a chance to review the speech before exposing their kids to it. A lot of people don't agree with Obama on a lot of issues; blindly exposing their children to the orations of a man they don't (always) agree with is just bad parenting, considering that a lot of the target audience lacks the experience to have formed a worldview of their own, or if they have, likely lack the wherewithal to properly assess new information and incorporate it accordingly, especially when it's coming from the leader of the country.
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students."
Just the rantings of another racist White partisan right? Oh wait...
That's Dick Gephart, Democratic House Majority Leader speaking on the 1991 GHWB speeches.
What amazes me is how quickly the Liberal Left does a 180 on this gak and then pretends like no one will notice. You can't protest one President doing this and then act surprised and shocked and outraged when your side does it and someone else protests.
Oh wait... I forgot only the Left can be genuinely outraged. Not us "Astroturf" types. Well someone better tell the GOP where to send my f*cking check because I didn't get one. I'm mad as hell about the TRILLION dollar spending binge PresBO went on and it's because he's picking my pocket and running the country into financial ruin and no other reason.
Frazzled wrote:Frankly this one really is the call of the parents, not Grotsnik (ferners!!!), not Gorgon (young punk!),
Young punk? Young punk?!? LOL. I think I may be older than you, sir, and in fact entitled to tell you to get off MY lawn.
Don't mistake me for a young 'un just because we in the Northeast don't get married and start poppin' out babies right after high school or college like y'all. We sow our oats nice and good. Ooooooh yeah.
Old fart is a state of mind baby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
gorgon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Frankly this one really is the call of the parents, not Grotsnik (ferners!!!), not Gorgon (young punk!),
Young punk? Young punk?!? LOL. I think I may be older than you, sir, and in fact entitled to tell you to get off MY lawn.
Don't mistake me for a young 'un just because we in the Northeast don't get married and start poppin' out babies right after high school or college like y'all. We sow our oats nice and good. Ooooooh yeah.
Old fart is a state of mind baby.
What amazes me is how quickly the Liberal Left does a 180 on this gak and then pretends like no one will notice. You can't protest one President doing this and then act surprised and shocked and outraged when your side does it and someone else protests.
The Green Git wrote:What amazes me is how quickly the Liberal Left does a 180 on this gak and then pretends like no one will notice. You can't protest one President doing this and then act surprised and shocked and outraged when your side does it and someone else protests.
Oh wait... I forgot only the Left can be genuinely outraged. Not us "Astroturf" types. Well someone better tell the GOP where to send my f*cking check because I didn't get one. I'm mad as hell about the TRILLION dollar spending binge PresBO went on and it's because he's picking my pocket and running the country into financial ruin and no other reason.
The budget deficit was already exploding under Bush. It blew up under Reagan, too. Where was the outrage from the right then? We can start listing issue after issue in which both sides have been complete hypocrites, if you want to play that game.
It's all caveman partisan politics. We am good, they am bad. It doesn't matter *what* the other side is doing...if they're doing it, it must be bad. Because they am bad.
But simplistic as that mindset is, I can respect someone who's honest about it...someone who says "look, I'm a Republican, and I just don't like having a Democrat in the White House." Okay, fine. That is what it is. What bugs me is when those on either side act as though their opposition to the other side is something that's been carefully considered over time. The citizens who vote Dem never really wanted to give Bush a chance, just as the citizens who vote GOP never wanted to give Clinton or Obama a chance. It was hate at the first opportunity.
And that, unfortunately, is the state of our nation. Respect for our elected officials and actual political discourse are long gone. Except if you're talking about discourse *among* our elected officials. They actually talk. We hold signs, scream at each other from across the street and slap bumper stickers on our cars designed to pi$$ the other side off. Most of the country's been reduced to two large, boorish cheering sections that would be thrown out of most sporting events. Good god, our citizens call each other "Nazi", just because they're on the other side. Friggin' NAZI. It makes me want to projectile vomit over all of them.
This is why I have no party affiliation and haven't pursued a job in DC despite opportunities.
The Green Git wrote:
What amazes me is how quickly the Liberal Left does a 180 on this gak and then pretends like no one will notice. You can't protest one President doing this and then act surprised and shocked and outraged when your side does it and someone else protests.
20 years is 'quickly'? Why do you insist on seeing this as a matter of sides?
The Green Git wrote:
Oh wait... I forgot only the Left can be genuinely outraged. Not us "Astroturf" types. Well someone better tell the GOP where to send my f*cking check because I didn't get one. I'm mad as hell about the TRILLION dollar spending binge PresBO went on and it's because he's picking my pocket and running the country into financial ruin and no other reason.
So the left is a side, but you're an independently thinking, legitimately outraged, individual? Come on dude, listen to your own advice.
Wrexasaur wrote:You know that feeling you get when you find an opening for a nice solid kick in a fight? Yeah, the one where you know they are just going to drop down and pray?
Fateweaver just gave me one, albeit one that he would have to tie himself up in hypocrisy to get out of... I can smell it...
I think the situation our country is in speaks for itself quite frankly, and the level of public education is... erm, VERY low quality. The math is 2+2, you finish this problem...
Hmm, I think I'm missing the intended joke here Wrex. If you are a teen I mean no offense. As I stated already, going by how teens act today, in my experience, I have to wonder what the president 20 years down the road will be like (assuming we get ones running that are 32-35 years old).
From what I've witnessed in the last 20 years 13-16 year olds are a lot more misguided and naive and, frankly stupid, than when I was a teen/preteen but I blame that on education system, parenting and society in general. We, as a nation, allow the stupid to move forward in life. That "No student left behind" bs is what has made our country one of the lowest scoring in the world when it comes to placement tests. Granted, you cannot teach common sense but a book smart person with no common sense is a lot more productive and better off than a person with no common sense and no book smarts.
Again, no offense to teens/preteens as I'm sure there is at least ONE that stands above the rest of the teens in society today but from my experience in dealing with them and the experiences of other adults who were my age when I was a teen it really doesn't look too hopeful for this country 20 years from now.
People have been saying the same things about the generation coming after them for thousands of years, though.
Some Greek guy was complaining that the youth of today was lazy, ignorant, morally bankrupt, not interested in anything but games and screwing around, etc.
Orkeosaurus wrote:People have been saying the same things about the generation coming after them for thousands of years, though.
Some Greek guy was complaining that the youth of today was lazy, ignorant, morally bankrupt, not interested in anything but games and screwing around, etc.
I'd guess a lot of it is a matter of perception.
Flip it. The ancient greek guy was saying the youth of today are paying to much attention to the future, and NOT screwing around and doing things besides games.
Orkeosaurus wrote:People have been saying the same things about the generation coming after them for thousands of years, though.
That doesn't mean they are always wrong either. Some generations are not as up to par as others. Mine likes Thundercats action figures and Voltron DVD sets.
Frazzled wrote:
Flip it. The ancient greek guy was saying the youth of today are paying to much attention to the future, and NOT screwing around and doing things besides games.
dogma wrote:
I don't know why you have it in your head that I think anyone who disagrees with Obama is racist. You're arguing a strawman because that's nothing akin to what I've said here.
I am not accusing you of making this claim, but you cannot deny that more people who disagree with Obama have been labeled racist than deserve it. It just seemed in the way that you were arguing that the majority of people who have a disapproval of Obama are racist, and that is what drove my argument, sorry for the confusion.
dogma wrote:
That's why he was so popular with college kids, he used the academic tactic of rejecting the original liberal/conservative debate altogether. Though I don't think he really painted himself as a moderate. He spit a conciliatory game, which isn't necessarily the same thing as political moderation.
He claimed to reject that age old debate, but lets be honest he never really did. I personally never thought he could be considered a moderate in anything he said, but that is the way he came across, something the media had no small hand in.
dogma wrote:
The thing is, people who say nutty things start to sound a whole lot more credible when they can use kernels of truth, and a general dislike of the Federal Government, to amplify the significance of an issue. The whole 'death panels' thing is a good example.
But that doesn't mean that they are racist, which is the point I was making. Sure people say nutty things, even some mainstream people do. And yes, people are sometimes taken in by those nutty messages, but none are accepted by the general public if they are driven by racism. That is simply the point I was trying to make.
dogma wrote:
It does speak to the poor nature of the critique from congressional dominance; especially given that the Democrats tend to operate as a contiguous political party in only a tenuous sense. The Republicans too, as of late anyway.
Are you saying that the criticism of the dysfunction of the Federal government is that poor, or are you saying that the coherence of the government is poor? And no disagreement about the nature of the Democratic party...
dogma wrote:
To a man, I have heard that from every professor I have ever broached the subject with.
This leads in three directions:
1) Academic freedom is largely an illusion, which no one truly understands how to judge.
2) Academic freedom is alive and well, with plenty of defenders proffering their own take on it.
3) Freedom has come to mean 'unchallenged'
I don't agree with the first one, and the third one is right out in my book, but the second I will take. Undoubtedly there are varying degrees of Academic freedom, and I am quickly finding that out. I am not going to lie, I was incredibly spoiled at Baylor because of the access I had to professors who were willing to discuss and debate an idea, and even more than that I had a group of friends who were all willing to debate just about anything that crossed our minds. Everything from my support of Constitutional monarchy, to someone else's support of the Crusades, etc.
dogma wrote:
That's partially a function of specialization. Sure, most schools have history departments, but most of them aren't very good. They're there because they possess some kind of land-grant mandate, or the administration feels that any respectable school should possess a history department.
Truth be told, I feel that the educational system is over-specialized in many ways. It turns out very competent vertical thinkers, but very poor horizontal ones. That said, I'm not sure how to fix it. Generalization costs money, and uni is already ungodly pricey.
Agreed all the way around. My pursuit of graduate studies has very quickly taught me this: inferiority and mediocrity among history departments is the norm around the country...a truly saddening affair. Most of my friends from home who studied history in college don't even know how to use a primary source....most discouraging.
dogma wrote:
To be honest, its usually not a good idea to critique the positions of your professor unless you're ready for a fight. He almost certainly knows the material better than his students, and will defend it. It is his livelihood after all.
Inevitably a lot of this simply comes down to human nature. You're not always going to agree with your professor, and he isn't always going to agree with you. This will affect the grades you get, though hopefully not much (the alternative is grade inflation, which is almost as bad as biased instruction). Besides, if grades are really that important to you, just parrot something for the prof. and collect your views in private. No one's going to care what you wrote in undergrad anyway.
That was the nice thing about Baylor, I argued with several professors all the time, even in their offices after class, and I never felt that I got a grade that I didn't deserve. I will admit that I was terribly cavalier about my career as a student, which of course hurt my grades, but I felt like I was cheated out of something. Sometimes I felt like I had been given too much grace. Again, this may just be because the department at our school just had that right set of professors who had high standards of personal ethics.
dogma wrote:
Blame is part of the corrective process in American politics.
That doesn't justify it being blamed on those out of power.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, I think I'm missing the intended joke here Wrex. If you are a teen I mean no offense. As I stated already, going by how teens act today, in my experience, I have to wonder what the president 20 years down the road will be like (assuming we get ones running that are 32-35 years old).
From what I've witnessed in the last 20 years 13-16 year olds are a lot more misguided and naive and, frankly stupid, than when I was a teen/preteen but I blame that on education system, parenting and society in general. We, as a nation, allow the stupid to move forward in life. That "No student left behind" bs is what has made our country one of the lowest scoring in the world when it comes to placement tests. Granted, you cannot teach common sense but a book smart person with no common sense is a lot more productive and better off than a person with no common sense and no book smarts.
Again, no offense to teens/preteens as I'm sure there is at least ONE that stands above the rest of the teens in society today but from my experience in dealing with them and the experiences of other adults who were my age when I was a teen it really doesn't look too hopeful for this country 20 years from now.
I have no doubts that you mean no offense... but saying no offense... but I have to punch you in the face is... well you fill in the blank.
Kids are not stupid, they may be quite immature, but by who's standards? Yours I would surmise in terms of the statements you have made, which is entirely valid being based on your own experiences. I would argue in a totally different manner to much the same conclusions, which would obviously include a serious look at education and youth activities in this country. Kids are much much MUCH MUCH smarter that adults would ever even begin to imagine nowadays, especially when you factor in the drastic cultural changes in the country over my life time alone; beyond which would be a bit silly to try and comprehend.
Kids are much more interactive with their surroundings now, and because of this (not to say it did not happen before) there is an upsurge of extremely intense competition that I gladly count myself out of. In all fields you will find the best of the best of the very best emerging now after years of training and no where to find serious application for this effort. Them's the breaks, and they are made for slamming, so I see no reason besides apathy that most do not rise up and take a creative approach to an otherwise *insert etc... here* world.
Up is up and down is down, but at some point you are going to be pooping your pants... at which point, GTFO MY GODDAM LAWN!!!
Fateweaver wrote:I blame cartoons for idiocy in youth. Watch Noggin' network for 10 minutes sometime and you will see what I mean.
It's for preschoolers but egads, I seriously think most of the shows on Noggin are too pc, too idiotic and too bland even for a 3 year old. Ugh.
WHAO WHAO buddy... you may have a point... hmmmm...
Yes the age of stuff that made any damn sense is long since gone, by my standards the 0's (or w/e) are a huge negative mark on at least part of the media at large. Stupid stuff is stupid, I thought that Barney taught that or something, or Teletubbies or w/e.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am not accusing you of making this claim, but you cannot deny that more people who disagree with Obama have been labeled racist than deserve it. It just seemed in the way that you were arguing that the majority of people who have a disapproval of Obama are racist, and that is what drove my argument, sorry for the confusion.
Ah, ok. I actually agree with you on the ubiquity of racism as a critique.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
He claimed to reject that age old debate, but lets be honest he never really did. I personally never thought he could be considered a moderate in anything he said, but that is the way he came across, something the media had no small hand in.
It also helps that the two dominant voices leading into the campaign were the extreme wings of the left and right. Its easy to be a moderate when the whole spectrum is open to you.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
But that doesn't mean that they are racist, which is the point I was making. Sure people say nutty things, even some mainstream people do. And yes, people are sometimes taken in by those nutty messages, but none are accepted by the general public if they are driven by racism. That is simply the point I was trying to make.
Yeah, I agree. We seem to have been making the same point (possibility as opposed to probability) in opposite directions.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Are you saying that the criticism of the dysfunction of the Federal government is that poor, or are you saying that the coherence of the government is poor? And no disagreement about the nature of the Democratic party...
I'm saying two things. First, that Democratic congressional dominance is often overestimated due to the preponderance of the notion that they held a filibuster proof majority (technically they held that for 3 months, if you count Lieberman, but really they never had it due to Kennedy's health and Franken's seating issues). Second, that its fairly common to overestimate the actual coherence of either party when it comes to actually passing legislation (however, both of them are fairly coherent when it comes to opposing legislation).
JEB_Stuart wrote:
I don't agree with the first one, and the third one is right out in my book, but the second I will take. Undoubtedly there are varying degrees of Academic freedom, and I am quickly finding that out. I am not going to lie, I was incredibly spoiled at Baylor because of the access I had to professors who were willing to discuss and debate an idea, and even more than that I had a group of friends who were all willing to debate just about anything that crossed our minds. Everything from my support of Constitutional monarchy, to someone else's support of the Crusades, etc.
Honestly, my school was about as ideologically narrow as they come, and occasionally I chafed under its overwhelmingly lefitst perspective. However, I never really felt as though I was being indoctrinated. Rather it was my observation that the people with a fully myopic perspective tended to be those that already held to their convictions prior to enrollment. In essence, it wasn't the teaching which was burning out their ability to appreciate diversity, but prior life experience.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
Agreed all the way around. My pursuit of graduate studies has very quickly taught me this: inferiority and mediocrity among history departments is the norm around the country...a truly saddening affair. Most of my friends from home who studied history in college don't even know how to use a primary source....most discouraging.
Political science is just as bad, maybe worse. Likely because theory tends to be an optional component of the major. Everyone seems to know that statistic X indicates state Y, but lacks the philosophical grounding to understand why that is.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
That was the nice thing about Baylor, I argued with several professors all the time, even in their offices after class, and I never felt that I got a grade that I didn't deserve. I will admit that I was terribly cavalier about my career as a student, which of course hurt my grades, but I felt like I was cheated out of something. Sometimes I felt like I had been given too much grace. Again, this may just be because the department at our school just had that right set of professors who had high standards of personal ethics.
Yeah, I was like that with my philosophy profs. Their response was similar to that of your history instructors. Political science was more constricting, but the discipline is narrower, so that isn't necessarily a matter of ethics so much as necessity.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
That doesn't justify it being blamed on those out of power.
No one is ever truly out of power in an open democracy. That's what accountability is all about.
Fateweaver wrote:Hmm, I think I'm missing the intended joke here Wrex. If you are a teen I mean no offense. As I stated already, going by how teens act today, in my experience, I have to wonder what the president 20 years down the road will be like (assuming we get ones running that are 32-35 years old).
From what I've witnessed in the last 20 years 13-16 year olds are a lot more misguided and naive and, frankly stupid, than when I was a teen/preteen but I blame that on education system, parenting and society in general. We, as a nation, allow the stupid to move forward in life. That "No student left behind" bs is what has made our country one of the lowest scoring in the world when it comes to placement tests. Granted, you cannot teach common sense but a book smart person with no common sense is a lot more productive and better off than a person with no common sense and no book smarts.
Again, no offense to teens/preteens as I'm sure there is at least ONE that stands above the rest of the teens in society today but from my experience in dealing with them and the experiences of other adults who were my age when I was a teen it really doesn't look too hopeful for this country 20 years from now.
I have no doubts that you mean no offense... but saying no offense... but I have to punch you in the face is... well you fill in the blank.
Kids are not stupid, they may be quite immature, but by who's standards? Yours I would surmise in terms of the statements you have made, which is entirely valid being based on your own experiences. I would argue in a totally different manner to much the same conclusions, which would obviously include a serious look at education and youth activities in this country. Kids are much much MUCH MUCH smarter that adults would ever even begin to imagine nowadays, especially when you factor in the drastic cultural changes in the country over my life time alone; beyond which would be a bit silly to try and comprehend.
Kids are much more interactive with their surroundings now, and because of this (not to say it did not happen before) there is an upsurge of extremely intense competition that I gladly count myself out of. In all fields you will find the best of the best of the very best emerging now after years of training and no where to find serious application for this effort. Them's the breaks, and they are made for slamming, so I see no reason besides apathy that most do not rise up and take a creative approach to an otherwise *insert etc... here* world.
Up is up and down is down, but at some point you are going to be pooping your pants... at which point, GTFO MY GODDAM LAWN!!!
I guess it varies by region or even town to town. Most youth in my hometown are more worried about getting high and drunk and laid (and I still am talking the 12-15 year olds) than being productive and whatnot. We have a fairly high drop out rate in my cities schools.
Fateweaver wrote:I blame cartoons for idiocy in youth. Watch Noggin' network for 10 minutes sometime and you will see what I mean.
It's for preschoolers but egads, I seriously think most of the shows on Noggin are too pc, too idiotic and too bland even for a 3 year old. Ugh.
WHAO WHAO buddy... you may have a point... hmmmm...
Yes the age of stuff that made any damn sense is long since gone, by my standards the 0's (or w/e) are a huge negative mark on at least part of the media at large. Stupid stuff is stupid, I thought that Barney taught that or something, or Teletubbies or w/e.
Barney has nothing on shows like Dora the Explorer or Yo Gabba Gabba. The latter one especially just makes me shake my head at the nonsense of it all.
Parents censoring the speech of someone they don't agree with is bad parenting. Discussing the right and wrong involved however *is* good parenting. Case in point: How much abuse has Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn suffered in the hopes of 'protecting children' from language? By exposing people to differing thought they are strengthened.
The need to 'vet' the speech of the President of the United States is a spectacular show of misdirected concern and inconsistent parenting. This is one of the people scrutinized in more detail than sports stars, and less likely to be shown favorably. There is no precedent that a President would say something inherently offensive (If you want to deal with the special olympics crack, remember it *was* funny.) or to stir students to revolt. Well.
Stay in school. Study hard. Take personal responsibility. The whole speech was the same bloody thing parents *want* their kids to hear. Best of all, they heard it from a successful black man. But like Bill Cosby, they didn't like the message: "Take responsibility for what you do". At least Obama didn't rub it as hard in everyone's face that failure is often our own fault.
Love the man or hate him, he is an excellent orator (Please! Someone godwin!). Watching him speaking makes one think if only for a moment. Better still, his consistency carried from his inauguration, through this, to his speech last night.
Depending on their age, children lack developed cognitive reasoning structures, however by teenage what they mostly lack is experience (and advanced intellectual tools.) They seem so naive because they are.
They are particularly ignorant of history. Most people are ignorant even of recent history if it happened before they hit their mid-late teens. That's why surveys of the best running back of all time, or the best action movie, are always biased towards newer examples.
gorgon wrote:The budget deficit was already exploding under Bush. It blew up under Reagan, too. Where was the outrage from the right then? We can start listing issue after issue in which both sides have been complete hypocrites, if you want to play that game.
Thing is there was and is a lot of outrage among Conservatives about the Bush spending. I know lots of folks that are still pissed off about the Bank bailouts that started in the Bush administration. Both parties are spending money like drunken sailors. Don't misconstrue opposition to out of control Fed spending as partisan politics.
dogma wrote:
The Green Git wrote:
What amazes me is how quickly the Liberal Left does a 180 on this gak and then pretends like no one will notice. You can't protest one President doing this and then act surprised and shocked and outraged when your side does it and someone else protests.
20 years is 'quickly'? Why do you insist on seeing this as a matter of sides?
It was only 15 years... and if you are as old as me that *IS* quick
It's not a matter of sides... it's a matter of Left wingers being incredibly hypocritical. When *they* protest, it's genuine outrage. When someone protests *them* it's manufactured and insincere. Puh-lease.
dogma wrote:
The Green Git wrote:
Oh wait... I forgot only the Left can be genuinely outraged. Not us "Astroturf" types. Well someone better tell the GOP where to send my f*cking check because I didn't get one. I'm mad as hell about the TRILLION dollar spending binge PresBO went on and it's because he's picking my pocket and running the country into financial ruin and no other reason.
So the left is a side, but you're an independently thinking, legitimately outraged, individual? Come on dude, listen to your own advice.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You are the person making this about sides dogma. I just said I didn't like the way PresBO was spending my money and called the Lefties hypocrites for doing the same thing they pretended to be outraged about when the shoe was on the other foot.
Yes... I'm an independent. And I'm outraged at both the Left and the Right. Just because I didn't drink the Koolaid for The Messiah™ doesn't mean I liked the RINO alternative. It IS possible for someone to oppose Democrats based on their actions and not their political affiliation. As I posted above, I'm mad at Obama and Princess Pelosi for raping our Treasury, not because they are Dems.
I normally don't care for Pat Buchanan, and I disagree with some of his points on this article, but I found it to pretty good overall, and I appreciate many of the points he raises.
Thing is there was and is a lot of outrage among Conservatives about the Bush spending. I know lots of folks that are still pissed off about the Bank bailouts that started in the Bush administration. Both parties are spending money like drunken sailors. Don't misconstrue opposition to out of control Fed spending as partisan politics.
Those same people don't understand the implications of a system wide banking and credit collapse. If they think having to pay slightly higher taxes for dubious reasoning is bad, maybe they should quit their jobs and have to pay six times current prices for food at the same time to simulate the effect of a financial collapse on their budget.
These people are also called idiots.
Yes... I'm an independent. And I'm outraged at both the Left and the Right. Just because I didn't drink the Koolaid for The Messiah™ doesn't mean I liked the RINO alternative. It IS possible for someone to oppose Democrats based on their actions and not their political affiliation. As I posted above, I'm mad at Obama and Princess Pelosi for raping our Treasury, not because they are Dems.
Depending on how you look at non-american stimulus spending it would appear to be somewhat successful, with most of the major nations participating in heavier recovery plans recovering well ahead of the global curve. The local housing market and financial vectors look to be turning around, albeit slowly, as well. While its always difficult and contentious to claim that stimulus spending is the cause (outside of japan, where its fairly obviously the culprit) America, as the purveyor of the global collapse is actually poised to recover sooner than most of the rest of the world.
Comparing the loss in revenue due to the spending on stimulus (which can and can not be discounted entirely, depending on how well it remains within system and actually recovers wealth) and the loss of revenue due to a more prolonged collapse (again contentious, as causality is really hard to prove) and you, if the stimulus card is played right, have a wash. The only thing saved is time (hence stimulating recovery rather than causing it).
As for treasury raping, well every person has claimed that in every presidency in the history of this nation. Deficit spending is a reality of a consumer economy, and is the reality of many of our peers. If kept under control (which would require tighter controls on fairness of trade, the bush doctrine for globalization was basically to cast a blind eye to us getting raped globally in trade negations because any trade is good trade) then it could continue indefinitely, inflating with our gross growth in real wealth and consumption. The realities of globalization mean that we can't go back to an industrial economy. We have almost no advantage at all when compared to lower wage foreign work, and to simply lower wages would do little other than cause us to lose real wealth per capita. You don't want to even the playing field by casting yourself down, it just means you're in a worse place then where you started. As an economy we need to play to our advantages, which are our vast natural resources, and our high levels of education. We've already tapped the resources to the required level, now we just need to stop the death of our higher and lower education systems (which are dying through vastly inflated costs, which are growing well beyond inflation).
As for the topic at hand, both sides are childish idiots, as is the american populace. You all bicker too damn much about so very little, its mind numbing and enraging at the same time. I'll go back to lurking now.
The Green Git wrote:
It's not a matter of sides... it's a matter of Left wingers being incredibly hypocritical.
You can't say that it isn't a matter of sides, and then mention the 'left' as a contiguous body. Hypocrisy doesn't apply to groups without extensive corroboration.
The Green Git wrote:
When *they* protest, it's genuine outrage. When someone protests *them* it's manufactured and insincere. Puh-lease.
This is also a claim frequently utilized by members of the right. Recall the matter surrounding ACORN and other GOTV operations.
The Green Git wrote:
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. You are the person making this about sides dogma. I just said I didn't like the way PresBO was spending my money and called the Lefties hypocrites for doing the same thing they pretended to be outraged about when the shoe was on the other foot.
No, you are. That's what happens when you say things like 'left-wingers' as though something said by one leftist reflects on the comments of another leftist. I am putting words in your mouth, but only because you're dancing around the point you want to make.
The Green Git wrote:
Yes... I'm an independent. And I'm outraged at both the Left and the Right. Just because I didn't drink the Koolaid for The Messiah™ doesn't mean I liked the RINO alternative. It IS possible for someone to oppose Democrats based on their actions and not their political affiliation. As I posted above, I'm mad at Obama and Princess Pelosi for raping our Treasury, not because they are Dems.
Being politically independent has no bearing on your ability to think independently. You're talking past the thrust of my comment.
Parents censoring the speech of someone they don't agree with is bad parenting. Discussing the right and wrong involved however *is* good parenting. Case in point: How much abuse has Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn suffered in the hopes of 'protecting children' from language? By exposing people to differing thought they are strengthened.
The need to 'vet' the speech of the President of the United States is a spectacular show of misdirected concern and inconsistent parenting. This is one of the people scrutinized in more detail than sports stars, and less likely to be shown favorably. There is no precedent that a President would say something inherently offensive (If you want to deal with the special olympics crack, remember it *was* funny.) or to stir students to revolt. Well.
Stay in school. Study hard. Take personal responsibility. The whole speech was the same bloody thing parents *want* their kids to hear. Best of all, they heard it from a successful black man. But like Bill Cosby, they didn't like the message: "Take responsibility for what you do". At least Obama didn't rub it as hard in everyone's face that failure is often our own fault.
Love the man or hate him, he is an excellent orator (Please! Someone godwin!). Watching him speaking makes one think if only for a moment. Better still, his consistency carried from his inauguration, through this, to his speech last night.
The man is consistent. We could do worse.
My only response is bite me. I have the right, indeed the duty, to censor and screen what my children see to an appropriate level and content.
I've stated the issue is nonsense, but the above statement is asinine.
Parents censoring the speech of someone they don't agree with is bad parenting. Discussing the right and wrong involved however *is* good parenting. Case in point: How much abuse has Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn suffered in the hopes of 'protecting children' from language? By exposing people to differing thought they are strengthened.
The need to 'vet' the speech of the President of the United States is a spectacular show of misdirected concern and inconsistent parenting. This is one of the people scrutinized in more detail than sports stars, and less likely to be shown favorably. There is no precedent that a President would say something inherently offensive (If you want to deal with the special olympics crack, remember it *was* funny.) or to stir students to revolt. Well.
Stay in school. Study hard. Take personal responsibility. The whole speech was the same bloody thing parents *want* their kids to hear. Best of all, they heard it from a successful black man. But like Bill Cosby, they didn't like the message: "Take responsibility for what you do". At least Obama didn't rub it as hard in everyone's face that failure is often our own fault.
Love the man or hate him, he is an excellent orator (Please! Someone godwin!). Watching him speaking makes one think if only for a moment. Better still, his consistency carried from his inauguration, through this, to his speech last night.
The man is consistent. We could do worse.
My only response is bite me. I have the right, indeed the duty, to censor and screen what my children see to an appropriate level and content.
I've stated the issue is nonsense, but the above statement is asinine.
frazzled amen parents hould have the right to what there kids watch.
Petty Officer D wrote:Wow...you insult me for stating my opinion. A bus driver. I am so hurt by your "educated" opinion. Maybe you should go into politics...the angry bitter bus driver can be your platform.
Frazzled wrote:My only response is bite me. I have the right, indeed the duty, to censor and screen what my children see to an appropriate level and content. I've stated the issue is nonsense, but the above statement is asinine.
Agreed. It's their right as a parent to screen, but in this case some of it also happens to be petty. Hell, I didn't like Bush 43 at all...but the man was the POTUS and if he had a message for schoolchildren I'd surely have allowed my child to watch it.
Do we have that little respect for office in this country anymore? Seems like we've seen quite a surge in "he's not my President" attitudes on both sides of the political spectrum in recent years. Or am I imagining it?
Hey Guys!
I logged off and saw emails to postings I did not send. I came on this site to learn about Warhammer. Politics is not my thing. I emailed the moderators. I have only been on here a day!!! Check my other postings,non are confrontational. I even saw my profile was messed with. I just fixed it.
gorgon wrote:Agreed. It's their right as a parent to screen, but in this case some of it also happens to be petty. Hell, I didn't like Bush 43 at all...but the man was the POTUS and if he had a message for schoolchildren I'd surely have allowed my child to watch it.
Do we have that little respect for office in this country anymore? Seems like we've seen quite a surge in "he's not my President" attitudes on both sides of the political spectrum in recent years. Or am I imagining it?
I've noticed something similar.
I mean, there's always been a lot of bile from the other party, but it seems really bad in Late Bush/Early Obama.
Petty Officer D wrote:Hey Guys!
I logged off and saw emails to postings I did not send. I came on this site to learn about Warhammer. Politics is not my thing. I emailed the moderators. I have only been on here a day!!! Check my other postings,non are confrontational. I even saw my profile was messed with. I just fixed it.
I hope you didn't buy anything online while on that computer, then.
dogma wrote:That's what happens when you say things like 'left-wingers' as though something said by one leftist reflects on the comments of another leftist. I am putting words in your mouth, but only because you're dancing around the point you want to make.
Of course the comments made by one leftist reflects on the comments of another leftist. That's what makes them both leftists.
dogma wrote:That's what happens when you say things like 'left-wingers' as though something said by one leftist reflects on the comments of another leftist. I am putting words in your mouth, but only because you're dancing around the point you want to make.
Of course the comments made by one leftist reflects on the comments of another leftist. That's what makes them both leftists.
Thanks for admitting what you did. Now FOAD.
Besides breaking some rules of etiquette I think that last part also breaks some forum posting rules so be careful.
You are falling into the old trap of assigning something to a person making an argument. Arguing that not everyone left of center (or even extreme right) can't be lumped together that easily and someone pointing that out doesn't have to be a leftist either. Conservatives understand this this basic principle as well. The "left" is not a homogenous group any more than the "right" and where someone is on the scale also determines their perspective. If you are on the far end even someone on your side of the scale but not as far may be considered left leaning. A moderate Republican will be seen by a fascist as being left leaning even though he is right of center.
Well... I logged in to drop a joke and cool of the buns in the oven... because someone has been sitting on the burners periodically...
But anyway, here is the joke that was no longer needed... FOAD... hmm, I wonder what that.... hmmm, indeed.
Anger leads to slightly skewed images... which reminds me to have a BBQ... which reminds me to ask my buddies to grab some BBS sauce... Thank you Dakka!
The Green Git wrote:
Of course the comments made by one leftist reflects on the comments of another leftist. That's what makes them both leftists.
And yet potentially very different people. So different in fact that one might be a hypocrite, and the other might not be a hypocrite; rendering the critique of '"leftists are hypocrites" completely worthless. You don't get to attribute personal characteristics to an entire side of the political spectrum, not without appearing very foolish anyway.
For example, Trotskyists, Leninist, and Marxists are all leftisits. They also tend to disagree on a lot of things, sometimes most of them.
The Green Git wrote:
Thanks for admitting what you did.
Yeah, it sucks when someone understands your argument better than you do. You said this isn't a matter of sides, and then proceeded to establish a set of sides while conveniently excluding yourself from any of them. You must be quite the prescient little man to be able to transcend all influence.
, totally hilarious on the cuff of it all... seriously though, it is a madhouse.
.jpg)
