Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

My favorite sound bite from a principal:

"They're adolescents. They'll opt out of anything."

Or something to that effect.

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.

Read Ms. Paglia's column, it is very good this month:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/

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.

Read Ms. Paglia's column, it is very good this month:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/

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.

Be louder? I dunno...

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.

Fateweaver wrote:I think it's mostly that people don't want the Pres. telling their children what they themselves can tell them.

That's the case with pretty much any speaker or guest or even teacher though is it not ?

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!

I was more astonished that seemingly not one of the students could get the TV to work.

What IS the world coming too !

reds8n wrote: I was more astonished that seemingly not one of the students could get the TV to work.

What IS the world coming too !

They couldn't find the remote, thus they didn't know how to turn it on.

OBAMA STEALS SCHOOLS TELEVISION CONTROLS. WILL THIS LEAD TO GUN CONTROL AND COMPULSORY ABORTION ?

coming up later will Lesbians burgle your house ?

reds8n wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I think it's mostly that people don't want the Pres. telling their children what they themselves can tell them.

That's the case with pretty much any speaker or guest or even teacher though is it not ?

The Home Schooling movement is much stronger in the USA than Britain.

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.

reds8n wrote: I was more astonished that seemingly not one of the students could get the TV to work.

What IS the world coming too !

Nobody actually wanted to watch the speech, so someone said a plug was missing or some such bullcrap.

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.

LOL.

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...

Lordhat wrote:

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote: I was more astonished that seemingly not one of the students could get the TV to work.

What IS the world coming too !

They couldn't find the remote, thus they didn't know how to turn it on.

That may be more true than you think.

"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.

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.


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.

Frankly both sides do that blindingly well.

I am just happy that the President is actually taking some sort of interest in the educational system.

Vs. the previous one, and the one before that?