Parents Protecting Kids From President Obama? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 08:40 AM

There's a bit of revisionist history in this thread that makes the reaction by some parents seem all the more looney. This occurred over about a 10 day period. Here is a bit more accurate summation of what got us here:

1) The Dept. of Education announced that Obama would do a speech to all school children. It did not include the subject matter of the speech.
2) A "homework assignment" was released to the districts which was written in cooperation with the White House which included the question (out of context) "What can I do to help President Obama?" and "What is President Obama asking of me?" No copy of the speech was provided, only the homework assignment.
3) An uproar occurs from parents to their local districts demanding to know what this is all about.
4) In response, the White House pulls the homework assignment.
5) The White House releases the text of the speech.

So, saying that everyone is upset by the fact that he is speaking to school children isn't exactly fair. It's pretty unfair to assess parents' reactions to step 2 as if they were reacting to step 5 (which they were not.) If anything, this is another shining example of the White House not being able to send a clear and concise message to the people on the first pass, which is most of their trouble in their lack of effectiveness. Had the White House released a statement such as "On Sept. 9, President Obama will make a speech to children on the importance of going to school, studying hard, and staying in school. Here is the speech and the homework assignment." - this would not have happened. Yes, there is distrust of this administration. The administration doesn't help that distrust by sending cryptic homework assignments through the "ministry of education" (just poking the bear, roachboy).

Paq · 09-08-2009, 08:51 AM

cognitive? doesn't that imply thought of some form...

dippin · 09-08-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Had the White House released a statement such as "On Sept. 9, President Obama will make a speech to children on the importance of going to school, studying hard, and staying in school. Here is the speech and the homework assignment." - this would not have happened. Yes, there is distrust of this administration. The administration doesn't help that distrust by sending cryptic homework assignments through the "ministry of education" (just poking the bear, roachboy).

You mean something like this, the letter by the sec. of education to principals explaining the speech?

Quote:

At 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time (ET), September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama will deliver a national address to the students of America. During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

The U.S. Department of Education invites students of all ages, teachers, and administrators to participate in this historic moment by watching the president deliver the address, which will be broadcast live on the White House Web site (Streaming Video) and on C-SPAN at 12:00 p.m., ET. We also encourage educators to use this moment to help students get focused and inspired to begin the new academic year. The Department of Education offers educators a menu of classroom activities—created by its teachers-in-residence, the Teaching Ambassador Fellows—to help engage students in the address and stimulate classroom discussions about the importance of education.

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

You mean something like this, the letter by the sec. of education to principals explaining the speech?

That announcement was not distributed with the homework assignment. The point is that the message was not presented in a way to alay this type of reaction and that rests entirely with the White House.

roachboy · 09-08-2009, 09:32 AM

so wait. are you arguing that some paranoid flight from the image of the president is normal and that the white house should have taken it into account when fashioning this event?

mixedmedia · 09-08-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait. are you arguing that some paranoid flight from the image of the president is normal and that the white house should have taken it into account when fashioning this event?

EXACTLY. sheesh.

Halx · 09-08-2009, 09:42 AM

I'll put my opinion this way: If GWB had done the same thing, I would have supported it. As long as he left god out of it and stuck to the importance of staying in school and such, I would have been fine. The fact that it is Obama saying these things is no different. This is the president of the country addressing the kids about a topic that we can all agree on: lurn gud

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait. are you arguing that some paranoid flight from the image of the president is normal and that the white house should have taken it into account when fashioning this event?

I'm arguing that the WH holds all the cards in the initial presentation of their message, if they'd spend a little more time thinking it through - this wouldn't have happened. The initial reaction from the parents was information gathering and when faced with a lack thereof (subject matter and text of speech), they opted out. This reaction by some eventually became the media firestorm, willingly fueled by 24 hr news to bruise the administration. If the information had been made available at the same time as the announcement, the parents would have gone, "Oh! Okay, that makes sense." and it would have been over.

If the WH press dept. is too obtuse to recognize that any lapse in message is going to be feasted upon, then they are just that - obtuse. They have no one to blame but themselves.

samcol · 09-08-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'm arguing that the WH holds all the cards in the initial presentation of their message, if they'd spend a little more time thinking it through - this wouldn't have happened. The initial reaction from the parents was information gathering and when faced with a lack thereof (subject matter and text of speech), they opted out. This reaction by some eventually became the media firestorm, willingly fueled by 24 hr news to bruise the administration. If the information had been made available at the same time as the announcement, the parents would have gone, "Oh! Okay, that makes sense." and it would have been over.

If the WH press dept. is too obtuse to recognize that any lapse in message is going to be feasted upon, then they are just that - obtuse. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Sounds very similar to how they handled the health care bill. It's like they are trying to be vague about every issue until a huge shitstorm ensues, and then they try to back track and explain what the heck is really going on.

Also, why did it take them so long to release the transcript to clam everyone down? It was quite apparent that many people were not pleased about him speaking and could of been taken care of if they released the text earlier.

roachboy · 09-08-2009, 09:52 AM

so you really are arguing that.
jesus.

beneath that, however, you are pointing to the problem---conservative memes getting way way way too much press attention without adequate indicators that they are fucked up. they get press and they're presented as if they represented a legitimate political position. THAT'S the problem.

if that wasn't happening, none of this idiocy would get traction amongst the paranoid set.

Halx · 09-08-2009, 10:09 AM

Then again, it is the dismissal of absurdities that can come back to haunt a campaign. Those absurdities can gain traction in today's world where every nutjob can have a voice on FOX News.

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so you really are arguing that.
jesus.

beneath that, however, you are pointing to the problem---conservative memes getting way way way too much press attention without adequate indicators that they are fucked up. they get press and they're presented as if they represented a legitimate political position. THAT'S the problem.

if that wasn't happening, none of this idiocy would get traction amongst the paranoid set.

You are a smart guy so I think you can drop your punditry long enough to at least imagine, for a moment, that the speech Obama was going to give was on healthcare or the environment (I KNOW that it wasn't, but imagine that was the actual speech he intended to give). Can you at least understand that some parents would not have wanted to have their kids subjected to that speech? I believe that you can, just as you can understand how other parents would not have wanted their kids subjected to a Bush speech on the importance of interrogating prisoners (just an inverse political hot-button, thats all).

Now, in the absence of a subject matter (due to a failure on the WH's part), the parents opted out. In the presence of subject matter, parents would not opted out. Since the initial opt-out by some parents - the WH, media, and you guys are rewriting the event to make it look like those parents acted entirely irrational to a speech on staying in school which, in truth, was not what they were reacting to. Is it so hard to admit, "Yep, the WH should have been more on point" and move on?

FTR, I do not have my children pulled out of the Obama speech and never did.

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Then again, it is the dismissal of absurdities that can come back to haunt a campaign. Those absurdities can gain traction in today's world where every nutjob can have a voice on FOX News.

...or MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, the internet,...

Just sayin'

FuglyStick · 09-08-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

I'll put my opinion this way: If GWB had done the same thing, I would have supported it. As long as he left god out of it and stuck to the importance of staying in school and such, I would have been fine. The fact that it is Obama saying these things is no different. This is the president of the country addressing the kids about a topic that we can all agree on: lurn gud

This. Exactly. I didn't agree with 99.99% of the Bush administration; I also wasn't in denial that he was, in fact, the president.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'm arguing that the WH holds all the cards in the initial presentation of their message, if they'd spend a little more time thinking it through - this wouldn't have happened. The initial reaction from the parents was information gathering and when faced with a lack thereof (subject matter and text of speech), they opted out. This reaction by some eventually became the media firestorm, willingly fueled by 24 hr news to bruise the administration. If the information had been made available at the same time as the announcement, the parents would have gone, "Oh! Okay, that makes sense." and it would have been over.

If the WH press dept. is too obtuse to recognize that any lapse in message is going to be feasted upon, then they are just that - obtuse. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Hear, hear!

You are precisely on point.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Sounds very similar to how they handled the health care bill. It's like they are trying to be vague about every issue until a huge shitstorm ensues, and then they try to back track and explain what the heck is really going on.

Also, why did it take them so long to release the transcript to clam everyone down? It was quite apparent that many people were not pleased about him speaking and could of been taken care of if they released the text earlier.

Wow, some reasoned comments. It was getting kinda funny reading liberals debating among themselves and creating straw-men arguments to make conservatives look stupid

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so you really are arguing that.
jesus.

beneath that, however, you are pointing to the problem---conservative memes getting way way way too much press attention without adequate indicators that they are fucked up. they get press and they're presented as if they represented a legitimate political position. THAT'S the problem.

if that wasn't happening, none of this idiocy would get traction amongst the paranoid set.

Again, it is the liberal media and liberal talking heads falling all over themselves to be the first in line to making the most of this non-story and to try to conclude any train of thought against Obama is a view held by every conservative.

ottopilot · 09-08-2009, 10:27 AM

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

You are a smart guy so I think you can drop your punditry long enough to at least imagine, for a moment, that the speech Obama was going to give was on healthcare or the environment (I KNOW that it wasn't, but imagine that was the actual speech he intended to give). Can you at least understand that some parents would not have wanted to have their kids subjected to that speech? I believe that you can, just as you can understand how other parents would not have wanted their kids subjected to a Bush speech on the importance of interrogating prisoners (just an inverse political hot-button, thats all).

Now, in the absence of a subject matter (due to a failure on the WH's part), the parents opted out. In the presence of subject matter, parents would not opted out. Since the initial opt-out by some parents - the WH, media, and you guys are rewriting the event to make it look like those parents acted entirely irrational to a speech on staying in school which, in truth, was not what they were reacting to. Is it so hard to admit, "Yep, the WH should have been more on point" and move on?

FTR, I do not have my children pulled out of the Obama speech and never did.

---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

...or MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, the internet,...

Just sayin'

A vacuum of information gets filled by the worst fears held by people. This and many of Obama's problems can be summed up by this tendency he has to be vague.

Willravel · 09-08-2009, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Sounds very similar to how they handled the health care bill. It's like they are trying to be vague about every issue until a huge shitstorm ensues, and then they try to back track and explain what the heck is really going on.

The 1000+ page resolution is anything but vague. And the transcript makes it perfectly clear that there's nothing vague at all. It's some nice platitudes about staying in school. The shit storm was manufactured by the corrupt and taken up by the foolish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Also, why did it take them so long to release the transcript to clam everyone down? It was quite apparent that many people were not pleased about him speaking and could of been taken care of if they released the text earlier.

It seems you assume there was some sort of subterfuge in releasing the transcript when they did. "take them so long" relative to what? Relative to the fake controversy, you mean?

If the Obama White House responded to every bullshit controversy cooked up by the anti-progressives, they wouldn't be able to deal with the occupations, the economy, or anything else. It's not the West Wing's job to buy into the false perception that the anti-progressives deserve any attention.

mixedmedia · 09-08-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

I'm arguing that the WH holds all the cards in the initial presentation of their message, if they'd spend a little more time thinking it through - this wouldn't have happened. The initial reaction from the parents was information gathering and when faced with a lack thereof (subject matter and text of speech), they opted out. This reaction by some eventually became the media firestorm, willingly fueled by 24 hr news to bruise the administration. If the information had been made available at the same time as the announcement, the parents would have gone, "Oh! Okay, that makes sense." and it would have been over.

If the WH press dept. is too obtuse to recognize that any lapse in message is going to be feasted upon, then they are just that - obtuse. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this and follow your line of reasoning - that which would lead a sane person to the kind of lunacy that we have witnessed over the airing of this speech and, I'm sorry, it just ain't happening.

I imagine myself, 4 years ago, say right after GWB's re-election when I was feeling pretty ornery and still 'licking my wounds,' so to speak, from the disappointment of the election.

I imagine that I received word that a speech would be aired by the president on the first day of school. Do I suppose that speech is about the rightness of the war? About the benefits of prayer in schools? About the moral implications of pre-marital sex? No, that would be insane. Of course I would assume that he is talking about SCHOOL. What the hell else would he be talking about?

Now the issue of the 'homework.'
If in coordination with this mystery speech which I would assume was about...SCHOOL...there was a request for the children to write an essay saying what they can do to 'help the president' I would, naturally, since I am assuming that the president is talking about SCHOOL, believe that they are to write something about improving their grades or tutoring other kids or helping their teachers by being better behaved, whatever. Of course, in my head, I would be thinking what I would like to do to help the president, but you know, that's just me.

I don't buy the argument that the way the information was released is the reason for the insanity. The only way to buy it, is to assume that what we are dealing with is a totally delusional epidemic of mass paranoia. It can't be explained by: they released the information in the wrong order. The entire premise of the reaction was irrational.

samcol · 09-08-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The 1000+ page resolution is anything but vague. And the transcript makes it perfectly clear that there's nothing vague at all. It's some nice platitudes about staying in school. The shit storm was manufactured by the corrupt and taken up by the foolish.

It seems you assume there was some sort of subterfuge in releasing the transcript when they did. "take them so long" relative to what? Relative to the fake controversy, you mean?

If the Obama White House responded to every bullshit controversy cooked up by the anti-progressives, they wouldn't be able to deal with the occupations, the economy, or anything else. It's not the West Wing's job to buy into the false perception that the anti-progressives deserve any attention.

I'm not referring to the text of the bill which is now available, but rather how it was presented from the beginning. Obama and the democrats almost gave no information about the bill and tried to get it passed without even reading it.

Likewise the school speech's proposed content was very vague at first, which created a window of opportunity for speculation in the school speech and likewise with the healthcare fiasco.

rahl · 09-08-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Hear, hear!

You are precisely on point.

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

Wow, some reasoned comments. It was getting kinda funny reading liberals debating among themselves and creating straw-men arguments to make conservatives look stupid

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:22 PM ----------

Again, it is the liberal media and liberal talking heads falling all over themselves to be the first in line to making the most of this non-story and to try to conclude any train of thought against Obama is a view held by every conservative.

Still waiting for a direct answer to my question from two days ago.

flstf · 09-08-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I don't buy the argument that the way the information was released is the reason for the insanity. The only way to buy it, is to assume that what we are dealing with is a totally delusional epidemic of mass paranoia. It can't be explained by: they released the information in the wrong order. The entire premise of the reaction was irrational.

I agree with your analysis. I hope that all this nonsense backfires on any polititian who subscribes to it. It is almost like the news shows are covering a continuous Palin rally.

roachboy · 09-08-2009, 10:56 AM

the only real choice that conservatives (in general) have here, now that this is happening and the nuttiness of it is becoming evident (as if it wasn't in the context of the town hall things or in the context of the census business) is to try to create the impression that this is a rational response. think about the ground they're walking if they don't do it. it's a bit of a wag the dog thing.

ottopilot · 09-08-2009, 11:00 AM

It seems stupidity freely rides the political pendulum. Is history simply repeating itself, or do they know we'll fall for it every time? A little histoical perspetive if you please...

Quote:

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT
The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.
Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."
Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."
That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."
Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable. "Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart," the president told students. "If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they're stuck in a dead end job. Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com

Willravel · 09-08-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

I'm not referring to the text of the bill which is now available, but rather how it was presented from the beginning. Obama and the democrats almost gave no information about the bill and tried to get it passed without even reading it.

First of all, that's completely wrong. All Congressmen and women are allowed to see the text of a resolution before being asked to vote on it. All of them. The text was available from July 14. No one tried to force a vote before then or immediately after then. That's a complete fabrication. I read the entire resolution in one sitting in an evening, highlighted a few parts, and then reread it the next day. Am I special? Am I a better reader than the members of congress? Of course not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Likewise the school speech's proposed content was very vague at first, which created a window of opportunity for speculation in the school speech and likewise with the healthcare fiasco.

Having never worked in White House communications, neither you nor I can speculate as to when the final draft of the speech was finally finished. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, there's no reason at all to suspect that a finished copy of the speech was purposefully kept from the public. Suggesting anything otherwise is entirely dishonest.

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I'm trying to wrap my head around this and follow your line of reasoning - that which would lead a sane person to the kind of lunacy that we have witnessed over the airing of this speech and, I'm sorry, it just ain't happening.

I imagine myself, 4 years ago, say right after GWB's re-election when I was feeling pretty ornery and still 'licking my wounds,' so to speak, from the disappointment of the election.

I imagine that I received word that a speech would be aired by the president on the first day of school. Do I suppose that speech is about the rightness of the war? About the benefits of prayer in schools? About the moral implications of pre-marital sex? No, that would be insane. Of course I would assume that he is talking about SCHOOL. What the hell else would he be talking about?

Now the issue of the 'homework.'
If in coordination with this mystery speech which I would assume was about...SCHOOL...there was a request for the children to write an essay saying what they can do to 'help the president' I would, naturally, since I am assuming that the president is talking about SCHOOL, believe that they are to write something about improving their grades or tutoring other kids or helping their teachers by being better behaved, whatever. Of course, in my head, I would be thinking what I would like to do to help the president, but you know, that's just me.

I don't buy the argument that the way the information was released is the reason for the insanity. The only way to buy it, is to assume that what we are dealing with is a totally delusional epidemic of mass paranoia. It can't be explained by: they released the information in the wrong order. The entire premise of the reaction was irrational.

Obama ran a politically flawless campaign because he was perfect at "controlling the message." His opponents were just as vigorous, just as willing to extrapolate and take things out of context then as they are now. Yet, the message was too clear to distort. Why he can't continue to do that during his presidency is beyond me - and that's what is killing his presidency.

I stand by all my other analysis.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Of course I would assume that he is talking about SCHOOL. What the hell else would he be talking about?

Some of us, including me, are not as trusting as you. I assumed he was going to "use" children for his political purposes and I was offended by that thought.

---------- Post added at 07:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Still waiting for a direct answer to my question from two days ago.

Perhaps, I read too fast and I may be prone to miss things from time to time - so do me a favor and restate your question and I will respond.

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the only real choice that conservatives (in general) have here, now that this is happening and the nuttiness of it is becoming evident (as if it wasn't in the context of the town hall things or in the context of the census business) is to try to create the impression that this is a rational response. think about the ground they're walking if they don't do it. it's a bit of a wag the dog thing.

I told you what I did. And I am not trying to turn what I did into some kind of rational response that would satisfy you. Again, in a vacuum of information... And, I am pretty much telling you and everyone else how I will respond to "vagueness" in the future. I don't give Obama the benefit of the doubt. Is that not clear?

roachboy · 09-08-2009, 11:16 AM

well, ace, if you were the only person on the right, it would hardly matter to me how you responded. in fact, the more i think about it, the harder a time i am having thinking of anything that would interest, much less concern me less.

but you are again trying to do the same thing as you've been working the past few days: trying to erase the simple fact of a conservative media apparatus, to erase the fact of conservative opinion management and to erase the fact that this stuff has effects.
i think your position entirely absurd.
but hey, feel free to repeat it.
maybe in about 30 years, people will forget that the world is otherwise and just start going along with you.

biznatch · 09-08-2009, 11:23 AM

Ace,
The "lack of trust" gets to a point where it's hard to believe we live in a same country. Also, let's talk about trust.. you give it to Palin, who starts this death panel BS. Then, (hopefully), you see it's not true, how can you keep trusting someone who makes allegations like this?

Do you really think Obama's gonna march us right into Third Reich mode? Do you really think he's gonna off your grandma?

There comes a point where maybe a human being gains the ability to think critically, and not believe outrageous, unfounded, crazy shit....no???

rahl · 09-08-2009, 11:26 AM

Perhaps, I read too fast and I may be prone to miss things from time to time - so do me a favor and restate your question and I will respond.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

Do you believe that a message directed to school children about the importance of staying in school, working hard, and taking personal responsibility is a bad message? If you do not, then how can you be even the slightest bit upset that the president of the united states is giving said message to the nations children?

mixedmedia · 09-08-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Obama ran a politically flawless campaign because he was perfect at "controlling the message." His opponents were just as vigorous, just as willing to extrapolate and take things out of context then as they are now. Yet, the message was too clear to distort. Why he can't continue to do that during his presidency is beyond me - and that's what is killing his presidency.

I stand by all my other analysis.

So you agree that people should essentially assume that Obama is trying to brainwash their children?

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, ace, if you were the only person on the right, it would hardly matter to me how you responded. in fact, the more i think about it, the harder a time i am having thinking of anything that would interest, much less concern me less.

but you are again trying to do the same thing as you've been working the past few days: trying to erase the simple fact of a conservative media apparatus, to erase the fact of conservative opinion management and to erase the fact that this stuff has effects.
i think your position entirely absurd.
but hey, feel free to repeat it.
maybe in about 30 years, people will forget that the world is otherwise and just start going along with you.

The absurdity clearly is yours, on one hand you create arguments based on what you consider conservative thought while ignoring actual conservative thoughts.

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

So you agree that people should essentially assume that Obama is trying to brainwash their children?

Never said that, won't agree, won't fall into your trap. I know this disagreement won't affect my ability to admire you in other threads. Have a nice day.

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by biznatch

Ace,
The "lack of trust" gets to a point where it's hard to believe we live in a same country. Also, let's talk about trust.. you give it to Palin, who starts this death panel BS. Then, (hopefully), you see it's not true, how can you keep trusting someone who makes allegations like this?

For the 5th or 6th time I will say the use of the terms "death panel" was inappropriate, however the underlying issue is not. The underlying issue is how government will allocate limited health care resources. Given a private sector we have government (regulation and judicial) as recourse.

I do not agree with Palin 100% of the time, when we disagree I state that.

Quote:

Do you really think Obama's gonna march us right into Third Reich mode?

I don't know what you mean by "Third Reich" mode, but based on what I assume you mean I will say no.

Quote:

Do you really think he's gonna off your grandma?

My grandmothers are not alive. My mother-in-law, on Medicare, recently had a required medical procedure done - the doctor prescribed a medicine that cost about $1,500 - the doctor was questioned by Medicare and had to justify his decision to government bureaucrats. I think we face some tough choices in the future, I am not clear on how Obama's plan will address these issues in the future. In direct response to you question I say - no. However, I have concerns and questions - don't you?

Quote:

There comes a point where maybe a human being gains the ability to think critically, and not believe outrageous, unfounded, crazy shit....no???

I never had the intent of holding my son out of school, however I was offended by what Obama originally stated his plan was.

{added} That stuff with my mother-in-law occurred on a Friday afternoon, my wife and her sister had to raise holy hell to get the issue resolved before everyone shut down for the weekend. If they had not gotten involved my mother-in-law would have gone about 2 1/2 days without the medication.

---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

Perhaps, I read too fast and I may be prone to miss things from time to time - so do me a favor and restate your question and I will respond.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]

Do you believe that a message directed to school children about the importance of staying in school, working hard, and taking personal responsibility is a bad message?

No. It is a good message.

Quote:

If you do not, then how can you be even the slightest bit upset that the president of the united states is giving said message to the nations children?

First, it is an issue of timing. He is giving the message at a time when his favorability ratings are falling. "Kissing babies" is a common political ploy, I don't like it, I think it is the one of the worst things a politician can do.

Second, he gave the children an assignment - write a letter explaining how you can help the President. I found that offensive and contributed to my thought that he was politicizing his message to children.

Third, being from Illinois, Obama as a State Representative and a Senator representing Illinois and one of the worst school districts in the nation (Chicago) I was offended by the thought that he did nothing to improve Chicago schools and now wants to address America's schools

Fourth, Obama is a public official who sends his children to private school.

Fifth, Obama is sending his children to a private school in DC and is not affording the same opportunity to other children in DC through the opportunity scholarship.

Sixth, Duncan his Sec of Education was a patronage appointment in my view.

All of the above offended me. Call me absurd, ignore my thoughts, create your false arguments, blame conservative talking heads, whatever...but Obama has a credibility problem and it is his problem not mine.

mixedmedia · 09-08-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Never said that, won't agree, won't fall into your trap. I know this disagreement won't affect my ability to admire you in other threads. Have a nice day.

what the? I am not trying to trap you. Let me put it to you from another direction.

What was the essential nature of the reaction to the 'homework assignment'? How do you suppose the people interpreted it? What did they think it was?

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

what the? I am not trying to trap you. Let me put it to you from another direction.

What was the essential nature of the reaction to the 'homework assignment'? How do you suppose the people interpreted it? What did they think it was?

With all due respect, it's the same direction. You are far more interested in being right than trying to understand the not-so-extreme rationale of parents who may not want their 6-year-olds listening to a speech mildly peppered with climate change references. Perhaps they just want their kids to be kids for a little while longer. I'm certain that, upon reading the speech, many parents looked forward to a pep talk from POTUS. I know it's easier to think of them all as bitter, boom stick, sky ghost morans (incorrectly spelled for effect) - you know, because they disagree with you.

dc_dux · 09-08-2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

With all due respect, it's the same direction. You are far more interested in being right than trying to understand the not-so-extreme rationale of parents who may not want their 6-year-olds listening to a speech mildly peppered with climate change references....

Can you point out the references to climate change in the speech?

Would it be this passage:

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.

Perhaps the issue is not what is in the speech, but what some see in the speech that really isnt there.

Cimarron29414 · 09-08-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Can you point out the references to climate change in the speech?

Would it be this passage:

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.

Perhaps the issue is not what is in the speech, but what some see in the speech that isnt there?

Dude, please re-read all of my posts. You are so far off my point, I don't want to repeat. Just start at #121

dc_dux · 09-08-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Dude, please re-read all of my posts. You are so far off my point, I don't want to repeat. Just start at #121

Your references to "peppered with climate change..." came long after the issue of the lesson plan was resolved.

But even in the original lesson plan, there were no references to climate change, health care reform, or any policy issue.

I stand by what I posted....some see things that arent there

roachboy · 09-08-2009, 12:55 PM

some of the fallout in the real world.
things to note: the florida republicans backed off the positions that folk here are still defending once the speech was available.
alot of schools didn't show the speech because of this paranoid nonsense from the right.
but of course, that's all a coincidence and there is no conservative media apparatus, there is no co-ordinated conservative political action.
just a bunch of free-thinkin americans coming up with exactly the same line at exactly the same moment.
amazing.

Quote:

Schools boycott Obama speech as critics abruptly change tone

President's speech initially faced accusations of attempting to indoctrinate children with socialist ideology

Schools across the US went ahead with a boycott of a broadcast by President Barack Obama today in spite of many rightwing critics rowing back at the last minute from a campaign accusing him of socialist indoctrination.

Some school heads reported that they had not allowed the broadcast to be shown because of protests from parents. Many others allowed the broadcast to be screened as planned.

Obama's speech, delivered from a school in Virginia, was free of any political message and was aimed mainly at encouraging children to stay on at school.

The White House put out the text of his speech yesterday to allow headmasters, teachers and parents to assess whether it contained political content.

In the speech, Obama said: "Every single one of you has something that 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."

Further encouraging pupils, he said: "Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it." He added, "The truth is, being successful is hard. You won't love every subject that you study. You won't click with every teacher that you have.

"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 fulfil your responsibilities."

He was loudly cheered before and after the speech by the 1,500 pupils gathered in the school gym.

Having seen the advance copy, some of the most vocal critics such as Jim Greer, the Republican party chairman in Florida, who had accused Obama of trying to spread "socialist ideology", backed off. Greer said: "It's a good speech. It encourages kids to stay in school and the importance of education."

The call for the boycott was started by rightwing television and radio commentators. There was a slight embarrassment on the part of mainstream Republicans, who initially joined in but were today distancing themselves. Among Republicans supportive of Obama's right to make the speech were Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, who told NBC that there were other presidents had established such a precedent. "President Reagan did it, President [George] HW Bush did it … It's a good speech, I recommend it to everybody if you have any doubts."

There was support too from the former first lady, Laura Bush, who said: "There is a place for the president of the US to speak to schoolchildren, to encourage schoolchildren."

But the supportive Republican voices came too late for many school districts in Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin, who had already decided not to show it.

The conservative Fox News channel reported it had canvassed 12 schools, of which only three showed it.

Chris Gibbs, headmaster of the Clarement Elementary School in North Carolina, told CNN he had taken the decision not to show it because parents were divided on the issue. Asked what he would do if Obama offered to visit the school, he said he would have to go to his office to pray for guidance.

In some school districts, heads planning to show it said that children who failed to attend would be punished. Other heads left it to the discretion of parents as to whether their children attended school today.

Obama, on the campaign trail, made an issue out of failing schools in America, relating tales of the high drop-out rate in his hometown Chicago. He appointed as his education secretary Arne Duncan, who had a reputation for helping to turn round some schools in the most deprived areas of Chicago.

Before delivering his speech, Obama, along with Duncan, met about 40 pupils in the school library. He advised them to "be careful what you post on Facebook. Whatever you do, it will be pulled up later in your life."

He also admitted: "When I was your age, I was a little bit of a goof-off. My main goal was to get on the varsity basketball team and have fun."

Outside the school, there was a small group of protesters, one carrying a placard reading "Mr President, stay away from our kids."

Schools boycott Obama speech as critics abruptly change tone | World news | guardian.co.uk

aceventura3 · 09-08-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

things to note: the florida republicans backed off the positions that folk here are still defending once the speech was available.

This is an absurd statement and illustrates you have not really read what has been written here. Isn't there a difference between explaining what happened, pointing out the root casue of the reaction compared to defending the speech? To reasoned people there is a difference.

09-08-2009, 08:40 AM	#121 (permalink)
Cimarron29414 Still Free Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!	There's a bit of revisionist history in this thread that makes the reaction by some parents seem all the more looney. This occurred over about a 10 day period. Here is a bit more accurate summation of what got us here: 1) The Dept. of Education announced that Obama would do a speech to all school children. It did not include the subject matter of the speech. 2) A "homework assignment" was released to the districts which was written in cooperation with the White House which included the question (out of context) "What can I do to help President Obama?" and "What is President Obama asking of me?" No copy of the speech was provided, only the homework assignment. 3) An uproar occurs from parents to their local districts demanding to know what this is all about. 4) In response, the White House pulls the homework assignment. 5) The White House releases the text of the speech. So, saying that everyone is upset by the fact that he is speaking to school children isn't exactly fair. It's pretty unfair to assess parents' reactions to step 2 as if they were reacting to step 5 (which they were not.) If anything, this is another shining example of the White House not being able to send a clear and concise message to the people on the first pass, which is most of their trouble in their lack of effectiveness. Had the White House released a statement such as "On Sept. 9, President Obama will make a speech to children on the importance of going to school, studying hard, and staying in school. Here is the speech and the homework assignment." - this would not have happened. Yes, there is distrust of this administration. The administration doesn't help that distrust by sending cryptic homework assignments through the "ministry of education" (just poking the bear, roachboy). __________________ Gives a man a halo, does mead. "Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

09-08-2009, 08:51 AM	#122 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	cognitive? doesn't that imply thought of some form... __________________ Live. Chris

09-08-2009, 09:32 AM	#125 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait. are you arguing that some paranoid flight from the image of the president is normal and that the white house should have taken it into account when fashioning this event? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-08-2009, 09:42 AM	#127 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	I'll put my opinion this way: If GWB had done the same thing, I would have supported it. As long as he left god out of it and stuck to the importance of staying in school and such, I would have been fine. The fact that it is Obama saying these things is no different. This is the president of the country addressing the kids about a topic that we can all agree on: lurn gud __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals] Last edited by Halx; 09-08-2009 at 09:44 AM..

09-08-2009, 09:52 AM	#130 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so you really are arguing that. jesus. beneath that, however, you are pointing to the problem---conservative memes getting way way way too much press attention without adequate indicators that they are fucked up. they get press and they're presented as if they represented a legitimate political position. THAT'S the problem. if that wasn't happening, none of this idiocy would get traction amongst the paranoid set. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-08-2009, 10:09 AM	#131 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Then again, it is the dismissal of absurdities that can come back to haunt a campaign. Those absurdities can gain traction in today's world where every nutjob can have a voice on FOX News. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

09-08-2009, 10:27 AM	#135 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	... __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 09-08-2009 at 10:57 AM..

09-08-2009, 10:56 AM	#142 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the only real choice that conservatives (in general) have here, now that this is happening and the nuttiness of it is becoming evident (as if it wasn't in the context of the town hall things or in the context of the census business) is to try to create the impression that this is a rational response. think about the ground they're walking if they don't do it. it's a bit of a wag the dog thing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-08-2009, 11:16 AM	#147 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, ace, if you were the only person on the right, it would hardly matter to me how you responded. in fact, the more i think about it, the harder a time i am having thinking of anything that would interest, much less concern me less. but you are again trying to do the same thing as you've been working the past few days: trying to erase the simple fact of a conservative media apparatus, to erase the fact of conservative opinion management and to erase the fact that this stuff has effects. i think your position entirely absurd. but hey, feel free to repeat it. maybe in about 30 years, people will forget that the world is otherwise and just start going along with you. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-08-2009, 11:23 AM	#148 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	Ace, The "lack of trust" gets to a point where it's hard to believe we live in a same country. Also, let's talk about trust.. you give it to Palin, who starts this death panel BS. Then, (hopefully), you see it's not true, how can you keep trusting someone who makes allegations like this? Do you really think Obama's gonna march us right into Third Reich mode? Do you really think he's gonna off your grandma? There comes a point where maybe a human being gains the ability to think critically, and not believe outrageous, unfounded, crazy shit....no??? __________________ Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

09-08-2009, 11:26 AM	#149 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	Perhaps, I read too fast and I may be prone to miss things from time to time - so do me a favor and restate your question and I will respond.[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"] Do you believe that a message directed to school children about the importance of staying in school, working hard, and taking personal responsibility is a bad message? If you do not, then how can you be even the slightest bit upset that the president of the united states is giving said message to the nations children? __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"