Parents Protecting Kids From President Obama?
 

So I get this automated phone call from the girls' high school that on September 9th, the school will be broadcasting President Obama's speech. It goes on to casually state something to the tune of "we frequently listen to politician's speeches and what Obama has to say is not of a political nature, only to urge our kids to stay in school." Then it says, "If you have a problem with this, please contact school administration." :mad:

I'm furious. First of all, has anyone ever had to listen to a disclaimer before they heard ANY President or even politician speak to a school? Has this country been offered the opportunity to bow out because you're Pres is scary? :rolleyes: I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that kids would need a freakin' permission slip to watch the country's President speak to them.

Is this throughout the country? What are they afraid of? Tell me I'm lost in my idealism and naivete, please. This is so infuriating and sad.

Some Parents Oppose Kids Watching Obama Speech - Education News Story - WFTV Orlando

Several local schools here (Columbus, OH) have already capitulated to the crazies and have canceled the speech entirely. I wrote a letter to the newspaper about it....I hope they publish it. The irony of the Real Americans [tm] deciding to raise another stink and basically shit on people's freedom of choice is appalling.

Luckily for us, our daughter's school is showing the speech (with the OPTION to have your kid not see it) rather than canceling it outright.

It's funny....I thought no president would ever be as hated as GWB, but the Obama hate (or fear?) is on it's own level. I hated GWB, but I would never raise a stink if he was giving my kid a speech about staying in school....

Is that what it is? The schools here require the kids attend Rachel's Challenge assemblies and even push the parents to come to an assembly to understand what it's about. I have no objection to this and it seems neither do the other parents. But why would there even be a choice here when it's about encouraging words for all students?

9 months into his presidency and in every fuckin bookstore in every airport in the country I walk into, Obama is staring me down on over half the magazines on the shelf......sometimes with his shirt off. I don't hate him - liberal fascination with him has turned him freakin creepy. That and the fact that he has proven himself incapable of giving a speech without complaining about what he inherited from the big bad administration before him, yeah he doesn't need to address the nations kids.

I think I recall hearing Reagan address the schools when something important happened, like a space shuttle blowing up, but nevertjust randomly and out of the blue. Obama's already too much in my face, for god sake's spare our kids. I'm not crazy and I dont' hate presidents.

Liberals, painting every person who opposes whatever you think is right does not make one crazy Don't let your ideology get the best of you.

Were you upset when Bush talked to school children about no child left behind?

In fact, Reagan had a nationwide address to school kids during national education week....beamed into schools around on the country on c-span and a special learning network set up for schools...no different than what Obama is doing, other than the timing.

And which, during the Q&A , he promoted his conservative agenda.

Another example of the hypocrisy of the right.

I'm not upset now, and though I don't remember the event, if I had to guess I'd say I was probably high when Bush talked to school children about no child left behind. So I'd say no, I wasn't upset then either.

You can substitute Reagan in every context here...

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Some of you won't like this and will think it is off point or whatever, so save yourself some stress and don't read what follows.

The problem with Obama's speech to the schools is a problem for two reasons, one - over exposure with far too many contradictory statements. Two, people like Van Jones in his administration. Obama seems to lack moral clarity and conviction in my view. His administration immediately changed the "lesson plan" they outlined further illustrating the point and adding fuel to the fire started by those against him. Once, just once he needs to show he has a backbone and stand firm against his critics. He needs to lead. He needs to act like a President. In some other threads there are discussion about Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, etc., these people live for attention, the spot light and for a President to single extreme radio/TV talk show people out is beneath the dignity of his office further contributing to school systems and protesters to act against allowing the speech, they can change his behavior. The sad part is that he and others will walk away from this blaming others rather than placing the blame at the feet of the President.

Its not off point...its just bullshit since you have admitted, in so many words, on numerous occasions that are biased to the core when it comes to Obama.

We know you prefer Bush/Cheney leadership style of misleading the American people into a war, ignoring the other two branches of government and illegally spying on american citizens, approving torture in violation of all US treaty obligations......

Reagan nationwide TV address to school kids = OK
Obama nationwide TV address to school kids = not acceptable because of people like Van Jones

Are you capable of speaking without accusing someone of being a hypocrit? I'm all ears, please elaborate how exactly that thought makes me a "hypocrit".

It is not hypocrisy. Conservatives liked and supported Reagan. Conservatives do not like and do not support Obama. Conservatives are being pretty consistent with their views and how they act on those views. And, most conservatives are not going to have their children boycott school that day. Most schools even in conservative districts will play the speech and cooperate with what the administration wants.

Read what I wrote...the conservatives who are making this an issue are hypocrites.

If it was Ok for a president to hold such a TV event in 1988, why is it so unacceptable now?

A bias that is acknowledged is not "bullshit", it is being open and honest. I am not sure you understand the difference between my "bias" against Obama and my disagreements regarding his policies, and perhaps you don't care - either way I will state where I come from on these issues.

The American people were not mislead into war. Bush clearly explained his case, and explained it a second time when he was re-elected. If you were mislead speak for your self and ask how it happened. Don't take a superiority position saying 'every body else was mislead but I knew the the truth'...attitude. I explained many times why I supported military action in Iraq and it had nothing to do with Bush.

I had a longer response in mind, but I'll paraphrase--

"For fuck's sake."

That's not what you wrote, or implied. You quoted me and called it hypocrisy. Read what you wrote......too.

What a riveting conversation.

right on , ace! :thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 11:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------

I corrected you on your false statement that Reagan never held such an event and that you can substitute Reagan for Obama throughout your post.

The hypocrisy was directed towards those making a stink about this upcoming Obama event.

Because they don't support Obama. They do not like Obama. They think Obama is dishonest. Etc. Etc. Gee whiz, why don't you get that? Not everyone has all of those views, and some hold those views to varying degress, but these people are out there and Obama knows it. It should not be a surprise that Obama will face opposition. He will face it in every thing, everything he does. The problem is not having opposition. The problem with Obama is how he handles it.

what's hilarious in this is that obama is simply using the same techniques for getting political messages out that the reagan administration developed. what differs is that obama actually fields unscripted questions from audiences and the press--conservatives haven't done that. so their use of the message channels was from its inception far more staged in order to appear more "strong" or "decisive" (you can insert any of a host of terms here that indicate the conservative preference for a fantasy father figure). because conservatives in general seem to have trouble investing in obama as a fantasy father figure, but seem in general to remain committed to the structure that enables them to like fantasy fathers, they turn obama into some Persecuting Other. and from there, it makes some sense that conservative activists would find traction for an action that basically does nothing except pander to this underlying desire for a Strong Decider Image who make them feel Safe because he's o so manly by pandering to its paranoid inversion.

that this is a pathological game is i suppose only a problem if you dont see it as a game at all, but rather as an expression of your political views.

i don't see much latitude for interpreting this nonsense without reference to paranoia.
it's irrational.
it's conservatism these days.

This the the stupidest thing ever. If you have a problem with Obama speaking to America's school children, there is a 95% chance that you are an asshole.

Perhaps the crassness of this comment places it beneath the standards of discussion on this board. However, I'm not entirely convinced that discussion of this matter is warranted.

WTF...are you really that disengaged from reality?

Presidents speak to the American people....of all ages. One may not always agree with the speaker, but to question that the event comes with the job title, President of the United States, is nonsense. In 1988, when Reagan held such an event, I dont recall there being such a national uproar from the left to such an innocuous event.

The screaming and ranting on the right is pure political theater and hypocrisy at its finest.

Beyond the hypocisy, IMO, its another example of the intolerance of some on the right....not wanting to expose their children to an address by the leader of the country -- to focus on staying in school and studying hard to succeed - if they dont agree with his broader policies and actions.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

For the record, a transcript of the Reagan event:

Hmm.

So where does that leave those of us who think Reagan and Bush The Elder were -also- engaging in bullshit unconstitutional collectivist propagandizing?

if it weren't such a horror show of moronic maladjustment, it'd be downright funny.

What a profound statement of how effective the political machine has become. I try to stay out of any political discussions at any time. This string however, has raised my hackles. I'm hoping someone can shed some light on my confusion.

When did this nation change to 'parties of opposition' from 'united we stand'?
When was the last time a president was elected as opposed to buying the office?
Why do people abandon all reason and simply vote and promote the party line at the first sign of opposition?

Okay, I don't want to be rude and exceed the accepted 3 question limit so I'll simply state my view.

When we set aside individual thought and indulge in 'group think' it is a disservice to ourselves and everyone around us. As citizens it is our duty to question what our government does and says. It is our duty to demonstrate opposition to those ideas we do not agree with. It is our duty to be heard and seen. WE ARE NOT subjects of the government, WE ARE citizens of the greatest nation on Earth and our government is in service to us. The governments sole duty is to represent us to the rest of the world. To the rest of the world we are all currently Douche bags. I don't really care for how the government has represented me in my life time. I don't really care for the division created in our nation. I do believe the only way we will ever have good representation in this nation is to remove money from government and return it to the people along with the power it embodies.

Oh, and NO politician, regardless of party or intent needs to be talking to any one under 18 years old without direct parental supervision.




..

:rolleyes:

Sorry for my lapse of reasonable response on this, but this is what comes to mind:

"I don't want my kid(s) to hear Obama's speech because....

he's an illegitimate president [birthers]
he's not my president [political obstructionists]
he's a socialist/he's driving America to communism [political ignoramuses]
he's a black man [racists]
he's ruining our country [Chicken Littles]
he's the Antichrist [religious zealots]
he's a Muslim (i.e. a terrorist) [paranoid zealots]"

...

Sorry....

Now, when I say this, I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I'm a really white guy, but this is the first thing that came to mind. Oh, and I'm fairly conservative, at least Willravel thinks so :D

I feel like, if it had been Bill Clinton speaking to America's children, people would have had very little to say about it. Yep, I just pulled the race card.

He's the fucking President of the United States. When the PRESIDENT cannot address the nation's children, there is something fundamentally wrong. Not to say we didn't know something was wrong, but this, to me, is just retarded. I don't care who won. Once he wins, he's got the mic. When people filter the president, it's kinda strange to me. Sure a parent can do this, but an institution such as a school doing this seems out of place. Maybe it's not race, but it's something, and it's something that stands out to me.

Everything BUT "he is the democratically elected head of the executive branch". Way to teach the kids civics and government, conservatives!

Deep down, I hope this was a tactical move by the Obama admin to try and shed light on how ridiculously petty and shallow the little dog and pony show that passes for mainstream American Conservatism is. I recognize that it probably isn't.

What really gets me is that I think that most of the complainers are some of the same misguided fucks who complain that Obama isn't being bipartisan enough. They can't even get over their own partisanship enough to let their kids listen to the president of the united states. Like somehow Obama is going to get on the mic and implore their children to become socialists. What a bunch of assholes (95% of them, at least).

and the funniest part is that Obama is doing this address to talk about the importance of staying in school. No staged Q&A to advance an agenda like Reagan did. How can anyone disagree with the message of "stay in school?"

When this first popped up in my news, I was amused to see that Conservatives were now using the same rhetoric as many who, during the Bush administration, became upset with Bush making speeches to kids/youth/in their home town. They talked of protesting or boycotting etc. I thought, "Wow, Conservatives know how to be traitors, too!"

Had a pleasant little chuckle at the turn around and the rich, rich irony.

Then I read a few more articles and realized this time it was different. This time the coverage of "a few crazies" is much bigger. It leads me to believe that this time there are either more than just a few nut jobs looking to keep their kids from listening to a speech by the President, or the media is given the few nut jobs a bigger platform in which to announce their inherent idiocy.

Either way you slice it... it isn't good for America.

The World is watching and the world is, once more, aghast.

I get it now. Obama is your boogeyman

There seems to be a movement in the US to use every possible opportunity to discredit Obama, and the bullshit fuss over him addressing schoolchildren is part of it. Let the man speak, and let the children hear his speech.

The problem is, why should he have to? Can't the opposing parties comment and commiserate with one another instead of spreading their disrespect and hatred? Why should the rules be different for him?

When in history has a sitting President's speech been banned, as though it might cause harm to someone's child? Our last President was far from loved, but I'm quite sure liberal parents would have had no problem allowing their kids to hear him speak.

What the hell happened to respect for the office? At his Inauguration, even our President was courteous to his predecessor, despite some mighty loud boos from the people that reverberated in the crowds. He's got a lot more class than these politically-driven parents, who should be ashamed. Are they the role models and mentors for the future generations? That's damned scary.

I don't really have a problem with this. If a enough parents are upset about something and don't want it in schools then there should be opt out papers available. No matter what the issue is.

Only if the issue is in some way detrimental to the kids. A message to students to stay in school and work hard is a completely absurd reason for people to be upset the president is addressing them. This is just mored bogus outrage from conservatives towards the president. Conservatives have become little kids throwing a tantrum at this point and it is a very sad and pathetic thing to see at this point.

Detrimental is in the eye of the beholder, and I'd rather the parents have the final say than then state no matter how ludicrous it may seem to some people.

ok, what in your mind is wrong with a message of the importance of school and education? What possible motive do you have for not wanting children to hear it from our commander and chief? If you answer either of these questions with anything other than you hate obama and want to give him as hard of a time as possible for no reason other than your pouting he is in power then you are a bold faced liar.

wow...

Nothing is wrong with it. I think the idea of not letting kids hear the presidents speech is silly, but I feel the parents should be allowed to choose what their children are exposed to no mater how crazy it seems to you or anyone else. That's why I don't have a problem with this.

I have no problem with the schools who are giving parents the option to opt out. That's fine.

I DO have a problem with the schools who have simply buckled to the loudest parents and canceled the speech for everyone