by jeanniebeanz 91 Replies latest social current
Was the speech changed after all the brouhaha?
I'm kinda curious 'bout that myself.
I don't have a problem with the President addressing the children. I think it's good for kids to see him action, especially when he plays to them as audience. I do, however, understand the concerns of having a president, any president, try to use this speech as a propaganda tool to influence young minds toward a political ideal.
Just gave Obama another idea.
Great! Now I'm gonna be a cracker!! Oh, wait. Already am, so maybe that's not such a bad thing. But, seriously, Jonesie, STFU about turning us into packaged food items already! You're scaring the nutjobs!!
J
This is the sanitized version post criticism, revision and review. It looks perfectly OK to me (politically speaking) on the surface as a matter of content.
However, it does offer a window into where this president is coming from: In all the high-minded goals he mentions, did you notice that the common thread is government service? I.E. - being a Mayor, a Judge, being in "public health service".
Nowhere do we see anything (point it out for me if I have missed it) - about becoming a business executive, a home builder, an independent farmer, a small business owner, etc. I.E. - nothing about capitalism as a goal; everything about socialism as a goal.
At least Rappers and NBA basketball players are independent contributors to society in the sense that they are taxpayers (rather than being) tax dependents. (BTW, if George Bush had said not to become rappers or basketball players, would that have been interpreted as a racist remark?)
I knew that conservatives were going to self congratulate themselves on the non accomplishment of "changing" Obama's speech. That line about "helping the President" is the only thing that was changed and I consider it to be trivial. As for Journey On being a moderate, that is something Rush Limbaugh has said of himself. It seems, JO, that you've swallowed the Obama as arch-demon line. And, oh, other than being Socialist and wanting to brainwash our kids he's now being accused of wanting to force circumcision on infants. When will it be realized that a sizeable portion of this nation is turning psychotic in the clinical sense of the word?
villabolo
I don't have a problem with the President addressing the children. I think it's good for kids to see him action, especially when he plays to them as audience. I do, however, understand the concerns of having a president, any president, try to use this speech as a propaganda tool to influence young minds toward a political ideal.
I agree.
BTS
"I do, however, understand the concerns of having a president, any president, try to use this speech as a propaganda tool to influence young minds toward a political ideal."
Yeah that's the parents' job...like sex education. OK, I'm trying not to laugh now.
"Great! Now I'm gonna be a cracker!! Oh, wait. Already am, so maybe that's not such a bad thing. But, seriously, Jonesie, STFU about turning us into packaged food items already! You're scaring the nutjobs!!"
The nutjobs have already lost their collective minds.
I really still don't understand this silly brouhaha. Reagan did it, Sr. Bush did it, now that Obama is going to do it it's suddenly a dangerous no-no? I've looked over the speeches and to me Reagan's and Bush's have more of a politial tint than Obama's. And since we don't have access to the original Obama speech everything else about it is just conjecture.
The nutjobs have already lost their collective minds.
And a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
I knew that conservatives were going to self congratulate themselves on the non accomplishment of "changing" Obama's speech.
A presidential address to the nations children was changed due to lack of public support for the direction indicated in the written materials which were provided. How is this a non-accomplishment? I consider it the workings of democracy.
That line about "helping the President" is the only thing that was changed and I consider it to be trivial.
That wasn't in the speech that we saw, it was in the printed materials and depending on where individuals personal beliefs stand, there may be many who do not want their children influenced to think they have to help the president do something that their parents do not believe in. This visceral reaction was because of the perceived intrusion on the authority of the parents in their own home. The reaction was amplified because this address was not to the children at a time when their parents can sit with them and discuss the speech at the time. Whenever any president gives a speech, I try to make sure that we watch it as a family and discuss as a family. Going around the family and talking to the kids without the parents there is something I don't agree with. If the parents have very strong feelings against the contents of the speech and yet it is applauded by the school, this can lead to confusion in kids. And don't even bother to say that is an exaggeration... I've seen it firsthand. The parents should be there to address the kids questions, not a bunch of teachers.
As for Journey On being a moderate, that is something Rush Limbaugh has said of himself. It seems, JO, that you've swallowed the Obama as arch-demon line.
Dismiss the person to negate the opinion? I can't remember which BS argument tactic this is, so I'll just call it BS.
And, oh, other than being Socialist and wanting to brainwash our kids he's now being accused of wanting to force circumcision on infants.
LMAO... female circumcision is next... I know it... I saw it on The Onion!
When will it be realized that a sizeable portion of this nation is turning psychotic in the clinical sense of the word?
BS
Sincerely, and with the utmost respect for you as a person.
J
