The hate for Obama

Scofflaw

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You kidding. imokyrok is doing the baiting and I'm the one getting warned. :rolleyes:

Question of 'form', JohnMc1. Have a three-day ban to remind you that moderation of the forum applies to you too, since you appear to be confused about that.

And, yes, another week for the entirely predictable rude response.

moderately,
Scofflaw

irish_bob

imokyrok wrote: »

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. Typical Fox News Might is Right attitude.

"Schwartz suggests that if a low pro rata share of half the unattributed deaths were caused by US forces, a total of approximately 80 percent of Iraqi deaths are directly US perpetrated."

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million-iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/

are you saying that most deaths in iraq are caused by american forces , did i read your post wrong ???

norbert64

I think think this brings us back on topic quite nicely.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34582_Freak-Out_of_the_Day

Overheal

"working hard, setting goals, taking responsibility"

I can only seeing the far-out righties having a flipper about this.

I wonder what theyd also say today if I stripped the label off the Greatest Generation and tried presenting it today as an anonymous example.

I dont see them disagreeing with those values tbh. It sounds like a kneejerk reaction to Obama addressing their children directly is all. whole things ridiculous, if true, or widespread.

Manic Moran

norbert64 wrote: »

I think think this brings us back on topic quite nicely.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34582_Freak-Out_of_the_Day

LGF is taking slightly the wrong tack, there.

The issue is not with the message, it's with the method. They tend to want to keep politics out of the classroom, and the White House sending out an address to schools in which 'viewing is strongly encouraged' will mean that their kids are likely to be forced to watch something of a political bent whether they (parents) or they (kids) like it or not.

There's a valid point there. Should the kids also be forced to watch the countering Party Political by the Republican Party so that the opposition gets equal face-time?

NTM

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

LGF is taking slightly the wrong tack, there.

The issue is not with the message, it's with the method. They tend to want to keep politics out of the classroom, and the White House sending out an address to schools in which 'viewing is strongly encouraged' will mean that their kids are likely to be forced to watch something of a political bent whether they (parents) or they (kids) like it or not.

There's a valid point there. Should the kids also be forced to watch the countering Party Political by the Republican Party so that the opposition gets equal face-time?

NTM

That depends on what is being said. If Obama is going to talk about health care and why his plan is good than thats wrong.

If it is more of a stay in school work hard, be the best you can type of motivation speach than that is grand, even welcome. Remember many kids around the country dont have many role models especially in gang effected neighbourhoods and the like. If this can inspire even a small amount of people to stay in the education system and work harder at it than what exactly is the problem so long as it is not politcal.

Of course people who will obejct to this no matter what is being said are your typical Obama haters, so it was always going to make a bit of a stir.

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

LGF is taking slightly the wrong tack, there.

The issue is not with the message, it's with the method. They tend to want to keep politics out of the classroom, and the White House sending out an address to schools in which 'viewing is strongly encouraged' will mean that their kids are likely to be forced to watch something of a political bent whether they (parents) or they (kids) like it or not.

There's a valid point there. Should the kids also be forced to watch the countering Party Political by the Republican Party so that the opposition gets equal face-time?

NTM

Oh bull. It's not about the method. Obama is the president of the US, and he wants to address the citizenry (children are citizens, you know) in a nonpartisan message encouraging personal responsibility, setting educational goals, working hard, staying in school.

At least I think that's still a nonpartisan message, but with right-wing anti-intellectualism at the forefront, maybe they'd like to counter the president's message with an anti-education one? Who should deliver that? How about college dropout Rush Limbaugh? College dropout Sean Hannity? College dropout Glenn Beck? They've all done okay for themselves. Who needs education?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_lgTIZ22jE

If it were about the method they would have objected when Bush was touring around promoting literacy (gasp!) by reading My Pet Goat to schoolchildren, or when the first President Bush delivered a 15 minute speech to the nation's classrooms on the importance of avoiding drugs, or when teachers were supplied with guides to help students interpret President Reagan's Challenger Speech. As I recall, Democrats weren't pulling their kids out of school over any of those events. Or even when Reagan preached the highly partisan, conservative tax-cut gospel to impressionable middle school students:

On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marvin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “to schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes:

Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.

I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor. Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Reagan returned to the topic, this time telling the students that lowering taxes increases revenue:

Q My name is Cam Fitzie and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?

PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do. That's a big argument that's going on in government and I definitely believe it is because one of the principle reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes, we reduced them. Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government. And what we have found is that at the lower rates the government gets more revenue, there are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs and there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it, so today, we're getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher. And do you know something? I studied economics in college when I was young and I learned there about a man named Ibn Khaldun, who lived 1200 years ago in Egypt. And 1200 years ago he said, in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low, the tax rates were low, but the revenue was great. He said in the end of empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great and the revenue was low.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020

So go away with that attempt to cover right-wing craziness with a thin veneer of respectability by lamely saying that the problem is with the method, not the message. It's not the method that they object to. It's not even the message. It's the messenger.

ozzirt

I guess I'm basically a right winger, but the American Right is enough to turn me into a card carrying commo. They represent all that is bad in the USA to me.

Manic Moran

LostinKildare wrote: »

So go away with that attempt to cover right-wing craziness with a thin veneer of respectability by lamely saying that the problem is with the method, not the message. It's not the method that they object to. It's not even the message. It's the messenger.

Quite a few years have passed since those events, and the US has become far more polarised since. The education establishment is now considered just as much a battleground as the media is.

Apparently many schools have announced an 'opt-out' program, wherin they will give the parents the option of choosing whether or not they want to pull their kids from sitting through it. This seems to be mollifying most of the objectors on the sites that I frequent. Granted, I don't hang out on the ones which cater to the more extreme right.

NTM

RedPlanet

It'd be interesting to see if any these opt-out schools are in receipt of any FEDERAL money... hmm

Overheal

RedPlanet wrote: »

It'd be interesting to see if any these opt-out schools are in receipt of any FEDERAL money... hmm

The Schools are not refusing to air the address though. They are offering parents and children Freedom of Choice though. Whats wrong with that?

jank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQheP7Bp-zc

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

Quite a few years have passed since those events, and the US has become far more polarised since. The education establishment is now considered just as much a battleground as the media is.

Hmm. I have given you an example from each one of the last three GOP regimes to demonstrate that presidents addressing schoolchildren is not unprecedented (as some Repubs have claimed), and has in fact enjoyed the support of the Right. And your response to the rank hypocrisy of the GOP is that the last three Republican administrations are ancient history and therefore irrelevant!?! Sweet Jesus. The US is more polarised than it was under GWB? Ha, I don’t think so. Only in the sense that there is no moderate GOP any more – they have surrendered their party to the lunatic fringe.

And "the education establishment is now considered just as much a battleground as the media is"? This is a new phenomenon, and that explains why Republican schoolchildren sat placidly at their desks for speeches for Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and now, suddenly and coincidentally, a Democratic president talking to their kids is intolerable? "They tend to want to keep politics out of the classroom"? Please. Crack a history book. Desegregation. Busing. The Ten Commandments posted in public schools. School prayer. Creationism. Book censorship. I could go on and on. Unlike Repubs, Dems generally do not yank their children out of school for political reasons because they value education too highly. But for right wingers school is a scary place – history, non-biblical literature, evolution of species, climate science, disease and pregnancy prevention, and OMG free lunches for the underprivileged! Best to keep them out beginning in kindergarten, when teachers indoctrinate children with anti-Republican principles like sharing your crayons.

How long ago was GWB president? Oh yeah, nine months ago. It doesn't take long for Republicans to shed their most highly cherished principles, about-facing from happily forcing spectators to sign loyalty oaths to their conservative president in order to be admitted to a "public" speech and threatening that "if you criticize the president you are a traitor," to hysterical braying that our democratically elected president is so dangerous he cannot be trusted around children.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Apparently many schools have announced an 'opt-out' program, wherin they will give the parents the option of choosing whether or not they want to pull their kids from sitting through it. This seems to be mollifying most of the objectors on the sites that I frequent.

Overheal wrote: »

The Schools are not refusing to air the address though. They are offering parents and children Freedom of Choice though. Whats wrong with that?

Actually some school districts are refusing to air the address – in at least Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia (alas! my homestate), and Wisconsin. But whether they refuse to air it, or offer opt-outs, or shuttle kids who do want to see it to some special viewing area, they have allowed themselves to be drawn into a political battle by caving to a small, noisy minority that are using their children as proxys in attacking the president. Those schools are swallowing the anti-education view that some ideas – no, some people – are just too dangerous to be heard and debated. They are censoring the President of the United States. Perhaps they're afraid that the bullies will come picket their elementary schools armed to the teeth (which would be completely fine and appropriate, right?).

And they're teaching children that the highest office in this land is not worthy of respect. So please keep that in mind when you're complaining about people not showing enough respect for the authority of policemen or members of the military testifying before Congress. Or lamenting the erosion of the dignity of the office of the president. It cuts both ways.

And they say Americans don't get irony. Some do. They tend to be Democrats.

Manic Moran

LostinKildare wrote: »

And your response to the rank hypocrisy of the GOP is that the last three Republican administrations are ancient history and therefore irrelevant!?! Sweet Jesus. The US is more polarised than it was under GWB? Ha, I don’t think so. Only in the sense that there is no moderate GOP any more – they have surrendered their party to the lunatic fringe.

No, it's just more polarised than it was out of the first two of the three. You could see it starting in the mid or late 1990s, and it just went downhill from there.

And "the education establishment is now considered just as much a battleground as the media is"? This is a new phenomenon, and that explains why Republican schoolchildren sat placidly at their desks for speeches for Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and now, suddenly and coincidentally, a Democratic president talking to their kids is intolerable?

I don't think you are understanding the perception from the other side of the aisle. You may perceive the educational battleground as 'new' as defined as the last few months, but if you paid any attention you'd know that they've been complaining about a perceived bias in the educational establishments, particularly universities, for most of the decade. You may not agree with it, but it is the perception.

"They tend to want to keep politics out of the classroom"? Please. Crack a history book. Desegregation. Busing. The Ten Commandments posted in public schools. School prayer. Creationism. Book censorship.

Most of those of current relevance are freedom of religion issues, and on some of them, I think they're right. I don't know where you're referring to by Busing.

I could go on and on. Unlike Repubs, Dems generally do not yank their children out of school for political reasons because they value education too highly.

Maybe they are yanking their children out because they think their children deserve a better education than they might get at a school. I'm not personally one for homeschooling, but neither am I against the concept.

But for right wingers school is a scary place – history, non-biblical literature, evolution of species, climate science, disease and pregnancy prevention, and OMG free lunches for the underprivileged!

And that's taking the farther extreme of the population and attribubting the concepts to all of them. As far as I know, most conservatives are quite comfortable with Darwin and history.

How long ago was GWB president? Oh yeah, nine months ago. It doesn't take long for Republicans to shed their most highly cherished principles, about-facing from happily forcing spectators to sign loyalty oaths to their conservative president in order to be admitted to a "public" speech and threatening that "if you criticize the president you are a traitor," to hysterical braying that our democratically elected president is so dangerous he cannot be trusted around children.

I will certainly grant that some echelons of the Republican party did go a little over the top on some circumstances. Obviously they also turned away a fair bit of their own party as well.

And they're teaching children that the highest office in this land is not worthy of respect.

Are they, though? Or are they just trying to keep their kids out of the cycle of viciousness which has permeated the American political sphere? I know what you'll say: That by pulling them that the kids get involved, but that's not how they see it. What's stopping the parents seeing what he has to say, ensuring that it is, indeed, devoid of any politically ideological content, and then letting the kids watch it? Or watching it in a situation where they know that the subsequent conversation cannot be shepherded in any undesireable direction by the teacher.

So please keep that in mind when you're complaining about people not showing enough respect for the authority of policemen or members of the military testifying before Congress.

That was a simple failure of manners.

NTM

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

You may perceive the educational battleground as 'new' as defined as the last few months, but if you paid any attention you'd know that they've been complaining about a perceived bias in the educational establishments, particularly universities, for most of the decade. You may not agree with it, but it is the perception.

I don't perceive it as new at all. I pointed out examples going back to desegregation. I was responding to your post, in which you said that it is new -- i.e., changed since Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 addressed schoolchildren. You seemed to be saying that since then, education has become a battlefield -- that it's merely the changing times and not flaming hypocrisy that explains why right-wingers are fine with their children hearing presidential speeches from Republicans but not Democrats. If that is not what you meant then I don't know what you meant by this:

Manic Moran wrote: »

Quite a few years have passed since those events, and the US has become far more polarised since. The education establishment is now considered just as much a battleground as the media is.

And since you argued that it is the method -- rather than the message or the messenger -- to which they are now objecting, it follows then that you are suggesting that in this "new" climate, they would also be going ape**** if it were John McCain exhorting the kiddies to stay in school. Yes?


**************

In response to this

LostinKildare wrote: »

But for right wingers school is a scary place – history, non-biblical literature, evolution of species, climate science, disease and pregnancy prevention, and OMG free lunches for the underprivileged!

you said

Manic Moran wrote: »

And that's taking the farther extreme of the population and attribubting the concepts to all of them. As far as I know, most conservatives are quite comfortable with Darwin and history.

I know. That's why I said "right wingers" and not "Republicans" or "conservatives." I know that there are reasonable Republicans. I wish they would stand up to the destructive lunatics in the party.

*******

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are they, though? Or are they just trying to keep their kids out of the cycle of viciousness which has permeated the American political sphere? I know what you'll say: That by pulling them that the kids get involved, but that's not how they see it.

I know that's not how they see it, but that's hardly an argument justifying their hysteria. They are injecting viciousness into a situation where there was none -- a positive, back-to-school pep talk from the president of the United States who actually embodies the ideal of the American Dream that any child, from any background, can become a success through hard work and education. Children get excited, even inspired, by that kind of thing. The parents screaming about it have pissed all over that. For everyone.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's stopping the parents seeing what he has to say, ensuring that it is, indeed, devoid of any politically ideological content, and then letting the kids watch it? Or watching it in a situation where they know that the subsequent conversation cannot be shepherded in any undesireable direction by the teacher.

What's wrong with that is that is legitimizes the view that the president is potentially dangerous to children -- that it is perfectly reasonable that whatever he has to say should be vetted and approved by parents because he cannot be trusted. And neither can the teacher, if they're concerned that any discussion may be "shepherded in any undesireable direction by the teacher." If they are that paranoid about public schooling, and that fearful about their children being exposed to differing viewpoints and learning to think critically, then perhaps they ought to remove them from public school altogether and keep them at home where they can restrict them to their own narrow worldviews.

Overheal

i havent heard anyone mention the pledge of allegiance yet. or really address (though briefly mention) the introduction of creationism and the opposition of evolution in many schools. all recent events and surely change the state of things when compared to the 90s. i think its a valid point to argue schools as a political stage has become many degrees more prominent than it ever had in the past.

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

i havent heard anyone mention the pledge of allegiance yet. or really address (though briefly mention) the introduction of creationism and the opposition of evolution in many schools. all recent events and surely change the state of things when compared to the 90s. i think its a valid point to argue schools as a political stage has become many degrees more prominent than it ever had in the past.

The debate about teaching creationism vs. evolution certainly is not a recent event. See Scopes Trial (1925) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial.

Can you really with a straight face argue that "schools as a political stage has become many degrees more prominent than it ever had in the past"? Really? More prominent than when Eisenhower federalised the Arkansas National Guard and sent 1,000 paratroopers to escort black high school students to their classes in Little Rock in 1953? Or when Bull Connor arrested a thousand school children and when the jails were full turned police dogs and firehoses on students in Birmingham in 1963?

Overheal

LostinKildare wrote: »

The debate about teaching creationism vs. evolution certainly is not a recent event. See Scopes Trial (1925) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial.

Can you really with a straight face argue that "schools as a political stage has become many degrees more prominent than it ever had in the past"? Really? More prominent than when Eisenhower federalised the Arkansas National Guard and sent 1,000 paratroopers to escort black high school students to their classes in Little Rock in 1953? Or when Bull Connor arrested a thousand school children and when the jails were full turned police dogs and firehoses on students in Birmingham in 1963?

shall we say the past 20 years then?

Your examples make no sense either - you're trying to discuss how political involvement in schools is not a problem, and you dig up some of our biggest atrocities against schools when the politics gets involved? you leave me confused. are you saying if we let obama speak to our schoolkids someone is going to sic' a German Sheppard on our 3rd graders?

LostinKildare

Overheal wrote: »

Your examples make no sense either - you're trying to discuss how political involvement in schools is not a problem, and you dig up some of our biggest atrocities against schools when the politics gets involved?

No, you misunderstand me. I haven't said that political involvement is or is not a problem. I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

I'm taking issue with your statement that recently -- since the 1990s, you say -- schools have become more of a political battleground than they ever have been in the past. Little Rock and Birmingham are examples of times when the politics of schooling was much more heated than it is today. Schooling has always been and always will be a political topic. That is not a new phenomenon that arose in the last ten years, producing an unusual new political climate that somehow explains why right wingers suddenly object to the very idea that a president of any political stripe (cough, cough) would address their children in school. Which I believe was what MM was suggesting.

Overheal wrote: »

you leave me confused. are you saying if we let obama speak to our schoolkids someone is going to sic' a German Sheppard on our 3rd graders?

Um, no. I don't know where you got that from.

Manic Moran

LostinKildare wrote: »

I don't perceive it as new at all. I pointed out examples going back to desegregation. I was responding to your post, in which you said that it is new -- i.e., changed since Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 addressed schoolchildren. You seemed to be saying that since then, education has become a battlefield -- that it's merely the changing times and not flaming hypocrisy that explains why right-wingers are fine with their children hearing presidential speeches from Republicans but not Democrats. If that is not what you meant then I don't know what you meant by this

I had to look back, since you hadn't linked to a Bush 2 episode. I might think that reading 'My Pet Goat' is probably on a different level to addressing the nation's schoolchildren on a social topic of your chosing.

Either way, we are agreed that there has been an issue festering for several years, though we do seem to disagree on a start date.

And since you argued that it is the method -- rather than the message or the messenger -- to which they are now objecting, it follows then that you are suggesting that in this "new" climate, they would also be going ape**** if it were John McCain exhorting the kiddies to stay in school. Yes?

If it were a 'strongly recommended' televised address to all schoolchildren, probably. Most conservatives are far less hypocritical about things than you seem to realise. If nothing else, for the real-politik issue that they know very well that if they do something, then it can be done against them in the future.

If they are that paranoid about public schooling, and that fearful about their children being exposed to differing viewpoints and learning to think critically, then perhaps they ought to remove them from public school altogether and keep them at home where they can restrict them to their own narrow worldviews.

They would rather have the system fixed and working in an even-handed manner rather than have to pull their kids out. I wouldn't think that 'not having your kids berated by the teacher for having parents who vote McCain' or 'not having your kids interrogated about their dad's legal hobbies' is a "narrow world-view."

Can you really with a straight face argue that "schools as a political stage has become many degrees more prominent than it ever had in the past"?

"Ever?" No. Of course not. But those instances aren't within living memory for a large portion of the population. The US goverment used to follow a policy of genocide against Indians. By your argument, if the US government started a new policy of a similar nature, I would not be allowed to say "Has recently."

There was a period of relative equilibrium from the late 70s through the late 90s where nobody seemed to be voicing any huge issues with the educational systems, other than the usual deals of class sizes, quality, cost and the ilk. That period of calm ended several years ago.

NTM

Anonymous1987

More hate for Obama from the far right here and Fox as usual is democrat bashing

Manic Moran

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

More hate for Obama from the far right here and Fox as usual is democrat bashing

Interesting quote in that article.

Mr Obama’s plan to make a speech to students is not new – President George H.W. Bush did the same in 1991, in a move that was opposed by Democrats.

If we are to view from the position that Mr Kildare takes that there is no difference between Bush I's action and the current one and that the change in view of conservatives is simply because it's Obama giving the speech, are we also to accuse the Democrats of a similar spate of hypocrisy?

NTM

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

If we are to view from the position that Mr Kildare takes that there is no difference between Bush I's action and the current one and that the change in view of conservatives is simply because it's Obama giving the speech, are we also to accuse the Democrats of a similar spate of hypocrisy?

Be my guest -- there's plenty of hypocrisy on both sides.

[hmmm, wondering why you assume I'm a "Mr" . . . .]

Overheal

women dont do politics - they need the extra RAM for cooking and cleaning.



tbh male is the defacto gender on the internet. dont ask me why. it just is.

Manic Moran

[hmmm, wondering why you assume I'm a "Mr" . . . .]

Don't really have any reason to believe you aren't.

NTM

LostinKildare

Aggressive debate brings out the inner male.

Manic Moran

So for the record, are you a he or a she? (You've not actually stated)

NTM

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

tbh male is the defacto gender on the internet. dont ask me why. it just is.

Lads of a certain age, though often as intelligent as their elders, tend to suffer badly at the thought that somewhere a woman is typing to them.

Manic Moran

Actually, I think it's a common convention in English. If someone or something doesn't have a 'known' gender, but you feel like you have to give it one, go with the standard default. For people it's usually 'he'. Just like for ships it's "she". No particular logic behind it, just easier than typing "(s)he."

Anyway, back on topic, here's the text of the speech.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/

A little long-winded, considering the target audience, and I think it's a little noir as a tone and not sufficiently uplifting. Good message, but definitely could be parsed a little more elegantly, I think.

NTM

LostinKildare

Nodin wrote: »

Lads of a certain age, though often as intelligent as their elders, tend to suffer badly at the thought that somewhere a woman is typing to them.

Yeah, I think I'll keep my gender to myself. It shouldn't make a difference to how my posts are received, but it might.

Manic Moran wrote: »

A little long-winded, considering the target audience, and I think it's a little noir as a tone and not sufficiently uplifting. Good message, but definitely could be parsed a little more elegantly, I think.

I think it's on the long side too, but what do you mean by "a little noir as a tone"? Like film noir?