Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 8, 12:12 pm, H K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:31 am, H K wrote:
Lu Powell wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
Personally, I think the president should speak to students in
support of studying and staying in school. What I can't stomach is
all the hypocrisy coming from the White House and Congress. For
example:
http://tinyurl.com/l5zqje
Well, isn't this interesting:
snip
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.
/snip
Sure makes a few people here seem pretty uninformed (being nice),
especially the ones who suggested other presidents have not had any
problems addressing students.. Hummmm. Makes you wonder what other
"facts" and justifications they might have just "assumed" without
basis in fact... snerk
The difference is in CONTENT, plain and simple. Both Bush's and
Reagan's speeches were CLEARLY political in nature. That doesn't seem
to bother you, but Obama's speech clearly talking about success and
succeeding, has you in a twit.
I'm not "in a twit". You Dims act as though you can do no wrong and the
Cons can do no right. The reality is that both factions play a constant
game of trying to destroy each other while the country goes to hell in a
hand basket. Imagine how much greatness can be accomplished if it
doesn't matter who gets the credit.
I give the "Cons" most of the credit for destroying this country and
everything good about it.
Until Obama agreed to release his speech and then did so, you had no
idea his speech would not be "political" according to your definition
but you did not object to any speech he would make before the release,
isnt this kinda hypocritical?
Of course I did. I never expected him to give a "political" speech to
young schoolkids. Obama is giving precisely the speech we sentients
expected. The morons -the birthers, deathers, teabaggers, secessionists-
and their controllers on Faux News are all on your side of the table.
You know, I thought your side was scraping the bottom of the barrel
during the Bush Admin. Then John McCain selected an absolute moron for a
running mate, and it seemed the barrel was deeper. This morning, I saw a
few parents from South Carolina on cable news, and it was obvious they
were the birther-teabagger-deather Republicans. It's obvious your side
thinks its only chance to win elections is by spreading fear and hate.
The Dems can howl with anger over Bush speaking to schoolkids but When
their guy speaks it is ok with them. Not exactly consistent is it.
I'd call it extreme hypocrisy. When they cannot defend their
hypocrisy, they try to change the subject.
It didn't bother me when Bush I spoke to schoolkids, and it didn't
bother me when Reagan did it. In fact, I think it a great idea for the
POTUS to speak to schoolkids at the beginning of every school year, no
matter who the president is.
Your response, BTW, had nothing to do with my observation that all your
side has, and I mean all, is fear and hate. There is nothing else there.
--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All