BoatBanter.com - Let the brainwashing begin ..............

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:58:07 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:48:23 -0400, NotNow wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:35:01 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:56:14 -0700, jps wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:40:56 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Sep 2, 5:34 pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:26:40 -0700, jps wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:07:31 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
September 8, Obama will be piped into all public schools for a speech.
Probably about how to snitch on their parents.
This is scary. This is sick.
Steve
Is he going to read "My Pet Goat"? If so, I'm pulling my kid that day!
--
Nom=de=Plume
I believe there will be a mention of "Sally has two Moms" and other liberal
literature. Reading for educational purposes, you know.
We shall only know what he will say after he says it. I hope he does a
decent job with the teleprompters, and the kids don't start saying uh and er
after every other word. Perhaps I was premature in thinking that he will
concentrate only on education, and that there will be no political
expressions, either stated or subliminal.
Steve
Silly dweeb didn't mention a word when Bush was mangling the English
language beyond recognition.
Cracker jerk from the Utah bush.
Another fine example of the 'Bush Rationale'.

nomdeplume - hope you're watching..
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.
The president has no more right to interrupt classroom education than
I do. Those of you who think he does should go back and re-read the
constitution because you seem so enamored of authority you are willing
to fall for anything. School districts are totally free to ignore him
and I say they should unless he can show that his address is somehow
related to education and is not for political purposes..
Boo!

The Boogeyman is comin' to getcha!!!

Would you have said the same for Bush if he were asking to address
your kids on the merits of duck and cover?
More 'Bush Rationale'.

nomdeplum - you watching this?
Anyway, what day is the Obama stump speech? Might just take The Mouse to
the track for some work that day...
Take her to the track on the 8th. That's the BO school kid
indoctrination speech. Happens at 11 am, eastern. If Jesse's lucky,
she'll be at lunch where their are no TV's.
--
John H

This **** is getting so unhinged it's almost funny! Obama wants to give
a speech to students reinforcing such things as hard work, staying in
school, doing your best, and you call it an indoctrination speech. In
1988 Reagan did the same thing, only his speech was 100% political. Then
in I think 1992, George HW Bush did the same as Reagan. Where was the
outcry about indoctrination then? This liberal = bad thing isn't doing
much good for your credibility, John.
Supposedly his speech will be revealed next week. We'll see how much
indoctrination is therein.

Having students write a letter about 'How I can help president 'bama'
*is* indoctrination.
--
John H

Uh, John, your GOP gurus have lied to you once again!!!!! That was
changed a long time ago. It clearly is a letter to themselves about
their educational goals. It's just that you guys, in your insanity over
anything liberal, can't grasp that little fact.:

'...a long time ago..'?

How long ago, Loog? Yesterday?

How many times did any other president push a 'lesson plan' to go with
his speech?

Hogwash.
--
John H

Again, ANYTHING to avoid saying anything bad about conservatives, or
anything good about liberals. I'll ask again. What is bad about Obama's
speech underlining things such as staying in school, working hard, etc.?

Now, I take it, that if he was to spew nothing but politics, exactly
like Reagan did, that you'd be okay with that?

Here's what intelligent people are saying:

In my deep memories of elementary school and junior high I had
remembered listening to Presidents Reagan and Papa Bush speak to all of
us on television. I had recently doubted those faint memories as I told
myself that surely those two Presidents must not have spoken to school
children. After all if they had attempted to speak to school children
their conservative base must have decried the "indoctrination" of school
children and threatened to pull their kids out of school in response.
It turns out I was wrong on both fronts. Presidents Reagan and George
H. W. Bush did in fact speak to school children in national addresses,
and conservatives at the time did not react the same way they are
reacting to the Obama school address.

In the video below Fox News (known for their liberalism) reports that
both Reagan and Bush addressed the nation's schoolchildren. Now
conservatives may claim that the situation was different in that the
Reagan and Bush addresses were non-partisan. First, most of the
objections I have seen about the Obama address are not about the content
of his message but rather the whole idea of students being "forced" to
listen to the President. Second, President Obama's address much like
that of Reagan and Bush is being previewed as a politically neutral
message about hard work, setting educational goals, and staying in
school. For anyone who doubts the truthfulness of that claim they can
check the White House website on Monday where they have promised to
pre-release a copy of the speech for parents to see.

Some reading about Reagan's speech to students:

Putting aside possible ulterior motives, the conservative freak-out over
President Obama’s planned speech to students urging them to stay in
school and work hard is due to fears that Obama will use his platform as
an opportunity to push his agenda on unsuspecting students. Ironically,
that’s exactly what President Reagan did two decades ago.

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 Marlin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast
live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed
the program “t o 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

But again, that's okay because he's a conservative, right?