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?

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

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.

Please tell us what part of parts of Regan, and Bush's speeches were
political, be specific, and of course from your own interpretation based
on hearing the speeches (which I assume you did based on your
accusation), not some google cut and paste, please. I am very interested
in your answer...

Or you could just buck up and tell us if you really heard those
speeches, or if you are relying on some Pundit's interpretation?

That would be the straight up thing to do here, if in fact you didn't
hear them. If you really didn't hear the original speeches, some google
search for quotes and cuts won't really mean much in the context of you
stating plainly that those speeches were political which would lead us
to believe you had previous knowledge...

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Sep 8, 10:04*am, NotNow wrote:
Lu Powell wrote:
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

Simple, it's all about content. Bush's speech, as well as Reagan's was
LOADED with political speak.

Loog, you certainly should know that anytime a politician (regardless
of party affiliation) speaks, it's loaded with political content.

I do hope he has something good to say about success through education.

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.

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.

Frogwatch wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:04 am, NotNow wrote:
Lu Powell wrote:
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
Simple, it's all about content. Bush's speech, as well as Reagan's was
LOADED with political speak.

The original Obama lesson plan was loaded with politics too
(supporting the president etc.) and can stil be considerred political
so why the surprise from the Dems? Considering their past reactions,
the reactions to this are fairly mild.

How do you know this, because some conservatives who never read it said so?

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
Lu Powell wrote:
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
Simple, it's all about content. Bush's speech, as well as Reagan's was
LOADED with political speak.

Oh my...... "is, is" again...


Uh, no. Show me where Obama said anything nearing politics in his
speech. Oh, and where's that "lesson plan".

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

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
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

Personally, I think they should have let the kids have a day off, and have a
closed door session with the teachers. And have one in a month and cut
about 20% of the dead wood.

But that's just me.

I know a teacher who's near 30 years service who is retiring because he has
to follow a syllabus on what to teach, which includes things that have
nothing to do with the subject he is teaching. A loss. I have a son who
just graduated college looking for a job, and who I think would make a good
teacher. Lots of people who would make good teachers out there, and a lot
of tenured POS's who need to be led away from the trough. If they cut the
dead weight, believe me, there would be no shortage of applicants.

Steve

On Sep 8, 1:13*pm, H the K wrote:
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

He
http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/7-12.pdf
is the latest "lesson plan" for older kids, the one for younger ones
can be found at the same source. If this does not make you a little
nervous, then your love for authority is greater than mine. It seems
very 1984ish.
HK is obviously incapable of saying anything specific.