When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

Frogwatch wrote:
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.


I didn't see a thing in that "lesson plan" that troubled me or would
trouble any other sentient.

Now that Dick Cheney and his dummy are out of office, I have no fear of
my government.




--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

JustWait wrote:
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...


Sure thing! In this portion of Ronny Raygun's speech, he said this:
"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

In my words:

Taxes, and statements about taxes are nothing BUT political. Further,
he's poisoning the kid's minds by telling them that if he doesn't lower
taxes, they'll not know "liberty and prosperity".

Let's move on, you've asked for quite alot. Here's the whole speech:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...88/111488c.htm

There's not a part of it that's NOT political!!!!

Now, while Bush 41's speech wasn't ALL political (talked about kids
staying off of drugs) it surely did have a lot of politics built in, and
actually, even the timing was calculated to help him boost his ratings.

Now, let's just say that NONE of them were political. Where was your
outrage when they did it? How about when GWB wanted every child to send
a dollar to Afghanistan? And you keep for getting the pesky fact that
some of you here came completely unhinged about the speech when you
didn't know what he was even going to say, calling it indoctrination and
propaganda?

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

JustWait wrote:
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...

Nope, already answered you. So, I now of the speeches. I'm very sorry I
can't remember them verbatim. I remember them enough to understand how
political in nature they were. Most of you, however, freaked out about a
speech that you hadn't even heard yet.

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

Tim wrote:
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.

That's ALL the speech is.

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

Frogwatch wrote:
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.

So.....the Department of Education puts this out there, so it's Obama's
fault? Can you get any more hysterical?

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:16:40 -0600, SteveB wrote:


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

LOL, I haven't heard such a great argument *for* tenure in years. Tenure
allows teachers to teach, without having to deal with BS like yours.

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:16:40 -0600, SteveB wrote:


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

LOL, I haven't heard such a great argument *for* tenure in years. Tenure
allows teachers to teach, without having to deal with BS like yours.


Tenure at the higher education level came about as a way to ensure
academic freedom at colleges and universities. Tenure in K-12 came about
to protect classroom teachers from harassment at the hands of school
administrators and school boards. That harassment for many female
teachers was sexual. Nowadays, with even more crazed fundies, birthers,
deathers, and the like attacking the public schools, classroom teachers
need tenure more than ever.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:16:40 -0600, SteveB wrote:


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

LOL, I haven't heard such a great argument *for* tenure in years. Tenure
allows teachers to teach, without having to deal with BS like yours.

I'm sorry, but we are talking about two different things. I am talking
about teachers. You are talking about slugs who feed at the public trough.

My, my, my. The concept of having my children taught by a teacher who
doesn't have to deal with the BS of parents. Hmmmmmmmm. Wait, wait, I know
the answer to this.

Steve

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...
Imagine how much greatness can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who
gets the credit.


Exactly right....

Imagine...

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one



--
Nom=de=Plume

When Bush 41 spoke to kids, Dims howled
 

On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:30:04 -0600, SteveB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 11:16:40 -0600, SteveB wrote:


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

LOL, I haven't heard such a great argument *for* tenure in years.
Tenure allows teachers to teach, without having to deal with BS like
yours.

I'm sorry, but we are talking about two different things. I am talking
about teachers. You are talking about slugs who feed at the public
trough.

My, my, my. The concept of having my children taught by a teacher who
doesn't have to deal with the BS of parents. Hmmmmmmmm. Wait, wait, I
know the answer to this.

Ah, yes, teaching by committee. Outstanding. GB Halsted is just one
reason tenure for teachers was spread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._B._Halsted