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...

--
Wafa free since 2009

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

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.

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?