T1B

Mikey wrote:Gee you're right. The President of the United States isn't supposed to talk to kids.

My bad.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:Gee you're right. The President of the United States isn't supposed to talk to kids.

My bad.

The "two wrongs make a right" defense... is that all you've got?

Nope, not seeing where it says the POTUS is supposed to be brainwashing kids.

But MOST people seem to hate the Constitution these days.

Mikey wrote: Brainwashing?

The Constitution doesn't say that the President should give news conferences or visit disaster sites either. So I guess those two and a lot of other things Presidents do are out of the question as well.

Mikey wrote:Strawman much?

Followed By wrote:The Constitution doesn't say that the President should give news conferences or visit disaster sites either. So I guess those two and a lot of other things Presidents do are out of the question as well.

mvscal wrote:

trev wrote:Felix, why do you say we hate Obama?

I do.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:a brief speach by the Prez on the importance of education

Q, West Coast Style wrote:

mvscal wrote:

trev wrote:Felix, why do you say we hate Obama?

I do.

To be fair, you hate everybody.

Dinsdale wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:a brief speach by the Prez on the importance of education

Totally awesome.


Maybe he should start with the adults.

Q, West Coast Style wrote:
BTW, Kitzhaber's gonna be gov again, how's that taste?

Toddowen wrote:One awful thing that can't be denied by the Obama supporters is that for a student to defy this massive planned indoctrination will ultimately lead to lower grade scores for that particular student.

Toddowen wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:

Toddowen wrote:One awful thing that can't be denied by the Obama supporters is that for a student to defy this massive planned indoctrination will ultimately lead to lower grade scores for that particular student.

One thing that can't be denied is "what the fuck are you talking about"

You're trying to get into Princeton. Standing in your way is a History teacher who's upset that you roll your eyes any time Obama is the topic of discussion.

Apart from this, you're an expemplary student in history. But the liberal teacher {and too many of them are} feels that you don't have the necessary tools for advancement to an Ivy league college based soley on your politcal leanings. So they torpedo you.

I'll bet it'll happpens under Obama's watch much more than it would under Bush's.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Just wondering where all the hand-wringers in here were when Ronald Reagan was addressing the nation's schoolkids -- on the merits of tax cuts and a line-item veto. Talk about indoctrination.

poptart wrote:

Why do you want to "look good" for the rest of the world?

Felix wrote:

poptart wrote:

Why do you want to "look good" for the rest of the world?

so you admit that as a nation we look like fucking goofballs and you prefer it that way?

gotcha

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT
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.

Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

With the Post article in hand, Democrats pounced. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began. "As the chairman of the committee charged with the authorization and implementation of education programs, I am very much interested in the justification, rationale for giving the White House scarce education funds to produce a media event."

Unfortunately for Ford, the General Accounting Office concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly. "The speech itself and the use of the department's funds to support it, including the cost of the production contract, appear to be legal," the GAO wrote in a letter to Chairman Ford. "The speech also does not appear to have violated the restrictions on the use of appropriations for publicity and propaganda."

That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters."

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable. "Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart," the president told students. "If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now, when they're stuck in a dead end job. Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

JMak wrote:
The point, of course, is that it is unwise to subjugate national interests and foreign policy to perceived international popularity.

People like you, though, would rather have the endorsement of Chavez, Castro, and Kim Il than do the right thing and condemn Iranian thuggishness or hold the Palestinians responsbile for not having the capacity to properly govern themselves.

Cuda wrote:
I can't wait for Pelosi to schedule the inevitable hearings on Obama's speech. This oughta be good!

Felix wrote:of course I'm talking about idiots carrying guns to Obama rallies, right wing nutbags screaming down people at townhall meetings, etc. etc. my comment has nothing to do with anyone subjugating themselves to anyone....read between the lines much?

once again an "attack the messenger" reply, just like fucking clockwork....

the Republican's are the ones that should intitiate this investigation....leave no stone unturned in their quest to.....uh, I don't know, you tell me

JMak wrote: First, I know you're kind. Appearances are more important than action.

Second, why do you call people that legally carry firearms "idiots"? I would have thought you'd call those who carry guns illegally and kill people with them "idiots," but you've surprised me. Maybe I don't know you so well.

Third, I seem to recall both sides screaming each other down. Absurd behavior, sure. But hardly different than the idjits in Europe that riot when the G-* summit comes to town and nothing at all like what goes down in the Middle East or Africa. So, fool, are you really going to argue that two people having a shouting match about actual policy disagreements is somehow more absurd/ridiculous that rioting and rampaging Euros, ragheads, and Africans?

Yes, I am attacking you. I have also attacked your nonsensical comments. Your problem is...

Leave no stone unturned? How you serious? Did you black out during the last four years of the Bush administration? Were you in a coma when Obama decided he would authorize a new investigation into abusive interrogations?

Felix wrote:[, it was Eric Holder that initiated the investigation, not Obama...

JMak wrote:

Felix wrote:of course I'm talking about idiots carrying guns to Obama rallies, right wing nutbags screaming down people at townhall meetings, etc. etc. my comment has nothing to do with anyone subjugating themselves to anyone....read between the lines much?

But hardly different than the idjits in Europe that riot when the G-* summit comes to town and nothing at all like what goes down in the Middle East or Africa.

once again an "attack the messenger" reply, just like fucking clockwork....

Yes, I am attacking you. I have also attacked your .... Your problem is...

Felix wrote:

poptart wrote:

Why do you want to "look good" for the rest of the world?

so you admit that as a nation we look like fucking goofballs and you prefer it that way?

gotcha

Cuda wrote:
Oh, riiiiight, Eric Holder is a loose cannon.

poptart wrote:Two points, Felix.

1. The rest of the world is more fucked up than America is.

2. If "we Americans" look like goofballs because parents balked at this Obama paln, then Obama simply needs to look in the mirror to see the culprit.

BEFORE parent outrage, Obama (The White House) recommended that teachers nationwide have students write papers on ... how to help the president.


Obama (The White House) also recommended teachers have students listen to the speech and then engage in discussion about ... what the president wants us to do.

Parents were correct in balking at this.

It gave the APPEARANCE (at least) that Obama was trying to bypass parents and get the kiddos to sort of ... rally behind him -- to help him.

And also, at that point the parents didn't know what the content of the speech was going to be.

It's gonna get very ugly for this piece of shit in the oval office.

Total humiliation is his future.

poptart wrote:B.O. is a piece of shit.

Just curious, Felix.
What do you think about Van Jones?

Didn't Obama have some elaborate questionaire and background check for people that were going to work in his administration?

Remember that?

How did this Van Jones loser get clearance?

poptart wrote:
It's gonna get very ugly for this piece of shit in the oval office.

Total humiliation is his future.

Mikey wrote: You've still got about 3 1/2 months for the economy to completey implode, or you'll be proven to be completely full of shit.

Not that anybody with any brains at all couldn't already tell that.

Felix wrote:

Mikey wrote: You've still got about 3 1/2 months for the economy to completey implode, or you'll be proven to be completely full of shit.

Not that anybody with any brains at all couldn't already tell that.

dude, he's rooting for the United States economy to fail, so that in his mind it will vindicate him for calling the POTUS a "piece of shit"....I'm sure he supports Glen Beck and his insistence that "something needs to be done to rescue us from TYRANNY"....don't you get that yet

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:I was never out there hoping for him and by extension our country to fail just to show that I was right.

You are a lying sack of shit.

mvscal wrote:Not everybody is as fucking stupid as you are and clearly remember libtards like YOU motherfucking Bush every step of the way on every issue. If you weren't out there personally, you were certainly cheerleading.

Go fuck yourself, you lying bitch.

mvscal wrote: He is a piece of shit, you stupid fuck.