[excerpts from Barack "Marx" Obama's diabolical manifesto TO OUR NATION'S CHILDREN!!!]
Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.
I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.
I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.
I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.
Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.
======
I must say, this paranoia trip by some of our dear friends on the enraged right has been a bit of good fun for me. TONS funnier than Two and a Half Men... [a TV "comedy," in case you haven't had the good fortune].
AAAAH! Responsibility! Hard Work! High Standards! AAAHHH! The fiend!!
39 comments:
You’re quoting a revised speech and comparing it the criticism of the original speech. I’m sure that was no accident.
Obama had to take out the "how can I help my President" part. Would you like it if Bush had announced a surprise speech to school kids asking them to help him? Not the country, not the community, but him.
The timing is really weird too, since it came right after all the town hall protests and the creepy Obama Pledge that was circulating around some schools. (That pledge by the way is totally proof that most liberals can be brainwashed, not all of them but most of them)
Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all addressed school kids. What made it different was they announced it months ahead of time and tied it to clearly defined subjects like "Presidential Fitness Program" or "Just Say No"
Did Obama not realize school was starting? Could he have planned this speech like all the Presidents before him did?
If this guy is so smart, he should have known a surprise speech to the kids while his flagship “healthcare” program is biting the dust would raise suspicion.
One more thing, Washington post article:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/l5zqje
Dems (politicians, not regular citizens like in your example) criticized Bush for the same thing.
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.'"
I guess that’s just one more double standard. . .
Oh? This isn't the original speech, Edwin? Well please, show me the original speech and, if it was an indoctrinating or partisan kind of speech, I'll join you in your criticism.
Rather, I suspect that you have no idea what his "original speech" was (if it was different than this). But, if you have the original speech, by all means, share it.
I will always stand against presidents using children for political reasons and I am generally okay with presidents giving "Work hard" type speeches to children.
So, what evidence do you have?
If you don't have anything, will you be honorable and apologize? Or is this just a chance for you to take partisan swipes at a president because he is of the wrong party?
Ah, is Eddie back providing his unsubstantiated claims again?
We're still waiting for the evidence of the previous unsubstantiated claims you made here last time you showed up, Eddie.
Actually anyone who can read can see from the article that what was "revised" were the lesson plans, not the speech. So no, there is no evidence that the speech was revised because there is no text of the "original" speech. Nice try, Eddie, but when we ask for evidence you should provide some. Please show us the original text of the speech. A link would do just fine.
"Would you like it if Bush had announced a surprise speech to school kids asking them to help him? Not the country, not the community, but him."
Note, BTW, the GHWB made the same request when he talked to school children during his presidency, that they write him letters telling how they could help. I'm not aware that GWB made such a speech, but if he had, I would have had no problem with it. Also note that Laura Bush has stated she supports Obama's speech.
Surprise speech? Um, this was known weeks ago, as is evidence of the typical wingnut ranting about it for the last several days.
"If you don't have anything, will you be honorable and apologize? Or is this just a chance for you to take partisan swipes at a president because he is of the wrong party?"
Don't expect any evidence from Eddie, Dan. We've asked him again and again to provide evidence for his baseless assertions, which is when he skulks off because he can't provide any.
But please, Eddie, show that I'm wrong. Please show us the "original" text of the speech. Simple. Just provide the evidence ... for once.
From the article linked to above:
"As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president."
"Today, ... the Department of Education changed the section to now read, "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals." [emphasis mine]
That they changed the materials, not the speech, is obvious to anyone who can read.
Notice too the number of times that the linked article notes that there is no evidence to support the various wingnut charges made about this speech. If anyone had read the article before linking to it, they'd have noticed it makes their argument look foolish, at the very least.
The paranoid conspiracy theorists should put their tinfoil hats back on, go back down to their Mother's basement and cool off for a while.
Alan you're an idiot. I said in comment #1
Obama had to take out the "how can I help my President" part
Dan wanted proof so I posted a link to an article titled:
"WH, Dept of Education Revise Language on Students Outlining How they Can 'Help the President' "
The Speech was announced on Sept. 2nd.
Sept 8 - Sept 2 = 6 days.
Maybe in Alan's "short attention span" world 6 days can be like "weeks"
So to sum it up again:
1) Dem’s Healthcare plan sucks, makes allot of people really angry
2) Obama’s approval ratings drop
3) Libs start taking Pledge to Obama. Pledge is shown in some schools
4) Surprise school speech (6 days notice). Assignment: “How Can I help Obama”
Nothing to see here!!! Everything is O K
Actually, Ed, if you'll read what I wrote, I did not ask for "proof," I asked for the evidence from the "earlier speech." You referenced a "revised speech" and an "original speech."
I'm giving you an opportunity to show that you're neither a liar or a fool. Just provide the "original speech."
If not, apologize and admit you don't know what in the hell you're talking about. Failing that, just go away. I have too little time these days for liars or deliberate fools.
Easy enough to provide a link to the "original" speech, Eddie.
Again, I know reading isn't your strong suit, but perhaps repetition will help: they modified (didn't take out) some stuff in the lesson plans, not the speech.
You wrote, "You’re quoting a revised speech and comparing it the criticism of the original speech. I’m sure that was no accident. "
Feel free to call me an idiot (I'll give your opinion all the consideration it deserves.) Yet your attempt at deflection doesn't change the fact that it is you who is one who appears to have knowledge about the original speech. Apparently even reading your own writing is too difficult for you?
Put up or shut up.
The controversy with Obama’s speech was the assignment that would have been part of the speech. Apparently you’re not well versed on the issue at hand and did not know that. So forgive me if I use the terms interchangeably.
Aaaannnd... THAT's what we're laughing at.
Y'all have made yourselves an irrelevancy of unsupported and non-existent claims and false charges. We used to get a bit angry at you, but now, we're just laughing, except for those few times that some from your camp snap and bring violence into the equation.
Fortunately for us all, the Angry, Irrational and Irrelevant conservative is a minor subset to mainstream America, including conservatism and the Angry and Violent conservative is an even tinier subset of the AII conservatives.
Still, I would like to hear the rational conservatives and honestly compassionate conservatives speaking up a bit more clearly and loudly these days, especially against the AII and AV conservatives.
And you'll forgive us, I hope, Drood, when we expect that when you say "Original speech," that you actually meant what you said.
Nice try, you had no idea about the assignment or the change in language. You just got in step with all the other mindless liberal bloggers.
"Nice try, you had no idea about the assignment or the change in language. You just got in step with all the other mindless liberal bloggers."
Actually I did. You however, didn't know anything about the difference between the speech and the accompanying materials.
So what you're saying is that once again you do not, in fact, have any evidence to support your assertions. What a surprise. Good to know that on that, at least, you are consistent.
And we still haven't heard from you and your overlords what, precisely, was objectionable about this speech. Was it telling students to stay in school? Was it telling students not to blame others for their performance, but instead to rely on themselves?
Or is what was objectionable just that Obama made a speech, and you and your party of NO! can't bear it?
Frankly, I think that if even one kid listens and takes such a speech to heart, whether from this president or any other, it's well-worth it.
Personally, I suspect the real reason for the witless demagoguery of the fanatical right is that this speech is about education, and their rants are just sour grapes. Most real, rational conservatives have had no problem with the speech whatsoever.
"you had no idea about the assignment or the change in language."
BTW, notice yet another unsupported assertion from Eddie.
Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, Eddie, yet you can't even manage once?
Give it up Alan, like Dan you had no idea what was going on. You drew an opinion based on your loyalty to Obama and not the details at hand.
I guess you're ready for the Obama Pledge
Now that the "historic" speech is over, can anyone explaine why he could only give 6 days notice?
ha ha ha...
And yes, Alan, I did see Michael's cartoon. Funny guys, these commie-baiters. Irrelevant, but funny.
Actually Eddie, I took a look at the DOE site several days ago, because as a former HS teacher I was interested in looking at the lesson plans.
http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/academic/bts.html
Again, care to prove your unfounded assertions that I didn't know anything about this?
Go ahead, Eddie. Prove it. Put up or shut up.
The most you can invent to grouse about is giving "only" 6 days notice? LOL I used to teach, and I can tell you that most teachers are clever enough to think on their feet given situations with *no* notice. 6 days is more than enough notice for a ~ 15minute speech. But I'm sure that if he'd announced this 20 years ago, you'd simply find something else equally stupid to complain about because your overlords told you to.
Still waiting for your evidence, Eddie.
pssssst... What Eddie doesn't know is that his "Obama Pledge" ranting is about something that was produced by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, not the White House.
Now if he wants to have a serious argument about some YouTube video made by two Hollywood actors, he's welcome to do so. But most of us know the difference between actors and elected politicians. Don't ruin it for him though, he still thinks Harrison Ford used to be President.
And, for those keeping scores, that's...
1 speech encouraging our kids to work hard and study and listen to their parents,
1 false charge by Edwin (who referenced an "original speech" that does not exist)
1 attempt at slander and/or blaming innocent bystanders by Edwin who suggested WE were wrong for not understanding that when Edwin SAID "speech" he actually meant "something ELSE besides the speech..."
1 bit of paranoia ("timing is really weird...")
And Zero substance from Edwin, but factually accurate statements by Alan and Dan (well, Alan missed the "weeks" advance notice of the speech rather than "six days," but otherwise...), if you're one of those crazy liberals who are concerned with "facts" and "words."
For any visitors who think Alan and I may have been too harsh on Edwin, I'd note that he has a history of drive by lying and sniping. Of coming to this blog, uttering false charges and misleading statements (as he's done here today) and then leaving, with no contrition for his silly, sad ways.
Shame on him. But he does make for some chuckles, as long as you realize he's not a serious adult citizen. And silly pseudo-conservatives are what this post was all about, after all. So, thanks, Edwin for filling the role so aptly.
Once the DOE materials were changed, I didn't think that the speech was a big deal. I think that it's a waste of time, but nothing to throw a fit over.
Ummm, I never said the pledge came from the Whitehouse. I only mentioned that it came out was being shown in some schools at the same time Obama sprung a surprise speech announcement. Part of that speech was an assignment for the kids to list how they can help Obama.
As I stated before the source of the controversy was the fact the Whitehouse would not give any specific subject matter regarding the speech. Once they released revised speech the opposition went away.
Alan quit trying to rewrite the last day to like you knew what you were talking about. Its pathetic and you show yourself to be a typical brain dead liberal. (like Demi and Ashton)
Coming from a brain dead conservative, how shall we take this, Ed?
You began with a falsehood and charged full forward with many false allegations and half truths. You conclude with name-calling.
In between, you have added nothing of weight or relevance.
If you have nothing relevant and/or factual to say, just go away.
And thanks, John. I'm not sure it's a waste of time - there's an awful lot of American school children for whom Obama is a compelling role model and an inspiration. For such a president to take time to talk to them can be quite inspiring and that's a good thing.
"Part of that speech was an assignment for the kids to list how they can help Obama. "
Actually it wasn't part of the speech. It was part of an additional assignment/lesson plan materials put out by the DOE.
Poor Eddie, still trying to blather on, while hoping no one notices your embarrassment over making yet more unsubstantiated claims? One would think that eventually, even you would learn.
Just show us the evidence for your claims.
Or perhaps you could blather on about something that we actually care about, like say ... the actual content of the actual speech that was actually given (vs. whatever the voices in your head are telling you today.)
Once again, so simple even you should be able to understand:
Put up or shut up.
"Once they released revised speech the opposition went away."
If only that were true.
In the immortal words of those great philosophers of our time, Motley Crue: "Girl don't go away mad. Girl, just go away." lol
"AAAAH! Responsibility! Hard Work! High Standards! AAAHHH! The fiend!! "
This is hilarious.
Responsibility :
Apparently it’s only liberals who can't provide health insurance for themselves and family. They’re the only ones who want free health care. God forbid everyone be responsible for their own health and well-being.
Hard Work :
I thought people became liberals so they could avoid hard work. Why else would so many unions support liberals? Why is it only liberals sit around and complain about “no jobs”
High Standards :
I wasn't aware Liberals had any standards. Look at Obama, he was a do nothing congressman and a community organizer from a part of Chicago that to this day is still a slum.
Okay, now you're talking on topic, a little bit. Let's deal with each of your charges...
it’s only liberals who can't provide health insurance for themselves and family. They’re the only ones who want free health care.
"Free health care?" I pay taxes. I also pay for my own health insurance. Who's asking for free health care?
What we're talking about when we say "responsible," is being societally responsible for tough situations. Millions uninsured already costs us. What we're looking at is the most responsible and humane way to deal with these already existing expenses.
First charge? Nothing to it, so far as I can see.
So, feel free to not repeat such a misstatement any further, Edwin. Otherwise, people may just think you're someone who twists truths for partisan political reasons or, worse, because you don't want to responsibly face our common expenses as a society.
Are you irresponsible that way, Ed?
Charge 2:
I thought people became liberals so they could avoid hard work. Why else would so many unions support liberals? Why is it only liberals sit around and complain about “no jobs”
? Based on what? You perceive me to be a liberal and yet I am generally a pretty hard worker. I do not avoid hard work (although I may sometimes strive to work smarter rather than harder, which is only reasonable).
I expect this is a false statement. Do you have any evidence that liberals don't like hard work? Or is mere flatulence on your part (ie, more false charges based on nothing)?
I'm not even sure what you mean, "only liberals sit around and complain about 'no jobs'"? Many people are concerned about the lack of jobs, left and right and in between. And with so many unemployed, it seems to be a wise thing to be concerned about.
How is being concerned about high unemployment indicate a lack of hard work? Seems to me that those who have NO concern about high unemployment may be slacking off. I mean, once again, we have some societal problems. Problems that cost us all. The shirker says, "it ain't my business," and does nothing.
That seems to indicate an inclination to laziness to me.
Are you lazy, Ed?
Charge 2, dismissed for lack of evidence.
Charge 3:
I wasn't aware Liberals had any standards. Look at Obama, he was a do nothing congressman and a community organizer from a part of Chicago that to this day is still a slum.
1. Most of us, left and right and in-between, have standards. Ideals. Goals. So-called liberals are no exception. Do you have any evidence or is this another false charge? (and if these are all merely false charges, does that indicate you have no or extremely low standards?)
2. Your example you cite is Obama, who worked, by your own testimony, in some of the most difficult, hard-core cases, poverty-ridden areas of our nation. Lazy? Not holding high standards? Why would he work in such a hard area if he wasn't a hard worker and have standards by which he lives? And what are those standards? Seeking justice? Doing for and with the "least of these"? Who ELSE had these standards?
3. Do you lack these same standards, that I, Obama, and Jesus all share, Ed?
4. "To this day, still a slum..." Obama went in and tried to make a difference. I don't know how effective he was. I have not seen any measurements of his faithfulness or the results of the programs with which he was involved. Do you have any measurements of his success/failure?
5. What have you done to help stop poverty in inner city Chicago? Or even in your own town? Is the fact that there is still poverty where you live an indication that you have no standards and are lazy? Are you measuring yourself by the same rule you are using to measure Obama?
Charge 3: Dismissed. Nothing to it, lacking even ONE bit of evidence to support Ed's false charges.
Edwin, I'll tell you what... You often come here and make these unsupported and unsupportable charges. It's sort of humorous how you keep doing so and it does a good job of showing the emptiness of your positions, but at some point, it gets monotonous.
How about this: I would love for you to make any comments here on the topic AS LONG AS you have evidence to support any charges you make. Otherwise, I'm leaning towards just deleting them as you've already thoroughly demonstrated the emptiness and empty-headedness of your arguments and we need no further evidence for that.
In other words, support your charges or I may delete your comments to spare you further embarrassment.
"Why is it only liberals sit around and complain about “no jobs”
I think this statement says more about Eddie and his so called values than anything else he's written. How nice it must be for him to so cavalierly dismiss the unemployment rate. People who have worked all their lives laid off through no fault of their own, just unfortunate enough to work in an industry that hasn't kept up with the times.
We shouldn't be concerned with the unemployment rate. We shouldn't care about working to make sure there are jobs available for anyone who wants to work.
Eddie's response to every unemployed worker in America: Screw You.
Classy.
Ok Dan, since you’re going to internalize this and get your feelings all hurt then I won’t post here no more. I also apologize for calling people names. It was wrong for me to compare Demi and Ashton Kutcher to your gay alter ego Alan. So if you see them, please pass on my apology.
I now know that the Liberal’s have a strong sense of personal responsibility and a work ethic that is unmatched by . . .Ahhh Ha Ha ha . . . sorry I tried.
Feelings hurt? Says who? I enjoy the hell out of you, Ed, you're funny and you help make our case. It's just that it also gets old, you know, like hearing the same joke over and over. It was funny the first 100 times you made unsupported allegations and false charges.
Now you're just getting boring.
I've given you plenty of chances to post here. Answer me some questions, Edwin (it's a chance to put another comment here):
What have YOU done to help the poor in Chicago?
What have YOU done to help the poor where you live?
Are there still poor where you live?
Or is it the case that you haven't really done anything ("well, I DID give that homeless guy a dime, once, but I'm pretty sure he went out and bought booze with it..." - that doesn't really count)?
Is that an indication that you are a fraud? That you have no standards? That you have no sense of a work ethic?
Here's your big chance, Edwin. Take part in an adult conversation, answer some good questions, support your case.
But no, no feelings are hurt here, Edwin. We'd have to take you seriously in the first place to much care what you say. You've given us very little to take seriously, so I just assumed you were a clown. Albeit a rather nasty, mean-spirited clown.
Dan wrote, "If you have nothing relevant and/or factual to say, just go away."
Eddie wrote, "I won't post here no more"
Well, I guess we got our answer. LOL
I guess so. If we want, you know, "facts," and "supported arguments," and crazy crap like that, he'll take his demagogue and go home he ain't gonna post here no more...
This entire exchange, which I missed because I was on vacation and my access to computer time was limited, is hysterical precisely because of the way Edwin manages to demonstrate by example the way conservatives argue. First he talks about a "speech" for which no evidence exists. When called on it, he changes it to "lesson plan", and insists that is what he was talking about all along. It might have been nice if he had at least admitted he was wrong, but that was probably too much to ask.
The whole nonsense over President Obama's speech is a fine example of how really stupid people have hijacked far too much of our public discourse. I see no reason other than conservative spittle-flaked carrying on why the White House decided to change this one little bit. What in the world is wrong with the President inviting students to write him? Good Lord, I think that's an awesome thing to do! It offers the opportunity for school-age children to feel like they are participating in our society!
Idiots like Edwin are a clear and present danger to the health of our polity. They read something somewhere, and repeat it so often it becomes real. Then, they show up at other websites (he's commented at mine a few times) and carry on about how dangerous we liberals are, how we lie, on and on and on. You are right, Dan, the whole thing is just old. Old and tired.
My school district, Pasadena ISD, refused to show Obama's speech. They sent a letter to parents stating in part they would not show the speech "due to the concern expressed by our community, teachers and other staff, we will not present the live address to students in Pasadena ISD. Instead, our Technology Department will record the address, giving our instructional leaders the opportunity to preview the president’s comments and decide if the speech is appropriate for our students."
Preview and decide if it is appropriate.
When my daughter was in 2nd grade this same school district had no such concerns about showing the Challenger explode into a million bits..live and in replay. No thought whatsoever was given to how this might affect those young students. Nor was I sent a "letter to parents" informing me of this.
One of the deaf kids I taught in Sunday School lived next door to one of the astronauts who was on the Challenger. He was shown the explosion in his classroom also...Goose Creek School District. He went into a hysterical frenzy and received counseling for several months following.
This whole situation with Obama is outrageous and makes me sick.
Good point, Marty. Let's not forget the pornographic replays of the events of 9/11 - the planes hitting the tower from every imaginable angle, the towers falling, the people running, their expressions of terror and disbelief as they watched them fall, the close-ups of people jumping to their deaths. These were beamed in to classrooms all over America that day.
"Pornographic", Geoffrey? How is that term applicable to 9/11 coverage?
Post a Comment