Just curious how long you and the other grazies are going to keep spouting that talking point while ignoring the challenges to prove it. Yes, the lesson plan was changed, to wording that was more clear and less easily perverted into something sinister. Kindly prove the original was teh evil indoctrination agenda you pretend it was.Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Again, you miss the point. The president is pushing a political agenda (as witnesed by the lesson plan prior to it's revision) onto the kids. You might think the content of the speech was not changed as a result of the hubbub, but I believe differently. Neither one of us has any evidence regarding the speech prior to the delivered version. Either way, I don't like political messages being sent to a captive and impressionable audience. I don't have any problem with the speech as it was delivered in the end, but that was clearly not the intent when you see the "lesson plan" and materials that originally were created.Originally posted by: dainthomas
This sums up the topic perfectly. If you think the President of the United States is out to "get" your kid, you really need to consider upping your meds.Originally posted by: jonks
There's something seriously wrong when a parent or a politician "fears" a child hearing the president.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
There's something seriously wrong when a parent or a politician "fears" a child hearing the president.
This sums up the topic perfectly. If you think the President of the United States is out to "get" your kid, you really need to consider upping your meds.
Again, you miss the point. The president is pushing a political agenda (as witnesed by the lesson plan prior to it's revision) onto the kids. You might think the content of the speech was not changed as a result of the hubbub, but I believe differently. Neither one of us has any evidence regarding the speech prior to the delivered version. Either way, I don't like political messages being sent to a captive and impressionable audience. I don't have any problem with the speech as it was delivered in the end, but that was clearly not the intent when you see the "lesson plan" and materials that originally were created.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
There's something seriously wrong when a parent or a politician "fears" a child hearing the president.
This sums up the topic perfectly. If you think the President of the United States is out to "get" your kid, you really need to consider upping your meds.
Again, you miss the point. The president is pushing a political agenda (as witnesed by the lesson plan prior to it's revision) onto the kids. You might think the content of the speech was not changed as a result of the hubbub, but I believe differently. Neither one of us has any evidence regarding the speech prior to the delivered version. Either way, I don't like political messages being sent to a captive and impressionable audience. I don't have any problem with the speech as it was delivered in the end, but that was clearly not the intent when you see the "lesson plan" and materials that originally were created.
Kids Didn't Hear Obama, But Will be Bussed for Bush
By Stacy Morrow
updated 3:46 p.m. ET, Wed., Sept . 9, 2009
The Arlington Independent School District, which passed on airing President Barack Obama's live classroom address, has announced that some students will be bussed off campus to hear a message from former President George W. Bush on Sept. 21.
District officials said it's part of a Cowboys Stadium field trip that the North Texas Super Bowl Host Committee invited 28 fifth-grade classes to attend several months ago.
In addition to hearing from Bush and former first lady Laura Bush, the students will hear from legendary Dallas Cowboys players and North Texas business and community leaders. The event launches the Super Bowl committee's largest-ever youth education program.
Students must have their parents' permission to attend, school officials said.
Dwight McKissic Sr., the senior pastor of Arlington's Cornerstone Baptist Church, said he's concerned about the district's decision to not broadcast Obama's message while transporting students to hear a message from Bush.
"I do not understand the duplicity in this situation," McKissic said in a news release from the church. "I believe the students and the public deserve and need to have these differences explained."
Obama told students to stay in school, work hard and set goals in an 18-minute speech delivered Tuesday morning from Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.
The Arlington school district, like many in North Texas, decided not to broadcast the president's speech live after some parents expressed concern about its content.
The district said the recorded speech would be made available through its Web site.
The school district allowed students with permission slips from parents an excused absence to watch Obama's speech at an off-site location.
Cornerstone Baptist Church was among the facilities that broadcast Obama's address for students and parents who wanted to watch the speech live.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32747095/from/ET/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Bowfinger, you're not going to get the crazies to apologize. What we did get is them falling all over themselves to talk about how good the speech was a few days after calling it 'socialist indoctrination', and for me that's enough. They realized they had stepped in shit.
So...being apprehensive prior to seeing the speech, then realizing it was a good speech is "stepping in shit"? If you were open enough to read into what the right had problems with, it was mostly the Dept of Educations involvement, not the speech itself.
There is a large, grand canyon sized chasm between being 'apprehensive' prior to the speech, and ranting and foaming about how our children are being indoctrinated with socialism. Nothing wrong with the first option, significant insanity with the second.
Fair enough,and agree; however, the foaming did not originate within the GOP party itself.
Well whether or not it originated within the GOP, high ranking officials in it either created or repeated the crazy. (the head of the Florida GOP was the guy who sent out the message about 'socialist indoctrination')
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
I've yet to see any evidence that the speech was changed or that it was originally political in nature.
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
I've yet to see any evidence that the speech was changed or that it was originally political in nature.
Obama's own people called the lesson material a "wrongheaded" thing to do.
In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama?s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.
President Obama will talk to students from Pre K thru 12th grade about personal responsibility and the importance of staying in school, White House aides said.
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, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and 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.?
?We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear,? said White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor.
The idea, Vietor said, was that students should think of how they could help the President in terms of reducing the national dropout rate.
It's not my "answer," it's just the way it is. The crazies on both sides are constantly striving to outdo their opposition. Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan? The right has a long way to go before they better that lunacy.Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is no different than the wingnuts on the left screaming about Bush and fascism for years and all their paranoid, contrived crap about invasions of Iran and October surprises.
The nuts on both sides are ridiculously stupid, always have been, and always will be.
So your answer to crazy is to be crazier? :laugh:
That and last year when Bush signed the remember 9/11 I do not remember the "left" screaming. Yet Obama does the SAME thing and yet its all over the right wing blogs and many post here.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not my "answer," it's just the way it is. The crazies on both sides are constantly striving to outdo their opposition. Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan? The right has a long way to go before they better that lunacy.Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is no different than the wingnuts on the left screaming about Bush and fascism for years and all their paranoid, contrived crap about invasions of Iran and October surprises.
The nuts on both sides are ridiculously stupid, always have been, and always will be.
So your answer to crazy is to be crazier? :laugh:
That and last year when Bush signed the remember 9/11 I do not remember the "left" screaming. Yet Obama does the SAME thing and yet its all over the right wing blogs and many post here.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: jonks
There's something seriously wrong when a parent or a politician "fears" a child hearing the president.
This sums up the topic perfectly. If you think the President of the United States is out to "get" your kid, you really need to consider upping your meds.
Again, you miss the point. The president is pushing a political agenda (as witnesed by the lesson plan prior to it's revision) onto the kids. You might think the content of the speech was not changed as a result of the hubbub, but I believe differently. Neither one of us has any evidence regarding the speech prior to the delivered version. Either way, I don't like political messages being sent to a captive and impressionable audience. I don't have any problem with the speech as it was delivered in the end, but that was clearly not the intent when you see the "lesson plan" and materials that originally were created.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No.Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
Yes.
That's one way to spin it. Sort of true on the surface, though spun way out of context,And the WH has apologized then they changed it.
But of course that's not where this controversy started, nor does it have anything to do with the DOE or Obama administration. It was one school taking a promotional video and choosing to air it at a school assembly. It wasn't part of any activity promoted by the WH or the DOE. It wasn't even something promoted by the state's DOE. It was one school making a questionable choice, and it's the latest in the face-saving diversions by the right.This is what started it
On Sept 2 this 4 minute commercial was shown to some school kids. The commercial has political content and ends with pledging to serve Obama, and pledging to be Obama's servant
What about those who are saying prove the original lesson plan was overtly political as so many of you keep pretending? Based on the little I've seen, the main problem with the original plan is its wording was ambiguous enough to give the crazies something to pervert. For anyone with any familiarity with lesson plans, it was actually pretty standard, non-political fare, laden with all the usual education buzzwords and concepts that tend to make lay people look at them like they've lost their senses. (Which they may well have, but that's a separate issue entirely.) By they way, they're the same sorts of concepts and buzzwords one sees in your average Fortune 500 HR and Training departments.Those who keep repeating "but prove the speech itself was changed" atre engaging in a weak diversion. In popular vernacular, the 'speech' is entire event including the lesson plan and Obama's words.
Really? How do they not mesh? Be specific. This looks to me like another one of the vague, unsupportable allegations used to muddy the waters and let the crazies keep insisting they were right all along. I think it's time for them to man up and say, "Yeah. We overreacted. Sorry."BTW: The earlier version of the lesson plan doesn't mesh with the speech actually given. It may have been changed, why don't some of you it wasn't?
Fern
Originally posted by: lupi
and yet after how many announced changes (and who knows how many untold) occurred before the broadcast.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
Granting a super-sized benefit of the doubt to protesters, Obama's speech originally included classroom instructional materials from the Education Department that asked students to express how they were inspired by the president and how they might help him.
Too political, critics said. Indoctrination, charged Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer.
Originally posted by: lupi
and yet after how many announced changes (and who knows how many untold) occurred before the broadcast.
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The issue was not with the president talking to the children, it's with the content of the speech / materials distributed with the speech: it was a creepy political "lets get the kids on board with the socialist agenda" kind of activity. After it got outed, it was changed into what it was supposed to be: just a talk with a generally positive message for the kids.
Boy, you're rather misinformed. Perhaps this excerpt from Kathleen Parker's op-ed piece in Wednesday's Washington Post will help:
Text
Granting a super-sized benefit of the doubt to protesters, Obama's speech originally included classroom instructional materials from the Education Department that asked students to express how they were inspired by the president and how they might help him.
Too political, critics said. Indoctrination, charged Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer.
So that material was removed. The students weren't asked "How were you inspired."
So much for a "creepy socialist agenda."
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wait, can you point out where I said students were asked "how were you inspired"? I said the message (through speech and through the accompanying lesson materials) was a creepy political agenda prior to it being changed. I stand by that. The hubbub forced the changes.
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wait, can you point out where I said students were asked "how were you inspired"? I said the message (through speech and through the accompanying lesson materials) was a creepy political agenda prior to it being changed. I stand by that. The hubbub forced the changes.
Yep, don't let mountains of facts get in the way of your agenda. They changed one or two lines from a pre-released version of an optional lesson plan to pacify the birther-type crackpots. That's it.
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wait, can you point out where I said students were asked "how were you inspired"? I said the message (through speech and through the accompanying lesson materials) was a creepy political agenda prior to it being changed. I stand by that. The hubbub forced the changes.
Yep, don't let mountains of facts get in the way of your agenda. They changed one or two lines from a pre-released version of an optional lesson plan to pacify the birther-type crackpots. That's it.
Mountains of facts? Such as what?? The facts are this: the lesson plan was (at the very least) "not appropriate" and was modified after the hubbub. The actual speech may or may not have been modified. What other "mountains of facts" are there?
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wait, can you point out where I said students were asked "how were you inspired"? I said the message (through speech and through the accompanying lesson materials) was a creepy political agenda prior to it being changed. I stand by that. The hubbub forced the changes.
Yep, don't let mountains of facts get in the way of your agenda. They changed one or two lines from a pre-released version of an optional lesson plan to pacify the birther-type crackpots. That's it.
Mountains of facts? Such as what?? The facts are this: the lesson plan was (at the very least) "not appropriate" and was modified after the hubbub. The actual speech may or may not have been modified. What other "mountains of facts" are there?
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wait, can you point out where I said students were asked "how were you inspired"? I said the message (through speech and through the accompanying lesson materials) was a creepy political agenda prior to it being changed. I stand by that. The hubbub forced the changes.
Yep, don't let mountains of facts get in the way of your agenda. They changed one or two lines from a pre-released version of an optional lesson plan to pacify the birther-type crackpots. That's it.
Mountains of facts? Such as what?? The facts are this: the lesson plan was (at the very least) "not appropriate" and was modified after the hubbub. The actual speech may or may not have been modified. What other "mountains of facts" are there?
Whoops:
http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-speech-to-schools/
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Wait, can you point out where I said students were asked "how were you inspired"? I said the message (through speech and through the accompanying lesson materials) was a creepy political agenda prior to it being changed. I stand by that. The hubbub forced the changes.
Yep, don't let mountains of facts get in the way of your agenda. They changed one or two lines from a pre-released version of an optional lesson plan to pacify the birther-type crackpots. That's it.
Mountains of facts? Such as what?? The facts are this: the lesson plan was (at the very least) "not appropriate" and was modified after the hubbub. The actual speech may or may not have been modified. What other "mountains of facts" are there?
Whoops:
http://factcheck.org/2009/09/obamas-speech-to-schools/
So... once again, your defense of an action is "Bush did it too!". Excellent. That's the spirit, if one president does something, every future president should do it, whether it's wrong or right. :roll:
Also, assuming Bush Sr. (the smart one!) and Reagan's activities were comparable to Obama's, why did the Obama cultists keep referring to it as a "historic moment" where the president would talk directly to the children? If it was done several times before, why was it historic?