theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 7, 2009 19:46:12 GMT -5
"develop new energy technologies", "protect our environment", and "make our nation more fair and more free" Although many of us disagree on the way these goals should be achieved, I think we can all agree these are good goals, right? By making these statements, Obama is not suggesting children should support overly large subsidies for alternative energy, huge curbs on carbon emissions, or single payer health care. He's identifying goals 99% of Americans agree on and allowing teachers and schoolchildren to engage in a debate on how best to achieve them. Doubtlessly some will agree with the President, but many others will not. My problem is that this sounds like a State of the Union address. The actual addresses are fine, because I can play Zuma Deluxe on Xbox or turn on the Food Network and ignore it like I do all State of the Union addresses. The problem is that the intended audience are kids. Kids aren't as educated as adults and thus are more receptive to advertising. This becomes a problem when Obama portrays his own life story at the beginning of the speech. The other problem is when Obama says that he's in favor of things that all Americans are in favor of - in principle, before opportunity costs come in. Are you in favor of protecting our environment? Are you in favor of protecting our environment if lots of people are going to lose their jobs and you're not going to be able to own a car and will have to pay high prices for food and clothes? Someone else made the point that the main points of the speech are worthless pablum - exhorting kids to stay in school and work hard. That stuff takes up a lot of time that could be better spent at some other pursuit. There's no reason for him to give this speech, and there's no reason for kids to listen to it. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 7, 2009 21:01:33 GMT -5
The problem is that the intended audience are kids. Kids aren't as educated as adults and thus are more receptive to advertising. This becomes a problem when Obama portrays his own life story at the beginning of the speech. The other problem is when Obama says that he's in favor of things that all Americans are in favor of - in principle, before opportunity costs come in. Are you in favor of protecting our environment? Are you in favor of protecting our environment if lots of people are going to lose their jobs and you're not going to be able to own a car and will have to pay high prices for food and clothes? Not able to own a car? What is this, the dystopian future of the Rush song Red Barchetta? "Protecting the environment" as an abstract goal is a good in any sense, and Obama doesn't attach it to any particular policy. If you look at the 2008 platforms of either party, they both claim this is a goal, so I'm not sure how you see this as politicizing. Whether you like it or not, Obama is the President, and his life story is now fair game for history. Arguing that that is "advertising" is ridiculous - let's just take a look at.... georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/kids/president/georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/kids/vicepresident/the White House for Kids, which teaches kids about the life stories of Dick Cheney and George Bush, low taxes, strengthening the military, cutting Medicare and Social Security, fighting wars in the Gulf, getting kids to support something called "USA Freedom Corps", and turning all of that into lesson plans! Fun fun fun, and there's an animated pic of Barney on the top right hand side and FUN bubble letters on the left hand side, lest anyone think this is for high schoolers! |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 8, 2009 1:53:32 GMT -5
The problem is that the intended audience are kids. Kids aren't as educated as adults and thus are more receptive to advertising. This becomes a problem when Obama portrays his own life story at the beginning of the speech. The other problem is when Obama says that he's in favor of things that all Americans are in favor of - in principle, before opportunity costs come in. Are you in favor of protecting our environment? Are you in favor of protecting our environment if lots of people are going to lose their jobs and you're not going to be able to own a car and will have to pay high prices for food and clothes? Not able to own a car? What is this, the dystopian future of the Rush song Red Barchetta? "Protecting the environment" as an abstract goal is a good in any sense, and Obama doesn't attach it to any particular policy. If you look at the 2008 platforms of either party, they both claim this is a goal, so I'm not sure how you see this as politicizing. Whether you like it or not, Obama is the President, and his life story is now fair game for history. Arguing that that is "advertising" is ridiculous - let's just take a look at.... georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/kids/president/georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/kids/vicepresident/the White House for Kids, which teaches kids about the life stories of Dick Cheney and George Bush, low taxes, strengthening the military, cutting Medicare and Social Security, fighting wars in the Gulf, getting kids to support something called "USA Freedom Corps", and turning all of that into lesson plans! Fun fun fun, and there's an animated pic of Barney on the top right hand side and FUN bubble letters on the left hand side, lest anyone think this is for high schoolers! The difference is that school districts aren't printing out copies of the website and giving it to every student. Obama's speech is being shown by rote in many classrooms. There is a vast difference between what is acceptable for such a speech. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2009 6:33:11 GMT -5
The speech is thankfully, nondescript and forgettable. Is it the speech he intended before called on the potential for mischief? Only his teleprompter knows for sure.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2009 7:49:21 GMT -5
The difference is that school districts aren't printing out copies of the website and giving it to every student. Obama's speech is being shown by rote in many classrooms. There is a vast difference between what is acceptable for such a speech. OMG, showing the speech rote? How horrible. I remember watching Reagan's Inauguration speech in first grade and no one complaining, no one previewing the transcripts, no one pulling their kids out of class, and no one complaining about it being some sort of fascist conspiracy to poison the minds of kids. Did you look at the website? It was meant to be incorporated into lesson plans ("This guide gives teachers ideas on how to use the site in the classroom") - and providing teacher's guides to every topic. And wow, Elvado has churned out every ridiculous Freeper meme in this thread, including "the speech was totally radical and then we caused a paranoid s-storm and we changed it". Thank goodness your crazy blatherings prevented mind control through fluoride in the water also. |
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 8, 2009 8:10:21 GMT -5
The real issue here is that there is a splinter group of conservatives who never trusted Obama and will always view anything he does as some sort of attack on them. These are the people you saw at the townhalls comparing him to a socialist, the tea party people, the birthers, and who think that Obama palled around with terrorists. They are afraid of someone they see as an outsider being their President. They have managed to talk around the issue of race when saying that Obama is not "one of us" in any way they can. They are a small minority, they never would have voted for Obama in the first place, and they are going to be a big problem for a Republican national candidate when they have to move to the middle in a general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 8, 2009 8:17:53 GMT -5
Republican national candidate Yeah I think the odds that we see a "national" candidate come out of that party are about the same as that we see the Democrats run a unicorn / leprechaun ticket. Get ready for the most knee-jerk, closet racist, alarmist, anti-intellectual candidate in a long time because that appears to be "the base" at this point. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 8, 2009 8:31:12 GMT -5
The real issue here is that there is a splinter group of conservatives who never trusted Obama and will always view anything he does as some sort of attack on them. These are the people you saw at the townhalls comparing him to a socialist, the tea party people, the birthers, and who think that Obama palled around with terrorists. They are afraid of someone they see as an outsider being their President. They have managed to talk around the issue of race when saying that Obama is not "one of us" in any way they can. They are a small minority, they never would have voted for Obama in the first place, and they are going to be a big problem for a Republican national candidate when they have to move to the middle in a general election. You mean like the whacko left side - some of whose members wanted to kill Bush and Cheney and who are causing lots of problems for Obama now on issues ranging from health care to the Iraq war? We've got our nuts, you've got yours. Democrats can continue to believe that those protesting at town halls are a small minority as health care continues to spiral down the tubes and the two big prizes this November - the NJ and VA governorships, in which the Democratic opposition is a white guy, to eliminate this junk about "he's not one of us" - seem like Republican locks. And, um, for the record, Obama did pal around with Bill Ayers, who *was* a terrorist. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2009 9:06:41 GMT -5
You obviously missed the part about all left hatred and vitriol being of pure motive. The absolute hated and venom spewed at Bush and Cheney were legitimate statements of policy disagreement from an impassioned left.
Those who question Mr. Obama are all bigots and mouth-breathers because he too is from the enlightened left.
It is always amazing to me to see how quickly the liberal defenders of free speech on the left turn against it the moment they don't agree with content.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2009 9:16:56 GMT -5
You obviously missed the part about all left hatred and vitriol being of pure motive. The absolute hated and venom spewed at Bush and Cheney were legitimate statements of policy disagreement from an impassioned left. And you personally are just as bad and probably worse than all of those wackos - happy? Your original post in this thread is Cindy Sheehan territory. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 8, 2009 9:21:42 GMT -5
Enjoy your man's one term. People get the government they deserve.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2009 9:25:50 GMT -5
Snarky comment snarky comment snarky comment your fault.
If Obama is a one-termer - and I don't believe he will be, although there is going to be a big Republican wave in the midterm - the lesson learned will be that essentially you get what you want by opposing everything and dragging your opponents down with lunatic BS. I don't think that's a good lesson to learn, although as you say Elvado, you will get what you deserve.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 8, 2009 9:38:26 GMT -5
Can we get a new rule, along the lines of Godwin's Law, for how long it takes for people to call "racism" when someone is criticizing President Obama?
I do not doubt there are some really vile racists who oppose this president. There you go. It's true. What a revelation. But as exorcist points out, there are vile people on both sides of the aisle. I will leave that there for the sake of this thread, but if anyone would like to dispute that assertion, I'll be happy to provide examples.
At the same time, to charatcerize racists (or "other-ists," if you prefer) as the mainstream of opposition is really not at all intellectually honest. There is a very logical reason why people were worried about what Obama was going to say in his speech to schoolchildren. For most of his first months in office, one of the things being debated across the country was how much people wanted government intervention in their lives or in the economy. It began with the stimulus package, and the auto bailout, and reached a very loud point with the health care debate.
People flinging epithets at each other (and biting people's fingers off) notwithstanding, this is a very good debate to have. And Obama, for the most part, has come down on the side of wanting government intervention, if not control, on most of these issues. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people in this country who DON'T want that (and here's some more news: they're not all conservatives).
You take that context, you add some of the other factors I mentioned in my first post in this thread, add the DoE putting out a REALLY unadvisable "lesson plan," and no, I don't think it's unreasonable at all for people to say, "Hey, stay away from my kids if that's the stuff you're going to deliver."
Having said all of that, as I mentioned before, the speech I read was just fine and, more than that (as I have also said before), I encourage the President to deliver this kind of message. It is a good thing to do. Yeah, we can quibble about this line or that line, or this or that theme, but basically it's a good and positive message.
(The cynic in me would like to say, when the President delivers the line, "If you fail a test, it doesn't mean you are stupid,".....well sometimes it can mean you are stupid. But that's just a joke, of course).
I am more than happy to give this President credit when he does things that I think are good. But if you think for a minute, given the philosophy of government which he espouses and that I do not support, that I am not going to be looking at everything he says with a critical eye, you can forget it. And no, it doesn't make me a racist, or a birther, or an ignorant redneck Klan member. Hell, it doesn't even make me the green jobs czar former green jobs czar.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 8, 2009 9:58:53 GMT -5
Snarky comment snarky comment snarky comment your fault. If Obama is a one-termer - and I don't believe he will be, although there is going to be a big Republican wave in the midterm - the lesson learned will be that essentially you get what you want by opposing everything and dragging your opponents down with lunatic BS. I don't think that's a good lesson to learn, although as you say Elvado, you will get what you deserve. I really doubt that Obama will be a one-termer. It could happen, but I don't see it. However, if he is - and even if he isn't - the lesson is the same as Clinton's first term, and it's not to take on more than you're prepared to handle - and whatever you take on, make sure you have a good plan and stay on message. Clinton failed twice - with gays in the military and with health care. In both cases, it was a muddle. The Obama machine - which did a very good job about a year ago getting out its message on why their candidate was the right one - has done an absolutely awful job on health care. It's let the opposition take control of the message - it's not about fixing a system everyone knows is broken, it's about killing Grandma. There's really no excuse for losing that battle. All I know about the Obama plan is that I can keep my healthcare if I want to. That's it. There are many plans being batted around, and the Obama administration - until very recently - controlled none of the debate. If Obama's vision of health care fails, it will not be because of a few nutcases who think that Obama is a practicing Muslim who prays every night to Lenin and who was born a Kenyan. It will be because the Obama administration didn't know what it wanted. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 8, 2009 10:10:46 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2009 10:14:27 GMT -5
I am more than happy to give this President credit when he does things that I think are good. But if you think for a minute, given the philosophy of government which he espouses and that I do not support, that I am not going to be looking at everything he says with a critical eye, you can forget it. And no, it doesn't make me a racist, or a birther, or an ignorant redneck Klan member. Hell, it doesn't even make me the green jobs czar former green jobs czar. The ironic thing about this post is that Van Jones is out of a job right now because one of the outfits he founded opposed these reckless charges of racism. That said, the Truther petition was ridiculous and he should have known better and I have no sympathy for anyone who supports or refuses to completely debunk those nuts. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 8, 2009 10:17:46 GMT -5
Snarky comment snarky comment snarky comment your fault. If Obama is a one-termer - and I don't believe he will be, although there is going to be a big Republican wave in the midterm - the lesson learned will be that essentially you get what you want by opposing everything and dragging your opponents down with lunatic BS. I don't think that's a good lesson to learn, although as you say Elvado, you will get what you deserve. How about this lesson - a good portion of the American people don't like the massive expansion of government power and involvement - both enacted and proposed. It couldn't possibly be that people disagree with what Obama is doing. I think that's a pretty good lesson. That's the problem with a lot of libs/Democrats - they think the administration is having problems because of Glenn Beck and the "lunatics" at the town hall. They completely dismiss the fact that the public has big problems with the substance of the legislation and the sudden rise of the Czar class in Washington and so forth and so on. Van Jones doesn't cause the turnout we've seen at the town hall meetings. Obama's birth certificate doesn't lead to the tea party movement. That's inside-the-beltway stuff for the blogs and message boards and Sunday talk shows. What gets the average Joe to speak out and act is a takeover of health care, raising taxes, bigger government. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 8, 2009 10:18:47 GMT -5
Ed - you got that off of Drudge. Therefore it is "lunatic BS" and should be immediately discounted. You should know better. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 8, 2009 10:21:02 GMT -5
Boz stated it much better than I can but I am fed up with people who feel free to call anyone who disagrees with President Obama or the other Democrats racists. I happen to believe that the current health care system has problems but is not in crisis. Since about 85% of Americans have health insurance and a large majority of them are happy with their health care and its insurance, I think we should concentrate on fixing the current system and not creating another huge bureaucracy that I believe in the end will do harm to the 85%. Others may disagree with what I think on the subject. But does that make me a racist?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,456
|
Post by TC on Sept 8, 2009 10:34:28 GMT -5
Van Jones doesn't cause the turnout we've seen at the town hall meetings. Obama's birth certificate doesn't lead to the tea party movement. That's inside-the-beltway stuff for the blogs and message boards and Sunday talk shows. What gets the average Joe to speak out and act is a takeover of health care, raising taxes, bigger government. No, actual content of the legislation is "inside-the-beltway" stuff. I guarantee you 95% of people can't tell you what an individual or corporate mandate is or whether the Senate HELP bill or HR 3200 has one or what position the guy they voted for (McCain) held on either. Van Jones on the other hand has been a trending topic on Twitter for the last week. |
|
