100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama's Speech For The Children. | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with the president giving a speech but this is coming off a little weird simply because there is no good reason for him to be giving a speech right now.There is no emergencies,no crisis.Sure past presidents have gone into schools and given speeches. But I have never heard of a president wanting to give a speech targeting young children and asking them to fill out papers on what they learned.This kind of reminds me of Planned parenthood wanting to show videos of abortions at Catholic schools because they feel they need to see it. Is this the best time to spend tens of millions of dollars on TV stations to give children a pep talk? Does the President feel the children are so dumb he needs to hold a special televised conference to all the schools telling these kids what to do? Is it just dumb luck he decided to hold this speech the day after labor day knowing everyone would be back to school?Is it strange he held this the day before the big bi partisan health care debate? If this ran during election season wouldn't this be more less forcing kids to listen to a political party and creating a favored bias towards your party? I think a better idea would have for Obama to have held his speech shortly after school was over and if the children wanted to listen to his speech they could choose to do so. Reagan, both Bushes, and Carter gave speeches to school children. Of course he would do it when all the children were at school. There would be no point in doing it, if they weren't there. No, children aren't dumb. It's about motivation. They need all of the motivation that they can get. School is a good place to see the video, IMO. The teachers can discuss it with them and teach them about civics and politics. I konw they did but they weren't mandatory and he certainly didn't give them papers asking them what they learned.I also don't remember any of Bush's speeches(including the one shortly after 9/11)being broadcast in every public school in America and having newspapers,radio and tv stations saying he was going to be giving a speech at a certain date and time and only targeting children. Can you tell me any speeches that Bush or Regan spoke that was more less madatory for the public school children to attend? First off, it wasn't mandatory at all, otherwise the parents would not have been able to opt out of it, or the schools opt out of it. Second, Obama thought like all other presidents before him that being the president and being available to speak to the kids would be a great motivation for them. Come on people, it wasn't to create indoctrinated zombie kids like the righties tried to say to cover their real racist reasons. Thanks for clearing that up, Dragoness. I'm still sick and not thinking my best. You're right. Obama's speech wasn't mandatory. Schools didn't have to show it if they didn't want to. I do wonder if my child's school showed it. My child was home sick today. I've been reading up on Bush, Sr.'s speech and Reagan's speech. Bush and Obama made speeches about doing well in school. Reagan's speech was political. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see anything wrong with the president giving a speech but this is coming off a little weird simply because there is no good reason for him to be giving a speech right now.There is no emergencies,no crisis.Sure past presidents have gone into schools and given speeches. But I have never heard of a president wanting to give a speech targeting young children and asking them to fill out papers on what they learned.This kind of reminds me of Planned parenthood wanting to show videos of abortions at Catholic schools because they feel they need to see it. Is this the best time to spend tens of millions of dollars on TV stations to give children a pep talk? Does the President feel the children are so dumb he needs to hold a special televised conference to all the schools telling these kids what to do? Is it just dumb luck he decided to hold this speech the day after labor day knowing everyone would be back to school?Is it strange he held this the day before the big bi partisan health care debate? If this ran during election season wouldn't this be more less forcing kids to listen to a political party and creating a favored bias towards your party? I think a better idea would have for Obama to have held his speech shortly after school was over and if the children wanted to listen to his speech they could choose to do so. Reagan, both Bushes, and Carter gave speeches to school children. Of course he would do it when all the children were at school. There would be no point in doing it, if they weren't there. No, children aren't dumb. It's about motivation. They need all of the motivation that they can get. School is a good place to see the video, IMO. The teachers can discuss it with them and teach them about civics and politics. I konw they did but they weren't mandatory and he certainly didn't give them papers asking them what they learned.I also don't remember any of Bush's speeches(including the one shortly after 9/11)being broadcast in every public school in America and having newspapers,radio and tv stations saying he was going to be giving a speech at a certain date and time and only targeting children. Can you tell me any speeches that Bush or Regan spoke that was more less madatory for the public school children to attend? First off, it wasn't mandatory at all, otherwise the parents would not have been able to opt out of it, or the schools opt out of it. Second, Obama thought like all other presidents before him that being the president and being available to speak to the kids would be a great motivation for them. Come on people, it wasn't to create indoctrinated zombie kids like the righties tried to say to cover their real racist reasons. Thanks for clearing that up, Dragoness. I'm still sick and not thinking my best. You're right. Obama's speech wasn't mandatory. Schools didn't have to show it if they didn't want to. I do wonder if my child's school showed it. My child was home sick today. I've been reading up on Bush, Sr.'s speech and Reagan's speech. Bush and Obama made speeches about doing well in school. Reagan's speech was political. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally saw nothing wrong with the speech in itself. I saw no indoctrination within its words, but I really do question the motive for such a load of crap. I'm not ripping the speech itself, just the reasoning for even making the speech... I mean, is it really necessary for the president to fly somewhere just to give a little motivational pep-talk like it's going to make a real difference? Is some kid going to say "you know, I've had dozens of adults tell me I'm going down a bad path, but he's right. I'm going to change my ways." I also am curious what was originally slated to be on that speech, because that was way too far from being political for any politician, and I'm pretty sure we've established he's no different than anyone else. I don't know if you have noticed in the last couple of generations at least, kids are often lazy and don't want to study much less care about getting jobs etc. I think it's great that he gave the speech and hope it helps some kids. Obama did talk about education alot during his campaign so it was not shocking that he would go out of his way to make the speech. I figured some would be suspicious even after the speech was given, saying it wasn't the original speech. I wouldn't have expected that from you my friend, so I am a little suprised. It's not that I'm flat out saying that it was not his original speech, it's just that there was absolutely zero mention of anything remotely political... far less than you would ever hear in any politician's speech. I never suspected it to to be an attempt to brainwash the children because as has been said, he's not the first, but I did not expect it to be written so cleanly as to avoid controversy. I just suspect there was extra care there after everyone started to protest. That may have been the case.... it may have been further 'scrubbed' to make sure there was absolutely no hint of politics. However I doubt even previous versions were 'nefarious'. Sometimes people really are just trying to do what they say they're trying to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would hate to be scrutinized as much as this President gets scrutinized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Giocamo
on
Tue 09/08/09 10:51 PM
|
|
I would hate to be scrutinized as much as this President gets scrutinized. he's a Fascist |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would hate to be scrutinized as much as this President gets scrutinized. he's a Fascist That is your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeez would everybody quit quoting the whole bloody speech? it took six and a half minutes just to scroll to the bottom of this page   
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quietman_2009
on
Tue 09/08/09 11:04 PM
|
|
I would hate to be scrutinized as much as this President gets scrutinized. he's a Fascist just for the sake of arguing, what is it that makes him a facist? and what specific actions adhere to a strict definition of fascism keeping mind thst I'm not a Obama supporter and don't agree with much of the legislation he is proposing but what is it that makes him so much more dangerous than your run of the mill Democrat president, a la Clinton and Carter? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to hear the answer to that, Quiet. I don't understand the name calling, myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quietman_2009
on
Tue 09/08/09 11:20 PM
|
|
well what it is is the polarization and alienation ot the culture war
the liberals are determined to remake American Society in their own image. I believe that liberals think that the American people cant be trusted to tend to their own affairs and have to be led by a benevolent cultural elite and the conservatives are determined to remake society in their image. each philosophy is anathematical to the other and they feel that they have to demonize and discredit the other so what we get is a constant barrage of dirt and distortions in order to denigrate and discredit each other side its no longer about issues or the betterment of the Republic but its about the pre-eminence of the political party regardless of the detriment to America. Each party would like to see America fail so that they can cast the blame on the other party |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Wed 09/09/09 08:28 AM
|
|
Here are Ron Paul's 2 cents:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xAsjDEu7Yc |
|
|
|
|
