Should the president be able to address school children

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Otherwise you'd not have implied Obama was a socialist. Nor would you have casually dismissed that Nationalism is the ideology responsible for death and destruction in the previous century (Here's a hint for you... Nationalism and Socialism (whichever variant you want to refer to) are not mutually exclusive in practice.)

And yeah big deal... I'm a political science/International relations major. But let's not measure dicks here....

Instead how about you tell me how Obama is supposedly a socialist... and I'll blow you and your argument out of the water by explaining to you how he isn't. Sounds fun doesn't it?

Nationalizing GM, taking over the banks, dictating salaries, attempting to take over healthcare, appointed admitted socialists (such as Van Jones and Carol Browner) to positions of high authority, telling people that he wants to "spread the wealth around", attempting to ban secret ballot votes for unions, funneling $50 million to anti-capitalist programs through the Annenberg Challenge foundation, "living wage", supported by the Socialist Party, "clinging to guns and religion", and more.

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Maybe try thinking of it this way, Nyororin. You said yourself that you are now rather distanced from US politics and such, so imagine that one of the leaders of the Uyoku dantai (those racists in the black vans) was going to give a speech at your child's school. The guy claims that the speech will be harmless, just "stay in school, work hard, etc", but he refuses to release the speech ahead of time. The homework assignment that goes with the speech originally says "How can I (your child) help the Uyoku dantai?", but when there's an uproar, they change it, claiming it was a "mistake".

You know, I really do not think that is a balanced comparison. Obama would have to be the head of the KKK to fall into the same box as an Uyoku Dantai guy. He would have had to have asked the children to write "What will you do to help the Democratic Party?" He would also have to be making the trip to personally give the speech at my son`s school.
As far as I know, that most certainly isn`t the case.

But you know, if it WERE, I would question the school and their reasons for inviting him.

I`ll toss out a comparison that seems more realistic. A PM, who I do not agree with the policies of and do not like as a person, is going to give a televised speech to all children. The speech will be shown in schools, with no prior release of the contents. Homework asking children "What can I do to help the PM? / What can I do to help the country of Japan?" was released...

Do you trust this guy to merely give a harmless message, despite his previous rhetoric and beliefs?

In the case of an uyoku guy giving a private speech in a small venue - no. In the case of a hated PM giving a televised speech, yes. There is only so much you can pull off in a speech that will have a wide and varied audience. The PM would have to be crazy to think that no one would pay attention, therefore would be very limited in what he could say even if his total intent was to push his ideals upon the students.

Do you trust that, even if he should veer into ideological propaganda, you've taught your child well enough that it won't take hold even 1 iota, no matter how charismatic the guy may be?

In both cases, yes.
I would actually be somewhat pleased if he pulled out crap that I was strongly against, as I could use it against him. If the uyoku guy spouted racist crap, I would have no qualms about using the fact that it isn`t true and as a family we should pretty well know this to put him down in my home and to my child.
In the case of the PM, I have no doubt that whatever it would be would have to be of a milder degree (as I pointed out above), but I`m totally sure I could make use of it to support the fact that our household beliefs were better and that we shouldn`t believe or trust him.

Or do you worry for your child and perhaps keep him home that day, because that is not the kind of role model you want telling your kids what to do?

The only case I would keep my son home and away from it were if there were a clear possibility that he could be singled out in some way by the speech giver. A private speech by an uyoku guy - there is the vague possibility. A televised speech, by either uyoku or PM, eliminates that possibility.

Now, you are probably already saying "but Obama is nothing like the Uyoku dantai..." No, he's far more dangerous, because he has much more power and influence than they'll ever hope to have, and the willing obedience of most of the media and 92% of American teachers, and views that could well destroy this country...

Like or not like the uyoku, I would still be waiting to jump on whatever was presented in the speech that I did not agree with. Not screaming about the possibility that there might be something in the speech that I wouldn`t like.

Sorry if this isn`t the answer you wanted to pull from me, but that is just how I am. I`d rather listen and discount than get worked up without something solid in hand.
A speech presenting points I seriously did not agree with would be a GREAT way to teach a child that this is someone not to be trusted - that this is someone we should not be agreeing with. And if the speech does turn out to be harmless, great.

I am distanced from US politics, and can`t really say anything either way about Obama. But no matter what, I hope for something positive as he was elected to office and is in there for the rest of his term.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by MMM

solemnclockwork, I would enjoy your posts if they didn't completely misrepresent and distort both the spirit and the literal words I am saying.

But thank you for giving me insight into the mindset of someone who would believe such an incomprehensible notion to me that having the most powerful man in America (and maybe the world) speak directly to our sons and daughters to do their homework and stay in school is anything but a good thing.

The fact that my words can be so misconstrued makes it easy for me to understand why the president's good intentions have been twisted and turned into "indoctrination" and "brainwashing" by those that see the president's tongue as a serpent's and devil horns growing above his ears.

Way to put a underhanded back slap into that. Perhaps you shouldn't put those tones into your writing. Also would you care to provide examples?

MMM, at this point you very well know that it is not the issue of speaking to children along those lines. Yet you continue to make it so. Why can't you seam to understand that people come to different conclusions, and BECAUSE of the current political environment AND arguably (there is a huge reason why I use that word) issues that have been handled by the white house. At the very least don't degrade people like that.

Enough of this patronizing. You continue to lump me together with those, who I don't have the same conclusion with! You certainly don't see that way, I don't see that way, DOESN'T mean someone else will not. The only people who I'm defending (not exactly) are those who are not doing this out of hate/lies nut honestly thank there is a problem.

Originally Posted by MMM

Of course every parent should be a part of a child's education.
There is no need to be have a "legitimate reason". You are SUPPOSED to be a part of your child's education. Without the parents the child will probably fail.

Education is influence. Education influences children to explore, dissect, ask questions, get answers, come to conclusions, experiment, and to listen to all sorts of opinions and construct a belief system that fits ones worldview.

Education is not about shutting down voices we don't agree with. Education is not about shutting down voices of our leaders, like them or not. And Education is not about telling the person sitting in the most important office in the country that he isn't good enough to talk to my child.

Yet, the parent is rightfully in charge of that education wither you like it or not. Wither you agree or not, they do retain the right of what and how there child learns. At this point, you not in a position to degrade, and question someone who is trying to be a good parent. Wither that be a conservative view, or liberal view. Constructive criticism comes to mind.

Originally Posted by MMM

Of course I agree with that. And blocking a child from hearing a message about staying in school, taking responsibility for themselves, doing their homework and respecting their teachers is the opposite of "looking out for the best".

that is very well what the speech is, BUT that was NEVER MY POINT!

Originally Posted by MMM

I agree. There is another level at play here, and I think it has everything to do with being black or white.

What are you playing at?

Originally Posted by MMM

That's exactly what I am trying to do. Teaching children that people are not trustworthy and we shouldn't listen to what they have to say, even though we don't know what they have to say, is backwards thinking. Instead of "give him a chance" it's "DON'T give him a chance". Instead of allowing children to see more than one side, people are censoring multiple opinions. Instead of giving education and the benefit of the doubt, children and teens are being told "you are too stupid to listen to our leaders words".

That is not what happening thought (bold part). Regardless of the actual intellect of the student, a parent is still a parent and doesn't want certain thing in there view to influence there children.

It wasn't the fact they didn't know what was going to be said, but what might be said. I'll give an example of something; would you rather give the chance for your child of getting hurt/whatnot or perhaps having foreknowledge (again, I'm taking this from a viewpoint that a parent might have, not my own) of the situation prevent that from happening by taking steps? Maybe that would be over-parenting, maybe something bad was prevented, I'm not discussing the results of there actions. What I'm coming from is two-fold one is the honestly of there actions (If they believe what they are doing), and there parental rights.

Originally Posted by MMM

I am not sorry, solemnclockwork, when I say you have no leg to stand on. The speech is out there. It is good. Conservative naysayers are backing down, saying children SHOULD listen to this speech. But it is sad that it is mostly too late. Teachers have been threatened, people have been called all kinds of names, and this becomes a black-eye on a valiant attempt by the president to do a good thing for children.

that is funny, questioning my reasoning here. I was never challenging the speech WAS I? I was defending the right of the parent to see fit how to raise there children, and my own view of what the priorities might or should be (not a big issue for me).

Yet, both sides continue to point the finger in each others eye on every issue? Do you not get the drift? Each side is not blameless!

Originally Posted by MMM

So how is saying "the fear is unfounded" wrong?

Because of the way it was worded. I said may, hence I was referring to when it happens or they read the actual speech. Like how they coming out and now saying people should listen to the speech.

Originally Posted by Nyororin

I find this whole ordeal almost laughable.

Do parents really think a short speech is going to have enough power to overwrite all the things they have taught their children up until this point? If it does - that parenting thing? You`re doing it wrong.

Personally, I would be ashamed if the influence I had upon my child was so incredibly weak that a short speech from someone they did not know in real life could completely overturn it. Seriously - if you`re an involved parent, you should have raised your child according to your beliefs and taught them to follow the same path. Parents have an incredible amount of power over their children.

But I guess if people want to live in a fantasy world where the worst possible influence to their child`s future is a single short speech possibly containing political views they don`t agree with, from a guy in a tv screen... Umm, yeah.

Everybody has different parenting (or will have...) and convictions. At times they going to have a good thing going and at others not so much. I would put in bluntly on the fact that America is very polarized, and in essence people tend to be more defensive and offensive on issues like this.

Because this is your view, doesn't mean others think the same way. Some honestly believe opposite, I'm not faulting them for that, and I would give criticism (constructive) for it, becuase in a way I'm not the child's parent, and have limited role in dealing with how they raise that child.

I would say going out of the way to make the parent the enemy here isn't going to help things.

I can not stress the word honestly enough. It hits all points that I'm coming from. (sincerity, naivety, truthfulness, and conviction).

Parents can make wrong decisions, I'm not advocating people to run and hide (me myself being someone who is a devout christian who constantly reads about other religions, you get the point). I do see where others are coming from, wither I agree with them or not.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by samurai007

Nationalizing GM, taking over the banks, dictating salaries, attempting to take over healthcare, appointed admitted socialists (such as Van Jones and Carol Browner) to positions of high authority, telling people that he wants to "spread the wealth around", attempting to ban secret ballot votes for unions, funneling $50 million to anti-capitalist programs through the Annenberg Challenge foundation, "living wage", supported by the Socialist Party, "clinging to guns and religion", and more.

Oh FFS...

Rescuing GM and bailing out and regulating the banks (the only regulation he seems to be implementing that I'm aware of seems to be to control all the bailout money being given to them so that it's used as intended.... not an unreasonable thing to do), and nationalising health care doesn't make him a socialist. Nor does banning secret ballot votes for unions in itself or supporting something that the Socialist party also happens to support. (Though admittedly I know nothing about these incidents)

In any case such things are not unprecedented in liberal Democratic countries. In fact didn't George W Bush approve the original stimulus package? Why isn't he a socialist? At the very least he betrayed his free market principles...

Untill Obama completely announces his plans to centralise the US economy and to make the US a one party state then your socialist tag fails.

It seems to me that a belief that any sort of government intervention could be beneficial makes someone a socialist in America...

News flash... it doesn't. It just means that they're not a free-market fundamentalist.

Furthermore the socialist tag is simply a buzzword used by right wing Americans to scare the ignorant and stupid (of which there seems to be a lot of) into associating Obama with Stalin and Mao. It's such a ridiculuous strategy.... but more ridiculuous is that it works and people like you who claim to be educated perpetuate it.

[Columbine]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

Like what? We spend more per student than any other nation on the planet and our kids just keep getting more and more ignorant. It isn't the money that's the problem it's the teaching. Private schools don't have near the poor performance as public schools. I went to one for several years as a middle schooler. Those private schools are hard as hell, with a much higher grade scale. They don't have a bell curve and they didn't go by 10% where 90 to 100 was an A, they went every 5%...so anything below a 75% was an F.

I'll second that. My school was basically falling down around our ears, literally! our english rooms were condemned, we were still using old wooden desks from the 50's and asides from text books there were basically 0 resources; whiteboards were about as high tech as it got. The toilets were outside in concrete sheds and the 'sports hall' played all roles as assembly hall, drama studio, theatre, exam room, etc. This primitive environment was a fully working high school in 2000 with 5000 students. But the teachers were incredibly GOOD. They were paid fairly, the area itself wasn't poor and run down and they put in a lot of initiatives. In 8 years, the whole place has been turned around and it's all modern. There were grants, BUT, even when it was a dump, it was still in the top 50 schools in the country. throwing money at it didn't make for smarter students. Happy teachers who held a mutual respect for their students and treated even the youngest like they could think for themselves made it great. Money just meant better desks and a heating system that worked.

Forth grade is what? age 10? 11? That's more than old enough to be able to hold an opinion and distinguish between right and wrong. It's also young enough to still be able to reach the ones most vulnerable to ditching in their education and I think efforts should be made. The kids will likely ignore it and forget whatever was said within a month. But they'll always remember that someone important bothered to speak to them. That's not a waste of time, or effort, and in itself is an action that IS doing something for American education.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Columbine

I'll second that. My school was basically falling down around our ears, literally! our english rooms were condemned, we were still using old wooden desks from the 50's and asides from text books there were basically 0 resources; whiteboards were about as high tech as it got. The toilets were outside in concrete sheds and the 'sports hall' played all roles as assembly hall, drama studio, theatre, exam room, etc. This primitive environment was a fully working high school in 2000 with 5000 students. But the teachers were incredibly GOOD. They were paid fairly, the area itself wasn't poor and run down and they put in a lot of initiatives. In 8 years, the whole place has been turned around and it's all modern. There were grants, BUT, even when it was a dump, it was still in the top 50 schools in the country. throwing money at it didn't make for smarter students. Happy teachers who held a mutual respect for their students and treated even the youngest like they could think for themselves made it great. Money just meant better desks and a heating system that worked.

Forth grade is what? age 10? 11? That's more than old enough to be able to hold an opinion and distinguish between right and wrong. It's also young enough to still be able to reach the ones most vulnerable to ditching in their education and I think efforts should be made. The kids will likely ignore it and forget whatever was said within a month. But they'll always remember that someone important bothered to speak to them. That's not a waste of time, or effort, and in itself is an action that IS doing something for American education.

Fourth grade? Then you'd say it should not be shown to younger kids? Because the speech will be shown to all kids, kindergarten (5 years old) through high school...

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Oh FFS...

Rescuing GM and bailing out and regulating the banks (the only regulation he seems to be implementing that I'm aware of seems to be to control all the bailout money being given to them so that it's used as intended.... not an unreasonable thing to do), and nationalising health care doesn't make him a socialist. Nor does banning secret ballot votes for unions in itself or supporting something that the Socialist party also happens to support. (Though admittedly I know nothing about these incidents)

In any case such things are not unprecedented in liberal Democratic countries. In fact didn't George W Bush approve the original stimulus package? Why isn't he a socialist? At the very least he betrayed his free market principles...

Untill Obama completely announces his plans to centralise the US economy and to make the US a one party state then your socialist tag fails.

It seems to me that a belief that any sort of government intervention could be beneficial makes someone a socialist in America...

News flash... it doesn't. It just means that they're not a free-market fundamentalist.

Furthermore the socialist tag is simply a buzzword used by right wing Americans to scare the ignorant and stupid (of which there seems to be a lot of) into associating Obama with Stalin and Mao. It's such a ridiculuous strategy.... but more ridiculuous is that it works and people like you who claim to be educated perpetuate it.

You admit the you know nothing about these incidents, yet claim I'm the one that should "educate" myself? Amazing.

And Obama isn't stupid, he's going for the Khrushchev method. Since I'm sure you don't know what that is either, I'll explain. Khrushchev said: “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you; we will so weaken your economy until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” That is Obama's plan, to wreck our economy with massive debt and inflation (due to his unprecedented spending and increases in the money supply), and then "Only government can save you".

It's like boiling a frog, if you've heard that anecdote. If you throw a frog into boiling water, it'll jump right out. But if you put it into warm water and slowly turn up the heat, it will stay in and get cooked. Your line (I'm paraphrasing) amounts to "he's not a socialist until we are in boiling water, and it's not quite boiling yet..." reminded me of that story.

[TalnSG]

Two things come to mind now that the firestorm is cooling a bit.

1. Did any of us really pay much attention to speeches given by people in authority when we were in school? Anyone over the age or 10? No, we didn't give much thought at all. So just how is a short speech on TV expected to brainwash a kid sitting there who is focused on everything else they could be doing instead of listening to a boring speech? Get real!

2. At least all the furor means that far more people are paying attention to what is going on in Washington and getting of their apathetic, lazy back-sides. Now, if they would only put their brain in gear before their mouths and think thing through instead of delivering the usual knee-jerk reactions things might improve a little.

[burkhartdesu]

All these points are moot!!


Bottom line...

In America, the federal bank is owned PRIVATELY. This means that when you vote, it essentially means NOTHING. When the wealth is controlled by a disassociated group of men, the Democrats and Republicans, Obama's and Bush's, just become pawn pieces in a much grander scheme.

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." — President Woodrow Wilson

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" — Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions. They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" — Congressional Record 12595-12603 — Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency

"Allow me to control the issue the nation's money and I care not who makes its laws!" The above quote attributed to the 18th century banker Amshell Rothschild

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes... Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." Napoleon

By controlling Congress, the FED has been able to control the nominating conventions of both political parties. In this way, it has been able to hand-pick the presidential nominees so that no matter which party wins, their nominee for President is under definite obligations to the FED

British bankers have stated "Those that create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in their hands the destiny of the people".

Without the Federal Reserve System, there can be no continuing march towards socialism, and with it there can be no free economy.

"The Bank is trying to kill me - but I will kill it! If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system - there would be a revolution before morning..." Andrew Jackson

[komitsuki]

Originally Posted by burkhartdesu

All these points are moot!!


Bottom line...

In America, the federal bank is owned PRIVATELY.

Very true. Owned by the Rockerfeller foundation.

This means that when you vote, it essentially means NOTHING. When the wealth is controlled by a disassociated group of men,

No wonder why democracy is a huge failure like Communism. Political science people don't know much about politics because they fail to understand a great importance of finance/economy. You don't know wealth (finance, economy), then you don't know much about politics.

This is why in my university's debate team, they don't let poli-sci majors in because they always have trouble understanding finance vis-a-vis politics.