Should the president be able to address school children

[MMM]

Originally Posted by samurai007

What is being served now is to answer the critics who are posting what, to me, seem like veiled cries of "racism!" Let me be 100% crystal clear on this... opposing Obama is not racism. Disliking Obama's policies and ideology is not racism. I would very happily support other black people for President, such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams or Michael Steele. I am just as opposed to Obama as I would be a white man with the same ideology and background... no more and no less.

You know what IS an example of racism? All the people who voted for Obama because he is black, and "it's about time we had a black President", no matter who he is, what he believes, how little experience he has, or who he associates with.

Samurai I am sure your opinion, like the opinions of many others, is purely political and has nothing to do with race. That has been my stance on opponents of the president talking to children for the most part.

However, I am sure you will agree there is a faction of people that opposed this speech simply because the president is a different color than they are.

The unfortunate thing is savvy political talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and others are able to feed this fear without being overtly racial in their words. It is sad and unfortunate and has no place in America in 2009 (or anywhere in the world) but is true.

Some have said Joe Wilson's call of "You liar" to Obama yesterday as racially motivated, and I think that is going too far and more than likely completely baseless (I never heard the man's name before yesterday, so I don't know his background), but attacking Obama does not make you racist. Attacking him because he is black does.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

How interesting that the second half of you post is lambasting someone for oversimplifying and being bitter when the first half of your post is bitter and oversimplifies (or more accurately misrepresents) the issues.

The first part of the post is stating why I think people are having their reaction to having President Obama speak to their children. This is why this is even in the news. Its not because he wants them to stay in school, it was an issue for many for what he did leading up to the event. But this has been stated a zillion times over so far in this thead. I don't think there was any damage done by the president's speech. But the I understand why people had the initial reaction.
*There was no misrepresentation there.*

The second part is not lambasting someone oversimplifying.
1. When someone writes the bottom line is a majority of Americans are selfish are would basically throw everyone under the bus at the thought of helping another is not just oversimplifying. Thats ridiculous. I'll call anyone out who thinks those are the facts. But you don't want to go there.

2. If you think that was lambasting then maybe you should take off those sun glasses and reread what was the original post because if you were to take that to any public place in America you would see what lambasting really is.

I'm just hoping that the only reason no one had replied to such a post up to this point is because they assume he is just a troll. I'm quite weak to resist such flame bait when something like that is written.

I think you attempt to defend his or like post by pointing out such a small indisgretion, if any, in my form of retort is quite petty on your part.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

The first part of the post is stating why I think people are having their reaction to having President Obama speak to their children. This is why this is even in the news. Its not because he wants them to stay in school, it was an issue for many for what he did leading up to the event. But this has been stated a zillion times over so far in this thead. I don't think there was any damage done by the president's speech. But the I understand why people had the initial reaction.
*There was no misrepresentation there.*

I assume you are talking about the "what can I do to help the president?" line? Despite the beliefs of several people here, the president doesn't have time to come up with homework assignments for the nation's children.

That quickly cancelled suggested assignment came from the Dept. of Education. So putting those words in quote marks from the president, to me, is a misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by clintjm

The second part is not lambasting someone oversimplifying.
1. When someone writes the bottom line is a majority of Americans are selfish are would basically throw everyone under the bus at the thought of helping another is not just oversimplifying. Thats ridiculous. I'll call anyone out who thinks those are the facts. But you don't want to go there.

2. If you think that was lambasting then maybe you should take off those sun glasses and reread what was the original post because if you were to take that to any public place in America you would see what lambasting really is.

I'm just hoping that the only reason no one had replied to such a post up to this point is because they assume he is just a troll. I'm quite weak to resist such flame bait when something like that is written.

I think you attempt to defend his or like post by pointing out such a small indisgretion, if any, in my form of retort is quite petty on your part.

My post was not written not to defend his words (which I certainly don't agree with) but to point out that you came out with elbows flying making some bold sweeping and not necessarily factual statements (as I pointed out above) but were quick to point out when Sinestra did basically the same thing.

[Sinestra]

Originally Posted by clintjm

Wow..... I mean... wow...

A little short sided are we summing up the entire American population like this.

You sound a little bitter my friend..

If your going to paint a picture of hell and all American as cold hearted demons pushing starving children into the flames while dining on kitten and puppy stew, at least lets not forget the sacrifice America makes for the rest of the world at the expense of itself.

A truley sick post. I might be a fool falling for this troll bait, but I'll be the first.

maybe it is but thats how i see it and thats how i have seen it especially since i had time to step out of this country and look at it from a distance. I spent time watching many of those town hall meetings and im sorry but they sound selfish deep majority of us are selfish and self preservation comes to the forefront when we feel like we are going to lose something. When i hear people say they would rather keep a broken system them try to find an alternative i want to cry.

Second what America has done in the past has no baring on what im talking about now. So dont even bring that to the front. Americans tend to help other countries before we help each other and thats a problem. Not that we shouldn't help others but sometimes we do it at the expense of Americans. You took the world selfish and used the most extreme term to define your point. However i will concede that 99.9% was over the top i was a little heated at the time i wrote my post, however my remarks about selfishness still stands and not to the degree of throwing babies in rivers and dinning on puppy and kitten stew as you so stated. Its quite obvious what i stating as others have already gotten what i was trying to say.

Am I bitter yes i am im bitter about homelessness, im bitter about people not having health care, im bitter about people honestly thinking that their something wrong with the president telling children to do well in school. Yea you could say im bitter that does not mean i dont want to see the country flourish or for our deep rooted problems to be fixed and its going to take all citizens not being selfish in order to fix certain problems. Its not about being opposed to Obama's plan its about what has been rearing its ugly head lately.

If your going to call me a troll you might want to look up the definition of the term since i am certainly not one. I am active member on this forum daily and take part in these kind of discussions frequently your point is mute.

But in the spirit of having a positive i apologize if i offended you this was not my intention. This is a very important issue to me and iv seen very disappointing behavior as of late from Americans.

[tksensei]

Originally Posted by MMM

However, I am sure you will agree there is a faction of people that opposed this speech simply because the president is a different color than they are.

Have you heard anyone admit to that? I've heard loads of charges about that but not one example of proof. There are plenty of racists in this world and lots of racist idiots who say so outright, but if there are any significant numbers of people who oppose the president's policies because of race I haven't heard of them.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

I assume you are talking about the "what can I do to help the president?" line? Despite the beliefs of several people here, the president doesn't have time to come up with homework assignments for the nation's children.

That quickly cancelled suggested assignment came from the Dept. of Education. So putting those words in quote marks from the president, to me, is a misrepresentations of myself.

I think the president has some say in his press releases, but even if it didn't come from the president directly, it did from his office, which is his agenda. To think someone can just blast whatever to the nation without any kind of approval from his office is foolish. Only when it started to look bad was when he had it cancelled. Then refusing to release what the harmless speech was supposed to be, is again going to galvanize. No one truley know where it really originated, no one ever does or will and those are facts. No misrepresentation.

Again that doesn't matter. The president is responsible for what his staff does and for tellling or not telling them what his agenda.

Last I heard/read the assignment was simply retracted as to calm things down.

Originally Posted by MMM

My post was not written not to defend his words (which I certainly don't agree with) but to point out that you came out with elbows flying making some bold sweeping and not necessarily factual statements (as I pointed out above)

Then I suppose you should put that you weren't defending his words, which it how it came across. When someone like that is said about a nation as a whole, and directly aimed at "a majority" of americans, I think it should be shot down. You should be more focused on pointing out that the blaring false statement of Sinsetra rather trying to justify what you believe to be hair thin misrepresentations.

I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a rule about elbows flying in the forum...

Why no one else does when that kind of comment flies on any kind of forum with American participants is a sad state of affairs

Originally Posted by MMM

but were quick to point out when Sinestra did basically the same thing.

No, I don't believe you did. I believe you stated he simply "oversimplified" where as I was "lambasting".

[MMM]

Originally Posted by tksensei

Have you heard anyone admit to that? I've heard loads of charges about that but not one example of proof. There are plenty of racists in this world and lots of racist idiots who say so outright, but if there are any significant numbers of people who oppose the president's policies because of race I haven't heard of them.

It would be silly to think that racism in America disappeared on January 20, and there are those that have done what they can to keep themselves completely isolated from people of color, and now are dealing with this.

I saw on the news a teacher was called a "n****r lover" by a parent for announcing she would show the speech in her class. People don't oppose his policies because he is black, they oppose his existence because he is black.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

I think the president has some say in his press releases, but even if it didn't come from the president directly, it did from his office, which is his agenda. To think someone can just blast whatever to the nation without any kind of approval from his office is foolish. Only when it started to look bad was when he had it cancelled. Then refusing to release what the harmless speech was supposed to be, is again going to galvanize. No one truley know where it really originated, no one ever does or will and those are facts. No misrepresentation.

Actually it didn't come from his office, but the office of the Dept. of Education.

"What can you do to help the president?" is an innocuous question. I really like your retelling of accounts: "only when it started to look bad" and you and samurai love the "refused to release the speech" bit. The White House did release the speech in advance.

Please keep in mind that demanding that the president release his speeches to the public in advance is not protocol or common. It was not a "refusal" to release the speech. He did release it in advance, didn't he?

Originally Posted by clintjm

Again that doesn't matter. The president is responsible for what his staff does and for tellling or not telling them what his agenda.

Last I heard/read the assignment was simply retracted as to calm things down.

Yes, the president is responsible. He took responsibility and corrected the situation to satisfy conservative outcry. He did 100% of what the conservatives asked of him in this situation. What more do you want?

[tksensei]

Obviously there are hateful racists in this world and this country, but do you think any significant portion of those opposing his policies do so because of race, and if so what do you base this upon?

[tksensei]

Originally Posted by MMM

Actually it didn't come from his office, but the office of the Dept. of Education.

Where does the buck stop?