Get them while they're young

[ArlJim78]

Keep your kids out of school on Sept 8th if you don't want them to be forced to participate in even more of the presidents indoctrination (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama’s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009)to his radical cultist ideology. this is sickening to me, if you read it, its nothing but a brainwashing attempt to have these kids grow up to be good little marxists that serve the state well. plenty of places where they are suggested to come up with ways they can help the president.
Ceausecu would address the students directly in Romania. Much like Obama he would inform them what they needed to do in order to better serve the state.
___________________________________

President Obama’s Address to Students Across America September 8, 2009
PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama’s Address to Students Across America
Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education
September 8, 2009

Before the Speech:
• Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:
Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be President?
To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?
• Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.
• Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?
During the Speech:
• As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/Sp2DmyGoX-I/AAAAAAAAdo4/ut-khq0ZwN0/s400/obama+youth.bmp

[mostpost]

Keep your kids out of school on Sept 8th if you don't want them to be forced to participate in even more of the presidents indoctrination (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama’s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009)to his radical cultist ideology. this is sickening to me, if you read it, its nothing but a brainwashing attempt to have these kids grow up to be good little marxists that serve the state well. plenty of places where they are suggested to come up with ways they can help the president.
Ceausecu would address the students directly in Romania. Much like Obama he would inform them what they needed to do in order to better serve the state.
___________________________________

President Obama’s Address to Students Across America September 8, 2009
PreK-6 Menu of Classroom Activities: President Obama’s Address to Students Across America
Produced by Teaching Ambassador Fellows, U.S. Department of Education
September 8, 2009

Before the Speech:
• Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions:
Who is the President of the United States?
What do you think it takes to be President?
To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking?
Why do you think he wants to speak to you?
What do you think he will say to you?
• Teachers can ask students to imagine being the President delivering a speech to all of the students in the United States. What would you tell students? What can students do to help in our schools? Teachers can chart ideas about what they would say.
• Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?
During the Speech:
• As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important or personally meaningful. Students could use a note-taking graphic organizer such as a Cluster Web, or students could record their thoughts on sticky notes. Younger children can draw pictures and write as appropriate. As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following:
What is the President trying to tell me?
What is the President asking me to do?
What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?
• Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/Sp2DmyGoX-I/AAAAAAAAdo4/ut-khq0ZwN0/s400/obama+youth.bmp
Same old paranoid garbage. :bang: :bang: :bang: We now have a president who actually cares about things like education and you can't get past your narrow minded view of the world. By all means keep your children at home so they can grow up to be as ignorant as you are.
The talk will be about the importance of education. The study guide references that. Obama is not going to be teaching a third grader how to make a molotov cocktail. Trust me. He won't be encouraging kindergardners to snitch on their parents.
I understand that you guys have no grounds on which to argue the issues, but these paranoid delusions make you look like idiots.

[JustRalph]

You know......... I wasn't buying into this Obama indoctrination and propaganda in the style of the Socialist's of the past.......and the former USSR ........

but every day this bastard is starting to make the hair on the back of my neck start to stand up a little bit more..............

[GaryG]

Several teachers that I know have a term for this speech that I can't post here. No recruits for the Obama Youth in Johnson County TN.

[lsbets]

• [b]Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials,

I cannot see how that does not creep you out mostpost. To a child in grammar school, listen does not mean hear what they say, evaluate it on the merits, and decide if you agree or disagree. Listen to means obey. Listen to your mother. Listen to your father. Listen to your teacher. The bastards in this administration are smart enough to know what that means to a child in grammar school. They want to build the Obama Youth. First thing tomorrow morning I am calling my school district to see if they are participating (I assume it is voluntary, but they may have found some way to encourage all to take part). If the district is participating, than I will make sure their phones are flooded with calls for the rest of the week. I will personally call the elected members of the school board to make sure we do not participate. I will not stand for the indoctrination of my children by this, or any, administration.

[DJofSD]

Same old paranoid garbage. :bang: :bang: :bang: We now have a president who actually cares about things like education and you can't get past your narrow minded view of the world. By all means keep your children at home so they can grow up to be as ignorant as you are.
The talk will be about the importance of education. The study guide references that. Obama is not going to be teaching a third grader how to make a molotov cocktail. Trust me. He won't be encouraging kindergardners to snitch on their parents.
I understand that you guys have no grounds on which to argue the issues, but these paranoid delusions make you look like idiots.
So, moistest, what good is this going to do? What wonderful things is BO going to share with the youth of America?

I doubt there is going to be anything that BO can say that will be remember by the end of the week by an adult let alone a bunch of grammar school kids.

This so called speech is more appropriate for high school students.

[HUSKER55]

wHY CAN'T CHILDREN SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE IN SCHOOL.

WHY CAN'T CHILDREN PRAY IN SCHOOL

SEE A PATTERN HERE?

Probably not if you are unamerican and antichrist

[NJ Stinks]

I'm guessing Obama is going to tell the kids to study, stay in school, respect their teachers and parents....

What a Nazi. :bang:

[DJofSD]

I'm guessing Obama is going to tell the kids to study, stay in school, respect their teachers and parents....

What a Nazi. :bang:
Will he reading from the teleprompter to deliver that message?

I don't know why BO needs to tell the kids any of that. My kid already knows that and certainly does not need to hear it from him.

Short and simple message: leave my kid alone. I don't appreciate any kind of message, good, bad or indifferent, being delivered outside of my presence. I don't trust BO or anything coming out of this administration. I'd say the same if this was Bush. Just shut the f*ck up, deal with the real issues at hand and let the local union teachers do their job.

[bigmack]

I'm guessing Obama is going to tell the kids to study, stay in school, respect their teachers and parents....
How is it folk gotta guess? (& I am fairly sure you're wrong)

Besides mostpost, ain't you one of BO's biggest fans? Wouldn't a disclosure of what he plans to talk about be in order so parents could judge for themselves on the content? You know, for being a full disclosure administration & all.

[NJ Stinks]

Will he reading from the teleprompter to deliver that message?

I don't know why BO needs to tell the kids any of that. My kid already knows that and certainly does not need to hear it from him.

Short and simple message: leave my kid alone. I don't appreciate any kind of message, good, bad or indifferent, being delivered outside of my presence. I don't trust BO or anything coming out of this administration. I'd say the same if this was Bush. Just shut the f*ck up, deal with the real issues at hand and let the local union teachers do their job.

Your kids aside, don't you think the first black president of the U.S. telling black kids and other minorities in public schools to stay in school, study, etc. might actually have have a positive affect on these kids?

Not every kid has a great parent.

Am I wrong?

[DJofSD]

Your kids aside, don't you think the first black president of the U.S. telling black kids and other minorities in public schools to stay in school, study, etc. might actually have have a positive affect on these kids?

Not every kid has a great parent.

Am I wrong?
I don't care if it is the first poka dot president.

BO can speak to the down trodden during some other time. I thought black kids and other minorities waited with baited breathe, hanging on every word he utters.

Don't be so quick to minimize the issue here, it is my kid, and not his, and I am not going to put him aside. You can attempt to divert attention away from the core issue here by trying to rationalize the event. It won't work.

I'll repeat myself: leave my kid alone.

[DJofSD]

Not every kid has a great parent.
Not my problem. And stop trying to make it my problem. Those problem parents and their spawn are great teaching moments for me.

[rastajenk]

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

:bang:

[ArlJim78]

Same old paranoid garbage. :bang: :bang: :bang: We now have a president who actually cares about things like education and you can't get past your narrow minded view of the world. By all means keep your children at home so they can grow up to be as ignorant as you are.
The talk will be about the importance of education. The study guide references that.
you totally don't get it, and quickly resort to personal attacks when you don't take the time to understand the concerns.
Obama is not the first president to care about education.
It is not necessary for the president to have his mug broadcast to youngsters in order to help the out in terms of education. It is necessary if you want to expand your cult of personality.
who said anything about molatov cocktails?

what it will surely be about is another push towards his service concept which I abhor. He is there to serve us, not to tell us and our kids how to serve the country.

it will be about shaping the mindset around his vision of service which is the community organizer model.

obviously you missed the prepared questions about having the kids ask "what does the president want me to do"? "What job is he telling me to do".
Its not his job to tell our kids what their job is. this is total BS.

be a lemming if you'd like, history is replete with people that made excuse after excuse and turned a blind eye while they marched forward on the path to totalitarianism. this is not about education in the sense you are thinking.

please feel free to indoctrinate your kids, teach them how great the president is and how they should serve in the Obama Youth Brigades.

but for me, my attitude is like others, LEAVE ME AND MY KIDS ALONE!

[Marlin]

Paranoid sounds about right. Like K through 6 kids are going to "listen" to the President. It will be one hour out of the day and will be so far below a kids radar compared to the hour for lunch/recess. Send your kids to school. After all the one hour the President spends with your kids can't make a dent in the years you have spent with him/her. If it can you should not have kids. Another case of people lashing out just to lash out. AKA Paranoia!

[juanepstein]

i hope the commuliberacist tells my kid hes gonna be a gymnast and not a factory worker.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00607/news-graphics-2005-_607129a.jpg

[boxcar]

I cannot see how that does not creep you out mostpost. To a child in grammar school, listen does not mean hear what they say, evaluate it on the merits, and decide if you agree or disagree. Listen to means obey. Listen to your mother. Listen to your father. Listen to your teacher. The bastards in this administration are smart enough to know what that means to a child in grammar school. They want to build the Obama Youth. First thing tomorrow morning I am calling my school district to see if they are participating (I assume it is voluntary, but they may have found some way to encourage all to take part). If the district is participating, than I will make sure their phones are flooded with calls for the rest of the week. I will personally call the elected members of the school board to make sure we do not participate. I will not stand for the indoctrination of my children by this, or any, administration.

BINGO! Your turn to go to the head of the class! To children of that age, "listen" means "obey". Obey whom? Obviously someone in authority. As you have correctly said, a mom, a father, a teacher -- all of whom small children listen to because they trust these authority figures -- who rightfully are their authority figures

So, let's see if I have this right: Is the U.S. government our authority figure? Do we exist, supposedly as a free people, to serve the state? We're here to serve the government? But I thought the state was here to serve the people? :bang: I thought politicians were the public servants. Politicians are supposed to serve us, no? Or do I have all this backwards?
So, why are these very young, impressionable kids being told that they have to listen (i.e. obey -- because this is what "listen" means to a young child) to the president and other elected officials? Are elected officials now surrogate parents? Why are young, impressionable kids supposed to trust people they don't know?

Very perceptive of you, LS, to pick up on this. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Paranoid sounds about right. Like K through 6 kids are going to "listen" to the President. It will be one hour out of the day and will be so far below a kids radar compared to the hour for lunch/recess. Send your kids to school. After all the one hour the President spends with your kids can't make a dent in the years you have spent with him/her. If it can you should not have kids. Another case of people lashing out just to lash out. AKA Paranoia!

Good. Let BO go over and indoctrinate Chicom kids. Oh wait...they're already indoctrinated. I nearly forgot.

Boxcar

[DJofSD]

BINGO! Your turn to go to the head of the class! To children of that age, "listen" means "obey". Obey whom? Obviously someone in authority. As you have correctly said, a mom, a father, a teacher -- all of whom small children listen to because they trust these authority figures -- who rightfully are their authority figures

So, let's see if I have this right: Is the U.S. government our authority figure? Do we exist, supposedly as a free people, to serve the state? We're here to serve the government? But I thought the state was here to serve the people? :bang: I thought politicians were the public servants. Politicians are supposed to serve us, no? Or do I have all this backwards?
So, why are these very young, impressionable kids being told that they have to listen (i.e. obey -- because this is what "listen" means to a young child) to the president and other elected officials? Are elected officials now surrogate parents? Why are young, impressionable kids supposed to trust people they don't know?

Very perceptive of you, LS, to pick up on this. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar
Right, to what both of you have said.

I have taught my son to respect and obey his parents, his teachers, his priest, all law enforcement, his friend's parents and adults in general.

Furthermore, he understands that commercials and advertising is just a way for companies to get you to spend your money.

He is beginning to understand there is such a thing as politics and politicans.

At some point I am going to make sure he understands politicans and politics is, for the most part, about money and power, and, that it is about HIS money and taking it away from him. Not that different than advertising. And I will make sure to connect the dots - politicans, as was stated above, are not to be trusted. Politicans are no different than the liars, cheaters, drug pushers and abusers we see on "Dog the Bounty Hunter". He knows those poor folks are not to be trusted any farther than you can throw them and I'm going to make damnably sure he understands politicans are cut from the same bolt of cloth.

So now, is it clear why I don't want any politican let alone the biggest BS artist ever to hold the office delivering any message to my son?

[mostpost]

According to the conservatives here, Obama is going to speak to their children and teach them to sing the "Internationale" (That's the communist anthem for those who don't know.) As part of this plot the White House has sent each school a series of questions designed to direct the children's thinking towards collectivist beliefs. All very scary. Unless you have common sense and the facts.
http://www.adams14.org/president-obama
The above is from the Adams County School District 14, near Denver, Colorado.
Here is an excerpt:
Here's how the President described the speech in a recent interview with 11 year-old reporter Damon Weaver yesterday: "On Sept. 8, when young people across the country will have just started or are about to go back to school, I'm going to be making a big speech to young people all across the country about the importance of education, the importance of staying in school, how we want to improve our education system, and why it's so important for the country. And so I hope everybody tunes in."
That dirty Obama!! He didn't say anything about teaching the "Internationale"
:eek:
Here is another IMPORTANT excerpt from the Adams County School District 14 website:
The Department of Education has also asked a group of U.S. Department of Education Teaching Ambassador Fellows to develop some suggested classroom activities around the speech to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives
What this excerpt tells us is that the suggested questions and activities surrounding the speech were formulated, not by the White House, nor even by the career professionals at the Department of Education, but by members of the Teaching Ambassadors Fellowship.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherfellowship/index.html
This program is for teachers with at least three years teaching experience. If chosen they work in one of two categories. In the Classroom Fellowship they continue to work in their community and work part time with the Department of Education. In the Washington Fellowship, they move to Washington DC and work full time with the DOE for one year. Their task: to share their practical knowledge and experience with the people at DOE. The website explains how they are chosen. Political affiliation is not a criterion. Before anyone says "Sounds like Socialism to Me", the program began before the 2008-2009 school year when you know who was still President.
The point of all this is that the study guides for the President's speech were developed by teachers for teachers, not by the DNC.

And in all the materil I looked through I didn't find one mention of the "Internationale". I hear there's a great arrangement for flute and oboe.

[ddog]

it's sick.

students do not need the great dc leader, any of them, talking to them in class.

if they wish to attend an event after school on a weeknight or weekend and hear a talk then that's different.

it's creepy or worse.

teachers and parents , local authority figures can handle this just fine.

with the state of the education system in this country and the morons it is turning out , a better use of the hour would be an hour of instruction in math or history.

[chickenhead]

maybe he's gonna read them that goat book?

the only time I remember our teachers bringing in some kind of live telecast for us was for the Challenger Shuttle, they taught us all about how a woman teacher was going into space, how great it would be, and then we all watched it blow up.

[JustRalph]

The more young eyes you can get your icon in front of........the better for the future of the party

http://www.pjtv.com/v/2317

[PaceAdvantage]

The more young eyes you can get your icon in front of........the better for the future of the party

http://www.pjtv.com/v/2317Long video, but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for the link!

[Pace Cap'n]

Is it just coincidence that mostpost knows what the communist anthem is?

[Tom]

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

:bang:

President!
Leave those kids alone! :lol:


Seriously, we can't let GOD in school, but we let the Anti-Christ speak?????

[hcap]

Is it just coincidence that mostpost knows what the communist anthem is?
Most educated people do.

[Tom]

Is it the Emperor's Theme from Star Wars?

[Quagmire]

Some folks must be pretty poor excuses for parents if they are worried that having there kids hear Obama speak for an hour is going to indoctrinate them.

[newtothegame]

Most educated people do.

Awww come on Hcap...I was really looking forward to some graphs...a long winded speech to divert and conquer...something. you disappointed me this time :mad: .
But, to the topic at hand which is our children.
First off, why is it that teachers have to have formal training to teach our children (and show proof of said higher learning to earn that job), yet B.O doesnt have to disclose his school records and I am suppose to allow him to speak to my children in a "learning" setting?
Secondly, someone here mentioned that wouldnt it be nice for B.O to speak to minorities and black kids to have a positive effect on them? So is this going to be only broadcast in all black or minority schools?? Come on NJ, you know better then that.
Thirdly, if B.O really wanted this to come across as open and clean, why not prerecord it and allow the parents to see it first, then have the children watch it the next day providing the parents found nothing wrong with it?
At least that way, it would alleviate some fears. (Its not like this president hasn't raised many fears already with America). I wonder why the Times recently wrote that his approval rating has dropped FASTER then any other president? And now I am supposed to have my child listen to a guy who sat in the front rows of a church that professed hate for America and white people? Nahhh, I think I will pass until I see the "message" myself first. If he is not willing to allow me to judge what is best for my child, then I will make that decision for Obama.

[DJofSD]

Most educated people do.
That sounds like something the snake would have said to Eve in the Garden of Eden.

[Tom]

Some folks must be pretty poor excuses for parents if they are worried that having there kids hear Obama speak for an hour is going to indoctrinate them. Or they are very good parents. I suspect they are very very good. Just allowing the public school system to talk to our children is upsetting to me.

[46zilzal]

You know......... I wasn't buying into this Obama indoctrination and propaganda in the style of the Socialist's of the past.......and the former USSR ........

but every day this bastard is starting to make the hair on the back of my neck start to stand up a little bit more..............
GOOD

[ArlJim78]

Before Chairman Obama has his opening day chat with the students of the nation, maybe this is a good time to refresh our memories on exactly what education experience Obama brings to the table (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html). It mainly flows from the great work he did working alongside terrorist Bill Ayers at the radical Chicago Annenberg Challenge. At some point Ayers discovered that he could more effectively bring down the country by corrupting the education system from within rather than through random bombings and killings. CAC was his vehicle to gently spread his radical agenda throughout the school system of Chicago. Obama came along for the ride as he shared the same hatred of America. Read the whole article, I've copied some excerpts below.

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.
The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.
________________________________________________
so the guy who feels he needs to give our kids a pep talk on the benefits of education, is the same guy who worked side by side with Bill Ayers and helped to fund radical programs designed by Bill Ayers, a man who wrote a manifesto on how to destroy America in addition to his prior bombing campaigns.
he's also the same guy who has covered up all traces of his educational writings or records.

[Mike A]

I cannot see how that does not creep you out mostpost. To a child in grammar school, listen does not mean hear what they say, evaluate it on the merits, and decide if you agree or disagree. Listen to means obey. Listen to your mother. Listen to your father. Listen to your teacher. The bastards in this administration are smart enough to know what that means to a child in grammar school. They want to build the Obama Youth. First thing tomorrow morning I am calling my school district to see if they are participating (I assume it is voluntary, but they may have found some way to encourage all to take part). If the district is participating, than I will make sure their phones are flooded with calls for the rest of the week. I will personally call the elected members of the school board to make sure we do not participate. I will not stand for the indoctrination of my children by this, or any, administration.

PERIOD

[Tom]

maybe he's gonna read them that goat book?

the only time I remember our teachers bringing in some kind of live telecast for us was for the Challenger Shuttle, they taught us all about how a woman teacher was going into space, how great it would be, and then we all watched it blow up.

Geeze, Chick.....they wheeled in a TV for us to watch.....ALAN SHEPARD! :eek:

[BlueShoe]

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted".

"Give us the child for eight years and it will be a Bolshevik forever".

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

[slewis]

Left -right left - right bicker bicker over something so silly.

Let me be the voice of constructive suggestion to end this....

All you on the left, make sure you get your kids to school not only when the pres speaks but every day.

Many of them need as much English as they can get.

As for you on the right. Keep your kids (and in the case of this thread, Grandkids, home when Obama speaks, so as not to get them "brainwashed".

Now you right wingers may have your hands full, especially those grandparents that are gonna watch those kiddies for the day, so I suggest some arts and crafts.

Go to the store and get some white sheets and have the little ones cut out holes in the sheets for their eyes and nose.

Just tell them that "we're making ghosts" :lol: :lol: :lol:

[JustRalph]

Geeze, Chick.....they wheeled in a TV for us to watch.....ALAN SHEPARD! :eek:

I don't go back that far.....but close...........the coolest thing in the world was watching the "Splash-down" phase with your elementary school buddies....... :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Snag]

Some folks must be pretty poor excuses for parents if they are worried that having there kids hear Obama speak for an hour is going to indoctrinate them.

One step at a time.

The next speech will be about community service and the next speech will be about....

Little steps for little feet!

[newtothegame]

Left -right left - right bicker bicker over something so silly.

Let me be the voice of constructive suggestion to end this....

All you on the left, make sure you get your kids to school not only when the pres speaks but every day.

Many of them need as much English as they can get.

As for you on the right. Keep your kids (and in the case of this thread, Grandkids, home when Obama speaks, so as not to get them "brainwashed".

Now you right wingers may have your hands full, especially those grandparents that are gonna watch those kiddies for the day, so I suggest some arts and crafts.

Go to the store and get some white sheets and have the little ones cut out holes in the sheets for their eyes and nose.

Just tell them that "we're making ghosts" :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know slew.....even you have stooped to a new low by attempting (and a poor one at that), to associate those of us who have concerns with Obama and the Klan.
So by default, that must mean that you Obama kool aid drinkers probably all go to the church of reverend Wright? Or how about attend a Bill Ayers party to learn how to blow up america?
But this just goes to show more of what us on the "right" have been saying. Libs just keep ducking, dodging, and doing all possible to avoid the issues.
:bang:

[Quagmire]

One step at a time.

The next speech will be about community service and the next speech will be about....

Little steps for little feet!

Same old same old....

"We searched previous media reports to see if former President George W. Bush ever gave a nationwide address to schoolchildren, but based on our search, it appears he did not. He did, however, regularly visit individual schools and discuss the importance of education with students.

We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

Democrats at the time criticized the speech. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives.

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education.""

[newtothegame]

Obama ‘I Pledge’ Video: Indoctrinating School Kids? (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689)

By Cathryn Friar

Have you seen it? The Obama “I Pledge” video (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#)? Well, elementary age kids in Utah saw the “I Pledge” video recently at a school (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) assembly. Now, a politically conservative group believes the showing of that brief video is simply more radical, leftist propaganda and the continued indoctrination of school kids. You can read more about it below and watch the “I Pledge” video yourself.






http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/Barack_Obama_654.jpg (http://www.rightpundits.com/?pp_album=main&pp_cat=&pp_image=Barack_Obama_654.jpg)

Would you pledge allegiance to this man?






Kids at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah were shown a short video called “I Pledge” recently during a start-of-school assembly. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obamahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) and part of a speech in which he says,

“Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.”

The Obama “I Pledge” video then features a bunch of Hollywood celebutards like Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore making pledges about how they will help The One and the world — and that’s the problem (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171?_requestid=5883011) says some in the community. It’s indoctrinating school kids.



I remember seeing the video right after the election and thinking not only was it boring and too long, but it was stupid too. Many pledges, such as supporting local food (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly are really quite noncontroversial and even appropriate.

But other pledges, such as: “to never give anyone the finger when I’m driving again,” “to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid”, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obamahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#),” “I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica,” as well as pledges to not use plastic grocery bags, not flush the toilet after urinating, and to advance stem cell researchhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) seemed just way too much liberal-ese for me and apparently for this community as well. Considering the impressionable young crowd of elementary kids and the fears of indoctrination (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4691) during this Age of Obama, parents of school kids are concerned.

“Showing the video in a public school is completely inappropriate,” said Jennifer Cieslewicz, whose daughter is a first-grader at the school. “I don’t believe a video such as this that promotes certain values should be shown to elementary students, especially without parents being aware. “

Chris Williams, Davis School District spokesman, said Eagle Bay Elementary school principal Ofelia Wade and school PTA leaders decided to show (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/02/i-pledge-to-be-of-service-to-barack-obama/) the I Pledge video as part of an assembly about the school’s theme for the year, which is “Service”. He said the PTA board chose the video and Principal Wade did not see it before it was shown in the assembly.

Oopsie.

So now, and only because of vigilant parents who spoke out loudly, has the school principal Ofelia Wade, apologized for showing the Obama “I Pledge” video and plans to also send a letter home to parents to alleviate any fears of indoctrination of school kids there at Eagle Bay Elementary.







Obama I Pledge Video
Photos: www.wenn.com (http://www.wenn.com/); White House Official Photographer

[DJofSD]

Obama ‘I Pledge’ Video: Indoctrinating School Kids? (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689)

By Cathryn Friar

Have you seen it? The Obama “I Pledge” video (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#)? Well, elementary age kids in Utah saw the “I Pledge” video recently at a school (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) assembly. Now, a politically conservative group believes the showing of that brief video is simply more radical, leftist propaganda and the continued indoctrination of school kids. You can read more about it below and watch the “I Pledge” video yourself.






http://www.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/Barack_Obama_654.jpg (http://www.rightpundits.com/?pp_album=main&pp_cat=&pp_image=Barack_Obama_654.jpg)

Would you pledge allegiance to this man?






Kids at Eagle Bay Elementary School in Farmington, Utah were shown a short video called “I Pledge” recently during a start-of-school assembly. The video opens with an image of President Barack Obamahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) and part of a speech in which he says,

“Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.”

The Obama “I Pledge” video then features a bunch of Hollywood celebutards like Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore making pledges about how they will help The One and the world — and that’s the problem (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171?_requestid=5883011) says some in the community. It’s indoctrinating school kids.



I remember seeing the video right after the election and thinking not only was it boring and too long, but it was stupid too. Many pledges, such as supporting local food (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly are really quite noncontroversial and even appropriate.

But other pledges, such as: “to never give anyone the finger when I’m driving again,” “to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid”, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obamahttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#),” “I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica,” as well as pledges to not use plastic grocery bags, not flush the toilet after urinating, and to advance stem cell researchhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4689#) seemed just way too much liberal-ese for me and apparently for this community as well. Considering the impressionable young crowd of elementary kids and the fears of indoctrination (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=4691) during this Age of Obama, parents of school kids are concerned.

“Showing the video in a public school is completely inappropriate,” said Jennifer Cieslewicz, whose daughter is a first-grader at the school. “I don’t believe a video such as this that promotes certain values should be shown to elementary students, especially without parents being aware. “

Chris Williams, Davis School District spokesman, said Eagle Bay Elementary school principal Ofelia Wade and school PTA leaders decided to show (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/02/i-pledge-to-be-of-service-to-barack-obama/) the I Pledge video as part of an assembly about the school’s theme for the year, which is “Service”. He said the PTA board chose the video and Principal Wade did not see it before it was shown in the assembly.

Oopsie.

So now, and only because of vigilant parents who spoke out loudly, has the school principal Ofelia Wade, apologized for showing the Obama “I Pledge” video and plans to also send a letter home to parents to alleviate any fears of indoctrination of school kids there at Eagle Bay Elementary.







Obama I Pledge Video
Photos: www.wenn.com (http://www.wenn.com/); White House Official Photographer

"I pledge to never give the finger to any one again while driving."

You've got to be kidding me. This isn't the only line I found objectionable but it was the one where I didn't need to watch any further.

Any teacher or school administrator that would show that video should be fired.

[ArlJim78]

The I Pledge video is about the creepiest thing I've ever seen. Watch it and tell me this isn't a cult movement. The people in that video are examples of the high end support for Obama, the deep thinkers, the intelligentsia if you will.

How many here in the PA Off Topic have given their pledge of service to Barack Obama? I think several have if you read post after post expressing total and complete support of every idea no matter how radical. those are just the types of pledges that they're looking for, docile, compliant, fawning, submissive.

[GaryG]

How many here in the PA Off Topic have given their pledge of service to Barack Obama?All together now...... FUBO

[Quagmire]

The I Pledge video is about the creepiest thing I've ever seen. Watch it and tell me this isn't a cult movement. The people in that video are examples of the high end support for Obama, the deep thinkers, the intelligentsia if you will.

How many here in the PA Off Topic have given their pledge of service to Barack Obama? I think several have if you read post after post expressing total and complete support of every idea no matter how radical. those are just the types of pledges that they're looking for, docile, compliant, fawning, submissive.

Nothing new....

Deleting the Bush Personality Cult from history
The personalized veneration of George Bush was systematic and engulfing. The Right wants to forget that.

Glenn Greenwald

Sep. 02, 2009 |

(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

National Review's Jay Nordlinger -- and others at that magazine -- are upset that a school is showing a year-old video in which various celebrities spout feel-good platitudes about public service, and -- for a fleeting second -- Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher vow to "be of service to the President." This sentiment -- a desire to serve the President -- is something conservatives would never adopt, apparently:

When I read about that celebrity video where they say, “I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama,” I thought that the people do not deserve to be American citizens, because they have no idea what America or a liberal republic is. . . . Also, it strikes me that "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama" is the product of a thoroughly secular mind, which is another marker of contemporary America. . . . Did conservatives ever say “I pledge to be of service to Ronald Reagan”? I never heard it -- and the notion is preposterous.

I'm always amazed -- even though I know I shouldn't be -- at people's capacity simply to block out events, literally refuse to acknowledge them, when they are inconsistent with their desire to believe things. Do Nordlinger and the other National Review political experts really not know about this episode, obviously much more consequential than some admittedly creepy though entirely trivial moment in a celebrity "pledge" video:

According to the [Justice Department] OIG report released today, Angela Williamson, a deputy to Monica Goodling at the DOJ, was intimately involved in her bosses' scurrilous hiring practices, attending interviews and often conducting interviews herself. Here's a sampling of the same questions that Goodling:

After Goodling resigned, Williamson typed from memory the list of questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other questions, the list included the following:

Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

[B][W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

Prior to Goodling herself testifying before the House Judiciary Committee about her screening of prospective DOJ hires to make certain they were sufficiently devoted to serving George Bush, she shared with a Justice Department official this vow: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this president." And she didn't have a "secular mind." Even as Attorney General, Alberto Gonazles actually thought his "client" was the President. The entire DOJ was structured to ensure that its employees, including prosecutors required to act with apolitical independence, were what they called "loyal Bushies." Pledging "to be of service to George W. Bush" was the prime mandate of the Justice Department, which is why it was headed for his second term by Bush's most loyal servant.

Beyond the DOJ, huge swaths of the right-wing movement were devoted to an unprecedented veneration of George Bush. A whole industry on the Right was created to convert him into a warrior-deity, including truly creepy reverence books by National Review writers (see here for various illustrations). Some on the Right actually speculated that God intervened in our elections because he had hand-picked Bush to be our leader. Even Bill Kristol admitted that the GOP had turned into little more than a Bush-centered personality cult, telling the New York Times: "Bush was the movement and the cause." More than any single, discrete issue, what motivated me to begin writing about political issues was the warped climate of hero worship constructed -- by the Right and the media -- around George Bush as a "War President."

If you search long enough on the Internet, can you find examples of random people or vapid celebrities guilty of excessive Obama worship? Obviously. One can find virtually anything using those methods. But the personalized veneration of George Bush, particularly during his first term, was systematic and engulfing. I It was the fuel that drove most of the abuses and transgressions of that era. The New York Times' Elizabeth Bumiller infamously confessed that asking hard questions of Bush was "frightening" due to the prevailing political climate. To read right-wing pundits proclaiming that such a sentiment would never be embraced by a conservative is really remarkable -- only because it's such a powerful testament to the ability of people to just forget and/or completely whitewash even the most recent history.

[LottaKash]

Step by step, and inch by inch.......:eek:

[jballscalls]

Same old same old....

"We searched previous media reports to see if former President George W. Bush ever gave a nationwide address to schoolchildren, but based on our search, it appears he did not. He did, however, regularly visit individual schools and discuss the importance of education with students.

We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

Democrats at the time criticized the speech. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives.

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education.""

thanks for posting this, i have no clue why anyone would be upset about the president talking to america's youth. Oh thats right, he's an evil liberal

[LottaKash]

[QUOTE=Quagmire]Nothing new....


If you search long enough on the Internet, can you find examples of random people or vapid celebrities guilty of excessive Obama worship? Obviously. One can find virtually anything using those methods. But the personalized veneration of George Bush, particularly during his first term, was systematic and engulfing. I QUOTE]

Sure, all of this crap is a just a continuation of something that started a good while back and began to rear it's ugly head in a more serious way, with the advent of WJC, and his "mob" (and one of which is till in a powerful post, I might add), and then Bush started pulling the triggers in a much "bigger and more obvious way", and now this new "STAR", is going to push us forward and onto "victory" in the "New Way of Gov't"....Don't ya see it coming ?....Don't ya ?

All "Stooges" and "Puppets" of something bigger, than the way our gov't used to be....imo

"Hail to the Chief" - (of everything)"

best,

[ArlJim78]

thanks for posting this, i have no clue why anyone would be upset about the president talking to america's youth. Oh thats right, he's an evil liberal
first off, no president should be making an address to school kids. It not right to put the political aspect so directly into education. Keep the politicians and their agendas out of the schools. And I do mean all politicians regardless of party.

this president in particular who constantly requests service not only to the country but even to himself. they erased part of the study guide that recommended that students write down what they believe the president is asking them to do, FOR HIM! that is the problem, its going down the wrong path to further politicize schools in this way.

[Quagmire]

thanks for posting this, i have no clue why anyone would be upset about the president talking to america's youth. Oh thats right, he's an evil liberal


Thats half the reason.

[boxcar]

Thats half the reason.

Yeah...the other half is he's a Marxist.

Boxcar

[Quagmire]

Yeah...the other half is he's a Marxist.

Boxcar

I thought he was a socialist?

[DJofSD]

Thats half the reason.
Right.

Isn't it ironic that liberals are always touting choice, freedom to do what they want, whenever, for whatever reason. But yet, as parent, my choice to say no when it comes to my child viewing this "speech" is either openly questioned or denied.

Some freedom of choice that is. I can choose as long as my choice agrees with their opinions.

[Tom]

I thought he was a socialist?

He's ambidextrous.

[jballscalls]

Right.

Isn't it ironic that liberals are always touting choice, freedom to do what they want, whenever, for whatever reason. But yet, as parent, my choice to say no when it comes to my child viewing this "speech" is either openly questioned or denied.

Some freedom of choice that is. I can choose as long as my choice agrees with their opinions.

your choice isn't denied as all, you don't have to send your kid to school that day do you?

[Quagmire]

Right.

Isn't it ironic that liberals are always touting choice, freedom to do what they want, whenever, for whatever reason. But yet, as parent, my choice to say no when it comes to my child viewing this "speech" is either openly questioned or denied.

Some freedom of choice that is. I can choose as long as my choice agrees with their opinions.

Who wants to deny you the right to choose whether your kids view the speech.

I'm curious do you plan on sheltering your kids from everything you disagree with?

[jballscalls]

first off, no president should be making an address to school kids. It not right to put the political aspect so directly into education. Keep the politicians and their agendas out of the schools. And I do mean all politicians regardless of party.

this president in particular who constantly requests service not only to the country but even to himself. they erased part of the study guide that recommended that students write down what they believe the president is asking them to do, FOR HIM! that is the problem, its going down the wrong path to further politicize schools in this way.

i agree the "what can they do for me" part was stupid and they got rid of it because people took a shat on it, as they should.

but i just don't have a problem with the president talking to kids, if anything just so they learn who the heck is president. Nothing better than on Jay Leno when he does that jaywalking segment he ripped off from Howard Stern, where he asks random people who is the president or vice president and they don't even know.

[boxcar]

Who wants to deny you the right to choose whether your kids view the speech.

I'm curious do you plan on sheltering your kids from everything you disagree with?

How 'bout from parents protecting their kids from what they perceive as abusive power? Would you bother yourself to protect your kid from a threat of an attack by a wild animal? Likewise, many parents want to protect their children from attempts at Marxist-oriented indoctrination. It is a very well known and established fact that totalitarian states rise to power through propagandizing their youth. Once the minds of the youth are captured, the nation will fall. The takeover will be complete.

Try leaving your comfortable shell of naivete sometime so that you can get up to speed on history.

Boxcar

[ddog]

[QUOTE=Quagmire]Nothing new....


If you search long enough on the Internet, can you find examples of random people or vapid celebrities guilty of excessive Obama worship? Obviously. One can find virtually anything using those methods. But the personalized veneration of George Bush, particularly during his first term, was systematic and engulfing. I QUOTE]

Sure, all of this crap is a just a continuation of something that started a good while back and began to rear it's ugly head in a more serious way, with the advent of WJC, and his "mob" (and one of which is till in a powerful post, I might add), and then Bush started pulling the triggers in a much "bigger and more obvious way", and now this new "STAR", is going to push us forward and onto "victory" in the "New Way of Gov't"....Don't ya see it coming ?....Don't ya ?

All "Stooges" and "Puppets" of something bigger, than the way our gov't used to be....imo

"Hail to the Chief" - (of everything)"

best,


IN other words(I Like em anyway) " OF laws not men".

This has been tossed in the trash bin decades ago and the results are for all to see.

Straight into the toilet.

[Quagmire]

How 'bout from parents protecting their kids from what they perceive as abusive power? Would you bother yourself to protect your kid from a threat of an attack by a wild animal? Likewise, many parents want to protect their children from attempts at Marxist-oriented indoctrination. It is a very well known and established fact that totalitarian states rise to power through propagandizing their youth. Once the minds of the youth are captured, the nation will fall. The takeover will be complete.

Try leaving your comfortable shell of naivete sometime so that you can get up to speed on history.

Boxcar

I would think that a childs parent would have more of an effect on that childs mind than a political figure they see on TV.

[DJofSD]

Who wants to deny you the right to choose whether your kids view the speech.

I'm curious do you plan on sheltering your kids from everything you disagree with?
I guess that depends on what you mean when you say shelter and what you mean by disagree.

I disagree with smoking cigarettes. My son understands it's not something he should start. We've had many a discussion about peer pressure, advertising of the product, what he see's on TV and in the movies, the cost involved, and the long term health problems.

As long as he's a minor and I'm responsible for him, paying his bills, etc., he won't smoke, at least in my presence or in my house.

There's a long list: sex, guns, rock and roll. etc., etc. When it is appropriate, he'll learn about it from me. If he doesn't, he can ask.

Do I shelter my son? Sure I do. He doesn't get to watch porn, as an example. Does that mean I'm a bad parent? You tell me.

And like graphic sexual content, there'll be a time when he can make his own choice about it. Right now, he is not old enough, mature enough to even begin to understand sex let alone porn. At some point he'll be able to handle it. But not now. Same thing with the so called speech by BO. He is not old enough to understand politics and that's what this issue is all about.

It doesn't take a village nor a sitting president to guide a young mind. It takes a parent.

[boxcar]

I would think that a childs parent would have more of an effect on that childs mind than a political figure they see on TV.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. :rolleyes: Parents RIGHTFULLY SHOULD HAVE more effect. That is their responsibility and their prerogative, sir -- including protecting their kids' minds from those who they think want to exercise undue influence over those minds for untoward purposes.

Boxcar

[Tom]

I would think that a childs parent would have more of an effect on that childs mind than a political figure they see on TV.

That would be the parents' call. Schools are not there to teach dogma - just the basics, which they fail at in most cases. When every kid can read and write and cypher at their age level, then we can talk about other stuff, until then teachers need to get busy doing their jobs. Most are an embarrassment.

[Quagmire]

It doesn't take a village nor a sitting president to guide a young mind. It takes a parent.

Thats 100% correct. Then why would you believe that if your son watched the speech he would suddenly forget everything you taught him and swear his undying allegiance to Obama, or whatever it is some fear will happen after hearing him?

[Quagmire]

That would be the parents' call. Schools are not there to teach dogma - just the basics, which they fail at in most cases. When every kid can read and write and cypher at their age level, then we can talk about other stuff, until then teachers need to get busy doing their jobs. Most are an embarrassment.

If parents don't like what is being taught in the public schools they have the option to remove their kids and home school them or enroll them in private school.

Parents still make the final call on what their children learn.

[Tom]

It is bad enough that they have to be exposed to liberal teachers every day. I would never sen my kids to a public school.

Add to that the POTUS piling on and you lay groundwork for further erosion of free thinking. Your dad is laid off and your family is hurting, then you have a lib teacher reminding you everyday - remember what Obama said about community service.....blah blah blah.

NO government officials have any business - either side -interfering with our children - they work for us, talk to us. Teach to to read and write - know your place.

[Show Me the Wire]

Quagmire:

Simply because Obama has more authority, than the parents, and the teachers, who are authority figures also, will give more credence to Obama's views than the views of the individual's parents.

It is classic abuse of authority and power. But the parents have the ultimate power, they can reduce Obama's authority by controlling whether or not the child will attend school that particular day.

It is a shame that a child will have to miss school to avoid abuse of authority by a sitting president and educators.

[Quagmire]

Thats your option Tom. No one is forcing anyone to send their kids to public school.

[Quagmire]

Quagmire:

Simply because Obama has more authority, than the parents, and the teachers, who are authority figures also, will give more credence to Obama's views than the views of the individual's parents.

It is classic abuse of authority and power. But the parents have the ultimate power, they can reduce Obama's authority by controlling whether or not the child will attend school that particular day.

It is a shame that a child will have to miss school to avoid abuse of authority by a sitting president and educators.


I don't buy the fact that Obama has more authority over a child then their own parents do and I hope you don't either.

[Show Me the Wire]

Thats your option Tom. No one is forcing anyone to send their kids to public school.

But us property owners pay for them, so we should expect to utilize public schools to teach skills as reading, writing, mathematics, etc. to benefit the individual and not political philosphies espoused by teachers abusing their positions.

[Quagmire]

But us property owners pay for them, so we should expect to utilize public schools to teach skills as reading, writing, mathematics, etc. to benefit the individual and not political philosphies espoused by teachers abusing their positions.

So you only want them to teach what you think they should teach because you pay property tax? I have friends who are creationists and their kids go to school and learn about evolution, is that wrong on the schools part? Or does it provide the parents the chance to teach them another viewpoint?

[Show Me the Wire]

I don't buy the fact that Obama has more authority over a child then their own parents do and I hope you don't either.

Then you must also deny the fact that children are impressionable and the lessons of history.


The Nazis' turned children against their own parents. Now I am not saying Obama is a Nazi, but he certainly understands children are impressionable and he as President has much more authority to a young child than the child's parents.

Recent past history shows how impressionable children were used by authority figures, in Africa, as soldiers.

Obama flies around on a big jet, has people protecting him, he is on the news, etc. To a young impressionable child's mind all of the above gives Obama or any president more authority.

History repeats itself, because people never learn its lessons.

[boxcar]

Thats 100% correct. Then why would you believe that if your son watched the speech he would suddenly forget everything you taught him and swear his undying allegiance to Obama, or whatever it is some fear will happen after hearing him?

So...using this bizarre logic, then, you'd be okay with your kid hanging out with a charming pedophile, for example? You'd be okay with that because parents have more leverage? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

So you only want them to teach what you think they should teach because you pay property tax? I have friends who are creationists and their kids go to school and learn about evolution, is that wrong on the schools part? Or does it provide the parents the chance to teach them another viewpoint?

I don't know how you got the above from my post? My post countered your nobody is forcing you to send your children to public schools. I said if you pay for the service the service should be provided to your children too, in a reponsible matter, i.e. learning age appropriate material.

You want to discuss philosophy and political systems it should be taught at age levels where children are not so impressionable and have the ability to discern.

[Quagmire]

Then you must also deny the fact that children are impressionable and the lessons of history.


The Nazis' turned children against their own parents. Now I am not saying Obama is a Nazi, but he certainly understands children are impressionable and he as President has much more authority to a young child than the child's parents.

Recent past history shows how impressionable children were used by authority figures, in Africa, as soldiers.

Obama flies around on a big jet, has people protecting him, he is on the news, etc. To a young impressionable child's mind all of the above gives Obama or any president more authority.

History repeats itself, because people never learn its lessons.

So do Madonna and the Dallas Cowboys...do they have more authority to a young mind then their own parents?

[Quagmire]

So...using this bizarre logic, then, you'd be okay with your kid hanging out with a charming pedophile, for example? You'd be okay with that because parents have more leverage? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

Yeah Boxcar thats exactly the same. Hearing someone speak on Tv that kids could care less about and hanging out with a pedophile, exactly the same thing.

[boxcar]

So you only want them to teach what you think they should teach because you pay property tax?

And what's wrong with this idea? You see, this is why government is far more dangerous than any entity in the private sector. In the private sector, when we pay our good money for goods or services, we want WHAT we want. We fully expect to get what we want because WE'RE PAYING FOR IT. But, according to your perverse way of thinking, we, as taxpayers -- we who are paying the salaries of the school boards, teachers, etc., have no right to tell these entities WHAT IT IS THAT WE WANT TAUGHT TO OUR CHILDREN? We're picking up the tab. We're paying the freight -- but we're supposed to keep our mouth shut?

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Quagmire:

I will not participate in straw arguments.

Answer my questions. Do you deny children are impressionable? Do you deny historical facts that authority figures have used impressionable children to overcome the authority of the parents?

Watch the movie Blood Diamond for some recent history about children being turned against their parents authority, even to the extent of murdering their own parents because of a powerful authority figure.

[Quagmire]

And what's wrong with this idea? You see, this is why government is far more dangerous than any entity in the private sector. In the private sector, when we pay our good money for goods or services, we want WHAT we want. We fully expect to get what we want because WE'RE PAYING FOR IT. But, according to your perverse way of thinking, we, as taxpayers -- we who are paying the salaries of the school boards, teachers, etc., have no right to tell these entities WHAT IT IS THAT WE WANT TAUGHT TO OUR CHILDREN? We're picking up the tab. We're paying the freight -- but we're supposed to keep our mouth shut?

Boxcar

Well what if you want kids to be taught one thing and your neighbor next door wants them to be taught something else and so on down the block. I guess they should all have their choice of whats taught because they are all paying the freight.

[Quagmire]

Quagmire:

I will not participate in straw arguments.

Answer my questions. Do you deny children are impressionable? Do you deny historical facts that authority figures have used impressionable children to overcome the authority of the parents?

Watch the movie Blood Diamond for some recent history about children being turned against their parents authority, even to the extent of murdering their own parents because of a powerful authority figure.

Of course children are impressionable. It's been awhile since I've seen Blood Diamond but didn't the warlords kidnap the children and use them as their own militia..didn't they take them away from their parents influence. Do you see that happening in the US?

[boxcar]

Well what if you want kids to be taught one thing and your neighbor next door wants them to be taught something else and so on down the block. I guess they should all have their choice of whats taught because they are all paying the freight.

Tell that to the secular humanists who fight tooth and nail against creationism being taught along side evolution. One has to wonder why they're so fearful of an alternative explanation.

Boxcar

[Quagmire]

Tell that to the secular humanists who fight tooth and nail against creationism being taught along side evolution. One has to wonder why they're so fearful of an alternative explanation.

Boxcar

The same reason they don't teach 2 + 2 =5 in math class boxcare.

[boxcar]

The same reason they don't teach 2 + 2 =5 in math class boxcare.

Thank for validating my point about liberals' take on "fairness". So...in your world everyone all taxpayers should have input into what they want their kids to learn -- but with certain, [biased] exceptions, of course. Certain taxpayers should discriminated against (in fact...forbidden to even speak!) because you don't like their worldview. Typical close-minded, intolerant liberal!

Boxcar

[Quagmire]

Thank for validating my point about liberals' take on "fairness". So...in your world everyone all taxpayers should have input into what they want their kids to learn -- but with certain, [biased] exceptions, of course. Certain taxpayers should discriminated against (in fact...forbidden to even speak!) because you don't like their worldview. Typical close-minded, intolerant liberal!

Boxcar

Not at all, evolution has been proven by science to be a fact. You might not agree with it and thats your right, but you believing it's not so doesn't make it not a fact. No more than a child believing in Santa Claus.

[Show Me the Wire]

Of course children are impressionable. It's been awhile since I've seen Blood Diamond but didn't the warlords kidnap the children and use them as their own militia..didn't they take them away from their parents influence. Do you see that happening in the US?

There is the crux. Impressionable children are away from their parents in school. Sadly, due to modern society and its demands many chidren spend more time in school and with care-takers other than their parents.

The culmination of time spent in others' care is eroding the parents authority over their children, thus making them more vunerable to outside authority figures.

However, that is a cultural discussion for another time.

[Show Me the Wire]

Not at all, evolution has been proven by science to be a fact. You might not agree with it and thats your right, but you believing it's not so doesn't make it not a fact. No more than a child believing in Santa Claus.

Both science and religion both agree there was a beginning. The universe did not always exists.

Why do evolutionists always confuse themselves? There was a beginning and evolution does not explain the beginning.

The argument against some sort of intelligent being at this moment is totally unscientific. There was a beginning and science confirms that part.

If you as an evolutionist want to argue the specific teaching of creation happening in 7 consecutive 24 hour periods, that is in accordance with science.

However, to state creation did not take place is totally at odds with science and religion together.

oops thread drift.

[DJofSD]

Thats 100% correct. Then why would you believe that if your son watched the speech he would suddenly forget everything you taught him and swear his undying allegiance to Obama, or whatever it is some fear will happen after hearing him?
There is no fear involved here. I object b/c it is not the presidents job. Some might disagree and I'm OK with that.

The president is an elected offical. By definition, he is a politican. His message will be a political one. He has no expertise, background or authority when it comes to education, speaking to an audience of students. He's a lawyer, not an educator.

His message will be one of persuasion. Perhaps an attempt to motivate. This will not be some rambling, off the cuff set of remarks made in an extemporaneous manner. It is a planned event. And, as such, I do not feel it is appropriate for him to speak to such a young audience. High school, sure. Junior high, maybe. Grammar school, hell no.

[46zilzal]

What children really need, early in their lives, is the development of a questioning nature. I was lucky to have learned it at age 10 and never again accepted a thing without first hand proof. Gets you in a lot of hot water, But tough

[slewis]

There is no fear involved here. I object b/c it is not the presidents job. Some might disagree and I'm OK with that.

The president is an elected offical. By definition, he is a politican. His message will be a political one. He has no expertise, background or authority when it comes to education, speaking to an audience of students. He's a lawyer, not an educator.

His message will be one of persuasion. Perhaps an attempt to motivate. This will not be some rambling, off the cuff set of remarks made in an extemporaneous manner. It is a planned event. And, as such, I do not feel it is appropriate for him to speak to such a young audience. High school, sure. Junior high, maybe. Grammar school, hell no.

I can certainly understand your right wing views regarding what Obama will do next week, but to suggest that he is not qualified to be an educator is an uneducated statement.

Here's a fact for you DJSD:
99% of EVERY school school district in the USA would dream to have their educators as educated and accomplished as Obama, regardless of political views or history.

Replace the name on his resume with "Smith" and his skin color "caucasian" and he'd be running the La Jolla school system in 2 yrs.

[Show Me the Wire]

Coincidence? Blood Diamond airing tonight on USA network, in about an hour.

[Show Me the Wire]

I can certainly understand your right wing views regarding what Obama will do next week, but to suggest that he is not qualified to be an educator is an uneducated statement.

Here's a fact for you DJSD:
99% of EVERY school school district in the USA would dream to have their educators as educated and accomplished as Obama, regardless of political views or history.

Replace the name on his resume with "Smith" and his skin color "caucasian" and he'd be running the La Jolla school system in 2 yrs.

He may be qualified to manage a school district. However, he is a politician and his core audience is not sixth grade and under.

His core constiuents may act like sixth graders and that is what causing his confusion :D

[Snag]

Same old same old....

"We searched previous media reports to see if former President George W. Bush ever gave a nationwide address to schoolchildren, but based on our search, it appears he did not. He did, however, regularly visit individual schools and discuss the importance of education with students.

We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

Democrats at the time criticized the speech. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives.

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education.""

One big difference. I don't believe President Bush passed out "suggested" talking points for teachers to follow before his speech. Show me where that happened and I won't consider your points as the same old, same old...

[DJofSD]

I can certainly understand your right wing views regarding what Obama will do next week, but to suggest that he is not qualified to be an educator is an uneducated statement.

Here's a fact for you DJSD:
99% of EVERY school school district in the USA would dream to have their educators as educated and accomplished as Obama, regardless of political views or history.

Replace the name on his resume with "Smith" and his skin color "caucasian" and he'd be running the La Jolla school system in 2 yrs.
I doubt he could run La Jolla Country Day.

So, you think a person with a degree is an expert in every field?

[HUSKER55]

On the upside, he is living proof that any idiot can become the president of the USA

[Tom]

I can certainly understand your right wing views regarding what Obama will do next week, but to suggest that he is not qualified to be an educator is an uneducated statement. He may be qualified, but he as no business doing it. That is not his job.

Here's a fact for you DJSD:
99% of EVERY school school district in the USA would dream to have their educators as educated and accomplished as Obama, regardless of political views or history. And do you know why they have so few that area? Because they are the teachers and most could not teach a fly to land on poop! They would be better served teachin kids the basics and how to think instead of what to think. There is no place in our shcools for politics.

Replace the name on his resume with "Smith" and his skin color "caucasian" and he'd be running the La Jolla school system in 2 yrs.I would like to see him stop being predenent today and do that grom now on!

Hmmm:D

[Boris]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/03/2051572.aspx

From NBC's Chuck Todd
The White House is releasing the full text of the president's speech to students on Monday -- a full 24 hours before President Obama delivers the speech live at noon ET a local Arlington, VA, high school. Obviously, this means parents and teachers will have plenty of time to read the text of the speech and decide for themselves about the content.

I think that is all people wanted from Mr. Transparent. Show us what you intend on saying to our children so we can parent.

[Warren Henry]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/03/2051572.aspx

From NBC's Chuck Todd
The White House is releasing the full text of the president's speech to students on Monday -- a full 24 hours before President Obama delivers the speech live at noon ET a local Arlington, VA, high school. Obviously, this means parents and teachers will have plenty of time to read the text of the speech and decide for themselves about the content.

I think that is all people wanted from Mr. Transparent. Show us what you intend on saying to our children so we can parent.
If the parents disapprove, they should keep their children home on that day. The schools are funded based on count of butts in the seats for each day. If enough stay home it costs the district plenty.

[slewis]

I doubt he could run La Jolla Country Day.

So, you think a person with a degree is an expert in every field?


Dont put words in my mouth ot attempt to twist my statements.

Im speaking on this one from experience of a friend, Ivy league grad, a lawyer, then judge, who expressed interest in becoming an educator.

It was "how soon can you start and what position would you like"?

and he doesn't reside in states some of those who post on this thread do.

Regarding your statement, no, someone with a Master's in Electrical Engineering would need to spice it up a bit to run a school district.

But a master's from say, MIT or RPI would sure get one a good look.

To be a teacher, well considering many states are still hiring teachers who dont even have 4 yr degrees, Id say it's pretty much a slam dunk.

[slewis]

Hmmm:D

:D Good one Tom.. at least you didn't call me a "reversed racist":lol:

[slewis]

If the parents disapprove, they should keep their children home on that day. The schools are funded based on count of butts in the seats for each day. If enough stay home it costs the district plenty.


I was hoping you'd post on this thread.

This is coming from a guy who posted something along the lines of one "obeying" the orders of a policeman.

Ok let me figure your rationale...... Listen and obey the orders of some psycho cop with a tazer (or worse).

AND DONT let your kids even HEAR what the President of the US has to say, even if it's along the lines of "Stay in school, respect your parents, dont do drugs...blah blah blah...

[Warren Henry]

I doubt he could run La Jolla Country Day.


I have no doubt that he could run La Jolla Country Day. But you might not approve of how he did it or what it turned into.

Probably would need a lunch czar (a vegetarian opposed to any protein), a hall czar (a militant radical), a bathroom czar (pedophile), gym czar (another pedophile), playground czar (another pedophile), maintenance czar, indoctrination czar, parental bamboozler czar, propaganda czar, etc.

[Tom]

Shouldn't the requirements to teach third grade be.....you passed fourth grade? :cool:

[Warren Henry]

I was hoping you'd post on this thread.

This is coming from a guy who posted something along the lines of one "obeying" the orders of a policeman.

Ok let me figure your rationale...... Listen and obey the orders of some psycho cop with a tazer (or worse).

AND DONT let your kids even HEAR what the President of the US has to say, even if it's along the lines of "Stay in school, respect your parents, dont do drugs...blah blah blah...

If the message was strictly positive about staying in school respecting parents, not doing drugs, there would be no reason to keep the children home. If it was about pledging to follow a particular political policy etc, I would keep them home.

I posted the "obey the cop" comment because the cop has the power to make the situation ugly. To be a good analogy here, there would have to be ugly consequences to keeping your children home. If the school district was going to expel a child who did not attend on that day, I would send the child to school and try to deal with the problem another way - such as in court. I would also be sure to spend extra time with the child attempting to be sure that he/she understood the intent of the message.

You didn't argue my point, you attempted to belittle me personally. Great tactics.

[boxcar]

What children really need, early in their lives, is the development of a questioning nature. I was lucky to have learned it at age 10 and never again accepted a thing without first hand proof. Gets you in a lot of hot water, But tough

Shirley U. Jest!!! You're delusional if you believe for a moment that you have an inquiring mind. You're a mind-numbed drone. Get used to it.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Well what if you want kids to be taught one thing and your neighbor next door wants them to be taught something else and so on down the block. I guess they should all have their choice of whats taught because they are all paying the freight.

Well, this sure beats your alternative of outright censorship, doesn't it!?

Boxcar

[slewis]

If the message was strictly positive about staying in school respecting parents, not doing drugs, there would be no reason to keep the children home. If it was about pledging to follow a particular political policy etc, I would keep them home.

I posted the "obey the cop" comment because the cop has the power to make the situation ugly. To be a good analogy here, there would have to be ugly consequences to keeping your children home. If the school district was going to expel a child who did not attend on that day, I would send the child to school and try to deal with the problem another way - such as in court. I would also be sure to spend extra time with the child attempting to be sure that he/she understood the intent of the message.

You didn't argue my point, you attempted to belittle me personally. Great tactics.

Well now I wont belittle you, I'll applaude you spending extra time with a child to explain (and help them understand) the "message".

Look, this whole uprising is silly. Kids, as impressionable as they may be, are not going to be brainwashed over a speech, or two or one hundred.
Especially if they have the guidence of Mom and Dad to offer their parental side.
Then they will become young adults, apply rationale and make their own choices. Then, as we all know, they'll probably move that rationale as their lives progress.
The important thing here is whether it's this president giving a nationwide address to the youth, or when GWB used to visit the classroom and the media was all over it, It's a good thing and a harmless thing.

So go ahead and go to court and try to stop it. Tell the Judge it's outside the President's duties (that'll get a laugh from even Scalia) and see if you dont get ridiculled out the court room.

[DJofSD]

Dont put words in my mouth ot attempt to twist my statements.
Whoa, dude, back off. I asked you a question, that's all. Did I jump down your throat when you implied my position was racially motivated? No.

[Warren Henry]

Well now I wont belittle you, I'll applaude you spending extra time with a child to explain (and help them understand) the "message".

Look, this whole uprising is silly. Kids, as impressionable as they may be, are not going to be brainwashed over a speech, or two or one hundred.
Especially if they have the guidence of Mom and Dad to offer their parental side.
Then they will become young adults, apply rationale and make their own choices. Then, as we all know, they'll probably move that rationale as their lives progress.
The important thing here is whether it's this president giving a nationwide address to the youth, or when GWB used to visit the classroom and the media was all over it, It's a good thing and a harmless thing.

So go ahead and go to court and try to stop it. Tell the Judge it's outside the President's duties (that'll get a laugh from even Scalia) and see if you dont get ridiculled out the court room.

So, if a little speech or a hundred would be no problem, how was it that Hitler took control of the minds of so many of Germany's youth. I want the brainwashing to stop before it gets started.

A President visiting one classroom even with massive media coverage is not nearly the same as the President addressing ALL youth with whitehouse published directives/suggestions for teacher's use (especially when the majority of the teachers lean left anyway).

And, the court I suggested was not to fight the President's right to make his speech, but to challenge the school or district if they took inappropriate action against the child who was kept home. (you remember the analogy to the rogue cop - have the confrontation somewhere where they don't have the ultimate power).

I know this is difficult for you, but I am trying my best to enlighten you and make you actually think.

[slewis]

So, if a little speech or a hundred would be no problem, how was it that Hitler took control of the minds of so many of Germany's youth. I want the brainwashing to stop before it gets started.

A President visiting one classroom even with massive media coverage is not nearly the same as the President addressing ALL youth with whitehouse published directives/suggestions for teacher's use (especially when the majority of the teachers lean left anyway).

And, the court I suggested was not to fight the President's right to make his speech, but to challenge the school or district if they took inappropriate action against the child who was kept home. (you remember the analogy to the rogue cop - have the confrontation somewhere where they don't have the ultimate power).

I know this is difficult for you, but I am trying my best to enlighten you and make you actually think.


A comparison to Hitler's speeches???

And you wonder why I belittle you......:bang:

[DJofSD]

''Der Fuehrer's Face'' is a 1943 Animated Cartoon by Walt Disney Studios starring Donald Duck. Often heard on Dr. Demento's program.
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
Not to love Der Fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Herr Gobbels says, "We own der world und space"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goebbels´ face
When Herr Goring says they'll never bomb this place
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goring's face

[Secretariat]

Perhaps you need to check the Truth-o-Meter on this Rovian and Cheneyesque garbage.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/republican-party-florida/republican-party-florida-says-obama-will-indoctrin/

A spokesman said the party was particularly concerned about the study questions the department had provided. "The goal of these materials is to tell students why they should support President Obama in his overall agenda," said Katie Gordon.

"If the former administration had done something like this, the media would be handling this a lot differently," she added.

We reviewed the study materials but didn't see any mention of controversial issues, let alone any attempt to indoctrinate students in socialism. The pre-K through 6th grade materials said the main ideas of the speech would be "citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty." The materials for high schoolers mention "personal responsibility, goals, persistence."

We searched previous media reports to see if former President George W. Bush ever gave a nationwide address to schoolchildren, but based on our search, it appears he did not. He did, however, regularly visit individual schools and discuss the importance of education with students.

We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

...

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education."

....

In ruling on Greer's statement, we wondered whether we should give him latitude for legitimate commentary on Obama's speech. But he crossed a line when he said that Obama intended to discuss "plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies" and other policy matters not germane to education. That is factually incorrect, and the party could not offer any support for the statement. For raising the specter of socialist ideology and indoctrination, the party takes its claim to an additional, absurd level. We rate the Republican Party of Florida's statement Pants on Fire!
....

Or this Truth-ometer

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/

We also found that Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.

Reagan urged the students to stay in school and say no to drugs, but he also discussed overtly political matters, such as national defense funding, nuclear disarmament and -- in suprising policy detail -- taxes. (Read Reagan's complete remarks.)

...

We feel that President George H.W. Bush's speech to students is enough evidence to show that Obama was not the first president to speak "directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school."

.................

[newtothegame]

A comparison to Hitler's speeches???

And you wonder why I belittle you......:bang:

Slew.....what you and the rest of the libs here are failing to see is that the CONCERNED people here like myself do NOT know. Thats the problem! Now I do NOT know what he is planning on saying. Neither do you! A comparison to hitler may be a bit extreme but you can NOT sit here and argue the fact that this guy hasnt had ties in some form with extremism. Remember my reverend wright post that you failed to address? How about the social gathering with Bill Ayers? How about his willingness to bend over backwards to show the muslim world how we support them?
Listen, I am not against my grand Daughter hearing his speech as long as I HEAR IT FIRST to make sure it is the message I think she needs to hear. I would like a day to watch the speech, determine if she needs to hear it, and if I decide yes, sit and talk with her about it. If I decide no, then she stays home if the school says they are going to show it. Simple enough! What is so hard for that to be understood?
Lets reverse this for a moment. I believe it was you who tried to make the comparison to us right leaning and the (Klan) by virtue of the sheets and cutting holes. How would the left like if the Leader of the klan was planning a speech and it was going to be show to the YOUTH of america? Do you think they might have some concerns as parents? Hell I am conservative and I would have HUGE concerns. But a conservative would just come by and tell you (without knowing whats going to be said ) that its "ok", there just gonna talk about education. Would you allow your child to attend? I think NOT, without at least seeing the message. Now I can speak for all here but I want to see the message FIRST. No, political messages, no agendas, just pure educational information and it has to be MY decision as ultimately I am responsible for my grand daughter. End of story!

[mostpost]

A President visiting one classroom even with massive media coverage is not nearly the same as the President addressing ALL youth with whitehouse published directives/suggestions for teacher's use (especially when the majority of the teachers lean left anyway).
It is incorrect to say the directives/suggestions come from the White House. They came from teachers. Read post 21 in this thread.

[Secretariat]

Slew.....what you and the rest of the libs here are failing to see is that the CONCERNED people here like myself do NOT know. Thats the problem! Now I do NOT know what he is planning on saying. Neither do you!

Actually, we do know what he is going to say as the transcript has already been released. See above truth-o-meter post.

[slewis]

Slew.....what you and the rest of the libs here are failing to see is that the CONCERNED people here like myself do NOT know. Thats the problem! Now I do NOT know what he is planning on saying. Neither do you! A comparison to hitler may be a bit extreme but you can NOT sit here and argue the fact that this guy hasnt had ties in some form with extremism. Remember my reverend wright post that you failed to address? How about the social gathering with Bill Ayers? How about his willingness to bend over backwards to show the muslim world how we support them?
Listen, I am not against my grand Daughter hearing his speech as long as I HEAR IT FIRST to make sure it is the message I think she needs to hear. I would like a day to watch the speech, determine if she needs to hear it, and if I decide yes, sit and talk with her about it. If I decide no, then she stays home if the school says they are going to show it. Simple enough! What is so hard for that to be understood?
Lets reverse this for a moment. I believe it was you who tried to make the comparison to us right leaning and the (Klan) by virtue of the sheets and cutting holes. How would the left like if the Leader of the klan was planning a speech and it was going to be show to the YOUTH of america? Do you think they might have some concerns as parents? Hell I am conservative and I would have HUGE concerns. But a conservative would just come by and tell you (without knowing whats going to be said ) that its "ok", there just gonna talk about education. Would you allow your child to attend? I think NOT, without at least seeing the message. Now I can speak for all here but I want to see the message FIRST. No, political messages, no agendas, just pure educational information and it has to be MY decision as ultimately I am responsible for my grand daughter. End of story!


First of all you keep labeling me as liberal which clearly shows you dont read my posts and reinforces my very stereotypical view I have of you.

You live in arguably the most corrupt state in the union.
You live in a state where the mayor of the biggest city proclams it will always be "A chocolate town", and then wins re-election.
You live in a state who's police get exposed by the justice dept. for corruption more often than I brush my teeth. (and my teeth are pretty white).
You also live in a state who, without needing to research, I would bet it's children are in the bottom 15% of reading and math scores compared to the rest of the country.
My suggestion to you would be to keep your children in school regardless of what speech is given on what day by whom and have them think about politics after they prove they could get into a college.

[Warren Henry]

A comparison to Hitler's speeches???

And you wonder why I belittle you......:bang:
My point was that it is possible for a popular politician to bend the minds of the young into believing in something that is BAD. It happened before.

Typically you twist the point into something to attempt to ridicule me personally.

Is BO equivalent to Hitler? To be honest, we don't know yet. I am concerned that some of his early movements are similar to those made by Hitler, but that may be coincidence and/or harmless. But, if he is even remotely like Hitler (even without the mass murders), we need to stop him while we can.

You are saying that there would be no harm if BO made a speech to the children or even a hundred. Given his penchant for moving our country hard left and given his oratory skills, and his disregard for the truth, I am nervous about having him address all of the youngest school students in what MIGHT be a first step in trying to persuade them that what the President says should be taken at face value.

I personally don't think his target age group is ready for civic responsibility lectures yet. Stay in school, maybe. Work to support the government, not ready yet. After all, at this stage in their education, they don't even understand what the government is yet. All they know is that there is some sort of authority there. To use that to mold thought is WRONG (IMHO).

Once we have a chance to see/hear his message, we can judge/argue better about the appropriateness of the effort. Until then, I will remain skeptical.

[boxcar]

Perhaps you need to check the Truth-o-Meter on this Rovian and Cheneyesque garbage.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/republican-party-florida/republican-party-florida-says-obama-will-indoctrin/

A spokesman said the party was particularly concerned about the study questions the department had provided. "The goal of these materials is to tell students why they should support President Obama in his overall agenda," said Katie Gordon.

"If the former administration had done something like this, the media would be handling this a lot differently," she added.

We reviewed the study materials but didn't see any mention of controversial issues, let alone any attempt to indoctrinate students in socialism. The pre-K through 6th grade materials said the main ideas of the speech would be "citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty." The materials for high schoolers mention "personal responsibility, goals, persistence."

We searched previous media reports to see if former President George W. Bush ever gave a nationwide address to schoolchildren, but based on our search, it appears he did not. He did, however, regularly visit individual schools and discuss the importance of education with students.

We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

...

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education."

....

In ruling on Greer's statement, we wondered whether we should give him latitude for legitimate commentary on Obama's speech. But he crossed a line when he said that Obama intended to discuss "plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies" and other policy matters not germane to education. That is factually incorrect, and the party could not offer any support for the statement. For raising the specter of socialist ideology and indoctrination, the party takes its claim to an additional, absurd level. We rate the Republican Party of Florida's statement Pants on Fire!
....

Or this Truth-ometer

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/

We also found that Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.

Reagan urged the students to stay in school and say no to drugs, but he also discussed overtly political matters, such as national defense funding, nuclear disarmament and -- in suprising policy detail -- taxes. (Read Reagan's complete remarks.)

...

We feel that President George H.W. Bush's speech to students is enough evidence to show that Obama was not the first president to speak "directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school."

.................

We don't know what's going to be in the speech. It isn't being released online until Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_speech_schools

And "civic duty" and "personal responsibility" is Marxist code-speak for community service. And when he's on that really hot topic of "personal responsibility", I assume he's going to tell these kids that that responsibility extends to providing for their own health care when they get old enough, right? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[BombsAway Bob]

America can't afford to wait until youths reach their teens before it allows
The President of The United States to talk to them.
49 Years Ago, JFK proved that reaching out to Young Americans can energize them.
That scares the bejesus out of conservatives.
The LAST thing they need is a group of future young active voters being created.
I was brought up to listen to and respect our President, even if he was~
unready to be thrust into the position; a crook; see two back; a nice guy; an actor; & so on.
IMHO, President Obama is doing the right thing at the right time by having a talk with kids.
We don't need a President reading fairy tales to toddlers during a crossroads in our country.

[boxcar]

America can't afford to wait until youths reach their teens before it allows
The President of The United States to talk to them.
49 Years Ago, JFK proved that reaching out to Young Americans can energize them.
That scares the bejesus out of conservatives.
The LAST thing they need is a group of future young active voters being created.
I was brought up to listen to and respect our President, even if he was~
unready to be thrust into the position; a crook; see two back; a nice guy; an actor; & so on.
IMHO, President Obama is doing the right thing at the right time by having a talk with kids.
We don't need a President reading fairy tales to toddlers during a crossroads in our country.

You have it all wrong. We don't mind most presidents talking to our kids. But we do take reference to a Marxist president talking to them because, Marxists, like pedophiles are the most pathetic, perverse, twisted, poor excuses for human beings walking on this planet.

Boxcar

[Warren Henry]

I just had a thought.

Why doesn't he talk to them about personal responsibility. About taking responsibility for one's own actions and choices.

Or about how stupid/unhealthy it is to smoke. He could even tell them about how hard it is to stop, so they shouldn't ever start. They are impressionable, tell them that they are much more likely to die a horrible, nasty, painful, death if they smoke. When they get older, they are more interested in being grown up or cool, but if he scares the hell out of them now it might help.

This would be good stuff which would do a great deal of long time good for the children and the country.

Perhaps he cold tell them that it is morally wrong to lie. Admit that he has sinned in this area but promise to never do it again.

But, I am willing to wager that what he preaches will be more to his benefit than to theirs or to their country.

[mostpost]

And "civic duty" and "personal responsibility" is Marxist code-speak for community service.
I did a search and found 38 threads in which you used the phrase "personal responsibility". I'm sure more than once in many of them. It seems to be a favorite phrase of yours, you old commie you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[newtothegame]

First of all you keep labeling me as liberal which clearly shows you dont read my posts and reinforces my very stereotypical view I have of you.

You live in arguably the most corrupt state in the union.
You live in a state where the mayor of the biggest city proclams it will always be "A chocolate town", and then wins re-election.
You live in a state who's police get exposed by the justice dept. for corruption more often than I brush my teeth. (and my teeth are pretty white).
You also live in a state who, without needing to research, I would bet it's children are in the bottom 15% of reading and math scores compared to the rest of the country.
My suggestion to you would be to keep your children in school regardless of what speech is given on what day by whom and have them think about politics after they prove they could get into a college.

Alright....you've crossed a line with me by making a suggestion that my grand daughter is stupid. You said "
You also live in a state who, without needing to research, I would bet it's children are in the bottom 15% of reading and math scores compared to the rest of the country." Then, you follow with..." My suggestion to you would be to keep your children in school regardless of what speech is given on what day by whom and have them think about politics after they prove they could get into a college.".
As you do not know me personally, I and do not know you, let me just say you wouldnt say that garbage to my face AND get away with it. Now if you wish to keep the arguements to the facts at hand and stay away from the personal attacks, I will gladly keep an open dialogue. Otherwise you may consider this my last response with you.
And, just to clear the record, my grand daughter does NOT attend a public school here. I bust my behind, as I am sure most do, to ensure she gets a good education. And furthermore, her most recent terra nova scores were in the top 25% percentile in the country across the board, and the top 10% in math. Although I appreciate your concern for the state in which she lives, it is not needed or wanted. Thank you.
As for the state of Louisiana having corruption, show me a state that doesnt! In regards to that, notice how you actually know this state is corrupt? It is because of prosecutions. So what that tells me is this state will no longer accept corrupt politicians. It also tells me that maybe other states who don't appear to have corruption, may need to stop turning their backs as Louisiana has done for many years. The corruption is there if they just look.
And lastly, you admit to having a "stereotypical view" of me. No need for that, I have said I am conservative. But you alone admitting to stereotype people again, tells me more then enough to GROUP you in with liberals although I do not believe I have called you a liberal. What I have said is "you and liberals".
But that would make alot of sense you thinking that since you admit openly about your stereotypical views. One thing can be said, and you will see whatever you want. And again, you failed to address the content of concerns in my post about the message Obama is to deliver to the YOUTH of this nation.

[Lefty]

Asking the kids to write a letter to themselves asking themselves what they can do to help President Obama, doesn't sound benign to me.
Not what 'can i do to help America', mind you, but what 'can I do to help Obama'?
Since most of us now disagree with Obama, that's outrageous!
It was president clinton who said, "Politics should stop at the schoolhouse steps."

[PaceAdvantage]

Thats half the reason.Oooooooooo....the other reason must be that he's super-scary half-black, right Quagmire?

That's the only reason anyone could possibly have any issues with this son-of-God...I mean, there can't be any other possible reason why ANYONE would have ANY sort of problem with Barack Obama...other than that he happens to be only half-white...

Is it fund-raising time for the party of Democrats? Did I miss that memo?

I've said it a million times before...the party of Democrats not only EMBRACE racism, they THRIVE on it...they NEED it to SURVIVE!

The recent outrageous remarks by people like Quagmire and Charlie Rangel only serve to perfectly illustrate this point.

It's not going to work Quagmire. In fact, it is going to backfire tremendously.

[Quagmire]

Oooooooooo....the other reason must be that he's super-scary half-black, right Quagmire?

That's the only reason anyone could possibly have any issues with this son-of-God...I mean, there can't be any other possible reason why ANYONE would have ANY sort of problem with Barack Obama...other than that he happens to be only half-white...

Is it fund-raising time for the party of Democrats? Did I miss that memo?

I've said it a million times before...the party of Democrats not only EMBRACE racism, they THRIVE on it...they NEED it to SURVIVE!

The recent outrageous remarks by people like Quagmire and Charlie Rangel only serve to perfectly illustrate this point.

It's not going to work Quagmire. In fact, it is going to backfire tremendously.

I won't let the facts get in the way of your rant PA, but what I was refering to as the other half, and what I thought was made clear in my other posts, was that parents who didn't want there kids to hear what Obama had to say were being hypocritcal since nobody had any problems with other Presidents addressing students.

I don't think that I or any of the posters that disagreed with me mentioned race at all.

[Quagmire]

Well, this sure beats your alternative of outright censorship, doesn't it!?

Boxcar


Outright censorship? Not teaching kids everything you think they should be taught isn't censorship boxcar.
Should kids be taught that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the world is flat?

[lsbets]

What I (and I assume most others) had a problem with was the suggested study plan for the students, put out by the Department of Education (which for mostpost would be part of the administration, making the White House references valid). Even my mother, a retired teacher of 40+ years and a very liberal voter, thought the study guide was stupid and at the very least poorly worded. Apparently someone in the administration agreed, because they have revised it.

Only an idiot can think the original study points were in any way appropriate, and I realize there are many idiots here from the left side of the spectrum who don't miss any chance to fawn all over the One.

I think my kids' school district handled it very well. We got a letter home yesterday explaining that we are two weeks into school and already have set lesson plans and that there is testing going on in many classrooms. If any parent's want their child to hear the speech, it will be shown in the library at every school, just let the teacher know you want your kid to go.

[Tom]

''Der Fuehrer's Face'' is a 1943 Animated Cartoon by Walt Disney Studios starring Donald Duck. Often heard on Dr. Demento's program.

And set to music by Spike Jones!

[Quagmire]

And set to music by Spike Jones!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlFBSRrSR0

[DJofSD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YroTk6Vobww&NR=1

[dartman51]

I won't let the facts get in the way of your rant PA, but what I was refering to as the other half, and what I thought was made clear in my other posts, was that parents who didn't want there kids to hear what Obama had to say were being hypocritcal since nobody had any problems with other Presidents addressing students.

I don't think that I or any of the posters that disagreed with me mentioned race at all.

First of all, we've NEVER had a man occupying the White House, as radical as this one. But maybe this COULD turn into a teaching moment. Since he is touted as being a "constitutional scholar", maybe he could give a Constitution leason on how it provides for a 'LIMITED GOVERNMENT'. Or if he wants to keep it personal, he can talk about how you should choose your friends carefully, as you will be judged by the company you keep. He said in one of the debates, that you could judge him by "the people I surround myself with".

[Tom]

If Bush wanted to talk to all the students about faith-based giving, what would the libs say?

[boxcar]

.
I did a search and found 38 threads in which you used the phrase "personal responsibility". I'm sure more than once in many of them. It seems to be a favorite phrase of yours, you old commie you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

But the dif is I don't use the phrase as Marxist code-speak for "community service". You see, the lying,Marxist hypocrite in the WH, who you love so much, never uses the phrase to denote personal responsibility in all personal aspects of our life such, as the people taking personal responsibility fro our our own health care, or for our own retirement benefits, for our own eating habits, for our smoking habits, etc, etc, etc., etc.

Look Mosty, if you inisist on having a love fest with a commie, you had better learn their lingo if you wanna stay in His Highness' good graces. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Asking the kids to write a letter to themselves asking themselves what they can do to help President Obama, doesn't sound benign to me.
Not what 'can i do to help America', mind you, but what 'can I do to help Obama'?
Since most of us now disagree with Obama, that's outrageous!
It was president clinton who said, "Politics should stop at the schoolhouse steps."

Great point, Lefty! Right on the mark. Only drones can't see the difference between helping America and helping this Marxist swine.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Outright censorship? Not teaching kids everything you think they should be taught isn't censorship boxcar.
Should kids be taught that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the world is flat?

Nope. And I know of no scientist today who believes these things either, do you? Do you know anyone who advocates teaching this? And so your point is....????

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I won't let the facts get in the way of your rant PA, but what I was refering to as the other half, and what I thought was made clear in my other posts, was that parents who didn't want there kids to hear what Obama had to say were being hypocritcal since nobody had any problems with other Presidents addressing students.

I don't think that I or any of the posters that disagreed with me mentioned race at all.

No one had any problems with "other presidents addressing students" because this is the first Marxist who managed to get elected. More than a few Americans have a problem with this polarizer's ideology.

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

No one had any problems with "other presidents addressing students" because this is the first Marxist who managed to get elected. More than a few Americans have a problem with this polarizer's ideology.

Boxcar

didn't more than a few Americans have problems with Bush's ideology? or Clintons? or reagans?? no matter what you do, your always going to piss off close to half the country with most every decision, just happens your on the pissed off half this time.

Tom mentioned earlier about if Bush would speak to kids about faith based giving. The libs would be irrate, just as the conservatives are now.

But this speech won't harm or change anything in my opinion. By the end of lunch and recess, the kids will have forgotten everything and just want to get on with what they really care about, being kids.

[46zilzal]

First of all, we've NEVER had a man occupying the White House, as radical as this one. But maybe this COULD turn into a teaching moment. .
You need a BIG history lesson as there have been several completely OUT of touch with needs of the country Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Hoover, the DICK (the first one) and the Rutabaga for starters

[slewis]

didn't more than a few Americans have problems with Bush's ideology? or Clintons? or reagans?? no matter what you do, your always going to piss off close to half the country with most every decision, just happens your on the pissed off half this time.

Tom mentioned earlier about if Bush would speak to kids about faith based giving. The libs would be irrate, just as the conservatives are now.

But this speech won't harm or change anything in my opinion. By the end of lunch and recess, the kids will have forgotten everything and just want to get on with what they really care about, being kids.

Good point J, but he'll only piss off about 10% of the country, not half.

Which is why the "Grumpy old men" on PA will have to deal with things like this for the next 8 yrs! ooops, (I meant 7 1/2)

BTW, if you remember as a kid hearing an adult preach to you, it's probably forgotten well before lunch, especially if he's a "Black-Marxist", the worst kind of Marxist on the planet!!:lol:

[dartman51]

You need a BIG history lesson as there have been several completely OUT of touch with needs of the country Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Hoover, the DICK (the first one) and the Rutabaga for starters

YOU need the history lesson. I STAND by my statement. I didn't say there weren't other A-HOLES in the office, I SAID NONE MORE RADICAL.
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme) b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

Since you apparently don't understand RADICAL.

[DJofSD]

You need a BIG history lesson as there have been several completely OUT of touch with needs of the country Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, Hoover, the DICK (the first one) and the Rutabaga for starters
While that is true, for most of those presidents, they did not have access to electronic communications vehicles. And Tricky Dick did not have school districts with TVs.

Modern era electronic communications changes the focus. Remeber Marshall McCluin (sp?)?

[ArlJim78]

In my lifetime I've never known such an inexperienced and incompetent president who also had such big radical ideas that he tried to force down our throats. A red flag should go up when someone professes to have all the answers yet has zero track record.

I love how more than one month after the date he was demanding to have a health bill already passed, he want to address congress and the nation to flesh out more of the details of his plan. Excuse me? why in the world did he expect us to have passed a health care bill before giving the details? that's where he should have started. All he is is a campaigner, a talker.

[boxcar]

didn't more than a few Americans have problems with Bush's ideology? or Clintons? or reagans?? no matter what you do, your always going to piss off close to half the country with most every decision, just happens your on the pissed off half this time.

Tom mentioned earlier about if Bush would speak to kids about faith based giving. The libs would be irrate, just as the conservatives are now.

But this speech won't harm or change anything in my opinion. By the end of lunch and recess, the kids will have forgotten everything and just want to get on with what they really care about, being kids.

If the speech by this Marxist is going to be so benign, so innocent, so innocuous in nature, why hasn't he provided a transcript of it to the media by now so that parents could know before the fact what's going to be in it?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

In my lifetime I've never known such an inexperienced and incompetent president who also had such big radical ideas that he tried to force down our throats. A red flag should go up when someone professes to have all the answers yet has zero track record.

I love how more than one month after the date he was demanding to have a health bill already passed, he want to address congress and the nation to flesh out more of the details of his plan. Excuse me? why in the world did he expect us to have passed a health care bill before giving the details? that's where he should have started. All he is is a campaigner, a talker.

Exactly! Pulling the wool over our eyes didn't work. Hiding all those innumerable little details in which the devil would be discovered didn't work. Now, he's going to plan B. What a despicable, deceitful piece of human garbage, this president is.

Boxcar (who, btw, respects the Office of the Presidency, just not the empty suit who holds it currently)

[boxcar]

YOU need the history lesson. I STAND by my statement. I didn't say there weren't other A-HOLES in the office, I SAID NONE MORE RADICAL.
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme) b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs

Since you apparently don't understand RADICAL.

Heck...BO as much admitted to being a radical during his campaign, didn't he? He did to everyone who actually listened to him. Didn't his dingbat wife say we would "change the face of America"? Didn't BO very shortly before election day tell us that he was just days away from "fundamentally transforming America"? Didn't he say earlier on during his campaign that the U.S. Constitution was "fundamentally flawed"? You libs who pride yourself on your supposed powers of observation and critical thought just conveniently overlooked all the above clues as to what evil lurks in this man's soul, right? This nutjob is a radical. He wants to turn America inside out. He wants to turn America on its ear, pretty much the way the Dems did to the banking industry when the sleaze bucket politicians wanted to provide "affordable homes" to financially irresponsible or incapable people who had no business owning a home. What BO wants to do is fix that "fundamentally flawed" Constitution by rewriting it, as it were, in Marxist terms. This is how he wants to "change the face of America". This is how he wants to "fundamentally transform" America. He wants to make this country into something it never was -- into something that didn't contribute an iota to our greatness, to our wealth, to our power and above all else -- to our freedom.

Boxcar

[slewis]

Heck...BO as much admitted to being a radical during his campaign, didn't he? He did to everyone who actually listened to him. Didn't his dingbat wife say we would "change the face of America"? Didn't BO very shortly before election day tell us that he was just days away from "fundamentally transforming America"? Didn't he say earlier on during his campaign that the U.S. Constitution was "fundamentally flawed"? You libs who pride yourself on your supposed powers of observation and critical thought just conveniently overlooked all the above clues as to what evil lurks in this man's soul, right? This nutjob is a radical. He wants to turn America inside out. He wants to turn America on its ear, pretty much the way the Dems did to the banking industry when the sleaze bucket politicians wanted to provide "affordable homes" to financially irresponsible or incapable people who had no business owning a home. What BO wants to do is fix that "fundamentally flawed" Constitution by rewriting it, as it were, in Marxist terms. This is how he wants to "change the face of America". This is how he wants to "fundamentally transform" America. He wants to make this country into something it never was -- into something that didn't contribute an iota to our greatness, to our wealth, to our power and above all else -- to our freedom.

Boxcar


To correct you O'Grumpy one... It's Black-Marxist. The worst kind!

[boxcar]

To correct you O'Grumpy one... It's Black-Marxist. The worst kind!

To correct you, sir: The color part would only matter to a racist lib like yourself.
Don't ever put words in my mouth, you bigot.

Boxcar

[slewis]

To correct you, sir: The color part would only matter to a racist lib like yourself.
Don't ever put words in my mouth, you bigot.

Boxcar

Oh Grumpy one, I'm simply pointing out that it's your beloved Republicans that set the framework for this and future "Marxist regimes".

They did this by systematically changing the balance of power in this country in a similar way Hugo Chavez has attained Presidentcy (and soon permanentcy) in Venezuela.
Through greed and stupidity.... Open the BORDERS....!!!!! Let the cheap labor flow!!!

G W Bush..... "We need to fill the jobs Americans wont do"
Karl Rove..... "I dont want my Grandchildren cleaning hotel rooms".
Reagan........."They are just looking for a shot at the American dream"

Guess who all those "hotel cleaning voters" voted for!!!!

Grumpy, It's gonna be a long 71/2 yrs....:lol:

[ddog]

Oh Grumpy one, I'm simply pointing out that it's your beloved Republicans that set the framework for this and future "Marxist regimes".

They did this by systematically changing the balance of power in this country in a similar way Hugo Chavez has attained Presidentcy (and soon permanentcy) in Venezuela.
Through greed and stupidity.... Open the BORDERS....!!!!! Let the cheap labor flow!!!

G W Bush..... "We need to fill the jobs Americans wont do"
Karl Rove..... "I dont want my Grandchildren cleaning hotel rooms".
Reagan........."They are just looking for a shot at the American dream"

Guess who all those "hotel cleaning voters" voted for!!!!

Grumpy, It's gonna be a long 71/2 yrs....:lol:


so so true and yet they can't see it at all.

When you kill off the middle class as has been done over the last 15 years or so, those don't turn into "wild eyed capitalist up by the bootstraps I no longer can afford" kind of peeps.
That's not what you get at all.

Then you lay on a little welfare for the best and brightest via Uncle Paulson and UNcle Bushie and the non-regulators they put in place and all paid from the future non-earnings of those debt slaves at the bottom and , well , let's just say, BOOM!

[boxcar]

Oh Grumpy one, I'm simply pointing out that it's your beloved Republicans that set the framework for this and future "Marxist regimes".


They did this by systematically changing the balance of power in this country in a similar way Hugo Chavez has attained Presidentcy (and soon permanentcy) in Venezuela.
Through greed and stupidity.... Open the BORDERS....!!!!! Let the cheap labor flow!!!

Well good...then you're on board with the upcoming revolution to take back our freedoms, right? You and I can stand shoulder-to-shoulder together in the trenches fighting tyranny, right?

Boxcar

[ddog]

While that is true, for most of those presidents, they did not have access to electronic communications vehicles. And Tricky Dick did not have school districts with TVs.

Modern era electronic communications changes the focus. Remeber Marshall McCluin (sp?)?


the PR power of any Dear Leader to move public opinion is much less now than anytime in the past.

The number of outlets not to mention the web has reduced any prez to just another bobble-head after his first hundred days or so.

The only time that is not in effect is during our fake wars for survival of the past several years, when all the MSM hops on the crowded bandwagon with their kool-aid pitchers at the ready.

[DJofSD]

Queue up Le Miz, Red and Black.

[slewis]

so so true and yet they can't see it at all.

When you kill off the middle class as has been done over the last 15 years or so, those don't turn into "wild eyed capitalist up by the bootstraps I no longer can afford" kind of peeps.
That's not what you get at all.

Then you lay on a little welfare for the best and brightest via Uncle Paulson and UNcle Bushie and the non-regulators they put in place and all paid from the future non-earnings of those debt slaves at the bottom and , well , let's just say, BOOM!

Great post D..:ThmbUp:

[slewis]

Well good...then you're on board with the upcoming revolution to take back our freedoms, right? You and I can stand shoulder-to-shoulder together in the trenches fighting tyranny, right?

Boxcar

You know what Boxcar... I have a laugh when people on the board call me a Lib, or racist....

I used to bleed red white and blue... but the deterioratin of the republic the way OUR FOUNDING FATHERS set it up to be makes me puke.

And all we have today is the partisan BS... Like Sarah Palin stating that she does not want her son's health to be decided by Obama's death squads.

That Bitch ought to be happy she has enough money to pay her care forever, but their are Americans that dont, and I cant see anyone who calls themselves an American that would rather see 1 dollar go to radical shites in Iraq in order to "keep the peace" while our inferstructure is crumbling.
All orchestrated by the previous administration that took us from budget surpluses to DEBT our grandkids wil be working to pay.
So now this guy in the White House has inherited the BIGGEST mess in history and all the right wants to see is him fail miserably.

I dont care left or right... I want to bleed red white and blue again, but with the current state of those that run our country it makes that impossible.

So to answer your question, if things got bad enough yes we'd be fighting shoulder to shoulder for the same causes.

If you knew me, you'd be shocked how many things we see right in line with each other


Off to the SPA!

[Show Me the Wire]

To return to the point of this topic. In 1991 the Democratic politicians were against Bush's school speech, because they felt it was paid political advertising. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/03/flashback-1991-gephardt-called-bushs-speech-students-paid-political-a

The article states in part:

"In fact, the House Majority leader at the time, Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), said "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students."

This is the same position I espoused over several posts about schools should educate and not subject students to political speeches. I agree with the Democratic representatives and yet while embracing the prevalent democratic partiy's view against presidential speeches to students, it was moronic of me to think public schools should be teaching reading, writing. and mathematics.

Wow go figure. In 1991 the Dems' believed a sitting president could inluence young impressionable minds.

So I ask Quagmire and other defender's of Obama's speech to all public schools, what is different this time, besides the President talking to all public schools? Why was the question of political influence considered legitimate when raised against Bush and why should the same question be dismissed, as paranoia, when raised against Obama?

[ddog]

To return to the point of this topic. In 1991 the Democratic politicians were against Bush's school speech, because they felt it was paid political advertising. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/03/flashback-1991-gephardt-called-bushs-speech-students-paid-political-a

The article states in part:

"In fact, the House Majority leader at the time, Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), said "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students."

This is the same position I espoused over several posts about schools should educate and not subject students to political speeches. I agree with the Democratic representatives and yet while embracing the prevalent democratic partiy's view against presidential speeches to students, it was moronic of me to think public schools should be teaching reading, writing. and mathematics.

Wow go figure. In 1991 the Dems' believed a sitting president could inluence young impressionable minds.

So I ask Quagmire and other defender's of Obama's speech to all public schools, what is different this time, besides the President talking to all public schools? Why was the question of political influence considered legitimate when raised against Bush and why should the same question be dismissed, as paranoia, when raised against Obama?


there is no point to it anymore.
nice one anyway.

[Quagmire]

So I ask Quagmire and other defender's of Obama's speech to all public schools, what is different this time, besides the President talking to all public schools? Why was the question of political influence considered legitimate when raised against Bush and why should the same question be dismissed, as paranoia, when raised against Obama?


I brought that up yesterday SMTW when I said this was just more of the same old same old (post #43)
I guess the difference is that I don't remember any parents talking about keeping there kids out of school back then.

Same old same old....

"We searched previous media reports to see if former President George W. Bush ever gave a nationwide address to schoolchildren, but based on our search, it appears he did not. He did, however, regularly visit individual schools and discuss the importance of education with students.

We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.''

Democrats at the time criticized the speech. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives.

Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education.""
Last edited by Quagmire : Yesterday at 08:16 AM.

[Show Me the Wire]

ddog:

You may be correct :(

It is discouraging that people will support an action and then ridicule others all based on partisanship, without any basis in critical thinking.

[Show Me the Wire]

Quagmire:

Yes, your post was way before I jumped in this thread.

But forgive me for this, I did not understand the gist of your post. I couldn't tell if you agreed with the dems' leadership concerns at the time of Bush's talk or thought they were being paranoid.

Especially, after I posted about people that pay for public schools should expect schools to teach appropriate subjects and you challenged my thought on the matter.

If your post (#43) meant you believed the Dem leadership was being paranoid too, then I apologize for my misunderstanding of your position regarding sitting presidents giving a televised speech to young school children.

I any event I still believe it is a missue.

[Quagmire]

SMTW, no apologies necessary. I posted the story yesterday to show that even though the names and parties might change that is all that changes. It's just more of the same old same old.

[Secretariat]

We don't know what's going to be in the speech. It isn't being released online until Monday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_speech_schools

And "civic duty" and "personal responsibility" is Marxist code-speak for community service. And when he's on that really hot topic of "personal responsibility", I assume he's going to tell these kids that that responsibility extends to providing for their own health care when they get old enough, right? :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

"civic duty" and "personal responsibility" is Marxist code-speak for community service?

Man, you really do need to get a life. Turn off Beck for a bit and look up civic duy and personal reponsibility. I don't think you'll find any Marx references there. Whew...

btw.. the transcript was available and has been reviewed.

[boxcar]

You know what Boxcar... I have a laugh when people on the board call me a Lib, or racist....

I used to bleed red white and blue... but the deterioratin of the republic the way OUR FOUNDING FATHERS set it up to be makes me puke.

And all we have today is the partisan BS... Like Sarah Palin stating that she does not want her son's health to be decided by Obama's death squads.

That Bitch ought to be happy she has enough money to pay her care forever, but their are Americans that dont, and I cant see anyone who calls themselves an American that would rather see 1 dollar go to radical shites in Iraq in order to "keep the peace" while our inferstructure is crumbling.
All orchestrated by the previous administration that took us from budget surpluses to DEBT our grandkids wil be working to pay.
So now this guy in the White House has inherited the BIGGEST mess in history and all the right wants to see is him fail miserably.

I dont care left or right... I want to bleed red white and blue again, but with the current state of those that run our country it makes that impossible.

So to answer your question, if things got bad enough yes we'd be fighting shoulder to shoulder for the same causes.

If you knew me, you'd be shocked how many things we see right in line with each other


Off to the SPA!

Infrastructure is one thing. Personal Health Care is something else altogether. And personally, I'm with Palin on this latter issue. It's up to every American to assume responsibility for their own own personal health, and I believe most Americans see it this way. We don't want government intrusion into our personal and private lives. It's really that simple.

As far as BO is concerned, I want his radical left wing policies and agenda to fail miserably. If they fail, true Americans are resilient enough to weather the storms and to rebound to eventually win. He loses; we win. It's that simple.

Brief word on Bush: I didn't care much at all for his domestic policies. Bush had too wide of a liberal streak running down his back for my tastes. So, yes, Bush led us into this mess; but BO's policies are doing zero to get us out. And you know why that is? Because he wants more power and he believes the way to achieve his objective is to create more "urgent crises" -- to have congress write more gazillion-page bills that no one will read and con Americans into believing that if congress doesn't act on these proposed pieces of legislation by yesterday,the country will crumble. This is precisely what he did with this worthless, pork-filled stimulus package. The package was supposed to stave off (as just one example) high unemployment. It was supposed to keep unemployment at or below 8%. So, he lied through his teeth, didn't he. And right now, unemployment is at a 26-year high of 9.7%.

So, you can sit there as smug as a bug in the rug and blame Bush for the woes of the entire of the planet if you want, but it doesn't change the fact that for the last 8+ months, there's been a new captain at the helm of America's ship and him and his motley crew of fellow-statists have been steering us toward a shallow reef all this time.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

Sarah Palin referred to death panels, not death squads.

Call it what you want, if you turn over total control of medical decisions to the government, look out below because it will be ugly. You think things are bad now, wait until politically appointed government ethicists are calling the shots.

[exactaplayer]

I'm telling you guys, it's those little green men from Mars that are the root of all these problems. We must act first, INVADE MARS NOW !!!

[lsbets]

CBS Evening News was just in my store to interview people about this. They talked to both me and my wife.

If we end up on air, I'll let you know when I get the audit letter.

[boxcar]

"civic duty" and "personal responsibility" is Marxist code-speak for community service?

Man, you really do need to get a life. Turn off Beck for a bit and look up civic duy and personal reponsibility. I don't think you'll find any Marx references there. Whew...

btw.. the transcript was available and has been reviewed.

It is when a Marxist uses the term. If BO truly believed in INDIVIDUALS taking personal responsibility for their own lives, he would not be pushing for a government takeover of the health care industry, which would essentially give the government control over our personal health care issues. The U.S. government has no business seizing control of extremely important aspects to my personal life. The government has no business or authority to further enslave me to it by removing critically important choices from me.

BO only believes in "personal responsibility" as this pertains to "community organizing", to "civic duty", to "national service" and things of this nature -- in other words in the collective sense.

Boxcar
P.S. And you, sir, need to crawl out from under that huge Naivete Rock that has, evidently, damaged your critical thinking ability.

PPS. And neither do I want BO fundamentally changing my personal life.

[lsbets]

btw.. the transcript was available and has been reviewed.

really? Got a link? Cause the White House says it will be available on Monday. Did you build a time machine?

[WinterTriangle]

Im neither for or against Obama (that's a whole 'nother topic) but I am a member of several internet forums, including this one.

That makes me a person who enjoys and believes in discussion.

I believe that listening to other points of view is EXACTLY what creates informed, intelligent, educated people. I've met kids with parents who are *thought police*, and they don't develop critical thinking skills......they just learn to go along with what they're told, and what the opinons of their friends are.

I taught kids like that.

I also believe that the importance of education is a better message than political hatred. I would encourage my children to listen, and expose themselves, to all points of view, and to develop an opinion about what they hear.

Believe me, there are some pretty scary things that your kids are exposed to every day at school, far more worrisome than the POTUS telling kids to take responsbility for their own education, stay in school, etc. If you're worried about it, I would keep them home permanently.

[boxcar]

Im neither for or against Obama (that's a whole 'nother topic) but I am a member of several internet forums, including this one.

That makes me a person who enjoys and believes in discussion.

I believe that listening to other points of view is EXACTLY what creates informed, intelligent, educated people. I've met kids with parents who are *thought police*, and they don't develop critical thinking skills......they just learn to go along with what they're told, and what the opinons of their friends are.

I taught kids like that.

I also believe that the importance of education is a better message than political hatred. I would encourage my children to listen, and expose themselves, to all points of view, and to develop an opinion about what they hear.

Believe me, there are some pretty scary things that your kids are exposed to every day at school, far more worrisome than the POTUS telling kids to take responsbility for their own education, stay in school, etc. If you're worried about it, I would keep them home permanently.



So, is political indoctrination. Since that's one thing I would know up front that I wouldn't want to expose my kids too, I'd keep them home that day. Very young, impressionable minds don't need their little heads filled with propaganda. They don't need to made to feel that they serve the president -- that they have to help him -- that they're obligated to him for anything.

Boxcar

[Marshall Bennett]

Im neither for or against Obama (that's a whole 'nother topic) but I am a member of several internet forums, including this one.

That makes me a person who enjoys and believes in discussion.

I believe that listening to other points of view is EXACTLY what creates informed, intelligent, educated people. I've met kids with parents who are *thought police*, and they don't develop critical thinking skills......they just learn to go along with what they're told, and what the opinons of their friends are.

I taught kids like that.

I also believe that the importance of education is a better message than political hatred. I would encourage my children to listen, and expose themselves, to all points of view, and to develop an opinion about what they hear.

Believe me, there are some pretty scary things that your kids are exposed to every day at school, far more worrisome than the POTUS telling kids to take responsbility for their own education, stay in school, etc. If you're worried about it, I would keep them home permanently.


I'll get back with ya on this as soon as I find my magnifying glass . :)

[slewis]

Sarah Palin referred to death panels, not death squads.

Call it what you want, if you turn over total control of medical decisions to the government, look out below because it will be ugly. You think things are bad now, wait until politically appointed government ethicists are calling the shots.

So tell me Arl. Do medicare patients have the Govt controling their decisions for them?

I will repeat since you dont get this:

If you can afford it (and the wealthy can, since this is still the USA where money talks) you will ALWAYS have vitually ALL medical options available today if not more.
Case closed.

BTW... talk about BS propaganda... I just love when I see these town hall meetings where some senior with an IQ of 37 stands up and states "I dont want the Govt getting involved in my health care".

Like who the Fu...k pays for it now you twit.

[slewis]

It is when a Marxist uses the term. If BO truly believed in INDIVIDUALS taking personal responsibility for their own lives, he would not be pushing for a government takeover of the health care industry, which would essentially give the government control over our personal health care issues. The U.S. government has no business seizing control of extremely important aspects to my personal life. The government has no business or authority to further enslave me to it by removing critically important choices from me.

BO only believes in "personal responsibility" as this pertains to "community organizing", to "civic duty", to "national service" and things of this nature -- in other words in the collective sense.

Boxcar
P.S. And you, sir, need to crawl out from under that huge Naivete Rock that has, evidently, damaged your critical thinking ability.

PPS. And neither do I want BO fundamentally changing my personal life.

Where is the GOVT seizing important aspects of your personal life?
Tell me... I want to know.. What a croc of do.

Get this straight.....If you are 70 yrs old and use the medicare system available to you, your costs are minimal compared to having to pay out of pocket.
If you are wealthy and see your own doctors and specialists (because the sky's the limit) there will be AND WILL ALWAYS BE 100 doctors willing to serve you.
Regarding the Govt having access to "private or personal" info, I already told you on another thread, they already know EVERYTHING about us.
Everything. Got it.
If you dont believe me... go and google ACXIOM.

Big brother can find out what kind of mouth wash you use... or dont.

[Show Me the Wire]

WinterTriangle:

Good points. First the children have to be taught how to think critically, before exposing them to a wide variety of views. Exposure without the ability to critically think is detrimental and dangerous.

[Quagmire]

BTW... talk about BS propaganda... I just love when I see these town hall meetings where some senior with an IQ of 37 stands up and states "I dont want the Govt getting involved in my health care".

Like who the Fu...k pays for it now you twit.

And then he'll bitch about not getting a cost of living increase in his Social Sec payments.

[dartman51]

So tell me Arl. Do medicare patients have the Govt controling their decisions for them?

I will repeat since you dont get this:

If you can afford it (and the wealthy can, since this is still the USA where money talks) you will ALWAYS have vitually ALL medical options available today if not more.
Case closed.

BTW... talk about BS propaganda... I just love when I see these town hall meetings where some senior with an IQ of 37 stands up and states "I dont want the Govt getting involved in my health care".

Like who the Fu...k pays for it now you twit.

And you wonder WHY your side is losing this battle. It's that very attitude that is costing Obama his dream. Just because you have an IQ of 40, doesn't give you the right to put down someone that may or may NOT have an IQ of 37. IF you would take the time to read the bill, you might have a clue why people are upset. BUT, then, that's probably above YOUR IQ level.

[slewis]

And you wonder WHY your side is losing this battle. It's that very attitude that is costing Obama his dream. Just because you have an IQ of 40, doesn't give you the right to put down someone that may or may NOT have an IQ of 37. IF you would take the time to read the bill, you might have a clue why people are upset. BUT, then, that's probably above YOUR IQ level.


Ive researched enough of the proposal to draw solid conclusions.

So why dont you give me the Redneck evaluation?

[slewis]

And then he'll bitch about not getting a cost of living increase in his Social Sec payments.


Only half correct,

He'll bitch and specifically blame this administration for it.

[boxcar]

Where is the GOVT seizing important aspects of your personal life?
Tell me... I want to know.. What a croc of do.

Okay...how 'bout this for starters? Everyone will be required to have health insurance. That sir, I consider to be a person's personal choice. We should decide whether we want insurance or not.

Furthermore, if someone for any reason loses his private coverage, he or she would be required to participate in the "private option". The government wouldn't be suggesting this. They wouldn't be advising people to do this. It will be mandated and if you don't, they get to coerce you by forcing you to pay juicy fines.

But even gets "better": Once in the private option, always in! No one ever gets the option of opting out.

All these these kinds of things should be left to the people to choose. People don't need the government fundamentally transforming their personal lives by taking away seriously infringing upon their decision-making powers. We don't need the state sitting in the driver's seat of our personal lives.

Do you have it now? (No, I doubt it. :rolleyes: )

Get this straight.....

No, you get this straight: Take your stupid examples and stick them up your nose. Then blow hard right over your food. Why do you talk to me about another socialist program (Medicaid)? What makes you think I would like that one any better?

And since "Big Brother" knows when you pee, according to you, why are you so comfortable with that? Maybe it's high time to take away Big Gov's power. To knock Big Gov down several pegs. Put this idea in your hash pipe and puff on it fer a spell.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

CBS Evening News was just in my store to interview people about this. They talked to both me and my wife.

If we end up on air, I'll let you know when I get the audit letter.

Those bastards at CBS were probably looking for rednecks from Texas to stir things up.

Thank God they didn't find one!

[DJofSD]

Health care? Health care? We got a severe case of thread creep.

[NJ Stinks]

So tell me Arl. Do medicare patients have the Govt controling their decisions for them?

I will repeat since you dont get this:

If you can afford it (and the wealthy can, since this is still the USA where money talks) you will ALWAYS have vitually ALL medical options available today if not more.
Case closed.

BTW... talk about BS propaganda... I just love when I see these town hall meetings where some senior with an IQ of 37 stands up and states "I dont want the Govt getting involved in my health care".

Like who the Fu...k pays for it now you twit.

Next thing you know PA will be saying 'those damn liberals' think they are know-it-alls. :rolleyes:

[dartman51]

Ive researched enough of the proposal to draw solid conclusions.

So why dont you give me the Redneck evaluation?

When I see a redneck, I'll ask him or her. You are a typical LIBERAL, everything comes down to name calling. You don't know a damn thing about me. Just because I happen to live in TN, you automatically think I'm a redneck. That in itself, shows how small minded you are. You have delusions of adequacy, and think everyone who doesn't think the way you do are rednecks with a 37 IQ. It's MENTAL MIDGETS like you, that give the LEFT a bad name. See, I could almost qualify as a LIBERAL. I guess I have to SINK down to your level to discuss things. Not my choice.

[boxcar]

Those bastards at CBS were probably looking for rednecks from Texas to stir things up.

Thank God they didn't find one!

And they're disappointed as all get out because they were really hoping to find a pro-ObamaCare Texan. They were really looking forward to plastering that interview all over the airwaves -- probably for days.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

When I see a redneck, I'll ask him or her. You are a typical LIBERAL, everything comes down to name calling. You don't know a damn thing about me. Just because I happen to live in TN, you automatically think I'm a redneck. That in itself, shows how small minded you are. You have delusions of adequacy, and think everyone who doesn't think the way you do are rednecks with a 37 IQ. It's MENTAL MIDGETS like you, that give the LEFT a bad name. See, I could almost qualify as a LIBERAL. I guess I have to SINK down to your level to discuss things. Not my choice.

Now, now...don't get "grumpy" like me, Dartman. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
P.S. And you couldn't qualify to become a lib in a 1,000 years. You're too sharp for that.

[slewis]

Okay...how 'bout this for starters? Everyone will be required to have health insurance. That sir, I consider to be a person's personal choice. We should decide whether we want insurance or not.

Furthermore, if someone for any reason loses his private coverage, he or she would be required to participate in the "private option". The government wouldn't be suggesting this. They wouldn't be advising people to do this. It will be mandated and if you don't, they get to coerce you by forcing you to pay juicy fines.

But even gets "better": Once in the private option, always in! No one ever gets the option of opting out.

All these these kinds of things should be left to the people to choose. People don't need the government fundamentally transforming their personal lives by taking away seriously infringing upon their decision-making powers. We don't need the state sitting in the driver's seat of our personal lives.

Do you have it now? (No, I doubt it. :rolleyes: )



No, you get this straight: Take your stupid examples and stick them up your nose. Then blow hard right over your food. Why do you talk to me about another socialist program (Medicaid)? What makes you think I would like that one any better?

And since "Big Brother" knows when you pee, according to you, why are you so comfortable with that? Maybe it's high time to take away Big Gov's power. To knock Big Gov down several pegs. Put this idea in your hash pipe and puff on it fer a spell.

Boxcar


Goody goody,

Now I got Grumpy REALLY Grumpy....

Ok Grump,

I guess your against EVERY govt program, benefit, agency etc etc...( Unless it suits your sorry ass.)

So tell me Mister personal responsibility, I guess you're against contributing to the Military as well?
Maybe you're smart enough to design your own weapon defense shield?
Early radar detection?? How's your math and physics?...ballistic defense, etc?

Oh, or is it that YOU want to pick and choose what works for you and what does not and that which you're sorry ass approves (needs) is good for the USA, but others are an infringement and burden on those required to carry others who are in need.

You know what? I want to think like a fool just like you. I dont want the Military protecting my personal land in the USA. I declare Im entitled to tax relief on my portion of taxes that goes to the Military.
My kids are out of school too, I dont want to contribute to tax money to schools.
That's my choice is it not?

You idiot... you know as much about how a free republic and Govt should work as a 5 yr old knows about differential calculus.

Fool.

[Secretariat]

really? Got a link? Cause the White House says it will be available on Monday. Did you build a time machine?


I stand corrected. The "study materials" were reviewed by Poltifact.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/republican-party-florida/republican-party-florida-says-obama-will-indoctrin/

What they said was:

"We reviewed the study materials but didn't see any mention of controversial issues, let alone any attempt to indoctrinate students in socialism. The pre-K through 6th grade materials said the main ideas of the speech would be "citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty." The materials for high schoolers mention "personal responsibility, goals, persistence."

"We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991."

"Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" "

"In ruling on Greer's statement, we wondered whether we should give him latitude for legitimate commentary on Obama's speech. But he crossed a line when he said that Obama intended to discuss "plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies" and other policy matters not germane to education. That is factually incorrect, and the party could not offer any support for the statement. For raising the specter of socialist ideology and indoctrination, the party takes its claim to an additional, absurd level. We rate the Republican Party of Florida's statement Pants on Fire!

This is the most absurd, desperate, stupid and poltical thing I've ever seen from the Republican Party and that's saying a lot.

[ArlJim78]

So tell me Arl. Do medicare patients have the Govt controling their decisions for them?.
no, not to the extent that has been proposed now.



If you can afford it (and the wealthy can, since this is still the USA where money talks) you will ALWAYS have vitually ALL medical options available today if not more.
Case closed..
there probably was some numbskull in Canada making that same claim years and years ago whenever Canada first considered nationalizing their heath care. hows that working out now? still all those expensive options available for the wealthy? no. the wealthy canadians who can afford it come here instead of waiting over there. once we hand over the controls to the statists and the quality and availability of doctors and care goes down, where will our wealthy folks go?


BTW... talk about BS propaganda... I just love when I see these town hall meetings where some senior with an IQ of 37 stands up and states "I dont want the Govt getting involved in my health care".

Like who the Fu...k pays for it now you twit.
i think those seniors have a higher IQ than you, they're saying they don't want Obamacare. let me get this straight. since Medicare is a public plan, anyone on medicare should welcome Obamacare and not speak out against it?

[Show Me the Wire]

Sec:

Posted this for full disclosure of all fromer viewpoints on this issue.

Nice of you to put in Newt's defense, without refering to the Dems angst at the thought of Bush, Sr. talking to the children.

House Majority leader at the time, Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), said "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students."
Gephardt articulated the prevaling democratic view about a sitting president giving a national televised speech to students.


So your closing statement should have read, This is the most absurd, desperate, stupid and poltical thing I've ever seen from the Republican Party, since the Democratic party acted in the same idiotic way regarding Bush, Senior's speech, and that's saying a lot.

[newtothegame]

When I see a redneck, I'll ask him or her. You are a typical LIBERAL, everything comes down to name calling. You don't know a damn thing about me. Just because I happen to live in TN, you automatically think I'm a redneck. That in itself, shows how small minded you are. You have delusions of adequacy, and think everyone who doesn't think the way you do are rednecks with a 37 IQ. It's MENTAL MIDGETS like you, that give the LEFT a bad name. See, I could almost qualify as a LIBERAL. I guess I have to SINK down to your level to discuss things. Not my choice.

Dart...see I posted this earlier in this thread about the tactics that liberals use. They chose to avoid the actual topic and start name calling, race baiting, whatever to avoid having to take a stand on a subject. To ALL people who are interested in actual discussions about the topics at hand, I suggest just IGNORE the name callers, avoid the discussions that avoid the topics. If we are going to have TRUE reform in the congress and white house, we need to STICK to the points and make it known that the status quo will no longer be accepted in washington. My represenatives have already gotten my letters of disgust. I am actively talking to people at the dance studios and school my grand daughter attends. Will it make a difference? I don't know. But I can assure my politicians of this....I will not sit idly quiet!

[slewis]

no, not to the extent that has been proposed now.



there probably was some numbskull in Canada making that same claim years and years ago whenever Canada first considered nationalizing their heath care. hows that working out now? still all those expensive options available for the wealthy? no. the wealthy canadians who can afford it come here instead of waiting over there. once we hand over the controls to the statists and the quality and availability of doctors and care goes down, where will our wealthy folks go?


i think those seniors have a higher IQ than you, they're saying they don't want Obamacare. let me get this straight. since Medicare is a public plan, anyone on medicare should welcome Obamacare and not speak out against it?


First,

We are not Canada and never will be. The Canadian system has it's strenth's and weaknesses. I wont debate that, it's been beaten to death on PA.
You're statement regarding "some numbskull" is conjecture.

Secondly,

It was explicitly stated in the bill that current medicare recipients are GUARANTEED at least the same degree of care (if not better, ie cheaper co-pays, drugs, etc) if a Govt option is implemented.

Therefore, it is clear, that any recipient of medicare who is participating in the system in it's current form should welcome an extension of this system to other Americans whoqualify and have no medical coverage.
Not to embrace that is immoral, greedy, and un-american.
And you damn well know it.

[boxcar]

Goody goody,

[quote]Now I got Grumpy REALLY Grumpy....

Take several deep breaths and calm down. You're about to have a learning opportunity. This is the good news. The bad is that it will sail right over that empty attic of yours.

I guess your against EVERY govt program, benefit, agency etc etc...( Unless it suits your sorry ass.)

So tell me Mister personal responsibility, I guess you're against contributing to the Military as well?

Now don't get too hard on "personal responsibility" because I hear from Libs that BO is big on that, too. :rolleyes:

Maybe you're smart enough to design your own weapon defense shield?
Early radar detection?? How's your math and physics?...ballistic defense, etc?

Oh, or is it that YOU want to pick and choose what works for you and what does not and that which you're sorry ass approves (needs) is good for the USA, but others are an infringement and burden on those required to carry others who are in need.

You know what? I want to think like a fool just like you. I dont want the Military protecting my personal land in the USA. I declare Im entitled to tax relief on my portion of taxes that goes to the Military.
My kids are out of school too, I dont want to contribute to tax money to schools.
That's my choice is it not?

You idiot... you know as much about how a free republic and Govt should work as a 5 yr old knows about differential calculus.

Fool.

You call me a "fool"? When is the last time you read the Constitution, meathead? If you don't like the military, leave the country. One of the fundamental and legitimate responsibilities of the government is to equip and train a military to protect the citizens of this country. :bang: :bang: That, sir, is for the common good because most normal human beings,with IQ's above that of a gnat, realize they need protection from other nations and other peoples. They realize this world is filled with some really bad people. But comparing paying for this military with our tax dollars for something that benefits all with the government usurping my right to make my own free choices over my personal health issues is moronic at best. There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that gives the government the right to infringe upon my personal choices. Why do you think the idea is being bandied about in the halls of congress to actually pass a law making health care a "right"? Once the state mandates something specifically as a "right", it empowers itself to regulate and control that right. You're comparing apples to oranges. But then...what else would one expect of a gnat?

And since you think you're so smart, answer this: Why would the government want to infringe upon my right to pursue happiness, when a huge part of that would involve me taking care of myself the way I freely choose and keeping government out of my personal life?

Boxcar
P.S. What I do know about "free republics" is that they work best with very limited government -- not so good when government has unlimited power.

[NJ Stinks]

i think those seniors have a higher IQ than you, they're saying they don't want Obamacare. let me get this straight. since Medicare is a public plan, anyone on medicare should welcome Obamacare and not speak out against it?

Seniors don't want any change that will affect their Medicare coverage. That's how good Medicare is! So Seniors are against any charnge to the status quo.

If we had a single payer (like Medicare) we'd have it made. Near death medical costs for Seniors are responsible for roughly 80% of the total cost of all medical care. If everyone in the country was in the same pool, the system would have enough participants in the pool to make single payer work. But no. Instead we live with the haves and have nots and Medicare being underfunded.

[boxcar]

i think those seniors have a higher IQ than you, they're saying they don't want Obamacare. let me get this straight. since Medicare is a public plan, anyone on medicare should welcome Obamacare and not speak out against it?

You're far too generous in your assessment of slewis' IQ: Dead seniors would have higher IQs!

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

For those of you who say seniors WANT this system and that the healthcare bills EPLICITLY says their prices will go down.....how do you explain this report by the CBO?


our seniors!!!!
So Barack wants to help our seniors with this sweeping healthcare reform...right??
ummm the CBO doesnt think so.........

Health Bill Will Hike Medicare Drug Coverage Premiums 20 Percent, Says CBO
Thursday, September 03, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - If the health-care reform bill under consideration in the House of Representatives becomes law, seniors will pay Medicare prescription drug program premiums that are 20-percent higher than they would be under current law, says the Congressional Budget Office.

The increase in premiums will start with an average 5-percent hike in 2011 and reach 20 percent by 2019.

The CBO estimated the increase in premiums in response to an inquiry from Rep. Dave Camp (R.-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, who wanted to know how changes to the Medicare system that are incorporated into the House version of the health-care reform bill would impact the premiums paid by seniors for their prescription drug benefit—known as Medicare Part D.

“Overall, CBO estimates that enacting the proposed changes would lead to an average increase in premiums for Part D beneficiaries, above those under current law, of about 5 percent by 2011,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said to Camp in a letter (http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/08-28-Medicare_Part_D-_Ltrhead.pdf). “That effect would rise over time and reach about 20 percent in 2019.”

The increase in premiums would be tied to increased coverage that closes the so-called doughnut hole in current Medicare prescription drug coverage.

The “doughnut hole” works like this: Once a senior’s total drugs costs--what Medicare pays, plus the deductible and co-payments--exceed a certain amount ($2,700 in 2009), Medicare will cover no more of the person’s drug costs that year until the person spends a certain amount out of his or her own pocket ($4,350 in 2009). When a senior reaches the upper threshold of the “doughnut hole,” catastrophic drug coverage kicks in automatically and Medicare pays 95 percent of the person’s additional drug costs for the remainder of the year.

Under the health care bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, the “doughnut hole” would be phased out by 2022, when Medicare Part D would cover prescription drug purchases within the window it does not cover as of now.

“Beyond the 10-year budget window, the premiums would increase slightly more until the doughnut hole was eliminated in 2022, beyond that point, enrollees premiums would grow along with the cost for covered drugs,” says CBO.

The change in the rules would have a varying net financial impact on individual seniors, depending on the volume of their prescription drug use.

“Of course, the effect of total spending would vary among beneficiaries: Those who ended up purchasing a relatively small amount of drugs in a year would pay more in additional premiums than they would gain from lower cost sharing, while those who purchased a relatively large amount of drugs in a year would gain more from lower cost sharing than they would pay in higher premiums,” says CBO.

About 3.8 million seniors were subject to the “doughnut hole” in 2007, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Rep. Camp argues that most seniors would suffer a net financial loss under the change envisioned in the health-care bill.

Among Medicare Part D beneficiaries, he said in a statement citing data from CMS, 10.9 percent would save money under the Democratic health bill, while about 76 percent would pay more.

“Health care reform should make health care more affordable, not more expensive,” said Camp. “Clearly, it is time to scrap this bill and start over with open, bipartisan talks.”

However, Robert Kocher of the President’s National Economic Council said in a recent White House video that prescription drugs will become less expensive.

“You will have lower drug costs,” Kocher said. “Right now in the Medicare program, when you reach the point at which Part D can’t cover a drug, you have to pay full price. Under insurance reform, you will pay lower prices for those pills you take.”

However, CBO said in its letter to Rep. Camp that the new rules would cause drug manufacturers to increase prices on new “breakthrough” drugs.

“Drug manufacturers would be constrained from increasing prices for existing drugs but could offset the rebates they would be required to pay for full-benefit dual-eligible individuals by charging higher prices for new drugs – particularly for ‘breakthrough’ drugs (the first drugs that use new mechanisms to treat illnesses),” said CBO.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_online.gif

[slewis]

For those of you who say seniors WANT this system and that the healthcare bills EPLICITLY says their prices will go down.....how do you explain this report by the CBO?


our seniors!!!!
So Barack wants to help our seniors with this sweeping healthcare reform...right??
ummm the CBO doesnt think so.........

Health Bill Will Hike Medicare Drug Coverage Premiums 20 Percent, Says CBO
Thursday, September 03, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - If the health-care reform bill under consideration in the House of Representatives becomes law, seniors will pay Medicare prescription drug program premiums that are 20-percent higher than they would be under current law, says the Congressional Budget Office.

The increase in premiums will start with an average 5-percent hike in 2011 and reach 20 percent by 2019.

The CBO estimated the increase in premiums in response to an inquiry from Rep. Dave Camp (R.-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, who wanted to know how changes to the Medicare system that are incorporated into the House version of the health-care reform bill would impact the premiums paid by seniors for their prescription drug benefit—known as Medicare Part D.

“Overall, CBO estimates that enacting the proposed changes would lead to an average increase in premiums for Part D beneficiaries, above those under current law, of about 5 percent by 2011,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said to Camp in a letter (http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/08-28-Medicare_Part_D-_Ltrhead.pdf). “That effect would rise over time and reach about 20 percent in 2019.”

The increase in premiums would be tied to increased coverage that closes the so-called doughnut hole in current Medicare prescription drug coverage.

The “doughnut hole” works like this: Once a senior’s total drugs costs--what Medicare pays, plus the deductible and co-payments--exceed a certain amount ($2,700 in 2009), Medicare will cover no more of the person’s drug costs that year until the person spends a certain amount out of his or her own pocket ($4,350 in 2009). When a senior reaches the upper threshold of the “doughnut hole,” catastrophic drug coverage kicks in automatically and Medicare pays 95 percent of the person’s additional drug costs for the remainder of the year.

Under the health care bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, the “doughnut hole” would be phased out by 2022, when Medicare Part D would cover prescription drug purchases within the window it does not cover as of now.

“Beyond the 10-year budget window, the premiums would increase slightly more until the doughnut hole was eliminated in 2022, beyond that point, enrollees premiums would grow along with the cost for covered drugs,” says CBO.

The change in the rules would have a varying net financial impact on individual seniors, depending on the volume of their prescription drug use.

“Of course, the effect of total spending would vary among beneficiaries: Those who ended up purchasing a relatively small amount of drugs in a year would pay more in additional premiums than they would gain from lower cost sharing, while those who purchased a relatively large amount of drugs in a year would gain more from lower cost sharing than they would pay in higher premiums,” says CBO.

About 3.8 million seniors were subject to the “doughnut hole” in 2007, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Rep. Camp argues that most seniors would suffer a net financial loss under the change envisioned in the health-care bill.

Among Medicare Part D beneficiaries, he said in a statement citing data from CMS, 10.9 percent would save money under the Democratic health bill, while about 76 percent would pay more.

“Health care reform should make health care more affordable, not more expensive,” said Camp. “Clearly, it is time to scrap this bill and start over with open, bipartisan talks.”

However, Robert Kocher of the President’s National Economic Council said in a recent White House video that prescription drugs will become less expensive.

“You will have lower drug costs,” Kocher said. “Right now in the Medicare program, when you reach the point at which Part D can’t cover a drug, you have to pay full price. Under insurance reform, you will pay lower prices for those pills you take.”

However, CBO said in its letter to Rep. Camp that the new rules would cause drug manufacturers to increase prices on new “breakthrough” drugs.

“Drug manufacturers would be constrained from increasing prices for existing drugs but could offset the rebates they would be required to pay for full-benefit dual-eligible individuals by charging higher prices for new drugs – particularly for ‘breakthrough’ drugs (the first drugs that use new mechanisms to treat illnesses),” said CBO.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_online.gif

Propaganda, as usual.
Uhhh,

I just went to the ACTUAL CBO website and this article you post, as usual, is spinning the reality.

The way I read it, the fed would save 30B dollars with certain implementations and the ramification would be MORE coverage.
The downside is that seniors who spend a small amount on prescriptions would see their costs rise slightly, wheras those that spend more would see a reduction....

OOPPPS... there's that Socialism again.

[slewis]

2019 is ten yrs away.

When I worked on wall st, if I could have locked in a 20% rise in drug costs in the form of a futures contract for seniors in the calender year 1999, they would have elected ME president of the United States.

At the current rate Health costs are rising, 20% would be a steal.

I'll say it again to you clowns and rednecks... your out of your league.

Dont f with me.

[boxcar]

2019 is ten yrs away.

When I worked on wall st, if I could have locked in a 20% rise in drug costs in the form of a futures contract for seniors in the calender year 1999, they would have elected ME president of the United States.

At the current rate Health costs are rising, 20% would be a steal.

I'll say it again to you clowns and rednecks... your out of your league.

Dont f with me.

If you're not already a card-carryin' member, you should sign on with ACORN. They'd love your 'tude. And besides, BO needs all the brain-dead drones he can muster.

Boxcar

[slewis]

Sorry for the typo... I meant 20% rise in premiums, not drug costs....

But quite frankly, it's interchangeable in terms of percent increase over a 10 yr period... not to mention that over the next 10 yrs we are bound to see at least one serious inflationary spike.

I'd lock those prices in tomorrow for premiums or drug prices.

[keilan]

[QUOTE=slewis]First,

We are not Canada and never will be. The Canadian system has it's strenth's and weaknesses. I wont debate that, it's been beaten to death on PA.
You're statement regarding "some numbskull" is conjecture./QUOTE]


This is better than a movie and popcorn at a drive-in back in high school :lolz:

Nobody here at PA knows very much about Canada's health care system OR Canada for that matter, it's been beaten to death by the same bunch that's posting on this thread. Mostly regurgitating what they heard down at the local barber shop or waterhole, lots of goggle searching, when they find anything that supports their case it's considered fact. We have our wingnuts too who complain about everything. Could someone please explain to me which medical procedure our health care system doesn't provide. One can't be to careful ya know!!

Charlie Manson thought the blacks in the 60's would over-throw the white's,the psychopath called it his "Helter Skelter". This whole discussion of the President addressing the children in their classrooms and the direction and paranoia shown on this site and within America should really be of concern.

The divide has grown to such an extent that your own President is forbidden to speak directly to young children without first presenting the context to it's citizens the day before. He was only doing what many past Presidents before him have done. To call it cultist and brainwashing is a little over the top even for America no?

Again thanks for the "Friday nite" entertainment, does Charlies "Helter Skelter" live on.............

[slewis]

If you're not already a card-carryin' member, you should sign on with ACORN. They'd love your 'tude. And besides, BO needs all the brain-dead drones he can muster.

Boxcar

Now you see BOX ... we DO have things in common.

Id shut ACORN down faster then you can say corrupt left wing BS.

Five times:

Corrupt left wing BS
Corrupt left wing BS
Corrupt left wing BS
......
......

[slewis]

[QUOTE=slewis]First,

We are not Canada and never will be. The Canadian system has it's strenth's and weaknesses. I wont debate that, it's been beaten to death on PA.
You're statement regarding "some numbskull" is conjecture./QUOTE]


This is better than a movie and popcorn at a drive-in back in high school :lolz:

Nobody here at PA knows very much about Canada's health care system OR Canada for that matter, it's been beaten to death by the same bunch that's posting on this thread. Mostly regurgitating what they heard down at the local barber shop or waterhole, lots of goggle searching, when they find anything that supports their case it's considered fact. We have our wingnuts too who complain about everything. Could someone please explain to me which medical procedure our health care system doesn't provide. One can't be to careful ya know!!

Charlie Manson thought the blacks in the 60's would over-throw the white's,the psychopath called it his "Helter Skelter". This whole discussion of the President addressing the children in their classrooms and the direction and paranoia shown on this site and within America should really be of concern.

The divide has grown to such an extent that your own President is forbidden to speak directly to young children without first presenting the context to it's citizens the day before. He was only doing what many past Presidents before him have done. To call it cultist and brainwashing is a little over the top even for America no?

Again thanks for the "Friday nite" entertainment, does Charlies "Helter Skelter" live on.............


I have many friends in Toronto when I used to trade with BOM and Scotia and I always asked about their (your) health system.
They always told me they had no problems at all and the care was good.
Of course Toronto is a major city and the business capital of the country.
Ive never met one Canadian that knocked it.

Although the propaganda commercials have managed to round up (probably with a nice fat paycheck) several Canadians claim they would surely have died a gruesome death on King street waiting to see a doctor.

[keilan]

[QUOTE=keilan]


I have many friends in Toronto when I used to trade with BOM and Scotia and I always asked about their (your) health system.
They always told me they had no problems at all and the care was good.
Of course Toronto is a major city and the business capital of the country.
Ive never met one Canadian that knocked it.

Although the propaganda commercials have managed to round up (probably with a nice fat paycheck) several Canadians claim they would surely have died a gruesome death on King street waiting to see a doctor.


We're more than fine compared to almost everyone in today's world, our economy is still strong in relation to the worlds health. Alberta (which is a province) has been one of the top five places in the world to work and raise a family. Canada remains the top exporter of goods to America yet most on this board think we live in igloo's and say hey a lot, well that's half true.

I spent some time in the capital of California and had this 40yr old mechanic working on a vintage mustang that I had. During our conversation he told me that he had never been to San Francesco or seen the ocean, damn it's 1.5 hours away. This isn't an isolated incident -- many Americans are far from being worldly and that seems to blind their perspective on some things.

To be candid I would easily go as far as to say 99.9% of Canadians whom have traveled are most happy they live north of the 49th.

During this world recession (yes Mike a recession has been confirmed) the average igloo price in my city is $355,000.

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=slewis]First,Again thanks for the "Friday nite" entertainment, does Charlies "Helter Skelter" live on.............

And the show could not have possibly provided a better encore than getting an appearance out of you. You'd upstage "Helter Skelter" in your sleep.

Boxcar
P.S. The fact that you're still on the loose doesn't speak well at all to the mental health care side of your Canadian system either It clearly demonstrates that it's as broken as the other side. After all, what kind of system would allow its inmates to slide through the cracks, as you have? :D

[keilan]

[QUOTE=keilan]

And the show could not have possibly provided a better encore than getting an appearance out of you. You'd upstage "Helter Skelter" in your sleep.

Boxcar
P.S. The fact that you're still on the loose doesn't speak well at all to the mental health care side of your Canadian system either It clearly demonstrates that it's as broken as the other side. After all, what kind of system would allow its inmates to slide through the cracks, as you have? :D


Boxcar -- I've told you that you are probably the most "vile human being" I have even encountered on the internet or otherwise so please do not address me again.

Hey just between us -- r u still playing your horse angles? That thread kind of reminds me of all these blind li'l sheep following you, looking for their kool aid. Maybe you missed you're calling - - just saying.

Ohh Boxy -- did you ever serve your country in the military?

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=boxcar]


[quote]Boxcar -- I've told you that you are probably the most "vile human being" I have even encountered on the internet or otherwise so please do not address me again.

You see what I mean, Keilan? In one breath, you call me a "vile human being", which for you would be comparable to calling Hitler a saint. Then you tell me not to address you again, only to turn around to ask me two questions. :rolleyes: I'd answer if it weren't out of my deep concern that you'd blow a cork so hard, they'd never find your head in time to reattach it.

You're truly one confused patient. Goes to show what happens when they start rationing drugs up in Canada, too.

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=slewis]First,

We are not Canada and never will be. The Canadian system has it's strenth's and weaknesses. I wont debate that, it's been beaten to death on PA.
You're statement regarding "some numbskull" is conjecture./QUOTE]


This is better than a movie and popcorn at a drive-in back in high school :lolz:

Nobody here at PA knows very much about Canada's health care system OR Canada for that matter, it's been beaten to death by the same bunch that's posting on this thread. Mostly regurgitating what they heard down at the local barber shop or waterhole, lots of goggle searching, when they find anything that supports their case it's considered fact. We have our wingnuts too who complain about everything. Could someone please explain to me which medical procedure our health care system doesn't provide. One can't be to careful ya know!!

Charlie Manson thought the blacks in the 60's would over-throw the white's,the psychopath called it his "Helter Skelter". This whole discussion of the President addressing the children in their classrooms and the direction and paranoia shown on this site and within America should really be of concern.

The divide has grown to such an extent that your own President is forbidden to speak directly to young children without first presenting the context to it's citizens the day before. He was only doing what many past Presidents before him have done. To call it cultist and brainwashing is a little over the top even for America no?

Again thanks for the "Friday nite" entertainment, does Charlies "Helter Skelter" live on.............


Your right on a couple fronts....
First, I personally know very little about canada's healthcare other then what I read. I have no first hand experience of it.
Secondly, your right about alot of people believing what they read. The one thing I will tell you regarding that fact is 99% of all information a person obtains is through some form of media. I mean after all, how do we know there was George Washington??? Most media, has an agenda that they are attempting to push, whether it is right or left leaning. What the reader or listener has to do is do further research to make an informed decision as to how to interpret that information in question. Get where I am headed with this??? If you are gonna toss out others ideas because you think its bad info, then the same can be said for ALL info until proven otherwise.
The CBO report I mentioned earlier in the thread was just dismissed as more "propoganda" without ANY facts to disprove it. So who is right and who is wrong? We all make decisions based on what we believe to be true or in our best interest. This does not mean people are perfect. People make mistakes. In my opinion, B.O won the election fairly decisively...now look at the peoples reactions. His approval; ratings (as reported by the NY Times) has fallen faster then any other president in history. Guess the people are realizing a mistake? Maybe, we will find out come 2010. But back to the canadian healthcare system...if its so great as you make it sound to be, why then this report? Or do you just say that this is just "propoganda" as well?

Overhauling health-care system tops agenda at annual meeting of Canada's doctors
By Jennifer Graham (CP) – Aug 15, 2009

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.

He has also said the Canadian system could be restructured to focus on patients if hospitals and other health-care institutions received funding based on the patients they treat, instead of an annual, lump-sum budget. This "activity-based funding" would be an incentive to provide more efficient care, he has said.

Doig says she doesn't know what a proposed "blueprint" toward patient-centred care might look like when the meeting wraps up Wednesday. She'd like to emerge with clear directions about where the association should focus efforts to direct change over the next few years. She also wants to see short-term, medium-term and long-term goals laid out.

"A short-term achievable goal would be to accelerate the process of getting electronic medical records into physicians' offices," she said. "That's one I think ought to be a priority and ought to be achievable."

A long-term goal would be getting health systems "talking to each other," so information can be quickly shared to help patients.

Doig, who has had a full-time family practice in Saskatoon for 30 years, acknowledges that when physicians have talked about changing the health-care system in the past, they've been accused of wanting an American-style structure. She insists that's not the case.

"It's not about choosing between an American system or a Canadian system," said Doig. "The whole thing is about looking at what other people do."

"That's called looking at the evidence, looking at how care is delivered and how care is paid for all around us (and) then saying 'Well, OK, that's good information. How do we make all of that work in the Canadian context? What do the Canadian people want?' "

Doig says there are some "very good things" about Canada's health-care system, but she points out that many people have stories about times when things didn't go well for them or their family.

"(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig.

"They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it."


:confused:

As to the american system, you wont find anyone here who thinks it "ok" as it is. We all know it needs help...its just a matter of HOW.:mad:

[keilan]

[QUOTE=keilan][QUOTE=boxcar]




You see what I mean, Keilan? In one breath, you call me a "vile human being", which for you would be comparable to calling Hitler a saint. Then you tell me not to address you again, only to turn around to ask me two questions. :rolleyes: I'd answer if it weren't out of my deep concern that you'd blow a cork so hard, they'd never find your head in time to reattach it.

You're truly one confused patient. Goes to show what happens when they start rationing drugs up in Canada, too.

Boxcar


See I gave you a way out from answering but you are too stupid to take it. So why don't you tell all the good people here your rank and serial number, come on Boxy show everyone how heroic and patriotic you are with someone else's life and blood.

I call bullshit Boxy -- your nothing but a loud mouth POS :kiss:

[NJ Stinks]

[QUOTE=slewis]First,

We are not Canada and never will be. The Canadian system has it's strenth's and weaknesses. I wont debate that, it's been beaten to death on PA.
You're statement regarding "some numbskull" is conjecture./QUOTE]


This is better than a movie and popcorn at a drive-in back in high school :lolz:

Nobody here at PA knows very much about Canada's health care system OR Canada for that matter, it's been beaten to death by the same bunch that's posting on this thread. Mostly regurgitating what they heard down at the local barber shop or waterhole, lots of goggle searching, when they find anything that supports their case it's considered fact. We have our wingnuts too who complain about everything. Could someone please explain to me which medical procedure our health care system doesn't provide. One can't be to careful ya know!!

Charlie Manson thought the blacks in the 60's would over-throw the white's,the psychopath called it his "Helter Skelter". This whole discussion of the President addressing the children in their classrooms and the direction and paranoia shown on this site and within America should really be of concern.

The divide has grown to such an extent that your own President is forbidden to speak directly to young children without first presenting the context to it's citizens the day before. He was only doing what many past Presidents before him have done. To call it cultist and brainwashing is a little over the top even for America no?

Again thanks for the "Friday nite" entertainment, does Charlies "Helter Skelter" live on.............

Keilan, you have to understand one thing. The righties here don't want to know the truth about Canadian health care or the truth about health care anywhere else in the world. What they want is:

1. Keep what they got and to hell with those that don't got. It's heath care today but tomorrow it will be something else. Let's just say that these folks ain't livin' the Band of Brothers dream.

2. Whatever Obama wants they don't want. Obama may announce he is resigning tomorrow and these folks will object until the lightbulb goes on. :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=boxcar][QUOTE=keilan]


See I gave you a way out from answering but you are too stupid to take it. So why don't you tell all the good people here your rank and serial number, come on Boxy show everyone how heroic and patriotic you are with someone else's life and blood.

I call bullshit Boxy -- your nothing but a loud mouth POS :kiss:

No...what you did is show everyone what a fool you are by tripping over yourself in a contradiction. When you tell someone to not address you anymore, but then immediately turn around and ask that same person two questions, that kind of betrays the fact that your attic is very dimly lit -- if indeed not already in complete blackout mode.

Boxcar

[keilan]

[QUOTE=keilan]

Keilan, you have to understand one thing. The righties here don't want to know the truth about Canadian health care or the truth about health care anywhere else in the world. What they want is:

1. Keep what they got and to hell with those that don't got. It's heath care today but tomorrow it will be something else. Let's just say that these folks ain't livin' the Band of Brothers dream.

2. Whatever Obama wants they don't want. Obama may announce he is resigning tomorrow and these folks will object until the lightbulb goes on. :rolleyes:


Ya know I'm a conservative and some within my country might even consider me a redneck on certain policies but being a conservative here vs the US is large I gotta tell you.

[keilan]

[QUOTE=keilan][QUOTE=boxcar]

No...what you did is show everyone what a fool you are by tripping over yourself in a contradiction. When you tell someone to not address you anymore, but then immediately turn around and ask that same person two questions, that kind of betrays the fact that your attic is very dimly lit -- if indeed not already in complete blackout mode.

Boxcar


I had you figured out a long time ago -- now STFU and never address me again you coward!!

[JustRalph]

Hey Mike.........remember this board is dominated by right wingers

bunch of over the line stuff in this thread.........and all by one side..........

[JustRalph]

From Dem Underground

gopiscrap (152 posts) Fri Sep-04-09 11:42 PM
Original message
My wife is a teacher and she said sarcastically:

Edited on Fri Sep-04-09 11:47 PM by gopiscrap
Yes, let the birthers, tea baggers, birchers, after birthers and alll the rest of those idiots keep their kids home on Tuesday...that way I'll know which kids to flunk..she was just joking..but she had good point..should these be excused absences or not? She said that when Bush spoke to school kids and ours were in school you could damn well bet that wouldn't be considered as excused!

[slewis]

[QUOTE=boxcar][QUOTE=keilan]


I had you figured out a long time ago -- now STFU and never address me again you coward!!


Now I can thank you for providing some entertainment!:ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

Keilan, you have to understand one thing. The righties here don't want to know the truth about Canadian health care or the truth about health care anywhere else in the world. What they want is:

1. Keep what they got and to hell with those that don't got. It's heath care today but tomorrow it will be something else. Let's just say that these folks ain't livin' the Band of Brothers dream.

First off, trying to keep what you got is a noble thing. If everyone did so we wouldn't have the problems we have now. You owe it to your family to try to keep what you got.

Second, this implies that our problem with health care is that we don't spend enough. We already spend way too much. We pay high taxes, the government spends twice as much as it takes in from taxes, a sum by far larger than any country in the world per capita, and this somehow isn't enough for our brilliant central planners in the Democrat party who will never have enough money.

Lastly, if you're telling me that the lefties on this board do not try to keep what they got, I'm calling BS. Nobody is sending extra money above and beyond what they're required to pay to local, state and federal governments in order to help others to have more.

[GaryG]

if you're telling me that the lefties on this board do not try to keep what they got, I'm calling BS. They want to keep what they've got. They also want you to give them yours. As Roger Waters put it....Im all right jack keep your hands off of my stack.

[Tom]

really? Got a link? Cause the White House says it will be available on Monday. Did you build a time machine?
Maye he wrote it! :lol:

[Tom]

The divide has grown to such an extent that your own President is forbidden to speak directly to young children without first presenting the context to it's citizens the day before. He was only doing what many past Presidents before him have done. To call it cultist and brainwashing is a little over the top even for America no?

First off, don't concern yourself with our divide. We can handle it just fine without help form the attic. And past president have NOT done what he was planning on doing.....giving an "assignment" of how the students can "help" him? I don't know about Canada, but down here, the president serves us, not the other way around.

"...even for America?" That is pretty classless.

As far as what we know about Canadian HC, we get it first hand from the Canadians that come here to get treatements that they could get at home. You got a problem, look to your own people for telling us about it. If you are happy with it, great, enjoy it, and let us worry about our own.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=keilan]

Keilan, you have to understand one thing. The righties here don't want to know the truth about Canadian health care or the truth about health care anywhere else in the world. What they want is:

1. Keep what they got and to hell with those that don't got. It's heath care today but tomorrow it will be something else. Let's just say that these folks ain't livin' the Band of Brothers dream.

2. Whatever Obama wants they don't want. Obama may announce he is resigning tomorrow and these folks will object until the lightbulb goes on. :rolleyes:

Your ignorance on the subject is more entertaining than Canada Night.

[DJofSD]

Now that is seems this thread has permanently drifted over to health care, I wonder if there are any hard stats about people who receive health care in a foriegn country? How many Canuks come to the US? How many go to England? How many Americans go outside the US (and, no, cancer clinics in TJ don't count)? Maybe this is the new trading activity to balance out the current imbalance -- give us your tired and sick but just let us collect the money, or, give us a credit on our debt obligations.

[NJ Stinks]

First off, trying to keep what you got is a noble thing. If everyone did so we wouldn't have the problems we have now. You owe it to your family to try to keep what you got.

Second, this implies that our problem with health care is that we don't spend enough. We already spend way too much. We pay high taxes, the government spends twice as much as it takes in from taxes, a sum by far larger than any country in the world per capita, and this somehow isn't enough for our brilliant central planners in the Democrat party who will never have enough money.

Lastly, if you're telling me that the lefties on this board do not try to keep what they got, I'm calling BS. Nobody is sending extra money above and beyond what they're required to pay to local, state and federal governments in order to help others to have more.

Trying to keep what you got is a noble thing if you are not depriving anybody else of health care who doesn't have it. I have it when it comes to health care. Too many in this country don't. There's got to be a better way than we have now. I believe a public option or especially a single payer will cut everybody's costs when it comes to health care. That includes you, me, and the government. So I'm willing to take a chance to find out if it's really true.

I understand that many don't want to change the status quo and why. I guess things are not bad enough to legislate a change. At least that's the message I'm getting.

[boxcar]

Trying to keep what you got is a noble thing if you are not depriving anybody else of health care who doesn't have it.

EXCUUUSE ME! How am I personally depriving anyone else of taking care of themselves when I'm minding my own business and acting responsibly by taking care of myself, and I'm satisfied with how I'm doing it? :bang: :bang: Oh, wait...I get it: I'm depriving "them" because I'm not personally responsible for picking up their heath care tab and, therefore, I don't want to. Is that it? I'm mean and stingy because I don't want perfect strangers' hands picking my pockets! Is that the deal?

You have this entirely backwards. The very few want to deprive the many, who are happy with our current setup -- whatever that may be, including having no insurance if someone decides that's best for them at this point in time. (And it is the very few when you toss out all the illegals who have no business being in America in the first place, and all the younger people who don't even want insurance in the second place.)

I have it when it comes to health care. Too many in this country don't. There's got to be a better way than we have now.

Yeah...there is: Work and earn your way just the same way all honest, resourceful, proud and self-respecting Americans do. In the meantime, all others can keep their grubby hands out of my pockets, and if BO and his motley band of merry thieves want to help those who can't or won't help themselves, let them spend their energies targeting this specific group and leave the rest of Americans alone.

I believe a public option or especially a single payer will cut everybody's costs when it comes to health care. That includes you, me, and the government. So I'm willing to take a chance to find out if it's really true.

There are numerous other ways within the framework of a free market system to cut costs and not infringe on Americans' right to the pursuit of happiness, which includes taking care of their physical and mental health in the manner they personally think suits them best.

And since you're so eager to "take a chance" with a tyrannical government, why don't you pack your bags and move to Venezuela? Chavez, right about now, could use your support -- moral and monetarily. So, take plenty of loot with you for purposes of making big donations to the "noble cause" of his brand of communism. You have a really golden opportunity here to feel all warm and tingly about yourself. Don't miss it!

Boxcar

[newtothegame]

[QUOTE=slewis]First,

We are not Canada and never will be. The Canadian system has it's strenth's and weaknesses. I wont debate that, it's been beaten to death on PA.
You're statement regarding "some numbskull" is conjecture./QUOTE]


This is better than a movie and popcorn at a drive-in back in high school :lolz:

Nobody here at PA knows very much about Canada's health care system OR Canada for that matter, it's been beaten to death by the same bunch that's posting on this thread. Mostly regurgitating what they heard down at the local barber shop or waterhole, lots of goggle searching, when they find anything that supports their case it's considered fact. We have our wingnuts too who complain about everything. Could someone please explain to me which medical procedure our health care system doesn't provide. One can't be to careful ya know!!

Charlie Manson thought the blacks in the 60's would over-throw the white's,the psychopath called it his "Helter Skelter". This whole discussion of the President addressing the children in their classrooms and the direction and paranoia shown on this site and within America should really be of concern.

The divide has grown to such an extent that your own President is forbidden to speak directly to young children without first presenting the context to it's citizens the day before. He was only doing what many past Presidents before him have done. To call it cultist and brainwashing is a little over the top even for America no?

Again thanks for the "Friday nite" entertainment, does Charlies "Helter Skelter" live on.............

Absolutely right on a couple points there Keilan...
First I know very little from the Canadian healthcare system personally.
Secondly, most of the information people get is from some form of media. but, with that premise in mind, lets look at a few things.
All information is obtained through some form of media. And we must not forget that media, written or spoken, usually has an agenda behind it. All information obtained should be revisited at some point to check for fact. Now some can be found to be false immediately, while others take time to bear the results. But either way, no one should look at an article or listen to a radio show and take what is said as TRUTH. But, I would go further and ask , what is truth? I think truth is what one believes to be true. We may have two different opinions on a certain thing, and without other forms of media to back up one story or the other, well its all conjecture at that point. So what to do? Well, we then have to decide what is best for our individual situation at that moment. What is in our best interest? Thats how we make decisions.
calling someone names and attempting to belittle them proves nothing. For me, it lends even less credibility to the person doing the belittling.

I posted a story here about the CBO saying that seniors healthcare prescriptions would go up about 20% over the coming years in the current healthcare proposals. yet B.O has said this was about helping seniors.
The response I get is "propoganda". No discredit to the story with another form of media that says different..just "propoganda". Then, second response said " if I could lock in a 20% future contract...it would be a good thing". Well which is it...propoganda, or a good thing? See, this is the problem with Libs...if they can't deface the message with facts, the avoid the topic at all cost by name calling and belittling, and in some cases race baiting.
but back to the canadian health care....what say you about the story recently released by canadian press.....
www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw)


fact is both countries healthcare need reform. We all agree there. Its just a matter of how reform should be done!

[Tom]

Trying to keep what you got is a noble thing if you are not depriving anybody else of health care who doesn't have it. I have it when it comes to health care. Too many in this country don't. There's got to be a better way than we have now. I believe a public option or especially a single payer will cut everybody's costs when it comes to health care. That includes you, me, and the government. So I'm willing to take a chance to find out if it's really true.

I understand that many don't want to change the status quo and why. I guess things are not bad enough to legislate a change. At least that's the message I'm getting.

So why not try actually fixing the FEW things wrong with it and then see where we stand?
Make too much sense?

[lsbets]

I guess I'm now an official spokesman for right wing nuts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5291345n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

[Show Me the Wire]

Nice. May I have a mocha to go, please?

[lsbets]

Sure, you want anything else to go with that?

[boxcar]

I guess I'm now an official spokesman for right wing nuts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5291345n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Wuz dat scruffy lookin' guy U??? :jump: :jump:

Boxcar

[Warren Henry]

I guess I'm now an official spokesman for right wing nuts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5291345n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
We wing nuts approve. :ThmbUp:

[lsbets]

Wuz dat scruffy lookin' guy U??? :jump: :jump:

Boxcar

My mother called me:

"Why didn't you tell me you were going to be on TV? My neighbor called to say you were on TV and that you need to shave."

:lol: :lol:

Two weeks ago the hair was down to the shoulders, I can only imagine what she would have said then.

[boxcar]

According to many libs out there, we all be radical and rabid right wing domestic terrorists! (Is that the same thing as a "wing nut"?) :confused:

Boxcar

[Warren Henry]

Wuz dat scruffy lookin' guy U??? :jump: :jump:

Boxcar
Nothin' scruffy about a man in a US Army tee :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Nothin' scruffy about a man in a US Army tee :ThmbUp:

Definitely my kinda guy. But as I type this, I want that you should know: I'm even scruffier looking. :D

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

awesome, too bad you couldn't have worked in a PA plug.
The next Joe the Plumber?

[mostpost]

I guess I'm now an official spokesman for right wing nuts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5291345n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
That was not you. :rolleyes: That guy sounded reasonable and he didn't insult the cameraman. I didn't agree with what he said, but I felt i could have had a conversation with him without being called an idiot or a moron.

[mostpost]

That was not you. :rolleyes: That guy sounded reasonable and he didn't insult the cameraman. I didn't agree with what he said, but I felt i could have had a conversation with him without being called an idiot or a moron.
Here's another thing to make you mad. I don't drink coffee. :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Here's another thing to make you mad. I don't drink coffee. :lol: :lol:

Now, you've given me a good reason to call you names. :jump:

Boxcar

[slewis]

[QUOTE=newtothegame][QUOTE=keilan]

Absolutely right on a couple points there Keilan...
First I know very little from the Canadian healthcare system personally.
Secondly, most of the information people get is from some form of media. but, with that premise in mind, lets look at a few things.
All information is obtained through some form of media. And we must not forget that media, written or spoken, usually has an agenda behind it. All information obtained should be revisited at some point to check for fact. Now some can be found to be false immediately, while others take time to bear the results. But either way, no one should look at an article or listen to a radio show and take what is said as TRUTH. But, I would go further and ask , what is truth? I think truth is what one believes to be true. We may have two different opinions on a certain thing, and without other forms of media to back up one story or the other, well its all conjecture at that point. So what to do? Well, we then have to decide what is best for our individual situation at that moment. What is in our best interest? Thats how we make decisions.
calling someone names and attempting to belittle them proves nothing. For me, it lends even less credibility to the person doing the belittling.

I posted a story here about the CBO saying that seniors healthcare prescriptions would go up about 20% over the coming years in the current healthcare proposals. yet B.O has said this was about helping seniors.
The response I get is "propoganda". No discredit to the story with another form of media that says different..just "propoganda". Then, second response said " if I could lock in a 20% future contract...it would be a good thing". Well which is it...propoganda, or a good thing? See, this is the problem with Libs...if they can't deface the message with facts, the avoid the topic at all cost by name calling and belittling, and in some cases race baiting.
but back to the canadian health care....what say you about the story recently released by canadian press.....
www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw (http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw)




I posted that YOUR ARTICLE which was clipped from a RIGHT WING publication cherry picked certain points to make the whole package appear horrible for seniors.

IT IS RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA.

GOTO THE CBO WEBSITE and read the ENTIRE REPORT.


Spinfaggot. Make some real points...stop spinning the truth.

Oh I forgot, if I said that to your face I wouldnt get away with it.

You'd shit in your pants if I said anything to your face.
Trust me.

[mostpost]

For those of you who say seniors WANT this system and that the healthcare bills EPLICITLY says their prices will go down.....how do you explain this report by the CBO?


our seniors!!!!
So Barack wants to help our seniors with this sweeping healthcare reform...right??
ummm the CBO doesnt think so.........

Health Bill Will Hike Medicare Drug Coverage Premiums 20 Percent, Says CBO
Thursday, September 03, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) - If the health-care reform bill under consideration in the House of Representatives becomes law, seniors will pay Medicare prescription drug program premiums that are 20-percent higher than they would be under current law, says the Congressional Budget Office.

The increase in premiums will start with an average 5-percent hike in 2011 and reach 20 percent by 2019.

The CBO estimated the increase in premiums in response to an inquiry from Rep. Dave Camp (R.-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, who wanted to know how changes to the Medicare system that are incorporated into the House version of the health-care reform bill would impact the premiums paid by seniors for their prescription drug benefit—known as Medicare Part D.

“Overall, CBO estimates that enacting the proposed changes would lead to an average increase in premiums for Part D beneficiaries, above those under current law, of about 5 percent by 2011,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said to Camp in a letter (http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/08-28-Medicare_Part_D-_Ltrhead.pdf). “That effect would rise over time and reach about 20 percent in 2019.”

The increase in premiums would be tied to increased coverage that closes the so-called doughnut hole in current Medicare prescription drug coverage.

The “doughnut hole” works like this: Once a senior’s total drugs costs--what Medicare pays, plus the deductible and co-payments--exceed a certain amount ($2,700 in 2009), Medicare will cover no more of the person’s drug costs that year until the person spends a certain amount out of his or her own pocket ($4,350 in 2009). When a senior reaches the upper threshold of the “doughnut hole,” catastrophic drug coverage kicks in automatically and Medicare pays 95 percent of the person’s additional drug costs for the remainder of the year.

Under the health care bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3200, the “doughnut hole” would be phased out by 2022, when Medicare Part D would cover prescription drug purchases within the window it does not cover as of now.

“Beyond the 10-year budget window, the premiums would increase slightly more until the doughnut hole was eliminated in 2022, beyond that point, enrollees premiums would grow along with the cost for covered drugs,” says CBO.

The change in the rules would have a varying net financial impact on individual seniors, depending on the volume of their prescription drug use.

“Of course, the effect of total spending would vary among beneficiaries: Those who ended up purchasing a relatively small amount of drugs in a year would pay more in additional premiums than they would gain from lower cost sharing, while those who purchased a relatively large amount of drugs in a year would gain more from lower cost sharing than they would pay in higher premiums,” says CBO.

About 3.8 million seniors were subject to the “doughnut hole” in 2007, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Rep. Camp argues that most seniors would suffer a net financial loss under the change envisioned in the health-care bill.

Among Medicare Part D beneficiaries, he said in a statement citing data from CMS, 10.9 percent would save money under the Democratic health bill, while about 76 percent would pay more.

“Health care reform should make health care more affordable, not more expensive,” said Camp. “Clearly, it is time to scrap this bill and start over with open, bipartisan talks.”

However, Robert Kocher of the President’s National Economic Council said in a recent White House video that prescription drugs will become less expensive.

“You will have lower drug costs,” Kocher said. “Right now in the Medicare program, when you reach the point at which Part D can’t cover a drug, you have to pay full price. Under insurance reform, you will pay lower prices for those pills you take.”

However, CBO said in its letter to Rep. Camp that the new rules would cause drug manufacturers to increase prices on new “breakthrough” drugs.

“Drug manufacturers would be constrained from increasing prices for existing drugs but could offset the rebates they would be required to pay for full-benefit dual-eligible individuals by charging higher prices for new drugs – particularly for ‘breakthrough’ drugs (the first drugs that use new mechanisms to treat illnesses),” said CBO.
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/images/statusicon/user_online.gif
Slewis is correct. The story which you quoted glosses over the fact that health care reform closes the "doughnut hole" in the Part D act passed by Bush.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10543/08-28-MedicarePartD.pdf
In paragraph one:
According to CBO’s
estimates, enacting those changes would lead to an average increase in premiums
for Part D beneficiaries of about 5 percent in 2011, rising to about 20 percent in
2019. However, beneficiaries’ spending on prescription drugs apart from those
premiums would fall, on average, as would their overall prescription drug
spending (including both premiums and cost sharing).
Whether an individual would benefit or not from this change would depend on how much he spent on drugs each year.
As a result, beneficiaries’ spending on
prescription drugs apart from the premiums would decrease, on average. That
reduction in cost sharing would outweigh the increase in premiums, again on
average, because of the subsidies provided by the federal government—so
beneficiaries’ total prescription drug spending would fall on average. Of course,
the effect on total spending would vary among beneficiaries: Those who ended up
purchasing a relatively small amount of drugs in a year would pay more in
additional premiums than they would gain from lower cost sharing, while those
who purchased a relatively large amount of drugs in a year would gain more from
lower cost sharing than they would pay in higher premiums.
But overall the total spent on increased premiums and out of pocket costs would be less than what is spent now because of the donut hole.

[keilan]

[QUOTE=newtothegame][QUOTE=keilan]


I posted that YOUR ARTICLE which was clipped from a RIGHT WING publication cherry picked certain points to make the whole package appear horrible for seniors.

IT IS RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA.

GOTO THE CBO WEBSITE and read the ENTIRE REPORT.


Spinfaggot. Make some real points...stop spinning the truth.

Oh I forgot, if I said that to your face I wouldnt get away with it.

You'd shit in your pants if I said anything to your face.
Trust me.


Hey newtothegame -- what he said, anything else?

[riskman]

So why not try actually fixing the FEW things wrong with it and then see where we stand?
Make too much sense?

Well, it took 227 posts and Tom's with two sentences is the way to go on HC. There is no doubt the American health care system is in needed reform. There are many proposals that address restructuring the insurance markets, reorganize provider payments, various tax incentives, etc.

[NJ Stinks]

I guess I'm now an official spokesman for right wing nuts:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5291345n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

They found the right guy if Boxcar and Tom were busy. :p

(You won't like hearing it from me but you were A OK. :ThmbUp: Obviously, CBS thought so too.)

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't think that I or any of the posters that disagreed with me mentioned race at all.Oh, you did not have to. Your reply said it all.

[Quagmire]

Oh, you did not have to. Your reply said it all.


Here is my reply in full, can you please point out the part of my response that you thought made me sound like Rangel, or brought up race in any way:


Quagmire
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 315
vCash: 100

Quote:
Originally Posted by jballscalls
thanks for posting this, i have no clue why anyone would be upset about the president talking to america's youth. Oh thats right, he's an evil liberal



Thats half the reason.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nice spin Quag...but we all know what you meant.

[PaceAdvantage]

This thread, and most of the participants in it (especially towards the end) are a DISGRACE.

The name calling, the FULL TEXT REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL (how many ****ING TIMES DO I HAVE TO ASK PEOPLE NOT TO REPRODUCE THE FULL TEXT OF MATERIAL YOU FIND ELSEWHERE?), the insults, the "My Dick is bigger than your DICK" nonsense...just so ****ING ponderous (to quote Casey Kasem).

About the only good thing to come out of this thread is we got to see LSBETS on TV....

Still not enough to keep it open....the whole lot of you should be banned and off-topic should be closed.

****ING DISGRACE!