Obama's socialist message to kids revealed!!

[Ziggurat]

I have yet to see anyone mention what really kicked off the controversy: not the announcement that Obama would give a speech to school kids, but the lesson plan which was initially distributed to go along with the speech:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1058230...s-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009
One of the suggested activities for teachers to assign students was:
"Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."
I believe this has since been changed, but I find it quite interesting that this aspect of the controversy (both the initial objections and the subsequent retraction of that material) has gotten virtually no mention.

 

[Upchurch]

I have yet to see anyone mention what really kicked off the controversy: not the announcement that Obama would give a speech to school kids, but the lesson plan which was initially distributed to go along with the speech:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1058230...s-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009
One of the suggested activities for teachers to assign students was:
"Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals."
I believe this has since been changed, but I find it quite interesting that this aspect of the controversy (both the initial objections and the subsequent retraction of that material) has gotten virtually no mention.

Why would that kick off the controversy?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would that kick off the controversy?

Because it's not the job of school children to help the president. And because teachers have politicized classrooms in the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEAYgm0Dv8

 

[Upchurch]

Because it's not the job of school children to help the president.

Who said it was?

And because teachers have politicized classrooms in the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDEAYgm0Dv8

How is that applicable?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The really important question: where does Michael Jordan stand on health insurance reform?

 

[Ziggurat]

Who said it was?

The department of education. Did you not read what I posted?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because it's not the job of school children to help the president.

I think that's just a rhetorical device similar to the President's Physical Fitness Challenge. The idea is that it's patriotic or good citizenship or pro-American or whatever to work hard and be the best person you can be.

I really don't think it means anything like "help Obama to realize his partisan political agenda".

I think it's a perfectly legitimate use of the office of the President, and one that even Laura Bush approves of.

 

[Upchurch]

The department of education. Did you not read what I posted?

I did read it. Didn't see the word "job" anywhere in there. Did you?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that's just a rhetorical device similar to the President's Physical Fitness Challenge.

And you may be right. But lots of people don't trust Obama, and get uncomfortable with that sort of language. My point isn't so much that I think they're right, but that key reasons for objections have basically not been mentioned by most press accounts of the whole kerfuffle.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did read it. Didn't see the word "job" anywhere in there. Did you?

Are you also going to argue that children don't earn wages at school, so my use of the term was inappropriate?

 

[kellyb]

I have yet to see anyone mention what really kicked off the controversy: not the announcement that Obama would give a speech to school kids, but the lesson plan which was initially distributed to go along with the speech:

I have yet to see any evidence that the suggested classroom activities are what kicked the controversy off.

 

[Upchurch]

Are you also going to argue that children don't earn wages at school, so my use of the term was inappropriate?

Of course it is inappropriate.

Do you really still not realize that I'm mock/imitating your own hyper-literal form of argumentation or are you just seeing how far I'll take it?

Because it is really formulaic and doesn't take much effort. I can keep it up ad absurdum.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you really still not realize that I'm mock/imitating your own hyper-literal form of argumentation or are you just seeing how far I'll take it?

Your imitation of analytical argumentation is absurdity. Why am I not surprised? The only tool you've ever had at your disposal is mockery, but any monkey can pull that off. You can't do the real thing, can you? How that must grate.

 

[The Painter]

Here is the text of the message he will read to American students tomorrow:

Hello everyone - .... - I know you can do it.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America."

The President says a prayer in public school. He mentioned God. He should know he's not allowed to do that.


I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the Feds helping set the curriculum. That is the States job, not the feds.

I also think the timing is off. It should have been researched a little better. For example, school here in western Suffolk county starts today, the President spoke yesterday. Oops.

 

[Upchurch]

Your imitation of analytical argumentation is absurdity. Why am I not surprised? The only tool you've ever had at your disposal is mockery, but any monkey can pull that off. You can't do the real thing, can you? How that must grate.

I really shouldn't. You're getting agitated.

...but would you kindly join me over here?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have yet to see any evidence that the suggested classroom activities are what kicked the controversy off.

Have you actually been looking for what kicked off the controversy? Have you gone to the sort of websites that were first complaining about the speech to see what they might have said?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/01/obamas-sept-8-speech-to-schoolchildren/
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/104812

The second link is particularly rant-like and more than a touch paranoid, but the prominence of the classroom activities in the complaint is quite apparent:
"if you have a strong stomach read the word.docs linked below with recommended classroom activities before and after the speech (be warned, if you love the Constitution you will want to barf)"

So again, to make myself clear, I'm not trying to argue that these fears were well-founded, I'm pointing out that key details of those fears are being avoided in most press coverage of the controversy. And that's rather interesting.

 

[Juniversal]

Yea because Michelle Malkin is an unbiased source that doesn't look for any opportunity to engage in inflamatory debates about Liberals or Democrats at the drop of a dime. A slightly more.....moderate...source then Malkin or Paul would be more convincing to me.

 

[Upchurch]

Yea because Michelle Malkin is an unbiased source that doesn't look for any opportunity to engage in inflamatory debates about Liberals or Democrats at the drop of a dime. A slightly more.....moderate...source then Malkin or Paul would be more convincing to me.

Even then, it is arguable that it was actually the extremist paranoia of Malkin and "Misfit4Peace", et al, that kicked off the controversy. They have been jumping at shadows since before Obama was inaugurated.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yea because Michelle Malkin is an unbiased source that doesn't look for any opportunity to engage in inflamatory debates about Liberals or Democrats at the drop of a dime.

You missed the point. Completely. I do not cite her as evidence that the complaints against Obama are correct. I cite her as evidence of what those complaints were. Can you understand the difference? Can you understand why her biases don't make any difference in regard to that question? She was voicing a complaint about the distributed lesson plans. That is evidence that the lesson plans were a source of complaint. Quite simple, really.

 

[Juniversal]

You missed the point. Completely. I do not cite her as evidence that the complaints against Obama are correct. I cite her as evidence of what those complaints were. Can you understand the difference? Can you understand why her biases don't make any difference in regard to that question? She was voicing a complaint about the distributed lesson plans. That is evidence that the lesson plans were a source of complaint. Quite simple, really.

Don't get me wrong. I completely understand YOUR point. I wasn't disputing your point. Just the fact Malkin finds fault with Obama at every turn and this no different. So I wouldn't consider her much of a viable source for legitimate Obama concerns. Which doesn't effect your message regardless.