Here is what the fuss is all about:
Since taking office, the President has repeatedly focused on education, even as the country faces two wars, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and major challenges on issues like energy and health care. The President believes that education is a critical part of building a new foundation for the American economy. Educated people are more active civically and better informed on issues affecting their lives, their families and their futures.
This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong. I encourage you, your teachers, and students to join me in watching the President deliver this address on Tuesday, September 8, 2009. It will be broadcast live on the White House website www.whitehouse.gov 12:00 noon eastern standard time.
In advance of this address, we would like to share the following resources: a menu of classroom activities for students in grades preK-6 and for students in grades 7-12. These are ideas developed by and for teachers to help engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives. We are also staging a student video contest on education.
And this is how they're reacting to the President's one time, coming address on Sept. 8 that counsels school children to stay in school and do well:
Glenn Beck: Obama speech more evidence of the "indoctrination of your children." On his radio show, Beck discussed Obama's speech with a caller and said, "On Tuesday, the president is going to be speaking to classrooms and your children, if they go to school -- K through sixth grade, I believe. You know, hey, get 'em while they're young." Beck added that he was planning on airing "a special one-hour broadcast next Tuesday on television on the indoctrination of your children," explaining that he decided to air "it on that Tuesday because of Barack Obama speaking [to students] on that Tuesday." Beck continued: "Gang, you have a system that is wildly, wildly out of control, and they are capturing your kids. As [special adviser for green jobs] Van Jones himself has said, the earlier we get the kids, the earlier we make this adjustment with the youth, the easier this transition is going to be. Stand guard America. Your republic is under attack." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 9/2/09]
In a blog post discussing her column, Malkin posted a graphic with the words, "School Indoctrination." Malkin also linked the speech with "Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers' pedagogical philosophy."
American Thinker: "Obama has turned his team of brainwashers on the task of indoctrinating America's youth." In a September 1 post, Lauri Regan wrote that "Obama has turned his team of brainwashers on the task of indoctrinating America's youth. ... My children are off limits."
WND: Speech "raising the specter of the Civilian National Security Force." WorldNetDaily news editor Bob Unruh wrote, "Parents across the country are rebelling against plans by President Barack Obama to speak directly to their children through the classrooms of the nation's public schools without their presence, participation and approval" and said the speech raises "the specter of the Civilian National Security Force." WND also forwarded comparisons of Obama's speech to Hitler's youth brigade.
Pamela Geller: "Keep Your Kids Home from School." In a September 1 post on her blog, Newsmax.com contributor Pamela Geller encouraged parents to keep their kids home because the "fascist in chief" will "brainwash" their children. From her blog post:
The fascist in chief is taking his special brand of brainwashing to the classroom. Keep your kids home. I think this man is a threat to our basic unalienable rights. I don't want him indoctrinating my children. Seriously.
Ask your school what their participation is in this leftist indoctrination outrage. Keep politics out of the classroom. Keep communists and their propagandists away from small children.
Obama's actions not without precedent
George H.W. Bush: Encouraged "America's students to strive for excellence." While president, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren intended "to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students' as well as parents' responsibility/accountability; and to promote students' and parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face." According to The Washington Post, the "White House sent letters to schools across the nation to encourage teachers and principals to allow students to tune in the speech, which was also carried live by the Mutual Broadcasting and NBC Radio Network. The live television and radio coverage was arranged at the request of the Education Department." [Washington Post, 10/2/91]George W. Bush: Learning materials from White House. As Media Matters for America deputy research director Simon Maloy noted, former President George W. Bush posted a "teacher's guide" on the White House website intended to help students understand the "freedom timeline" and encouraged them to "explor[e] the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President, and Mrs. Cheney."
How can any US citizen NOT be embarrassed by the frenzied nonsense emanating from these beserk modern-day Cassandras?
The President of the United States is going to tell US school children to do well in school, and the lunatic fringe of the GOP sees it as indoctrination.
It doesn't get any more convulsively psychoneurotic than that.
h/t MM
66 comments:
Those propagating this indoctrination theory have officially lost their minds...pity that their sheepish followers haven't noticed and readily swallow this garbage.
the rightwingers have turned the US president into an enemy, what with their calling him a Nazi, Hitler, Commie, Fascist, and yes, even baby killer.
some unhinged nut will take matters into his/her own hands and get rid of the right's enemy--and it will be squarely the fault of all who support this sort of crazy talk.
It won't be, at all, unless the "crazy talk" includes death threats. Then there is a reasonable expectation of cause and effect, and responsibility.
But it would be proposterous to blame those who make such statements (American Thinker's "Obama has turned his team of brainwashers on the task of indoctrinating America's youth.") for any supposed future violence that I too hope never comes to pass.
Being able to criticize and even insult political leaders is a venerable political tradition that our Founding Fathers fought hard for. This is in fact the very heart of the First Amendment to the Constitution. I actually find many of these statements disagreeable, but I won't go as far as to use imagination and link them with death threats.
I may not agree with the "crazy talk", but I fully support the right of people to make such statements. As long as there are no death threats or anything like that at all, any such "fault" you describe is competely imaginary, illogical, and ignorant of any reasonable concept of cause, effect, fault, guilt, and blame.
Dmarks,
Freedom of speech is a wonderous thing and a hard fought honor.
No one will ever deny that and all of us must protect this freedom and guard against its infringement.
Now, you will always be the first to point out the sins of one side when someone comments about the sins of the other.
On Patricks blog, when I brought up that the healthcare industry paid lobbyists 165 million in the first three months of this year you were quick to retort that SEIU paid lobbyists 1 million dollars last year.
You will always throw out the Hitler = Bush whenever anyone notes the Obama = Hitler comments but that hides the fact that the Obama = Hitler side also has Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to amplify thier incessant hate and the Liberals have ????. Not real sure that Olbermann and Maddox are yet in the same league as O'Reilly and Hannity, et.al.
Why is it so proposterous to acknowledge that to incessantly go on and on about the THREAT that Obama poses to this country, that the people MUST take back their country from this REGIME would not lead to someone acting upon these incessant chants?
To be a PATRIOT?
How is it any different than yelling "Fire" in a packed movie house?
To just yell "FIRE" in a packed movie house and to claim that that speech is NOT protected under the first admendment is as you say, "...any such "fault" you describe is competely imaginary, illogical, and ignorant of any reasonable concept of cause, effect, fault, guilt, and blame."
Because obviously, without smoke an flames what exactly does the word "FIRE" mean?
It's simple really.
'Real American' Presidents, Republicans of course, say what they mean and mean what they say.
Marxist, Socialist Presidents, Democrats, speak in code.
Some examples (Republicanese in parentheses):
"Study hard".
Commit to memory Mao's Little Red Book, Das Kapital, And in your spare time read Wretched of the Earth for pleasure.
"Get involved".
Denounce your neighbors for counter-revolutionary tendencies. Join the Communist Youth League. Participate in 'Re-education Through Labor' projects.
"Don't use drugs"
Do use drugs. Smoke pot. Drink a lot. Lay around and discuss Marxist dialectics between intense bouts of any deviant sexual behavior you prefer.
"Set goals and work to achieve them".
The State provides everything you need. In return you give everything you have to the state.
Tao: Did I leave some zeroes off? The SEIU expenditures were well over 100 million. Not one million. And that is a LOT closer to 165 million.
I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh when he equates Obama with Hitler or Saddam, and I don't agree with Glenn Beck on that either. Not sure where O'Reilly fits in. Has he equated Obama with Hitler?
"the people MUST take back their country"
Did you know that the whole take back America slogan was used by the left a lot during Bush also? There was even an official organiation with that name. This link calls itself "America's Future Now", but during the Bush years they called themselves "Take Back America".
It is completely proposterous to say that anyone who says "Take Back America" is supporting death threats. This is the same now, as it was during the "incessant chants" about how Bush must go.
I noticed that you capitalized the word REGIME, as if perhaps it is one of those incidiary words that can be used for imaginary connections to death threats? That is the height of imagination, if that is your point.
The "fire" analogy obfuscates the fact that this Obama sucksrhetoric has nothing to do with any sort of Obama should be killed idea.
Just as I would never ever connect the "Bush stole the election" kooks with any sort of death threats unless actual death threats were made.
You can't just conjure these connections out of thin air. There aren't death threats unless there are death threats. And "Take Back America" claims against Obama, as against Bush, refer to legal and protected methods, such as elections, impeachment, etc.
If this idea takes root, that if you dare to criticize the President you are automatically supporting calls for his death, this certainly would be no good for free speech.
To use these imaginary leaps are to deny that "Freedom of speech is a wonderous thing and a hard fought honor.
Pamela D. Hart said...
Octo: Excuse me, but I must interject. Because you’re twisting words and posting half quotes and that is immature, at best.
WHERE did you ASK that your so-called friends/colleagues on the right speak out against this “thuggery”? Was that before or after YOU accused ME of being a rabble-rousing-brown-shirt?
BUT even IF you did request assistance with this town hall endeavor, you have NO right to get angry if we chose not to post about them. I’m not quite sure who appointed YOU Blogging Director..
Well Pamela D. Hart, since when did ANYONE need to clear it with YOU when they wished to make a post?
It seems to me that your hinges are somewhat insecure!
We the people deserve some safety from the insane people running wild at these Town Hall meetings. And for your information the guy deserved to get his finger bit off because he threw the 1st punch!
Lets not forget that for the past eight years, a tyrant from Texas stole the tree of liberty and cut it to pieces to give to his highest political donors. While all the patriots were bleeding the sands red in Iraq and Afghanistan..
And to all those people that are complaining about the president’s speech to school chiuldren, specifically parents with children in public schools:
You are ok with sending your children to public schools? Public schools are schools that are financed by local, state, and federal tax dollars. Public school is socialized education. I don’t have children in public school but portions of the tax dollars I pay to Henrico, Virginia, and the Federal government go to support the education of your children.
I guess I don’t understand why you are ok with that, but not with letting your children listen to a democratically elected president give a speech about the importance of education? Hacks like Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Marc levin, and Glenn Beck are the Brown shirts of the 30's. Has anyone actually read speech? No! So why the controversy over President Obama's plan to address the nation's schoolchildren on Tuesday?
Not since Joe McCarthy shuffled off this mortal coil in 1957 has anyone made a career by accusing people of being communists. Glenn Beck has resurrected the practice. Not only has he found a cabal of secret communists, he has uncovered an entire communist corporation chock full of commies. The name of this company, you may ask?
THE NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY!
You heard me right, boys and girls. The network that gave us Uncle Miltie and Ma Perkins has apparently been secretly sending subliminal messages endorsing Marxist doctrine since it was formed in 1926. This would make perfect sense to me. Every time I watched the Rockford Files I had an unexplainable desire to read Das Kapital. But seriously, folks. Twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, red baiting not only seems silly, it's also kind of nuts. It's not-at-all surprising that an organization would give this idiot a forum (after all, he's on FOX Noise). What's really stunning is the fact that his ratings are relatively high and that so many Americans take his word as gospel.
All kidding aside, half-witted ideologues are a dime a dozen. What separates Glenn Beck from his peers is the fact that he is doing some serious damage to the country he professes to love so much. For all of the comparisons to the Nazis he likes to make with respect to Liberals, Beck's program has much in common with Adolf Hitler's 1923 screed, Mein Kampf. Eighty-six years ago, Hitler attempted to arouse the anger of his fellow Germans by spouting half truths and utter nonsense - exactly what Glenn Beck is doing in 2009. So much of the insane dialogue that has been spewed forth at these Town Hall meetings across the country in recent weeks might have been lifted straight from a transcript of Beck's program.
Beck and his twisted ilk have done the impossible. They have deflected the blame for America's current economic distress (from where it should be aimed) toward a man who is trying to clean up the mess that was created - in large part - by people like Glenn Beck. They have also let loose with a vengeance the very worst angels of the American nature. Opening this Pandora's box was relatively easy. Closing it might prove to be a bit of a problem.
Deep in their hearts
They do believe
That they shall undermine someday....
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Great mindless tit for tat, Tom. You had some good points for a while, but then you equated Glenn Beck with Nazis, and went down the exact same path as those who call Obama a communist.
death threats on the president's life are up 400% over what they were during Bush's 2 terms.
FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT.
Please explain this, since Mr. Bush was president just less than 8 months ago.
What has happened in 8 months that can explain a huge increase like that?
Also, do you recall any Democrats/liberals bringing loaded guns to any forum where President Bush was speaking?
Please explain why this didn't happen then, and is happening now.
Back on subject, PolitiFact has posted this, but I'm sure it won't slake the rabid thirst of the extremists for more reasons to demonize and slander the president:
Politifact went to the trouble of investigating a claim made by the Florida Republican Party that President Obama's upcoming address to schoolchildren will "indoctrinate" the kids with "socialist ideology." Their conclusion: a "pants on fire" lie.
We asked the Republican Party of Florida for evidence that Obama intended to discuss health care, banks, automobile companies or taxes with the nation's schoolchildren. They couldn't point us to anything.
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."
It is beyond stupid that people are crying foul about Obama's planned speech on Tuesday. What's Obama's message?
"Stay in school."
Yes, it is that simple. And now, Conservatives are in an uproar about him 'indoctrinating' students into socialist ways. I actually cannot believe I read an article so stupid and vapid in the New York Times:
"President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening.
The uproar over the speech, in which Mr. Obama intends to urge students to work hard and stay in school, has been particularly acute in Texas, where several major school districts, under pressure from parents, have laid plans to let children opt out of lending the president an ear."
I mean, it's not like he is going to deliver a speech on the irrefutable logic of the socialist dialectic, you know? He's just going to urge kids to stay in school.
I do not want my child listening to Obama demanding of them to write letters to state how they will help him period. I don't not want my child for to help Obama with anything nor do I want my child used as a tool by Obama to force his political agenda upon the American public--- I do not want Obama brainwashing my minor in hopes that later my minor child will vote for his socialist nonsense. I do not Obama using and brainwashing anybody's child. This whole thing is morally wrong.
You know there are unstable people in this country and many of them are on this blog, from reading some of these crazy comments. This is not about republicans or democrats. It's about AMERICA and our freedoms which are being violated. I am sure Germany did not see the propaganda put out by the Nazis, but hindsight it seems so obvious. He is no better by going through the back door indoctrinating our kids
The idea of President Obama urging our nations youth to work hard and stay in school is frightening.
What is the man thinking?
Thank goodness there are responsible parents out their who won't allow their offspring to be tarnished by having to listen to such a message.
And that's what makes America what it is.
What we don't hear from the right are logical and reasonable reasons against the President's address to our kids. It's only about hating President Obama with them even though there are some pretty good arguments for him not speaking this way.
My wife and I talked about this and she said teachers already have to cram loads of lessons into the short period the kids are in class. This adds to that. The President can address the whole Nation in the evening.
But despite any rational resons there may be, the people I've heard argue against this do so because they don't like President Obama.
I don't have a problem with Obama speaking to my children as long as it doesn't get political. Both Reagan and Bush spoke to our children, while in office.
I've heard it said that they brought politics into it, but I don't feel that two wrongs make a right. It doesn't make it okay for him to bring politics into a message about education. I did have a concern about the "help Obama" bit, but it was addressed and I have to just trust him that it will remain about education. Should that not happen, let the sparks fly.
I think that when a president encourages our children to study and stay in school it is a good thing. The hysteria going around it ridiculous. He is not trying to brainwash our children.
I don't particularly care for Obama and yet even I can see that much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Napqueen, I don't know why you are dragging this from one thread into another one!
"Well Pamela D. Hart, since when did ANYONE need to clear it with YOU when they wished to make a post?
It seems to me that your hinges are somewhat insecure!"
First of, Pam "hinges" are very secure and anyone knowing her would know that.
Secondly, I don't recall her comments directed to YOU. Unlike some people, she does not tell people what or what they shouldn't post about. You don't know what has been going on lately and your comment proves it. Unfortunately, both Pam and I know it all to well and are dealing with it just fine without your intervention.
"And for your information the guy deserved to get his finger bit off because he threw the 1st punch!"
And here, I was always taught two wrongs don't make it right. According to your theory, since people compared Bush to Hitler, now Obama DESERVES to have it done to him. When you start justifying this because someone did that you are stepping in murky water.
I believe that everything should be judged upon it's merit, not by what was done to you!
My Sarcastic Opinion,
Putting aside possible ulterior motives, the conservative freak-out over President Obama’s planned speech to students urging them to stay in school and work hard is due to fears that Obama will use his platform as an opportunity to push his agenda on unsuspecting students. Ironically, that’s exactly what President Reagan did two decades ago.
"On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marlin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “t o schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes:
Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.
I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor. Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity."
During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Reagan returned to the topic, this time telling the students that lowering taxes increases revenue.
You apparently are unaware of this episode in Reagan's presidency.
Mr. Obama is not going to say anything approaching what Reagan did in his talk to America's children.
You've been duped, and were too lazy to discover the facts yourself.
What you're participating in is a pure partisan attack supported by fear and ignorance.
Dmarks,
Nice try...
100 million a year for total lobbying vs. 165 million in three months for just healthcare reform is still not close.
To claim similarities between an election in 2000 where one candidate won the electoral college and the loser won the popular vote count and to have a president based on a few hundred votes in one state is not even close to the election in 2008 which was not even close.
To compare the anger from the 2000 with the systematic, daily, across all media outlets (internet, televsion, and radio) and on every issue anger since the election of 2008 is disengenious.
"6 of one and a half dozen of another" is your argument but the reality is no where near that balanced and you know it.
There are no "imaginary leaps" and you know it. How many bills during Bush's term required a super majority of 60 vs. 50? Why now is everything 60?
To constantly point to this thing called "MSM" and claiming that they distort the news as a way of protecting Fox News while then in another breath bragging about how more people watch Fox News than watch all the other news outlets combined is an argument that makes one question then who exactly is the "MSM" and their importance on anything.
You refuse to acknowledge that as the partisanship increases, as the hysterics, mistruths, and slander is increasing so have the death threats made to President Obama...
If the hatred during the Bush years was equal to the hatred today, if the left was as guilty as the right, as you love to constantly imply then it is you who is being imaginary in light of the 400% increase in death threats received by the Secret Service.
Of course you can deny the cause and effect all you want, which would be no different than Pat Buchannan writing that Hitler did not want war...
Yes, I capitalized certain words, its a psychological thing, like when the Fox News gang, who claim to offer commentary and entertainment have a set that looks like a news room. If they are entertainment then should their sets look like CNN or should they look like the set of the David Letterman show?
So, when does all this quiet down? When do we get back to the days where governing our country was not issue number one every day? When does the hysterics, the birthers, the hate, the fear stop and we move forward?
Or, when do we have our Kristalnacht?
At what point do we become ungovernable? At what point do we lose sight of our shared values, of any values, and it becomes nothing more than winning at all costs?
Hyperbole? Possibly, but you know enough history to recognize some similarities and some disturbing trends.
But then again I believe you are an anarchist...so you just might be whistling Dixie right now.
Well Pamela D. Hart, since when did ANYONE need to clear it with YOU when they wished to make a post?
Napqueen: Since “NEVER” did anyone need to clear anything with me before they make a post! Just as NO ONE has to clear it with Octo before they make a post! THANK YOU for making MY POINT!
Tao: That was a nice successful try I made. $138 million in one year is real money.
The situation that is "close" in 2000 and in 2009 happens to be the nuts that say Bush did not really win, and the nuts that say Obama is not really a citizen. Both groups are/were sore losers.
Looks like you have your favorite kooks that you side with. I happen to be consistent, and side with neither of the groups.
6 of one half dozen of another is a valid argument when we are looking back at the environment of rabid Bush hatred: it is quite balanced.
There are plenty of imaginary leaps, and you know it.
"When does the hysterics, the birthers, the hate, the fear stop and we move forward? Or, when do we have our Kristalnacht?"
So there we have it. A playground tit-for-tat. They call Obama a Nazi, so you call them Nazis. Neener, neener, neener. I'm a little surprised at you that you so quickly proved Godwin's law.
"Of course you can deny the cause and effect all you want"
It only makes sense to deny it, because there is no logical connection of cause and effect of any kind.
If things were like you say they are, Shaw would be a person demanding murder of right-wingers just because she called them crazies in the parent post.
That's what follows from the "if you insult someone, it leads to wanting to kill them" fallacious connection.
I am of course ready to believe the death threat connection if there is a valid reason to believe so.
Perhaps we can get to "So, when does all this quiet down? When do we get back to the days where governing our country was not issue number one every day?" when both sides stop this kind of nonsense.
"To constantly point to this thing called "MSM" "
A perfect example of an imaginary leap. When did I point to an MSM? Can you quote me on that? Anything at all? Nope. "MSM", while a common term around here, is hardly even in my political vocabulary.
"You refuse to acknowledge that as the partisanship increases, as the hysterics, mistruths, and slander is increasing so have the death threats made to President Obama..."
I refuse to acknowledge it because it is a classic logical fallacy. The assumption that if there are two events, that one must be causing the other. It is a dangerous assumption that has a goal of silencing free speech. That is what happens when someone erroneously links free speech that has nothing at all to do with death threats with actual death threats.
Ever thought of linking global warming into your fairy tale? Perhaps the slowly increasing temperature of the Earth is causing death threats. After all, if trends are coinciding, they must all be related in a causual fashion.
"Hyperbole? Possibly, but you know enough history to recognize some similarities and some disturbing trends."
Indeed. That is why I point out "the very similar in tactics and hatred even if different in ideology" anti-Bush kooks from the previous administration time.
"But then again I believe you are an anarchist...so you just might be whistling Dixie right now."
So now I am an anarchist and a Confederate. It makes as much sense as your fallacously linking non-death-threat insults with actual death threats.
"Or, when do we have our Kristalnacht?"
Also, the last time we had anything close to Kristalnacht here was when the protesters at the WTO conference in Seattle decided to smash up a bunch of small businesses. These folks, opposed to free and fair trade, were truly thuggish.
Yes, and those protesters were international, not Americans, and they were alienated and anacharists.
There was what? 200 of them and they basically do what? Nothing but travel around permenantly protesting...
Cannot compare that little group of troublemakers with what is going on today...you are becoming a right wing apologist...
Tao: I was just venting as an aside about the Seattle protesters. I do not even connect them to the Democratic Party at all. Buchanan and Nader like them, but they certainly are not Democrats.
"you are becoming a right wing apologist."
Is that is your term for someone who generally leans conservative, so be it.
However, you won't find much from me supporting these modern protesters when they get crazy. Certainly not on the "Obama = Hitler" thing. I condemned this very early when it cropped up in the April 15 tea parties.
You won't find me supporting any sort of death threats, either. However, you also won't find me "admitting" that any ol' unpleasant fact, inconvenient truth, insult, lie or exaggeration is any sort of death threat unless it happens to have any sort of death-threat content.
My tolerance for death threats is extremely low. However, I do require that there actually be some sort of death threat present before I make the claim that something is a death threat.
------------
Perhaps it is time to kick SoCal's 1+1 = 3 logic into storyland. I did notice that Shaw's parent post dealt with the statements of various organizations/speakers for what they said, and did not go into the false death-threat links.
Relax Dmarks, you are a true conservative, but sometimes just like liberals you find yourself backed into a corner.
The WTO protesters was obvious...
You were also stretching trying to compare 138 million in a year vs 165 million in three months...
Union money might get unions more under this administration than it did in the last but a dollar is still a dollar.
The biggest issue as I see it is what is the INTENT of the current protesters, mostly from the right wing, is it to advance another idea or policy, a different way, or is it something else? I think alot of it is based upon feelings of alientation and some of it borders on anarchy.
Partisanship validates some of the wildest rumors...and like my example of yelling "fire" partisanship is the existing flames and smoke that become fanned by some of these crazy statements.
Freedom of speech is alot like gun ownership...its a great ideal but sadly you cannot have these freedoms without accepting the fact that some people are going to abuse the rights that they have and use them in the wrong way...
If 57% of Americans voted for Obama and if Americans are still respectful of the office of President then lets see how many parents pull their kids from school during the Obama speech on Tuesday.
While Reagan and Bush did the same thing Obama is proposing lets see if the end result is the same...in other words it ended up being much ado over nothing...
I bet this time the result is different and then even a conservative such as yourself will have to acknowledge that this time something is fundamentally different...that the protests today ARE NOT as easily compared to those of the past...
My son is smart enough not to swallow the crap that Obama will try to shove down his throat.. If they make my son pledge something he will proudly pledge to vote conservative for the rest of his life. He will pledge to own a gun at all times. To drive an SUV. To pay his own way through life. Not to look for handouts. Support the children that he sires. To defend the Constitution. To proudly proclaim his Christian faith till his dying breath. And to love his American Heritage.
Jennifer said...
I don't have a problem with Obama speaking to my children as long as it doesn't get political. Both Reagan and Bush spoke to our children, while in office.
----------------------------------
Jennifer, IO beg to differ with you.
With all due respect, did Reagan or Bush say:
"Work for me, serve me" "What can you do for me?"
I don't think so.. It may be alright for the liberals to hear that, but It's not alright for my children to hear that slop.
I will not send my kids to the slaughter house that day.
Sarcastic,
No, Bush sent along study plans that included studying the biographies of him, his wife, his vice president, and the wife of the vp...
That could be miscontrued as political indoctrination just as much as a study plan focused on "what can I do for my president?"
Since most kids cannot sit still for 15 minutes and have way too much other things vying for their attention, this really is not about corrupting children with political ideology at all...its about your own fears and hatreds.
Basically by not sending your child to the slaughter house you are saying that you do not respect the president of our country, you do not respect democracy and realistically you are just a sore loser who is intent on poutting and whining your way to the next election...
As far as Im Always Right...if your profile picture is correct then your children are young and you have no idea what your children will become as they grow up...your son just might grow up to be a ballet loving, free love seeking, commie pinko queer...
None of which will be due to one short televised speech by the president on tuesday...
Otherwise I know guys who are do-nothings who fit what you want for your son to a T!
Why not hope for a son that thinks for himself and is able to stand up for what he believes is right and to make his own way dependent and influenced by no one...
A man of sincere convictions who lives as HE believes....
TAO said:
"As far as Im Always Right...if your profile picture is correct then your children are young and you have no idea what your children will become as they grow up...your son just might grow up to be a ballet loving, free love seeking, commie pinko queer.."
I wouldn't worry about that happening, Not in MY home..
Maybe yours, but don't worry it's not going to happen in mine.
All one has to do is look how the White House revised its "Help Obama" request. Oh, yes, children of America you must love and adore Barack Obama. Shades of "Hitler Youth". No, you think that is too radical. Have any of you folks out there listened to Jeremiah Wright and Obama appointee Van Jones,etc.? Democrat Party, you best wake up and join the real world. You must get Obama to resign or impeach him NOW!!! The guy wants to be worshiped as a human god and absolute ruler. Any American who disagrees with his majesty will have his finger bitten off by an Obama goon. And......maybe worse. Listen to Van Jones rant, You'll get the real Obama agenda from head to toe. Left in office Obama will destroy America!!! Americans, this guy Obama is not only an egotistical empty suit, but he is dangerous to our country, our children and ourselves!!!
Tao said:
"Why not hope for a son that thinks for himself and is able to stand up for what he believes is right and to make his own way dependent and influenced by no one.."
********************************
I do, and that's why I don't want a Marxist like Obama putting thoughts in his head.
Thank you very much for making my point.
But then you are guilty of the same thing....
You do not want a child that is an independent thinker you want a MINI-ME!
Brainwashing is brainwashing....
!!! Americans, this guy Obama is not only an egotistical empty suit, but he is dangerous to our country, our children and ourselves!!!--I'm Always Right
dmarks,
This is another example of extremism brought about through untruths and fear mongering. Day after day after day, I read conservatives on blogs saying the same thing--that Mr. Obama is "dangerous to our country." Tell me where you think this sort of hysterical ranting will lead some unhinged guy or gal carrying a loaded gun to a presidential speech?
Also, dmarks, what about the fact that loaded guns are showing up at places where the president was scheduled to speak. I don't recall that happening during Bush's administration. Is this healthy, all-American behavior, or some sick way to demonstrate what could be in store for a president who doesn't conform to one's ideology.
NOTE to I'm Always Right, although he isn't a commie pinko, and I don't know anything about his sexual life, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Jr., DID become a ballet dancer and is most definitely NOT a conservative Republican.
He, as you know, grew up in a home where all those red-blooded American values you espoused were present [except possibly the church stuff, since Ronnie and Nancy were never particularly religious but had to make it look so in order for certain Americans to trust him with the presidency.]
John Harwood (MSNBC): "...Let's face it-in a country of 300 million people, there are a lot of
stupid people, too, because if you believe that it's somehow unhealthy for kids for the President to say 'work hard and stay in school,' you're STUPID! And as a matter of fact, I'm worried for some of those kids of those parents who are upset. I'm not sure they're smart enough to RAISE those kids."
Shaw: About the loaded guns, there are laws and regulations. Are these being obeyed? Are the guns being carried into places where they are specifically prohibited? Are the being brandished? Are these licensed firearms? I'd like this answered first. All of the above are improper. If all of this is merely completely legal carrying, then it is not even worth mentioning. And you can be sure that, with all the conceal-carry licenses in the country, there were a lot of firearms at Bush rallies and events.
Show me someone doing something wrong, and I will strongly condemn it. I'm a stickler for following firearms regulations and laws.
Firearms laws are a complicated matter, and it is too easy to say "oh! He's got a gun, which means he is about to commit a crime with it" inaccurate statements. There's a lot of irrational fear, ignorance, and falsehoods about firearms, often to the point of being contemptuous of Constitutional rights.. And truth be told, this problem is concentrated on the left half of the political spectrum.
Tao: "The WTO protesters was obvious"
Obvious as what? Do you dispute what I said about them? Or are you making up something that I never said or implied. The WTO mention is nothing more than my loathing of Nader and Buchanan. To stretch it beyond that and connect it to Democrats is for you to intentionally mislead and lie.
Surely you must be aware that there are many protesting groups in the US who are entirely independent of Democrats and Republicans.
"its a great ideal but sadly you cannot have these freedoms without accepting the fact that some people are going to abuse the rights that they have and use them in the wrong way."
Of course. But I refuse to buy the assertion that mere criticism of a politician (criticism that has nothing to do with any death threats or violence) is "the wrong way". Even if I happen to disagree with the opinion being expressed. Opinion that has nothing do with anything to make a "fire" analogy valid.
In fact, if you want something like a "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" analogy, you can look at the kooks who say "Oh look that maniac is elected. Flee the country!" A type of maniac that was more common around Bush elections.
"If 57% of Americans voted for Obama..."
I fail to see the point of this "what if" scenario in which your Obama vote percentage is different than the actual result.
Also, Shaw said "Day after day after day, I read conservatives on blogs saying the same thing--that Mr. Obama is "dangerous to our country."
Shaw, you might want to check this link to a whole lot of blogspot blogs that specifically said that Bush is dangerous, back during his administration. They use language that you call "Extremist" which Republicans use it.
I suppose this was all OK and justifed back then?
link to "Extremists" saying Bush was dangerous:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22bush+is+dangerous%22+blogspot&start=10&sa=N
TAO said...
"But then you are guilty of the same thing....
You do not want a child that is an independent thinker you want a MINI-ME!
Brainwashing is brainwashing.."
An independent thinker? sure,
If that's the way you want to put it, then fine.
Well then I'd rather he be brain washed by me than by a Socialist like Obama.
I don't need anyone with socialist ideas to talk to my son when he's there to get an education.. Not a brainwashing..
There are two kinds of people I never want speaking to my children: pedophiles and liberal politicians.
dmarks,
You never address the 400% increase [since 8 months ago,] in death threats against this president.
And carrying a loaded gun to a speech by the POTUS, legal though it may be, sends a menacing message to everyone.
I would find it very intimidating if say, I were having a disagreement with someone and he carried a loaded gun into the room where we were going to talk it out.
You're too glib on this matter, dmarks.
We all understand what the loaded guns at presidential speeches signify.
Shaw: I condemn all death threats, without reservation. I can't imagine that these would be controversial. Did you actually think I would support them or something?
"And carrying a loaded gun to a speech by the POTUS, legal though it may be, sends a menacing message to everyone."
Not if it were completely legal. Being completely legal includes not threatening anyone or brandishing it. That is all rather illegal.
I would not be intimidated, if the person were authorized to carry that gun legally, and he/she was not doing anything illegal with it (such as threatening me).
"We all understand what the loaded guns at presidential speeches signify."
Not all of us use wild imagination combined with ignorance of firearm laws. Legally carrying a firearm is not a threat. You now have a tactic of using your ignorance of firearms laws and contempt of legal carry (as protected by the Second Amendment) to fashion threats... and you have yet to refer to any actual or implied threats to the President from this.
Show me actual threats, actual laws broken (including specific gun bans within meeting places), and I will soundly condemn this.
If anything is "glib" here, it is your lack of any consideration to the complexities of firearms matters, especially laws.
Sorry, there are many instances where it is legal to carry a firearm. And the very act of carrying a firearm is not a "threat"
Sorry, there are many instances where it is legal to carry a firearm. And the very act of carrying a firearm is not a "threat"
Tell that to the families of JFK, RFK, MLK, and RWR.
Gladly and easily. To all of them.
Now, can you tell me which one of these families had a famous family member harmed during the legal use of a firearm?
Also, now that you mention JFK, back in his day the conservatives used strong insulting language against him. This was actually the most recent Presidential assassination we've had. I sure hope it was the last one we ever have. Yes, there was a lot of incindiary rhetoric against JFK from the right. And yet, the assassin who killed him was from the very far left. Nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans.
Since JFK, the closest we have gotten to an assassination was the Chapman incident. Have you ever read the letter he wrote? The reason for his attempt on Reagan had nothing to do with the political discourse of the day between the left and the right.
Time to put in the trash the "chilling" and false claim that mere criticism of a President lends support to assassinating him/her.
dmarks typed:
'I would not be intimidated, if the person were authorized to carry that gun legally, and he/she was not doing anything illegal with it (such as threatening me).'
Let's all pack heat.
It's the American way.
Sarcastic typed:
'I don't think so.. It may be alright for the liberals to hear that, but It's not alright for my children to hear that slop.
I will not send my kids to the slaughter house that day.'
I think your kids are better off at school.
Pardon, 'slaughter house'.
It will be amusing when the little darlings grow up to spout Emerson, Walt Whitman, embrace Buddhism and join the Peace Corps.
dmarks: "I would not be intimidated, if the person were authorized to carry that gun legally..."
Seung-Hui Cho was authorized to carry the guns he used to slaughter 32 Virginia Tech students in 2007.
Arthur: Feel free to get a conceal carry license, if your state has that. I have no problem at all with it as long as you meet the requirements.
None of that "Ooooh. Guns! Evilllll!!!" for me. If you don't like guns, don't carry one. That should take care of any problem you have.
As for your response to Sarcastic, it reminds me that I do happen to find his "slaughter house" reference to be over the top and unlike almost all of what is being discussed: actually connected to violence. Does Sarcastic really want to connect this issue to Columbine-type incidents? Perhaps he does.
And doing a little fact-checking on another of Sarcastic's claims, I can't find anywhere where Obama says "Work for me, serve me". That's something that Sarcastic claimed he said, in quotes. Is there a source for this?
Shaw: And that slaughter was definetely an illegal use. Of course I do not support that.
Guns don't die. People do.
Funny how 'Real Americans' never carry around a well-thumbed edition of 'Huckleberry Finn'. 'Catcher in the Rye' or any other banned book.
Nope.
The 2nd Amendment is the real hardcore stuff and trumps all for a certain segment of the population. A segment intent on intimidating their neighbors under the guise of 'exercising their rights'. Carrying a gun to a Town Hall Meeting is done for one reason only. Intimidation.
Never say never but unless this whole thing dissolves into 'Mad Max-The Sequel: America Goes Tits-Up' then I don't foresee ever carrying a weapon.
Ban the private possession of guns? Of course not.
It's far too late.
Arthur said:
"Funny how 'Real Americans' never carry around a well-thumbed edition of 'Huckleberry Finn'. 'Catcher in the Rye' or any other banned book."
I don't see how that makes anyone any more or any less of a real American. Besides, you have no idea what you are talking about here either. Neither book is banned. Both are available for free on the Internet, and the actual paper books can be purchased from a huge variety of sources.
"The 2nd Amendment is the real hardcore stuff and trumps all for a certain segment of the population"
You can't get "trump all" out of the idea that this Amendment is as important as the others, and should not be so lightly tossed out.
"Carrying a gun to a Town Hall Meeting is done for one reason only. Intimidation."
You are making that up, out of complete ignorance of firearms. Again, you can't make a claim unless there is evidence.
Carrying a firearm under allowed carrying laws is not intimidation or threat. Of course it isn't: any threat or intimidation is illegal. As it should be.
There are specific laws which address intimidation. Intimidation with firearms is flat out illegal, and there are many laws against it. These include brandishing, aiming at someone, or making threats.
Sorry, you need to check into this. Doing something legal and non-threatening isn't intimidation unless there is actually intimidation.
If you show me actual intimidation (not paranoid imaginary intimidation) I will be strongly against it.
dmarks typed:
'You are making that up, out of complete ignorance of firearms. Again, you can't make a claim unless there is evidence.'
Got me. Still I'm glad to have that settled.
What was I thinking? Attending a Town Hall meeting in broad day light with ones friends and neighbors under the watch of the police and media here in the most prosperous country (and one of the safest) the world has ever known demands one carry a loaded weapon.
That's what friends are for.
I know you don't see it this way, dmarks, but when a guy comes to a town hall meeting where the POTUS will be speaking and that guy is anti-Obama, anti-Liberal, anti-health care reform, and he's carrying a loaded gun strapped to his leg, that would in many, many, many people's mind be a form of a menacing attitude.
I have never seen this behavior before in any other instance where the POTUS was scheduled to speak. Never.
You dismiss this behavior because it is legal and because the man who came to the town hall meeting didn't point the gun at the POTUS or threaten anyone, it, therefore, makes for a perfect Norman Rockwell gathering to debate a very contentious issue.
I could find millions of people in this country and in other parts of the world who would look at that scenario [especially with this country's history of shooting presidents] and find it insane.
Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it sane.
All this gun-totin' is why I moved out of Deadwood in the first place.
That and the endless 911 calls regarding the Gem Saloon.
Arthur said: ".....demands one carry a loaded weapon."
Actually, there are no such "demands" in this nation. There are for certain professions. And at one time I think there was a county in Georgia. But otherwise there are no requirements to carry firearms.
Shaw said: "and that guy is anti-Obama, anti-Liberal, anti-health care reform"
Now that is real scary. The idea that someone's legal right to carry should have something to do with their political views. Especially maintream political views such as this.
But I know that some would just love to base our 2nd amendment rights on a political litmus test.
"Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it sane."
And just because someone is obeying the firearms laws, and is not doing anything threatening, makes it a "threat".
As for those "millions", I am not responsible for their wild imagination and ignorance.
"I could find millions of people in this country and in other parts of the world who would look at that scenario [especially with this country's history of shooting presidents] and find it insane."
See, that's kind of the problem. Folks in other parts of the world have bought into the idea that it's okay for the government to have all the guns. Even in the UK, whose common-law right to home defense was the basis of our second amendment, the citizens have allowed their rulers to ban the private ownership of guns.
Fortunately, despite the desire of millions to concentrate power in the government, the citizens of the US have not bought into this stupidity. We have not bowed to the notion that our "betters" should be able to deny a natural right.
The Virginia Tech murderer broke the law when he walked onto the campus carrying a firearm. Had the students and staff been allowed to carry, the incident could have been over much sooner. We know that from a similar incident, where a staff member retrieved his weapon from his car and ended the rampage with love, understanding and empathy, but mostly with a couple of well-placed bullets in the murderer.
Anyone who tried such a thing at my right-wing crazy high school would have faced the two faculty members I know were armed, and probably four more (I suspected; I didn't know ). If he managed to avoid the faculty, then there were all the students who kept shotguns in their vehicles. The real danger would have been from being run down as the owners raced to the parking lot to get them.
My high school parking lot probably had more guns than the vendor room at the NRA convention.
dmarks typed:
Actually, there are no such "demands" in this nation. There are for certain professions. And at one time I think there was a county in Georgia. But otherwise there are no requirements to carry firearms.
Satire. dmarks.
Satire.
Secondly, a careful reading of what I wrote would indicate the circumstances I described create the 'demand'. Nothing at all about government regulation.
Gordon-
Sorry to hear of your high school years.
Still, it explains a very great deal.
Gordon and dmarks,
I'm happy that both of you live in an area of the country where everyone is armed, locked, and loaded.
But my experience is different from yours.
I've managed to live a peaceful, secure, useful life without being surrounded by heavily armed men and women, or anyone, for that matter, who is invested in what I would describe as Wild West mentality and with a deeply distrustful and somewhat paranoid view of the government.
There are quite a few Americans who feel the way I do. And I happen to live in a part of the country where quite a few of them agree with my thinking and would be appalled at yours.
I don't have any wish to deprive either one of you or anyone [except for the mentally deranged, perhaps]of the thrill of owning a machine gun, a rifle, or any other lethal weapon of choice.
I just don't share that sort of emotional attachment to firearms, nor do I believe that the bogey man government is going to come and take my rights away.
Hundreds of millions of people in technologically advanced, democratic western societies also feel the same way. It is uniquely American to be so invested in this idea of a right to own machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction as a birth right.
This country has the highest rates of death from gun ownership, so there is a huge price to pay for being armed to the teeth, and not every American is happy with that.
And we are no less American than either one of your for feeling this way.
Well, Shaw, if you don't like guns, the answer is not to own any. Problem solved.
"This country has the highest rates of death from gun ownership, so there is a huge price to pay for being armed to the teeth, and not every American is happy with that."
You will find the NRA types happen to have among the toughest "law and order" attitude toward those who commit gun crimes.
They aren't happy with the "price" of gun crimes, for sure. And they are also well aware that the law-abiding owners aren't the problem.
"Hundreds of millions of people in technologically advanced, democratic western societies also feel the same way"
Again, I am not responsible for their ignorance, paranoia, and irrational fears. Thankfully, uninformed people in foreign countries like this who have no real knowledge of American affairs can't vote here.
"what I would describe as Wild West mentality and with a deeply distrustful and somewhat paranoid view of the government"
I guess for leftists, the distrust of government is just a mask you put on when the President is a Republican. Only then do you "question authority".
dmarks typed:
'I guess for leftists, the distrust of government is just a mask you put on when the President is a Republican. Only then do you "question authority".'
If only.
If only.
Speaking for this leftist, my introduction to 'distrust of government' began in the 1960's under a Democratic administration who had mistakenly lengthened and enlarged our involvement in Vietnam. I wasn't very happy about globalization initiatives and market de-regulation under Clinton either. Not to mention his annoying habit of leading with his d**k.
And I'm happy to say my distrust of government continues to this very day. Hale, hearty and in the pink. Skepticism is a very useful mechanism for self-preservation.
Of course it does ratchet up a bit when guys like GWB live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
We disagree on that here and there (for example, I think that Clinton lowering restrictions on the ability of Americans to trade freely with people of other countries was one of the best things he did). But I do like the general tone of healthy skepticism about government in general.
I am guessing that you might be one of those for whom the phrase "We're from the government, we're here to help you" does not induce warm, fuzzy feelings.
dmarks typed:
'I am guessing that you might be one of those for whom the phrase "We're from the government, we're here to help you" does not induce warm, fuzzy feelings.'
Indeed I am. Nor have I ever in all my years met anyone who did. Perhaps if I were an investment banker/insurance company/automobile executive I'd feel differently.
"Perhaps if I were an investment banker/insurance company/automobile executive I'd feel differently."
For once, Arthurstone, you and I are in complete agreement.
Shaw wrote:
"I've managed to live a peaceful, secure, useful life without being surrounded by heavily armed men and women, or anyone, for that matter, who is invested in what I would describe as Wild West mentality and with a deeply distrustful and somewhat paranoid view of the government."
Two things: You are surrounded by heavily armed men, and a few women. They're called police officers, and apparently in your part of the world they behave stupidly, or so it's claimed. In my city they have a reputation, well-earned, for getting pretty rough with some citizens. Call me paranoid if you like, but police are supposed to be civilians, not a paramilitary force. Lately many departments seem to have forgotten that distinction.
In any case, I am responsible for my own defense, and that of those I love. I take that responsibility seriously. And if, in my informed opinion, that requires me to be armed, then I will choose the weapon. How dare any state force its people to rely solely on the benefice of state protection! That is evil, filthy evil.
Second, the west wasn't quite as wild as you may think. Part of my family lived in Lincoln county, New Mexico. Think William Bonney and the Regulators--the Lincoln County War and cattlemen who would burn out homesteaders. It was as wild as it got out west. And yet, none of my family ever witnessed a shooting. Murders were vanishingly rare, and swiftly and capitally punished.
Then, as now, law enforcement could not be relied upon to protect you or your family. It was the responsibility of each family to protect itself, and in some cases, their neighbors. This is not a right granted by the state. In the words of the guy who didn't write that dissent is patriotic, "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights...."
I'm glad you're able to live peacefully and safely.
Arthur and Gordon: From the investment banker/etc comments, it might appear we are all in agreement in condemning Bush and Obama's senseless no-strings attached corporate welfare *cough( bailouts.
The President had to take the steps he did. Imperfect as they may be I believe Obama actions avoided world-wide financial catastrophe.
That said it's always interesting to contrast on how our government 'works'. Lose your home to Katrina and you might end up in a FEMA mobile home park for several years.
Run the banking/insurance industry into the ground through sheer greed and you'll get your bonus and likely a raise.
That's the beauty of an oligarchy. The rich reap the rewardswhile the rest of us assume the risk.
It's the American way.
"That's the beauty of an oligarchy. The rich reap the rewardswhile the rest of us assume the risk."
It's more of a problem of big government. Thanks to poorly planned bailouts by both Bush and Obama (government actions), the rich who made bad decisions in these companies have reaped huge bonuses drawn from the taxpayer-funded bailouts.
Post a Comment