10 Sep 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe main problem with the speech was that a lot of logistical stuff had to be done just so the kids could get to hear Obama urge them to study hard and do well in school. It was a publicity stunt. Nothing sinister, but also nothing of any worth.
Here in upstate SCarolina, the 7 school districts did not play the speech live for the students to hear, so several black activists decided to protest on the steps of the largest district office. I don't know how it turned out, since I don't care what they do. But the school admin people pointed out that assembling everyone during fourth period/lunch to ...[text shortened]... could opt their kids out if they did not want them to participate.
"Strange days indeed..."
Surely, it would have been better for Obama to record some speeches of this sort on DVD and let the various schools decide whether or not they wished to include them in their curricula. It may've been good if Obama was to record a DVD giving basic civic lessons (with endorsements from both Dems and GOPs) on how government and elections operated.
10 Sep 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesTHat was the creepy thing about it, most of the people I know in the church are conservatives, yet these children seem to have been indoctrinated otherwise. Don't get me wrong, my church does not include political activism as some do, but the majority, by in large, are conservative.
Was this church populated by people who would be mainly Obama supporters? Or was it in a "blue" part of the country (such as in the middle of a large city or somewhere near the coasts?).
Young children's political "views" are probably copied from their parents. Young children like to imitate their parents, so whatever their parents say or believe, the ...[text shortened]... to say in public - except that the children hear this stuff and then DO say it in public.
10 Sep 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotI have no problem with this whatsoever
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-obama-schools,0,4944375.story
Here is what your children will be subjected to if they are in Kindergarten through grade 6 when Obama addressed the classrooms according to the US Department of Education. Ask yourself as you read it, "Are we creating the Villiage of the Damned with matching little kid ...[text shortened]... tistic projects based on the themes of their goals.
Graph individual progress toward goals.
10 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyMaybe in your church, the conservatives are the sort of people who don't spend much time talking about politics - or do so only in places where the kids aren't around - and the liberals are people that spent a lot of time talking about the election in their living room where junior could hear every word.
THat was the creepy thing about it, most of the people I know in the church are conservatives, yet these children seem to have been indoctrinated otherwise. Don't get me wrong, my church does not include political activism as some do, but the majority, by in large, are conservative.
Or maybe a lot of those conservatives aren't as conservative as you think. The stereotype is that churchgoers are conservatives - so maybe everyone at church assumes that everyone else at church is conservative so they all pretend to be one themselves.
10 Sep 09
Originally posted by whodeyAnother thing is that kids hear things from their parents then tell other kids and it ends up being like a bad game of broken telephone.
THat was the creepy thing about it, most of the people I know in the church are conservatives, yet these children seem to have been indoctrinated otherwise. Don't get me wrong, my church does not include political activism as some do, but the majority, by in large, are conservative.
One liberal parent jokes about something around their kid remembers it and then tells his kid from a conservative household, but remembers it wrong so it gets a bit warped.
It's a good question as to how kids get these ideas, but kids remember the oddest things sometimes.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by duecerso there you go, no brainwashing.
I fully believe the 4;30 bit, he has said this alot both in his book and on the campaign trail. The man is brilliant and hard working, wether you agree with his politics is an entirely different matter.
I too thought the speech was an excellent message for kids.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnUnfortunately, the adults often play their own bad games of broken telephone amongst themselves. And with all the blogs and cell-phones and twitters, there are many more "telephones" than there used to be
Another thing is that kids hear things from their parents then tell other kids and it ends up being like a bad game of broken telephone.
One liberal parent jokes about something around their kid remembers it and then tells his kid from a conservative household, but remembers it wrong so it gets a bit warped.
It's a good question as to how kids get these ideas, but kids remember the oddest things sometimes.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by joe beyserHow about simply linking a source when you make an outragious claim? If you are the one making the claim the onus is on you to lend credibility to it. Otherwise anyone can claim anything and then send everyone out on an Easter egg hunt. John McCain advocated for eating live puppies on television. Look it up.
You don't want to look it up but if I provide a reference you still wont. Dont wast my time.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIf I was interested in what you had to say I would look it up. If not I wouldn't even use a link. You boys have a little game going with cutting the credibility of the source when it has something to say that doesn't fit what you want to believe. That is why it is best to look it up for yourself. Another benefit is that you can pick and choose what ever source you think is credible. Not a big deal to me. I did not make an outrageous claim here. I want folks to look into this stuff in more detail than I can put on a post. If I say something and someone says they looked into it but can't find info then that is another matter. I do provide links on occasion, but I was making a claim mostly from my perception on how things went down. You don't have to agree but it is food for thought.
How about simply linking a source when you make an outragious claim? If you are the one making the claim the onus is on you to lend credibility to it. Otherwise anyone can claim anything and then send everyone out on an Easter egg hunt. John McCain advocated for eating live puppies on television. Look it up.
11 Sep 09
Originally posted by joe beyserAnd if I was at all interested in not looking like I just pull crap out of my bum I would post a link, and I often do.
If I was interested in what you had to say I would look it up. If not I wouldn't even use a link. You boys have a little game going with cutting the credibility of the source when it has something to say that doesn't fit what you want to believe. That is why it is best to look it up for yourself. Another benefit is that you can pick and choose what ever s ...[text shortened]... m my perception on how things went down. You don't have to agree but it is food for thought.
It's not a game. The reason you post a link is so people can validate the claim you are making (and) form their own opinion about the source.
If I wanted to post a link to back my claim I sure as hell wouldn't use dailykos.com, for example, as they are a liberal blog and not a reputable news source. I would *expect* people to rightfully question the source. Similarly if you post crap from redstates.com, the Drudge Report, from Limbaugh or ANY overtly politically slanted source people will do the same.
I get the impression you didn't want to post your source *because* your source is some Republican talking head or some Republican rag. Am I warm?
12 Sep 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNo it is just as easy for you to look it up as it is for me to find it again. I would say a little bit of laziness on my part but mostly I think if a person is interested they will look for other sources and info on a subject. I can't stand Limbaugh or any other politically biased media or sites. How do you feel about Reuters. (sp?)
And if I was at all interested in not looking like I just pull crap out of my bum I would post a link, and I often do.
It's not a game. The reason you post a link is so people can validate the claim you are making (and) form their own opinion about the source.
If I wanted to post a link to back my claim I sure as hell wouldn't use dailykos. ...[text shortened]... urce *because* your source is some Republican talking head or some Republican rag. Am I warm?
12 Sep 09
Please stop sidetracking this mildly interesting thread with the debate about whether or not one should provide a link for any claim they make.
That's a very interesting topic, just not relevant to the Obama school speech. In fact, if someone wants to start a new thread about it, here's some material to get you started:
Pro:
Why should anyone believe that your statements are true just because you say so? It's not reasonable to just make a bare allegation and expect someone else to go out and dig up the evidence.
Con:
Why should anyone believe that your statements are true just because you provided a link? (For example, see http://tinyurl.com/md64sz)