Category: President Obama
Posted by Libby Spencer on Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 7:29 PMSpeaking to schoolchildren
A word of advice for the right wing protesters. It begins to look less like principled objections and more like sore losers with a pure hate of the man when you pitch a fit over every single thing he does. For instance, this latest right wing poutrage over Obama's speech to schoolchildren. These people are objecting because the President of the United States wants to tell children about the importance of education and the need to persist and succeed in their schoolwork?
I can't think of a better lesson than that myself. And were these people howling when on 9/11 George Bush was sitting in a classroom reading My Pet Goat to promote his wife's literacy project? Did they object when his father, the first President Bush, broadcast a speech to classrooms nationwide in 1991? And of course we all remember the massive protests when Ron Reagan made a national speech broadcast to schoolchildren in 1988 on CSPAN. Oh wait.... there wasn't one, was there?
Reagan's speech couldn't have been more political. He spoke of the "unfinished vision of America" and "i n the Q&A portion, talked about his opposition to gun control and other issues. Reagan also told the students the nation needed a line-item veto and a balanced budget amendment."
And politicians routinely speak in classrooms. The head of Florida's GOP has recently spoken in classrooms himself, openly and falsely smearing the Democratic party and their ideals, but I understand he's jumped right in with the likes of Beck and Limbaugh to fuel this foolishness.
The duly elected leader of our country wants to tell schoolkids something any caring parent would tell their children -- to succeed in life, you need to study hard and do well at school. It's an honor that the President would take the time to do this, and should be treated as one. Any school that fails to give their children an opportunity to see it, fails as an educator not only by denying them a useful lesson, but also by teaching them it's okay to suppress free speech.
Comments
| Jump to bottom |
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
MT... but if the supervisor pays them fake overtime, the 3 angels will get the job done in half the time.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
How many angels can fit on a pinhead
Actually, as a pointless debate topic, it's "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin".
The answer of course is 3. And 1 supervisor. All thanks to government work rules of course.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Muddy quote: "How many angels can fit on a pinhead?"
Sounds like someone's shopping for a hat. Ha ha!
Seriously, I'll say here what I said in another comment:
I've read the speech, and I'm not concerned about the contents. However I think that, like most other things, the WH press staff has bungled this...
When there are cries about Obama being "socialist" or "marxist" (true or not), the LAST thing you do is call for a nationwide speech addressing specific groups, especially children.
This tactic immediately harkens images of Socialist Russia and Nazi Gremany, wherein Stalin and Hitler called upon the young to also be contibuting members of their society for the purposes of furthering their country's prosperity (remember the Hitler youth?).
I'm not saying that I'm against this speech or any of its content, I just think this was a "Grade A" stupid move by the WH that fuels the fires for misinterpretation...
Of course, I'm giving Obama the "benefit of the doubt", beliving it would be "misinterpretation" and not an accurate one...
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Bradley, how blind do you have to be to think that a "public option" WILL be competitive on a level playing field? Heck, before they even pass the law they are demanding private insurance companies be taxed (re: Sen. Max Baucus) to pay for the government insurance company "option" (cause THAT's fair competition, NOT!) but the "option" is going to compete fairly without tax dollar subsidies as they artificially deflate premiums below operating costs... which they are actually using as a selling point! You are trying to tell me private insurance companies won't go out of business in competition with a government option that stays in business because they can carge fees below operating costs? Where will "choice" be when the "public option" is the only option left? Better yet, how stupid do you think I am trying to sell me that load of "competition" crap?
I don't believe for a half-second that you actually think a "public option" will not lead to the destruction of the insurance industry. So yes, you DO want to take away my free choice.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Muddy... really? Doesn't exist in writing? I have read no less than 4 house and senate bills word for word....
Want to try again or are you going to stick with that one?
Besides, my question to you does not require specifics. ANY universal/single payer health care bill must do at least one thing, require 100% of the citizenship to belong. It is that one requirement I want you to explain how it doesn't violate my federally recognized and protected fundamental right to (not)enter into contracts.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
pat,
how can we argue about the constitutionality of a law or proposed law that does not exist in writing or otherwise?
Isn't that a bit too vaporous for this forum?
How many angels can fit on a pin head?
When you are done counting, I will change the subject.
etc.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
See Muddy, I told you that you wouldn't understand.
You see, your health care bills are nothing more than proposals until one of them are signed into law. While they are a proposal, they are subject to evaluation on many levels. One of them is CONSTITUTIONALITY. It is part of the legislator's job, The President's job as well as The People's job to evaluate the bills for constitutionality. I can also debate the constitutionality of a law until SCOTUS hears a case on it. Heck, I can STILL debate a law's Constitutionality AFTER a case is heard by SCOTUS. THAT is how slavery went from being legal and constitutional to illegal and unconstitutional.
Follow now? I still doubt it.
But you are still invited to explain to me how universal health care doesn't violate my fundamental right to (not)enter into contracts.... if you can.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Con Pat:
I do not want to take anyone's rights away. I want the single-payer option to be "on the table"; and with that comes the right, for you, or I to "choose" (choice, that is about as American as it gets without infringing on anyone's freedoms) either public or private insurance, which in turn will bring competition into the "free market," and, in turn, will bring down costs with less stringent standards, for those who seek private coverage, and the likelihood of denial of coverage (which is a common method by private insurers, for the sole purpose of maintaining and/or increasing profits), for medical attention that has already been paid for over the years by the consumer in premiums should decrease, for those who wish to "choose" the private option. To me it is a win-win situation, and should satisfiy everyone's wishes (for those who have a scintilla of reason) rather it be public or private enterprise.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Pat says, "explain to me how forcing me into government run universal health care doesn't violate most of my fundamental rights in one manner or another..."
Then I said,
"If Congress passes your fantasy law it is legal, lawful, and constitutional until repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court."
Then you totally change the whole subject by saying:
"Right, but at this moment it is a BILL. As a BILL it is subject to examination for CONSTITUTIONALITY. Ya follow? I doubt it."
And, no I don't follow because you just keep making up fake scenarios then change the scenario when the response doesn't suit you.
Pat listen carefully, again:
If Congress passes a law, it is legal, lawful, and constitutional until repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court.
Ditto for all the other laws on the books you don't like. It's not all that complicated you know.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Bradley!
Still waiting on you to explain how I am greedy for wanting to be free and you are not greedy for trying to take my rights away.
Not holding my breath though...
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Straighty:
Your too intelligent to actually believe that. However, I know how your rigt-leaning-kookiness allows you to be shrewd enough to spew that junk.
Later, my friend.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Straighty:
Your to intelligent to actually believe that. However, I know how your rigt-leaning-kookiness allows you to be shrewd enough to spew that junk.
Later, my friend.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Muddy blithers on:
"If Congress passes your fantasy law it is legal, lawful, and constitutional until repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court."
Right, but at this moment it is a BILL. As a BILL it is subject to examination for CONSTITUTIONALITY. Ya follow? I doubt it.
"As I have said 106 times so far, your opinion about it doesn't count at all and never will."
Hey, thanks for being that open minded and inclusive liberal I knew you could be!
"Let's say you think STOP SIGNS are a violation of your constitutional rights."
They are not so your stupid argument is moot.
But would you have been saying the same thing when slavery was legal and constitutional? Would you be telling me to shut up?
Something tells me you would!
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Of course Pat is entitled to his opinion.
However, his personal judgment that, this, that or the other LAW of the LAND is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is just plain factually wrong.
When Pat sees a stop sign he MUST stop, whether Pat thinks so or not. IF Congress should pass UHC that's legal and constitutional whether Pat thinks so or not.
GEORGE BUSH AND MY PET GOAT CONTROVERSY
Pat,
If Congress passes your fantasy law it is legal, lawful, and constitutional until repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court.
As I have said 106 times so far, your opinion about it doesn't count at all and never will.
Let's say you think STOP SIGNS are a violation of your constitutional rights. No matter how many times you run that stop sign, when a cop is looking, you are going to get a ticket, no matter how you rant about your right to be an constitutional anarchist.
Tell the judge universal health care is not constitutional... or stop signs. It makes no difference because you are wrong, wrong, wrong!
See the clerk, pay the fine....
| Jump to top |
