jadewahoo wrote: 
We're already doing that, it's just overseas.

Wait, which fundamentalists are you talking about? They're all pretty much the same.

Its time for open revolt against these stupid motherfucking fundamentalist idiots.

 Mugro wrote: 

Hardly similar.  I don't recall anyone speculating that Bush41 was going to indoctrinate young minds in much the same way Hitler would.  Nor do I remember any Democrat parents pulling their kids from school on that day.

I really think this says more about parents and their relationship with their kids.  Are parents that paranoid and distrustful of their kids that they can't let them listen to the president and discuss the topic later at the dinner table?  What in the hell are these parents afraid of?  Children have to be exposed to things that are different and may be an affront to their sensibilities.  That's life and you can't sheild your children from life's realities.  They are going to be exposed to much worse in life than a speech that might offend them. ( It's doubtful that this speech would offend, unless parents nitpick and convince the kids that they should be offended.)

The WH should not have caved in and rewrote the speech.  They really should have held their ground and suggested that parents have a discussion about the speech at the dinner table that evening.  I'm sure, at some point, the kids will grow up and recognize their parents' irrational distrust.  It won't make them love mom and dad any less. 

Now this is nuts.  I cant imagine what the right wing would say if democrats tried to block a repub prez from speaking in schools.  got to hand it to the repub machine though in spreading the "socialist" threat.  All the crap that Bush pulled, and the left could barely register a response outside of its core.

 

National Desk; SECTA Obama's Plan For School Talk Ignites a Revolt By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr. and SAM DILLON 824 words 4 September 2009 The New York Times NYTF Late Edition - Final 1 English Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved.

HOUSTON — 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.

Some parents said they were concerned because the speech had not been screened for political content. Nor, they said, had it been reviewed by the State Board of Education and local school boards, which, under state law, must approve the curriculum.

''The thing that concerned me most about it was it seemed like a direct channel from the president of the United States into the classroom, to my child,'' said Brett Curtiss, an engineer from Pearland, Tex., who said he would keep his three children home.

''I don't want our schools turned over to some socialist movement.''

The White House has said the speech will emphasize the importance of education and hard work in school, both to the individual and to the nation. The message is not partisan, nor compulsory, officials said.

''This isn't a policy speech,'' said Sandra Abrevaya, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education. ''It's designed to encourage kids to stay in school. The choice on whether to show the speech to students is entirely in the hands of each school. This is absolutely voluntary.''

Mr. Obama's speech was announced weeks ago, but the furor among conservatives reached a fever pitch Wednesday morning as right-wing Web sites and talk show hosts began inveighing against it.

Mark Steyn, a Canadian author and political commentator, speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show on Wednesday, accused Mr. Obama of trying to create a cult of personality, comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il, the North Korean leader.

The Republican Party chairman in Florida, Jim Greer, said he ''was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology.''

And Chris Stigall, a Kansas City talk show host, said, ''I wouldn't let my next-door neighbor talk to my kid alone; I'm sure as hell not letting Barack Obama talk to him alone.''

Previous presidents have visited public schools to speak directly to students, although few of those events have been broadcast live. Mr. Obama's address at noon, Eastern time, at a high school in Virginia, will be streamed live on the White House Web site.

The first President George Bush, a Republican, made a similar nationally broadcast speech from a Washington high school in 1991, urging students to study hard, avoid drugs and to ignore peers ''who think it's not cool to be smart.'' Democrats in Congress accused him of using taxpayer money — $27,000 to produce the broadcast — for ''paid political advertising.''

This week, school officials were hearing from parents about the issue not only in Texas, but in other parts of the country as well — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, South Carolina and Utah.

Herb Garrett, executive director of the Georgia School Superintendents Association, said many of his members felt that the controversy had put them in an awkward situation, vulnerable to attacks from conservative talk-show hosts if they open up instructional time for Mr. Obama's speech, and open to accusations that they have disrespected the president if they do not.

''It's one of those no-wins,'' Mr. Garrett said.

In Texas, calls and e-mail messages flooded into the offices of many local school officials. ''I didn't get a positive call all day,'' said Susan Dacus, a spokeswoman for the Wylie Independent School District outside Dallas.

School officials in Wylie decided to record the speech, review it and then let individual teachers show it, offering students the opportunity to avoid listening if they wished.

In Houston, teachers have been asked to tell parents if they intend to show the speech and the schools will provide an alternative class for those whose parents object, a spokesman for the district, Lee Vela, said.

Some Houston parents, however, said telling children they should not hear out the president of the United States, even if their parents dislike his policies, sends the wrong message — that one should not listen to someone with whom you disagree.

''It's difficult for me to understand how listening to the president, the commander in chief, the chief citizen of this country, is damaging to the youth of today,'' said Phyllis Griffin Epps, an analyst for the city who has two children in public school.

 Mugro wrote: 

It seems the criticism was over the use of funds, criticism over the speech itself was secondary.

 Mugro wrote: 
Uhoh- Looks like Hitler youth

 maryte wrote: 

Washington Post October 3, 1991:

House Democrats criticized President Bush yesterday for using Education Department funds to produce and broadcast a speech that he made Tuesday at a Northwest Washington junior high school.

The Democratic critics accused Bush of turning government money for education to his own political use, namely, an ongoing effort to inoculate himself against their charges of inattention to domestic issues. The speech at Alice Deal Junior High School, broadcast live on radio and television, urged students to study hard, avoid drugs and turn in troublemakers.

"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.' "

Two House committees demanded that the department explain the use of its funds for the speech, an explanation that Deputy Secretary David T. Kearns provided late in the day in a letter to Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander was out of town. 

 maryte wrote: 
A Modest Proposal - Jonathan Swift

( )

 Mugro wrote: 

Sources please.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Democrats objected to the 1991 Bush41 speech in a similar partisan alarmist way. Consider the children! Same sh*t, different day, my friend.

 sirdroseph spake,
 



We will be watching.

Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s plan to give a televised speech to U.S. students next week has sparked complaints by Republicans that he may use the event to promote his political agenda.

“Questions have arisen about the purpose of this address and some of the specific tasks suggested for young students,” Representatives John Kline, the senior Republican on the House Education Committee, and Thaddeus McCotter, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said in a Sept. 2 letter to Obama.

Administration officials said that while the Education Department is encouraging schools to let students view the event, participation isn’t mandatory. The remarks are intended to encourage children to study, in the same way President George H.W. Bush did in 1991 when he gave a back-to-school address, said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama.

“This isn’t a policy speech,” Vietor said in an interview.

The Sept. 8 speech, which will be broadcast on the White House Web site and on the C-SPAN cable network, was criticized by Florida Republican Party Chairman Jim Greer, who called it an attempt by Obama to “indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.”

 

 

That speech in 1991 was different; it was done by a real American with good intentions. (God Bless the Bush's)

It is said Obamas speech will be done in a futuristic hall with crowds of perfectly lined people dressed identical in societal garb; chanting with perfectly orchestrated cadence at the Supreme Leaders pauses!

 Inamorato wrote: 
Ya know, living this close to DC, I've always suspected that Congress was a big Loony Bin, I think this just adds to that belief.

 oldman wrote: 

Not to worry, I am on them all!

 sirdroseph wrote: 
They have drugs to control that now.

No worries everyone, I spoke with God this morning and he said that he has made his decision regarding Ms. Bachman; he has scheduled a conference call next Thursday with her and her staff to inform them that he has regretfully decided against her running for President at this time.

 Inamorato wrote: 
Crazy right-wing Christian lady mud-wrestling? Pay-per-view only, coming 2012.

Sarah's raking in the big bucks speaking (or whatever you call that thing she's doing with her mouth), while Michele has the private line to Jehovah, the Insane Mountain-top Thunder God who demands your only son in sacrifice. So, right now, it's a tossup as to who wins the Republican presidential nomination.

 jadewahoo wrote: 

Get to know the woman you might be calling Madame President.

 

Rep. Michele Bachmann May Run For President (But Only If God Tells Her To) 

"If I felt that’s what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it. When I have sensed that the Lord is calling me to do something, I’ve said yes to it. But I will not seek a higher office if God is not calling me to do it. That’s really my standard. If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve, but if I am not called, I wouldn’t do it."

 

Representative Bachmann is assured of the fundie vote in 2012. Sorry, Sarah. 

 jadewahoo wrote: 
...just be glad you don't know her...you're lucky

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: I don't know who Michelle Bachman is, or is supposed to be, but I adore that pancake with dripping butter set atop her head.