Some things that have been overlooked - some kids come from families that could care less about education or voting. If it were to be purely an evening event, these kids would miss out - and they may be the ones that need to be reached the most. Some kids, particularly boys with absent fathers, need to hear that education is important. They may only get this message from their teachers at the moment. I see no harm in allowing the president to speak to these children on this issue.

These kids will likely continue to not care, the president speaking to them in school will probably be ignored. In fact, they're likely to sleep through it.

I'm in favor of pep rallies. I find MADD and DARE to be ineffective, but they have a demonstrated capacity to stay on topic, so I do not object.

And since Obama has yet to prove or disprove he can stay on topic when speaking to children, your assumption has no grounds.

 

Pep rallies aren't even educational. They take away from classwork, but you don't mind that.

 

Althought MADD and DARE are ineffective, in your opinion, you don't mind that.

 

Hearsay, I'm sorry, but your arguments against Obama speaking have no precedent, based on this new evidence.

 

These kids will likely continue to not care, the president speaking to them in school will probably be ignored. In fact, they're likely to sleep through it.

 

So, your stand is that if they are [b/]likely[/b] not to care, no efforts should be made to keep them on the right path?

 

I am continually amazed......shouldn't be at this point, but I am.

These kids will likely continue to not care, the president speaking to them in school will probably be ignored. In fact, they're likely to sleep through it.

Well hell, let's throw them a gun, a sack of rocks, and send them on their way then...as I'm sure that's where you've already decided they'll end up.

I am of the opinion that the President has some obligation to address the needs of our youth. Like him or not, he is our President. Same goes for President Bush. And yes, the furor would have been as equal or more if our previous President attempted this.

 

It is frightening how little people know about our Government and its basic operation. Our kids need to be exposed to some type of civic interaction; the President seems to be a good guest speaker.

 

Also, people are just looking at the President. I have a hard time believing there has never been a Senator, Representative, Governor, etc. that has not spoken to a group of children at an Elementary, Middle, or High School with a lot more of an axe to grind and indoctrinating agenda to push than this President is going to do.

First, you are wildly opposed to anything Obama, and have yet to be openminded and objective about anything Obama since well before he even had the Democratic nomination. I've never seen one post that was in any way, shape or form an attempt to do anything other than spread talking points and fearmongering. You're not alone in this, but since you asked....

 

I honestly don't agree with everything. But I never expected to. See, I've always taken the approach that there will never be anyone that I agree with completely. But some battles are worth the effort, and some aren't. Frankly, many of you feel that EVERYTHING has to be a battle if Obama is involved. I don't think so, myself. Even with Bush, my effort was in arguing our actions in Iraq. There were other things I either agreed with him on, or just didn't care one way or another.

 

As to people wanting to know what Obama is saying to their children, bugatti's post suggests the reasons are clear. You've yet to acknowledge that. Yet, you rail against the very idea of the President addressing school children.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with him addressing them at anytime of the day. To me, it makes logical sense to address them during the school day when they are likley to be together in a focused setting. Given that there are so many disinterested adults, and we bemoan the fact that there are so many uninformed voters, I personally wouldn't think that we'd have too much expectation that parents would get their kids to watch. Then, you have kids who are in sports and other extracurricular activities and you then have even more complications.

 

If the President wants to speak of the importance of staying in school, logically, it would make sense that he addresses them while they are IN SCHOOL.

 

Really...no big deal....unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

 

This is the greatest post in the history of Bluegrasspreps. I just wanted to give Rockmom props. :notworthy:

 

The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

 

I know these are traits I wouldn't want my kids to hear about. Personal rsponsibility? P'shaw. Work hard? Are you kidding me? Set an educational goal? Never heard of them. :lol:

These kids will likely continue to not care, the president speaking to them in school will probably be ignored. In fact, they're likely to sleep through it.

 

If I believed that, then I would be wasting my time as an educator.

Danville has decided to give kids an option during the Obama speech.

Danville has decided to give kids an option during the Obama speech.

 

I think it should be optional. I believe thats the right thing to do.

And since Obama has yet to prove or disprove he can stay on topic when speaking to children, your assumption has no grounds.

 

Pep rallies aren't even educational. They take away from classwork, but you don't mind that.

 

Althought MADD and DARE are ineffective, in your opinion, you don't mind that.

 

Hearsay, I'm sorry, but your arguments against Obama speaking have no precedent, based on this new evidence.

 

 

 

So, your stand is that if they are [b/]likely[/b] not to care, no efforts should be made to keep them on the right path?

 

I am continually amazed......shouldn't be at this point, but I am.

 

:idunno::isurrender:

 

If you believe, based upon Obama's term as President so far, that he does not have a track record for "dissembling" on statements he has made previously, then I simply give up. Its like beating my head against a brick wall. You have missed the forest for the trees. But I like you, so we should stick to other, less confrontational topics, like the Great Schism threads, which, by the way, we seemed to miss this last July.

:idunno::isurrender:

 

If you believe, based upon Obama's term as President so far, that he does not have a track record for "dissembling" on statements he has made previously, then I simply give up. Its like beating my head against a brick wall. You have missed the forest for the trees. But I like you, so we should stick to other, less confrontational topics, like the Great Schism threads, which, by the way, we seemed to miss this last July.

 

C'mon....you are a lawyer. Wouldn't you argue against your argument if you were in court and a prosecutor presented it as fact?

I think it should be optional. I believe thats the right thing to do.

 

I'm not sure what my opinion is on the subject. I'm still thinking it over.

Well hell, let's throw them a gun, a sack of rocks, and send them on their way then...as I'm sure that's where you've already decided they'll end up.

Yeah, cause that's what I said...

 

Don't ya just love when people try to put words in your mouth? :ohbrother:

 

What I'm saying is, the president speaking to them isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. They'd have to actually show up to class and care to begin with. It would be a great help if their parents gave a darn about them, but the cold hard truth is, they don't.

Edited September 4, 200917 yr by Run To State
Punctuation

If I believed that, then I would be wasting my time as an educator.

As and educator I'm sure you've seen your share of them. Some, there is just no getting through to. Sad, I know, but I've seen my share of them.

So, your stand is that if they are [b/]likely[/b] not to care, no efforts should be made to keep them on the right path?

 

I am continually amazed......shouldn't be at this point, but I am.

You, like another poster, read it but just didn't quite get it.

NO. The answer is reaching their PARENT or PARENTS. It starts at home, that's why these kids aren't in school most of the time, their parents don't care.

But by all mean, since I'm a conservative, it must just be that I don't care about the kids. :puke:

 

I shouldn't be amazed either, but yet you continue to paint me the way you like. :idunno:

You, like another poster, read it but just didn't quite get it.

NO. The answer is reaching their PARENT or PARENTS. It starts at home, that's why these kids aren't in school most of the time, their parents don't care.

But by all mean, since I'm a conservative, it must just be that I don't care about the kids. :puke:

 

I shouldn't be amazed either, but yet you continue to paint me the way you like. :idunno:

 

 

I can only go by what you posted, which was:

 

These kids will likely continue to not care, the president speaking to them in school will probably be ignored. In fact, they're likely to sleep through it.

 

Maybe you could be more clear when you post. And, I posed my response as a question, rather than a statement, because I wanted to get more from you to clarify.

 

It's obvious that the statement wasn't clear. You have the opportunity to clarify yourself. If you choose not to take it, don't be upset when people misunderstand you. You also took some liberty by posting thoughts that I never even inferred.

 

I'm tired of the "victim" act. If you want to be understood, please post complete explanations, instead of provocative half-statements. I am of the opinion you post this way just so you can act victimized when someone misunderstands you.