After reading this thread, I just don't know what to say to the, birthers and other assorted conspiracy nuts (he's a socialist, communist, NAZI, Gramdma killer, pick your own silly epithet). I think maybe there is no answer to you guys. If you want to believe that tripe go right ahead. Maybe the best thing is to just quote Mr. T and Barney Frank for you guys.

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

 

 

 

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.

But you didn't ask for clarification, you jumped to an assumption.

 

You also made another assumption in this post. You've seen my posts on this very subject in the past, we've discussed how I think parents are the root of the problem and now you want to concoct that it's some kind of victim game. Honestly, RM, I can't fathom such a leap.

After reading this thread, I just don't know what to say to the, birthers and other assorted conspiracy nuts (he's a socialist, communist, NAZI, Gramdma killer, pick your own silly epithet). I think maybe there is no answer to you guys. If you want to believe that tripe go right ahead. Maybe the best thing is to just quote Mr. T and Barney Frank for you guys.

But you didn't ask for clarification, you jumped to an assumption.

 

You also made another assumption in this post. You've seen my posts on this very subject in the past, we've discussed how I think parents are the root of the problem and now you want to concoct that it's some kind of victim game. Honestly, RM, I can't fathom such a leap.

 

 

You're right...I assumed you'd see it was a question and actually post an answer that explained your previous comments more fully.

 

Other than that, I didn't make any assumptions.

 

No leaps, RTS. Just logical little steps.

 

I've seen your posts in the past, but frankly, should I have to go back and re-read threads from months ago to find out what you're really saying in this thread?

 

The victim game isn't a concoction. It's a diversionary tactic that many use to avoid being direct. It's what I like to call "inciteful" respone, as opposed to "insightful" response.

 

I hope that I'm clear and that no ambiguity exists in this post. If so, I'm happy to be more blunt.

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?

 

Only because I was being paid.

You're right...I assumed you'd see it was a question and actually post an answer that explained your previous comments more fully.

 

Other than that, I didn't make any assumptions.

 

No leaps, RTS. Just logical little steps.

 

I've seen your posts in the past, but frankly, should I have to go back and re-read threads from months ago to find out what you're really saying in this thread?

 

The victim game isn't a concoction. It's a diversionary tactic that many use to avoid being direct. It's what I like to call "inciteful" respone, as opposed to "insightful" response.

 

I hope that I'm clear and that no ambiguity exists in this post. If so, I'm happy to be more blunt.

Yeah, uh huh, that's why you followed with "I am continually amazed......shouldn't be at this point, but I am". I'm supposed to read that and know you just want clarification? Perhaps you should have been more clear as well then. :sssh:

 

You can think whatever you like, I don't need to play any little game with you, I'm generally pretty direct and most on this board know that very well. Just because others do it doesn't mean I do.

 

If clarification was all that you wanted you could have either left off the accusatory sentence at the end or you could have just simply said, can you clarify that statement.

My district's response:

 

Dear Colleagues,

You may or may not know that the President of the United States has planned a presidential address to students to air on Tuesday, September the 8^th. Believe it or not, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding this and many public school systems are being forced to make decisions regarding whether or not it will be viewed in the school setting.

Our stance is that curriculum and instruction are to come first. We will not air the address live on Tuesday to all of our students in every classroom. It is to be recorded by the media specialist at each school. If a teacher, upon pre-viewing the speech, feels that it addresses the content of their classroom, they may show it to their classes for instructional purposes. The teacher needs to document it as part of their lesson plans, noting the content and standards of the curriculum that it is accommodating.

Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. Thanks and have a great 3 day weekend.

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.

You didn't say that...but you certainly implied that they were a "lost cause"...I just dramatized it a bit!

 

I think you greatly underestimate the impact the POTUS can have on young lives (good and/or bad).

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

 

 

 

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.

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Very well said.

My district's response:

 

Dear Colleagues,

You may or may not know that the President of the United States has planned a presidential address to students to air on Tuesday, September the 8^th. Believe it or not, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding this and many public school systems are being forced to make decisions regarding whether or not it will be viewed in the school setting.

Our stance is that curriculum and instruction are to come first. We will not air the address live on Tuesday to all of our students in every classroom. It is to be recorded by the media specialist at each school. If a teacher, upon pre-viewing the speech, feels that it addresses the content of their classroom, they may show it to their classes for instructional purposes. The teacher needs to document it as part of their lesson plans, noting the content and standards of the curriculum that it is accommodating.

Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. Thanks and have a great 3 day weekend.

 

That solution sounds like it would further politicize the issue; pro-Obama teachers could be compelled to show the video while anti-Obama teachers refuse. It seems to encourage exactly what everyone fears about the President's speech.

You didn't say that...but you certainly implied that they were a "lost cause"...I just dramatized it a bit!

 

I think you greatly underestimate the impact the POTUS can have on young lives (good and/or bad).

I can see where it did look like I was implying that, however it wasn't my intention. I agree that I could have worded it better.

 

No, I really don't underestimate it, I just truly believe that these kids parents need to be reached and would like to see Obama try to do something in that area. I sincerely think the answer to kids staying in school and succeeding directly ties with family life.

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Very well said.

Or maybe some shouldn't embellish.

I can see where it did look like I was implying that, however it wasn't my intention. I agree that I could have worded it better.

No, I really don't underestimate it, I just truly believe that these kids parents need to be reached and would like to see Obama try to do something in that area. I sincerely think the answer to kids staying in school and succeeding directly ties with family life.

Fair enough and if it wasn't your intention I apologize.

 

What steps would you propose for Obama to do something in that area?

Only because I was being paid.

 

 

I do it for fun.

I do it for fun.

You don't get the signing bonus, company car, and six-figure salary I did when I was a mod (plus health and dental)?

 

I'm actually living off my retirement right now!