RTS, that picture you posted brought a question to my mind. Would saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag in the classroom be considered indoctrination? I can remember saying it everyday before class started when I was in grade school.

This may have come up already, as I haven't read every word of every thread.

 

It occurs to me that those who are terrified of the thought of the President addressing our school children (it must be tough living in constant fear) might want to consider enrolling their children in schools that do not receive federal funds, and all those nasty strings that are attached.

 

I don't recall ever saying I was terrified or in constant fear of what the President is saying. You put words in my mouth. It is funny to me how you can voice you opinion and it is considered very thoughtful and profound. But those that disagree are terrified and full of fear. Seems like a double standard to me.:idunno:

RTS, that picture you posted brought a question to my mind. Would saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag in the classroom be considered indoctrination? I can remember saying it everyday before class started when I was in grade school.

No, not to me. You?

I don't recall ever saying I was terrified or in constant fear of what the President is saying. You put words in my mouth. It is funny to me how you can voice you opinion and it is considered very thoughtful and profound. But those that disagree are terrified and full of fear. Seems like a double standard to me.:idunno:

BINGO!

:lol:

 

Terrorized? Fear? I love it, question or speak out about your dislike about something Obama does and the labels fly. :lol: :lol: :lol: Living in constant fear! That's rich! :lol:

 

C'mon....none of the comments about Obama's speaking to the kids in this thread have to do with the content of his address. When this furor started, you hadn't even taken it upon yourself to even find out what it was that was planned. There were posts about indoctrination, posts about healthcare reform, posts about stuff that, when it all comes down to it and the research done, aren't even close to what he plans to address.

 

Those that weren't denouncing the (wrong) content, were upset that the President would address their children.

 

Then there were those who say they don't want time taken away from classwork....but somehow think a pep rally is OK.

 

I proposed a simple, and routine, way of handling parental consent, yet that's not good enough. Would I be afforded the right to decide if my children would be allowed to attend a pep rally? No, there would be no "is it ok", even if I objected that the time away from classwork was against my principles.

 

There is logic in addressing the kids while they are in school: The majority of kids will be gathered across the nation at the same time. At no other time in the day are kids likely to all be in one place at one time. It's not about circumventing parental rights. It's about the logicistics.

 

There are so many that are so afraid of Obama, that they're willing to grasp at any thin, fragile straw of a reason to keep their children from any exposure to him. I don't believe for a minute that most of you would have any objections to the politician of your choice addressing your kids.

 

The fact that the reasons he wants to address the children, as well as a summary of his addess, and suggestions on ways to use this event as an educational tool are simply dismissed tells me that there is nothing of merit in the arguments. This is all about fear mongering, suspicion and fear. Oh, it's being presented as "protecting the kids", but it's fear, and it's nothing to do with the kids.

No, not to me. You?

No, the question just came to me.

 

I wish they would have the kids do it now. I can remember in the 8th grade, in St. Louis, that we had to be able to stand in front of the class and recite the preamble to the Constitution and the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence before we were allowed to go to the 9th grade.

C'mon....none of the comments about Obama's speaking to the kids in this thread have to do with the content of his address. When this furor started, you hadn't even taken it upon yourself to even find out what it was that was planned. There were posts about indoctrination, posts about healthcare reform, posts about stuff that, when it all comes down to it and the research done, aren't even close to what he plans to address.

 

Those that weren't denouncing the (wrong) content, were upset that the President would address their children.

 

Then there were those who say they don't want time taken away from classwork....but somehow think a pep rally is OK.

 

I proposed a simple, and routine, way of handling parental consent, yet that's not good enough. Would I be afforded the right to decide if my children would be allowed to attend a pep rally? No, there would be no "is it ok", even if I objected that the time away from classwork was against my principles.

 

There is logic in addressing the kids while they are in school: The majority of kids will be gathered across the nation at the same time. At no other time in the day are kids likely to all be in one place at one time. It's not about circumventing parental rights. It's about the logicistics.

 

There are so many that are so afraid of Obama, that they're willing to grasp at any thin, fragile straw of a reason to keep their children from any exposure to him. I don't believe for a minute that most of you would have any objections to the politician of your choice addressing your kids.

 

The fact that the reasons he wants to address the children, as well as a summary of his addess, and suggestions on ways to use this event as an educational tool are simply dismissed tells me that there is nothing of merit in the arguments. This is all about fear mongering, suspicion and fear. Oh, it's being presented as "protecting the kids", but it's fear, and it's nothing to do with the kids.

 

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I do not think you can read my mind or know my heart . . . you can believe or assume what you wish about how I might handle things if it were a politician I agreed with, but as I have said before and I will say it again . . . I would want to preview it first. So, I will not be showing a live broadcast in my classroom on Tuesday. I will wait and make my decision later ..... after I have previewed the address myself. Then, if I decide that it is worth the time, I will implement it into my lessons where it fits with what I am teaching and not before.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I do not think you can read my mind or know my heart . . . you can believe or assume what you wish about how I might handle things if it were a politician I agreed with, but as I have said before and I will say it again . . . I would want to preview it first. So, I will not be showing a live broadcast in my classroom on Tuesday. I will wait and make my decision later ..... after I have previewed the address myself. Then, if I decide that it is worth the time, I will implement it into my lessons where it fits with what I am teaching and not before.

 

It's convenient for you to say you would feel the same way if it were any other president, because the situation has not ever arisen. There is no precedent. I am skeptical that if this had happend when Bush was president that you wouldn't be jumping up and down at this opportunity.

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I am skeptical. And I'm skeptical not because of what you say in this thread, but beause of what you've posted in these past few years regarding your thoughts of Bush and issues during his presidency, and the thoughts you've posted about Obama from the day he first came on the scene as a presidential candidate.

 

I respect and understand that you have to do what you feel is best for your class. I frankly doubt that I'll be reading that you saw the broadcast and decided there was a way that it would fit into your class. The fact that you've referred to the material you've been given as propoganda is telling.

RTS, that picture you posted brought a question to my mind. Would saying the pledge of allegiance to the flag in the classroom be considered indoctrination? I can remember saying it everyday before class started when I was in grade school.

 

nWo, I truly don't know if in today's public school classroom, with all the the ACLU complaints about The Ten Commandants, prayer in school, etc. that you can recite the Pledge of Allegiance, as it has a reference to God in it! As in "one nation under God"!

 

When I attended my Catholic grade/High school, we started each and every day with the Pledge and a Prayer!

nWo, I truly don't know if in today's public school classroom, with all the the ACLU complaints about The Ten Commandants, prayer in school, etc. that you can recite the Pledge of Allegiance, as it has a reference to God in it! As in "one nation under God"!

 

When I attended my Catholic grade/High school, we started each and every day with the Pledge and a Prayer!

I agree and I'm sorry to see it that way. I went to a public school and we use to also say a prayer.

C'mon....none of the comments about Obama's speaking to the kids in this thread have to do with the content of his address. When this furor started, you hadn't even taken it upon yourself to even find out what it was that was planned. There were posts about indoctrination, posts about healthcare reform, posts about stuff that, when it all comes down to it and the research done, aren't even close to what he plans to address.

 

Those that weren't denouncing the (wrong) content, were upset that the President would address their children.

 

Then there were those who say they don't want time taken away from classwork....but somehow think a pep rally is OK.

 

I proposed a simple, and routine, way of handling parental consent, yet that's not good enough. Would I be afforded the right to decide if my children would be allowed to attend a pep rally? No, there would be no "is it ok", even if I objected that the time away from classwork was against my principles.

 

There is logic in addressing the kids while they are in school: The majority of kids will be gathered across the nation at the same time. At no other time in the day are kids likely to all be in one place at one time. It's not about circumventing parental rights. It's about the logicistics.

 

There are so many that are so afraid of Obama, that they're willing to grasp at any thin, fragile straw of a reason to keep their children from any exposure to him. I don't believe for a minute that most of you would have any objections to the politician of your choice addressing your kids.

 

The fact that the reasons he wants to address the children, as well as a summary of his addess, and suggestions on ways to use this event as an educational tool are simply dismissed tells me that there is nothing of merit in the arguments. This is all about fear mongering, suspicion and fear. Oh, it's being presented as "protecting the kids", but it's fear, and it's nothing to do with the kids.

Rockmom, very few in this thread thought it would be indoctrination. Again, concern does NOT equal fear. You may wish to paint those like me in that light because we don't care for the guy you voted for. I said already that I wouldn't want any president doing this, but that's been brushed aside, so I don't know what else to tell you on the subject except we will agree to disagree.

It's convenient for you to say you would feel the same way if it were any other president, because the situation has not ever arisen. There is no precedent. I am skeptical that if this had happend when Bush was president that you wouldn't be jumping up and down at this opportunity.

 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but I am skeptical. And I'm skeptical not because of what you say in this thread, but beause of what you've posted in these past few years regarding your thoughts of Bush and issues during his presidency, and the thoughts you've posted about Obama from the day he first came on the scene as a presidential candidate.

 

I respect and understand that you have to do what you feel is best for your class. I frankly doubt that I'll be reading that you saw the broadcast and decided there was a way that it would fit into your class. The fact that you've referred to the material you've been given as propoganda is telling.

I think that's unfair. Just because she has supported Bush in the past doesn't mean she would look the other way in this situation. She probably feel like I do, there's no reason for any president to address school kids while in school.

 

Stay in school

Get good grades

 

What's the point of going on TV to these kids if that's all he's going to say.

Why can't you seem to understand that not everyone thinks this guy is as great as you do. In fact, and for good reason, many really dislike Obama. Just like you did Bush.

You just seem to get so upset because some of us think he's doing just what we said he would, a lousy job.

You just seem to get so upset because some of us think he's doing just what we said he would, a lousy job.

 

Of course eight months is a fair time to make an assessment. Anyone remember what happened in W's eighth month?

Of course eight months is a fair time to make an assessment. Anyone remember what happened in W's eighth month?

You have to admit, he's done a lot of damage in such a short time. Just look at what he's done to the deficit in that amount of time. :eek:

Of course eight months is a fair time to make an assessment. Anyone remember what happened in W's eighth month?

Are you saying that was Bush's fault?