Unlike those of us that are wasting our time trying to reach the ones that have parents that don't care about them.

Now come on, TB&G. You know I think you're a great teacher as well.

I hated Bush and I wouldn't think twice about letting him address the children of our nation. If we as a nation aren't comfortable with letting the man who we elected President to address our children then there is something very wrong and goes to show how much political parties have torn this country apart in the worst kind of way.

Fine, but you misunderstand why I don't like the idea. I said, if you look back that as long as parents have a choice to opt out, it's fine by me.

To me, that is just unbelievable. I am so disappointed. If he was declaring war every TV in every school would be on and listening. But 30 minutes from the President to admonish students to do well. . . the people in the wrong here on this issue are those complaining.

Nope, I wouldn't like that either.

To be fair, you have no authority to decide who is right or who is wrong on any issue, Ace. This is a free country where people have a choice in matters.

I think anyone who is concerned or worried is just being crazy.

 

What if Obama comes on TV and tells kids they have an chance to be the President if they study and work hard and do the best they can. Eat your veggies and brush your teeth. Do the right thing and obey your parents. It's your job to make the most of your education.

 

No we wouldn't want kids to hear this type of stuff.

 

It's a shame folks won't give this man a chance. Yes he is making a lot of people mad because he is trying to tackle difficult situations. At least he has the courage to try to take on things like health care. Last President spent 8 years looking for weapons of mass destruction.

:ohbrother:

Fine, but you misunderstand why I don't like the idea. I said, if you look back that as long as parents have a choice to opt out, it's fine by me.

I didn't misunderstand you, I just don't personally see that as necessary.

I didn't misunderstand you, I just don't personally see that as necessary.

And that's OK. But it should also be OK for others to see it differently.

And that's OK. But it should also be OK for others to see it differently.

:thumb: That's why I haven't said you're wrong or something of that nature, I'm just expressing my opinion along with you.

If my children were still of school age I would much rather have the President of the United States talking to them than some sports, acting or muscial figure. Before anyone asks it wouldn't matter if it was a republican or democrat in the White House.

If my children were still of school age I would much rather have the President of the United States talking to them than some sports, acting or muscial figure. Before anyone asks it wouldn't matter if it was a republican or democrat in the White House.

I can agree with that. :lol:

 

I feel I have to reiterate, the president would have better success at keeping kids in school if he tried to reach parents that need reaching. Just my opinion.

I can agree with that. :lol:

 

I feel I have to reiterate, the president would have better success at keeping kids in school if he tried to reach parents that need to reaching. Just my opinion.

 

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It appears RTS and I are out on a lonely rock by ourselves in this one. That's OK. I like being with him more than against him (see tort reform thread).

 

Let me simply summarize the position, which I think we have stated concisely and respectfully throughout the thread (with the exception of my post earlier to TB&G, that wasn't very respectful, and I apologize):

 

1. We look with great skepticism at a President, any President, addressing school-children below the age of high school during the class day;

 

2. The heightened skepticism, and objection in this case, is because of the curriculum that has been forwarded by the White House which suggests topics such as "How can I support the President?" Only after the recent furor by parents was that "suggested" curriculum changed to things such as "How can I achieve my goals?"

 

3. The fact that the curriculum is only "suggested," while obviously not mandatory, carries little sway with us given the typical public school educational establishment.

 

4. We applaud those districts that have chosen to allow students to opt-out of curriculum.

 

5. We believe the topic is better addressed during non-school hours. We confess healthy skepticism that the podium will only be used by the President to address the simple message that he professes, and believe it is quite possible that he will connect "education" to the myriad of other policy positions that we disagree with. That logic is unrefutable, as we all know that education touches everything.

 

In response, we have been labeled for fearmongering, we have been told our opinions have no validity, and we have had words put into our mouths. Interestingly, none of the libertarians among this crowd (where are you formerky?) have come to our defense, on a topic that should be front-and-center on their radar. We have been told that Rush Limbaugh is fomenting our decision, because of course we have no minds of our own.

 

The divide in this country, folks, has little or nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or even Barack Obama - the divide is caused by the reaction conservatives have when they are lambasted by liberals as being small-minded, un-educated rednecks every time we have the unmitigated temerity to take issue with federal governmental intrusion that we object at the top of our lungs to. It happens every time - here, in the townhall health care meetings, everywhere. Conservatives object, well, they must be fearmongering.

 

So, I will continue to sit at home clinging to my gun and my Bible. I will continue to, in my own small-minded fear-mongering uneducated way, sit here at my home computer with my advanced degree on my wall, monitoring my investments and my children's homework and posting messages to the site-based council I sit on and got involved in personally instead of sitting at home barking at the moon that I don't think this is the type of curriculum our school should spend the day on. I will not be at all surprised when the Obama Administration changes the "suggested" curriculum to tone it down substantially from its original form in order not to upset the tens of thousands of American parents whom, in their small-minded, uneducated way, have objected to this. I will then not be at all surprised when I get on here late next week and more liberals have come on here saying "See, it was just a simple little message you fear-mongerers." I will not be at all surprised anymore when liberals point to the millions of people who are clueless at election-time blindly casting their vote and say "that's the way the democracy cookie crumbles," but when millions of American parents democratically petition their local school boards objecting to curriculum, liberals respond that they are clueless and blind.

 

Again, I apologize to TB&G for a poorly worded response earlier, and also to cch5432 for a too-blunt post in the Trey Grayson thread. It is never my intent to be rude to individual posters.

 

RTS, I will brew the beer, you bring guns, and we can discuss tort reform in our own fear-mongering uneducated way.

The divide in this country, folks, has little or nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or even Barack Obama - the divide is caused by the reaction conservatives have when they are lambasted by liberals as being small-minded, un-educated rednecks every time we have the unmitigated temerity to take issue with federal governmental intrusion that we object at the top of our lungs to. It happens every time - here, in the townhall health care meetings, everywhere. Conservatives object, well, they must be fearmongering.

 

 

Please tell me you left out the other part of the above.

Please tell me you left out the other part of the above.

Just look through this thread to see which side of the argument went there.

Please tell me you left out the other part of the above.

 

For the sake of a quiet Saturday morning before football starts, I'll bite. "What 'other part' do you speak of, Clyde?"

It appears RTS and I are out on a lonely rock by ourselves in this one. That's OK. I like being with him more than against him (see tort reform thread).

 

Let me simply summarize the position, which I think we have stated concisely and respectfully throughout the thread (with the exception of my post earlier to TB&G, that wasn't very respectful, and I apologize):

 

1. We look with great skepticism at a President, any President, addressing school-children below the age of high school during the class day;

 

2. The heightened skepticism, and objection in this case, is because of the curriculum that has been forwarded by the White House which suggests topics such as "How can I support the President?" Only after the recent furor by parents was that "suggested" curriculum changed to things such as "How can I achieve my goals?"

 

3. The fact that the curriculum is only "suggested," while obviously not mandatory, carries little sway with us given the typical public school educational establishment.

 

4. We applaud those districts that have chosen to allow students to opt-out of curriculum.

 

5. We believe the topic is better addressed during non-school hours. We confess healthy skepticism that the podium will only be used by the President to address the simple message that he professes, and believe it is quite possible that he will connect "education" to the myriad of other policy positions that we disagree with. That logic is unrefutable, as we all know that education touches everything.

 

In response, we have been labeled for fearmongering, we have been told our opinions have no validity, and we have had words put into our mouths. Interestingly, none of the libertarians among this crowd (where are you formerky?) have come to our defense, on a topic that should be front-and-center on their radar. We have been told that Rush Limbaugh is fomenting our decision, because of course we have no minds of our own.

 

The divide in this country, folks, has little or nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or even Barack Obama - the divide is caused by the reaction conservatives have when they are lambasted by liberals as being small-minded, un-educated rednecks every time we have the unmitigated temerity to take issue with federal governmental intrusion that we object at the top of our lungs to. It happens every time - here, in the townhall health care meetings, everywhere. Conservatives object, well, they must be fearmongering.

 

So, I will continue to sit at home clinging to my gun and my Bible. I will continue to, in my own small-minded fear-mongering uneducated way, sit here at my home computer with my advanced degree on my wall, monitoring my investments and my children's homework and posting messages to the site-based council I sit on and got involved in personally instead of sitting at home barking at the moon that I don't think this is the type of curriculum our school should spend the day on. I will not be at all surprised when the Obama Administration changes the "suggested" curriculum to tone it down substantially from its original form in order not to upset the tens of thousands of American parents whom, in their small-minded, uneducated way, have objected to this. I will then not be at all surprised when I get on here late next week and more liberals have come on here saying "See, it was just a simple little message you fear-mongerers." I will not be at all surprised anymore when liberals point to the millions of people who are clueless at election-time blindly casting their vote and say "that's the way the democracy cookie crumbles," but when millions of American parents democratically petition their local school boards objecting to curriculum, liberals respond that they are clueless and blind.

 

Again, I apologize to TB&G for a poorly worded response earlier, and also to cch5432 for a too-blunt post in the Trey Grayson thread. It is never my intent to be rude to individual posters.

 

RTS, I will brew the beer, you bring guns, and we can discuss tort reform in our own fear-mongering uneducated way.

Excellent post! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

Hearsay, you are right, we do seem to be out on a lonely rock. You've done an excellent job of putting your thoughts and reasons into words. :thumb:

 

Looking forward to that brewed beer of yours and the discussion on tort reform.