What is President Obama going to talk about, anyways? Would there be a harm in putting a transcript of what he is going to say online, or something like that?

 

I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. If not a transcript, then at least some form of outline.

 

But ultimately, I still think it's much ado about nothing.

How is it?

 

At least where I went to school, we learned that the U.S. made mistakes. We also pretty much learned facts about things that happened, not so much one's political view of it.

I didn't go to Public school, so I don't know if things were taught differently where I went or not.

Because as Americans we are going to have a "biased view"...which perfectly fits the definition. It's pretty clear cut.

As a public school teacher (8th grade), this is my take on it: In general most kids don't want to pay attention to lectures, don't want to discuss politics, and don't want to watch videos. Why in the world should I expect them to get much out of this? To them, it will simply be a guy on TV talking that we'll watch and not have homework.

 

If anyone thinks this is indoctrination or whatever, you're being silly. Obama is no idiot; he's not going on TV to "convert" kids to his belief. I can't imagine he would be successful, mostly because so few have any real beliefs other than what mom or dad told them. In my opinion, they would be much more likely to have a belief change from listening to me every single day, not the president for 20 minutes. This is nothing more than adults getting worked up over something political, just like they did last week and the week before.

Then what's the point of doing it at school? Why not have them watch at home where their parents can decide if they want their kids to watch it or not?

Thanks for the definition, but I already knew what it meant.

 

His·to·ry

 

A. a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes.

B. a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events

C. events that form the subject matter of a history.

 

 

I don't see specific partisan or biased belief or point of view anywhere in there.

To the first part, I try and be as helpful as possible...it's just in my nature.

 

To the bolded, I believe it's quite naive that Americans aren't going to have a biased view of history (especially their own). Do I need to put the definition of biased on here?

Because as Americans we are going to have a "biased view"...which perfectly fits the definition. It's pretty clear cut.

No, it's not. History is what happened, it's pretty much factual. It often tells how the other side viewed our involvement. Again, perhaps the history classes I had were different than yours.

That's what's worrying many.

 

An Innauguration is completely different, IMO.

 

Totally agree.

 

Currently you have:

 

1. The biggest political debate possibly in the history of the country going on.

2. Open, active hostility toward a bill sponsered by the president.

3. A president whose approval rating has dropped to historical lows.

4. The recent termination of the first ever 'Turn in your neighbor for re-education' program ([email protected]).

 

So the president is in a fight for his political life, the issue at hand is losing ground every day, his personal numbers are falling every week in the polls and he now wants to address the nation children in a setting without their parents and only the guidance of teachers (who are heavily union and Democrat party leaning).

 

No possible concern here.

No, it's not. History is what happened, it's pretty much factual. It often tells how the other side viewed our involvement. Again, perhaps the history classes I had were different than yours.

 

 

So, you think American History books are unbiased and completely factual? You've never found evidence of politicism within a text of American History? What about World History?

To the first part, I try and be as helpful as possible...it's just in my nature.

 

To the bolded, I believe it's quite naive that Americans aren't going to have a biased view of history (especially their own). Do I need to put the definition of biased on here?

If it will help you realize you're wrong, by all means.

 

Funny how I went to school, had history class and have been able to understand that (because we we're taught quite well) that we as a country were often wrong. That doesn't sound all that biased to me. Perhaps you can help me out a little more with that.

Totally agree.

 

Currently you have:

 

1. The biggest political debate possibly in the history of the country going on.

2. Open, active hostility toward a bill sponsered by the president.

3. A president whose approval rating has dropped to historical lows.

4. The recent termination of the first ever 'Turn in your neighbor for re-education' program ([email protected]).

 

So the president is in a fight for his political life, the issue at hand is losing ground every day, his personal numbers are falling every week in the polls and he now wants to address the nation children in a setting without their parents and only the guidance of teachers (who are heavily union and Democrat party leaning).

 

No possible concern here.

 

And you have no idea what he wants to talk about, you're just sure it won't be good.

If it will help you realize you're wrong, by all means.

 

Funny how I went to school, had history class and have been able to understand that (because we we're taught quite well) that we as a country were often wrong. That doesn't sound all that biased to me. Perhaps you can help me out a little more with that.

 

 

And even more amazing that we're apparently taught that, but having a President who admits it is absolutely abhorant!

So, you think American History books are unbiased and completely factual? You've never found evidence of politicism within a text of American History? What about World History?

So you're telling me you were brain washed into thinking that America was always right? Your teachers weren't being honest with you whenever there might have been some bias in your book if they didn't discuss that viewpoint. Knowing what school you went to, that would shock me. Most of the time, our books seemed pretty factual with little spin if any.

And even more amazing that we're apparently taught that, but having a President who admits it is absolutely abhorant!

Now you're mixing up a teacher or book with a sitting President saying such things on foreign soil. That doesn't sit well with most people.

And you have no idea what he wants to talk about, you're just sure it won't be good.

Well, how about Captain Transparency giving all of us a clue?

No, it's not. History is what happened, it's pretty much factual. It often tells how the other side viewed our involvement. Again, perhaps the history classes I had were different than yours.

:lol: :lol:

 

If you don't believe there is bias in history and it's teachings, then I have a great deal on some beautiful ocean-front property over on Broadway and 4th.

If it will help you realize you're wrong, by all means.

 

Funny how I went to school, had history class and have been able to understand that (because we we're taught quite well) that we as a country were often wrong. That doesn't sound all that biased to me. Perhaps you can help me out a little more with that.

It's because you are better than the rest of us. Everyone on here knows that. :puke: