With the utmost of due respect, I don't believe you. By even tackling the topic of global warming, you are likely going to use terminology that betrays your point of view. However, were you in my son's classroom, I would be OK with it (as previously posted), because if it got too far for my taste, I could confront you about it. Can't do that with the Prez.

 

You don't have to believe me. Any terminology I use does portray (not betray) A viewpoint...and I portray MULTIPLE viewpoints.

 

I'll extend you an open invitation to attend one of my class sessions on the global warming controversy, if you'd like. Bedford isn't that far from Bardstown. Judge me based on evidence, rather than assume I'm "guilty." (Interesting, considering your profession.)

I'm not sure if I'd classify it as "the enemy"....I think it is a healthy dose of skepticism. With the history of politicians and tyrants throughout time, as well as the amazing hypocrisy of all politicians (for two simple examples, see Al Gore's home or Sandford's affair), I think skepticism is entirely warranted.

 

There's a difference between skepticism and a full out assault on every point/idea.

I have no idea. My kids are either in college or working a full time job as an adult. :lol: I would assume that it would be up to the school to do so, if they feel it's warranted. I offered it as a simple solution to the "shouldn't the parents decide..." argument.

 

According to bugatti's post, the topic is the importance of staying in school getting an education. According to other's posts, the topics COULD be healthcare reform, abortion, Cap & Trade, and/or indoctrination.

Bugatti is speculating like anyone else. And to be honest, bugatti is probably right, it will probably be about staying in school and out of drugs, etc.

 

For me, it's not about the content, it is about the precedent being set. In the future, it gives the President the power to do this, and the nature of the executive branch (and humanity) indicates to me that that power will be abused.

You don't have to believe me. Any terminology I use does portray (not betray) A viewpoint...and I portray MULTIPLE viewpoints.

 

I'll extend you an open invitation to attend one of my class sessions on the global warming controversy, if you'd like. Bedford isn't that far from Bardstown. Judge me based on evidence, rather than assume I'm "guilty." (Interesting, considering your profession.)

 

Up I-71?

 

Huh. I go shooting sometimes on a farm out that way. Near Brahe's Orchard. Small world(state).

Up I-71?

 

Huh. I go shooting sometimes on a farm out that way. Near Brahe's Orchard. Small world(state).

Have you made the connection yet that TB&G is the one holding the "Guns Kill People" signs right outside of Brahe's Orchard? :D :D

Bugatti is speculating like anyone else. And to be honest, bugatti is probably right, it will probably be about staying in school and out of drugs, etc.

 

For me, it's not about the content, it is about the precedent being set. In the future, it gives the President the power to do this, and the nature of the executive branch (and humanity) indicates to me that that power will be abused.

 

 

I still don't understand the arguments in this thread, which seem to be primarily that it should be the parent's decision. That has a simple solution. I also don't understand why it's a dangerous precedent. We talk constantly here on uninformed voters and their impact on elections. It seems to me that having the President addressing the children of the nation would yield children who have been exposed to the President as a figure to be followed, not necessarily as sheep as some assume the President is trying to influence, but as a real figure with a message for them, as well as their parents. I'm beginning to feel that the issue isn't that there are uninformed voters, but that some people feel that unless voters agree with their personal views, they must not be informed.

 

I remember when Bush was up for reelection. Both of my kids were teenagers. One was going to be 18 and voting, the other was 16, would be 17 @ the time of the election, and I made it a point to talk to them both about the issues. Of course, I talked to them with the intent of influencing them in my view. Both were staunch Bush supporters, and were very supportive of the war in Iraq, and I couldn't sway them one bit. It caused a lot of healthy arguments in my house. My son, in particular, was influenced by a teacher at his school. I made sure that I presented my arguments contradicting their external influences. I made sure to discuss current political issues with them. I also had no problem with the fact that they both disagreed with me to the end. There was enough conversation on both sides of the topic presented to them so that I felt they had the ability to make their own informed decisions. Of course, I hated that the decision wasn't the same as mine. But I was very happy that they were thinking for themselves.

I'm not sure if I'd classify it as "the enemy"....I think it is a healthy dose of skepticism. With the history of politicians and tyrants throughout time, as well as the amazing hypocrisy of all politicians (for two simple examples, see Al Gore's home or Sandford's affair), I think skepticism is entirely warranted.

 

 

Skepticism is one thing. The current climate is definitely well beyond skepticsm. People are freaking out because of the current administration. To me, there seems to be no faith in our form of democracy or our constitution. I feel like I live in a nation of Chicken Littles.

 

I remember when Bush was up for reelection. Both of my kids were teenagers. One was going to be 18 and voting, the other was 16, would be 17 @ the time of the election, and I made it a point to talk to them both about the issues. Of course, I talked to them with the intent of influencing them in my view. Both were staunch Bush supporters, and were very supportive of the war in Iraq, and I couldn't sway them one bit. It caused a lot of healthy arguments in my house. My son, in particular, was influenced by a teacher at his school. I made sure that I presented my arguments contradicting their external influences. I made sure to discuss current political issues with them. I also had no problem with the fact that they both disagreed with me to the end. There was enough conversation on both sides of the topic presented to them so that I felt they had the ability to make their own informed decisions. Of course, I hated that the decision wasn't the same as mine. But I was very happy that they were thinking for themselves.

Sounds like you have some smart children.

Sounds like you have some smart children.

 

 

They both voted Obama in the last election, so they definitely got smart.

I still don't understand the arguments in this thread, which seem to be primarily that it should be the parent's decision. That has a simple solution. I also don't understand why it's a dangerous precedent. We talk constantly here on uninformed voters and their impact on elections. It seems to me that having the President addressing the children of the nation would yield children who have been exposed to the President as a figure to be followed, not necessarily as sheep as some assume the President is trying to influence, but as a real figure with a message for them, as well as their parents. I'm beginning to feel that the issue isn't that there are uninformed voters, but that some people feel that unless voters agree with their personal views, they must not be informed.

 

I remember when Bush was up for reelection. Both of my kids were teenagers. One was going to be 18 and voting, the other was 16, would be 17 @ the time of the election, and I made it a point to talk to them both about the issues. Of course, I talked to them with the intent of influencing them in my view. Both were staunch Bush supporters, and were very supportive of the war in Iraq, and I couldn't sway them one bit. It caused a lot of healthy arguments in my house. My son, in particular, was influenced by a teacher at his school. I made sure that I presented my arguments contradicting their external influences. I made sure to discuss current political issues with them. I also had no problem with the fact that they both disagreed with me to the end. There was enough conversation on both sides of the topic presented to them so that I felt they had the ability to make their own informed decisions. Of course, I hated that the decision wasn't the same as mine. But I was very happy that they were thinking for themselves.

Was the house running low on granola, flowers, tie dye, and patchouli oil? :sssh:

Was the house running low on granola, flowers, tie dye, and patchouli oil? :sssh:

 

 

:lol: Ironically, of the list above, only granola and flowers are regular players.

I still don't understand the arguments in this thread, which seem to be primarily that it should be the parent's decision. That has a simple solution. I also don't understand why it's a dangerous precedent. We talk constantly here on uninformed voters and their impact on elections. It seems to me that having the President addressing the children of the nation would yield children who have been exposed to the President as a figure to be followed, not necessarily as sheep as some assume the President is trying to influence, but as a real figure with a message for them, as well as their parents. I'm beginning to feel that the issue isn't that there are uninformed voters, but that some people feel that unless voters agree with their personal views, they must not be informed.

 

I remember when Bush was up for reelection. Both of my kids were teenagers. One was going to be 18 and voting, the other was 16, would be 17 @ the time of the election, and I made it a point to talk to them both about the issues. Of course, I talked to them with the intent of influencing them in my view. Both were staunch Bush supporters, and were very supportive of the war in Iraq, and I couldn't sway them one bit. It caused a lot of healthy arguments in my house. My son, in particular, was influenced by a teacher at his school. I made sure that I presented my arguments contradicting their external influences. I made sure to discuss current political issues with them. I also had no problem with the fact that they both disagreed with me to the end. There was enough conversation on both sides of the topic presented to them so that I felt they had the ability to make their own informed decisions. Of course, I hated that the decision wasn't the same as mine. But I was very happy that they were thinking for themselves.

You didn't address my post. I'm not talking about "uninformed voters" or "how RM's kids voted."

 

I'm worried about the precedent of a President having the power to address children without any checks and balances.

 

Like I said, President Obama will likely say "stay in school" and such to avoid a political backlash, and it will be a good message. But in the future, it will allow President's the right to speak to children without parents know what is going on. It's not right, parents already are limited enough in their ability to control the schools (considering that the government picks which school their child goes too).

 

Skepticism is one thing. The current climate is definitely well beyond skepticsm. People are freaking out because of the current administration. To me, there seems to be no faith in our form of democracy or our constitution. I feel like I live in a nation of Chicken Littles.

The Constitution is ignored at this point, don't even pretend that the President or anyone in Congress cares about it. If they did, Congress would declare war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or get the troops out. Nobody cares about the Constitution, don't even try to pretend that it limits them anymore.

 

And yes, people are irrational in their hatred for the President, and it goes beyond skepticism. I was just giving my own perspective.

You didn't address my post. I'm not talking about "uninformed voters" or "how RM's kids voted."

 

I'm worried about the precedent of a President having the power to address children without any checks and balances.

 

Like I said, President Obama will likely say "stay in school" and such to avoid a political backlash, and it will be a good message. But in the future, it will allow President's the right to speak to children without parents know what is going on. It's not right, parents already are limited enough in their ability to control the schools (considering that the government picks which school their child goes too).

 

The Constitution is ignored at this point, don't even pretend that the President or anyone in Congress cares about it. If they did, Congress would declare war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or get the troops out. Nobody cares about the Constitution, don't even try to pretend that it limits them anymore.

 

And yes, people are irrational in their hatred for the President, and it goes beyond skepticism. I was just giving my own perspective.

Wouldn't this all be solved if we didn't have publicly-funded education? For that reason I think the people who are up in arms over this are getting what they asked for.

You didn't address my post. I'm not talking about "uninformed voters" or "how RM's kids voted."

 

I'm worried about the precedent of a President having the power to address children without any checks and balances.

 

Like I said, President Obama will likely say "stay in school" and such to avoid a political backlash, and it will be a good message. But in the future, it will allow President's the right to speak to children without parents know what is going on. It's not right, parents already are limited enough in their ability to control the schools (considering that the government picks which school their child goes too).

My apolgies. I thought I addressed it. I guess to be more blunt:

 

School-send home a letter explaining the upcoming event with a permission slip.

Parent-sign the permission slip allowing their child to participate or forbidding them to participate.

 

The Constitution is ignored at this point, don't even pretend that the President or anyone in Congress cares about it. If they did, Congress would declare war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or get the troops out. Nobody cares about the Constitution, don't even try to pretend that it limits them anymore.

 

And yes, people are irrational in their hatred for the President, and it goes beyond skepticism. I was just giving my own perspective.

 

OK. So, although I may disagree with you on your first point here, I definitely agree on the 2nd point.

According to bugatti's post, the topic is the importance of staying in school getting an education. According to other's posts, the topics COULD be healthcare reform, abortion, Cap & Trade, and/or indoctrination.

Does bugatti have proof of this? Do you?