This song is still relevant today

 

That song will ALWAYS be relevant. Great tune.

I don't have a problem with the speech, then again I did fall asleep half way thru.

Except that precedent had already been set by two republican presidents. GHW Bush gave an education speech in 1991 and Ronald Reagan did so in 1988. No transcripts.

No doubt about it. That has been mentioned in other threads and on MediaMatters, and never did I endorse the activities of Reagan or GHWB (unless I did so when I was 3 years old). I never even claimed that President Obama set the precedent, just that he continued it. Furthermore, I hope that President Obama's move to release the transcript is a new precedent for addressing children without a parental filter. Frankly, I'm shocked that you would turn it into a Republican/Democrat issue, and insulted that you'd assume my motives had anything to do with parties.

No doubt about it. That has been mentioned in other threads and on MediaMatters, and never did I endorse the activities of Reagan or GHWB (unless I did so when I was 3 years old). I never even claimed that President Obama set the precedent, just that he continued it. Furthermore, I hope that President Obama's move to release the transcript is a new precedent for addressing children without a parental filter. Frankly, I'm shocked that you would turn it into a Republican/Democrat issue, and insulted that you'd assume my motives had anything to do with parties.

Oh come on now :laugh: You got a bridge to sell somewhre too ?

Edited September 8, 200917 yr by KyTmcNcc

No doubt about it. That has been mentioned in other threads and on MediaMatters, and never did I endorse the activities of Reagan or GHWB (unless I did so when I was 3 years old). I never even claimed that President Obama set the precedent, just that he continued it. Furthermore, I hope that President Obama's move to release the transcript is a new precedent for addressing children without a parental filter. Frankly, I'm shocked that you would turn it into a Republican/Democrat issue, and insulted that you'd assume my motives had anything to do with parties.

 

I'm suprised at you. Where did I assume anything? Where did I mention your motives? Where did I turn it into a democrats vs. republican issue? I simply said that the the precedent had ALREADY been set and by two republican presidents at that. Why it would be suprising that another president chose to do something similar is beyond me.

 

Don't jump to conclusions and please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.

And the left was outraged with the "arrogance"of these speeches..

 

"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives."And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"

 

Patricia Schroeder, then a Democratic member of Congress from Colorado, said the speech showed "the arrogance of power," and that the White House should not be "using precious dollars for campaigns" when "we are struggling for every silly dime we can get" for education.

 

Except that it wasn't "keep your propaganda from my kids" back then. It was someone saying that words alone weren't enough (I'll keep that stance with this president, too, btw...I expect him to do more with education than just give a speech) and someone else questioning the use of funding from the education department for such a speech.

I'm suprised at you. Where did I assume anything? Where did I mention your motives? Where did I turn it into a democrats vs. republican issue? I simply said that the the precedent had ALREADY been set and by two republican presidents at that. Why it would be suprising that another president chose to do something similar is beyond me.

 

Don't jump to conclusions and please don't put words in my mouth that I did not say.

Then I guess I owe you an apology- when you quoted my post and said, "except that the precedent had been set by two Republican presidents," I thought you were implying that I had claimed something differently, or even bothered to think about the political party of our President. I also owe you an apology for blaming you for turning it into a Republican/Democrat issue- I assume the blame for that rests on Clyde, who did mention the word "Republican" before you did.

Then I guess I owe you an apology- when you quoted my post and said, "except that the precedent had been set by two Republican presidents," I thought you were implying that I had claimed something differently, or even bothered to think about the political party of our President. I also owe you an apology for blaming you for turning it into a Republican/Democrat issue- I assume the blame for that rests on Clyde, who did mention the word "Republican" before you did.

 

You are not one that I think of as partisan, cch5432. :thumb: I did think that maybe you were unaware of the previous speeches (as you said...you were 3 when the last one was given).

Except that it wasn't "keep your propaganda from my kids" back then. It was someone saying that words alone weren't enough (I'll keep that stance with this president, too, btw...I expect him to do more with education than just give a speech) and someone else questioning the use of funding from the education department for such a speech.

 

Their "paid political advertising" and "arrogance of power" quotes were just as much partisan attacks as what is happening now. They were simply attacking from a different way. No different than now.

You are not one that I think of as partisan, cch5432. :thumb: I did think that maybe you were unaware of the previous speeches (as you said...you were 3 when the last one was given).

See posts #136-#140 in the "Obama to address nations school children" thread.

 

I think I'm just trigger-happy on threads like this, because I wish we could debate actions on their own merits, not the political affiliation of the agent.

I still say this speech will do very, very little good. Something needs to be done to reach the parents much more than the kids.

I still say this speech will do very, very little good. Something needs to be done to reach the parents much more than the kids.

 

I don't understand this thinking. Yes, I agree that some/more than a few kids have parents that are problems. No debate. However, if we all agree on that why are we then opposed to going directly to the children in this manner? Are we just going to throw in the towel simply because we can't get through the thick skulls of some parents?

I don't understand this thinking. Yes, I agree that some/more than a few kids have parents that are problems. No debate. However, if we all agree on that why are we then opposed to going directly to the children in this manner? Are we just going to throw in the towel simply because we can't get through the thick skulls of some parents?

I don't have a problem with a message to the children. I don't care for a president speaking to kids in school personally, but as long as parents have a choice in the decision, I'm cool with it.

I don't have a problem with a message to the children. I don't care for a president speaking to kids in school personally, but as long as parents have a choice in the decision, I'm cool with it.

Any president or just this one no matter what the message ?

Any president or just this one no matter what the message ?

If you look back though the threads on this you'll see the answer to that question.