Why are some people so upset with Obama's speech to the children?

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Why do I want to help the president, when I believe helping him will hurt the country. I'm not in favor of his presidential citizen police force, I'm not in favor of the recent appointment of an FCC chairman who has expressed admiration for Hugo Chavez's handling of the media and laid out detailed plans to silence media opposition. I'm not in favor of the government Nationalizing the banks, big industry, or the health care system. I'm opposed to policies which lead to increased wealth redistribution. I'm opposed to having people in a position of power in the Executive branch who support violent revolution and overthrow of the government, I'm opposed to advisors who support Eugenics, I'm opposed to advisors who support forced euthanasia. I'm opposed to appeasing dictators in the hopes that they will reciprocate in kind.

It's not in my interest to see a president succeed who I think if he succeeds will turn America into something I don't want it to be, which is a land dominated by mediocrity.

great post. I think a lot of Americans are really starting to feel the same way.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by DGTigers

great post. I think a lot of Americans are really starting to feel the same way.

LOL.

A lot of Americans are not buying into conservative paranoid conspiracy theories.

[hueytaxi]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

LOL.

A lot of Americans are not buying into conservative paranoid conspiracy theories.

Nor are a lot of Americans buying into the current administrations' goals. You don't have to be conservative, paranoid or a conspiricy theorist to dislike what is happening today. Really if you are laughing, you are ignoring a lot of strong public opinion. I for one am not laughing. I had high hopes for Mr. Obama. I believed his election could heal much of the divide in our nation.

[Edman85]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

I had high hopes for Mr. Obama. I believed his election could heal much of the divide in our nation.

So long as there is the internet as a vehicle to allow people to filter their information, the divide is permanent.

[Oblong]

Originally Posted by Blue Square Thing

No, help the *president*.



Yeah, OK, you really dislike him and wish he hadn't won. Now stop assuming that everything he does is for his own personal benefit.

Help him do what? Implement his ideas? Kids are too young to decipher whether those are good or bad.

I will stop assuming everything he does is for his own personal benefit when I believe that's the case.

Otherwise, stick to your own problems over there with letting terrorists go for oil.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

LOL.

A lot of Americans are not buying into conservative paranoid conspiracy theories.

Stop, just stop with the ad hominem attacks against any opinion that you disagree with. If you want to argue points and post your opinion great, but come up with something original and an opinion that is your own and well reasoned, this discounting of others by trying to group them is getting pretty weak.

In summary marginalization of other's opinion's isn't a good way to convince them of the validity of your argument.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by Edman85

So long as there is the internet as a vehicle to allow people to filter their information, the divide is permanent.

The divide has always existed, the difference now is that more people are exposed to the divide, we don't have a unified media determining which stories are important and which are not.

Shining the light on government is a good thing, it's not there as of yet but at some point the Internet will become a crucial watchdog over the government. Which is needed at this point with the traditional media having abdicated it's responsibilities of oversight for entertainment and ratings purposes.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

I think this whole topic is absurd. I believe it says a lot about the political environment we are currently in, and it's not a good thing. I was hoping that Obama could bring some decency to the table. If anyone was going to be able to do it, it was him. This tells me it's *never*freaking*happening* unless there's some sort of divine intervention. I mean really, people getting this upset over The President of the United States *talking* to children because somebody put something in a memo.

So either I'm forced to believe that the political environment is nothing but a bunch of power-hungry win-at-all-cost tear-everything-down piranhas, or I'm forced to believe that our president has some ulterior egotistical motives and is too evil and harmful to the country to be allowed to speak or ask anything of the poor children.

I've obviously decided that it's piranhas and not presidential indoctrination, but no matter which it is, it's bad, and I should probably just look out for me and mine, and let everyone else go lie in the bed they've made themselves. It's only logical.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Why do I want to help the president, when I believe helping him will hurt the country. I'm not in favor of his presidential citizen police force, I'm not in favor of the recent appointment of an FCC chairman who has expressed admiration for Hugo Chavez's handling of the media and laid out detailed plans to silence media opposition. I'm not in favor of the government Nationalizing the banks, big industry, or the health care system. I'm opposed to policies which lead to increased wealth redistribution. I'm opposed to having people in a position of power in the Executive branch who support violent revolution and overthrow of the government, I'm opposed to advisors who support Eugenics, I'm opposed to advisors who support forced euthanasia. I'm opposed to appeasing dictators in the hopes that they will reciprocate in kind.

It's not in my interest to see a president succeed who I think if he succeeds will turn America into something I don't want it to be, which is a land dominated by mediocrity.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Stop, just stop with the ad hominem attacks against any opinion that you disagree with. If you want to argue points and post your opinion great, but come up with something original and an opinion that is your own and well reasoned, this discounting of others by trying to group them is getting pretty weak.

In summary marginalization of other's opinion's isn't a good way to convince them of the validity of your argument.

How am I supposed to debate someone who is predisposed to believing in paranoid fantasies?

Check out the post you made above. In it, you claimed:

• Obama is creating a "presidential citizen police force"
• One of Obama's recent appointments "laid out detailed plans to silence media opposition"
• Our government under Obama is "Nationalizing the banks, big industry, or the health care system"
• People in the Obama government "support violent revolution and overthrow of the government"
• and, finally, Obama has "advisors who support Eugenics...[and] euthanasia"

None of those are true. None of those claims even remotely come close to reality. How am I supposed to engage upon the comedy of debating you if you make such claims?

Those are nothing but conspiracy theories and paranoid fantasies. If you believe those are true, than, I'm sorry to say, I believe that there is no hope of engaging in rational debate with you.

And I don't think you realize what an ad hominem attack is. Attacking your ideas is not an ad hominem attack. Since there is absolutely nothing to substantiate what you are saying, it is fair for me to call out that what you are saying has no basis in reality. I don't really think you believe in the conspiracy theories you outlined earlier. I think you just don't like Obama, and want to provoke people that do. I don't think you are paranoid or delusional. I think you just have your political blinders on.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

Nor are a lot of Americans buying into the current administrations' goals. You don't have to be conservative, paranoid or a conspiricy theorist to dislike what is happening today.

Than why is so much of the opposition to Obama based on conspiracy theories? Why not talk about what Obama is actually doing, rather than what he is obviously not doing, such as the conspiracy theories I outlined in the post above?

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

Really if you are laughing, you are ignoring a lot of strong public opinion. I for one am not laughing. I had high hopes for Mr. Obama. I believed his election could heal much of the divide in our nation.

It takes two to heal a divide. Republicans are more interested in making Obama fail than they are bringing any solution to the table.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

You should respect the office of the presidency. You should also serve your country. However, "l'etat, c'est moi" really is not an American concept. The country and the president are two distinct things. You can and should serve your country, but the only people who should serve the president are the White House kitchen staff.

Interesting - thank you. Perhaps the ideas of respect and serve are kinda mixed in my head on this, not sure. Fwiw I tend to think he means "serve the country and it's interests" but I can see exactly what you mean.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Help him do what? Implement his ideas? Kids are too young to decipher whether those are good or bad.

Which is why it was put in the way it was - little kids can get the idea of helping someone rather more than they can serving someone. They can also see an individual and what they stand for rather better than they can an abstract notion such as a nation-state.

Originally Posted by Oblong

I will stop assuming everything he does is for his own personal benefit when I believe that's the case.

Clearly.

Originally Posted by Oblong

Otherwise, stick to your own problems over there with letting terrorists go for oil.

Probably the single most ignorant assumption I've ever seen you make.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by DGTigers

great post. I think a lot of Americans are really starting to feel the same way.

Starting?

Oh, I think that's clearly been the case for several presidencies., The immediacy of internet "media" is simply making stuff a whole lot quicker.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

How am I supposed to debate someone who is predisposed to believing in paranoid fantasies?

Check out the post you made above. In it, you claimed:

• Obama is creating a "presidential citizen police force"
• One of Obama's recent appointments "laid out detailed plans to silence media opposition"
• Our government under Obama is "Nationalizing the banks, big industry, or the health care system"
• People in the Obama government "support violent revolution and overthrow of the government"
• and, finally, Obama has "advisors who support Eugenics...[and] euthanasia"

None of those are true. None of those claims even remotely come close to reality. How am I supposed to engage upon the comedy of debating you if you make such claims?

Those are nothing but conspiracy theories and paranoid fantasies. If you believe those are true, than, I'm sorry to say, I believe that there is no hope of engaging in rational debate with you.

And I don't think you realize what an ad hominem attack is. Attacking your ideas is not an ad hominem attack. Since there is absolutely nothing to substantiate what you are saying, it is fair for me to call out that what you are saying has no basis in reality. I don't really think you believe in the conspiracy theories you outlined earlier. I think you just don't like Obama, and want to provoke people that do. I don't think you are paranoid or delusional. I think you just have your political blinders on.

Look, just because you aren't aware of the issues you talk about, doesn't mean they aren't true and people who bring these things to light and disagree with them are necessarily right wing conspiracist. This is what I mean when I say you can't be calling people who disagree with your points and know much more about the topics you participate in "nut jobs" and "right wing whackos" or "conservative conspiracy theorists".

I don't know what level of education you have, I'm more into truth then I am into political party, and I have a strong background in American and World History and draw on this to interpret events of the day. Everything has basically been tried before, and patterns arise as to the end goal. One of the reason I despise liberal democrats is because they aren't truthful about their end goals in public.

You don't realize what an ad hominem attack is, you attacked me as a right wing conspiracy theorists, or whack job or nut job that's how you finish each post you make, you did it again in this post. You are dismissing the argumenter rather then the argument.

Example: How am I supposed to debate someone who is predisposed to believing in paranoid fantasies?

You didn't debate you attacked me as the poster, rather then coming up with factual information to rebuke the claims I made. This is the very definition of an Ad Hominem attack (Logic 101).

1. Civilian National Police Force
Citizen Police Force? - NoPC Forums
2. Mark Lloyd - FCC "Diversity Czar" on Chavez/Free Speech.
YouTube - Obama's Czar Mark Lloyd's FCC 'Diversity' Chief - His Take on Free Speech
YouTube - FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd discussing plans to shut down conservative media
3. Nationalizing banks, big industry, health care - do you know what nationalizing means? The government has taken stock in many large financial institutions through the bailouts, the government took over GM and took stock, they are trying to Nationalize the health care system at the moment (you probably have seen something about that).
4. Support Violent revolution - Van Jones - communist/anarchist/revolutionary
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Van Jones and “revolution”
Pat Dollard | Young Americans | Blog Archive » Van Jones Movie Espouses Communist Revolution In America
5. Science Czar - John Holdren - John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet, John Holdren and Harrison Brown, informationliberation - John Holdren and Harrison Brown: Lifelong intellectual infatuation with eugenics-minded futurist casts shadow over Science Czar Holdren's worldview. he's written books about forced population control and is acknowledged biggest scientific influence is a leading eugenicist.

“organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government” - EcoScience

Ezekial Emanuel - Known supporter of euthanasia for decades, brother of Rahm. Facta, Non Verba "Deeds, Not Words" Conservative Blog: Obama's Depopulation/Euthanasia/Death Care Plan Exposed - Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) Advocates Euthanasia in Obama's Government-Run Plan

[sub rosa]

conservative blogs, messages boards, and youtube to support your arguments and refute the notion that they're wacko fringe conspiracy theories? i think you just helped couga make his point.

for example, the "civilian national police force" link was interesting. a conservative message board where someone posted a 20-second youtube clip of a speech he gave with no context. well, there are several obvious veterans sitting behind him clapping with enthusiasm as he made wheatever point he was making.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

conservative blogs, messages boards, and youtube to support your arguments and refute the notion that they're wacko fringe conspiracy theories? i think you just helped couga make his point. police force.

for example, the "civilian national police force" link was interesting. a conservative message board where someone posted a 20-second youtube clip of a speech he gave with no context. well, there are several obvious veterans sitting behind him clapping with enthusiasm as he made wheatever point he was making.

Yes a youtube clip of Barrack Obama calling for a civilian national security force just as powerful as our military and well funded, doesn't that qualify as as the president calling for a civilian national police force. The point of contention here isn't whether he called for it, he did, but what does he want to accomplish with such a force. You aspire noble goals to what he's calling for as an expansion of the peace corps, I don't see it as such, I see it as unnecessary and something that could be used to curtail people's liberty.

I wouldn't expect any Obama leaning networks or sites to post those things, however I posted links to video and references to books written by the people I provided as examples.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

It takes two to heal a divide. Republicans are more interested in making Obama fail than they are bringing any solution to the table.

We're just putting into practice the lessons your party taught us from 2001-2009.

[CMRivdog]

We're just putting into practice the lessons your party taught us from 2001-2009.

The one that was originated by Sir Newt Gingrich???

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

The one that was originated by Sir Newt Gingrich???

Oh, we're not innocent in this affair. But the tactics we saw by Newt hardly "originated" with him.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by Mark The Shark

Oh, we're not innocent in this affair. But the tactics we saw by Newt hardly "originated" with him.

No argument, just a little ribbing

[DGTigers]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

LOL.

A lot of Americans are not buying into conservative paranoid conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by hueytaxi

Nor are a lot of Americans buying into the current administrations' goals.

Always happy that Huey is here to be the resident voice of reason. Hilarious as always that some others have totally bought into the smoke screens and deceptions being put up by the new president. Go ahead and believe that everyone upset with Obama's policies are only because of conspiracies too, Couga. It's not even surprising anymore.

You're sadly mistaken if you don't think some of these concerns are real though.

Some people don't want America to lose much of what makes it great. Some Americans are concerned with the federal government taking more power than they are constitutionally given. Some Americans are concerned about the ever expanding government. Some Americans are concerned with the government making decisions in our every day lives when they can't even read a bill before voting on it or sit through a hearing without playing a few games of solitaire. Some Americans don't believe that the government can spend our money better than we can. Some Americans are sick of failed programs such as NAFTA and high taxes on businesses that only hurt America's workers. Some Americans are sick of being called racists or enemies if we disagree with the government about something. Some Americans like living in a republic, and hate legislation that try to change that. Some Americans hate having our first, second, fourth, and tenth amendment rights attacked or ignored. Some of us don't buy the fact that the government "fixing" health care is anything more than a grab for extra power that they are not entitled.

You can and probably do disagree with every single reason someone can possibly be upset with anyone in your party or the president himself. However, not everyone that have concerns are blindly following the Republican party or following conspiracy theories. In fact, a lot of conservatives are unhappy with a lot of Republicans as well. I assure you though, the feelings are real and are for good reason. There is nothing wrong with voicing your displeasure with the government's policies and decisions. In fact, the first Amendment says so.

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by Oblong

Help him do what? Implement his ideas? Kids are too young to decipher whether those are good or bad.

Not necessarily. One way to help the President, if you strongly believe that implementation of his policies would hurt the US, is to use this as an opportunity to tell this to your kids, tell them why you oppose his policies, and what you would rather see done. It's also an opportunity to remind them that it's important to listen to opposing points of view because a, the Constitution guarantees the freedom to express points of view, b, it's a lot easier to understand a problem when you listen to how others view it, and c, because others are just as passionate about their beliefs (which often stem from deeply personal experiences and backgrounds) as they are about theirs.

I'd say if even a small percentage of children learn to respect the beliefs of those they disagree with, then that would be helping the President in some small way.

As they get older, they can find activities, in and out of school, to somehow support their points of view.

Of course, you'd have to find words to say this that are appropriate for their age groups, or there'll be a lot of kids with blank stares across the US.

[CMRivdog]

Obama talks hard work, hand-washing - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

Sounds a lot like a political agenda to me. Let the brainwashing of our children begin

President Barack Obama gives the nation's pupils a fatherly talking-to about goals, responsibility and hand-washing in the text of remarks that are to be piped into classrooms on Tuesday, a plan that drew vocal opposition from some conservatives.


"Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn," Obama says in his prepared text. "And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter. Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it. "


The critics will find little to object to, and Obama makes no reference to the fracas. The White House posted his text at lunchtime Monday so parents and school administrators could evaluate the content in advance.


"I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them," the president says. "Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community.


"Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn."

With a touch of tough love, he continues: "I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work — that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.


"But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try."


The president includes with an allusion to his economic recovery plan: "I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it. Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America."


Here is the prepared text of the president's remarks, "Back to School Event," scheduled for delivery Tuesday in Arlington, Va.:



Read more: Obama talks hard work, hand-washing - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Look, just because you aren't aware of the issues you talk about, doesn't mean they aren't true and people who bring these things to light and disagree with them are necessarily right wing conspiracist. This is what I mean when I say you can't be calling people who disagree with your points and know much more about the topics you participate in "nut jobs" and "right wing whackos" or "conservative conspiracy theorists".

I don't know what level of education you have, I'm more into truth then I am into political party, and I have a strong background in American and World History and draw on this to interpret events of the day. Everything has basically been tried before, and patterns arise as to the end goal. One of the reason I despise liberal democrats is because they aren't truthful about their end goals in public.

You don't realize what an ad hominem attack is, you attacked me as a right wing conspiracy theorists, or whack job or nut job that's how you finish each post you make, you did it again in this post. You are dismissing the argumenter rather then the argument.

Example: How am I supposed to debate someone who is predisposed to believing in paranoid fantasies?

You didn't debate you attacked me as the poster, rather then coming up with factual information to rebuke the claims I made. This is the very definition of an Ad Hominem attack (Logic 101).

1. Civilian National Police Force
Citizen Police Force? - NoPC Forums
2. Mark Lloyd - FCC "Diversity Czar" on Chavez/Free Speech.
YouTube - Obama's Czar Mark Lloyd's FCC 'Diversity' Chief - His Take on Free Speech
YouTube - FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd discussing plans to shut down conservative media
3. Nationalizing banks, big industry, health care - do you know what nationalizing means? The government has taken stock in many large financial institutions through the bailouts, the government took over GM and took stock, they are trying to Nationalize the health care system at the moment (you probably have seen something about that).
4. Support Violent revolution - Van Jones - communist/anarchist/revolutionary
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Van Jones and “revolution”
Pat Dollard | Young Americans | Blog Archive » Van Jones Movie Espouses Communist Revolution In America
5. Science Czar - John Holdren - John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet, John Holdren and Harrison Brown, informationliberation - John Holdren and Harrison Brown: Lifelong intellectual infatuation with eugenics-minded futurist casts shadow over Science Czar Holdren's worldview. he's written books about forced population control and is acknowledged biggest scientific influence is a leading eugenicist.

“organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government” - EcoScience

Ezekial Emanuel - Known supporter of euthanasia for decades, brother of Rahm. Facta, Non Verba "Deeds, Not Words" Conservative Blog: Obama's Depopulation/Euthanasia/Death Care Plan Exposed - Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of Rahm) Advocates Euthanasia in Obama's Government-Run Plan

LOL.

I went to a couple of your links, and none of them support anything you are saying. None of your theories have been substantiated in the least bit. I'd get in to debunking your allegations point by point, but that would be a waste of my time. It's not my job to prove you wrong when you propose a ridiculous set of theories that were mined from right-wing extremist websites that have nothing based in fact to support them. You have to at least make an attempt to prove your theories correct before anyone is required to go around debunking them.

As far as nationalization goes, our banks were not nationalized. The government bailed them out, but the management of our banks remained in private hands the whole time. Same with the auto industry. And nowhere is there a proposition to nationalize healthcare. I don't think you understand what "nationalization" actually means.

Anyways, your victim routine is getting old. Criticizing your ideas is not, despite your claims, a criticism of you yourself. If you continue to think so even despite what I said earlier, I suggest you man up and get a thicker skin. In political discussions, everyone has tried to advance some unsubstantiated theory at some time simply because, if the theory were true, it would be politically advantageous for them. It happens all the time on here (as it does everywhere). Many times, these theories are downright ridiculous and silly. Such is the case here. Most people at least have some sense of self-awareness on here when they do this, and they take it with a grain of salt when they are called out on it. Others try to make themselves into the victim of some sort of fictitious personal attack. Such is the case here.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

LOL.

I went to a couple of your links, and none of them support anything you are saying. None of your theories have been substantiated in the least bit. I'd get in to debunking your allegations point by point, but that would be a waste of my time. It's not my job to prove you wrong when you propose a ridiculous set of theories that were mined from right-wing extremist websites that have nothing based in fact to support them. You have to at least make an attempt to prove your theories correct before anyone is required to go around debunking them.

Which links specifically don't back up my points? What constitutes a right wing extemist links? Does it matter what site they are on if they document with video and references to books written by the people in question their views?

As far as nationalization goes, our banks were not nationalized. The government bailed them out, but the management of our banks remained in private hands the whole time. Same with the auto industry. And nowhere is there a proposition to nationalize healthcare. I don't think you understand what "nationalization" actually means.

The Government owns stock in each of these companies, the government and the UAW own 89% of the GM stock, they have the controlling interest in the company, they replaced the CEO with their own fellow. The Government likewise has taken stock in banks that they have bailed, some of which are at a percentage which is in a position of control of the banks. They have not taken control of the health care system, however they are trying which is what I opposed in the original post.

Definition of "Nationalization" also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.

This is exactly what happened with GM/Chrysler and is being worked on with the banks.

Anyways, your victim routine is getting old. Criticizing your ideas is not, despite your claims, a criticism of you yourself. If you continue to think so even despite what I said earlier, I suggest you man up and get a thicker skin. In political discussions, everyone has tried to advance some unsubstantiated theory at some time simply because, if the theory were true, it would be politically advantageous for them. It happens all the time on here (as it does everywhere). Many times, these theories are downright ridiculous and silly. Such is the case here. Most people at least have some sense of self-awareness on here when they do this, and they take it with a grain of salt when they are called out on it. Others try to make themselves into the victim of some sort of fictitious personal attack. Such is the case here.

It's not my victim routine, I'm trying to get you to focus on backing up the points you are making, which is something you don't do very often. You tend to attack the source of the post as un-reputable without laying your counter points out on the table (maybe because your sources would be open to the same scrutiny?). Notice how I address your points, while you post as your rebuke.

"LOL.

A lot of Americans are not buying into conservative paranoid conspiracy theories. "

At which point I recognized and exposed your argument technique, and you responded with such overwhelming evidence such as "None of those are true".
Put yourself out there, demolish my assertions w/evidence to the contrary.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Which links specifically don't back up my points? What constitutes a right wing extemist links? Does it matter what site they are on if they document with video and references to books written by the people in question their views?

The Government owns stock in each of these companies, the government and the UAW own 89% of the GM stock, they have the controlling interest in the company, they replaced the CEO with their own fellow. The Government likewise has taken stock in banks that they have bailed, some of which are at a percentage which is in a position of control of the banks. They have not taken control of the health care system, however they are trying which is what I opposed in the original post.

Definition of "Nationalization" also spelled nationalisation, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state.

This is exactly what happened with GM/Chrysler and is being worked on with the banks.

It's not my victim routine, I'm trying to get you to focus on backing up the points you are making, which is something you don't do very often. You tend to attack the source of the post as un-reputable without laying your counter points out on the table (maybe because your sources would be open to the same scrutiny?). Notice how I address your points, while you post as your rebuke.

"LOL.

A lot of Americans are not buying into conservative paranoid conspiracy theories. "

At which point I recognized and exposed your argument technique, and you responded with such overwhelming evidence such as "None of those are true".
Put yourself out there, demolish my assertions w/evidence to the contrary.

1. Show me Obama's plans for a civilian national police force other than taking some clip of a speech out of context. Where is the legislation that supports this? Show me why this clip is not taken out of context.

2. Neither of your clips of Mark Lloyd show that he has desires to shut down conservative media. All he mentions is hypothesizing about how to bring a more substantial discussion of issues, and how to include average citizens in the discussion of the news.

4. Nothing Van Jones said in your sources even mentioned violent revolution. These are your sources. Your own sources are disproving your theories.

5. Your John Holdren sources both take out of context small snippets of large texts and drastically misrepresent what he is saying. In fact, just looking at your own sources shows that he was talking about a hypothetical, and not what he would actually do. Your own sources, again, prove your theory wrong. I don't even have to look up my own sources.

As far as nationalization and the banks go, no, the banks are not nationalized. The government got some stock in exchange for the bailouts, but that was only appropriate, and the only way to pay the taxpayers back once the banks/auto companies recovered. The alternative was to let our entire banking system and economy completely collapse. If you let one bank go under, it's not just one bank. These banks and other businesses are so interconnected that if one falls down, it brings a bunch of others with it. Banks that fail owe a lot of money to other banks, and if the money they owe to other banks evaporates, than, instead of having one problem on your hands, you have a dozen. If you think the economy collapsing is an acceptable side-effect of maintaining your ideologically pure view of the world, I doubt you'll find many people outside of the fringe conservative blogosphere that support you. Nevertheless, the government buying a small amount of stock in the banks that is obviously meant to be a temporary bail out is not anything close to nationalization.

And none of the health plans on the table attempt to nationalize healthcare even in the slightest bit. The farthest Obama has even considered is a bill with a public option -- which stops far, far short of nationalizing our healthcare system. And we might not even get that.

As far as the auto companies, I have no idea where you get the idea that Ed Whitacre is some sort of socialist plant. He's a lifelong capitalist from Texas. You can't get any more conservative than that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Either you're lying, you're willfully ignorant, or you are just uncritically repeating false memes talked up on extremist AM radio shows or blogs. There is zero support for your theory that Obama has nationalized anything, or even has plans to nationalize anything. And there's zero support for anything else you said.

[Chaz]

It's a sad state of affairs that many in this country politically would rather start an "Animal House" food fight rather than inspire kids to stay in school, to work hard, to engage parents to stay involved, and to ensure that the millions of teachers that are making great sacrifices continue to be the best in the world," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday. "It's a sad state of affairs

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

1. Show me Obama's plans for a civilian national police force other than taking some clip of a speech out of context. Where is the legislation that supports this? Show me why this clip is not taken out of context.

The bill proposed to allow for a civilian police force is called HR 675 in concert with DOD directive 1404.10 allows for establishment of a national police force under the control the DOD.

DefenseLink News Article: Defense Department Establishes Civilian Expeditionary Workforce

2. Neither of your clips of Mark Lloyd show that he has desires to shut down conservative media. All he mentions is hypothesizing about how to bring a more substantial discussion of issues, and how to include average citizens in the discussion of the news.

Mark Lloyd outlines his strategy for curtailing conservative media, and how he will do it without bringing back the fairness doctrine in the article entitled "forget the fairness doctrine".

Forget the Fairness Doctrine

4. Nothing Van Jones said in your sources even mentioned violent revolution. These are your sources. Your own sources are disproving your theories.

Well, he was a communist which supports the overthrow of a government, I thought you would make that connection on your own. He was also a founder of Storm.

“We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral.”

Here is their manifesto of Storm, where they describe their goals. http://www.beaufortobserver.net/page...MSummation.pdf

I also didn't mention Jeff Jones a weather underground member now in the Obama admin, I figured Van Jones was obvious enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jones_(activist)

"By mid-June 1969, SDS held what would turn out to be its final convention. Previous efforts/tactics to bring the war to an end and factional disputes over the organization’s goals and direction allowed an influential and militant bloc of SDS’ hierarchy to seize control of the body. [5] Building on their earlier support for the Black Liberation Movement in the United States and the Vietnamese, the Weatherman faction at the convention issued a statement calling for a revolution in this nation to fight and defeat U.S. imperialism within, and outside the country. [5] Emerging from the fractious convention, Jeff Jones, Bill Ayers, and Mark Rudd, all signatories to what came to be known as the Weatherman statement, constituted the organization’s new leadership group."
[/quote]
5. Your John Holdren sources both take out of context small snippets of large texts and drastically misrepresent what he is saying. In fact, just looking at your own sources shows that he was talking about a hypothetical, and not what he would actually do. Your own sources, again, prove your theory wrong. I don't even have to look up my own sources.
[/quote]
Huh, I referenced the book sources, if you don't believe the quotes are accurate. His quotes are hardly out of context, the guy has been making end of world predictions for 30 years and luckily he has a book already which will tell us how to deal with it. Here is a written page with more documentation on this fellows views.

FrontPage Magazine - Obama's Biggest Radical

As far as nationalization and the banks go, no, the banks are not nationalized. The government got some stock in exchange for the bailouts, but that was only appropriate, and the only way to pay the taxpayers back once the banks/auto companies recovered. The alternative was to let our entire banking system and economy completely collapse. If you let one bank go under, it's not just one bank. These banks and other businesses are so interconnected that if one falls down, it brings a bunch of others with it. Banks that fail owe a lot of money to other banks, and if the money they owe to other banks evaporates, than, instead of having one problem on your hands, you have a dozen. If you think the economy collapsing is an acceptable side-effect of maintaining your ideologically pure view of the world, I doubt you'll find many people outside of the fringe conservative blogosphere that support you. Nevertheless, the government buying a small amount of stock in the banks that is obviously meant to be a temporary bail out is not anything close to nationalization.

Citybank Government to Take Larger Ownership Stake in Struggling Citigroup | Online NewsHour | February 27, 2009 | PBS
Other loan takers http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/bu...lout.html?_r=1

This was all caused by government, why should I want the government to get more involved in the nations banking. Wasn't their propping up Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae enough. The loans are fine, I don't want them to own stock in the banks however which they have taken.

Personally I would rather have seen them fail. How's the economy doing since the bailouts? In capitalist societies companies fail, and normally other companies doing a better job take up the slack.

And none of the health plans on the table attempt to nationalize healthcare even in the slightest bit. The farthest Obama has even considered is a bill with a public option -- which stops far, far short of nationalizing our healthcare system. And we might not even get that.

Not even the slightest bit, really, where do you think a public option will lead? Do you think private plans can compete with government plans? Barrack Obama doesn't, here is a video of his ideas when he he was speaking to his crowd.
YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance

As far as the auto companies, I have no idea where you get the idea that Ed Whitacre is some sort of socialist plant. He's a lifelong capitalist from Texas. You can't get any more conservative than that.

"The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said."

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

The US government owns 60% of the new GM, Ed Whittacre was installed as CEO of the new GM.

I'll add this here, I wish they would have been let fail as well. Sorry but I don't agree with this too big to fail issue. If the US automakers can't compete, maybe some of they should be allowed to fail.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. Either you're lying, you're willfully ignorant, or you are just uncritically repeating false memes talked up on extremist AM radio shows or blogs. There is zero support for your theory that Obama has nationalized anything, or even has plans to nationalize anything. And there's zero support for anything else you said.

Again, you did a good job actually responding to points, no need for the personalization afterword. I'm not trying to do anything but express my thoughts and respond to your dismissals of said thoughts. I'm sorry I don't listen to talk radio (I work at a job all day).

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Why do I want to help the president, when I believe helping him will hurt the country. I'm not in favor of his presidential citizen police force, I'm not in favor of the recent appointment of an FCC chairman who has expressed admiration for Hugo Chavez's handling of the media and laid out detailed plans to silence media opposition. I'm not in favor of the government Nationalizing the banks, big industry, or the health care system. I'm opposed to policies which lead to increased wealth redistribution. I'm opposed to having people in a position of power in the Executive branch who support violent revolution and overthrow of the government, I'm opposed to advisors who support Eugenics, I'm opposed to advisors who support forced euthanasia. I'm opposed to appeasing dictators in the hopes that they will reciprocate in kind.

It's not in my interest to see a president succeed who I think if he succeeds will turn America into something I don't want it to be, which is a land dominated by mediocrity.

As I said earlier in another post, I can't help but believe that it's best to be exposed to opposing viewpoints, rather than only your own viewpoints. Afterwards, parents are free to discuss the speech and any lessons that they did in school with their kids and, if applicable, tell the kids any part of the speech they disagree with and why. It's tough to develop grounded opinions on one side of any issue without listening to and understanding the other side or sides.

BTW I've read the speech that Obama intends to give (another person posted it in this thread) and IMO, he isn't asking children to support any of the above in it. I can understand why some people might be concerned, especially those with younger children, I just don't see how sheltering kids from different sides of an issue is going to help anything.

Maybe it would have been better if Obama had teamed up with a conservative leader to give a joint presentation?

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

Maybe it would have been better if Obama had teamed up with a conservative leader to give a joint presentation?

I don't think that would do any good whatsoever to be honest. Anyway, he's the pres, it's his gig, he should play it. Anyone who gets overly stressed over a speech that advocates hand washing, attending school, listening to teachers and parents and working hard needs to get out a bit more.

Or maybe they need to read the speech.

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

The bill proposed to allow for a civilian police force is called HR 675 in concert with DOD directive 1404.10 allows for establishment of a national police force under the control the DOD.

DefenseLink News Article: Defense Department Establishes Civilian Expeditionary Workforce

Your source mentions nothing of a "civilian police force." It mentions:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27, 2009 – The Defense Department is forming a civilian expeditionary workforce that will be trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of military missions worldwide, according to department officials.

The intent of the program “is to maximize the use of the civilian workforce to allow military personnel to be fully utilized for operational requirements,” according to a Defense Department statement.

What you are claiming is a misrepresentation of what your source says.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Mark Lloyd outlines his strategy for curtailing conservative media, and how he will do it without bringing back the fairness doctrine in the article entitled "forget the fairness doctrine".

Forget the Fairness Doctrine

Your own source contradicts your own theory again. There is no discussion of curtailing conservative media. The discussion is about bringing a diversity of information to the airwaves.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Well, he was a communist which supports the overthrow of a government, I thought you would make that connection on your own. He was also a founder of Storm.

“We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin’s analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral.”

Here is their manifesto of Storm, where they describe their goals. http://www.beaufortobserver.net/page...MSummation.pdf

I also didn't mention Jeff Jones a weather underground member now in the Obama admin, I figured Van Jones was obvious enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Jones_(activist)

"By mid-June 1969, SDS held what would turn out to be its final convention. Previous efforts/tactics to bring the war to an end and factional disputes over the organization’s goals and direction allowed an influential and militant bloc of SDS’ hierarchy to seize control of the body. [5] Building on their earlier support for the Black Liberation Movement in the United States and the Vietnamese, the Weatherman faction at the convention issued a statement calling for a revolution in this nation to fight and defeat U.S. imperialism within, and outside the country. [5] Emerging from the fractious convention, Jeff Jones, Bill Ayers, and Mark Rudd, all signatories to what came to be known as the Weatherman statement, constituted the organization’s new leadership group."

What position does Jeff Jones hold in the Obama administration? And where, again, does Van Jones say anything about the violent overthrow of governments? Just because some group he was tangentially involved in starting 20 years ago makes some manifesto 15 years later doesn't mean Jones advocates such views. Nor does what you quoted say anything about violently overthrowing governments.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Huh, I referenced the book sources, if you don't believe the quotes are accurate. His quotes are hardly out of context, the guy has been making end of world predictions for 30 years and luckily he has a book already which will tell us how to deal with it. Here is a written page with more documentation on this fellows views.

FrontPage Magazine - Obama's Biggest Radical

Even out of context, the quotes don't claim what you say they are saying.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Citybank Government to Take Larger Ownership Stake in Struggling Citigroup | Online NewsHour | February 27, 2009 | PBS
Other loan takers http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/bu...lout.html?_r=1

This was all caused by government, why should I want the government to get more involved in the nations banking. Wasn't their propping up Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae enough. The loans are fine, I don't want them to own stock in the banks however which they have taken.

How was the deregulation of the financial sector caused by the government? Common sense suggests that the problem was exactly the opposite -- that lack of government regulation caused the crash. What do Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have to do with deregulated banks inventing phony securities and selling trillions of dollars worth of them to investors?

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Personally I would rather have seen them fail. How's are economy doing since the bailouts?

Given that we've averted a complete financial meltdown, I'd say we're doing great. The stock market has recovered half of its value lost. The prospects of another Great Depression are fading. It's a good thing we learned from our failures in the 1930s.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Not even the slightest bit, really, where do you think a public option will lead? Do you think private plans can compete with government plans? Barrack Obama doesn't, here is a video of his ideas when he he was speaking to his crowd.
YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance

The only way a public option leads there is if it is extremely successful -- in which case, wouldn't you welcome it as a solution to our current problems? Or are you more interested in maintaining a political ideology rather than looking at solutions that might work for our country? If private plans can't compete with a public option, than they're probably not strong enough and good enough for Americans. Isn't that the essence of capitalism? That the strongest survive?

Nevertheless, what you are arguing is a slippery slope, which is a well-known error in reasoning. Even if the public option is passed, it hardly equates to the nationalization of our healthcare industry.

Originally Posted by DrWho17

"The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said."

GM CEO resigns at Obama's behest - Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

The US government owns 60% of the new GM, Ed Whittacre was installed as CEO of the new GM.

So, after a company fails, you don't think the investors are within their rights to ask the CEO to step down? Wagoner was gone because he failed. Of course he was asked to step down. Whitacre is hardly the "government's guy." He's an experienced capitalist and CEO, and the fact that he is running the company directly refutes the notion that the government has "taken it over." As soon as GM can stand on its own, the government is going to sell all its stock and make it completely private again.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by Lousluggage

As I said earlier in another post, I can't help but believe that it's best to be exposed to opposing viewpoints, rather than only your own viewpoints. Afterwards, parents are free to discuss the speech and any lessons that they did in school with their kids and, if applicable, tell the kids any part of the speech they disagree with and why. It's tough to develop grounded opinions on one side of any issue without listening to and understanding the other side or sides.

BTW I've read the speech that Obama intends to give (another person posted it in this thread) and IMO, he isn't asking children to support any of the above in it. I can understand why some people might be concerned, especially those with younger children, I just don't see how sheltering kids from different sides of an issue is going to help anything.

Maybe it would have been better if Obama had teamed up with a conservative leader to give a joint presentation?

Well, maybe so, but I wasn't concerned about the speech, it was all the additional stuff sent out to the schools which were asking students to participate in exercises which I didn't think were appropriate. The White House got the message and dropped the accompanying lesson plans, which used language which invited controversy.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Well, maybe so, but I wasn't concerned about the speech, it was all the additional stuff sent out to the schools which were asking students to participate in exercises which I didn't think were appropriate. The White House got the message and dropped the accompanying lesson plans, which used language which invited controversy.

I thought they adapted a couple of the teaching suggestions didn't they?

Nothing wrong with suggesting activities to teachers. Darned good idea - if I want to I can adjust them; if I'm struggling for an idea I can use one; if I have a better idea I can use my own. That's cool - the ideas didn't seem exactly ott to me - pretty standard stuff tbh.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by Blue Square Thing

I thought they adapted a couple of the teaching suggestions didn't they?

Nothing wrong with suggesting activities to teachers. Darned good idea - if I want to I can adjust them; if I'm struggling for an idea I can use one; if I have a better idea I can use my own. That's cool - the ideas didn't seem exactly ott to me - pretty standard stuff tbh.

Thinking for yourself, what an unique concept.

[Lousluggage]

Originally Posted by DrWho17

Well, maybe so, but I wasn't concerned about the speech, it was all the additional stuff sent out to the schools which were asking students to participate in exercises which I didn't think were appropriate. The White House got the message and dropped the accompanying lesson plans, which used language which invited controversy.

If his speech contained the issues that were in the post I quoted of yours, or if he outlined in details his political agenda and asked the kids to find ways to help him with it, then I would agree with your concerns. He doesn't do this in the speech, though. Unless the speech given is a front and he intends to replace it with another one at the last minute, he is asking kids to help him improve education by working at school as hard as he can. I don't see how a lesson plan in which kids are asked what Obama is asking them what to do and how they can help him is promoting his agenda.

I had very serious problems with the No Child Left Behind Act, but if Bush had planned to make the speech that Obama plans, with lesson plans in which students were asked how they could help him, I would have supported it 100%.

[CMRivdog]

Time to kick this guy out of the GOP (Betcha he was a RHINO anyway)

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch"

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch" - The Note

[hueytaxi]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Time to kick this guy out of the GOP (Betcha he was a RHINO anyway)

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch"

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch" - The Note

Looney toon right wing extremist.....

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Time to kick this guy out of the GOP (Betcha he was a RHINO anyway)

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch"

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch" - The Note

He's giving in to the socialist extremists!

[Edman85]

http://twitter.com/Newtgingrich

Just read President Obamas speech to students.white House posted it. it is a good speech and will be good for students to hearabout 7 hours ago from TwitterBerry

Remember that Presidents Reagan and Bush also talked to students nationwide. As long as it is non political and pro education it is goodabout 7 hours ago from TwitterBerry

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Time to kick this guy out of the GOP (Betcha he was a RHINO anyway)

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch"

Florida GOP Chair on Obama's Speech to Students: "It's a Good Speech, I'll Let My Kids Watch" - The Note

What the frick did they think he was going to say? Every protest over this has been a massive overreaction, IMO.