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

[billms]

I think all politicians do that to some degree. But what planting are you referring to Ewsieg?

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by ewsieg

He has no problem planting questions any other time, why is it so shocking some of us on the right might think he might have planted some more?

If the speech was something like this, you would have a problem with it?


Remarks and a Question-and-Answer Session With Area Junior High School Students


Check out the questions about the budget and the gun laws?

Were they planted, or do only Obamaites do that?

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by shabba4detroit

Absolutely it's similar. It's par for the course. There was Clinton hate and Reagan hate and Bush hate and Obama hate. There will always be naysayers.

But to suggest that the Obama hate is more visceral than the Bush hate, or that the Obama haters are less reasonable than the Bush haters is ridiculous.

I didn't suggest that, I don't think.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

First off let me say once again that the outrage over both speeches was silly.

I do think that there is a difference between the two, though. In 91 the Dems felt his speech was political and came at a time when the campaign for the election of 92 was getting started. It also came after the speech was delivered. The outrage over Obama's speech came before the speech was given and was about fears that he was indoctrinating kids into communism/socialism/fascism or what ever ism you want.

There you go again with that silly "context" thing...

However, they did stupidly overreact, IMO.

[Boilerfan]

Originally Posted by ewsieg

He has no problem planting questions any other time, why is it so shocking some of us on the right might think he might have planted some more?

Do you think a group of HS kids could keep their mouth shut about that? Maybe he threatened their families or told them they would not get any financial aid for college or something.

[Boilerfan]

Originally Posted by Buddha

There you go again with that silly "context" thing...

However, they did stupidly overreact, IMO.

What is funny is that they estimated the cost to be about $25,00 - $50,000 or some amount that just seems so ridiculously small now.

[shabba4detroit]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I didn't suggest that, I don't think.

My post was in response to someone who did. Hence my confusion.

[billms]

Why is it ridiculous to "to suggest that the Obama hate is more visceral than the Bush hate, or that the Obama haters are less reasonable than the Bush haters"?

Are you saying its ridiculous a priori or based on considering the individual presidents and the nature of the "hate"? I do think that there is irrational hatred driven politics - I don't think that all cases of this are equal in magnitude, intensity, or "reasonableness".

[Melody]

Do you know what's sad and ironic? After all the fuss over a neighboring school district's decision to tape and allow teachers show the speech later -- most schools in that district lack the technology to telecast to all classrooms at the same time -- a large church offered use of their auditorium for a live broadcast and the district agreed to give a half-day excused absence for children who attended. The church even offered a free lunch. It's a huge church with a pastor who is well regarded in the community. (I was acquainted with him years ago. One of my favorite pastors. Remarkably sensible for an SBC pastor.) Cornerstone Baptist Church, Arlington, Texas

The newspaper reported this morning that a total of about a hundred people showed up. This included all parents and children. I'm guessing that the count didn't include the kids from the school that church operates. That's a little disappointing, really.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

I listened to that. He was taking questions from kids. Was he not to answer them? Or was he to screen the questions so nothing political was asked?

I was simply stating why some were frightened at the president addressing their kids. No matter who asked the questions, they didn't want their child to be preached at about something they felt was not right for the country.

Obviously it didn't happen that way, and the fuss was much ado about nothing, but can you not see why many were critical of the president addressing their kids? What he said in the article I posted above was exactly what the parents did not want their kids to hear from the president.

Personally, I like the idea of the president addressing the kids. I thought what he had to say was GREAT! No matter which party they belong to, it is good to hear from the leader of the free world. But like I said before, when politics are involved, I can understand why others do not.

[billms]

Yes. There are freaky screwed up people. Always have been. We should make fun of them.

[Porcelain God]

Personally I think it's kind of silly for any parent to not want their kids see the President address them, did anyone really (really?) think he would make it political? The lack of respect from some people for our President really frightens me sometimes.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Personally, I like the idea of the president addressing the kids. I thought what he had to say was GREAT! No matter which party they belong to, it is good to hear from the leader of the free world. But like I said before, when politics are involved, I can understand why others do not.

I can't. I think it's ridiculous.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Buddha

I can't. I think it's ridiculous.

Let me play the devil's advocate. What if this were President Bush, and he was talking about how great the Iraq war has been for the people of Iraq and the world?

Basically Obama said the same thing about health care when talking to the class in the article I listed above.

Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I just can understand why a parent would be concerned.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Let me play the devil's advocate. What if this were President Bush, and he was talking about how great the Iraq war has been for the people of Iraq and the world?

Basically Obama said the same thing about health care when talking to the class in the article I listed above.

Wouldn't care. That's why children have parents.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Let me play the devil's advocate. What if this were President Bush, and he was talking about how great the Iraq war has been for the people of Iraq and the world?

Basically Obama said the same thing about health care when talking to the class in the article I listed above.

Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I just can understand why a parent would be concerned.

If the kid asked the question, then the President has a right to answer it. It looked like it was a private setting.

It was not much different than Pres Reagan speech in 1989 (?) that I linked to.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Buddha

Wouldn't care. That's why children have parents.

Again, neither do I. But you and I probably represent 60% of the parents in the US. 20% are not around enough to care if Charles Manson were speaking to their kids. The other 20% will be concerned over political things, and I don't think they are being ridiculous for it. I'd rather them be a little too protective, than not care at all like the 20% that aren't around, or just simply don't pay attention to their kids.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

Let me play the devil's advocate. What if this were President Bush, and he was talking about how great the Iraq war has been for the people of Iraq and the world?

Basically Obama said the same thing about health care when talking to the class in the article I listed above.

Again, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I just can understand why a parent would be concerned.

You're conflating Obama answering a Q&A in a non-televised discussion with his giving a nationally broadcast speech to kids. No relation between the two.

I can understand why parents would be concerned too: they're deluded

[billms]

I suspect Obama has an opinion on the HPV vaccine as well - and that is directly a school issue. I doubt he'd bring that up to an elementary school crowd either.

[CMRivdog]

I did like his "Facebook" response.

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by Buddha

There you go again with that silly "context" thing...

However, they did stupidly overreact, IMO.

Yes Obama is at the make or break stages of his presidency, it's now or never time for him to make people believe in his health care thing, whether he becomes a FDR or a Jimmy Carter. Bush Sr. did it when he was immensely popular coming a highly popular war operation, of which he was above 90% in the polls a few short months earlier, he looked unstoppable at the time he gave the speech in 1991, re-election looked like a given, there wasn't any Democratic challengers in site. Your contextual argument doesn't hold water in this case.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

You're conflating Obama answering a Q&A in a non-televised discussion with his giving a nationally broadcast speech to kids. No relation between the two.

I can understand why parents would be concerned too: they're deluded

I'm not making myself clear here. Parents were concerned that what Obama said to a single classroom, would be what was broadcasted on a national level. Until Obama released what he was going to say, some parents were concerned. I don't think I would label them deluded.

Would you have had a problem if Bush had been spending the last 6 months defending the war in Iraq, trying to raise support for it, and announced he was going to address the school children of our country, without giving people what he was going to say in that address?

Would you label parents that would be concerned in the circumstance above as delusional?

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I'm not making myself clear here. Parents were concerned that what Obama said to a single classroom, would be what was broadcasted on a national level. Until Obama released what he was going to say, some parents were concerned. I don't think I would label them deluded.

Would you have had a problem if Bush had been spending the last 6 months defending the war in Iraq, trying to raise support for it, and announced he was going to address the school children of our country, without giving people what he was going to say in that address?

Would you label parents that would be concerned in the circumstance above as delusional?

Using this scenario I still would not have a problem with it. He had been talking about it for six months. He is the President. It would be something to discuss over the dinner table, or on the way to or from school, music lessons, football practice or whatever was going on that evening.


Maybe I was a bad parent, the only thing (in the news) I really tried to shield my son against was the videos of the Challenger Disaster. He knew about the accident, I thought he was too young to see the videos. Had he been about the same age during 9/11, I would have attempted not to let him see the videos of the planes hitting the buildings.

Otherwise, we talked about it and his feelings.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

Using this scenario I still would not have a problem with it. He had been talking about it for six months. He is the President. It would be something to discuss over the dinner table, or on the way to or from school, music lessons, football practice or whatever was going on that evening.

My problem with it is that these kids have no choice. As adults, I don't have to listen to president talk about something I disagree with. If I am a hard core pro life individual, I don't have to listen to anyone tell me why abortion is a good thing for our country. If I am against health care reform that is being presented, I don't have to listen to someone tell me why it is a good thing. If I am for gay marriage, I don't have to listen to someone tell me how wrong it is. These kids, by law, have to go to school. Parents can make up some excuse not to bring them, but if they are in school that day, they have to listen. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it would be right for a politician to talk politics to elementary, or even middle school/high school kids.

Obama didn't do that, and I commend him for it. I just find it strange that so many on the left are acting just like those fanatics on the right, by saying that it doesn't matter what the Presidents says, the kids should count it a privilege to have the opportunity to listen to him. It does matter, and parents are not crazy to be concerned about it, like so many here are labeling them. (no doubt some are crazy though )

Maybe I was a bad parent, the only thing (in the news) I really tried to shield my son against was the videos of the Challenger Disaster. He knew about the accident, I thought he was too young to see the videos. Had he been about the same age during 9/11, I would have attempted not to let him see the videos of the planes hitting the buildings.

Otherwise, we talked about it and his feelings.

I don't have a problem with schools talking about a natural disaster, American tragedy, etc. It is not equivalent with a president talking about why the Iraq war is good, why nationalized health care is good, why abortion is good/bad, etc. That is why parents were concerned. I'm of the opinion, that a 15 minute speech can't undo what I'm teaching my kids. So I wouldn't worry about it, if I were a parent. I'm just not going to criticize those who were concerned as being ridiculous.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I'm not making myself clear here. Parents were concerned that what Obama said to a single classroom, would be what was broadcasted on a national level. Until Obama released what he was going to say, some parents were concerned. I don't think I would label them deluded.

Would you have had a problem if Bush had been spending the last 6 months defending the war in Iraq, trying to raise support for it, and announced he was going to address the school children of our country, without giving people what he was going to say in that address?

Would you label parents that would be concerned in the circumstance above as delusional?

If they were concerned along the lines of, "I hope he doesn't talk about..." then I would not label them deluded. If they called the school to complain/have the speech pulled, or threatened to pull their kids out of school that day, they would definitely be deluded

[Boilerfan]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I'm not making myself clear here. Parents were concerned that what Obama said to a single classroom, would be what was broadcasted on a national level. Until Obama released what he was going to say, some parents were concerned. I don't think I would label them deluded.

Would you have had a problem if Bush had been spending the last 6 months defending the war in Iraq, trying to raise support for it, and announced he was going to address the school children of our country, without giving people what he was going to say in that address?

Would you label parents that would be concerned in the circumstance above as delusional?

He said all along what the content of the speech was going to be.

Again what he said in those classrooms were answers to questions. Was he not supposed to answer them? Have you read or heard what he said in the classroom. It really was not very political at all. he essentially just defined what the problem was and said we need a system that works for everyone. I really don't recall hearing him say anything heavily on policy. I was listening at work so I may have missed it, but I really do not think he did.

Would these same parents want to see advanced copies of Bush or Reagan's speeches when they spoke to school children? I would bet they wouldn't.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

My problem with it is that these kids have no choice. As adults, I don't have to listen to president talk about something I disagree with. If I am a hard core pro life individual, I don't have to listen to anyone tell me why abortion is a good thing for our country. If I am against health care reform that is being presented, I don't have to listen to someone tell me why it is a good thing. If I am for gay marriage, I don't have to listen to someone tell me how wrong it is. These kids, by law, have to go to school. Parents can make up some excuse not to bring them, but if they are in school that day, they have to listen. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't think it would be right for a politician to talk politics to elementary, or even middle school/high school kids.

Obama didn't do that, and I commend him for it. I just find it strange that so many on the left are acting just like those fanatics on the right, by saying that it doesn't matter what the Presidents says, the kids should count it a privilege to have the opportunity to listen to him. It does matter, and parents are not crazy to be concerned about it, like so many here are labeling them. (no doubt some are crazy though )

.

My feeling is once a child reaches a certain age (somewhere around 7th, 8th grade) they are old enough to make their own decisions.

Any politician dumb enough to subject grade schoolers to dogma (either right or left) deserves what he gets.

As for the Challenger or 9/11. My feeling was that at 5 or 6 they were too young to watch the video over and over again. Talk about it yes, but they don't have to watch it numerous times.

Then again, we never watched the Simpsons the first serveral seasons and you can be sure he would have never recieved a Bart Simpson tee shirt from me. The same for radio, since I worked mornings it was not an issue. But "Morning Zoos" were out when we were in the car (if I was off and he had school). And you can be sure he would never have heard Howard Stern, if he had been syndicated back then.

(Whey he was older I did introduce him to Isaac Hayes and "Hot Buttered Soul" long before South Park)

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

If they were concerned along the lines of, "I hope he doesn't talk about..." then I would not label them deluded. If they called the school to complain/have the speech pulled, or threatened to pull their kids out of school that day, they would definitely be deluded

I haven't seen the numbers, but most parents I talked to, that were concerned about the speech, lost concern when they released the contents of the speech.

Again, this is the same ole', same ole'. If Bush would have addressed the kids 2 years ago, there would have been a TON of people on the left claiming GOP indoctrination. Hitler and his whole indoctrination methods would have mentioned, etc. People get heated up over politics, and double that heat when their kids are involved. I'm not going to call a parent deluded if they are worried about someone influencing their kids in the wrong way. I started this thread as a shot against those who immediately labeled this as a wrong without any real evidence. I felt most the critics probably wouldn't be affected, as they don't have kids in schools anymore. Parents of kids have EVERY right to be critical and outspoken. Some where delusional, but I'm sure most were just concerned about their kids. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

[sinister porpoise]

Concerned about what?
What is
1) Plausible for Obama to say to a national audience that
2) Would negatively impact their child

Even if Obama had made a case for universal health care.. so.. what? Little Johnny wouldn't die from hearing a political opinion.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I haven't seen the numbers, but most parents I talked to, that were concerned about the speech, lost concern when they released the contents of the speech.

Again, this is the same ole', same ole'. If Bush would have addressed the kids 2 years ago, there would have been a TON of people on the left claiming GOP indoctrination. Hitler and his whole indoctrination methods would have mentioned, etc. People get heated up over politics, and double that heat when their kids are involved. I'm not going to call a parent deluded if they are worried about someone influencing their kids in the wrong way. I started this thread as a shot against those who immediately labeled this as a wrong without any real evidence. I felt most the critics probably wouldn't be affected, as they don't have kids in schools anymore. Parents of kids have EVERY right to be critical and outspoken. Some where delusional, but I'm sure most were just concerned about their kids. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

I would have been concerned only if VP Cheney threatened to waterboard them if they didn't listen.

Once again, no President in his right mind, especially his first term would do anything the remotely controversial with gradeschool kids.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by Boilerfan

He said all along what the content of the speech was going to be.

What about the pre and post questions that the teachers were asked to teach?

Again what he said in those classrooms were answers to questions. Was he not supposed to answer them? Have you read or heard what he said in the classroom. It really was not very political at all. he essentially just defined what the problem was and said we need a system that works for everyone. I really don't recall hearing him say anything heavily on policy. I was listening at work so I may have missed it, but I really do not think he did.

Regardless if they were questions, why is it right to force a child to listen to those questions and answers? When did the morality of health care become part of the curriculum?

Would these same parents want to see advanced copies of Bush or Reagan's speeches when they spoke to school children? I would bet they wouldn't.

Why does that matter? If a right to life spokesman came in and talked about the wrongness of abortion, I'm sure the catholic/christian parents wouldn't want advanced copies of the speech either. It doesn't make them any more wrong or right.

Political talking points just don't seem appropriate or necessary in a public classroom. Just my two cents.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Concerned about what?
What is
1) Plausible for Obama to say to a national audience that
2) Would negatively impact their child

Even if Obama had made a case for universal health care.. so.. what? Little Johnny wouldn't die from hearing a political opinion.

When did this become a "life or death" thing? Kids wouldn't "die" if they were taught the 10 commandments either.

Are you saying that you would have been o.k. with President Bush talking about the great things that have happened in the middle east because of the Iraq War? (I think I've asked this 3-4 times already)

[CMRivdog]

I remember "Scared Straight" and "Toma" assemblies, I'm sure there was not any advance information about them.

I thought they were kind of funny. I would imagine, I would have felt the same way with the question and answer periods with the Presidents as well.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

I would have been concerned only if VP Cheney threatened to waterboard them if they didn't listen.

Once again, no President in his right mind, especially his first term would do anything the remotely controversial with gradeschool kids.

So parents are delusional to worry it may happen to their kid(s)?

I'm not going to criticize them for it. Maybe I'm the delusional one here!

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

So parents are delusional to worry it may happen to their kid(s)?

I'm not going to criticize them for it. Maybe I'm the delusional one here!

What I said was beyond a certain age, kids need to begin to think for themselves. Its the parents responsibility to make sure they are prepared to do so.

Once again, I don't think ANY PRESIDENT would expound on controversial topics to any students below a certain age.

After a certain age, (8th grade, 9th grade) the kids have already been exposed to most of what the President would talk about that might be controversial. If they have not, I fear for their parents.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

When did this become a "life or death" thing? Kids wouldn't "die" if they were taught the 10 commandments either.

Are you saying that you would have been o.k. with President Bush talking about the great things that have happened in the middle east because of the Iraq War? (I think I've asked this 3-4 times already)

People complained about socialistic indoctrination when such a thing was never going to be in this speech and there was no reason to suspect it would be.

If Obama or Bush had a short line allluding to their politics I would not have minded.
If either of them went on for a long while it would be inappropriate.

Finally.. if it was announced that Bush was going to give a speech to kids about staying in school and achieving their goals, and a bunch of liberals claimed he was going to indoctrinate defenseless children to imperialism and war without any support for that, and then tried to stop schools from showing his speech (again without any evidence) that would have been very wrong. I think your comments here are glossing over the real facts here: pressuring schools to not show a speech without any reason to suspect what was claimed

[Boilerfan]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

What about the pre and post questions that the teachers were asked to teach?

What about them?

Regardless if they were questions, why is it right to force a child to listen to those questions and answers? When did the morality of health care become part of the curriculum?

They were forced? Really?

Why does that matter? If a right to life spokesman came in and talked about the wrongness of abortion, I'm sure the catholic/christian parents wouldn't want advanced copies of the speech either. It doesn't make them any more wrong or right.

Believe it or not at our school they brought in a very vocal anti-choice "minister" to speak to students at the HS here. This was done without telling parents he was going to speak. I was pissed and told the Superintendent I was. Just like I expressed my displeasure about not offering yesterdays speech to students.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

People complained about socialistic indoctrination when such a thing was never going to be in this speech and there was no reason to suspect it would be.

Except that Obama has been trying to sell that with health care the past six months?

If Obama or Bush had a short line allluding to their politics I would not have minded.
If either of them went on for a long while it would be inappropriate.

Finally.. if it was announced that Bush was going to give a speech to kids about staying in school and achieving their goals, and a bunch of liberals claimed he was going to indoctrinate defenseless children to imperialism and war without any support for that, and then tried to stop schools from showing his speech (again without any evidence) that would have been very wrong. I think your comments here are glossing over the real facts here: pressuring schools to not show a speech without any reason to suspect what was claimed

I don't think I ever said that wasn't wrong, but those who claim parents are "delusional", "ridiculous", for not wanting their kids used in the health care debate is what I'm addressing. The paint brush has been wide on this thread and in others about painting parents that were concerned about the possibilities that their children would be used in this way. No it wouldn't "kill" their kids to be in the middle of a health care debate, but I can understand why they wouldn't want it to happen anyway!

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

What I said was beyond a certain age, kids need to begin to think for themselves. Its the parents responsibility to make sure they are prepared to do so.

Once again, I don't think ANY PRESIDENT would expound on controversial topics to any students below a certain age.

After a certain age, (8th grade, 9th grade) the kids have already been exposed to most of what the President would talk about that might be controversial. If they have not, I fear for their parents.

Does it matter what you "think"? Some parents don't think a rated "R" movie is terrible for a kid, others do.

Parents have every right to protect their kids from things they deem unnecessary for them to be a part of. It doesn't make them delusional IMO.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

What about the pre and post questions that the teachers were asked to teach.

As I've stated in other posts, a teacher worth his/her salt would use his/her discretion in what questions to ask, or whether to have a discussion on the speech

Regardless if they were questions, why is it right to force a child to listen to those questions and answers? When did the morality of health care become part of the curriculum?

Once again this should be at the discretion of the teacher and the age of the students. It might make a good discussion in civics/government classes, not so in math.

Why does that matter? If a right to life spokesman came in and talked about the wrongness of abortion, I'm sure the catholic/christian parents wouldn't want advanced copies of the speech either. It doesn't make them any more wrong or right.

So no one should listen to viewpoints they disagree with? Just let parents "Brainwash" their kids and not teach them to think for themselves?

Political talking points just don't seem appropriate or necessary in a public classroom. Just my two cents.

I wish I could have told my World History teacher that 40 years ago when she called "Earth Day" a communist plot.