Up until the "Teaching Materials" and Super-Stars PR'ing Obozo parts, i wouldn't have any problem with this.

Since WHEN does the Prez set educational goals?  (This, folks, is what ignoring our Constitution is going to bring, for all of us)  His speech to them, and a short discussion in the classroom regarding it, is all it NEEDS TO BE.

Can you explain what part of the teaching materials you are so concerned by and why? Here (and here) they are for your convenience. I have a suspicion that you haven't examined them yet.

Heck, since WHEN does the Prez give speeches to LITTLE KIDS??  And why?

For over 2 decades?

Reagan
Bush 1
Clinton
Bush 2

And why? Maybe to inspire them? Being addressed by the president of the US is considered something of an honor in certain circles.

He was reading a childrens' book, to children. If you refuse to recognize that there is a difference between this and prepared lecture accompanied by a prepared course/study outline coming from a man whose social and academic circles have consisted almost exclusively of avowed communists, left-wing racists, and the occasional domestic terrorist, whose first executive order as president was giving union labor exclusive rights to federal contracts, who has seized control of the census, whose justice department blew precedent out of the water to let the Black Panthers who were waving billy clubs on the steps of a voting station on election day off the hook, who has picked fights with private citizens and overseen an absolutely obscene expansion of government...

 Are you familiar the expression of having "drank the Kool-Aid"?

 You want to know why I'm opposed to Obama? Because he is a statist, for one, and for another because I believe he is a pathological narcissist. Either of those alone in a position of leadership has often been enough to destroy nations. When combined they too often lead to absolute mayhem.

 But hey, who am I to question the greatness of the One, the Hope?

 Like the Hondurans who had the audacity to expel a fellow traveler of The Messiah (and the Castros, and Chavez, and Ortega) for merely attempting to make himself dictator-for-life, like the Israelis who dared build settlements on their own land, like the Iranians who so rudely rebelled at a time inconvenient for Dear Leader, I should know my place, and keep silent.

No, the point was that he was in a classroom full of kids. Which was a response to the question: "Heck, since WHEN does the Prez give speeches to LITTLE KIDS??  And why?"

The reason he was in the classroom is unimportant to the point I was making.

You want to know why I'm opposed to Obama? Because he is a statist, for one, and for another because I believe he is a pathological narcissist. Either of those alone in a position of leadership has often been enough to destroy nations. When combined they too often lead to absolute mayhem.

Like I've been saying, there are valid ways and invalid ways of criticizing a person whose politics you disagree with.

Anti-statist opposition to federal health-care and social welfare programs is one thing. There's an intellectual basis to this sort of argument.
Vague arguments that there is a vast conspiracy collaborating to keep up the pretense that the president is a US Citizens is not a valid criticism. There's an anti-intellectual basis to this sort of argument.
National socialist concerns that giving union labor advantages over their capitalist counterparts will destroy the state is one thing. The intellectual debate rages.
Paranoid suggestions that Obama will be using his O-waves to brainwash our children into faggot-loving dope fiends on Sept. 8, however, fails to rise to the level of valid criticism. We're back in anti-intellectual territory for that one.

The distinction is kind of subtle but it's worth taking the time to understand if you wish to be taken seriously.

The No Child Left Behind program that Bush enacted was a complete failure.

The No Child Left Behind program that Bush, Ted Kennedy, and the majority of congressional Democrats enacted was a complete failure.

This "in your face, celebrate my Black-ness/Latino-ness/Asian-ness" shit that is perpetuated by the Dems is definitely what keeps racism alive in the US. The only way we are ever going to get a long is to stop pointing out that which makes us different.

Also educational initiatives that let some elements of society skate by because they are underprivileged, poor or have been drinking water out of lead pipes and are not capable of learning are also racism. Giving you a high school diploma and turning you loose on society with an IQ of 62 or the inability to read or do simple math should be a crime.

Oh but we can't give Jamal a failing grade, that would damage his self-esteem...

I think we need to stop pretending that everyone should aim for college.  Some people aren't cut out for college unless you continuously lower standards.  It's the same thing that happened with high school diplomas in this country -- some people simply can't meet a basic level of academic achievement, so standards have been continuously lowered in order to allow more people to "earn" a high school diploma.

I like the German structure for educating children.  Everyone goes to primary school through 10 or 12 years old, then there are several different paths for students based on skill level.

I like the idea of common testing for children.  I don't like it as a criteria for funding - rather, as a criteria for flunking kids and making them repeat grades.  Or denying them entry into say, the higher levels of academic schools beyond primary school in my hypothetical educational system.



Also, it's disingenuous to give either political party credit for the bill.  It was an example of what truly bipartisan politics can bring us!  It passed with 87% of the vote in the Democratic controlled Senate & 89% of the vote in the Republican controlled House.  Really, I think whoever coined the name "No Child Left Behind" deserves the bulk of the credit, because it's hard to vote against that, just like it was hard to vote against something with a name like the "Patriot Act."

National socialist concerns that giving union labor advantages over their capitalist counterparts will destroy the state is one thing. The intellectual debate rages.
Paranoid suggestions that Obama will be using his O-waves to brainwash our children into faggot-loving dope fiends on Sept. 8, however, fails to rise to the level of valid criticism. We're back in anti-intellectual territory for that one.

The distinction is kind of subtle but it's worth taking the time to understand if you wish to be taken seriously.

Excuse me, but i never stated that, nor do i believe it.

Don't you understand that it's the psychology of the thing?  Or is psychology not "valid intellectual territory?"

To Mosh:  What was GW doing there?  NOT GIVING THEM A SPEECH, actually honoring them with his presence.  i don't know about you, but i don't generally feel very "honored" by being forced to watch someone, ON TV, give a speech, even if it IS directed completely toward me.


p.s.  i'm a Constitutionalist, and tbh, i have a major problem with the Hillary appointment, also.  It was UNconstitutional (Read That: Against The Laws of the Land), but, it would appear, our gov are the LAST FOLKS to "pay attention" to our laws, and/or abide by them.

Whatever. This is pointless. If you can't see the difference between bogymen and real danger then we're all wasting our time.

Whatever. This is pointless. If you can't see the difference between bogymen and real danger then we're all wasting our time.

Sorry you feel that way.

<~ STFU'ing

Never apologize, never explain. Fag.

To Mosh:  What was GW doing there?  NOT GIVING THEM A SPEECH, actually honoring them with his presence.  i don't know about you, but i don't generally feel very "honored" by being forced to watch someone, ON TV, give a speech, even if it IS directed completely toward me.

What GW was doing there is immaterial. He was there. Your point was WTF business does the President have being in a class with little kids? Incidentally, GW was reading to those kids, which if I remember rightly is just as boring as a speech. Mind you, it might have been a touch funnier with Bushism's.

See the distinction?

Wow. After reading that speech I, as a 46 year old man, feel compelled to join the Communist, Black Panther, Jews control EVERYTHING, anti-Democracy, hate whitey, America suxs Party...

Yeah, don't let your kids listen, fucktards.

Heck, since WHEN does the Prez give speeches to LITTLE KIDS??  And why?

To Mosh:  What was GW doing there?  NOT GIVING THEM A SPEECH, actually honoring them with his presence.  i don't know about you, but i don't generally feel very "honored" by being forced to watch someone, ON TV, give a speech, even if it IS directed completely toward me.

Here are my posts, with what i said, bolded, for everyone's edification.

Now, if we can UNwrap ourselves from the axle over this, perhaps we can get on with some sort of meaningful dialogue, eh?

Child Psychology is not equal to Adult Psychology ~ it's so much easier to "trick" children.  Study upon study has been done, in order to TARGET children, in the advertising arena (Read That : PR).  To assume that NONE of that was taken into consideration when making this Lesson Plan is the height of stupidity, imho.  Just because YOU don't see, nor recognize, it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

THAT's what "scares" me about it.

President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C.

Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.

President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C.

Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.

Yes, and i'd have no problem with Obozo giving a speech ~ it's the accompanying Lesson Plan/Teaching Materials and PR crap that bother me, not because it might be Pro-Obozo, but because it might be Pro-HUMONGUS-Government and slanted to be Anti-Constitution.

I just read the speech. Can someone please point out to me what the fuck exactly was wrong with it?

 Are you suggesting that Obama would in no way alter his intended speech in light of the nation-wide criticisms which preceded it?

Haha. Oh, I get you. Why wait until after the speech to throw a fit when Glenn Beck issues the command to go for it early, right? Who needs a tangible fact-based reason to complain when we have such good imaginations? I mean let's be honest - before our preemptive indignation-fest, there was never any assurance given to us that Obama wouldn't just pull out his tallywacker right there on national television and permanently ruin the virtues of our daughters, right? Good point. I'm sure he scrapped that plan after he realized that the Forces of the Right were onto him.

Bahahahaha!

it's the accompanying Lesson Plan/Teaching Materials and PR crap that bother me, not because it might be Pro-Obozo, but because it might be Pro-HUMONGUS-Government and slanted to be Anti-Constitution.

All of which was invented by the right and do not even exist.

The big debate here is that the government wants to take over our schools and take responsibility for the education of our children.

My take on it, if done right, is that IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME SOMEONE DID! WE ARE RAISING A GENERATION OF MORONS. WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THAT HASN'T EDUCATED A SOUL JUST AS WE HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THAT HASN'T GENERATED A CALORIE! WTF ARE MY TAX DOLLARS (if I paid any) DOING?

It's about time that the US raised the bar, set a standard of education (like every other industrialized nation in the world) and if you don't cut it, you do it again until you get it right. No more free passes to the class clown. And if it comes from the top down, so be it.

Would it be the first time the Obama administration changed tack after being caught with its hand in the cookie jar?

A good prosecutor never asks a question without knowing the answer. So you tell me.

I hear a certain avowed communist and conspiracy theorist is looking for a new job.

Ok and name me an administration in recent memory that didn't have to kick out a bad apple. Anybody remember Spiro T. Agnew? I know you don't personally, but I have a couple of years on you.

No one had their hand in any cookie jar, they just had an attention whore who needed quelling.

However for the record, his environmental programs were not without merit unless you owned a mining company or a slew of coal fired power plants...

Van Jones is by no means the first Obama appointee or associate that has been thrown under the bus when the public discovered their dirty laundry.

And now we're being told by the White House that he didn't fill out the 7-page pre-employment questionnaire for which FOIA requests might be made.

This is the same White House from which we previously had a spokesman claiming they had watched Van Jones for years, and that what they saw led to them hiring him.


I would say that Hiss would be a better comparison for Jones, but the fallacy there would be in that Hiss had to infiltrate the Democrat party while van Jones was welcomed with open arms.

Oh please, Hiss? Who the fuck are you trying to be when you grow up, Joe McCarthy? Stop looking for communism under every rock.

A little Socialism would do this country some good. Level the playing field. Show these corporate fuckers that a few dacades in a gulag is better than a firing squad. Indoctrination is good for the soul. You should know that, you wanted to be a Marine.