LyraM45

It's not as pathetic or paranoid as you or others may think. There was genuine and reasonable concern Obama was going to make the school speech political. Well the speech certainly wasn't but he sure couldn't pass up the opportunity to make his national healthcare sales pitch to a bunch of freshman. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-in-Discussion-with-9th-Graders-Wakefield-High-School/ Credit to 1969912 for finding the link. He was asked a question in a student forum, and he gave an answer. MUCH different than a planned out speech pushing his agendas across the country. I am POSITIVE that Bush, Clinton, or any other president in the past 10 years would have answered a question like that in the same type of forum with high schoolers or adults. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Y'all are funny. Do you really believe that any politician has been 100% truthful all his/her life? ANY one of them lies on a daily basis. Time to take off your rose colored GOP hating glasses and join reality. I don't' give a damn what party someone is with. I think Ron Paul is as good as they get, and he is in the GOP. I think Pelosi is a waste of space, and she is a Democrat. The fact is the majority of the politicians who have been making complete asses of themselves lately, come from the GOP. Deal with it. Here is a link to the video of where and why . . . I agree that it was bad form, but the POTUS had just finished doing exactly the same thing to the majority of the GOP. The hard part that noone can seem to grasp is that even though it was bad form, it was a truthful statement. And to Matt: Both parties are morally corrupt and finacially inept and the inverse is correct as well; the parties are morrally inept and financially corrupt. Edited to correct link syntax I don't think he ever called the GOP out by name... he was taking that statement to the edge in what he said that obviously referenced the GOP, but never once called them out directly by name, which is MUCH better taste than the guy with the outburst. I saw people reference that they do this in england, which in fact they do, but only to an extent. They throw banter back and forth, much different than what we do in the U.S house, but a British Parlament member called Margaret Thatcher a liar one time directly to her face during forum, and that person was escorted out of the hall and I think he was throw out completely for good, though I am not 100% sure on the last bit of that about being thrown out for good. All in all, I think this just shows the levels the polarized right are taking this to. NEVER.... NEVER in the history of congressional addresses was somebody ever so disrespectful. Even with Presidents (like Reagan) who really were in fact liars! This SC senator looks even more ridiculous when you look at the bill-- the amendment the senator was using to base his case that the POS was a liar was a DEFEATED amendment. It was an amendment that did include illegal aliens in the health care act, but it got shot down, and it got shot down very quickly. It is now said in the actual bill that no person who is on U.S soil illegally shall be taken care of as part of this bill using these funds. I do not have the exact part of the bill in front of me that says that, but I'll have to do some digging and find the text. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

If it's a contest, then then "you" wins. He said "you" 10 times and if you count "your" and "yourself" it's 17 total. That's almost 3:1 for "you" over "I" in the battle of the pronouns A lil' linguistical analysis - neat. Thanks for going back to the primary document. /Marg +1... thank for going back and pointing this out. Now the numbers back it up. Next argument, please..... Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

No only because my situation was shaped by such circumstance that I had both parents in my life, but I would still make a speech to kids about how I came from a welfare family and worked hard at my studies no matter what cards I was dealt in my life, and now I am a working professional getting a masters degree. Not the same situation, but hopefully equally inspiring to some kid thinking that there is no way he'll make it because of his circumstances like a father walking out or being from a poor family. Even people with PhD's find themselves in rough times-- emotionally, physically, and they too tend to run into circumstances where they become downtrodden. I've seen people with PhD's go downhill mentally... maybe they become skitzo or aquire some other mental disorder, and without support of family their life gets turned upside down and they are eating at soup kitchens, collecting welfare, or collecting disability. Having a PhD does not make you immune to these things. I think he has better things to do and bigger fish to fry.....really. Ummm... another right wing rumor started right here in our very own speakers corner. I'm sure it will end up on some conservative news paper headline tomorrow. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

VERY VERY VERY VERY GOOD POST!!!!! Well said! Thank you for being objective in this situation. We need more people from the outside looking in trying to see it from everybody elses shoes and then make fair judgment. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I shared this gallery on my facebook last week, and I have to admit, it gave me some good chuckles!!! Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

A lot of stuff like this was examined in a independent documentary film called "Outrage." I saw it in theater and it was VERY good and well done. There are a butt ton of GOP law makers that pride themselves on wholesome christian family values and are the hardest campaigners against gay marriage/rights and even vote 'no' on anything that has to do with AIDS research, but then they're the ones that end up being the closet gays. Go figure. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Dept. of Education should have thought of that BEFORE they put "write letters to themselves about how they can help the President" as part of the lesson plan, then. But if people would have waited to hear the speech before they went on a witch hunt it would have been obvious as to what the question, "what can I do to help the president," really meant. After hearing that speech the answer would have been, "I can help him by listening to my teachers, never giving up, and furthering my education and being all that I can be in my life." Do I think ti was the best choice of words? Probably not because yes, the opportunity is there to take it just like the republicans/conservatives took it and ran with it. But I am almost certain that that was the context that question was to be taken in or else why would he have that partisan question in there like that when the rest of the speech lacked anything partisan? It wouldn't have matched up at all... would have made zero sense. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Well, I think it would be really crappy of them to have a problem with the speeches content, which in this case it sounds like they didn't and it was more so about using 26K of NEA funds to make the taping. I think thats an awful lot of money for that too. I am not sure what Obama's shindig cost the NEA but if it's that much money then I have a problem with him doing it as well. Attacking for use of funds is still attacking, but its VERY different than denouncing the president BEFORE he even speaks saying he is going to indoctrinate and brainwash all of America's children. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

It can, and I'm sure it will, but even if it only touches a handful of kids isn't that enough? Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I've only been bothered once with my rig, and it was the one time I had to ditch the rolly bag I usually keep it in and carried it on my back through security (I had to check something on that I purchased on my trip in that rolly bag.) So, IMO carrying it out in the open is begging to attract more attention from the TSA. It was last month in Philly when they had to pull me aside and get everybody and their mother to come inspect, look, swab, and gawk at my rig. I had to open the tray up, and they even swabbed over my reserve pin which made me a little nervous with them tinkering under my reserve flap. They must have ran it through xray 100 times. I try to keep my cypress card on me as well as all the documents available for printing from the USPA and TSA website that says you are allowed to carry on a sport parachute rig. One more tid bit to note about the cypres, though I am sure it's mentioned somewhere in other threads-- this last trip to Cross Keys I was jumping the morning and leaving that afternoon. The friend I was jumping and traveling with reminded me it was a good idea to turn your cypres back off before getting on a commercial flight. I was so caught up in travel and the long day at the dz that I totally forgot, not to mention it had been so long since I turned off a cypres that I just about forgot how to do it! So, A.) always kept in a bag, B.) take your hook knife off so that doesn't catch securities eye and, C.) make sure you have that card and all of your documents with you. Following all of that I never had a problem with TSA or security. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

+1 with the whole hate thing. The people that made all of the fuss are now either A.) grasping for straws like you said, or B.) now being very very quiet about the whole issue. It is exactly what I was talking about a few posts back when I said I bet when the actual text comes out that these people who had such large voices about this whole thing would all of the sudden find no voice at all or come out to even bother apologizing or admitting they were wrong. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

That is sad to hear! I am reading the book right now and I was looking forward to the movie. Eh... oh, well. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Thats the same thing as evoking ones self when you talk to your kids. If you were to talk to your kids and say, "I support you. Don't let me down. Don't let yourself down. Do well," you expect your kids to hear that from an authority figure, a leader, a parent, the principal, the local policeman, the president, etc. I want to hear those figures say "I expect great things out of you when it comes to school. I expect you to listen to your parents and teachers and excel in your studies." When kids hear things like that from people with authority in powerful positions, I'd hope that they'd listen to message coming straight from their mouths, especially one as powerful as this one pertaining to education and their future. Do you have any further information or linked sources that supports the assumption that he is NOT working to fix education and classrooms? First everybody is up in arms that he is dealing with speaking to school children about their education, that he should be focusing on bigger fish to fry, and now you are telling me that he's NOT doing anything to fix schools or fix the education system (low test scores, drop out rates, etc.)? I have a feeling that this president will do more for the education system than anybody else has in the past decade. Obviously he has been frying those bigger fish lately, but I am hedging a bet that he'll make some positive changes. If not, well, then I am wrong (and I'll be dissapointed, since I truly do believe that education is this countries future so we can compete with the intelligence level and knowledge in foreign countries.), and I will say nasty things and flame this president as soon as he deserves it for that issue. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Thats the same thing as evoking ones self when you talk to your kids. If you were to talk to your kids and say, "I support you. Don't let me down. Don't let yourself down. Do well," you expect your kids to hear that from an authority figure, a leader, a parent, the principal, the local policeman, the president, etc. I want to hear those figures say "I expect great things out of you when it comes to school. I expect you to listen to your parents and teachers and excel in your studies." When kids hear things like that from people with authority in powerful positions, I'd hope that they'd listen to message coming straight from their mouths, especially one as powerful as this one pertaining to education and their future. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

And it's the same for the flip side. Whatever president from whatever party can be accused of putting himself out there and advertising himself just by giving a speech like this. No matter what party's president is in office at that time and decides to give a speech like this to school children is automatically in a loosing battle then if that is how it's seen. I honestly can not see many teachers taking this as an opportunity to spread the Obama love (if they have it.) As I remember it, when we had to watch things like this when I was in school many teachers went to great lengths to make sure their politics stayed out of it, even going as far as not answering some of our questions if it meant revealing the party of their choice. I trust teachers now a days enough to do the same... it's part of the integrity you have to hold when taking on the position of teacher. They hold that same integrity when it comes to religious discussions too. As far as I know it's just common knowledge amongst educators that you just don't go there. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Exactly as I would have said it. I am generally against war, but if someone comes and attacks you on your own land, you have a right to fight back. This is opposed to the second war in Iraq, that was inexcusably justified (based on the statement of ONE habitual liar), without cause (seeing as how the WMD was a lie), politically motivated (by an unethical president), and poorly planned (in that we are STILL there). Yes, we are probably exactly on the same page, as are many other folks like I said. I think many people who supported the war in Iraq just saw all of the people who opposed it as ani-war hippies, when in fact they just disagreed with the reason for the war (because there was none, and every reason given ended up being a lie.) A war with reason does not make it any less bloody, and my heart goes out to all of the soldiers dying out in Afghanistan right now (and the ones that have died in Iraq over the years), but their death is less in vain when fighting the men that first attacked us on 9/11. That's about all I'll say on that to avoid risking a thread hijack and steering it towards the war. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/ OK... is this enough to put the "indoctrinate," argument to rest? This is the official speech on the whitehouse website. I really think this is good for these students to hear, especially because there are parents who are not giving this message to their kids at home. (and kuddos to the ones that already do.) Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Right. The fuss would be coming from the other side of the political spectrum. You know, those folks who were "anti-war", so long as the war was in Iraq, but are now pro-war, simply because it's moving to Afghanistan. I wouldn't classify a lot of people as "ani-war" in general... a lot of people were "ant-war without a cause." Many folks, myself included, were OK with a war in the middle east if it meant going after our 9/11 buddies, which is what we are doing now finally. (I hope.) Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

In the other thread about the same topic, I typed in my notes from a class that I took in the 90's about Rhetoric of Campaigns and Revolutions. I can now say for a FACT. Yes, I did have a problem with President Bush giving that speech. I have notes in my hand writing questioning the motives and the rhetoric. So... about what others might think/feel, I can't and won't judge. About what I feel. Nope, not being biased just because it's President Obama. Then I respect your views/opinions/feelings on this topic even more. Unfortunately, I don't feel the masses who are the strongest voices protesting about this speech can say the same for their objectiveness and background. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I don't have actual data handy, but the last time I saw it (it's been about 10 years) it indicated that bachelor's degree holders were more likely to vote for Republican candidates, while those with both less and more education (high school or lower and graduate degrees) were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. There was also a startling degree of correlation between area of study and voting preferences for those with graduate degrees (although not nearly as much for those with bachelor's degrees). Things got really interesting when you asked graduate degree holder's to self-identify their politics. If I remember correctly some vast majority of those with Ph.D.'s in sociology and allied fields self-identified as "progressive" rather than "Democrat", while the group most likely to self-identify as "libertarian" (at rates something like 15 times the average) were Ph.D. holders in economics. I find it funny that most Ivy League and high end institutions tend to be in blue areas on the map. So you use that to validate your belief that that means the "blue" is smarter and better. Just like others value their self-identity. Regardless of whether you're Republican OR Democrat, I'm guessing that BOTH value their children and want to protect them. How they choose to do that and regarding what topics varies... but the basic point is that some people feel this "Public Service Announcement" is a threat. You can devalue that opinion by insulting or name calling or you can just accept that others have different views. Your choice. I am fine with their views. Their kids, their choice, but what I am NOT fine with is that if this was president Bush doing this same exact speech, these people probably wouldn't be causing all of the fuss. And what I am NOT fine with is all of these people causing all of the fuss not willing to be objective and fair enough to step back and say, "wow, I made a big deal out of nothing and made a mistake by saying he would push his political agenda," if he does in fact come out and give a non political speech about staying in school just like Bush did in 91. As for the blue on the map vs. where the Ivy Leagues are, I could care less since I did not go to an Ivy League, so it in fact has ZERO to do with my self identity (even less because of the fact that I am a INDEPENDENT). Rather, it was just a pure and simple physical observation to let the other poster know that he might have been wrong in his previous statement about republicans tending to be the more educated ones in more educated areas and such... just playing devils advocate. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

When you're starting to sit fly in the tunnel they limit air speed for safety reasons and don't give you enough to get off the net without using your back to generate lift. In the air you can rely almost entirely on your arms. Obviously, getting drag from your back allows a lot more latitude in the grips you take, even allowing you to sit with both hands in front of you, so that's what you want to be doing but it's different and takes some practice. You hit the nail right on the head. A lot of skydivers have so much trouble at first because of the slower speeds when you first start out. It's very hard to learn how to generate lift at slower speeds AND break all your bad habits and learn how to properly fly your body. Once you start flying topped out in the tunnel, it will begin to feel much like a regular skydive and by that time you'll know how you fly your body like it's second nature. Another thing that pans out better in the tunnel theoretically speaking is the learning curve. I am going to learn faster in a constant five minute block where I can attempt something over and over again versus five skydives where I have to land, pack, and do all the other things in between before getting up to have my 50 second go at it again. I am probably a little biased because I learned most of my flying in a tunnel first and then applied all of that in my skydiving when I eventually got back into jumping again last year-- so much so that my problem was opposite to a lot of skydivers and I had to learn how to fly with the effects of a rig on. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

I don't have actual data handy, but the last time I saw it (it's been about 10 years) it indicated that bachelor's degree holders were more likely to vote for Republican candidates, while those with both less and more education (high school or lower and graduate degrees) were more likely to vote for Democratic candidates. There was also a startling degree of correlation between area of study and voting preferences for those with graduate degrees (although not nearly as much for those with bachelor's degrees). Things got really interesting when you asked graduate degree holder's to self-identify their politics. If I remember correctly some vast majority of those with Ph.D.'s in sociology and allied fields self-identified as "progressive" rather than "Democrat", while the group most likely to self-identify as "libertarian" (at rates something like 15 times the average) were Ph.D. holders in economics. I find it funny that most Ivy League and high end institutions tend to be in blue areas on the map. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

Absolutely. Maybe people should wait to find out what the delivered message is before they start fear mongering. But then again, if the intended goal is to promote divisiveness and to ensure that Obama fails at absolutely any effort, then waiting to hear what he actually says may be counterproductive. Best to put the straw man out there and set it afire. of course - it's SOP for any party with the other party's guy in the hotseat I dunno. Seems like this raises the bar to a level I have never seen before in my life. I can not think of a single time I have ever heard of masses of people planning to take their kids our of school for a day so that they won't have to listen to the President of the US say something. That the parents actually believe listening to the PRESIDENT is going to harm their kids. Can you? Some idiots decided to take a perfectly reasonable talk from the President telling kids to stay in school and get good grades (BTW, the ONE thing that really is the magic bullet for success in life) and turn it into something sinister. Fucking grow up people. +1. No matter what this guys says these people are going to find a problem with it, taking ANY opportunity to burn the guy at the stake and keep kicking and screaming like school children who have not gotten their way on the playground. Honestly, I don't think he is dumb enough to enovoke children to push his political agenda on. I will be the first person to burn this guy at the stake if he decideds to air something in the classroom that says, "Government run healthcare is good, MMmm K, kiddies?" But I am willing to bet my first born on it that he doesn't, and purely sticks to an atta boy go getter speech to do well in school, focus on your studies and education because it is the key to the future and success in ones life. Since I am willing to take a step back and say, "wow, holy crap... that's fucked up," if he goes in and pushes his agenda, are all of the fear mongers spilling paranoia all over their place and ripping their kids out of school willing to take a step back and say, "wow... he gave a good speech supporting education in school. I was wrong."?? PROBABLY NOT. Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)