PDA

View Full Version : Politics and school speeches


Totenkopf
09-08-2009, 01:19 PM
Looks like BO ain't the only one:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html

JediAthos
09-08-2009, 02:03 PM
Except that according to the AP Pres. Obama's speech was not politically charged:

"In a pep talk that kept clear of politics, President Barack Obama on Tuesday challenged the nation's students to take pride and ownership in their education and stick with it even if they don't like every class or must overcome tough circumstances at home."

Full article here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_school_speech

*Edit* I just read the text of the Obama speech and it didn't seem like there was a single politically motivated comment to it. I'm sure there are some people who will take snippets and twist them and such, but at face value it didn't come off political at all. To me it sounds people overreacted to the speech before it was even made.

Web Rider
09-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Yeah, compared to past presidential speeches directed towards students, this is nothing near previous levels of "indoctrination". If people don't value their children's education, then the can GTFO 'cause that's unamerican.

Ten-96
09-09-2009, 07:36 AM
Make sure you all keep in mind that after the initial announcement and subsequent probing by various organizations, the content and intention of the speech was changed. Originally, it was supposed to encourage school aged children to think of ways to "help" President Obama - much like that ridiculous "Pledge" commercial. There was even a lesson plan that teachers were supposed to implement with a guide that would have the students write down their pledge to help the President.

Q
09-09-2009, 07:42 AM
^Interesting.

JediAthos
09-09-2009, 12:50 PM
Make sure you all keep in mind that after the initial announcement and subsequent probing by various organizations, the content and intention of the speech was changed. Originally, it was supposed to encourage school aged children to think of ways to "help" President Obama - much like that ridiculous "Pledge" commercial. There was even a lesson plan that teachers were supposed to implement with a guide that would have the students write down their pledge to help the President.


I knew the lesson plan had been changed as according to the Secretary of Education it was "poorly worded" but I wasn't aware of any changes to the content of the speech.

mur'phon
09-09-2009, 02:04 PM
neither was I, any links?

Totenkopf
09-09-2009, 02:26 PM
I knew the lesson plan had been changed as according to the Secretary of Education it was "poorly worded" but I wasn't aware of any changes to the content of the speech.

Yes, that claim is ultimately speculative (what does "poorly worded" really mean), though not necessarily unreasonable given how politics work. My understanding of the politization of the speech was mostly rooted in the curriculum activities pushed by the Dept of Ed that almost stank of a "dear leader" quality. Frankly, and the original article about Bush demonstrated, as long as a president encourges students to work hard and not give up on their dreams (getting help when necessary), there's nothing wrong with that. Stay away from political crap like "how can I help X to achieve his goals" and such a speech can be both inspirational and innocuous enough to keep everyone basically happy.

Jae Onasi
09-09-2009, 09:09 PM
The hubbub over this speech was so ridiculous. It was the President, for heaven's sake. Bush was reading to school children when the planes slammed into the WTC. Did we have a cow over this? No. When did it suddenly become a bad thing for the President to encourage kids to stay in school and better themselves? I couldn't believe what I was hearing coming from the conservative media--it was just nuts. If anything, conservatives should have encouraged their kids to watch the President to learn more about civics. Do we no longer have respect for the office, even if we may not agree with the person who sits in that office?

Ten-96
09-10-2009, 01:41 AM
It's not that we do not respect the office of the President, I (for one) do not respect the man nor do I respect his agenda. Let me be clear. When Bush was in office, he went to school classroom and read the kids a children's book. He didn't take them out of class for two hours. He didn't tell them to study more or work harder because President Bush knew that it was the job of the parent to instill those things into their children - not the President of the United States. What Obama should have been doing was formulating a plan to deal with North Korea and their nuclear program, Iran's nuclear threat, etc...

This (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed090809a.cfm)is from the Heritage Foundation.

JediAthos
09-10-2009, 09:15 AM
It's not that we do not respect the office of the President, I (for one) do not respect the man nor do I respect his agenda. Let me be clear. When Bush was in office, he went to school classroom and read the kids a children's book. He didn't take them out of class for two hours. He didn't tell them to study more or work harder because President Bush knew that it was the job of the parent to instill those things into their children - not the President of the United States. What Obama should have been doing was formulating a plan to deal with North Korea and their nuclear program, Iran's nuclear threat, etc...

This (http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed090809a.cfm)is from the Heritage Foundation.

I see no issue with the president wishing to encourage children to work harder in school whatsoever especially considering the U.S. educational system is far from a shining example for the world. President Obama is not the first president to address students as Presidents Regan and George H.W. Bush made similar speeches during their terms. Presidents have also been known to speak at graduation ceremonies and other similar events so really...this is nothing new coming from the Office of the President.

Do you really believe that the president and his foreign policy people don't have courses of action laid out for dealing with the problems you mentioned? Presidents are briefed daily on all manner of foreign policy developments and make decisions on those developments based on those briefings. President Obama making this speech was hardly putting the future of his foreign policy or national security in jeopardy...not even close really.

jonathan7
09-10-2009, 09:38 AM
It's not that we do not respect the office of the President, I (for one) do not respect the man nor do I respect his agenda. Let me be clear. When Bush was in office, he went to school classroom and read the kids a children's book. He didn't take them out of class for two hours. He didn't tell them to study more or work harder because President Bush knew that it was the job of the parent to instill those things into their children - not the President of the United States. What Obama should have been doing was formulating a plan to deal with North Korea and their nuclear program, Iran's nuclear threat, etc...

No offence, but I find this quite frankly strange, it just comes across as I don't like Obama, and I'm going to criticise him for whatever he does regardless of if its good or bad. I get the feeling Obama could cure aids, stop ageing bring about world peace and certain parts of the Republican party would still criticise him for that.

There has it seems to me been a disturbing trend recently in Western Politics generally to present everything one side does as bad, and that they are evil or stupid for thinking the way they do. While I do not agree with Conservatives, I do respect several of the Conservative Politicians in the UK such as Anne Widdecomb and Micheal Portillo. (Indeed I would of liked the former to be the new Speaker for the House of Commons).

On topic considering that Obama got in via the vote of the young, and given he inspired many to vote who previously wouldn't I can only think that him encouraging the young generations to work would be a positive thing.

Ten-96
09-10-2009, 04:53 PM
Just to be clear, I don't like nor do I support anyone who is diametrically opposed to the Constitution - regardless of their political affiliation. If you bothered to read the article I linked from the Heritage Foundation you'd see the point that I was trying to make.

JediAthos
09-10-2009, 05:22 PM
I did bother to read the article and still consider the ridiculous hype surrounding this speech to be just that.

I still have absolutely no problem with the president speaking to school children. The lesson plan is perhaps questionable but it was almost certainly not drawn up by President Obama nor will I guess he took more than a casual glance at it before it was released if he saw it at all. Perhaps he could be criticized for such, but the speech in and of itself I have no problem with and don't believe a president needs a historical event etc... to speak to the youth of the nation which he is charged with running. Nor do I believe he needs such a justification to speak encouraging words to children whose education may be their best hope for a solid future.

In reality, if there were major Constitutional issues surrounding the speech it would never have been made. Presidents are not..or least not typically...stupid men and have themselves surrounded with staff members whose job it is to monitor those types of things. The Department of Education dropped the ball with the writing of the lesson plan, but there is nothing, that I'm aware of though I'm not admittedly an expert, in the Constitution that forbids the president of this country from the aforementioned speech.

jonathan7
09-10-2009, 06:01 PM
Just to be clear, I don't like nor do I support anyone who is diametrically opposed to the Constitution - regardless of their political affiliation. If you bothered to read the article I linked from the Heritage Foundation you'd see the point that I was trying to make.

I'm a Moderator it's my job to read links in threads to check that they're ok; you seemed to have wonderfully ignored the fact that as Conservative think tank its clearly going to be biased against Obama... You find a neutral site I may take notice, untill then you choose to believe what you want; but as someone sat on the fence, I'll respond the same way to think tanks from either side - they have an agenda and will provide "thoughts" to support that agenda, and will attack those on the other side of the political spectrum.

Please also indicate to me how Obama is opposed to Constitution? I may have been under the wrong impression that Freedom of speech meant you could say and think what you like... And if Obama is against the Constitution I would shockingly premise he wouldn't be able to pass anything which goes against the constitution because it would have to go through Congress...

mimartin
09-10-2009, 06:11 PM
Just to be clear, I don't like nor do I support anyone who is diametrically opposed to the Constitution You did not support our former President Bush then? :rolleyes:

Ten-96
09-10-2009, 06:17 PM
As far as the Constitution is concerned, there are certain powers that Congress and the President are allowed through the Constitution. Those are: the safety and security of the republic (ie. wars, defending our borders, etc) and the priniting of currentcy. There is nothing that allows for the recent bills introduced by Congress/supported by Obama - the Stimulus Bill, the Cap and Trade Bill as well as Health Care Reform. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that the Federal Government has the aurority nor the right to impose it's will on the people of it's republic - ie. finig people for not having health insurance.

I know that those examples are off-topic but they are part of the larger issue with this current administration as well as the current Congressional leadership. There were problems with the previous administration as well but nothing nearly as Socialist/Communist as I have seen thus far.

You did not support our former President Bush then? :rolleyes:

I supported President Bush on many things (the War on Terror and all it's aspects). I didn't support any of the bail-outs.

jonathan7
09-10-2009, 06:34 PM
We are as you have said generally going off-topic - the Official Obama thread can be found here; Click Me (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=194417) - I will have my final say, and leave you to your thoughts :)

As far as the Constitution is concerned, there are certain powers that Congress and the President are allowed through the Constitution. Those are: the safety and security of the republic (ie. wars, defending our borders, etc) and the priniting of currentcy. There is nothing that allows for the recent bills introduced by Congress/supported by Obama - the Stimulus Bill, the Cap and Trade Bill as well as Health Care Reform. There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that the Federal Government has the aurority nor the right to impose it's will on the people of it's republic - ie. finig people for not having health insurance.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't do the above, and I'm pretty sure the majority of the populace doesn't agree with trafic wardens imposing their will - should we get rid of them? (I'm not suggesting that fining people for no insurance is a good move, but it was my impression that wasn't something Obama wanted, but that it was a consession).

I know that those examples are off-topic but they are part of the larger issue with this current administration as well as the current Congressional leadership. There were problems with the previous administration as well but nothing nearly as Socialist/Communist as I have seen thus far.

Socialist and Communist are two very different things, which seems to have become one in some Americans psyche after the cold war. Regardless I find it very curious that School should be universal (which is a socialist policy) yet health care shouldn't (both are socialist policies) why is one "good" and one "bad"?

I supported President Bush on many things (the War on Terror and all it's aspects). I didn't support any of the bail-outs.

Guantanimo is de-facto the antithisis of the constitution, and I know the founding fathers would be turning in their graves over America acting like the British Empire in the treatment of those detained there.

Jae Onasi
09-10-2009, 06:55 PM
If you bothered to read the article I linked from the Heritage Foundation you'd see the point that I was trying to make.

This is an excellent example of a snarky reply, and one I don't want to see again in this forum from anyone. Either reply politely (and this goes for everyone), or don't hit the 'submit reply' button. This is a polite discussion forum. Let's work to keep it that way so it's a pleasant environment for all contributors. We can have opposing viewpoints, yet still have polite discourse.

Ten-96
09-10-2009, 09:30 PM
Quantanimo has nothing to do with our Constitution. Our Constitution protects citizens of our republic - not enemy combatants; those that would destroy everything we are and represent. Socialism and Communism are different - that is true but both have the same basic tenents: The State is the supreme entity - not the indivdual. That is the antithesis to everything that Americans have fought and died for.

Jae - Please forgive me. I wasn't trying to be snarky or rude. I am a devout lover of this country and it's constitution and all the things that make this country the best in the world. There is nothing nor no one who could ever change that about me. In future posts, I will endeavor to be more counsilitory.

As a final promoise to the Moderators, I will not post again in this topic that is outside the original post topic. Thank you all for hearing me out.