Toomey lauds Obama’s speech to schoolchildren…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
44 Comments
Pat,
Your ass kissing is getting embarrassing. For us, if not for you.
First, how do you put credence in the words of a liar? If Obama believed any of what he said today, he wouldn't be pushing his radical agenda on the country. He wants people to be dependent on government because that is how he gets his power to control our lives.
Second, there is evidence that he broke the law to make the speech. No federal agency or employee has the authority to bypass the local school boards and superintendents for any purpose without their approval. He's already discarded the Constitution as an impediment to his administration and now he is throwing out the laws too. What's to respect?
Third, I suspect that this speech today was Plan B. After the first plan got shot down, he gave a seemingly innocuous speech to make our protests seem silly and you, Pat, played right into his hands.
Even if this is the original speech, the planned lesson plans were purely political to get the children to be pawns promoting his administration and agenda with the gleeful help of sympathetic teachers and administrators.
Pat, do you lack discernment to look beneath the surface or just the sense that God gave you? Do you want to be back in DC that much that you'd embrace this Marxist's phoniness? Do you realize that you will lose more voters than you'll gain by doing this nonsense?
You cannot win by pandering. You cannot win by dropping the principles that you claimed as your own just 4 years ago. If you really don't want to go back to DC, do the decent thing and get out of the race.
This whole issue is rediculous, Obama is not the first president to address school children like this, nor will he be the last, bot GW Bush and Regan did the same thing, as long as he is not delivering a political message to the kids who cares, but since this was a stay in school thing, I could care less.
GW Bush did not address government school kids and I don't recall Reagan. GHWBush did and there were investigations. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/b... on the other hand, the remarks seem anodyne.
What is odd is if all things Bush are bad then why is Obama Administration implementing and enhancing Bush policies and practices?
How bad is it, though, that a Black President tells Black kids that they need to study and learn to get ahead? One is, naturally, suspect of anything the Obama Administration does but this does not seem so bad. What is odd is that there is no effort to ask the listeners to ask not only what did the president say but why did he think it necessary and what do they think of substance. Was he right? or wrong? or out of touch? Who knows this could have been a good thing.
Ray
I really disagree and what I say from the speech I laud it. Now, I do not support anything that BHO does and this doesn't make me a pandering wannabe. The speech was changed…why, because the country stood up and said Something. That's what we want to happen. Even if it isn't what BHO believes, the fact is…he gave a CONSERVATIVE speech.
Ben
As a general rule, ALL politicians should be kept as far away from impressionable children as possible.
Where is the evidence that the speech was changed? I'd like to read the first take.
Just because Rush and a couple other "media-type" guys (whose goal it is to make money first and foremost even at the expense of reality and truth) are spewing that doesn't mean it is true.
The real battle isn't one person or one party (and there's a ton of that singling out stuff going on) … the real battle that should be fought should be waged against them all in current elected offices.
Damn straight.
I totally agree with you on that, Ryan.
Most of what Obama said was innocuous but his speech did have some "socialist" moments.
In the classroom, some of my fellow union members are very capable of providing a one-sided followup to anything that Obama has to say.
They, too, have to watch themselves for angry parents or concerned administration, but rest assured there is bias inside school walls.
How can a speech be under the influence of substances?
I very much agree. Sorry for sassing you in the above-comment.
Whatever the reason for the speech or what it contained, nothing trumps a parents right to decide what is best for their children.
There is no rumored first draft that is radically different. This is just like the birthers.
The speeches were about drugs.
While I agree there is a right, we have lots of American parents who are not holding up their end of the bargain. Parents who refuse to tell their kids these things on their own are committing abuse.
The President should not have to tell kids these things. We as a society, not the government, should be shunning parents who refuse to raise their children properly.
Amen, Ray.
Why would anyone grant Obama an audience with their precious children? Why would anyone allow him to infect their minds with any of his drivel? Why would anyone laud lies and truth jumbled together so that the children will swallow the lies with the truth?
For the LOVE OF GOD, PAT, SIT DOWN AND SHUT-UP.
If Obama wants to address school children, let him give a speech on Saturday morning and let the parents or the children themselves decide whether or not to watch. Compulsory education is bad enough as it is. Using it is a tool to force children watch political speeches, regardless of party, is even worse. Even the President telling kids something as innocuous as "wash your hands" just lends to the idea that we are all wards of the state and that parents, family, church, and even teachers aren't enough to tell our kids what they need to know. Only the federal government can do that. And so now the Feds want to compete with us to give our kids moral and social advice.
This whole speech was concocted solely because Obama's popularity numbers were plunging in the first place. This has been nothing but a political stunt from the beginning. If Pat Toomey can't see that for what it is, I'm surprised.
If Obama wants to address school children, let him give a speech on Saturday morning and let the parents or the children themselves decide whether or not to watch. Compulsory education is bad enough as it is. Using it is a tool to force children watch political speeches, regardless of party, is even worse. Even the President telling kids something as innocuous as "wash your hands" just lends to the idea that we are all wards of the state and that parents, family, church, and even teachers aren't enough to tell our kids what they need to know. Only the federal government can do that. And so now the Feds want to compete with us to give our kids moral and social advice. Give me a break.
This whole speech was concocted solely because Obama's popularity numbers were plunging in the first place. This has been nothing but a political stunt from the beginning. If Pat Toomey can't see that for what it is, I'm surprised.
So because some abdicate their right and neglect their duty to raise their children do all parents become 'guilty' and lose their rights?
The president has no authority to address school children in such a manner when they are a captive audience.
Are you serious?
Did you see the assignments and lesson plan for the kids? They were asked what they could do to help the president. Do you really believe that the subject matter wasn't changed? He gave a generic white bread speech that had nothing to do with the 'help' that he wanted from the kids.
Did you see the Hollywood idiots pledging their support to help the president just the other day? That was designed to get the kids attention and their compliance.
This event was designed to indoctrinate the kids but we caught on to him and he changed his plan.
Do you really need help to understand this man has no intention of helping kids in any way? Not white kids, not black kids, not hispanic kids. No kids. No help. Rather than me repeating everything, just read my first post.
Anyone who has watched this president speak or watched any of his advisors knows that he has no honorable intentions.
He was like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar and claimed that he was helping clean up the crumbs. And Pat fell for it.
Shame on both of them.
Nothing offensive in the speech itself – stay in school, et. al. (though I wouldn't call it inspiring, it was pretty cookie-cutter), or with the President giving remarks to students. GW Bush may not have done it nation-wide, but he certainly toured individual schools and spoke there.
Of course, if Obama was being honest with students, he would have touted the importance of attending private school, as he did and his children do, and noted that a little drug use in your youth won't prevent you from becoming president (case in point: the last three).
The only objections came from the "lesson plans" – which were modified after the uproar – which suggested students should ask "How does Obama inspire you" and "How can you serve the president."
I don't think there is anything nefarious in this, but it is certainly revealing about the attitude of the administration and the cult surrounding Obama (and yes, the same could be said of Bush, and the presidency itself.)
Obama is a hypocrit and I agree with the posters who said he was trying to improve his image. If he was really concerned about school children, he’d back DC vouchers so those children could get out of those horrible schools. Not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, either.
The parents do not have to send their kids to a public school last time I checked Ray.
By your standard, there should be no standards because they might offend a parent. I have seen a meeting with parents over a curriculum before. It was one of the most chaotic things I have seen in my life and convinced me of the evil of direct democracy like nothing else.
I think "government schools" or "government monopoly schools" is more accurate and free market or free market competitive schools is more accurate for schools that parents value enough to pay for with their own money.
So his words — even though he doesn't mean a word of it — mean more than his actions? Do I have that right?
He didn't change his mind. He changed his speech to make his critics look bad. If he is successful in demonizing those critics, will they speak out against his next speech in front of children? Will that speech be 'conservative'?
His policies will make any effort that the kids do make meaningless. They will be taxed into oblivion and controlled by laws that restrict their freedom.
Actions count. Not words. If he believed what he said, would he have needed to read them from a teleprompter? Remember, he is the brightest, most articulate (and clean) president ever. He didn't speak from his heart. Someone wrote those words for him and probably in the last few days.
This was a good thing. He probably did convince a few kids out there to be good citizens and study. Considering the lack of male role models saying such things in the African American community, this was a step in the right direction.
He really needs to address the parents though. A bad homelife is usually a big negative weighing these kids down.
Reagan and GHW Bush both gave speechs. I believe the speeches were on drugs.
Thank you Ray, for sticking to your guns. If Arlen Specter had said that stuff, even while he was still registered GOP, everyone on this site would have let him have it, and Toomey ought to be held to the same standards.
Can you show me where and when Rush has done what you accuse him of? You may disagree with his viewpoint, but he is accurate in his accounting of the events. For some people, it's not immediately obvious to them. And some people just won't ever admit it.
Thank you. You're right. People seem to still operate under the notion that as long as he is our bum, it is okay to be a bum. I don't agree with that at all. A bum is a bum and a pandering comprising bum is no friend at all.
What did he do? Convince them to be good liars and con men? Look at the people Obama has surrounded himself with. Do you see good people there or do you see radicals, revolutionaries, communists, and tax cheats?
Yeah, right.
Ryan,
You are a joke. Most people cannot afford to both pay taxes for public schools and send their kids to private schools.
What do you mean by the last part of your comment? I think that you don't have an answer so you try to change the subject because your old practice of just not answering has been exposed and doesn't work well anymore.
Having any president call for a captive audience of children is offensive. it particularly egregious when a radical communist like Obama does it.
Apparently Ray you did not get the message… do well in school. Your hatred of Obama, a man I find to be incompetent generally, is breathtaking. It shows how bitter you are will America. Obama was right about people from western PA when he called them bitter. You and countless others I have met from there are chronically bitter.
If you hate kids doing well in school so much, why not revolt Ray? If Obama is so evil, you have a right to revolution so exercise it!
Oh please spare me the sob stories of people not being able to afford stuff. You almost sound like a liberal there. If parents want their kids to go to private school, they will find a means.
How are these kids any more of a captive audience compared to any other day? Most of the kids will not remember what the President said in 24 hours anyway. Kids hear speeches all the time in school. You act like this is a first. It isn't even the first time a President has spoke.
Your hatred is troubling Ray. I do not like Obama, but I do not hate the guy.
You are just another bitter person from SWPA. Maybe you should just end it and exercise your right to revolution if you find the current society so out of step with you.
I forgot. You haven't had half of your paycheck confiscated from you yet.
I told no sob stories. I stated basic facts. Taxes are high, jobs are scarce, unemployment is the highest that it's been in a generation, savings have been wiped out and it's going to get worse before it gets better, but you think that it is just so easy to double pay for education. And that's it is okay for people to have to do it.
You may think that kids will be oblivious to political indoctrination, but they are not. . Why do you think that dictators start with the children? Young skulls full of mush are impressionable. Train them young if you want to control them later.
And now you agree with Obama That explains a lot. Yeah, I cling to my God and my guns, but I am not bitter.
Toomey should have qualified his remarks but the media out there just want to glorify Obama.
Obama’s speech was a lot about Obama and less about the children.
There are plenty of big issues out there like “health care” and we can move on to them.
Toomey should watch what he says, because these kind of comments will come back to bite.
BS. Parents have an absolute right to determine what their children watch, what their children are exposed to, what their children are taught to value. The government has no place in this. None. We must never legislate to the lowest common denominator. That some parents fail to raise their children "properly" in your eyes does not provide the government with license to indoctrinate them as you see fit.
You know, I'm starting to think that Pat is not the sharpest crayon in the box. He fell for the Saylor non-dissent, dissent. He fell for the Sotomayor denial. He allowed Mauree Gingrich to hold a fundraiser for him. Now this.
Definitely not the the brightest bulb…………
Can you show us the first draft of the speech?
Do you trust Obama? Or just easily misdirected?
If he doesn't hesitate to throw has grandmother, his pastor, and his friend under the bus, do you think that he'd hesitate to change a speech if it could make his critics look bad?
No, I don't have a copy of the first speech but knowing Obama, I wouldn't think that anyone would need to see it to know that it existed.
I sure wish I knew what was driving these comments. He sounds nothing at all like he did in 2004.
Another curious thing is that I was told 2 months ago that he'd soon have position papers up on his web site. They still aren't there. Is his platform just that he isn't Specter? If so, he better stop agreeing with him.
Toomey made the smart move… It would have been all to easy to jump on the bandwagon and kick Obama around in order to appease the more conservative wing of the party. Newsflash, he's already got them. These comments are geared towards the mid-section of the party, people with rational concerns about the way Obama went about his presentation to school students (which Benefield mentions above).
At the end of day, there was no mis-step by Obama. "Stay in school, overcome adversity, you hold your own destiny…" – nice, squishy messages – the nutritional equivolent of plain salad.
There are plenty of substantive areas in which Toomey can take Obama to task. Aren't there? One wonders what credibility you have when you shoot at every last thing the guy does. Picking your target wisely ensures you get the best bang.