Principal Obama

[Winnie]

WENDY VICTORA: Obama brouhaha proves it's not the message, it's the messenger | victora, obama, bothered - News - Northwest Florida Daily News

I am happy to see Wendy Victoria tell both sides of the story. I agree it's too bad we can't get people to be as passionate about actually doing something to improve the world...as they are about their particular brand of politics.

If we could only inspire that much passion for other issues ? like poverty, racism and finding a cure for cancer ? the world would be a better place.

I do think the President's speech should have been shown.

Wendy V. is jumping to an erroneous conclusion.
Working to end poverty, fighting racism, and finding a cure for cancer has inspired much, much more passion than President Obama's speech has. The issues are unrelated. Nobody gave up seeking a cure for cancer so they could write a letter to the school board objecting to the speech.

 

[GoodWitch58]

Another voice of reason in the media:

"I want my country back.

The one where a message of personal responsibility and the value of a good education is celebrated, not denigrated with suspicion and hostility.

The one where the opportunity to hear from the president of the United States is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime event, not decried as propagandistic indoctrination.

The one where public debate is engaged by reasonable people concerned with solving common problems, not radical voices making stuff up to misinform, inflame and divide.

This country is called the "United" States for a reason."

Commentary: I want my country back | McClatchy

 

[Eileen West]

How much more official fact checking do you need since this is coming from the U. S. Department of Education web site? Assuming you are a big government lover, this should be all the info you need.

Big Fat mtlinscomb stay in Houston!

 

[30ashopper]

Another voice of reason in the media:

"I want my country back.

The one where a message of personal responsibility and the value of a good education is celebrated, not denigrated with suspicion and hostility.

The one where the opportunity to hear from the president of the United States is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime event, not decried as propagandistic indoctrination.

The one where public debate is engaged by reasonable people concerned with solving common problems, not radical voices making stuff up to misinform, inflame and divide.

This country is called the "United" States for a reason."

Commentary: I want my country back | McClatchy

It's because once upon a time representatives of a motley collection of colonies considered it in their best interest ? for the present and the future ? to come together under a federal government that could serve their common needs while letting them have a degree of autonomy.

That should have read, "a high degree of autonomy."

It's odd that she paints Obama and his followers as the enlightened ones and demands people treat them with a certain level of respect, and then a couple sentences down spends time denigrating the last President. This would have had more impact if she had transcended all of that and asked for respectful discourse regardless of who is making the decisions in Washington.

 

[Miss Kitty]

That should have read, "a high degree of autonomy."

It's odd that she paints Obama and his followers as the enlightened ones and demands people treat them with a certain level of respect, and then a couple sentences down spends time denigrating the last President. This would have had more impact if she had transcended all of that and asked for respectful discourse regardless of who is making the decisions in Washington.

There in lies the rub to me.

Thank you.

 

[Lynnie]

That should have read, "a high degree of autonomy."

It's odd that she paints Obama and his followers as the enlightened ones and demands people treat them with a certain level of respect, and then a couple sentences down spends time denigrating the last President. This would have had more impact if she had transcended all of that and asked for respectful discourse regardless of who is making the decisions in Washington.

There in lies the rub to me.

Thank you.

Agreed. What is good for the goose is evidently not good for the gander.

 

[GoodWitch58]

That should have read, "a high degree of autonomy."

It's odd that she paints Obama and his followers as the enlightened ones and demands people treat them with a certain level of respect, and then a couple sentences down spends time denigrating the last President. This would have had more impact if she had transcended all of that and asked for respectful discourse regardless of who is making the decisions in Washington.

Maybe I am missing something that you all see, but this does not seem like denigrating to me:

"Because President George W. Bush took the country into war on false pretenses, disregarded the law on wiretapping and treatment of detainees, and damaged the Justice Department?s reputation for fairness, his most vociferous critics wrongly insisted that he could do no right."

she is saying that Bush's critics wrongly insisted that he could do no right..." how is that denigrating to Bush?

Because President Obama hasn't righted the economy, has called for health care reform that could carry a mind-boggling price tag and advocates some ideas that challenge right-wing ideology, a relentless minority stubbornly ? and wrongly ? works to caricature him as a menace to America.

and this is saying that a small minority on the right are caricaturing Obama.

Again, maybe I am missing something (it has been a long day), but I don't see that she is more negative to one than the other....

 

[Winnie]

Objectivity is sometimes difficult.

 

[30ashopper]

Maybe I am missing something that you all see, but this does not seem like denigrating to me:

"Because President George W. Bush took the country into war on false pretenses, disregarded the law on wiretapping and treatment of detainees, and damaged the Justice Department?s reputation for fairness, his most vociferous critics wrongly insisted that he could do no right."

she is saying that Bush's critics wrongly insisted that he could do no right..." how is that denigrating to Bush?

Because President Obama hasn't righted the economy, has called for health care reform that could carry a mind-boggling price tag and advocates some ideas that challenge right-wing ideology, a relentless minority stubbornly ? and wrongly ? works to caricature him as a menace to America.

and this is saying that a small minority on the right are caricaturing Obama.

Again, maybe I am missing something (it has been a long day), but I don't see that she is more negative to one than the other....

The above was her statement, and she commented "his most vociferous critics wrongly insisted that he could do no right." implying that Bush was capable of doing something right, but obviously not the things he did wrong she previously mentioned. At least that's the way I took it. She then goes on to defend Obama as someone who is not a "menace to America". In a round about way she is her own worst enemy! She is the one taking her country away from her!

 

[Winnie]

Big Fat mtlinscomb stay in Houston!

There must be a better way to express your opinion.