• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.

Principal Obama

New posts
As long as the Big O doesn't get into policy issues, the children aren't required to study up on Obama or complete study guides before or after, it is a one time thing and he simply tries to encourage children to work hard in school and achieve as much as they can, this is a good thing.

It does get scary if the kids are required to read up on Obama, do study guides on Obama or if it became a regular thing--say 2 or 3 times each year. Hopefully, that won't happen.
 
What is really amazing to me is that people like Jim Greer, head of the Florida Republican Party, apparently is feeling so insecure about the way he has brought his children up, that they would be negatively impacted by a "Back to School" speech by the President.

A President who is intelligent, accomplished, kind, and who has become successful in spite of the many obstacles placed in his way. A man who admits that he has not always gotten it right, but who demonstrates through his life's accomplishments that one can pick oneself up and choose a direction in life and work hard to accomplish goals.( all good conservative, Republican traits, I might add!) A president who has gone out of his way (often to the point of angering his own base of supporters) to be open to the Republicans and their point of view. He has tried to be bi-partisan, in the face of absolute refusal by the other side to meet him half way.

What better example to demonstrate to so many of our young people who are struggling to succeed and overcome obstacles that, more often than not, are not of their making? In the world we adults have made today, our young people need all the positive examples they can find--they need inspiration, motivation, and someone to believe in them. They do not need fear, and name calling, and negative energy.

So, what is all this about? I do not really believe Jim Greer the person, feels that his children will be negatively impacted. I believe he is deliberately stirring up a situation to get others to go along with a political plan that has little to do with the President's speech, or the well-being of the children.

It is all about causing this President and the Democratic Party to fail, so that the Republicans can try to regain some of the ground they have lost. For some it is undoubtedly about the fact that a biracial man is the President; for others, the true fringe group, it is just about disruption for any reason...or, no reason at all--the true mob mentality.

I don't think it will work in the long run, but in the meantime, the people who can least defend themselves -- and who have the least voice -- are being affected: the children, the elderly, and those who may not be able to separate the facts from all the horrible, outlandish accusations. That is the hypocritical and sad part.

Where are the adults in the conservative/Republican party? We all know that many of them don't believe this stuff, yet, they are sitting back and letting the "fringe" element take over the entire conservative agenda. And, as a result, we are all losing.

The conservative perspective is vital to our country's success: we need at least two political parties; we need the point of view that supports less government and fiscal restraint; we need it all to make our system work well. Where is the true leader in the conservative movement that will stand up and say Enough. Who is the next Bill Buckley and will he or she please stand up!

Many of you on this board who have said some very harsh things, do not talk this way in person. I know some of you--I've done business with some of you--in real life you are more considerate and factual.
I wish that everyone would step back and take a deep breath and realize that Obama won the election--he is the president and all the facts point to the idea that he has the best interest of the people of America at the top of his agenda. As Miss Kitty said, let's give him a chance. Does anyone really believe that our children are not smart enough to think for themselves; does anyone really believe that one speech by one president can turn an entire nation of school children away from the American values they have been taught all their lives? Let's give our parents and teachers and the children the credit they are due. They are not that gullible.

Many of us did not vote for President Bush, yet after 911 almost every American supported him as our president. It was only after he started to take actions that were so off the mark that the people began to stand up and complain. We complained about his actions (and now we are beginning to realize that even President Bush himself realized that Cheney and company had gone too far) not something that he might do.

If President Obama and the Congress are doing things that the people object to, then there are civilized ways to deal with it. We have been doing this for years in our country. Never before have I seen the kind of behavior that we are now seeing and I lived through the protests of the 60s and the civil rights movement. Those protests were often violent and horrible, but at their core there was a purpose: end the war, and give everyone equal rights.

This behavior is without merit and it can serve no good purpose IMO. All Americans who care about the future of our country would do well to act like adults and put a stop to the hysteria IMO.
 
Last edited:
.
GW58,
You have no idea how much your thoughtful, level-headed posts make my day(s)!!
Please never go awol on us! ;-)


.
 
GW, you have echoed my feelings perfectly and I have not seen anyone, anywhere, sum it up better. Thank you.
 
thanks for the kind words, everyone. I appreciate the feedback. I know there is a better way to handle all of this--hopefully we as a country will begin to realize it before we expend too much more of this negative energy.

I often think of the men and women who are risking and sacrificing their lives for us--and yes, it is to ensure that we all have the freedom to say what we want; yet, how much better if we did it in a constructive, cooperative way?

The people of this country, especially the ones who serve in harm's way and the children, deserve so much more from the leadership of both parties.

Obam won the election fair and square--the American way--the majority spoke. That majority now needs to speak out against this hysteria. The leadership of the Republican Party needs to speak out on behalf of all who want to put America and the well being of our citizens before partisan politics.

Apparently some Republicans are speaking out:

Here's a message from State Rep. John Legg, a Republican(http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/SEctions/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4350&SessionId=42): "While I respect a parents’ individual rights, I would offer that this event should be used as an educational opportunity and learning tool to cultivate discussion among parents and their children. Civic and public discussion should be a priority for all schools. It is important that we instill in our children a respect for the office of the President and whoever occupies that honorable position.
Rather than excluding children from this event, I would strongly encourage parents and students to participate and be a part of the dialogue; using this opportunity to explain their family values to their children and encourage them to discuss what is occurring and why. Parents may choose to attend school with their children, experience this event together and to participate in their child’s education.
ab
 
Last edited:
I think you are correct. I do not see Obama's politics as being that much different than Clinton's. The socialist words simply weren't part of the republican talking points 15 years ago. When Obama entered the picture it soon became clear that his race was not going to be a detriment, much to the dismay of his detractors. Derogatory labels, some of them even contradictory, were quickly applied to Obama. Legitimacy of the labeling was not an issue. Whatever scares you the most today, that's what Obama is. Tomorrow is a new day awaiting the application of yet another term, poorly understood by the target audience.

It was definitely thrown around when HillaryCare was being debated. Her original reform was even more progressive than the House bill is today, it embodied a single payer system for the country.

IMHO, "socialist policy" is valid criticism of the progressive left. The progressive movement of the early 20th century had it's root in soviet style socialism and populism. Today's progressive movement is one of social democracy, which has in it socialist idealism. Conservatives and Libertarians are right in pointing this out, as there is a valid argument to be made based on the idea that the rejection of these ideals has made this country "great". While some may consider these views harsh there is no avoiding the the obvious fact that forcing people to rely on themselves has provided very positive incentives for growth throughout our history. Therefore fighting against the advance of the social democratic model is valid.

Obama is a social democrat. He has made his view very clear - the loss of the advantages of conservative idealism is worth the gains he perceives in implementing a more social democratic (e.g. more socialist) system. If you disagree with this view, criticizing Obama as being a socialist, or for having views that lean socialist or social democratic is valid critcism.
 
Last edited:
What a ridiculous thing to get worked up over. If I remember correctly there was a picture of the President displayed prominently in every school I went to and nobody ever even mentioned it. This is simply a toxic mix or sour grapes and paranoia, and yes, I would say the same thing if it was W planning on doing this. How quickly we have abandoned the 'respect for the office' concept!
 
It was definitely thrown around when HillaryCare was being debated. Her original reform was even more progressive than the House bill is today, it embodied a single payer system for the country.
Maybe a few right wing elites threw the term socialism around referring to Hillarycare while dressing in the country club locker room. But it did NOT even come close to making it into mainstream conversation.

What did make the mainstream (and ended up being surprisingly effective) was a tv commercial produced by the insurance lobby which depicted a middle aged couple expressing their concern over the "bureaucratic nature" of HillaryCare.

Go ahead and do a quick search for papers and post mortems on why HillaryCare failed. You will be hard pressed to find the usage of the term "socialism" in anything that wasn't recently written.

IMHO, "socialist policy" is valid criticism of the progressive left. The progressive movement of the early 20th century had it's root in soviet style socialism and populism. Today's progressive movement is one of social democracy, which has in it socialist idealism. Conservatives and Libertarians are right in pointing this out, as there is a valid argument to be made based on the idea that the rejection of these ideals has made this country "great". While some may consider these views harsh there is no avoiding the the obvious fact that forcing people to rely on themselves has provided very positive incentives for growth throughout our history. Therefore fighting against the advance of the social democratic model is valid.

Obama is a social democrat. He has made his view very clear - the loss of the advantages of conservative idealism is worth the gains he perceives in implementing a more social democratic (e.g. more socialist) system. If you disagree with this view, criticizing Obama as being a socialist, or for having views that lean socialist or social democratic is valid critcism.
The McCain campaign realized that the word socialism evoked fear in lots of "real americans" when it was applied to "that one".

The good news for folks who voted for Obama is that hope trumped fear. The bad news for the country is that fear ate its Wheaties after the November beating the GOP took and it remains a common thread to scare the uninformed.

There is a reason why you didn't hear Joe the Plumber call Obama's ideas progressive instead of liberal. Just as there is a reason you didn't hear him call him a social democrat instead of a socialist.

You are clearly smart enough to articulate nonemotional objections to a social democratic model. Most Americans aren't.

But when you and the pundits cleverly swap the term socialism/socialist with social democrat the concepts change for the masses and end up eliciting the emotional response of fear- which then ends up trumping all logic and reason.

You are clearly smart enough to see the point I make about the usage of the fear inducing term "socialism"as being valid but for some reason you are resisting and instead repeating your talking points about all of the "social terms" being valid critiques of Obama's politics (which they are).

Quit. Would you please?

Here's a new one I like-

Soccer moms and tradesmen are doing on camera interviews saying they don't want their kids exposed to the president's speech because they "oppose the indoctrination of our youth into liberal socialism".

Puulease. That language wasn't used by these folks until it was scared into them.

SOCIALISM = FEAR
FEAR = ACTION

This is what the GOP is going with...
 
Last edited:
Get over it!

The elected President of our country (a strong proponent of education, hardwork, and the father of 2 kids currently in school) is addressing our country's public school children.

Quite frankly, I don't care what he talks about - he's the President. That's why he gets to talk to your kids - he's earned it. And that's why when he wants to talk to us, he preempts regular programming on the major Tv stations.

The amount of time and influence this address will have is a tiny fraction of what your kids hear from you, their peers, the radio, the tv, video games, the computer, reality stars and other celebrities, supermarket tabloids, and the media outlets whose sole purpose is to spew fear and hate.

The text of the speech will be released Monday. The speech will be given Tuesday AT A SCHOOL and broadcast to our kids.

I challenge you to ACTUALLY READ THE SPEECH, not read or listen to some commentary on it but read the speech, and THEN if you do not like what he is saying or want to discuss or refute what he said, you can object to your kids watching in school.

There are much bigger threats to your children's education and future than our president talking to them. I wish we could have 5% of the coverage and passion dedicated to this nonissue dedicated to the REAL issues that are actually affecting us.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top