Some people are outraged that President Barack Obama would tell America's school children to do their best in school and take responsibility for their education. This controversy shows how petty many of the president's opponents have become. Challenge the president on legitimate issues. . . his health care plan, the stimulus package, the skyrocketing cost of federal government. But on this one, his opponents couldn't be more wrong.
Obama is scheduled to address the nation's school children on Tuesday, which is something that many presidents before him have done. A transcript of Obama's speech shows the main themes to be to urge children to "take responsibility for their education, pay attention in class and study hard."
How can that be controversial? But in this hate-your-opponent political era, even telling children to do well in school gets people fired up -- if the other side says it. How sad.
Critics claim Obama is trying to indoctrinate the nation's children. I hope so. I'm tired of people making excuses for children not doing well in school. These are the folks who oppose the high school exit exam because it might hurt someone's self esteem. Obama, by the way, is on opposite sides of the teacher unions on tying teacher pay to student performance.
The controversy was whipped up by talk radio hosts. Don't expect many comments on this one until Rush's show airs Tuesday morning, and his listeners have a chance to parrot back his spin on this issue.
Jim,
I wish you were wrong on this, but it's a very sad case of many (tens of millions) people not thinking for themselves.
I wonder how protective these parents are from listening to talk radio??
Mr. Boren, are people going off their rocker? What is President Obama suspected of planning. Lure the children of America to a nowhere like the Rat Catcher of Hamlin? Listening to the people [ interviewed on the news casts] it's like mass hysteria. Are we being stampeded toward a Munich of 1923? If so; I am sure those responsible shall have plenty of time to write their own Mein Kampf.
Jim-
I'm a bit suprised by your bias creeping into this. Your comment, "Don't expect many comments on this one until Rush's show airs Tuesday morning, and his listeners have a chance to parrot back his spin on this issue" clearly indicates your derision of a segment of your bloggers or is designed to increase the participation on your blog. I'm guessing it is the latter and you have again contributed to expanding Rush's audience. I'm assuming you are an intelligent man, knowing exactly what you are doing and why. I'm curious, why didn't you refer to Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, or Chris Mathews?
I listen to Rush occasionally, so am what you would probably call a "Rush parrot". However, I'll give you my take on this before the broadcast. First, I disagree with the general notion of any President (Including Reagan and George HW Bush who have done this previously) interjecting themselves into America's classrooms without the consent of the teachers. There simply is no reason to do so and the possibility of abuse is substantial, although I'll admit I don't know of any that has occurred up until now. Second, Obama's action is particularly repugnant because his Dept of Education distributed a study guide wherein students were asked to write how they can help Obama and how Obama inspired them- both rested on the premises that the students (K-6) agreed with Obama and that his speech was inspiring. Both of my daughters are teachers and will not be tuning their classes into the Obama broadcast.
Will you be listening to Maddow, Olberman, and Mathews so that you can parrot their spin on the speech?
I am happy that Mr. Boren was able to release this topic before the next Limbaugh show in order that Rich could parrot him.
The problem with Obama is that a vast network of normal Americans don't trust him with his adult interventions so it is only natural that they be wary of his interest in youth.
Obama has made it clear to all Americans that the future for him has little to do with the way things were done in the past. Unfortunately he has produced little that most Americans want to take beyond his presidency.
What a load of B.S.As usual the libs lie about the issue to perpetuate their myth.Do people have a problem with Obama or any president speaking to students to inspire them to do well.No,not at all but if you had spent one honest moment speaking to those that had a problem with this,as I did, you would have heard they were upset with the material that was sent out to teachers to turn this into an "Indoctrination" moment.The Obamahouse" has since withdrew this because of the outrage and, as usual, are acting like it never happened.As far as waiting for Rush before those that oppose this can form their opinion shows a total lack of understanding or just outright contempt for those that believe the curriculum was a creepy attempt for "Big Brother to circumvent parents and use the education system to further his cultist personna.By the way...Rush was gone for the last 9 days so I guess he's been communicating with his listeners via brainwaves to get folks worked up.Jim and Rich...you have exposed yourselves for what you are...small minded and intellectually dishonest by ignoring the facts that don't fit your big lie...Disgusting.
I'll comment before Rush comes on. I know its a huge risk to me, because I cannot think for myself. Let me see...... hmmmmmm, what do I say.......
OK - my children already knows from my indoctrination that Obama is a radical statist who came into the office with no experience and no record of anything to qualify him to be President. They also already know that they should work hard in school because I've taught them that and they are straight A students.
So, they can watch it. I don't care. I've already covered it all at home.
Jim Boren's rant fails to reference the lesson plan materials. Those materials (before they were edited after the light of day) is a key source of the controversy. The failure to even mention those materials explains why Jim doesn't comprehend what the controversy is all about.
There is, however, also legitimate concern over political figures using a coerced and mandatory school environment to issue "inspirational" messages. I don't care whether other Presidents have done it or not. When school children have their education interrupted for messages from "the great leader", and asked to write letters to "the great leader" about how they can help him succeed, it is creepy, and tinged with totalitarianism. The fact that people in the Department of Education think these things are good ideas is disturbing.
The speech as released is innocuous and a waste of time. Dangerous indoctrination? Doubtful. But what was planned for that speech prior to the uproar?
I have no problem with the President talking to school age kids about wanting to do well in school but think that is a parents job not his and that his time would be spent more wisely working on bigger issues to help our country. Many kids that do well and try to take control of their education get slapped in the face because they cant pay for college. He needs to do something about that making it attainable for all people not based on income levels of the parents or ones ethnicity. I do not agree with tying teacher pay to test scores because you can plaining see that teachers north of shaw are getting better test scores because the schools have more money and they have less minorities. If a teacher has classes with alot of minorities with language barriers they will not be as successful as the teacher that has all English speaking kids. It does matter that some parents who are educated are willing to work with their kids while others who may be not as educated or don't know the language that dont or can't help their kids. Teachers should not take the hit on that. Teachers that have special needs students are doing a great job teaching these kids but are their scores going to be high most likely not. I am tired of hearing of students with low GPA'S and test scores getting full ride scholarships because they are a certain ethnicity. Im just gonna change my kids name so she has the same chance as others. Obama needs to spend time and money to get text books and supplies in the classrooms so teachers can teach. Perhaps kids would stay in school if they were given the tools to study with. Having a 45 to 1 ratio is surely going to leave some kids falling between the cracks. I believe he has more on his agenda other than just telling them to take control of their education. I will try to go to school to hear him myself.
common_sense makes an excellent point. Obama's ideas are so radical conservatives need be sure of what he slips in for his second choice on any given initiative. My bet is that he is going to repeat this, set the hook without a barb then release'em until the next fishing trip. Eventually they will become so desensitized, they wont know they're in a party holding container.
I wonder where all these hypocrates were the last time Reagan, Bush I & II and Clinton spoke in the classroom?
It is obvious this is a partisan attack coming from rightwing radio.
It's sad we have to see this in America.
Rich-
There you go again. You raise a straw man by referencing "spoke in the class room" as if it is the same as a national address aimed at every class room. No one on this blog objected to a President speaking in the class room. In fact, Obama has done this before and no one raised an eyebrow.
The issue that you, and apparently Boren, want glossed over is the materials that the "Great Leader" had distributed to all class rooms prior to his scheduled speech. There is a big difference between visiting a class room and coordinating that visit with the teacher's lesson plan and forcing yourself into a class room and usurping the teacher's lesson plan. If you don't see the difference or understand its importance, then you are the parrot sitting on Obama's shoulder.
Lastly, whether he likes it or not, this President is simply not trusted at this early point in his presidency. It took Richard Nixon years to reach this level of mistrust. Trying to buypass teachers and parents is not a way to improve his standing.
The speech was fine at to the point. I am not sure if it will make the kids want to do better but I hope it will. I was just afraid he would have controverial things to say but he did a good job. Now he just has to find away to make them necessary tools available and college affordable for all people. I am quite sure he didn't pay 30k a year or more for college.
I think we are missing the point: It’s not really about the content of Obama’s comments to the kids; By now, because of the controversy, they will be so generic and non-specific that you could read practically anything into them.
It’s part of a bigger concept. It’s about PR, it’s about marketing. It’s part of a well organized media and public relations campaign to propagandize a segment of the populace, for whatever nefarious future goals they might have in mind.
Those of us who hang around the parameters of marketing and public relations recognize what is happening. We know that, "in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins" (or succeeds). Marketing and public relations are not really about truth or truth telling; It’s really about the manipulation of facts to convey an impression or perception.
In a sense marketing is all about redefining the way a person, product, service or politician is perceived. A Democrat axiom is, "perception is truth." This is the currency of all Democrat politics.
"Marketing is the application of the knowledge of human psychology to the task of persuasion. And what psychology has taught the marketing world is that the most powerful of all takes place not through above-the-board appeals to reason but by directly targeting the emotions..... ..... And as modern marketing well knows, when people are operating primarily on the basis of feelings and emotions, they’re wide open to every sort of imaginable manipulation ...... Bottom line: if the marketer can elicit in you a feeling - the right feeling (in his opinion) - he has won. Game over." "The Marketing of Evil" - David Kupelian.
Obama and the Dem’s goal are not "now" goals. They are setting our kids up for something "bigger" later on. It’s about the possibility of future manipulation, that all!
Just this past week, I spent over 2 hours (Thanks YouTube!) viewing one of the most notorious Nazi propaganda films ever made, Leni Riefenstahl’s, "Triumph of the Will" (English sub-titles). I found it frightening when I saw how Hitler’s propagandists used children as "props" and stagings for the purposes of National Socialism. I trembled with rage at how easily the Nazi political machine used innocent, naive and malleable children to further their goals.
I’m wondering if something similar is going on here.
Let’s not assume that the Obama administration have benevolent concerns for our children. He doesn’t, in my opinion. We know better from past experience. (Can we honestly say that the Bush / Kennedy NCLB educational efforts have the best interests of our children at heart? I think not!).
BTW, courtesy of political columnist, Byron York, this thought - "The controversy over President Obama's speech to the nation's schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue."
How did so many wackos end up living in America? I'm incredulous at the igorance, the level of fear, the level of hypocracy. Thank the stars that you're in the minority - otherwise, this wouldn't be America anymore - it would be weirdoland or bizzaroworld.
These letters are pure insanity.
'...Help, Help, Obama is overtaking the schools, (blah-blah) agenda, (blah-blah) lurking motives... (blah-blah) turning our children into liberal robots...'
Meanwhile?
The freakin' BEE (online) has as its lead off story:
'...SW children 'bused' to schools...'
Somebody tell me if it's misspelled the same in the hardcopy... no, wait, scratch that.
I don't think I want to know.
Oh. My.
People, you are starting to seriously scare me.
A radical full-on media marketing campaign of propoganda tantamount to Nazi Germany? No one said the word 'brainwashing' yet, but the implication is there.
Complaints about suggested lesson plans for the speech as Obama 'taking over' schoolrooms and children??? Propogating his cultish agenda? Winning the hearts and minds of easily swayed school children so he can be the new Pol Pot?
Are you people seriously this inane and insane???? 'Obama is taking over parenting???' Um, teachers are taking over parenting. Obama is giving a 45 minute in-classroom speech.
Crikes, we're in serious trouble when the most articulate and thoughtful comment from the right is Michael Der Manouel. He's correct, tho. A teacher could stand in front of HIS children and read them Mein Kamf and advocate pornography and his kids would know better, because he's a better parent to them.
How do you people think Obama's speech and pre-distributed lesson plans are really going to take over our poor defenseless mindless children?? Where are these children from, Mars? Unable to form a sentence or hold a thought on their own?
I seriously cannot believe they let some of you commentors vote, and I feel terribly for your children and the children who have teachers who will REFUSE to show the Obama speech. Hoorah for Mike Der Manouel, who is a conservative who actually gets it (even tho Obama is not a radical Statist...just a guy without much experience who is finding his way in the relative dark).
I do love how the most ridiculous of comments are always the poorest spelled comments. Too busy in school avoiding the radical left to learn basic skills, I guess.
I think it's downright frightening to see people so worked up over a speech in which the President of the United States encourages children to work hard in school and take responsibility for themselves. Regardless of one's politics, this is a worthwhile message for children to hear! While I may disagree with the President over some issues, he is still our President, and as a person he has overcome incredible odds to become who he is today. It is unusual for someone who grew up in a poor, single-parent household to reach the higher level of government in our country, and I think for that reason alone, it is critical for the President to inspire children to be the best they can be. He is a living example that if you set your mind to something, it can be done. I don't care what politics a person believes in, you really can't be against that.
So, what's the problem with the spelling, Eric? A quick check of the dictionary will verify that "bused" is an acceptable spelling as is "bussed." In fact, bused is often the preferred form so as not to be confused with the past tense of buss which means to kiss.
"...the level of fear, the level of hypocracy. Thank the stars that you're in the minority - otherwise, this wouldn't be America anymore - it would be weirdoland or bizzaroworld."
D.Jones, the aim is fascistland. Veni-vidi-vici! The dream is real! Can it come true? That is up to WE THE PEOPLE. I still keep the faith. I agree; the beehive blog is not representative of this America of diversity. Thank GOD.
1. Few were concerned about the "speech", many are concerned about creeping liberalism that already exists in public schools and the potential for undue influence by the most partisan President in decades.
2. Why did the DEMOCRATS investigate Bush #1 in 1991 when he did exactly the same thing? Yeah, those blabbing on now about conservatives don't even know how horribly liberals have been behaving for decades.
3. I'm pretty tired of liberals calling names, casting a big net of bigotry and being so closed minded towards those who disagree.
4. So much for open-minded discussion
"He alone, who OWNS the youth, gains the Future!" - Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935.
"Both of my daughters are teachers and will not be tuning their classes into the Obama broadcast."
JoeFeldon; what a surprise. K-6?
Paul F-
You hit the nail right on the head with your #2 comment. Add to that the liberal penchant for hyperbole and the liberal bloggers are the ones that wreak of hypocrisy. By the way, another pattern that is emerging on this blog is that it always seems to be a "free thinking" liberal blogger that introduces the concepts of European fascism to the discussion.
Here's the link the what the radical left did in 1991 against GWB 41. What a bunch of whiners they are now! And you aren't the majority, thank goodness. If you are, then pass health insurance reform NOW. Gutless wonders......just like the GOP was when it was in the majority.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
MDM,
The only thing "gutless" is the finger pointing.
I don't hear a peep from all you rightwingers on the actual speech given today. Goes to show it's not about the kid's future your thinking about, it's purely partisanship at the heart of your non-issue, issue.
The speech today to the kids, tomorrow's Congressional marketing campaign - billed as the definitive speech on health care - it’s all part of one vast con game. I opined in this forum a while back, that I believe it’s Obama’s version of the old black con game, the "Kansas City shuffle" - "distraction and misdirection by which you get everyone to look one way, while whatever you're doing involves going the other way."
We are about to get snookered, folks by an "Ivy League Huey Long" (George Will’s term)!
Well said Erin Christian. I agree wholeheartedly. This President has gone to great lengths to keep in touch with the country; through press conferences, town hall meetings, etc. He listens, he adapts, he communicates with the people he represents and all Americans do is complain about it. The sad thing is, if he acted like most past Presidents and curbed his communication with the People then he would be criticized for that. Americans have become so distant from "real life" from oppression and nonchalant about their freedom they whine for the sake of whining. Michael Der Manouel Jr. also said it well when he commented it doesn't matter what Obama says he has already covered what he wants his children to know at home. There is no threat to his kids; just another opportunity to discuss different opinions and further address the issues he wants his kids to learn. Why parents want to shelter their kids from the workings of the world instead of using each and every situation as a springboard to teaching their own children is beyond me. Parents who do this are raising robots without the skills to discern the workings of this world. Children who bend to mass histeria, media driven hype and outrage about a speech by the President that reinforces to them that there is a world out there beyond their small world of childhood. Meanwhile the world laughs at us.
Well wackos - the kids have been - aaaaaggghhhhh!!!! TOLD TO STAY IN SCHOOL! YIKES! What next? They'll be told to - dare I say - do their homework!!!! OMG!!!
Who in their right mind would WANT to be associated as an Conservative??? If I were a conservative, I'd be embarrassed. The wacko fanatic weirdos have freaked out. They've gone totally bonkers. I remember when conservatives and liberals were not so viciously partisan, when they had a level of civility. Ever since Bush and his red state/blue state - the divide and conquer guised under "I'm a uniter!" - we've gone off the deep end! This is insane. Reagan and Bush I spoke to the school kids. What the hell??? You've labeled President Obama as someone who wants to indoctrinate, a socialist who wants to takeover the country - how wacko is that? Does that even sound logical?
I associate conservative with old stuffy types who are out of sync with the times - it still holds true and has gotten far worse than ever. The wacko conservatives have taken over the regular conservatives. The days of the mostly old white suits (men) who've had the power for waaaaay too long - are drawing nigh. The times are a changin'. So you foggies who think change and progess are four letter words, get used to it - it's inevitable and thankfully, the youth is fully aware that the world is far bigger than your little selfish one. And thankfully, they're the ones who will bring a renewal to the decent conservatives because the youth is far more progessive these days - the world is global now, they're more open and not so closed off wacko.
So, for all those who hoard guns and think the world is out to get them - get a grip. We're all Americans you crazy nuts! The Limbaugh followers who don't have a brain in their head and cry foul when they haven't even heard the content of the speech need to stop listening to that crazy agitator - he's a loon! He's like Charles Manson with his cult ready to kill - he gets them whipped up and foaming at the mouth - ready to hack off heads! Chill man! Take a breath. Think LOGICALLY. Get reasonable!
When Reagan and Bush spoke at the schools - did you see liberals fearmongering and threatening a takeover or screaming the Commies are coming? NO! -because it's the weirdo right wing nutcase fanatics that are the ones full of fear and carrying guns. The same ones who didn't want integration in the schools let alone in society or in the dance halls - god-forbid people will mix!!!
Next time, why don't you read/research info and actually listen and exchange ideas before you jump to a crazed irrational response. This incident just reveals the power that Limbaugh and his like have and how wacko these people are. And those that are the most fearful are the most vitriolic. They're ruining the conservative base - a huge ugly thorn in their side. It's the only voice we're hearing - the insane fanatic wackos. Moderate conservatives - where are you???
D. Jones-
"When Reagan and Bush spoke at the schools- did you see liberals fearmongering and threatening a takeover or screaming the COMMIES are coming?" No, they didn't do that, instead they hauled the Bush administration before Congressional committees of inquiry regarding his speech and went line-by-line through the entire $26,000 that was spent on the speech. One can only imagine what they would have done if his administration distributed a work assignment before hand asking elementary students to write letters describing how they can help President Bush and how President Bush inspired me. The Democrats would have started an impeachment process.
The problem that Democrats have is that this President is not demonstrating to the American people that he is trustworthy. As a result, his poll numbers are falling and he can't even get support from the most junior members of his own party. It took Watergate for Richard Nixon to take such a nose dive in public confidence.
Lastly, I would agree that accusing Obama of some type of mind control through a nationwide speech is over the top. However, it is not that much different than what we heard from the left about President Bush over the last eight years and are still hearing about Vice President Cheney. Both parties do it, it doesn't make it right, but it seems to be a feature of American political discourse in 2009.
Jim-
I tooki the liberty of watching Maddow and Matthews' shows tonight so I might get some insight into how you would parrot back their spin on the President's speech to elementary school children.
Matthews had a guest host and I wasn't really interested in what the guest host had to say.
Maddow on the other hand completely ignored the lesson plan aspect of this issue and launched into the usual name-calling (see D. Jones, Eric Field, Stephen, and Rich for samples) that eminates from leftist sources. Apparently, you and she are in full agreement on this matter. Congratulations.
You betcha!
TC and Paul F, you scare the absolute crap out of me.
The illogical conclusions and unconscious thought processes are truly frightening. You are both probably seemingly upstanding members of society that might have procreated or have some sort of influence on others, which scares me even further. Seriously.
At least MDM makes sense in his second comment as well. He's spitting and splattering in his conservatism, but his comments aren't without truth. Nothing wrong with calling the liberals whiners for their actions against Bush I - that's exactly what they were. Nothing wrong with calling Obama and the Dems gutless for not getting Health Care passed...they own the House, Senate and Presidency...they should be able to do anything they want.
Dubya started a damn war on completely false pretenses, hired journalists to spread his agenda, covertly outed CIA agents, had anyone 'against' him or investigating him illegally fired, and used fear-mongering and hateful language to get his own legislation through...and where he couldn't, he simply signed unconstitutional executive orders.
But he wasn't inexperienced, he certainly wasn't gutless, and he was completely dominant over youth, adults, the media message, and his administration outright lied to Congress, the Senate and the UN.
TC and Paul actually liken Obama to Hitler and have a convoluted fear/view that Obama and the media and marketing are looking to take over the world.
You men are insane.
Please listen to MDM, if you're truly conservative. He's partisan and sticks to his one-track mindset, but he's not crazy, doesn't twist conspiracy theories and never relies on farfetched fear. He can also take in other arguments and condemn his own party when they, too, are gutless.
You other folks? Scarier than Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined.
Thank Goodness the "I don't believe a word I'm saying" speech is over and we can move on to the next "Big Lie"...Tonight's speech.Why all this phony concern about the conservative base...why not comment on the looney tunes that make up and support the left... is it because intellectual honesty is not something you want to attempt as it would betray your mean spirited nonsense?Where do you get all the garbage you're spewing?Do you think it up yourself or are you parroting NPR,CNN,ABC,NBC,CBS, and MSLSD...or are you channeling Ted Kennedy.You appear to be a puppet of the left and have no desire to deal with reality...Enjoy your trip in Fantasyland.
Hey D.Jones,
That hope and change bit doesn't seem to be doing much for you -- ever think of meds?
Everyone liked the President's message. And luckily, because of the controversy, the lesson plan (and probably the content of his message) got massaged.
For those of you who think this is all ok because you like what he said, what happens next time when the message is considered by some to be too political, or reflects values that some find repugnant?
Once we have established public schools as proper forums for Presidents to make "inspirational" speeches, what do we do when some don't like the message?
Who will then issue regulations to determine what speech is proper? Is that really what we want? Isn't it better to keep the politicians and their PR machineries out of the mandatory curriculum of the schools in the first place? Perhaps more history lessons and fewer inspirational speeches should be delivered.
Kim, Kim, Kim, Kim ...... You are so exasperating!
"This President has gone to great lengths to keep in touch with the country..."
Unless, of course, you are a Republican, conservative or of the Christian faith.....!
" He listens, he adapts, he communicates with the people he represents..."
Maybe that’s the problem, "he communicates with the people he represents." Just who is that? Union thugs, community organizers, black nationalists, wacko preachers, Moslems, eco-wackos (Van Jones, etc.), fellow socialists..... Funny, I thought a president represented the whole country....
".... it doesn't matter what Obama says...."
I guess it didn’t matter what Hitler, Marx, Darwin, Pol Pot said ... Incidently, they all, beforehand, told us exactly what they were going to do .... we didn’t listen and then they did it. It does matter what a person says ??? Words, may be and sometimes are indicators of future actions! Obama is telling us exactly what he wants to do (to us) .... are we listening?
"There is no threat to ... kids... just another opportunity to discuss different opinions...."
No threat from state indoctrination? Different opinions? Come on now! Differing opinions in a state run school? When was the last time creationism was taught side-by-side with evolution in a state run school? When was the last time the various theories of capitalism were taught side-by-side with other economic theories in our little propaganda mills? In the public system every world religion is taught and commended except Christianity! Want to see how "respectful" the "system" is of your differing opinions? I suggest this test, send your kid to any public school and have him or her offer to pray for the class just before it starts. We’ll see if differing opinions are respected!
Kim KIm Kim Kim....is that a blog metronome? lol
TC TC TC either you completely missed the point or consciously sidestepped it. I'm not up to playing your games today. Give me a break and just pass me by this time. You have no idea how exasperating I can really be especially when my words are taken out of context.
Der Stürmer is the most infamous newspaper in history. I've touched the subject of that Nazi publication once before because I have actually seen it. For twenty-two years every issue denounced Jews in crude, vicious, and vivid ways. Nine special editions also were published after 1933, often timed to appear at the annual Nuremberg rally. These had themes such as ritual murder, Jewish criminality, the world Jewish conspiracy, Jewish sex crimes, and the Jews of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Print runs were as high as 2,000,000. ( Source: a composite of material from Calvin Coolidge College.)
That brings me to my question. I have often wondered about T C Morgan's improbable , hateful assertions about the effect of the Obama presidency. Is Mr. Morgan just parroting the hateful anti-Obama propaganda, or is he one of the authors of it? It is quite obvious that president Barack Obama is being painted as a Nazi, socialist, communist, anti-American villain. How anyone can be wrapped up in all three is beyond my simple mind. I subscribe to the simple tenet that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Today's Rightwing politics are taking to many twists and turns and are throwing too many curves. Of course the politics to the left are not any less confusing. But they are not so all-encompassing hateful. Progressives and Conservatives used to work together well for the good of the nation. Was Barack Obama my choice for president? No! But I be dammed if I play that hateful propaganda game which can only suggest the inevitable truth that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Debate and dialog between opposing forces is one thing; but an endeavor to annihilate the opposition is un-American, for lack of a better explanation. I am banking on the fact that the beehive is not a microcosm of the America of WE THE PEOPLE.
I think the only question before us on President Obama, is: "Is he or isn’t he?" (The hunt for red Obama ??).
"...Nazi, socialist, communist, anti-American villain. How anyone can be wrapped up in all three is beyond my simple mind...." Beyond my simple mind too!
Time will tell, if what is being said and being revealed about our president is a "hateful propaganda game" or is a honest attempt at getting at the truth by cutting through the maze of disinformation from the state-run media. And then of course, we must recognize, that no administration, Republican or Democrat is exactly forthcoming when it comes to information about anything they are doing. (That’s what makes Fox News - in contrast to other media entities - relevant for us - at least somebody is trying to get the news out, even in the face of overwhelming administration pressure to conform to the state line).
BTW, I’m nobody’s parrot. I’ve regularly clashed with fellow conservatives on "religious / Christian issues." I’ve parted company with former president Bush - who some would say is conservative - I would not - on his completely inaccurate statements on Islam. Let alone his tendency towards bigger government.
I think the differences between conservatives and liberals can be summed up in one statement: Conservatives tend to look for the truth and let the chips fall where they may, libs tend to parrot whatever is passed down from utopian dreamers.
I have heard remarks to the effect that he was not their choice for president people who indeed voted Obama in the general election. Lets be clear by drawing another straight line between two seemingly disparate meanings, denial here does not necessarily preclude sacrificing individual liberty for party loyalty.
I would say to those people who love their party more than liberty, you reap what you sow.
Baaaaaa!
libs vs cons; and what are we talking about? As per dictionary:
"Conservatism, the disposition to preserve what is established and resist change." -----------------------------------
"liberal, favorable to progress or reforms in religious or political affairs."-----------------------------------------------
Ergo, the cons would have us still in the cave, or a little later, have "God Save the Queen" for an anthem. So we have the progressives and the conservatives. On a higher political level we may speak of progressive v. reactionary. In most of the world's political systems, "Liberal" is a political direction of its own. So libs and cons, that flippancy might be cute but is on the level of five-year-olds shooting marbles or jumping rope. At second thought, I take that back. Today's five-year-olds are computer hip and proficient in a device that is very exacting. I have not mastered it. In conclusion: "liberal, favorable to progress or reforms in religious or political affairs." What is wrong with that? Those presidents who were "conservatives" did the most harm to the nation. So far what do I know of president Obama? Actually nothing. But facts shall remain facts. Cross a donkey with a horse you get a mule, but what do you get if you try cross Hitler with Stalin? Certainly not president Omama. You shall get the reputation of being an idiot. And now I invite some of you to the usual name calling. If I am not used to it by now, I never shall.
"So far what do I know of president Obama? Actually nothing."
And isn't that the problem?
We don’t know where he was born, we don’t know what he believes, we don’t now what he has said after he says it .... what do we know? ... well, he is an empty suit with a teleprompter that works occasionally!
T C Morgan, your observations are implying that Americans must be a stupid lot , voting for an empty suit. But history is made of different fabric (pun intended.) I need to know what makes the US president tick. But with that organized vilification of his person, the un-initiated like myself are not given the chance of objective information and evaluation. So any further debating on the current basis would be purely academic, an exercise in futility.
Fox News + Rush Limbaugh + Ann Coulter = Objective Information / Fair Evaluation
Mark Levin ("Liberty & Tyranny) + The Holy Bible = Truth
Mr.Morgan, thank you for the leads. I know the Bible, but I do not consult it for secular politics. Pax vobiscum!
Mr. Feldon,
Bush DID ask the students to write how they could help the president - the exact same thing - however, parents didn't go berserk and make their kids stay home and accuse him of taking over the country and indoctrination. And Reagan even brought up politics in his talk to students! The text below is from factceck.org
"We’ve also gotten a number of queries about whether any previous president has addressed the nation’s schoolchildren. President George H.W. Bush did so in 1991, when his address to an eighth-grade class at Alice Deal Junior High in Washington, D.C., was broadcast nationwide. The administration sent letters to all public schools urging them to watch the speech, which ended with Bush encouraging students to "write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals."
"Bush also weathered criticism from the opposing party, in that episode for what they saw as a misuse of taxpayer funds. Then-House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt called the speech "paid political advertising," and Colorado Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder said it represented "the arrogance of power." Michigan Democrat William D. Ford demanded that Education Secretary Lamar Alexander defend the spending, threatening to obstruct legislation if Alexander did not comply. However, there are no reports of parents keeping or threatening to keep their children home from school because of Bush’s address."
"President Ronald Reagan also gave a televised address to schoolchildren in November 1988. His speech had more political content than Bush’s or Obama’s, touching on taxes and the spread of democracy. We found no reports of objections to that speech."
Re impeaching Bush - I still think he should've been impeached and I still think Cheney is an insane psychotic paranoid. Bush flat out stold that last "election" - no doubts about it. He was also the WORST president in history - and along with Clinton, he helped screw us all with the deregulation and hedge funds and squandering the surplus that Clinton left - lied about hidden weapons, the list is endless. On top of all that, he acted pompous and arrogant and constantly had a smirk and an air of "I'm the decider", "It's hard work." The man couldn't even speak like a statesman, let alone act like one.
And to compare Nixon to Obama - are you for real? Were you around during Watergate? And how about Nixon and Erlichman on tape talking about for profit healthcare, Kaiser - that the way they make money is by giving LESS care - Nixon LOVED that idea. At least Obama genuinely cares about people and wants everyone to have quality healthcare.
I agree that to an extent, both parties do/say stupid things - but, from my view, one party is a bit more reasonable and rational in their approach. Neither party should be defined by their extremes, but no one is curbing these vicious attacks and lies put out there by wackos like Limbaugh - and Fox "news" that are owned by Rupert Murdock and a handful of corporations - Time Warnor, G.E., etc.
As a decesendant of Alexander Hamilton, I am a believer in having different points of view, but I am not for extreme antics like claiming indoctrination and keeping your kids home from school. It's irrational.
You don't know where he was born??? Have you not heard/read that he was born in Hawaii? Are you questioning his dual citizenship in both Kenya (as a child of a Kenyan, his father) or that it is prohibited once a child grows to adulthood? The man was born in Hawaii. Now you know.
You don't know what he believes? Have you not been listening? Have you read his biography? Have you not done any research about him? Your statements seem to infer some kind of hidden motives. You don't know what he said after he said it??? Where is your head? I don't get you. Can you explain?
Oh - I saw the Fox News + Rush Limbaugh comment
now I get it...another irrational citizen who can't seem to think on his own.
Brian - Wow, what assumptions! You're calling me a phoney for calling out extremist conservative wackos-for wondering where the civility went, where the moderates are. Is that logical to you? Since I know me better than you do, I will correct you - I AM concerned - I DO wonder where the moderates are, I DO want an exchange of ideas - something we Americans are not getting.
You've defined yourself by naming the speech, "I don't believe a word I'm saying" and then the "next big lie". You've already made up your mind and haven't even listened - that's the problem. You just showed there's no exchange, no listening, no constructive input.
And questioning why I "don't comment on the looney tunes that make up and support the left" - you're grouping all the left as looney - when I am focusing on the extremists - the wackos. And the "looney left" aren't the ones acting wacko right now - it's the looney right - the extremists. When the looney left extremists act out, I'll be calling them out too - as I have always done. I'm against wackos as a whole!
And "intellectual honesty"? a betayal of my "mean- spirited nonsense"? And "spewing garbage"??? Is this the best you can do? You've just cemented my perception of the irrational wackos. Comments like these with no reason, no logic, nothing really said.
As for "parroting" - I don't even have cable - and what little TV I see, I know it's been jaded both ways - it's owned by corporations - so, I do a lot of internet research, where I believe there's more truth to be found. We were formed as a republic and are supposed to be a democracy, but in reality, we are a plutocracy. I am not about how much money corporation CEOs can amass, or what the numbers are on Wall Street. I am about the everyday Americans, the actual human beings.
Channeling Ted Kennedy? A puppet? Since he died, I actually felt bad for not paying attention to Ted for the past couple of decades. I couldn't puppet someone I haven't even paid attention to.
No desire to deal with reality??? Fantasyland??? My response is the same - these comments have no value, they're irrational, illogical and empty. I would prefer you have something concrete you can say, something we can discuss. But don't align yourself with the nutcase wackos, it discredits any potential credibility.
Re common-sense,
Again, another vitriolic comment with no value. And to name yourself "common sense", truly defines phoney since you said nothing common sense. Instead, it showed a meanness that the other guy tried to label me with.
What's sad is that we can't just talk about actual things in a rational, logical, civil way - once we get into the extremist, wacko mode, then it's all over and we truly would have little hope for change. Someone needs to point out the insanity so we can get back to a civiliy of being united in what we agree on and divided on what we don't. As it is, it's become extremely partisan with a bunch of wacko behavior.
I read this and thought of so many of you in here.
Can anyone tell me honestly what purpose it would serve President Obama to convert this country to Communism, which is impossible because we have a Constitution that structures our government? It would take some time to convert so maybe the outcome would only last 1 year. So I ask you, what is the virtue of attempting to convert this country to communism?
Too late pal...running your mouth did nothing for discussion and now you want to back track.You do know yourself better than I but I know all I need to about you...so spew on.
More hypocrisy from the left.Where was all the concern when Pres. Bush was being demonized and people were writing movies about assasinating him.I don't remember seeing a post from you calling for a cease in hostilities toward the man.The concern for civility is disingenuous and shows the disconnect with reality.Scot...do you ever think for youself? Shut off the electronics for a few days and get in touch with your own thoughts instead of searching cyberspace and the airwaves for them.
D. Jones ... I'm with you there: "What's sad is that we can't just talk about actual things in a rational, logical, civil way - once we get into the extremist, wacko mode, then it's all over and we truly would have little hope for change."
"The 'looney left' aren't the ones acting wacko right now..." D Jones
This is what conservatives mean by the looney left:
Van Jones, Obama’s former "green jobs czar," signed a 2004 petition that demanded an investigation into whether "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
Van Jones after the Rodney King verdicts, said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, This is what I need to be a part of.... I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary... I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th... By August, I was a communist."
Van Jones was recruited by the Obama administration not in spite of his wacky beliefs but because of them.
And this from Victor Davis Hanson, today’s column on the anniversary of 9/11:
"The last eight years have seen a resistance culture spring up, let by such as Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, and Joe Wilson —— coupled with congressional fury in which senators have characterized our own troops as analogous to Pol Pot, Nazis, Communists, terrorists, and Saddam Hussein’s Baathists. Today one-third of Democrats believe that President Bush was involved in the planning of September 11."
It ain’t the conservatives who are wacko!
D. Jones-
Do you have a Master's Degree in obfuscation? How one person can get a comment so miscontrued is beyond me. Let me bring your hyperbole back into the context of my comments.
1. If you would have read my earlier posts you would have noticed that I am opposed to all Presidents (including Reagan and Bush) doing what Obama did- interestingly for the very reasdons you cite. You could have deleted the first four paragraphs of your rant if you paid attention.
2. Your comment about Bush are those of someone suffering from Bush-derangement syndrome and confirm my orignibal assertion in this regard. Thank you.
3. I never compared Obama to Nixon. Nixon was a crook. I don't know yet about Obama. The only thing that he has in common, so far, with Nixon is his credibility rating. I'll leave to you and others to make other equivalencies between the two.
4. Yes Mr. Jones I was around when Watergate was in the news. I was a college student at the time and missed a fair number of classes to watch the hearings. Also, you may be interested to know I voted Mc Govern in 1972 and Carter in 1976, but quickly recovered from my acute case of liberalism, as most college students eventually do.
First, my words are no more rant than yours, so get off your high horse - you're not God.
Second, your unfiltering ear for Fox "news", Limbaugh and the likes have tainted your vision since you clearly have a rose-colored view of the direction that the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove team drove America to. From my perspective, they did more damage than good - that isn't "derangement".
Third, "to make otehr equivalencies between the two" is comparing them.
And Forth, I am not MR. and as a former college student at the same time, I'm interested in what made you "quickly recovered from my acute case of liberalism" and why you think that "most college students eventually do." Can you expand on that as I am curious to how you came to think the way you do right now. I would be interested too, to know what do you agree on - or are you just against all liberals in general - extreme wackos or not?
I'm not against all liberals- just the rude ones.
Sorry about the "Mr." I never heard such balderdash from a lady before. But then, perhaps you're not a lady, merely a woman.
T C Morgan,
I never said only conservatives are wackos - I've been targeting the recent conservative wackos who I identified as a minority.
Re 9/11 - when so many first responders - firefighters, police, emergency technicians, and individuals each mention that a bomb exploded at the base of the tower, it can lead to questions - do I personally think there was a deliberate killing by our own gov't - no - but, I do think that people have the right to question and I do lean to think that there is hidden info about 9/11 that we still don't know for reasons we don't know. There's no question our gov't does secret things all around the world and not always for the good.
Re Van Jones, a lot of us as young people enthusiastic about the world, explored who we were in a range of beliefs, thoughts, and actions. There was a time when youth considered police to be "pigs" - when being a radical or a revolutionary were idealized - even considered a form of caring enough to take action - when hippies wanted "brotherly love" and "peace" and so on. The idea of being a "communist" was idealized, (after the McCarthyism of the fifties) - the sharing of goods, living in a commune, growing our own food etc. I see his background from a different perspective - and I don't think his intent is negative. I also don't believe that he wants to be a communist today. I think the Obama administration chose him for his passion and dedication in his caring about other people and because he's shown a deep level of committment.
Re a resistance culture - there's been that from both sides whenever the other side gains some measure of control - it's not just the last 8 yrs. When Clinton became president, the first Democrat in 12 yrs - they went nuts too. And now the extremists are going nuts that Obama is president. The wackos think everyone is out to get them - they lose common ground and then it wrecks it for everyone else.
I just wish it hadn't become so partisan - that there would be more openness, better listening and more acknowledgement that we're all Americans in a United States - and get over the red/state blue/state thing. It seems the question to ask is what is the genuine intent of the individual.
It seems the only main difference I surmise, is the degree of willingness or unwillingness to give to others and how much to give or not give. This seems to be the seminal problem. I'm referring to protections, rights, assistance, etc.
Brian Murray,
Your comments:
"running your mouth"
"I know all I need to know about you"
"spew on"
You're making my case for the wackos and showing your true intention - which is apparently to berate -period.
Re not seeing any posts - I just read this blog for the first time this week. And for the record, I'm generally against assasinations.
And to assert that my concerns are "disengenuous" and that I have a "disconnect with reality" - shows that you somehow think you know my heart and my brain. It would be better to say, it seems - or to give a rational reason rather than to make a flat out claim against my character.
What is it with you libs? To paraphrase Michelle Malkin - basically there are only two responses to all things Obama - "'What about Bush? What about Bush? What about Bush?' and 'So what!'"
Watching you libs run the country is analogous to watching the Hindenburg crash and burn.
I once thought that JoeFeldon had brain and class.He convinced me to the contrary. I have taken a dislike to his poison fangs. But how should I (anyone) have known that D Jones was FM?
Ms. Lawson-
Those fangs are never exposed, except in the case of blatant stupidity. While you are not a stupid woman, you appear incredibly thin-skinned and pretentious. You regard yourself as "being above it all", yet you want to weigh in with your opinions, and then get snooty when someone asks for clarification of what you mean. I suspect that it is the tone of your voice that sooths you the most and not the exchange of ideas. Then, when your lack of depth is exposed you summon the she-devil Eugenia1896 to do your bidding. If you wish to engage in character attacks you should expect to receive as much as you give.
Lastly, like you I hope they soon discover the mistake they made at the hospital and restore you to your rightful throne as Queen of Denmark.
Good day, madame.
Those fangs may not be always exposed but they are there. I don't get that one..." summon the she-devil Eugenia1896 to do your bidding." You give me credit for being powerful medicine. Thank you. I guess Eugenia 1896 has now better things to do, or she retreated behind her shingle. And you are showing your true colors more and more. And if president Obama is meant to prevail he will in spite of all the right wing attacks; whacko or otherwise. And your heart condition is of no interest to those who are in heart failure. And I really wish no further traffic with the likes of you; pretentious or not. And since you are driven to always have the last word....I gladly yield. Have a good life!
I do believe that you owe the disabled iron worker an apology.
"you are not a stupid woman," I tend to agree.
"restore you to your rightful throne as Queen of Denmark." Why Denmark? Out of a hat? Not likely.
I guess your just trying to get everyone's mind right.I could try to play Dr.Phil and figure out why...but it's of no importance to me.I just reason that anyone who's got time to write more than a few lines is wasting it as I have witnessed no conversions on the blog and I have a bias for cowards who won't reveal their full name no matter what sex they think they are...Rich can back me up on this.
Tit for tat. Remember how badly Democrats treated Robert Bork during his confirmation hearing? Remember how Democrats snickered aloud during a Congressional address by Bush without any media criticism? If you criticize one, you darn well should criticize the other, unless you are so convinced that your side is so right that you are immune to polite behavior!
So much raucous flatulance.
Brian,
Now I'm a "coward" for not revealing my name and you're "biased" because of this misjudgment and you need the support of Rich to back you up and on and on about "no importance" and "wasting it" and so on...then why are you on this blog since you are coming off as though you think you're above everyone else? It's a rhetorical question.
Brian is here to keep from giving D. Jones from getting a free ride with our taxes, I'm glad he is, I hope he stays. It's a rhetorical answer.
I don't get why it matters what sex I "think I" am - I've always just used my first initial because I don't like my first name - not that it's any of your business, but there it is. (Did you ask this of T C Morgan?)
I also don't get the low remark about not being a lady and I'm disappointed in the level of attack remarks on this blog. It's one thing to call out crazy over-the-top behavior in a reasonable way, but to just hit people with name calling seems wierd. It seems immature with an aim to only attack at a base level. That's not the same as making a point or using some kind of rational reasoning behind it - it's not even real opinion. It's just shallow and sad.
Regarding comments like, "you libs" and the "Hindenburg crash and burn" and why people from one side don't criticize the other - I just want to note that I thought this blog was based on the article about the fanatic wackos who got riled up over Obama in the schools. There was a specific topic.
b2burns
I agree with you - Dems did snicker and more during Bush's presidency - there's been a lot of disrespect from both parties - it's a two-way street - the right did it with Clinton and has done it repeatedly against the left and the left has done it repeatedly against the right - no one is exempt. None of it helps us get anywhere. Instead, we've got Americans now killing each other over things they disagree with. This is really nuts.
This blog has been fun even though people got into personal attacks, I still enjoyed reading and responding. And I still hope we someday actually help out our country in a more constructive way - at the very most - it shows respect for those young men and women who are out there dying for it. But, I think I've said all I need to say.
oh - one more thing - I'm far more than "merely a woman." And while I said that "if I were a conservative" - I have both conservative and liberal views, but I tend to lean toward liberal - I'm conservative with moral issues and money and liberal with social issues. I believe in helping people who need it, but also in teaching them how to help themselves (sort of like raising children). I'm not against Capitalism, but I do think it needs boundaries and I'm big on ethics. I think I'm like most Americans - a little of this, a little of that...
To stop the president from talking to school kids after the speech has been delivered does not make much sense to me. And after such a large number of comments posted, it was to be expected that we would digress. And as usually, not exactly flowing with the milk of kindness....hahaha! D Jones ; how were we to know that you are not a Mr.? Or did I miss something?
But JoeFeldon's statement that he is only against the "rude liberals" , is the most hilarious thing he said so far. Let us examine his tar brush. For D Jones, "rude liberal"; for Eugenia 1896 "she devil" and for me; "raucous flatulance." The to be expected response ...I never called anyone anything blah blah blah. Well, I was rude too. I dubbed him Teflon Joe for being as slippery as an eel since the posts did go after "Jim" and "Brian Murray only." And since there was something in Feldon's post that he (by all expectations) could not have known, at this moment I am not so positive JoeFeldon is for real. But the mystery probably shall not be solved...hahaha! D Jones I hope you are as amused as I am? Laughter is good for body and soul. I take large doses of it. hahaha! And lo and behold, our kids are still OK. hahaha!
I'm not "backing up" Brian on anything, lol.
"I've always just used my first initial because I don't like my first name -"
D Jones,even my banking is being done with my initials and Lawson. It has something to do with my signature. The name-calling made a number of most interesting bloggers drop out. And if the political wackos shall take the upperhand numerically, I am afraid the beehive blog may become too exhausting for "normal" people. My guess is that a shrink had a look at it already. I am just sorry that I can't share with my husband, because I am embarrassed that I spend any of my time responding to wackos. hahaha! D Jones, I am glad that you are here.
Yea, D. Jones welcome, get ready for the blogging pillow fight of your life.
Thank you Isabell - re how was anyone to know that I am not a MR - I don't get why anyone needed to know - why it mattered. It wasn't that my sex wasn't known, it was that I was assumed by Joe Feldon to be a MR. because he said he "never heard such baulderdash from a woman before". Which is funny since it implies that he's only heard baulderdash from men. And we all know that most everyone offers up some form of baulderdash at some point or another.
But - baulderdash aside, I do think it's important to keep a focus and stay on point until the point gets some kind of a resolution - even if it's just to agree to disagree. I like to hear reasonable, rational points from every direction - we all know it's how we can find a center, a place to come to some kind of an agreement and then therefore a means to move forward to the next problem.
Amused, yes - some of it is funny - that's the fun part. For me, it's more disheartening than exhausting - I don't mind being exhausted for a worthy effort. Don't be embarrassed that you spend time responding to wackos - they're the ones that really need to be called out - to maybe try to help them gain a sense of reason. They're the ones I'm afraid of - the ones who randomly kill people and take extreme measures.
Do you get Bart Turnipspeeds last comment - that I need to be stopped from "getting a free ride with our taxes"?
"I think I'm like most Americans - a little of this, a little of that..." My question is from who's wallet?
Correction.
I said "...balderdash from a lady...", not "from a woman". I think the Queen of Denmark knows the difference. Just want to confirm your biases.
We all get Bart Turnipseed's comments. They are, invariably, out of context with the commentary of those he hopes to annihilate. His responses ,more often than not, are spun of pure delusion. I decided to ignore his existence, and asked him to ignore mine. So far, to no avail. He is like a pit bull, he can't let go. I do not use the address Ms; Mrs.; Mr. unless the name gives me reasonable certainty of gender. Like Jean, Joe, Carrie, Teddy and so many others could be either. Luckily there are only two genders. Unless some are ITS. Like birdbrain? scatterbrain.......and so forth. There is something a small number of the ever so conservative, anti lib bloggers can't stand. Namely, the knowledge of self-worth. Most of us have earned it throughout a lifetime of trying to adhere to what is universally considered right (as in just). A dear friend, a man of the clergy, advised me to take a more charitable view of those who attack us. Because more often than not they are plagued by self-doubt and self-loathing , which very often is the root of their belligerence. I too like to debate issues. Engaging in personalities is a waste of time. But several of those who really had something to say got scared off by the name-calling. I am still here because I may be a beehive junkie.
I am amazed at how many folks just pop up and fall in love here. I have never been to a blog were gender identification becomes such an element of the courtship, at exactly the same phase, so often. It seems that this recurring theme is perhaps contrived and a form of deception. For me, until ruled out, this will remain a clue that we are not meeting a new person, but witnessing the additional facture of a peronality already familiar with these spaces.
Correction cont'd:
You are confirming your own biases since you gave your own definition of what a "lady" is.
I'm baffled. What phase are you referring to? What recurring theme? What deception? What courtship? Contrived??? Not meeting a new person? Witnessing an additional facture of a personality??? Your suspicious, distrustful, accusatory comments sound like paranoia. I'm flabberghasted that you even thought that up. It seems strange. I'm confused what you're even accusing me of - except that you seem to think there's some kind of hidden something going on.
Would telling you that I'm just me, no one else, no hidden agenda - no secrets - first time blogging this past week - never blogged before - would that help ease your suspicions? I'm confused - I just don't even get it. I'm truly baffled by that. I mean name calling is bad enough, but now this weird distrust - it's crazy. Why??? I don't get it. First name calling and now this weirdness. What does this have to do with Obama talking in the schools??? What's the point of what you said?
Nice Isabell, a pitbull plagued by self-doubt and self-loathing. You give him too much credit.
The President Barack Obama parlor game. (any number of players)
"Stop the president before he tells kids to work hard in school." By Jim Boren, September 7,
WHO IS A PHANTOM BLOGGER?*****COMMENTS 81*****PROTAGONISTS 19
anti-estupidez
b2burns
common sense
Erin Christian
Michael Der Manouel
Paul F
JoeFeldon
Field Eric
D Jones
Jackie Krage
Isabell Lawson
TC Morgan
Bryan Murray
Jeff Reid
Rich
Scot
Stephen
Kim Tanksley
Bart Turnipseed
Will the phantom make itself be known by saying boo in the voice of the real life blogger!
You've hit on that seminal point I mentioned earlier. I don't think your wallet is that much different than mine. Or your heart - I don't know - as a student in college, I gave my entire paycheck to a woman with 5 young children who lost her husband and had very little food - I've also bought shoes for people who need them etc., etc. All of us have experienced compassion for people in need. I'm sure it was my belated father and my church upbringing - to help other people, as I was taught firsthand. But this doesn't mean I want to take your money or mess with your wallet. And it doesn't mean I want to help someone whose just taking advantage of my help. I think we have a big problem with that happening with illegals in particular. Yet, we hire many to do cheap labor and we've allowed them to take over what used to be skilled, craftsmanship jobs (note I said "used" to be skilled...) I remember when my gardner spoke English and I could tell him that he broke my sprinkler...(I have no gardner now, but if I did, he/she would have to be able to understand me.)
My father made my brothers and I work in the fields in the summer so we'd learn the value of hard work - not out of need. I've picked cotton and pecans and bagged potatoes etc. Now it's labeled as work we white folks "don't want to do." Of course not, who wants to do backbreaking work for no pay and horrible condtions and dominated by workers who can't speak English so there's little chance to communicate? We want one thing and we do another. There needs to be some consistency with our words and our actions.
I also don't think that we're all for plumping up the fatcats wallets at the expense of ours. I think there's a lack of reasoning with how that's turned out - the ratio between us has hugely broadened - it's become totally skewed over the last couple of decades. And those CEOs who do piss-poor jobs and still get outrageous bonuses and salaries need to get a conscience. That's flat out wrong. I'm angry at greedy fatcat pigs who screwed people out of jobs and pensions and acted selfishly and stupidly.
I was totally against all the Clinton and then Bush mergers. And against all the deregulation and the hedge funds and the huge corporate tax cuts that cost us everyday Americans billions and cost us jobs. I'm now sitting here unemployed for no good reason. It's infuriating. As an educated American who has worked hard all my life, and played by all the rules, I recently got denied food stamps, the first time I ever needed them. It hard to even try, but when you literally need food, you do what you have to. So I eat cottage cheese and nuts for protein. Thankfully, I have a giving neighbor who brings me a bit of groceries now and then. Try finding a job online...I've never experienced it this bad.
This country has failed me. I am very angry about it. I did everything right, worked two jobs, almost own my home - a fixer upper paid for with a fixed low rate, paid my taxes - and here I am. I'm one of the more fortunate, but I've lost my health insurance - that I didn't get through an employer - and had to pay out of pocket due to a high deductible. What will happen if I get sick? I'll lose my home and then there's nothing left to take. It would prompt me to move to France or the Netherlands or Canada or pretty much any other industrialized country where I would get free care. I don't want that scenario, but my country is failing me in more ways than one, and I will do whatever I have to do to survive - which is what a lot of illegals are doing - hence the low pay...
I also don't shop at Walmart because I don't want to end up with one big, homogenous megastore chain and no choice. I like supporting mom and pop stores. I like uniqueness, choices. I also don't like that WAlmart refers their employees to feed off the social programs available in their city and state.
Everyone wants their hard earned money to be spent wisely and to get to keep as much of it as they can. I want security. I also prefer quality rather than cheap - not from China - I want more American made - not all, but more. I want to support my own country. But what country? We're owned by China and by a handful of corporations. The people? No one cares about us. It's about the bottom line and f-you - me me me. We're not even citizens anymore, we're now "consumers".
And why are jobs going to India and Thailand and everywhere but here? So the fatcats can pad their wallet - what about mine? And why did fatcat corporations get huge tax cuts? Where's my tax cuts? Why do they get away with loopholes and tax havens?
I think we probably agree on more than we disagree. We all want to have a comfortable life and have our basic needs covered. But not here. Not if you're in the middle or lower middle class. If you're dirt poor, you're covered. If your fatcat rich, you're covered. The rest of us - are screwed with no security. So whose wallet? I don't think yours or mine makes that much difference in the scheme of this plutocracy that we now live in. We basically have no wallet. The real wallet is the big fat wallet that dwarfs ours into oblivion.
Jones forgive me, I was just thinking about one Eugenia 1895, and my fingers started typing. I am happy that Isabell has taken the time to introduce me, as you can see she has a penchant for imbalanced appraisals. There is a god reason for that. However she does make friends easily, one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of things. By the way, I happen to like shopping at Walmart. For me it's a cheesebuger with all the trimmings. As for mom and pop, ask them about Gottschalk's. No difference.
I can't help but notice that you listed "Isabell Lawson" as a phantom blogger, but not "Eugenia1895". Does this mean you know latter but not the former?
Just asking.
BTW, I'm me.
A friend of mine (age 60) was shopping at Walmart recently, she slipped in a puddle of water and broke her tibia and fibula clean through. They put her in a cart and rolled her out to her car and left her there. The store then closed for the night and the employees emptied the parking lot. Driving with her left leg, she drove herself to the hospital. Home in a wheelchair with a plate and screws holding her ankle together, trying to work around it to keep her job... she received a letter from Walmart saying they denied her claim. She had never even filed one. Needless to say, I don't shop at Walmart any more. A company that won't even FAKE concern doesn't need my money.
Walmart stories that make me go Hmm.
I listed the 19 bloggers who had posted on that particular topic of President Obama talking to the children. I did not list every blogger who ever posted on the beehive. It was a fun-thing responding to some conspiracy paranoia. You are just trying to make trouble. Maybe JoeFeldon is a phantom. And now bugger off. I have better things to do than to spend my time corresponding with a trouble maker. Besides I had the impression that the beehive is an opinion blog and not a chat room.
Soon this topic will go to the archives. Maybe on its way out someone in the beehive can tell me how to do the following:
X teplied to comment from Y... Thank you!
Click on the blue teply.
Thank you! Got it!
Without hearing tone, I can not tell which way your post leans; however, I am not a fear-monger nor a Walmart basher. My story is true. It happened about three weeks ago. Hop in, I'll take you to her house and she can tell you herself and show you her cast. A fellow archaeologist, you two might have some fun stories to swap.
Actually Bart, go to my facebook page. A picture of her x-rays are on my "wall". They are kinda cool for those who study the human skeletal structure.
I can understand liking to shop at Walmart - and the cheeseburger analogy is perfect. In a way, it reminds me of the old Woolworths or Newberrys - only they had cool little food counters where I used to spend my allowance. But, one of my brothers and his wife used to work at the Walmart in Clovis. My sister-in-law kept getting passed over for a position in a dept where she worked for over 9 yrs - they kept hiring new people for that mgr position that she felt she should've gotten - she said she'd always had good reviews - never any problems or writeups. Each time, it got filled with a male so she felt discriminated against. I couldn't say what the deal was, but I did see her work and as a person with longtime management and HR experience, she seemed deserving. Never late, no sick days, just a good solid worker. She ended up quitting after the third mgr got hired - she just didn't feel she had any mobility there. My brother was hired right off the bat in a lead position and he was in rehab., still dealing with addiction. I think that's weird. When he eventually got laid off, they gave him paperwork for unemployment and food stamps and medicaid that day and told him his rights for public assistance.
One of my best friends from high school worked at a Walmart in Texas and lost her job about a week before her 10 yr mark when they brought in a new mgr in the photo dept where she worked, the reason was for something very small - I forget specifically now, it was a few years back, but, I remember it being a non-issue coming from a mgr and HR perspective. She was an ardent defender of Walmart until then. Now she's in Oregon painting illustrations for an author.
Gottschalks was a great store - for old ladies or children's wear - but at least it was something other than JC Penny and Sears and so on. I think they goofed bigtime using the G thing as a marketing tool when it's a gang symbol. That was just dumb. They're no comparison to Walmart though. By the way, I drove by Sam Walton's home when I was in Arkansas in the late 80s...it was like Disneyland without the rides.
Speaking of jobs, how do you bloggers feel about a now prevalent part of the requirements "fluent in Spanish"? I was excited to find 3 different good, high-paying with benefits jobs today, but each one "requires" / "prefers" (which really means, if you don't speak it you get looked over) Spanish. I'm about done with CA. I can't even tell when there's a break in words, let alone learn it at this point. I can understand the need for it, but at a point - doesn't it become a sort of reverse discrimination or am I wrong? Enlighten me.
I recently orderd a moderate-to-big ticket item from Walmart only to find out that it was the wrong size for application to my top secret project. I received a full refund from them, no questions asked, nothing but smiles, and the floor was dry as a bone. That is as far as I need to dig into Walmart's business practices to decide about where I will shop next if they carry a particular item of which I have an interest.
.
From topic; Barack Obama talking to school kids to Walmart?
So as long YOU are satisfied, that's it? What about the truckers, the distributors, the workers, the taxpayers etc. etc.? It all comes down to your own personal experience regardless of any negative or destructive impact on others?
Jones, as it relates to empathy, if you think that you have the corner of that market to yourself, that is just fine with me. I happen to be satisfied myself in that sphere, but instead of comparing notes in public why don't we let God figure it out. Someday should our lives end simultaneously maybe you can get what you seek. Your profound question of another will then be answered as you watch me struggle to lead my camel through the eye of a needle.
Just checking because that reply thing stopped working for me.
It's clear we're all struggling on our temporary way. And no, I don't think I have the corner on anything, just to clear that up - (not sure why that would be implied, but there it is).
Isabell,
Apparently the different responses to the initial topic came to an end. A little gained insight, an agreement that there's disagreement, no resolution and a lot of name calling...
"no resolution and a lot of name calling..."
Bingo! They seldom give opinions on the topics presented. But, instead, they decimate every word of those bloggers who give an opinion. And they engage in personalities. In my opinion, it is a power trip, the urge to control. It seems that some older men succumb to it for lack of...well (Shakespeare lets young Hamlet say it) I won't. And about the digressing from the given topic. Of course it is everybody's own preference, and discretion, but I , personally; do not like to digress from a given topic, like I am doing right now. Ordinarily, staying focused is part of my background as a druggist and non-fiction writer. And I see no reason why those who like to debate should be scared away from the blog by negative feedback from some bloggers. ( And by negative I do not mean opposing views; but the meanness, the rudeness.) But some very interesting and knowledgeable contributors, unfortunately, have given up because of that lack of resolution , and the name calling, as you have pointed out above.
Yes. Little actual substance, mostly vitriol - which seems to be favored by the conservative extremists - much of it fueled by their dominance of the talk show airwaves. Loud, screeching, irrational and at times completely nuts - judgments and accusations - a way to not bother getting to any kind of actual exchange - just raise the noise level and attack. They love to go to war abroad and at home. Attack is their game. They live in fear.