Some Parents Choose Not to Allow Their Kids to Hear Obama's National Address

[deafskeptic]

A woman at my office is absolutely sure that O is going to tell everyone that USA is now not a Christian country but a Muslim country. (Its true because she read it on the internet and her sister agreed) hahahaha

oh boy...

For real? This is absurd.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Kids need to be exposed to different idealogies instead of their own parents' only.

Yup, it wouldn't keep child from believe in parent's views because child can change their views when they turns into adult.

I guess if they're all O-bots for having a difference of opinion, then your kids are K-bots.

Both sides are attempting to do the same thing. Parents should allow their kids to have their own opinions, and allow them to decide what they believe is right.

Yes, that´s right.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

*shake my head quiet* to that article*


Regine Gordon doesn't want her 6-year-old son to hear from President Obama next week.

Gordon, of Tampa, Fla., is among a growing number of parents across the country who are troubled by the president's plan to address elementary, middle and high school students in an online and televised speech Tuesday.

"It's a form of indoctrination, and I think, really, it's indicative of the culture that the Obama administration is trying to create," Gordon told FOXNews.com on Thursday. "It's very socialistic."


Regine Gordon, you need to open your mind. You are being misleading over socialstic issues... You really have no idea what you are saying over socialistic issues...

 

[LDNanna]

Yes, the woman at my office is really convinced and there is some silly site to help convince her. Oh, did I mention that she is my boss?

History is lived, I agree that the kids should watch. How excited I was to see Kennedy. I remember it was like an event to see the president on tv. The conservatives hated him. I still really like him. He was a groundbreaker too. Young, Irish - American Catholic. He really had them going. The old folks would really gripe about him. Reminds me of politics today. Someone different with new ideas, young and African - American. Only history will tell if he was effective or not.

 

[deafskeptic]

Yes, the woman at my office is really convinced and there is some silly site to help convince her. Oh, did I mention that she is my boss?

History is lived, I agree that the kids should watch. How excited I was to see Kennedy. I remember it was like an event to see the president on tv. The conservatives hated him. I still really like him. He was a groundbreaker too. Young, Irish - American Catholic. He really had them going. The old folks would really gripe about him. Reminds me of politics today. Someone different with new ideas, young and African - American. Only history will tell if he was effective or not.

My dad said that Kennedy was the only democrat he ever voted for. JFK was anti-communist.

Given all the threads and the uproar outside AD over Obama, I'm starting to think he has replaced FDR as the new "That man in the house".

 

[Texan Guy]

What all I see Obama is a fascist.

 

[deafskeptic]

What all I see Obama is a fascist.

Fascist? Do you have any idea what that is? Golly.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

What all I see Obama is a fascist.

Care to educate us the example why you consider him as a facist?

 

[kokonut]

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality


He sure is beginning to sound like one in a lot ways.

 

[Texan Guy]

Deafskeptic and Liebling....what he said ^^^^^^

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Main Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date: 1921
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality


He sure is beginning to sound like one in a lot ways.

Okay... how is Obama letting corporatism take over the economy? How is he being imperialist or even militarist? Or how is he even being an ultranationist? Being anti-socialism, as well as anti- classic liberialism at the same time? These are characteristics all fascist nations has had in the past.

He doesn't even strike me as any of those. If anything, he is a bit left of centralism or "third way." At least study what fascism is at an economic level before citing a dictionary.

 

[deafskeptic]

Okay... how is Obama letting corporatism take over the economy? How is he being imperialist or even militarist? Or how is he even being an ultranationist? Being anti-socialism, as well as anti- classic liberialism at the same time? These are characteristics all fascist nations has had in the past.

He doesn't even strike me as any of those. If anything, he is a bit left of centralism or "third way." At least study what fascism is at an economic level before citing a dictionary.

As for Obama being socialist, I can cite at least two liberal sources who don't think he's a socialist.

He didn't have to convince me. Obama's centrist bent is clear to anyone who bothers to look. But after the Times incident — which apparently bothered him — he may have felt the need to be more clear about his ideological leanings to avoid any further silly "socialist" episodes. The next day, meeting at the White House with members of the New Democrat Coalition, a group of centrist Democratic members of the House, Obama said at one point: "I am a New Democrat."

Source is Counterpunch. If you want to see the full page, you can see it for your self. BTW, many of it's articles are critical of Obama.

Another source is Washington post. You may see the full article as I have only selected quotes that pertains to this thread.
Here is the author's socialist credentials:

After 15 years of socialist political organizing -- everything from licking envelopes and handing out leaflets to the more romantic task of speaking at street demonstrations -- I found myself in the midtown Manhattan studio of the Fox Business Network on a cold February evening. Who ever thought that being the editor of the Socialist magazine, circulation 3,000, would launch me on a cable news career?

BTW, the title of his article is "Obama is no socialist, I should know."

Billy Wharton goes on to list reasons why Obama isn't one:

The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.

The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.

Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.

There.. he has listed at least 3 reasons why Obama isn't one.

Many socialists are not happy with him because he's not one.

 

[shel90]

Har har!! Parents going batty!!!

Obama Schoolchildren Speech Drives Right-Wingers Batty

How soon they forgot that Reagan did EXACTLY the same thing!

Seriously, those people are LITERALLY LOSING their minds. They are irrational, they fear so much, they think socialism. They are terrified. They're cowards.

The part of the busywork materials that scared so many right-wingers, where kids are encouraged to "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president," has been changed. Instead, kids are encouraged to "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals." Tapper reports: "The idea, [White House spokesman Tommy] Vietor said, was that students should think of how they could help the President in terms of reducing the national dropout rate."

And the content of the speech? Uhm...it's all pretty innocuous, actually!

"The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard in school, to not drop out and to meet short-term goals like behaving in class, doing their homework and goals that parents and teachers alike can agree are noble," a White House spokesman tells ABC News, "This isn't a policy speech. This is a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."
And the kicker? Watching the speech will be an optional activity. You know... like so many other aspects of totalitarian regimes!

Anyway, that's the state of the world today. If President Obama reminded people tomorrow to brush between meals, thousands of people would allow their teeth to rot right out of their heads, because OMGZ TEH SOCIALISM! The upside to all of this is that after Tuesday, every teacher in the world will know precisely what students are going to need remedial help.

Yea, no kidding!

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

As for Obama being socialist, I can cite at least two liberal sources who don't think he's a socialist.



Source is Counterpunch. If you want to see the full page, you can see it for your self. BTW, many of it's articles are critical of Obama.

Another source is Washington post. You may see the full article as I have only selected quotes that pertains to this thread.
Here is the author's socialist credentials:


BTW, the title of his article is "Obama is no socialist, I should know."

Billy Wharton goes on to list reasons why Obama isn't one:


There.. he has listed at least 3 reasons why Obama isn't one.

Many socialists are not happy with him because he's not one.

That's what I means... he's a bit left of being a centralist. He is no socialist either, because Canadians are more socialists than he is and WE, ourselves, don't even consider ourselves to be anywhere on the socialism spectrum.

Edit: And I really wish the phrase liberal phase itself out... Urgh, I don't even know how they hijacked that term in the 1850 onward.

 

[kokonut]

That's what I means... he's a bit left of being a centralist. He is no socialist either, because Canadians are more socialists than he is and WE, ourselves, don't even consider ourselves to be anywhere on the socialism spectrum.

"Single payer system."

That pretty much says it all.

 

[deafskeptic]

I normally don't quote from blogs but I thought this should be posted if anyone brings up the New Party and Obama's connection with it. I haven't been able to find any firm comfirmination from anything other than right wing blogs.

Source is rightwingnuthouse

10/9/2008
OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST
CATEGORY: Decision '08, OBAMANIA!, Politics

I received close to a dozen emails this morning linking to this article that breathlessly breaks the news that Obama was a member of “The New Party” – a “fusion” party made up of hard line Maoists, Communists, American socialists, and far left liberal Democrats in Chicago.

Readers of this site may recall that I wrote about this connection back in late May. The blogsite Yid With a Lid did all the legwork as far as I can determine. Eric Ericson and Warner Todd Houston then fleshed out the connection at RedState and added some great analysis.

I have written frequently about Obama’s connection with the New Party including here and here as well as several posts at The American Thinker. (See also Tom Lifson’s excellent post today.) The point being, there is absolutely nothing new here – even the archived links to The New Party website have been floating around the web for 6 months. David Freddoso included information in his book The Case Against Barack Obama and Stanley Kurtz at NRO has mentioned the fact that ACORN members staffed Obama’s campaign in his first run for state senate. ACORN was a prominent member of The New Party coalition.

Does this make Obama a Marxist? A socialist?

I may be going over old ground here for daily readers but this is such an important aspect of Obama’s political personae that it bears repeating. Barack Obama’s political beliefs are secondary to his using anyone and everyone – from corrupt Machine politicians to wild eyed radical Maoists – to further his political career. All of the radical associations in his past (and present) represent nothing more than stepping stones to aid him in his political advancement. As early as 1987 he told Jeremiah Wright that he had his eye on the Governor’s mansion in Illinois (no doubt his sights were set higher). The arc of his career has always been headed toward high political office. Of this, there is no doubt.

Besides using these radicals to get ahead and making common cause with groups like ACORN and The New Party, it is a legitimate question to ask if Obama shared their ideology. The answer is almost certainly no. I believe that there is something about these radicals that attracted Obama. Perhaps it was their utter certainty and belief that they are in the moral right. Or maybe it was that their personalities are so driven and single minded. Given Obama’s own doubts about his place in the world as a young man as well as his apparent aimlessness early on, it stands to reason that people who believed so strongly in something and seemed to know where they were going in life would be able to interest the young, ambitious politician.

Calling Obama a “socialist” simply isn’t logical. He doesn’t share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn’t want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants “capitalism with a human face.” He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.

I detest conservatives throwing around the words “socialism” and “Marxism” when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word “fascist” when describing conservatives. I’m sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management. It is not unheard of in this country and the practice may become more common in these perilous economic times.).

An Obama presidency will have more regulation, more “oversight,” more interference from government agencies, more paperwork for business, less business creation, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities. It will be friendlier to unions, more protectionist, and will require higher taxes from corporations (who then will simply pass the tax bill on to us, their customers). But government won’t run the economy. And calling Obama a “socialist” simply ignores all of the above and substitutes irrationalism (or ignorance) for the reality of what an Obama presidency actually represents; a lurch to the left that will be detrimental to the economy, bad for business, but basically allow market forces to continue to dominate our economy.

Obama’s friendship with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks, Khalidi, as well as his working with Richard Daley’s Chicago Machine was the result of his overweening ambition and not due to any ideological affinity or strain of corruption in his makeup. He may have taken a scholarly interest in some of the ideas put forth by Ayers and he might have seen working to approve some of Ayers’ radical ideas as good politics (Ayers was an ally of Daley in the School wars of the 1990’s).

But frankly, Obama is someone who impresses me as having no real ideology save that which can get him elected. His campaign has shown him to pander to whatever audience he is addressing at the moment. His contradictory positions on issues is simply dismissed as his words “being taken out of context” or the candidate himself “misstated” his position. The press gives him a pass and its off to the next audience where he tells them exactly what they want to hear.

This is not a man with a radical ideology. It is a man with no ideology at all, no set beliefs in anything save his own supreme abilities. It is this more than anything else that will cause him to fail if he is elected president. When the political winds are blowing the strongest, he will have no set of beliefs he can cling to in order to ride out the storm. His efforts to “reform” Washington will come a cropper because of this and in the end, his empty rhetoric will be all that is remembered of him.
By: Rick Moran at 10:00 am

According to the writer of this blog, Obama has no ideology at all and that he merely used the New Party as a stepping stone.

Here is my personal take on this:
If Obama was in that party, it may have been because he and other party members had common goals in mind and it was a party of diverse ideaologies.

Source is rightwingnuthouse blog. I have no idea if it's politics is right wing or left wing. As for the title of this blog, it could be a left wing parody or a right wing humorous joke about its ideology.

 

[sablescort]

My girls ARE gonna watch and listen to what their President has to say about their futures. I know cause my mother didnt mind letting me read or watch what the President has to say no matter which political party the current President belongs to.


I know cause I LEARNED a lot from the Presidents of the past, so I'm allowing my girls to have the opportunity to learn from President Obama.

To those who hold their children back from a wonderful opportunity...YOU LOSE!
It's cause you don't allow your kids to see 2 or more DIFFERENT viewpoints. I don't care if my girls grow up to be Republicans. My Republican mother knew that I would turn out to be a Democrat cause she allowed me to study much about the Presidents and the political process when I was a kid.

 

[Frisky Feline]

agree with shel. let kids decide to watch and listen to what presidentis going to say anything. If parents controls their kids then kids will do the same things to their next kids. thats silly.

 

[Loghead]

Yes, the woman at my office is really convinced and there is some silly site to help convince her. Oh, did I mention that she is my boss?

LMAO!

 

[kokonut]

My girls ARE gonna watch and listen to what their President has to say about their futures. I know cause my mother didnt mind letting me read or watch what the President has to say no matter which political party the current President belongs to.


I know cause I LEARNED a lot from the Presidents of the past, so I'm allowing my girls to have the opportunity to learn from President Obama.

To those who hold their children back from a wonderful opportunity...YOU LOSE!
It's cause you don't allow your kids to see 2 or more DIFFERENT viewpoints. I don't care if my girls grow up to be Republicans. My Republican mother knew that I would turn out to be a Democrat cause she allowed me to study much about the Presidents and the political process when I was a kid.

I bring my girls to my laptop. Points to the screen. "See this man? This is the guy who caused us an additional $2 trillion dollars in deficit, 5 times worse than Bush. Money that we will owe to pay back. That means, girls, that you, your kids, and your grandkids will paying higher taxes for the rest of your life for this guy's mistake in abusing our tax money. Anybody who does that is an idiot. Don't listen to him."

Simple. Compare and contrast. Even a 4th grader can understand that!