During each of his eight years in office, President Reagan invited Young America’s Foundation summer conference students to the White House for policy briefings. The president later recalled, “Each year, after my election in 1980, we hosted Young America’s Foundation at the White House. Together we accomplished much of what has come to be known as the Reagan Revolution.”
Could you imagine what the reaction would be if Obama started organizing young people for political actions and started referring to them as "revolutionaries"? If he called it the "Obama Revolution"?
Right-wing heads would explode in outrage. Speak about cults and political indoctrination.
Could you imagine what the reaction would be if Obama started organizing young people for political actions and started referring to them as "revolutionaries"? If he called it the "Obama Revolution"?
Right-wing heads would explode in outrage. Speak about cults and political indoctrination.
Any reasonable person would be concerned if he labeled a group "Obama Revolution."
Any reasonable person would be concerned if he labeled a group "Obama Revolution."
So the question arises, why was it A-OK for Reagan to call his movement a Revolution and organize young people for political action, and for him and Bush Sr. to both give live televised addresses to the nation's students...but when Obama does anything even remotely similar it's "unseemly" and "cultish" and "indoctrination" and "a misuse of the office of the Presidency"?
What's the key difference that I'm missing here? Is it the D after his name, rather than the R? Is it the color of his skin? Why all this outrage at Obama over things that were just fine for Reagan and Bush Sr.?
I'm deeply concerned about the children who aren't being permitted to watch this speech. I'm fairly certain their parents are too stupid to raise them.
I'm deeply concerned about the children who aren't being permitted to watch this speech. I'm fairly certain their parents are too stupid to raise them.
But these parents are teaching their children an important lesson.
If someone says something that you disagree with, don't listen to what they have to say, carefully and critically consider it, and construct a thoughtful response. Don't attempt to engage in any kind of dialogue.
Listening is overrated. If someone with a different point of view from you tries to speak and express their opinion, don't let them! Shout them down at town hall meetings, and simply stay home and avoid their speeches. In this way, you can avoid the terrible danger of having to be exposed to differing opinions and points-of-view.
I'm deeply concerned about the children who aren't being permitted to watch this speech. I'm fairly certain their parents are too stupid to raise them.
I disagree with a parents motives in taking a child out of school! Quick! Call the government!
But these parents are teaching their children an important lesson.
If someone says something that you disagree with, don't listen to what they have to say, carefully and critically consider it, and construct a thoughtful response. Don't attempt to engage in any kind of dialogue.
Listening is overrated. If someone with a different point of view from you tries to speak and express their opinion, don't let them! Shout them down at town hall meetings, and simply stay home and avoid their speeches. In this way, you can avoid the terrible danger of having to be exposed to differing opinions and points-of-view.
I agree with you. But, the questions are kind of pointed. Not soooooo pointed theyre like if our kids hear this lets jump to communism, but the people who wrote them come out in a favorable way.
Let Obama do it, he came a long way, just 1L of law school is hell, he's done a lot. And if he can motivate people to try to achieve, then let him. Other Pres. have. Kids are maliable, ok, dont do drugs, stay in school and work hard.
If you look at it as a Republican, if we can't bomb China, lets beat them intellectually. Why shouldn't we take every step to help enlightenment?
The difference here is not what is said, but who says it. I am certainly not denying that there have been crazies on the liberal side who made Bush-Nazi comparisons and other such acts. The 9/11 truthers being a prime example. And do you know what normal liberals said to them? That they are ****ing crazy!
This situation on the other hand the insanity, the indirect encouragement to violence, the complete disrespect to the office of the president, that doesn't come from the fringe of the right wing, but the core. You have the Republican Party of Florida declare this speech about the importance of education a politicized attempt of indoctrination. You got Michele Bachman declaring herself a correspondent on enemy lines and question whether some members of congress actual like america. You got several republican senators and governors question whether Obama was born in the United States. You got the vice-presidential candidate propagating this insanity of "death panels".
When I said right-wing in the post you quoted, I didn't mean that there is some small minority of jackasses. What I meant is that the core of your half of the political spectrum has shifted so far that it virtually only consists of lunatics anymore.
What I certainly don't understand is your generalization and presumption in your statement. I don't remember acting anywhere close to the insanity that the Republican party displays at the moment.
Actually I was listening to this on the news I felt someone from the party needs to say enough is enough. I can understand the GOP's concern about the speech but for some of them to give it a label when they haven't even heard it or read it, that's just nuts.
It just kills any chance for political discourse in this country to take place.
So the question arises, why was it A-OK for Reagan to call his movement a Revolution and organize young people for political action, and for him and Bush Sr. to both give live televised addresses to the nation's students...but when Obama does anything even remotely similar it's "unseemly" and "cultish" and "indoctrination" and "a misuse of the office of the Presidency"?
What's the key difference that I'm missing here? Is it the D after his name, rather than the R? Is it the color of his skin? Why all this outrage at Obama over things that were just fine for Reagan and Bush Sr.?
I would love to hear what the differences are here myself.
So the question arises, why was it A-OK for Reagan to call his movement a Revolution and organize young people for political action, and for him and Bush Sr. to both give live televised addresses to the nation's students...but when Obama does anything even remotely similar it's "unseemly" and "cultish" and "indoctrination" and "a misuse of the office of the Presidency"?
What's the key difference that I'm missing here? Is it the D after his name, rather than the R? Is it the color of his skin? Why all this outrage at Obama over things that were just fine for Reagan and Bush Sr.?
An excellent question, indeed. Where are our resident conspiracy buffs, with an answer?
I suppose the next "outrage" we'll see is over Obama's picture hanging in public classrooms ...
So the question arises, why was it A-OK for Reagan to call his movement a Revolution and organize young people for political action, and for him and Bush Sr. to both give live televised addresses to the nation's students...but when Obama does anything even remotely similar it's "unseemly" and "cultish" and "indoctrination" and "a misuse of the office of the Presidency"?
What's the key difference that I'm missing here? Is it the D after his name, rather than the R? Is it the color of his skin? Why all this outrage at Obama over things that were just fine for Reagan and Bush Sr.?
You talking about two events that seperate each other by what? 18 years? And didn't yourself say the Democrats criticize this act so if you are going to continuely call out the right for hyprocrisy why not the left?
And pretty lame playing the race card, this has nothing to do with race, it's just politics as usual.
Patiently waiting for the Obama to release his apolitical speech for the kids, followed by Beck & the other wingnuts to say "Lucky for our children that we were there to prevent Obama's attempt to brainwash our kids."
You talking about two events that seperate each other by what? 18 years? And didn't yourself say the Democrats criticize this act so if you are going to continuely call out the right for hyprocrisy why not the left?
And pretty lame playing the race card, this has nothing to do with race, it's just politics as usual.
I gotta ask, outside of time span, what is difference? Disagree with poster, but I'm curious as to what exactly is wrong here.
I gotta ask, outside of time span, what is difference? Disagree with poster, but I'm curious as to what exactly is wrong here.
How many people here remember the speech? I bet there is a few who were not even born, and how many of congress today were in congress then?
I mean do you make decisions based on what people thought 18 years ago?
Honestly I could go on and on, if this was 18 months or even nine years I could understand the hyprocrisy better, but not 18 years. That is how long it takes a human being in america to be eligible to vote, to me that is a long time.
How many people here remember the speech? I bet there is a few who were not even born, and how many of congress today were in congress then?
I mean do you make decisions based on what people thought 18 years ago?
Honestly I could go on and on, if this was 18 months or even nine years I could understand the hyprocrisy better, but not 18 years. That is how long it takes a human being in america to be eligible to vote, to me that is a long time.
Do you believe Americans are more susceptible to indoctrination now than they were 18 years ago?
__________________
There is no opposite killer. If there were, you'd have been killed by a rocket scientist years ago.
How many people here remember the speech? I bet there is a few who were not even born, and how many of congress today were in congress then?
I mean do you make decisions based on what people thought 18 years ago?
Honestly I could go on and on, if this was 18 months or even nine years I could understand the hyprocrisy better, but not 18 years. That is how long it takes a human being in america to be eligible to vote, to me that is a long time.
That's mind numbing.
So it was OK for a Republican president to do because it was 18 years ago? What kind of logic is that?
Do you believe Americans are more susceptible to indoctrination now than they were 18 years ago?
I think there is a lot more avenues for people to get influenced by what they see, back then I think we only had the three network news and CNN, now look at what we have - the internet, twitter, emails, facebook, etc.....
I don't know why anybody would want to be a politician in todays world.
I think there is a lot more avenues for people to get influenced by what they see, back then I think we only had the three network news and CNN, now look at what we have - the internet, twitter, emails, facebook, etc.....
I don't know why anybody would want to be a politician in todays world.
But this is a single speech to kids about staying in school and working hard. This "controversy" is completely made up and if it weren't for some nut jobs calling Obama "The Pied Piper" this story would have just came and went, like it did before with other Presidents.
Have you ever taken issue with a President addressing schoolchildren before this pending speech?
I don't recall one ever doing this, I don't even recall Bush Sr doing it.
Maybe you missed it but I did say in this thread I trusted Obama to not politicize this speech and as long as he keeps along of the lines of study hard and treat your teachers with respect and things along those lines I don't have a problem with it.
But this is a single speech to kids about staying in school and working hard. This "controversy" is completely made up and if it weren't for some nut jobs calling Obama "The Pied Piper" this story would have just came and went, like it did before with other Presidents.
