Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Reaction to Obama’s pep talk to pupils
I just got back from watching President Obama’s speech at my daughter’s private classical Christian school. Several private Christian schools in our area, apparently, chose not to show it. Our school, I believe, made the right decision in letting the kids watch our president’s 16-minute address from Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va.
In an email over the weekend, our head of school said it was important for our kids to be a part of the “Great Conversation,” but he gave parents the option to have their kids not watch it (only about 10 in the middle and high school grades opted out). He also invited parents to come on over to the school and watch the speech with their kids. However, I was the only parent I saw who took advantage of that opportunity. (But, of course, I was looking for blog material!) The classroom of eighth graders I sat in with—many of which, I’m sure, have parents who did not vote for the president—were very attentive and respectful while listening to the Obama’s message. I wish I could have hung around longer to listen to the discussion on the speech in my daughter’s Civics class later this afternoon. (I’ll have to get a report from her later today.)
As for parents who chose not to let their kids watch the speech, which was meant to do nothing more than encourage our nation’s schoolkids to work hard, I agree with what former first lady Laura Bush told CNN yesterday: “That’s their right. That certainly is the right of parents to choose what they want their children to hear in school.”
But I also agree with how she followed that up: “I also think it’s really important for everyone to respect the president of the United States.” And I believe letting your kids watch this speech is one small way to show that respect, something Mrs. Bush’s husband didn’t see much of from many quarters during his time in office.
So what’s your reaction to the speech? What did your kids think? Were there any problems at your schools associated with the speech?
Well, I’m going to grab some lunch, but I need to make sure I take President Obama’s advice and thoroughly wash my hands first.
back to top69 Comments to “Reaction to Obama’s pep talk to pupils”
I read the speech last night, but didn’t watch it today. It sounded pretty conservative to me, with all the focus on individual responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
I also read the speech yesterday. I would tell my children that they are to find their talents and do their best unto the Lord, because he tells us to, not because they would be letting their nation down.
One little girl said she got out of the speech that if she lets her self down, she is letting her nation down. She was 10 years old. While that may be true the whole emphasis is that the children are doing all things for their country. The president is not a religious leader, so I would not expect him to emphasize a different point of view. Christian parents, however, should be emphasizing it.
I would be interested also in hearing more of the children’s POV. I would have thought it would have been quite boring for most of them. The younger the more so, perhaps.
This may seem a small distinction for some, however, it is these small things that lead to great changes a little at a time. That is true in a child’s life and a nation’s life.
Report comment to moderator
I read that other presidents gave speeches to schools. When a Rep. gave a speech the Dem. spoke against it.
If that is true, why are people surprised that Rep. have the same reaction to BO speech.
Report comment to moderator
Just be aware that there are plenty of Christians who voted for O. I even spoke with one long-time Christian who wanted Hillary to win. She was so upset when her grandson, who was Rep., was voting for O.
So if you speak to someone who you think is on the same page as you, they could very likely be a Dem., and they might have voted for O.
Report comment to moderator
I watched it, and believe it was an OK speech. Reminds me of our yearly address from the principle of our school. I am the grandfather of two young girls in primary grades. I have to leave any conversations about the speech to their parents. Just because the far lefties are rude and crude dosn’t give us the liberty to dive into the dumpster with them. (Does that make me rude and crude
) Most kids will ho-hum it anyway.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
News2me: You are right about Christians and their voting. It is not as cut and dry as some want to make it.
Yes, there was a big deal about Bush speaking also. More so after the speech.
We’ll never know what the speech would have said, BTW.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama, in my biased view, over used the word “I.” Judge for yourselves:
* “I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school.”
* “Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.”
* “I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.”
* “I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.”
* “I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools…”
* “There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.”
* “They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.”
* “That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education…”
* “Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.”
* “I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn.”
* “I expect you to get serious this year.”
* “I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do.”
* “I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.”
_____________
Report comment to moderator
I may be a little more concerned about these things because of all I witnessed in the public school when my children attended. Among other things, they had to sometimes take lower grades because they took sides of the issues that their teachers disagreed with. I could forsee this happening when this curriculum came out.
Most teachers are not that blatant or unfair. Unfortunately, some are and it is something that has to be kept in check. I really don’t care from which side of the political spectrum.
Report comment to moderator
The content of the speech is not really my main concern. I’m sure it was innocuous, pedestrian, cliched and predictable enough.
My concern is the glorification of this particular President and how he might use his over-inflated status to influence those under his thumb in the future. While it’s fine to respect the office of President, the man is our employee, not our Leader, and he doesn’t have the right to manipulate the media in order to mold us all in his self-righteous image.
If the mainstream media were a fraction as critical of Obama as they were of Bush, maybe I’d acknowledge that these concerns are unjustified. But things being as they are, I’m just going to avoid having to look at him or listen to his arrogant voice as long as I have to. That goes for my kids, too., who (I’m proud to say) have been taught at home that Obama’s pro-abortion stance pretty much disqualifies him for serious consideration on any other point.
Report comment to moderator
#1 – “It sounded pretty conservative to me, with all the focus on individual responsibility.”
I am proud of those who objected to his original plans to include lesson plans that called for students to respond to a question about “supporting” the President, among other inappropriate assignments. Knowing that conservatives with the courage to speak up (and be disparaged by many, even many fellow believers) exist is what made the Obama-ACORN administration tone down their original specific campaign-style plans (although it still came off, in my view, with some campaign like elements).
Now let Lynn Cheney have a say to all our children! She’s earned the right.
Report comment to moderator
Fine pep talk from a secular viewpoint. Clear. I don’t know if he enunciated well as I didn’t see it. He did not present it here in our school so our kids have no opinion on it. Perhaps if we had tv access. Anyway, it was a nice encouragement and if left at that, would be fine. The President wants the kids to study, stay in school, try hard. So do I.
Report comment to moderator
And there were a number of pesky little things but one expects that from any speaker and would be prepared to counter them.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps the most egregious thing of all is that President Obama used the hopelessly clichéd phrase; “At the end of the day,” twice! Thus, at the end of the day, we will likely hear self-assured ‘elites’ (or ‘elite’ wannabes) over-using this pedantic cliché for years to come.
Report comment to moderator
I should have included a smiley face with #13.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee wrote; “So do I.”
And so do I.
And so does Lynn Cheney who has lived up to this long-standing conviction quite well too. Give this former 2nd Lady a turn at carrying this message too. Any objections?
Or, let a Republican in good standing deliver a Thanksgiving message to all our children in a couple months. How about it? A Democrat can have Christmas and then a Republican could get Easter!
Report comment to moderator
I volunteer-tutor an African-American inner city boy who is a senior in a public high school. He was totally pumped about Obama during the election and, of course, ecstatic that he won.
Next Monday I plan to ask him about the speech. My hunch is that he won’t have much of a clue what I am talking about. I also plan to print it out and have him read it for our lesson and then I’ll ask him what he thinks about it. We’ve been “together” for over five years and he refers to me as “one of his mothers” so he’ll be open with me about it. I’m really curious what his thoughts will be.
I’ll let you all know next Tuesday.
Report comment to moderator
When I read Gibbs say the other day: “”If one kid in one school hears one message and goes from being a D student to a C student, then the speech is worth it,” he said. “If one kid decides not to drop out of school, then the speech is worth it. … ”
I wondered if we could use the same qualification criteria to include prayers and Bible reading in public schools. if it can be demonstrated that doing so will improve just one students improvement from a D to a C then it would all be worth it!
Report comment to moderator
Or the Dems could have Ramadan and the Reps could have Kanzai or whatever it is.
Report comment to moderator
Now if they had continued with the lesson plans….
Report comment to moderator
“…if one kid in one school hears one message and goes from being a D student to a C student, then the speech is worth it.”
I figured they were aiming to turn “R” students into “D” students.
Report comment to moderator
(only about 10 in the middle and high school grades opted out).
I doubt it was such a parenthetical consideration to the kids who had to boycott. Whatever one’s political allegiance may be, we can feel sorry for a kid who was prevented from seeing POTUS speak to his or her peers and from observing their reaction to this social experience.
I sent my daughter to a Waldorf School (K-12) which could not have broadcast the program simply because it lacked the AV equipment, being opposed on aesthetic grounds to electronic sight and sound. The students constantly mocked the hippie ethos of the school, but for the most part they loved the experience, especially their bonds with each other.
Report comment to moderator
Great post at #17 by AWSTAR!
Report comment to moderator
Mommy, I would love to hear what his opinion is, as well. I am thinking you are right.
Report comment to moderator
I am proud of those who objected to his original plans to include lesson plans that called for students to respond to a question about “supporting” the President, among other inappropriate assignments.
It was a brilliant intelligence coup. If only Bush had been as alert to boxcutters.
Who could have imagined that a workbook exercise would be the pied piper that stole away our children, never more to be seen again! It’s the last thing parents, teachers, clergy, pediatricians would have suspected.
Hats off and a respectful bow to JOEL MARK. By the way, what were the other bad things in the workbook?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth asks what other bad things were in Obama’s workbook.
One can always speculate.
Since Obama and and the Red Army bomber William ‘Cop Killer’ Ayers were so chummy for so long, perhaps Barack got William to contribute some bomb making diagrams and instructions. (Of course, William was a lousy bomb-maker and ended up being responsible for blowing up some of his own people who were stupid enough to use his instructions, so maybe someone oughter sort of vet William’s instructions before the little tykes get hold of it).
Or maybe Obama got ol’ Reverend Jeremiah ‘God D–n America’ Wright, Obama’s very own self-acclaimed spiritual and political mentor for twenty odd (sic) years to write a kind of spiritual prologue to the manual.
Or – I know – could be Obama got his much-loved Green Czar to include a section on the complicity of George Bush and Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers in the 9/11 hijackings.
Could be that Obama made some suggestions (maybe using cartoons)as to how these children are supposed to pay off the 27 trillion dollar debt that he (Obama) is saddling with them with; maybe some pictures of wheelbarrows and rock quarries and overseer whips in order to get these kids used to their sure and certain future when he is done with them.
Or maybe Obama stuck some of Charlie Rangel’s undisclosed ethics disclosure forms into the workbook. Maybe there was a mistake and that’s where they ended up.
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy writes: “….the kids who had to boycott.”
You have no idea whether these kids “had” to boycott. Kids often don’t do things on their own.
Report comment to moderator
. . . or often do do things on their own, you mean? Good point. Maybe these youngsters are heros of the resistance, the brave and happy few! My sister and brother-in-law, who did the best they could and can’t figure what they did wrong, raised a radical Republican. The amazing thing about this young man is that he used to climb out the window to avoid his grandfather, yet is the perfect replica of him.
But wait. These things skip generations. I take it all back, NJLAWYER. It’s highly unlikely that the children of wingnuts would excell in the same traits. No doubt about it, they were kept back, and they’re mortified and mad. IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
Also, as I stated early on. I thought Mr. Obama did an overall good job. He was talking to young people, after all. He wasn’t speaking to adults. Also, Some children of wingnuts do excell, after they get out the window.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Mickey wrote,
I think I just read a double-entendre.
Report comment to moderator
#9 David L nailed it. The speech was innocuous enough. The speech was a simple marketing campaign to sell brand ‘O’. The danger is the brand, i.e. Obama’s agenda, which includes creating a little ACORN army, an Obama Youth Corp (HR1388).
It would be like the Marlboro man or a Budweiser salesmen telling kids to study hard. Who wants kids to associate with a brand that will destroy them?
This president voted to drown born alive infants in a bag of chemicals. He has no problem hiring Marxists who are openly anti-American. He appointed a health adviser Dr. Emanuel who wants to ration care to children and the elderly. His science adviser John Holden wrote in favor of poisoning the water supply to cause mass abortion and sterilization. His regulatory czar Cass Sunstein wants animals to sue their owners in court.
Brand ‘O’ will bring down America for generations to come. These kids will still be picking up the pieces for their children and grand children.
Report comment to moderator
This flu season is scary. We shouldn’t mock any high profile people who encourage hand washing!
“It would be like the Marlboro man or a Budweiser salesmen telling kids to study hard. Who wants kids to associate with a brand that will destroy them?”
There is a Budweiser brewery in my hometown and a bottling plant. Budweiser was a high profile sponsor of many of the school districts activities. They gave out hundreds of dollars in music and theater gift certificates every year to kids who got good grades or raised their averages. I don’t drink their products because they suck, but their company is not out to destroy people!
Report comment to moderator
When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
Of course, that was congressional members, and the current hysteria is media-incited public opposition.
In either case, I think it’s really sad when we don’t encourage a president of either party to try and inspire our youth!
Report comment to moderator
I agree with your school’s approach. Our classical Christian school starts tomorrow, otherwise I would have expected them to do the same.
Report comment to moderator
Considering the lesson plan, I wonder what his speech WOULD HAVE sounded like if the public hadn’t spoken out?
“What can you do to help support the President?”
How does that apply to the speech he gave?
Report comment to moderator
XION This president voted to drown born alive infants in a bag of chemicals.
Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black!
The Republican angels of death are about to introduce their Dr. Mengele Amendment to keep denying healthcare to the 20,000 Americans who die every year from preventable conditions (lupus and asthma, for example) in order to save taxpayer money and the Constitution. What dear angels (the Repubs, obviously)! The ongoing selection is vital in saving our beloved country from becoming like Europe and Japan, where nobody dies from such causes, and the public is consequently burdened with the bill.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
When did they make lupus and asthma preventable, or even find the cure? My niece would like to know how to cure her lupus and my wife and mother-in-law would like to know who cures asthma.
Note: they have always had excellent healthcare!
Report comment to moderator
#31 Mynock Three cheers for exploiting children with beer marketing. What if I said drug dealers were telling kids to study and stay in school? Would you consider that a noble message for children? Obama has surrounded himself with people who praise the worst dictators in human history and who want to remake America in his image.
#35 Scroop Three cheers for drowning children in chemicals.
You just can’t argue with Obots. If you explain that Obama’s science czar plans to poison the water supply and cause mass sterilization, they cheer. If you show that Obama’s health czar wants to deny care to children under 15 and over 40 they applaud. If you prove that some of Obama’s staff are communists they praise their leader for his wisdom. Fascists simply love fascism. Calling them fascist only makes them proud.
Scroop, your fanciful scenario in #35 is completely false. Does it matter? Republicans recommend putting the 5 million who are qualified for care on Medicare. There is no rational reason to bankrupt the country and ration care for millions to fix an easily solvable problem. But to the left Revolution is its own reason. It doesn’t have to succeed.
Report comment to moderator
And you guys say Obama is a pied piper!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-09-07-kentucky-football-trip-baptisms_N.htm?csp=34
No wonder y’all so freaking paranoid. Classic projection! This reminds me of Medieval Spain!
Report comment to moderator
#37 — Republicans want Medicare to wither on the vine, XION. They are lying for the health insurance industry. They’ve run Congress since 1994 and have been selecting thousands of Americans for early death every year.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Good points, Obama said to judge him by the company he keeps!
Report comment to moderator
#39 Who’s defending Republicans? I am the first one to criticize them. Rather than answering the charges that far more people will die under the hands of Obama’s insane czars, you deflect the argument hoping no one will notice.
Why do you defend communists and bioethicists who want to deny care to children because society hasn’t invested much in them yet. Why do you support poisoning the water supply?
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, thank you for understanding what I really meant back there! I’ve had a rough day.
But based on what you’re telling Lloyd, etc. about lupus and asthma, I’m thinking your medical degree was lost in the mail. You should have printed it online.
Report comment to moderator
We’re getting off topic and onto Obama care and away for Obama youth core.
Report comment to moderator
I am glad he got away from recruiting for the Obama youth core and just gave an inspirational speech.
I hope he reached a lot of the kids that needed to hear the message.
Report comment to moderator
Lupus and asthma are not conditions one needs to die from, NJLAWYER. They are conditions that can kill you, if you don’t take responsibility, and don’t take up your bed and walk, as Sen. Coburn (one of the Angels) proclaims. We have 20,000 people die like that every year who wouldn’t die in countries with universal healthcare. They are self-selected or selected by the Angels of the Republican Party (pick your figure of speech). Fate, a one-way cattle car, drops them off on the platform of pre-existing conditions, where Dr. Mengele is waiting to rescind their insurance and tell them the Constitution, through the Tenth Ammend., reserves the money for their treatment, and they can’t expect anything from the government except a tax cut, and freedom. The government, says Dr. Coburn, has no business doing anything about the pathologies of moral existence.
Report comment to moderator
I am so glad to hear that nobody in England or Canada dies from lupus or asthma. Do they know that? Just from breast cancer because of restricted or delayed treatment.
Report comment to moderator
XION, as for Dr. Emanuel, I challenge you to write out a quote where he recommends euthanasia, or denying care to an age cohort. There are none. Statements have been torn out of context, but none advocate killing or excluding categories of people from care. Below, I furnish a quote that contradicts what you. Pro-life commentators have defended Dr. Emanuel. You need to substantiate your accusation, or retract it, and stop attempting to kill his reputation with lies.
Dr. Emmanuel has long published objections to assisted suicide, in 1997 in the Atlantic and the WSJ. Here is what he says in the summary of his famous Lancet article: “No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems . . . We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles . . . This paper identifies and evaluates eight simple principles that have been suggested.8—12 Although some are better than others, no single principle allocates interventions justly.”
notice — any single principle of allocating scarce resources (i.e. one liver to ten people) is unjust. Age isn’t all. There’s prognosis and many other factors. We have a duty to consider them all.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60137-9/fulltext?_eventId=login
He has a massive literature to which your one-sentence disfigurements have absolutely no connection. Media Matters spends thousands of hours responding to lies like yours.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
XION, you have quite a backlog of unanswered counter-claims. Don’t you think you should acknowledge some of them before launching more slander?
Report comment to moderator
As the song goes……
.
We Heil! Sieg Heil! Right in der Bamster’s face.
Not to love Der Bamster is a great disgrace.
We Heil! Sieg Heil! right in der Bamster’s face!
Report comment to moderator
Since Obama is clearly setting himself up as a parental guide, a national spokesperson and a role model for our nation’s children, I think he should stop smoking.
Report comment to moderator
Now, Monty ….
Report comment to moderator
#35 – Scroop Moth wrote: “The Republican angels of death are about to introduce their Dr. Mengele Amendment to keep denying healthcare to the 20,000 Americans who die…”
1. Lloyd nailed Scroop Moth’s obvious fallacy regarding lupus and asthma the very next post (#36).
2. Republicans believe that Obama’s socialist plan will be worse for America and our children than the current plan (which also needs some reform, but not radical deconstruction). But Scroop Moth is incapable of disagreeing honorably with Republicans.
3. It is dishonest to the core to claim that greedy heartless Republicans want to “deny” health care to anyone. This is a debate on how best to maintain and improve our health care system in ways that maintain personal freedom and mutual accountability.
4. Obama is selling his plan as a utopian panacea that will save the lives of millions of dying children and Obama’s sycophant disciples blindly believe that when their Prince Charming kisses sleeping beauty (our health care system), it will suddenly wake up, be fully paid for, millions of new doctors and health care workers will materialize, 47 million more Americans will suddenly be covered and no more children will die and all Republicans will be executed on the spot for the murderous desires in their hearts.
Report comment to moderator
If only the hard-core evangelicals on this blog had objected to former President Bush’s constant use of messianic language to refer to himself and his administration. Where was the evangelical horde when the following was said:
By former President Bush: “God speaks through me.”
By a spokesman for him: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Report comment to moderator
RSD,
I don’t recall President Bush ever saying “God speaks through me”, nor did you provide any context or documentation for it. The fact is, I don’t think Bush ever did make constant use of messianic language to refer to his administration. We did not object to things he never did. That would be silly. I don’t know what you are talking about.
I do recall Bush often admitting that he prayed and that he appreciated the prayers of others on his behalf.
Report comment to moderator
Regarding the alleged quote: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Again RSD, please provide a name and a context and perhaps some documentation. It sounds like nonsense to me but I have no solid basis to scrutinize it either way.
Report comment to moderator
LLOYD #36 and JOEL MARK #51 provide wonderful aid and comfort to the Republican angels of death who are working to stop medical help for the dying. Shamefully, these posts employ logical fallacy to obscure the Mengele-like methods of selection that Republicans have protected, decade after decade.
LLOYD argues that since medicine can’t prevent or cure inflammatory diseases like lupus and asthma, and since his family members receive excellent care, society therefore isn’t responsible for the 5, 10, and 20 year survival rates that can be achieved through proper treatment. Heartlessly, Republicans disown the victims that fate and the free market drops onto the selection platforms of the “private” insurance industry. Dr. Mengele pays too much money to Republicans and Blue Dogs for them to intervene in the lucrative regime of death.
It’s outrageous that #51 endorses this shameful logic, even after the clear correction of #41. Joel Mark makes it abundantly clear that we cannot depend on the Republican death angels to save the Americans whom Dr. Mengele selects every year for preventable death.
Fact: Because of the autonomy that Republicans give to Dr. Mengele, we suffer the worst rates of preventable death resulting from treatable conditions in 19 industrialized countries.
CORRECTION: The Republican death angels are responsible for 101,000 excess deaths a year, not 20,000 as reported above. I regret the error.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07651650
Report comment to moderator
Republicans believe that . . the current plan . . needs some reform, but not radical deconstruction . .
Republicans in think tanks and in Congress intend to deconstruct medicare. Sen. Tom Coburn, one of the most sublime of the angels of death, stated recently that government has no proper role in healthcare.
Report comment to moderator
#54: That quote comes from a Bush aide quoted in this article.
Report comment to moderator
As for Obama’s speech to the schools, I’m afraid I have to admit, some of your fears were justified, at least according to this report.
Using mass hypnosis during a televised speech to students, President Obama turned millions of schoolchildren into robotic socialist zombies, authorities said.
“My 13-year-old son came home from school and shared some of his toys with his younger brother,” an alarmed Texas parent said. “If that isn’t a socialist gesture, I don’t know what is.”
Report comment to moderator
#47 Scroop. XION, as for Dr. Emanuel, I challenge you to write out a quote where he recommends euthanasia, or denying care to an age cohort.
I never said euthanasia or assisted suicide. I said limiting care to the very old and very young. I have linked to this article in the WSJ numerous times.
I’ll answer you more fully on the health care thread.
Report comment to moderator
#58 SteveG – You’re missing the point. A man who wants to create a little ACORN army out of children can say completely innocuous things and still be a threat. It’s like a bounty hunter asking to have a friendly harmless chat with his targets.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#57),
A 2004 New York Times biased opinion piece quotes an undocumented weird line from an unnamed alleged aide and SteveG thinks THAT is evidence of anything–much less that Bush had a messianic mission in mind and thought God spoke through him? That tells us a lot about SteveG’s thinking skills.
Report comment to moderator
#58, SteveG,
It’s true that children are prone (at times) to imitate others roboticly, are very dependent, and sometimes think and act like “zombies” (using your word). And I admit it is also true that such characteristics do indeed look like socialism. But that’s why we are supposed to help them grow up and reach some independent maturity.
But for an “alarmed Texas parent” to mistake voluntary sharing with “socialism” is ridiculous ignorance on the part of the parent.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: You expressed skepticism that the quote was real and demanded to see the source. I linked you to the source.
I did not endorse the article or say anything else about it, I merely pointed you to it, as you’d asked of RSD in #54. So I really don’t know what you’re babbling about in #61, or why you’re insulting MY “thinking skills” for having had the nerve to provide the information you requested.
Your dispute is with RSD, not me.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: But for an “alarmed Texas parent” to mistake voluntary sharing with “socialism” is ridiculous ignorance on the part of the parent.
Hmm.
And what would you say about a blog poster who mistakes satire for a real news report?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #56, I don’t see that in Coburn’s bill at all. He wants to expand Medicare to include options that are currently banned by the government. As a doctor, he focuses on pre-existing and chronic conditions and wants to encourage healthy lifestyles.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Who mistook satire for real news? Name the blog poster, please. As for me, I caught your drift fine and responded accordingly with a smile as I typed. And SteveG, satire or not, there WAS a point to your post wasnt there? I just disagreed with it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “Joel Mark: You expressed skepticism that the quote was real and demanded to see the source.”
“Demanded?” I merely pointed out that documentation was missing and asked for a name and some light cast on the context. If you want to describe my comment as a “demand,” then Sarah Palin has every right to use the term “death panels” to describe the Democrat’s state-supervised “end of life” decision-making plan.
But thank you for the source, SteveG. My skepticism was confirmed by it. I presumed that you, like RSD, considered that link as evidence of Bush’s mind-set. If you do NOT presume that, please say so and I will withdraw my presumption that you gave any credence to that NYT link as an indicator of Bush’s mindset.
SteveG wrote; “Your dispute is with RSD, not me.”
I accept that. Sorry for my presumption. But I am still interested in whether you think that quote prooves ANYthing about President Bush’s mindset.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
First, you implicitly accuse me of making up the quote. Then, when someone points out its source, you unilaterally decide that you won’t believe it because it appeared in a NYT article.
Besides, if you believe that the former President did not use messianic language to refer to himself, you were apparently living in a hole from 2001 until 2008. In fact, it is well documented that many American Presidents since the mid-1800s has made use of messianic language to refer to himself and his political aspirations. Some have done it more than others, but it is certainly not new.
As a Christian, I’m offended by such language. But many evangelicals had no problem with a GOP President’s use of such language, but are now outraged when a Democrat uses it. In fact, it’s probably fair to say that the Bush doctrine was far more messianic than any of Obama’s proposals.
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote: “First, you implicitly accuse me of making up the quote.”
That’s blatantly false, RSD. Read my comments! Here’s what I said:
(#53) “I don’t recall President Bush ever saying “God speaks through me,” nor did you provide any context or documentation for it.”
(#54) “Again RSD, please provide a name and a context and perhaps some documentation.”
_______________
It turned out to be some unnamed alleged aide for a poorly written and biased New York Times opinion piece. That is NOT grounds to presume ANYTHING about what President Bush hiself has said or thought. Yet, you accused Bush of making “…constant use of messianic language to refer to himself and his administration.”
You accusation is ill-founded in my view and unproven in any sense.
______________
RSD wrote; “As a Christian, I’m offended by such language.”
But we have not established any such use of messianic language by President Bush, RSD. If you are so offended, then documents an example.
__________
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!