Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD

by **swishnicholson** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 19:07:10

Monkeyboy wrote:For what it's worth (nothing), I had to watch at least two of Reagan's speeches in my elementary school, and I don't think I've been scarred by it. Of course, it wasn't some fancy schmancy feed with a lot of electronic gizmos. It was on VHS or something.

Here in TN, we are not allowed to show the speech.

It does seem to be an overreaction. From what I've heard the "eat the rich" portion of the address has been significantly toned down.

by **Monkeyboy** » Sat Sep 05, 2009 20:19:11

swishnicholson wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:For what it's worth (nothing), I had to watch at least two of Reagan's speeches in my elementary school, and I don't think I've been scarred by it. Of course, it wasn't some fancy schmancy feed with a lot of electronic gizmos. It was on VHS or something.

Here in TN, we are not allowed to show the speech.

It does seem to be an overreaction. From what I've heard the "eat the rich" portion of the address has been significantly toned down.

See, I think he should have kept the "eat the rich" part. The rich are the kobe beef of our society. Yes, they are high in cholesterol, but they are also full of protein and extremely tasty.

by **drsmooth** » Sun Sep 06, 2009 09:10:20

swishnicholson wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:For what it's worth (nothing), I had to watch at least two of Reagan's speeches in my elementary school, and I don't think I've been scarred by it. Of course, it wasn't some fancy schmancy feed with a lot of electronic gizmos. It was on VHS or something.

Here in TN, we are not allowed to show the speech.

It does seem to be an overreaction. From what I've heard the "eat the rich" portion of the address has been significantly toned down.

Dropping the prescription that pinkies be raised while masticating is hardly "toned down". And especially for many denizens of southeastern states, any mandate for the use of cutlery at all is grounds for secession.

by **cshort** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 09:59:19

dajafi wrote:Meanwhile, I'm guessing most of those concerned with Obama talking to their children during a school day would have the same hesitation with any black man who tried to do as much...

I don't think they'd want Pelosi or Reid talking to them either, and last time I checked, those two were white. It's politically motivated, not racially motivated.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:29:42

cshort wrote:
dajafi wrote:Meanwhile, I'm guessing most of those concerned with Obama talking to their children during a school day would have the same hesitation with any black man who tried to do as much...

I don't think they'd want Pelosi or Reid talking to them either, and last time I checked, those two were white. It's politically motivated, not racially motivated.

you may think what you like, crackah

this is the POTUS & people are acting like he proposed live in-class sex ed demos. You think Ronnie Rayguns would have gotten this reaction if he wanted to talk Star Wars with the youth of america?

I'm not saying a presidential address to the kids is warranted, or not. I'm talking about the tenor of the reaction.

by **dajafi** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 11:19:40

Easy, cshort. I was (60% or so) making a cheap joke.

That said, pre-W., we had this notion that the president, unlike the House Speaker or Senate leader, represented the entire country first and a party somewhere afterward. Given the universality of his constituency and what I have to believe will be the utter political innocuousness of his remarks--"stay in school, study hard, don't use drugs"--this "controversy" is crap.

by **cshort** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 14:31:51

dajafi wrote:Easy, cshort. I was (60% or so) making a cheap joke.

That said, pre-W., we had this notion that the president, unlike the House Speaker or Senate leader, represented the entire country first and a party somewhere afterward. Given the universality of his constituency and what I have to believe will be the utter political innocuousness of his remarks--"stay in school, study hard, don't use drugs"--this "controversy" is crap.

Slow down fellas. I didn't say I agree with people keeping their kids home, etc. In fact, most mainstream conservatives (not the Hannity's....) think it's a silly debate as well. The main criticism they seem to have is the inclusion of a lesson plan by the White House. I don't know if Reagan or Bush I had those, and whether it really even matters.

What does concern me is the reaction of people if one does criticize Obama. While you may have been kidding Djaf, I think there are quite a few people out there that think any criticism is racially motivated (especially if it comes from the South), just like there are people out there that do/don't like him simply because he is black.

by **dajafi** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 14:36:02

I can see being concerned about the lesson plan, which doesn't strike me as necessary. Then again, I don't know what it specifically includes.

Honestly, I can't decide how much of this is racially motivated. Probably a lot less than half. But let's be honest: public schools, the South, and race remain a volatile mix. Maybe "racially informed" is a more accurate way of putting it--that factor is in there somewhere, but not the driver.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 14:37:36

Mainstream conservatives either have no message or the initiative/ability to broadcast said message. They chose to align themselves with crazies, and now they're reaping the rewards.

Also, bring up the President in any bar in the country and you'll get some interesting responses. To deny there's a fair amount of dislike of him entirely based on his skin color is to deny reality.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 14:50:08

dajafi wrote:I can see being concerned about the lesson plan, which doesn't strike me as necessary. Then again, I don't know what it specifically includes.

Honestly, I can't decide how much of this is racially motivated. Probably a lot less than half. But let's be honest: public schools, the South, and race remain a volatile mix. Maybe "racially informed" is a more accurate way of putting it--that factor is in there somewhere, but not the driver.

Well, other than the fact that your typical rural Southern school is far more likely to be integrated that some precious Northern suburban school.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 15:14:11

Here's a comment from a Southern school board member:

It’s absolutely amazing to see those who scream the loudest about all the things that matter in our society are also the ones who do the least to make them better. At this point we are faced with some very grave challenges when it comes to a number of things in our society with the least of these being whether or not a politician listens to our every complaint or desire. One of our highest priorities today is educating our children to a level where they can outperform children from every other nation in the world. But that’s hard to do when teachers have to compete with cell phones (texting), Game Boy, Nintendo, Play Station, 24-hour television broadcast, etc…

If President Obama’s speech reaches half the audience for which it is intended and it affects them in a positive manner, then it would have been worth all the rhetoric and impudence those who continue to challenge his efforts have displayed. One of the few things I’ve learned in this world is people in high places have a better view of what’s going on in it and considerably more information that the average citizen. We need to continue to be vigilant but not childish and petty. Remember, President Obama hired some of the smartest people in the free world to assist him in making decisions for our country. So, the next time you want to complain about the President, remember you are complaining about some of the most brilliant minds these United States of America have to offer.

by **philliesphhan** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 17:42:23

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not making a deep point about the meaning of life. The president has lost approx 1/7 of the country's approval in the seven months he's been president.

I thought this was addressed pretty well in that South Park episode right after the election. A lot of dopes expected instant change. And I'm sure other stuff he's done has affected it as well.

by **Monkeyboy** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 20:19:08

George Bush addressing our nation's school children in 1991 without the nation falling apart:

Remarks to Students and Faculty at Alice Deal Junior High School

Note: The President spoke at 12:15 p.m. in a classroom at the school. His remarks were broadcast live by the Cable News Network, the Public Broadcasting System, the Mutual Broadcasting System, and the NBC radio network. In his remarks, he referred to Cynthia Mostoller, an eighth grade humanities teacher; Rachel Rusch, a student; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Chairman of the President's Council on Physical Fitness; principal Reginald R. Moss; and custodian George Francis. A tape was not available for verification of the content of these remarks.

by **pacino** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 22:51:44

the commie propoganda Prez Ospendsalot is gonna give tomorrow to our scared children. won't somebody think of the freaking children

by **swishnicholson** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 23:02:57

Maybe not as innocent as you would have us believe:

You’ll need <strike>the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure </strike>diseases like cancer and AIDS<strike>, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies</strike> to fight <strike>poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your </strike>classes to <strike>build new companies that will </strike>create new <strike>jobs and boost our </strike>economy.

by **Werthless** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 23:05:49

dajafi wrote:
Rococo4 wrote:i like how this administration can claim victory if either of the following occurs:

A) unemployment rate rises but number of jobs slashed falls
B) unemployment rate falls but the number of jobs cut increases

Keep on plugging that stimulus Joe Biden!

I would have done the stimulus a bit differently, and I think it's fair to argue they were dishonest in how they presented it--in that some of it is more long-term investment than short-term pump priming. (I happen to think most of those were good investments, e.g. early childhood education which has been shown to have a 10-1 ROI, but YMMV.) But it's worked pretty spectacularly well compared to the Bush baseline or the Republicans' proposed All-Purpose Tax Cuts (Now With Stimulus!)/Cut Government Spending into Bone "idea." Unemployment may or may not hit 10 percent, but that's a lagging indicator, and when it comes back the political dynamics are going to shift big-time.

Stepping back from all of this, I'm starting to think that for all we've focused on this or that tactical $#@! up on the part of Obama or the (admittedly kinda retarded) CongDems, the real problem was nothing more or less than trying to engineer major policy change during a period of economic anxiety. He obviously knew a recession was coming, but likely (based on the President's Council of Economic Advisors estimates and other alleged expertise) figured we were looking at much more modest GDP and job losses than we've actually seen.

Meanwhile, I'm guessing most of those concerned with Obama talking to their children during a school day would have the same hesitation with any black man who tried to do as much...

I don't know. Based on the hysteria caused by the financial sector in the fall 2008, people were fearing the worst. Obama's rhetoric in that time period (and through early 2009) reflects that. The administration and financial media alike would refer to the time period as the "Great Recession," or the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, and Obama asserted that the situation required a New New Deal level of response to avoid a massive collapse. I never really understood the rosey official projection. Either the recession is not severe (performing as they projected) and no huge stimulus is needed - keeping in mind that a stimulus is predictably a response that takes a while to implement - or the recession will be severe and the stimulus is needed to prevent a multi-year recession. The rhetoric and response did not match the projection.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 08:57:08

pacino wrote:the commie propoganda Prez Ospendsalot is gonna give tomorrow to our scared children. won't somebody think of the freaking children

The speech will harm our children's self esteem when he tells them they will have to work for success. The world owes them, you see.

by **cshort** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 11:13:33

TenuredVulture wrote:Here's a comment from a Southern school board member:

It’s absolutely amazing to see those who scream the loudest about all the things that matter in our society are also the ones who do the least to make them better. At this point we are faced with some very grave challenges when it comes to a number of things in our society with the least of these being whether or not a politician listens to our every complaint or desire. One of our highest priorities today is educating our children to a level where they can outperform children from every other nation in the world. But that’s hard to do when teachers have to compete with cell phones (texting), Game Boy, Nintendo, Play Station, 24-hour television broadcast, etc…

Yes, but we'll be so much better prepared for the coming zombie apocolypse than those other nations.

It seems this isn't the first time people have been upset about the President speaking to kids. Apparently Bush I caught some heatas well.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:29:55

Are these maniacs going to protest all of the ceremonial aspects of the Presidency? Boycott the Easter Egg hunt? State funerals?

by **allentown** » Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:39:44

Bakestar wrote:Are these maniacs going to protest all of the ceremonial aspects of the Presidency? Boycott the Easter Egg hunt? State funerals?

Yes. The Republicans are engaged in a continuing campaign of mass destruction. After their economic/regulatory policies led to the Great Depression, Republicans were down for decades. They are beyond desperate to avoid a repeat now that their economic and regulatory policies almost led to a second Depression. Stir up enough anger about enough things and keep repeating the mantra that the recovery package didn't work and Obama owns this economy and maybe a lot of folks will forget whose fingerprints are on this economic disaster. Complain enough about Obama deficits and folks may forget how Republicans turned projected unending future budget surplusses from Clinton, (so large that Greenspan/Bush officials warned of the hazard of paying off the federal debt and eliminating access to Treasury bonds) into a trillion $ deficit and a near depression instead of the promised great economic growth they promised as they implemented their economic prescription. As it did in 1929, Republican economic/regulatory dogma has again been proven a fraud. There is no level of obstructionism, name calling, and raising of phony issues that they won't resort to raise a cloud of dust and try to hide this giant elephant in the room.

Archived

Birthers, Deathers, and the Muddled Middle: POLITICS THREAD