I don't know what President Obama is going to say to schoolkids this week. I do know, however, that when a parent or politician expresses concerns that Obama might try to indoctrinate them with socialist propaganda, there's good reasons for it. Start with the fact that Obama's own web site last year said that he would require middle and high school students to do public service (which is a violation of the constitutional prohibition on slavery), and then onto the fact that Obama's teaching materials for this week's speech ask students to "write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president [sic]" and so on; but I don't want to help the President, and don't want to encourage anyone else to do so, either, unless you happen to work for him, or you share his agenda and want to see it accomplished.
Obviously, our children should not be considered Obama's employees, or tools to further his agenda.
Maybe Obama will just innocuously say (wasting taxpayer dollars to do it) that kids should study hard, stay in school, and help their communities and families. But don't attack people for thinking there may be a more sinister agenda.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at September 05, 2009 10:47 AM | Email ThisI think this is entirely appropriate. I was astounded that many saw nothing wrong with students being told to obey the president, and do as he says.
Posted by: janet s on September 5, 2009 11:24 AMHoo boy. Is that funny or what.
It's The Pet Goat, Einstein. If you're going to make a juvenile insult we've heard a thousand times before, at least get it right.
Posted by: jimg on September 5, 2009 11:33 AMand furthermore, requiring public service isn't a violation of the constitution.
many school districts already have volunteer requirements for graduation.
a lot of professional organisations have volunteer requirements as well.
the right is really pushing the boundaries of hypocrisy these days.
respect the office, that's what you clowns used to say. holy cow, your civics and cility are waaay ridiculous of late.
i guess that only holds true if it's a white reupublican, right?
Posted by: mike on September 5, 2009 11:47 AMWhat surprises me is how many liberals are trying NOT to see how radical leftist Obama is, and why that is making parents of schoolkids nervous in the first place. They refuse to see why parents would be concerned about a smooth-talking radical leftist revolutionary astro-turf king (aka "community organizer") who sees nothing wrong with launching his political career at an unrepentant bomber's house who now wants to address their children. Add to that Obama hand-picking a "truther" self-identified communist, and a proponent of forced abortions and mass forced sterilization to 'czar' posts, and now the alarm bells are really going off for many people, and they are quite justifiably leery of this president getting anywhere near their kids. Here Obama is sending terrible messages to the public with his hand-picked choices--which most people would consider 'whackos'-- for these jobs plus his disturbing political history with Ayers---and Houston, we have problem. But try to explain that to leftwingers and their heads explode.
Posted by: Michele on September 5, 2009 11:58 AMRWR and GHWB gave a message wholly devoted to the "study hard and graduate" concept. The Obama WH has already turned this political by giving out pre-suggestions that students figure out how they can help the President. He politicized this by pushing for an agenda. It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to suggest that conservatives are opposed to the President providing a "study hard" message to the schools and the country.
Posted by: Calvin A on September 5, 2009 12:02 PMwhat is more disturbing, the president telling kids to stay in school and be influential and a part of their communities?
or paranoid CT and uneducated parents listening to the fears and lies spread by hypcrite alcoholics like glenn beck, and then disrespecting the office of the president?
and you wonder why the whole world is glad you are no longer in power...
calvin,
they pushed their education agenda when they talked. stop actively promoting hypocrisy and fear, it's lame.
Posted by: mike on September 5, 2009 12:21 PMThe document starts out with standard teaching items, questions like "Who is the President of the United States?" and "Why is it important that we listen...?" I'll give pudge credit for effort; the single quote he pulled comes from near the end, in the optional section. It's an unfortunate choice of words, and indeed sounds offensive when ripped from context and presented as representative, but it's not representative of the document.
After eight years of the previous Presidency, our children will need a lot of help to understand why they should even bother listening to the President.
It's The Pet Goat, Einstein.
I don't pay that much attention to the meaningless antics of a worthless politician at a staged photo op, so thanks for the tip.
we've heard a thousand times before,
But each time is a renewed pleasure!
Apart from the aforementioned waste of government resources, yes, it would be OK. Why do you ask? Are you implying there was something wrong with Bush reading it? That would be pretty stupid.
mike: riiight. cos when george hw bush and reagan did the exact same thing ...
Neither one ever said he would require schoolchildren to perform community service. Please don't lie.
and furthermore, requiring public service isn't a violation of the constitution.
Yes, in fact, it absolutely is. It is slavery. Forcing people to work against their will.
many school districts already have volunteer requirements for graduation.
There is a big difference between telling someone "do this or you can't graduate" and "you must do this, period." The former is part of all aspects of life: you meet requirements to get certain things in return. The latter is a violation of essential liberty, whether it is slavery because you're black, the military draft because you're a young man, or a requirement to have health insurance just because you're alive.
a lot of professional organisations have volunteer requirements as well.
Wow, that's stupid.
the right is really pushing the boundaries of hypocrisy these days.
Perhaps you can tell me where I am being hypocritical (well, no, you can't, but I'd like to see you try).
respect the office, that's what you clowns used to say
It's what I still say. How am I not respecting the office? Please enlighten us all. I won't hold my breath, but I will point out that no matter what you say, it couldn't possibly be as disrespectful as what you said about Bush when he was President, so no matter what you say, your hypocrisy would be far greater than mine (which doesn't exist anyway).
i guess that only holds true if it's a white reupublican, right?
mike, your race-baiting has no place in civil discourse. Do it again and you're gone, for good.
and you wonder why the whole world is glad you are no longer in power...
No sane person wonders that, because no sane person CARES. What the "whole world" thinks couldn't matter less.
Why does that matter? I honestly don't understand what your point is. Do you think they are lying? This was widely publicized, and I read it myself at the time on Obama's site. And they have a screen shot.
If you are complaining it doesn't link to a primary document, it's because the primary document no longer exists: it was scrubbed by Obama.
Whatever your complaint, you appear to be trying to undermine the credibility of a claim that was very widely read, publicized, and known.
only the second link goes to the primary source of the document, which is official U.S. Department of Education materials -- not "Obama's"
Sigh, tensor. How can you not know that the Department of Education is in the Executive Branch? Maybe the same way you thought Richardson and Ruckelshaus thought Bork's firing of Cox was immoral.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0eV44rEtBo
Really, I have no idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM
Posted by: Alex on September 5, 2009 02:03 PMI'm asking us to consider the source you cited. Do you have a problem with that? Also, I wasn't aware that being "widely read, publicized, and known" made something true. (Did the sun really revolve around the earth in the Middle Ages?)
How can you not know that the Department of Education is in the Executive Branch?
How can you come to such a risibly erroneous conclusion? Just because right-wingers may believe that the entire government should be a feudal extension of the Presidency doesn't make it so, or even a good idea. The materials are all optional, provided by the Department as a possible teaching aid. They're simply not as sinister as you misleadingly implied with your sole, unrepresentative quote.
Posted by: tensor on September 5, 2009 02:13 PMNeither one ever said he would require schoolchildren to perform community service. Please don't lie.
pudge, when i refer to the right, i'm not specifically referring to you, just the right in general. also, i never said reagan or bush would require community service, so don't put words in my mouth and call me a liar. i was referring to previous presidents talking (or as conservatives call it, indoctrinating) school children and the lack of asinine responses back then compared to the ridiculousness of the present situation.
professional orgs requiring committment for their members to help out in their community is stupid? jesus didn't think so, and neither do most americans.
I do know, however, that when a parent or politician expresses concerns that Obama might try to indoctrinate them with socialist propaganda, there's good reasons for it.
this is the disrespect for the office i was referring to, claiming a presidential speech will indoctrinate the children. and i actually didn't say much about bush when he was in office. i was appalled and shocked at his inabilty to be a good leader, but i never ran home screaming "bush is gonna indoctrinate us w/ religious propaganda and reagan voodo economics, hide the kids"
some more conservative respect:
mike savage: Hitler had the Hitler Youth, and Obama would like to have the Obama Youth.
andrea tantartos: They do this type of thing in North Korea and the former Soviet Union... very cultish." .
pretty respectful, i think, comparing the president's planned speech to hitler, stalin, lenin and kim jong il
obama's speech is addressing the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.
from the reaction, it would appear that conservatives
don't respect the office of the president
don't think children should succeed in school
don't think children should work hard
don't think children should set education goals
don't think children should take responsibility for their learning
don't think their kids are smart enough to listen to a speech by the president without getting all woo-ey eyed and 'indoctrinated'
That's because if it were Bush, taxpayers would have paid Halliburton $3 Billion to produce a two-page mandatory guide which started with the question, "Why is questioning our mighty Commander-in-Chief in Time of War worse than terrorism?" ;)
Of course, there is a more sinister agenda. It is vital that the American people wake up quickly before it is too late. It is amazing how rapidly Obama has moved forward in his taking over America. Obama is America's Hitler and his far left supporters are America's Nazis. If you think that Obama's ambition and his supporters are limited to one or two terms at President...Think again!
Yes, he wants to propagandize/brainwash America's children along with the adults as well and he has gotten off to a good start. It will take a concerted effort of the wise amongst us to generate within the American public an awareness of this serious danger and put up not only a strong defense but, aggressive action to put Obama and his associates/henchmen out of business. Strong action is needed now, to resist this take over culminating, with a successful anti-Obama vote in 2010 and continue until Obama and his henchmen have been eradicated.
Bottom line: Obama doesn't want to limit himself with the Presidency, he wants to become America's Dictator. You think I'm being over the top with that statement? How about this? His ambitions will not be satisfied until, he is ruler of the World.
The less our children are exposed to that empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot and his socialist ideas, the better.
And your rank hypocrisy in spewing crap like "respect the office" when your ilk was oh-so respectful during Bush's tenure... why, the very idea sucks more than your usual pap... and you've achieved a level of reeking hypocrisy and stench impossible to define.
I'll be the very first to "respect the office," when that clown-suited moron begins to respect US.
Damn, but watching pudge ginzu your fringe ass with such frequency is certainly a "renewed pleasure." As often as it happens (namely, about every time you post) it NEVER gets old.
And Moron? This kind of crap is why you and the empty-suited idiot you're ilk are constantly needing knee pads for are soon to become political after-thoughts.
It takes a true, whacked out leftist scumbag to believe that none of us want our children to succeed. But where we DO want them to fail is in the comosol world that YOU inhabit, and keeping them out of range of that scum bag as much as possible is one of the surest ways we have to ensure the very success you're sniveling about.
Posted by: hinton on September 5, 2009 03:26 PMseriously, you can't call someone the american hitler, and then claim to be wise. also, obama's not up for election in 2010.
obama, ruler of the world? could be worse. we could have morons like daniel running things, and then we'd all be doomed.
hinton,
by US, do you mean the majority of americans that elected obama based on his views and vision for america? or US, those that disrespect the office of the president and call him things like american hitler or anti-American racist bigot? there is a reason conservatives lost and will continue to lose.
do you derive pleasure from being an intellectual nitwit and hypocrite?
Posted by: mike on September 5, 2009 03:56 PMYeah, hinton, you're doing a really good job of showing the meaning of "respect", as you right-wingers understand it. (Using such jejune language against the popular President, and some of the citizens who voted for him will, no doubt, generate huge amounts of political win for you, so please do continue.)
when are you going to learn that when you and your fellow fringe-left nutters come here, you're going to have to bring you "A" game?
We'd never be that cruel to you, hinton. :)
Posted by: tensor on September 5, 2009 04:40 PMYes, the majority have voted for Obama. But, the majority are NOT, far left Liberals and can come to realize that Obama is not the best protector of our Wealth, Freedoms and our Right to the pursuit of Happiness.
Yes, Obama is very much like Hitler. If you, a far left Liberal, were in Germany in the 30's, you would be blinding screaming "Sieg Heil" to Hitler. The far left Liberals are the same class of people who are the Easy Believers and followers of any charismatic Tyrant that comes along. It has been that way throughout history.
civics fail.
seats in the house of representatives (not congress) are up for election every two years.
obama's not 'destroying america'
a lot of us that served voted for obama.
and the majority of americans are also not far right wingnuts. but they saw how the country under bush went to crap, spending went through the roof and the economy was in a tailspin, and thankfully, voted for the 'scary socialist'
if you've bothered to check your 401k or house's appraised value in the last year, you'd see bush wasn't exactly the protector of wealth either.
history fail.
if i were in germany in the 30s, i would have been arrested and thrown in a concentration camp.
obama can't be the american hitler, because you claim obama's a socialist/commie. hitler was neither and despised both. he rounded them up and arrested them.
hitler abolished unions and the right to strike.
german workers didn't own the means of production.
hitler despised egalitarianism.
to claim that only leftists can be 'charmed' by tyrants is to completely ignore history. you're struggling, daniel.
however, your quote above @ 23 on eradicating liberal henchmen? it's very hitler-esque.
Posted by: mike on September 5, 2009 06:11 PMA source which contained a screen shot of something we've all known about, that we knew actually existed, that many of us actually saw before Obama scrubbed it.
So yeah, that's a stupid thing for you to bring up. That would be almost like if you linked to a leftwing website with a picture of Bush on the aircraft carrier in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner and I said, "well, consider the source."
Also, I wasn't aware that being "widely read, publicized, and known" made something true.
OK, but it does. By "widely read" I mean many people, including myself, read it on Obama's own web site at the time. So yeah, that makes it true. I actually saw it.
How can you come to such a risibly erroneous conclusion?
I didn't.
Just because right-wingers may believe that the entire government should be a feudal extension of the Presidency doesn't make it so
Um. It's not what we believe SHOULD be. It actually is. Again, it's as with Bork firing Cox: the President really does control the whole of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. Now of course, he may not have known what was on those materials, just as he may not have known what was on his own web site that said school kids would be required to do community service.
But it is perfectly right and reasonable -- and very common for these past couple hundred years -- to say that when something comes from the President's administration, that it comes from him, because -- literally -- everything that happens in the Executive Branch (unless done improperly against his wishes, of course) is done on his direct authority. That's what Article II says: the power of the Executive branch is vested in the President. And no one else. So when the documents come from the Dept. of Education about his speech, it is perfectly fine to say they are coming from Obama. Everyone understands he may, or may not, have had a direct role. Obviously.
Similarly, under Bush, many of the things done by different departments were attributed to Bush himself. And I never quibbled with that, ever, unless an implication was made that Bush had knowledge of, or personally directed, the actions. An implication I didn't make here with Obama.
The materials are all optional ...
Completely irrelevant to my point, but thanks.
They're simply not as sinister as you misleadingly implied with your sole, unrepresentative quote.
I never implied they were sinister. I implied -- stated, actually -- that they will obviously be viewed by many people as sinister.
You directly implied that people were disrespecting the office of the President because the person holding the office is black. If you don't think that's race-baiting then you're stupider than I thought.
i never said reagan or bush would require community service
In fact, you did. I mentioned the reasons why people were concerned, and you said Reagn and Bush did the same thing.
professional orgs requiring committment for their members to help out in their community is stupid?
No. Your comparison of that to what Obama said on his web site is stupid. Beyond stupid.
this is the disrespect for the office i was referring to, claiming a presidential speech will indoctrinate the children
I never claimed that. Please stop lying. What I said was that Obama has a. said that kids will be required to perform community service, and b. that kids should write essays about how they can help Obama. And that together, those create a legitimate concern for what the content of the speech might be, that it could be a forum for indoctrination.
This is not disrespecting the office, in any way. This is noting that people have legitimate concerns about how the office will be used.
And you were attacking US in HERE for disrespecting the office. You provided a single quote: one from me that did not in any way disrespect the office. Good show, mate.
from the reaction, it would appear that conservatives ...
Jeez you're a moron.
No, in fact, they won't. As Obama has a demonstrated habit of saying things and then changing them later, there's good reason to suspect that if that's all the message is, it's because he changed it due to pressure.
Further, MOST of the people are not complaining about what he WILL say, but about what he MIGHT say. And if he doesn't say those things, good! It doesn't mean you were foolish for being cautious and concerned. If you wear your seatbelt and don't get in an accident, it doesn't mean you were a fool to wear it.
Posted by: pudge on September 5, 2009 06:26 PMYes, Hitler was a Socialist. Nazi stands for Nationalist Socialist Party. Again, check it out and maybe, you'll learn something. But, maybe Not! After all, you are a Liberal.
Let's say we did have laws saying every resident of a State after leaving high school has to do a year of community service.
Why would that be "slavery" when requiring kids to get educated for 12 years isn't?
We didn't used to require 12 years you know. In fact, I think we didn't used to require schooling at all.....or maybe in some places we didn't. nyway, we now do require it, in school or via an intensely regulated home school ....so really, why don't you think that's not slavery?
It's a lot of your life, it is government telling you how to run your family, and it's certainly not a free market solution!
How can you justify it based on conservative principles?
Serious responses are preferred. Is this not an interesting question?
12 years schooling okay, one year community service slavery, why would you treat the two things any differently?
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on September 5, 2009 06:31 PMRight. That's exactly what the left said when Bush pushed abstinence education in schools. That they would let their kids hear it and then use it for family discussion. They didn't complain at all!
Please, Jstar, you have to do a lot better than that.
mike and tensor: as often as you say dumb things, at least you're not as fringe as Daniel is. He's a real problem child.
Speaking of dumb things, here's mike again: by US, do you mean the majority of americans that elected obama based on his views and vision for america?
Wow. His campaign slogan was a euphemism for "I'm not Bush" for crying out loud.
or US, those that disrespect the office of the president and call him things like american hitler or anti-American racist bigot?
I continue to criticize people who call Obama "Hitler" and so on. But since you called conservatives racists in this very discussion, I'll have to call you on your despicable low-life dishonesty.
there is a reason conservatives lost and will continue to lose.
The reason we lost was Bush. The reason we'll win is Obama.
Sure he is.
a lot of us that served voted for obama.
Most of you didn't.
and the majority of americans are also not far right wingnuts. but they saw how the country under bush went to crap, spending went through the roof and the economy was in a tailspin, and thankfully, voted for the 'scary socialist'
Yes, they were deluded enough to think that the most of the problems of the country were Bush's fault, and that spending wouldn't massively increase much more under Obama.
if you've bothered to check your 401k or house's appraised value in the last year, you'd see bush wasn't exactly the protector of wealth either.
And if you bothered to check your history, you'd see Bush can't be significantly blamed for any of it.
if i were in germany in the 30s, i would have been arrested and thrown in a concentration camp.
Now THERE'S a thought. ;-)
obama can't be the american hitler, because you claim obama's a socialist/commie. hitler was neither and despised both.
As much as Daniel's "Obama is Hitler" shtick is utterly inane, no, Hitler only hated certain forms of socialism. His National Socialism was socialism, but with variations.
I have nothing more to say about the comparisons because it's a stupid topic, but ... Hitler was not anti-socialist.
The painful truth for them is that probably less than 30% of Americans are on the far left. That is in spite of 40 years of political correctness, controlling the media, and most importantly indoctrinating school children. This is not a leftist country. They are finding that out. Indeed, after Obama gets done showing the country what leftists actually want to accomplish chances are the left will be in the minority for many years.
Obama has made one foolish tactical political error after another. This might be his biggest. Exposing how the liberal teachers unions push the leftist agenda in the public schools we pay for. Tucker Carlson did a great expose demonstrating how liberals have re-written public school textbooks to promote their point of view.
America is figuring out finally just who these people that have shoved "political correctness" and "conciousness raising" on us for years really are.
If there is any justice at all we are going to take our liberty back.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2009 06:43 PMLet's say we did have laws saying every resident of a State after leaving high school has to do a year of community service. Why would that be "slavery" when requiring kids to get educated for 12 years isn't?
Um ... because slavery is forcing people to do work for other people. Forced labor on behalf of someone else. Education is not forced labor on behalf of someone else. Forced community service is.
I think we didn't used to require schooling at all...
Of course we didn't. Back when we were actually free.
It's a lot of your life, it is government telling you how to run your family, and it's certainly not a free market solution!
Yep. It's insanity, and it's awful, and it's part of why I do not participate in that system. But being as it is not forced labor, it's not slavery.
How can you justify it based on conservative principles?
I wouldn't. It's an affront to liberty itself.
Is this not an interesting question?
Not really, no.
and then you said the house of reps was part of the congress and the senate.
congress is not the house, it's both the house and the senate. all house seats and 1/3 of senate sears are up for election every 2 years. it's civics 101.
seriously, nothing you are saying makes sense.
so if nazis were national socialists (they were nationalists, they were not socialists) are you saying the GDR was a democratic and republican state? it's called a misnomer. the nazis were not socialists. you should read a few history books or even mein kampf instead of listening to lying windbags like glenn and hannity.
pudge, are you actually saying that a presidential speech is as bad as teaching kids a sex-ed program that isn't reality based?
and what's your point? we voted for him because he wasn't bush. well, neither was mccain.
yes, we will win with obama. we will rise up out of the conservative-induced recession. we will obtain affordable health care for all americans. we might even implement a green economy that promotes stewardship of the earth. ohno!
bill,
what do you by our liberty? we (the people) voted for obama. we (the people) are not losing liberty.
First, the program was reality-based. It's very simple: don't have sex, you won't have STDs or unwanted pregnancies. Hard to get more reality-based than that. Maybe you failed sex ed ... ?
Second, the speech could be far worse. Of course! We don't know what's in it so we can't yet evaluate it. But if he, for example, calls children to rally around his cause for health care reform ... yep, that would be much worse than Bush's abstinence sex ed.
yes, we will win with obama.
Good luck with that. Few Presidents have had as low approval ratings at this point in his presidency as Obama, with no sign of it slowing down, let alone turning around. The 2010 elections are looking worse and worse for you folks.
we will rise up out of the conservative-induced recession.
Please stop lying. There's no serious evidence that conservatism, or conservatives in particular, had anything whatsoever to do with causing the recession. The only remotely credible thing I've seen from the left to try to push this is the banking deregulation from the Republican Congress that Clinton signed into law. And please don't tell me Clinton is a conservative.
we will obtain affordable health care for all americans.
Please stop lying. The current plans from Obama and the Dems will not cut costs, and will not cover everyone.
we might even implement a green economy that promotes stewardship of the earth.
We already have an economy that promotes stewardship of the Earth. That's how we, for example, still have as many trees in this country as we had 100 years ago.
We the people voted for Bush in 2004. Did that stop the left from screaming that "Bush doesn't have a mandate" from the moment the election was over?
The polls are showing that the majority of people that voted for Obama are having a serious case of buyer's remorse. They didn't realize they were voting for a far leftist because he disguised who he was. He was all for letting the public read his bills before he signed them, and then he used fear mongering to ram through his economic stimulus program. He tried the same tactic with health care and finally the people who voted for him began to wonder just who they had voted for.
What did Obama and his people do? Call decent Americans mobsters and racists when they dared ask questions about his health care proposals.
Americans may have elected Obama but they have a right to change their minds. The polls certainly are showing that they are.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2009 07:07 PM
You might want to go back to school and bone up on some history. Your blatantly ignorant statement that the Nazi party were not socialists is just utterly clueless on the face of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
Posted by: FurryOldGuyJeans on September 5, 2009 07:31 PMHe's a phony.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2009 07:46 PM"mike savage: Hitler had the Hitler Youth, and Obama would like to have the Obama Youth."
That appears entirely possible, until he demonstrates it to us otherwise.
andrea tantartos: They do this type of thing in North Korea and the former Soviet Union... very cultish." .
True statement - their dictators speak directly to the children whose minds are very impressionable. Until proven otherwise, this is entirely possible.
He will go ahead and give his speech and it will be up to us to judge if in fact he speaks like GW Bush and Pres.Reagan and keeps it limited to encouraging children, with straight talk about how failed our education system has become (doubtful) or if he crosses the line into indoctrination and soft brainwashing and talks about the expanded AmeriCorps. He has already thrown a bone to his audience about writing to him with suggestions on how to solve the problems of this country (he does need serious help in doing this). There is no doubt that this will be an orchestrated effort designed to attract kids to the narcissistic POTUS. He has fooled us more than once, so if we fall for these "good intentions" here, then shame on us.
mike is a neo-com hypocrite and a troll, who has a mental disorder. Furthermore, those who live in glass houses should throw stones. He is clogging the blog with his pathetic nonsense.
Posted by: KDS on September 5, 2009 07:48 PMwe may have the same amount of forest area (i don't know about actual tree counts), but the quality of those forests has diminished significantly. replacing a 300 y.o. western red with some knobby pines is not exactly stewardship.
and you are wrong on the polling numbers... obama's 'honeymoon' (55%+ approval) put him above average for the last 7 presidents. (per gallup/pew averages, the average was 6.5-ish months)
bush had only 3 months @ 55%+ approval. clinton's was what, 2 weeks? if it wasn't for 9/11, bush would have fared a lot worse. reagan went from about 68-35 in his first 2 years. it took 8 months for ford to drop from 72 to 37. in a little over a year, truman went from 87 to 33. clinton from 57 to 37 in just a few months, before a steady uptick. obama's polling numbers have been about average. i seriously doubt R pickups in 2010 will be significant.
abstinence only ed doesn't work because kids are kids and are gonna fool around. to ignore that reality is to set them up for failure (and getting STIs, pregnancy, etc)
so republican congress passing a bill that clinton signed absolves them of all responsibility? that's rich.
there have been no health care plans submitted by obama.
bill,
please show me where people who 'voted for obama' are having buyers remorse? those i know that voted for obama are generally satisfied.
polls also show most parents aren't freaking out about the president giving a speech to school children. what's your point?
obama called people racists? get yer facts straight, bub.
attila,
if socialism/colletivism is the devil (and it's not, just ask the swedes), i take it you don't:
drive
use public utilities (water, sewer, etc)
receive/want social security
use/want medicare
furry,
from your posting
The Nazi Party is generally described as being at the extreme or far right of the left-right political axis. While the party incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[6]
the 'socialist' misnomer was thrown in to keep the farmers and middle class. the beginnings of the nazi party was heavily funded by capitalist industry, who graciously rewarded them with lucrative no-bid contracts once the war started.
KDS,
all kinds of PMs/presidents/kings have addressed students as well. and?
reagan pushed his political agendas with the student speech:
But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes and other economic reforms that they're using, copying what we have done here in our country. I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom -- the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state -- was central to the American Revolution when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes, and barriers to free trade.
so it's only okay if you are a republican? hypocrites...
Posted by: mike on September 5, 2009 08:03 PMI see you once again cherry-picking what you want from comments and other printed information. You, sir, are a troll of the highest caliber. I doff my hat to you for your utterly shameless lying and obfuscations.
Posted by: FurryOldGuyJeans on September 5, 2009 08:06 PMi'm here to shine light on the lies from the right.
Posted by: mike on September 5, 2009 08:12 PMIt would certainly be refreshing if you could actually provide evidence of the things you say "mike".
Instead you simply resort to calling those who disagree with you snotty playground names. What does that say about you and your ideology?
You are a perfect example of what I say repeatedly about the left. The left is a collection of unpleasant, angry people who act like 6th graders when anyone disagrees with them.
It's a pattern. Leftists the world over have always used these tactics. Demonize anyone who disagrees with you. Right out of the "Rules for Radicals".
We see through it now.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2009 08:47 PMNope!
and you are wrong on the polling numbers... obama's 'honeymoon' (55%+ approval) put him above average for the last 7 presidents.
Nope! He's higher than Clinton and Bush 43, but lower than everyone else going back to Eisenhower. (And Ford doesn't count since he didn't get elected, and that's what we're measuring from here: the inauguration following election.) He's not above average, he's below average (although if you adjust for polling error, at best, you could consider him average).
I think the funniest stat is that his numbers have been below Carter's at every point in his presidency thus far. I expect that trend to continue. :)
abstinence only ed doesn't work ...
First, it does work. Not for everyone, true, but no sex ed works for everyone. I didn't have sex before marriage; worked great for me. And I know many older people who "fooled around" a lot and say they envy me for having done so.
Second, your definition of "works" isn't mine. If your only goal is prevention of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, then yes, abstinence-only is usually less effective in studies. But those are not my primary goals: mine are promoting spiritual and psychological and mental health. Physical health is very, very important, but less so, obviously, than the others, and I am unconvinced -- as there have been no serious studies -- that having government employees who are usually virtual strangers teach children about intimate sexual activity is good for them.
(I find it odd that liberals like to chant "keep the government out of my bedroom!" but then scream if the government is not in their KIDS' bedroom. I, frankly, find that to be sick and twisted.)
Third, and most importantly, I've never seen evidence of any kind that Bush ever had an "abstinence only" policy. He did push abstinence, yes, but I never saw evidence that it was abstinence ONLY. If you have it, I'd like to see it.
Nevertheless, that's all completely beside the point.
so republican congress passing a bill that clinton signed absolves them of all responsibility?
Who said that? Certainly not me. Please read what I actually wrote: that Clinton is not a conservative, so if that bill is to blame for the recession, then the recession was not caused by conservatives "in particular" (I used that phrase for a very good reason). That is: what I actually said is that if this bill was to blame, then it was a joint effort, not attributable to one side or the other.
there have been no health care plans submitted by obama.
So? He has pushed and influenced much of what is in the plans in Congress. HR 3200 does not have his name on it, but many of his ideas are in it.
the 'socialist' misnomer was thrown in to keep the farmers and middle class. the beginnings of the nazi party was heavily funded by capitalist industry, who graciously rewarded them with lucrative no-bid contracts once the war started.
Look ... Nazi Germany controlled the economy through massive regulation. Significant price and wage and trade and profit controls, forced business goals, forced employment ... the state didn't own the means of production, they simply controlled it completely and totally in every significant way. That is socialism by any serious definition.
Again, comparisons to Nazi Germany are stupid. But let's not pretend the Germans weren't socialist under the Nazis. They controlled all significant aspects of German business.
so it's only okay if you are a republican? hypocrites...
You're a liar, mike. Not a single person here stated or implied that what you quoted from Reagan was "okay," nor stated or implied that such a speech coming from Obama would NOT be "okay."
Personally, I don't believe the government should impose schooling on people. People would seek education without being forced into it, since it is in their best economic interest. A college education is not compulsory, is it? Still, a large number of students willingly attend and pay for it. Was school required when Abe Lincoln was a child? How on earth did he succeed without having an education imposed upon him?
Does the federal government require students to attend 12 years of school? It shouldn't - at least, it has no Constitutional authority to do so. The role of providing and regulating public education is implicitly left to the states. As far as I know, all states mandate a certain amount of school attendance. I am sure my children equate this with slavery. Nobody pretends school attendance is voluntary. As to the community service requirement, if they want to include it as a requisite for graduation that is up to the school. However to call it "voluntary", when it is obligatory to exit school honorably, is dishonest.
Posted by: PeggyU on September 5, 2009 09:03 PMAnd your point is ? I don't trust the motives of the President as he is a liberal progressive with Marxist leanings, but he will speak.
reagan pushed his political agendas with the student speech:
How did he do this ? By saying that Washington DC is the shining City up on a hill and America's best days are ahead ?
But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade.
Most countries in the world are large socialist governments with high taxes. They'd like lower taxes like here, but that is just rhetoric. Lower taxes would be unsustainable for those countries. Another half-truth.
These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes and other economic reforms that they're using, copying what we have done here in our country. I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom -- the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state -- was central to the American Revolution when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes, and barriers to free trade."
More baseless Progressive bullcrap...
what is your point - you continue to spew nonsense and half truths. I am here to shine the light of disinfectant on lies from liberal progressives like mike and other LP's.
Posted by: KDS on September 5, 2009 09:12 PMCould I be wrong? Sure. I don't think so.
What is the matter with these people who are often profane, and call people they disagree with silly names that I haven't heard since grade school?
You just have to wonder about them.
I don't wonder at all. I was one of them and I was as just as much of an unpleasant person as "mike" is. I was mean and judgemental to everyone who disagreed with my leftist beliefs, friends, family, it didn't matter.
Do I regret it now? I sure do. Do I understand what the left is all about? I sure do.
Why did Obama pick a radical like Van Jones in the first place, knowing what they did ? Why has he selected other czars (Mark Lloyd, John Holdren and Carol Browner - to name three others) knowing their radical backgrounds. Therein lies my distrust for him.
Posted by: KDS on September 5, 2009 09:46 PMIt won't matter. The Obama Administration is filled with far lefties such as Van Jones.
All of America is going to find out about Barack Obama and how far left he actually is.
For us longtime observers of politics Obama has to be one of the most inept politicians of all time. He's in your face lecturing every day. He flies all over the country while telling us the "planet is in peril". I bet he already has a bigger "carbon footprint" than Bush had in 8-years.
Americans are sick of this guy. And he's just been in office a few months.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2009 10:23 PMBtw, sorry for the OT but congrats to the Huskies for finishing less than two TDs behind #11 LSU tonight. The Huskies looked SO much better than last year and look like they could actually beat Idaho next week. I'm betting on them to do it. Go Huskies!
Posted by: Michele on September 5, 2009 10:28 PMdrive
use public utilities (water, sewer, etc)
receive/want social security
use/want medicare
Which one of those do I have a choice in, Mike? Are there private roads that I can use?
When I'm in Edmonds, I have no choice but to pay for water and sewer; septic is illegal, and you cannot have a well. No choice.
Can I opt out of Social Security and Medicare? I would in a heartbeat, if I could. I'd like to keep 15.4% of my income, and put it in my own retirement plans.
Tell me, Mike, which one can I avoid? Is it supporting collectivism when I am forced by the State to participate? Is putting a gun to someone's head and making them agree with you a sign of support?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 6, 2009 02:20 AMWhen did Reagan or Bush ask kids to write essays on how they could help them?
BHO did just that until the light was shined on him, not by the MSM but by the bloggers (note that I have not seen any mention of the Van Jones affair in our respected Seattle Times). The bright spot is that our president is so incompetent I suspect he will make a hash of his term before his first year in office ends. His plan A to solve the economic crisis was to print money and QUADRUPLE the national debt. Oops. Unemployment is still rising and the economy is still on life support. I guess printing money does not work to solve the problem. Plan B: print more money and raise the debt some more. This is generational theft pure and simple and the Left is finally showing us just how much they "care" for the children. BHO is in over his head and the MSM is going to have a helluva time carrying water for him for four long years. He is a pretty boy and a deep voice in a suit who is accustomed to slobbery praise (by the folks who pat themselves on the back for voting for BOH largely based on the color of his skin) and not being called to account for his words and deeds. In twelve months his image will be about as popular as all those statues and paintings of Lenin, Stalin, Janos Kadar, Saddam Hussein ad nauseum.
Posted by: attila on September 6, 2009 06:15 AMSimilarly, I check up on all things my kids will be exposed to in school. And there's nothing secret about the various assemblies, speakers, etc. Typically, our school administrators will be happy to provide information for parents about any speakers.
If I can find out what "The Science Guy" will speaking about, I ought to be able to find out what The President of the United States will be speaking about.
This is another example of Obama's inexperience. If noticed this is similar to employees I have hired in the past who don't know how to do something or to get a particular answer or job done. The honest ones will come and ask for help. The dishonest ones will become very secretive.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 6, 2009 07:04 AMI think even his supporters find themselves thinking, "oh for heaven's sake give it a rest for a while!"
He's going to be back in our faces right after Labor Day. Appearing on TV in front of the nations schoolchildren. Pushing his health care agenda before a joint session of Congress. Probably flying all over the country as is his habit in an attempt to regain public support.
Even LBJ, who had an ego at least as large as his native Texas knew better than to be on the evening news every single night.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2009 08:58 AMMark Lloyd (czar of the FCC) should be considered a clear and present danger (for those who like dissenting views and balanced commentary). He is just as radical as Van Jones and in left unchecked, he will try to instill a Chavez model, where he (Barack) would be able to control the media. Lloyd will probably still attempt it, even though it is clearly unconstitutional - but there are lawsuits waiting to happen for whenever he tries to silence conservative talk radio. This shows how INTOLERANT the left really is...
LP's, call me paranoid because of trying to harm the Obama administration - but I like to envision myself as Paul Revere, for it is far more important that the people being served by this Administration do not get harmed.
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2009 09:51 AMThe former is arguably the only way to fulfill the requirements of the Sixth Amendment, which protects our liberty.
The latter IS unconstitutional. The courts have gotten it completely wrong, as they often do. Compulsory military service is slavery, and prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Even if you argue that compulsory military service is required for the preservation of our liberty (which is nonsense) and is therefore an allowable use of force by government, compulsory public service is quite obviously not required for the preservation of our liberty. It IS slavery, by definition: forced labor on behalf of another.
Pudge, your attempts at linking public service with slavery are... well... kinda stupid. Even aside from the idea that you would object to kids being taught the value of volunteerism and charity, the Constitutional arguments that you state are simply wrong, no matter how much you try to twist them around.
First, the federal government would not require kids to do anything! The requirements are a part of the federal funding mechanism to states and schools. If enough parents aren't interested in having their kids work at a soup kitchen or something, and their school district can afford to forego grants from the federal and state governments, they can do as they wish. Likewise, if states aren't interested in implementing these requirements, they can certainly refuse federal funding.
Secondly, parents and teachers will not be arrested and thrown in prison if students do not complete the public service required for a diploma. At worst, they would simply not graduate for failing to meet all of the necessary requirement. Objecting to this, then, would be akin to calling residency for medical students or student teaching for teaching accreditation "slavery".
If you can provide proof that by not completing these public service requirements, an individual student, teacher or parent will be thrown in prison or heavily fined, I'll be the first one to back up your position. As it stands right now, though, you're just wallowing in hyperbole.
Posted by: demo kid on September 6, 2009 02:33 PMYour attempt to deny that forced labor is slavery is reprehensible.
Even aside from the idea that you would object to kids being taught the value of volunteerism and charity ...
... which would be a lie, as I never expressed or implied any such idea.
... the Constitutional arguments that you state are simply wrong
False.
First, the federal government would not require kids to do anything!
I hope not. But Obama's own web site said they would try.
Secondly, parents and teachers will not be arrested and thrown in prison if students do not complete the public service required for a diploma.
You are making up that "required for a diploma" stuff. It is not what Obama's own web site said. It did not say or imply "as a condition for graduation." It said, simply, "required."
Based on this and other evidence, that would make this a soft tyranny. They will attempt to indoctrinate within the confines of how they interpret the law. We have already seen subtle attempts at this. I doubt if they are slowing up the production of Trojan horses just because one radical was caught and vetted properly.
Why would I believe a soft tyranny ? Because of their negligence in vetting Van Jones, Mark Lloyd and the rest of the czars who have been demonstrated to be radicals (Neo-coms or Neo-Marxists)
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2009 03:35 PMAm I reading this right? Is this not saying that if kids don't do what the Obama Administration wants them to do they will be denied federal school funding?
I may be off the mark here but isn't that the entire reason the federal government took over public schools? So that they could dictate curriculum?
And here's "demo kid" saying that well, if school districts don't want to go along with federal dictates they can just get along without federal funding.
If you aren't outraged by these horrible people you certainly should be by now.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2009 06:06 PMYour attempt to lie and rewrite what I said is reprehensible too. Argue me on what I've written here, not on what you add.
... which would be a lie, as I never expressed or implied any such idea.
You're objecting to one way that kids would be taught about that. That's no lie. You can certainly say that you want kids to learn about it in other ways, but you haven't stated that here.
... the Constitutional arguments that you state are simply wrong
False
But you haven't backed that statement up. Try harder, pudge. You pass yourself off as a constitutional guru... but you can't even bring yourself to read up on South Dakota v. Dole.
You are making up that "required for a diploma" stuff. It is not what Obama's own web site said. It did not say or imply "as a condition for graduation." It said, simply, "required."
Yes, just like English class is "required". I'm sure that many students would like to know that trigonometry is "slavery", for example!
Seriously, though, trying to read anything else into that is not based in fact. Point me towards any reference that states that a student, teacher or parent would be thrown in jail or heavily fined for not complying with a requirement for graduation. Compulsory education does not equal compulsory graduation, either.
@76: Based on this and other evidence, that would make this a soft tyranny.
"Soft tyranny"? I'm sorry, but you're just trying to twist the evidence a little too hard and making up your own terms to try to reach your conclusions.
They will attempt to indoctrinate within the confines of how they interpret the law.
The federal government only regulates the educational system indirectly. They do no "indoctrination". (And no, when crackpot conservatives decide that the only Presidents they want their kids to respect have R's next to their names, it still doesn't count as "indoctrination".)
The states are in more of a prime position to "indoctrinate" students, actually. All of this debate about creationism in schools is perfect evidence.
I doubt if they are slowing up the production of Trojan horses just because one radical was caught and vetted properly.
You're mixing up your crackpot theories. After tolerating creationists and evangelicals, I have little patience when conservatives cling onto parts of people's resumes that have no bearing on their jobs.
(Not to mention that a large percentage of Truthers are conservatives, btw.)
@77: I would assert that once you are "required" to volunteer or "required" to perform charity, the activity is no longer volunteerism or charity.
Great! Then don't ever tell your children that they have to tithe or spend time on anyone but themselves, or else it really isn't "charity".
Assuming that this is about forcing students to give something that they should be giving freely is missing the mark by so much I have a hard time believing that you're not completely brain dead. The point of a civics curriculum that includes volunteerism is to educate students about what public service entails.
Does this mean that students will suddenly take up a life dedicated to volunteerism? Nope. Does it mean that they'll even fulfill the requirement with something that actually makes a difference in the community? Absolutely not. However, it does provide the opportunity for interested students to learn.
An opposition to something like that doesn't quite make conservatives sound like altruists... it makes them sound like douchebags.
(And as an interesting side note, I actually did have that as a requirement for graduation from high school.)
@78: Oh, and only conservatives call Obama the "messiah". Unfortunately for you, though, only the Republican Previous Occupant was arrogant enough to assume that God was talking to him, and to tell everyone that they should believe him because of it.
Posted by: demo kid on September 6, 2009 06:16 PMIt's really ugly stuff.
Don't believe yet these are awful people? "Demo kid" seems to provide convincing evidence.
Have they gone too far? It appears that most Americans finally realize it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2009 06:24 PMWow. So YOU lie by leaving out the word "forced," and when I add it back in -- clearly marking the change, unlike you -- somehow that makes ME the liar?
You used to not be this dishonest. What happened?
You're objecting to one way that kids would be taught about that.
Yes: FORCING THEM. I object to ANYTHING being done by FORCE, unless it is necessary for securing our individual liberty (which this clearly is not). It is the FORCE, and the FORCE only, that I stated or implied any objection to.
You can certainly say that you want kids to learn about it in other ways, but you haven't stated that here.
Since I never in any way objected to public service, I have no need to say that I am in favor of it being taught in other ways. Have you stopped beating your mother?
But you haven't backed that statement up.
Yes, in fact, I did. I said it violated the 13th Amendment. Since this argument needs no explanation -- the amendment forbids all "slavery or indentured servitude," both of which are commonly defined to include forced labor on behalf of another, which is, obviously, precisely what forced community service is -- I didn't go further. There was no need.
I realize some court decisions have disagreed; they are wrong.
Yes, just like English class is "required"
Please do not lie by trying to make it sound like Obama made this out to be part of the public school curriculum as a requirement for graduation. In fact -- to underscore this point -- he never mentioned public schools at all, and he also said it would be required of college kids, where the curriculum has nothing to do with the government at all (except at state schools). You are reading into it try to give him political cover instead of acknowledging the fact that there was no such implication. He may have meant it, but it wasn't in the text or the context.
Seriously, though, trying to read anything else into that is not based in fact.
So YOU can read into it and called it based in fact? Please don't be so transparently dishonest. And in fact, I read nothing into it. I never asserted what Obama actually meant by it. I only pointed out what he said, and what it could reasonably be taken to mean.
Also, Obama's popularity is dropping like a stone - not because people don't like him, but because they don't like his policies and appointed people.
Posted by: JoWriter on September 6, 2009 06:48 PMAre we going to find out in the coming weeks about more of his appointed "czars" that are his communist buddies? Sure we are.
Is Obama a far left socialist? Of course he is.
Did we try to tell you so? We sure did.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2009 07:41 PMhttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/the_brainwashing_bunch.html
Also Bill Ayers made a speech at the World Education Forum in Venezuela sprouting socialistic nonsense!!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042009/content/01125118.guest.html
So what is the relation between Obama and Ayers and where is Obama headed? No wonder Parents are extremely worried about their Children!!!
Posted by: Tim on September 6, 2009 07:43 PMAh, He's just an aspiring social engineer with a passion to conduct his experiments on the biggest Democratic Republic on the planet.
How's that for politically correct puke ?
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2009 07:44 PMI mean I used to be a hardcore conservative and this is just beyond me! The left NEVER behaved this badly! NEVER! And they've done some pretty stupid stuff against Bush too!
Posted by: Lenny on September 6, 2009 07:47 PMAnd hey, the Democrats didn't make those rules, nor do they use them exclusively. I have to admit, though, that I doubt the federal government would use a service requirement as the sole reason to cut millions in education funding to states. However, I assume that you'll take any excuse you can get to mouth off like a screaming maniac to blame liberals for all your problems. Obama could talk about puppies or the weather and you'd assume that it was a socialist plot.
Get off my lawn!
@82:
Wow. So YOU lie by leaving out the word "forced," and when I add it back in -- clearly marking the change, unlike you -- somehow that makes ME the liar?
You included it, and it was your interpretation. "Adding it back in" is misrepresenting what I wrote. And I'd enjoy seeing a place in this post where I've misquoted you. (To the best of my knowledge, ALL my quotes are verbatim.)
You used to not be this dishonest. What happened?
Shrug. You added it, and you misquoted me. I could just as easily write:
"So YOU lie [according to my PERSONAL definition of "lying"] by leaving out the word "forced" [which wasn't in there in the first place] and when I [incorrectly] add it back in -- clearly marking the change [I made myself], unlike you [who quotes me verbatim] -- somehow that makes ME the liar [by misrepresenting what you said]?"
but I prefer to quote you directly, pudge.
Yes: FORCING THEM. I object to ANYTHING being done by FORCE, unless it is necessary for securing our individual liberty (which this clearly is not). It is the FORCE, and the FORCE only, that I stated or implied any objection to.
Show the "force". Show me ONE place where a parent has been thrown in jail because they protest a mandatory requirement for public service in a high school curriculum. Show me ONE incident where a student was fined for not completing "mandatory" service directly required by the federal government. I'll buy you a beer if you can find just ONE.
Since I never in any way objected to public service, I have no need to say that I am in favor of it being taught in other ways. Have you stopped beating your mother?
You objected to that specific statement, and I indicated that. I didn't claim that you objected to all forms of public service, or to jury duty (which I assume you do), or to anything else for that matter.
And no, I haven't stopped beating my mother. She's a very bad Scrabble player. (Okay... SOMETIMES I let her win, but don't tell her, okay?)
Yes, in fact, I did. I said it violated the 13th Amendment. Since this argument needs no explanation -- the amendment forbids all "slavery or indentured servitude," both of which are commonly defined to include forced labor on behalf of another, which is, obviously, precisely what forced community service is -- I didn't go further. There was no need.
And I stated that you're absolutely wrong that an Obama policy initiative in this area would break the 13th Amendment, because the federal government isn't requiring students to do anything. You haven't demonstrated ANY possible way that they could. The states control education and not the federal government, despite all the hate that the federal Department of Education gets from conservatives. Even the implementation of NCLB is done through funding pressure on the states, and not on direct regulation of schools. Any requirements that the federal government may want to implement would have to go through the states, or go through direct federal grants of some kind, and not through direct regulation of schools (which WOULD violate the Tenth Amendment).
I realize some court decisions have disagreed; they are wrong.
Sucks to be you, dude, since you're not writing the binding court decisions. I may not like some of the implications of South Dakota v. Dole either, but it's still the law -- and originally pushed by a Republican administration, I might add.
Please do not lie by trying to make it sound like Obama made this out to be part of the public school curriculum as a requirement for graduation.
I'm waiting to hear proof that he would try to get this done in ANY other way. Simply put, there ARE no other ways. If you could give me ONE reasonable alternative approach that they could use to implement this evil master plan, that would be helpful in supporting your case. Just ONE, pudge. And if you can't point out where Obama said that parents would be arrested for noncompliance, your claims of "force" being involved are empty and meaningless.
There's a difference between making vague promises that can be implemented using existing approaches (like what most normal people would expect), and inventing some fictitious approach that would involve arresting protesting parents and throwing them in prison (which is what you're doing).
In fact -- to underscore this point -- he never mentioned public schools at all, and he also said it would be required of college kids, where the curriculum has nothing to do with the government at all (except at state schools).
Personally, I'd be interested in seeing how this would be made an across-the-board requirement in all private colleges, but that doesn't mean that college presidents will be thrown in jail to get this done, either. My guess is that this will be far, far more carrot than stick. There are incentives for private campuses to have ROTC programs on their campuses, for example, and punitive methods to get private colleges to add a requirement for service would be EXTREMELY unpopular.
You are reading into it try to give him political cover instead of acknowledging the fact that there was no such implication. He may have meant it, but it wasn't in the text or the context.
I'm reading into it to give him "political cover"? I'm sorry, pudge, but it's far more likely that you're reading into it as a baseless political attack. There's no proof in his statements that the jack-booted government thugs will drag well-meaning citizens into the streets to be shot because they won't let their kids work as candy stripers, and you haven't shown that in anything you've said. Unless you can provide solid evidence that this violates government powers (which you can't, unless you have specific details about any plans for implementation), you're just spouting off about what you imagine those policies would include.
But hey, if it sets your mind at ease, I'll join you in protest if they start throwing people in jail for this public service requirement.
So YOU can read into it and called it based in fact? Please don't be so transparently dishonest. And in fact, I read nothing into it. I never asserted what Obama actually meant by it. I only pointed out what he said, and what it could reasonably be taken to mean.
You haven't "pointed out what he said" nor have you provided a reasonable translation when you've said that this is "forced servitude". Until you can point to a SPECIFIC part of a proposed plan requiring students to serve or be thrown in jail through the powers of the federal government, your argument doesn't hold water.
Posted by: demo kid on September 6, 2009 08:16 PM@85-87: "Far left socialist"? Seriously? The only proof of that is in your own deluded minds. He's a moderate, and linking to a rambling and pointless post about Bill Ayers doesn't change that.
@88: Thanks, Lenny. I may not agree with conservatives, but I can respect their opinions... until they get completely disconnected from reality (like many commenters here).
@89: Relevance?
Well, you've convinced everyone with that wonderful logic.
The left NEVER behaved this badly! NEVER!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh wow, that was rich. Bravo.
He certainly wouldn't be the same poster as "demo kid". Nah, not a chance.
The leftist freak out is fun to watch. The capitalized words, the anger, the long diatribes.
Their blundering politics have lost the American people who voted for them. They are beginning to realize it. Their socialist dreams are evaporating. It's fascinating watching these miserable people disintegrate.
They are mad as heck.
But what's new? They are mad as heck even when they are winning.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2009 08:58 PMEvidence please ? So far I have seen nothing.
'He's a moderate, and linking to a rambling and pointless post about Bill Ayers doesn't change that."
Perhaps a moderate Marxist. We'll give you the benefit of doubts though. Check back in 3 months to compare notes.
Posted by: KDS on September 6, 2009 09:00 PMAre you really this stupid?
You wrote: "Pudge, your attempts at linking public service with slavery are... well... kinda stupid."
But I never did that. I never did what you said I did. So I fixed what you wrote to make it actually reflect what I said.
I only linked FORCED public service to slavery. So either you made a mistake and left out "forced" -- either because you forgot it, or because you are stupid and thought I said I was against public service -- or you were being dishonest.
I did not assume you were lying or stupid: I assumed you made a simple mistake. Now you claim you were just stupid. Fine. But don't blame me for your stupidity.
Show the "force".
I already did. Are you really this stupid? I showed that Obama's web site said it would be required. That necessarily means force. Else it's not actually required, unless it is a "requirement" to get something in return, like a diploma. But it doesn't say that. You're reading into it by saying that is what was meant.
And you're just flat-out lying by implying that I ever said there WAS force, as you've asked me to demonstrate for a beer (which, incidentally, as a teetotaller, I wouldn't drink). This is an unimplemented (and undetailed) proposal, so it makes not a jot of sense for you to ask me to provide people who have been penalized for violating it.
I didn't claim that you objected to all forms of public service
I ... never implied you did. I stated you said I was against SOME public service. But I never said I was. Ever. And you're lying by saying otherwise. I said I was against that service being FORCED.
Are you against feeding the homeless? I assume not. Are you against me holding a literal gun to your head and forcing you to feed the homeless? I assume so. Should you have to clarify, in protesting against my use of force against you, that you have nothing against feeding the homeless? Of course not.
How can you not get this?
And I stated that you're absolutely wrong that an Obama policy initiative in this area would break the 13th Amendment, because the federal government isn't requiring students to do anything.
Yet his web site said he WOULD do that. You're contradicting what the web site actually said. Which is fine, but realize you're reading into it, not me.
You haven't demonstrated ANY possible way that they could. The states control education and not the federal government...
Boards of directors control who is their company's CEO, not the federal government. Except that's changing a lot under Obama, isn't it? Don't expect me to take comfort in the notion that the federal government is not supposed to do something, as security against it actually doing so.
Any requirements that the federal government may want to implement would have to go through the states, or go through direct federal grants of some kind, and not through direct regulation of schools (which WOULD violate the Tenth Amendment).
Wow. I love that you are literally making the argument that any proposal from Obama wouldn't violate the 13th Amendment, because it would have to violate the 10th Amendment to do so. As if a failure to follow the 10th Amendment would stop someone who is willing to violate the 13th Amendment. That's hilarious.
Sucks to be you
Non sequitur.
My guess is that [an across-the-board requirement in all private colleges] will be far, far more carrot than stick.
Then it is not, in fact, a requirement, as Obama's web site claimed it would be. Do you really not see why people are unsettled about this? If we take the words to mean what they actually say, it would mean that your "guess" is wrong, and that it would be required of all junior high, high school, and college kids, including private colleges.
While I would be the first to admit that people often don't mean what they say, we have no way of knowing what they actually meant, which means people are going to often assume the worst.
I'll join you in protest if they start throwing people in jail for this public service requirement.
That's not good enough. There's more to force than threat of jail. Fines, for example. Jail is taking away your liberty; fines are taking away your property. The threat of both are obviously uses of force.
You haven't "pointed out what he said"
I did. I linked to it. Do you want me to quote it directly? "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
... nor have you provided a reasonable translation when you've said that this is "forced servitude".
Sure I did. It's forced ("required") labor on behalf of someone else. That's the definition of involuntary, or forced, servitude.
Until you can point to a SPECIFIC part of a proposed plan requiring students to serve or be thrown in jail through the powers of the federal government, your argument doesn't hold water.
You keep saying this, and amazingly, I think it gets stupider each time you say it. Just because he didn't detail what the penalties would be, doesn't mean there wouldn't be any.
And again, I am not saying he meant that it would be required. Maybe it was one of his infamous "poor word choices," as you imply when you said you don't think it would actually be required. But the point is that people read it and think it could mean what it says, and then think hey, I don't want my kids in school exposed to him.
No moderate would fire an executive of a private company. No moderate would support single-payer health care. No moderate would think banning all handguns is constitutional (or a good idea). No moderate would think it's OK for a hospital to let a born, viable, baby -- outside of the womb -- starve to death just because the doctor and mother had attempted (and failed) to abort it before it got out of the womb.
Obama's no moderate.
There isn't a lot of doubt remaining that Obama and his buddies are very far left. Of course he knew who Van Jones was and what he believed. I have to believe Van Jones's political beliefs are fairly close to what Barack Obama believes. There are probably at least a dozen communists in his bunch of "czars". We will be finding out about them very shortly.
When we start looking at the rest of these "czars" you better believe we are going to find out a lot about Barack Obama.
America is not far left by any stretch of the imagination. Obama's chickens are coming home to roost, just a few months into his foolish administration.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2009 09:21 PM1. Obama is not a moderate! Look at his Senate voting record and look at the CZARS he has appointed..
2. Ayers and Obama have worked together in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. "Stanley Kurtz writes that Obama "clearly aligned himself with Ayers's radical views on education issues"."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=
3. @89 - Obama is totally depending upon his CZARS to support him so that is very relevant!! Those CZARS have not been approved or vetted by anyone other than Obama. His Education speech he is going to give to children was generated by his CZARS and has now been changed to remove the 'homework' of writing "letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.". It is now changed so the student letters will be "how they can "achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.".
A simple speech to the children would be fine!
Posted by: Tim on September 6, 2009 09:24 PMNational health care, socialized medicine, whatever you want to call it has been the big dream of the left for years. The Clintons tried to hurry it through in their first years in office.
Obama is doing the same thing. It's literally the Holy Grail of liberal politics. It gives them tons of government jobs, control over the way people live, and an eternal bureaucracy. It's what the control freaks that populate the left live for. People on the left live to control other people. It's what makes them happy. It's why they are leftists.
They make me sick.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 6, 2009 09:45 PM"Mr. Crouton" is a good nickname for you: the most brittle, abrasive and pointless part of any salad. :) But if you think that I'm "mike" just because I liked what he wrote, you're far more of the pitiful, whiny, victimized conservative wuss than I thought you were.
@95:
You wrote: "Pudge, your attempts at linking public service with slavery are... well... kinda stupid."
But I never did that. I never did what you said I did. So I fixed what you wrote to make it actually reflect what I said.
You ABSOLUTELY did. At @15: "Yes, in fact, it absolutely is. It is slavery. Forcing people to work against their will."
I only linked FORCED public service to slavery.
No, you're linking education about public service and volunteerism to slavery, and at NO point have you indicated ANY possible means by which this will be "forced", other than through requirements for a diploma that you are not required to get.
So either you made a mistake and left out "forced" -- either because you forgot it, or because you are stupid and thought I said I was against public service -- or you were being dishonest.
Hardly. Again, you're linking education about public service to sending a ship to Africa, dragging folks from their homes, bringing them to the United States, selling them to the highest bidder, and then forcing them to work in the fields until they drop from exhaustion and die. I'm not including "forced" and "slavery" because it's hyperbole.
I did not assume you were lying or stupid: I assumed you made a simple mistake. Now you claim you were just stupid. Fine. But don't blame me for your stupidity.
No, you're inventing wild claims. And I'd prefer to think that you're delusional in this case, especially since you don't usually sink to unimaginative ad hominem attacks to prove your point.
I already did. Are you really this stupid? I showed that Obama's web site said it would be required. That necessarily means force. Else it's not actually required, unless it is a "requirement" to get something in return, like a diploma. But it doesn't say that. You're reading into it by saying that is what was meant.
And if wishes were goddamn horses, you'd have an entire stable. Not only have you not determined how this will be implemented, you've invented a fantasy scenario where parents will be imprisoned because they won't comply. I'm stating that the federal government will never fine or imprison a parent because their children don't complete a service requirement, and you're using a lack of evidence to prove your point.
And you're just flat-out lying by implying that I ever said there WAS force, as you've asked me to demonstrate for a beer (which, incidentally, as a teetotaller, I wouldn't drink). This is an unimplemented (and undetailed) proposal, so it makes not a jot of sense for you to ask me to provide people who have been penalized for violating it.
Exactly right... and if you can't point to a case where the government used force to penalize folks for violating it, or even demonstrate a possible means that this could happen, your claims of "forced servitude" are wild speculation, unsupported by any evidence. Stating that he "has it on his website" and connecting a brief statement to jack-booted thugs in the streets is so ludicrous, it's beneath even you.
I ... never implied you did. I stated you said I was against SOME public service. But I never said I was. Ever. And you're lying by saying otherwise. I said I was against that service being FORCED.
"Forced" public service, like the draft, is still "service".
Are you against feeding the homeless? I assume not. Are you against me holding a literal gun to your head and forcing you to feed the homeless? I assume so. Should you have to clarify, in protesting against my use of force against you, that you have nothing against feeding the homeless? Of course not.
Ugh. Again, hyperbole. I'm getting sick and tired of the hysterics of libertarians when it comes to the "gun to the head" imagery, because it's nothing alike. And it certainly goes in plenty of different directions that conservatives wouldn't like, iether. If I disagree with all armed conflict that the United States participates in, decide not to pay that fraction of my income taxes that goes to the armed forces, and I get thrown in jail for tax evasion, do you believe that is correct? If I hate the decisions made about city transportation funding or police protection and decide not to pay local property taxes while still driving on the roads and calling 911 when I get into trouble, is that ethical?
I could go down the list, and hey, there are probably some government programs that both you and I don't like and would like to see defunded. However, that imagery is far too simplistic to get a pass from reasonable people.
And I stated that you're absolutely wrong that an Obama policy initiative in this area would break the 13th Amendment, because the federal government isn't requiring students to do anything.
As you would be quick to point out, the federal government has no legal power to compel students to do anything, and they're not proposing that they directly compel students using federal powers under penalty of fine or imprisonment. I'm waiting to hear from you as to how they could do this given their powers, even the super-duper powers under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses that liberals love so much. (And stating that they could "invent" these powers doesn't count.)
Yet his web site said he WOULD do that. You're contradicting what the web site actually said. Which is fine, but realize you're reading into it, not me.
Again, it's a VERY simple read, since he hasn't proposed the HOW. You're the one that's suggesting that the administration is exceeding their powers without having any knowledge of the program that they plan to use to carry out this policy, through a very selective reading of the statement.
Boards of directors control who is their company's CEO, not the federal government. Except that's changing a lot under Obama, isn't it? Don't expect me to take comfort in the notion that the federal government is not supposed to do something, as security against it actually doing so.
What kind of argument is that? I've asked you repeatedly to show HOW, and you duck and weave. Answer the question, and show how their plan violates the Constitution. Otherwise, you're just baselessly accusing the administration of wrongdoing, when it hasn't done anything wrong.
Wow. I love that you are literally making the argument that any proposal from Obama wouldn't violate the 13th Amendment, because it would have to violate the 10th Amendment to do so. As if a failure to follow the 10th Amendment would stop someone who is willing to violate the 13th Amendment. That's hilarious.
And you haven't shown that the 10th Amendment would be violated either! South Dakota v. Dole sets precedent for this interpretation. I didn't.
Sucks to be you
Non sequitur.
Still does. You're really a teetotaller?
Then it is not, in fact, a requirement, as Obama's web site claimed it would be. Do you really not see why people are unsettled about this? If we take the words to mean what they actually say, it would mean that your "guess" is wrong, and that it would be required of all junior high, high school, and college kids, including private colleges.
Again, I don't know how many times I can repeat this, but unless you can show how a specific policy will be enacted in a way that violates the Constitution, you're just making baseless accusations.
While I would be the first to admit that people often don't mean what they say, we have no way of knowing what they actually meant, which means people are going to often assume the worst.
Meh. I think you can assume that all politicians function in this way. Still, your interpretation is far more afield than mine. Show the exact way that the 13th Amendment will be breached, instead of making assumptions.
That's not good enough. There's more to force than threat of jail. Fines, for example. Jail is taking away your liberty; fines are taking away your property. The threat of both are obviously uses of force.
Then great... show me where a student or parent has been fined by the federal government for violating a service requirement, and I'll join you in protest.
I did. I linked to it. Do you want me to quote it directly? "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
Great. Now, there's a big difference between saying that he is "developing a plan" and saying that he is "going to throw folks in jail for noncompliance". As you are so quick to point out, the federal government can't get local schools to do ANYTHING. The state government controls everything. The federal government can apply pressure with funding, but the state governments are in charge of implementation.
Sure I did. It's forced ("required") labor on behalf of someone else. That's the definition of involuntary, or forced, servitude.
Again, hyperbole. You're making the argument that there will be penalties for noncompliance. I'm stating that if the state is requiring this of students for graduation, it's not "forced", any more than a requirement for trigonometry or medical residency is "forced".
But hey, maybe you should free the slaves at Gonzaga Law (or most law schools, for that matter), or The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, or Tulane University, or any one of a number of different colleges and universities.
You keep saying this, and amazingly, I think it gets stupider each time you say it. Just because he didn't detail what the penalties would be, doesn't mean there wouldn't be any.
And you're just getting plain delusional. Name a feasible way that the federal government could fine or imprison a high school or college student for this. Just one.
And again, I am not saying he meant that it would be required. Maybe it was one of his infamous "poor word choices," as you imply when you said you don't think it would actually be required. But the point is that people read it and think it could mean what it says, and then think hey, I don't want my kids in school exposed to him.
I don't want my kids in school exposed to a lunatic Republican president, but whining about an address in a public school seems way overboard.
Don't get me wrong... I think that the numbers used for the public service requirements are absolutely ludicrous, and the whole notion is actually kinda stupid. Getting all high school students to volunteer about one afternoon a month during the school year means that you have a surplus of very uninterested and uncommitted volunteer labor. My old high school had a requirement that was filled in the silliest ways (I filled it by virtue of being an Eagle Scout), and I doubt that it had the intended effect amongst most students.
Likewise, a 100-hour requirement for college students seems incredibly stupid; as it is, I ran the service component of my fraternity for a year and a half, and I don't even think I clocked in at 50 hours for a few semesters. I was holding a research job and working on a scientific/engineering degree at the same time, and I had to bow out early some weekends to study. Now for me, I could kinda try to balance it, but if I didn't have a scholarship and student loans to fund my education at a state school and I needed to work more, or if had bad grades and I needed to study more, or if I wanted to do something that wasn't service-oriented as an extracurricular activity, I definitely wouldn't have met those proposed service requirements.
Heck, I do around 200 hours of volunteer work a year now, but that's only because I'm dedicated to what I've been doing, and other demands on my time (at work, etc.) have been a little lower lately. If things got hectic, I wouldn't be able to do half that.
So yeah, my objection to your characterization of this as "forced labor" has nothing to do with how REASONABLE of a policy it is. I think the intentions are good, but that there are better ways of promoting volunteerism. My objection comes from this shrill denunciation of a policy that you haven't even seen yet, on constitutional grounds that can't even be based on anything if you haven't seen the final plan.
Posted by: demo kid on September 7, 2009 10:01 AMYou're a liar, demo kid.
At @15: "Yes, in fact, it absolutely is. It is slavery. Forcing people to work against their will."
Exactly. I never linked public service to slavery. I linked FORCING PEOPLE TO WORK to slavery.
No, you're linking education about public service and volunteerism to slavery
You're a liar. I did no such thing. I linked FORCING PEOPLE TO WORK to slavery. I was very, very explicit.
I will not read any further into this post, and any further posts from you will be removed.
Good-bye.
you are an idiot:
Those CZARS have not been approved or vetted by anyone other than Obama
i guess kerlikowski wasn't confirmed by the senate, then?
likewise, neil kaskari, herbert allison, nancy killefer, jeff zientz, john holdren, aneesh chopra, ashton carter were all confirmed by the senate. (which is approval by someone other than obama, dimwit)
can you tell me how many of bush's nearly 50 czars were confirmed? or do you like being a hypocrite?
Posted by: mike on September 7, 2009 11:20 AMObama says, ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for me.
Change... for the worse.
Posted by: Thomas B. on September 7, 2009 11:51 AMPresident Washington actually saw his role as a mere administrator, who took his policy cues from the funding provided by Congress, so differing interpretations of the Executive's role are possible. I find it profoundly sad that you would meekly accept the President ordering indoctrination of schoolchildren as a permitted or expected execution of this role.
If the document you cited was a guide for indoctrinating children, it would do a remarkably poor job. Whatever "indoctrination" means, it does not mean encouraging the listener to question the material, and to think independently and critically about it. Yet, that's exactly what the document does:
"As the President speaks, teachers can ask students to write down key ideas or phrases that are important end personally meaningful... As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about? [...] Students can record any questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech. Younger children may need to dictate their questions."
I'll highlight one word: "...any questions they have..." Encouraging students to ask any questions -- any questions at all, and then to discuss amongst themselves their own freely-chosen questions -- this is indoctrination? Really?
No moderate would support single-payer health care.
So, Canada is a "radical" country, eh?
Posted by: tensor on September 7, 2009 01:42 PMIf Obama wants to have such poor vetting that he hires a known Truther to his staff, that's a shame, but it's his right.
So? That doesn't mean he didn't have the power to direct all the departments, it means he chose not to grant them more autonomy than most Presidents. The Constution -- in the very first words of Article 2 -- is very clear: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The Department of Education and Department of Justice are in the Executive branch, and all of their power comes from -- through -- the President. Period.
Which is why the President cannot be prosecuted by the Deparment of Justice: the President can't prosecute himself. It's why one federal department cannot sue another: the President can't sue himself. And so on.
I find it profoundly sad that you would meekly accept the President ordering indoctrination of schoolchildren as a permitted or expected execution of this role.
Please stop lying. I never said anything at all similar to that. I said the Department of Education is ultimately run by the President (who may or may not choose to delegate those duties, as much as he sees fit). This is a fact. I never said that what the Department of Education did was permitted or expected.
If the document you cited was a guide for indoctrinating children, it would do a remarkably poor job.
What's that got to do with anything I said?
Whatever "indoctrination" means, it does not mean encouraging the listener to question the material ...
The document did not, in any way, encourage students to question the President's speech. Asking questions is not the same as questioning something. One implies asking for clarification or more information; the other implies disagreement. You're committing the equivocation fallacy.
No moderate would support single-payer health care.
So, Canada is a "radical" country, eh?
My comments were in the context of this country. I have no comment on the health care politics of other countries.
No, but the Attorney General can, if he is allowed to perform the job for which Congress pays him. That's why Nixon had Cox fired: Cox was investigating the criminal acts of which Nixon had known and approved. (Hence the large public outcry over Cox's firing.) Article II also defines the President's duties as ensuring the faithful execution of our laws; by impeding an investigation, President Nixon acted unconstitutionally, which led to the Articles of Impeachment against him. We also have laws prohibiting our government from producing propaganda; indoctrination materials would certainly fall under this prohibition.
What's that got to do with anything I said?
Because you wrote this:
I do know, however, that when a parent or politician expresses concerns that Obama might try to indoctrinate them with socialist propaganda, there's good reasons for it.
You then referenced the document in question as supporting your claim.
The document did not, in any way, encourage students to question the President's speech.
I already quoted it, but I will happily do so again:
Students can record any questions they have while he is speaking and then discuss them after the speech.
Seriously, do you really think that encouraging them to ask "any questions they have" somehow exempts negative questions? What does "any" mean to you?
By the way, I rescind my previous credit to you for having read the whole document. I really don't think you have, or you would not have mischaracterized it as badly as you did. (I based my estimate of your work on the one sentence you did provide; it comes from almost the end, in the optional section. I thought you had actually read that far. However, I saw exactly that sentence on a news feed yesterday, so perhaps you obtained it second-hand.)
You're free to show I'm wrong; in fact, your original line implies other parts of the document support your claim of indoctrination: "...and so on." Quote another statement from the document, and show how it encourages indoctrination.
Posted by: tensor on September 7, 2009 04:54 PMBTW, your reply shows you are an extreme left wing person using standard left wing rhetoric at calling people names rather than discussing.
Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
I simply don't recall the outcry when President G.W. Bush asked for us to volunteer for community service -- despite that rich boy's lifetime total of just 150 hours, all performed after his arrest for an unspecified crime.
Posted by: tensor on September 7, 2009 06:51 PMObama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.
(Better yet, that site shows the draft appearing on the web site for "The Office of the President-Elect", and the posting date was November 9th, 2008, so it's 9+ months out of date, and counting.)
I simply don't recall the outcry when President G.W. Bush asked for us to volunteer for community service -- despite that rich boy's lifetime total of just 150 hours, all performed after his arrest for an unspecified crime.
Posted by: tensor on September 7, 2009 07:07 PMDoes it really take the point of a gun for you to decide something has gone over the line?
I'm sure my jab here is a bit of a low blow, as I doubt you really think that, but that is the same tack you are taking with Pudge's comments.
The salient point is whether the Federal Government has the authority to "require" public service. It does not mater whether you think the end is good, it does not justify the means. Period. We do not exist to serve the government. It exists for very limited purposes, and that was a pretty important part of our founding.
Conservatives and Libertarians are perfectly justified in calling foul when the Federal Government begins to impose itself more and more into the lives of the citizens in direct contradiction to the specific intent of the founding fathers and documents.
You and your types want to remake this country into the European style. Some of us don't want that, and it doesn't matter how successful or how utopian you think the Europeans are, you have to violate the constitution to get there and then, when it IS violated, as has been, you use that very same violation as the justification for the next violation as if some how that made it all right and proper.
Ultimately, none of your arguments are valid in light of constitutionality, so pardon us for not getting too excited about your logic and rhetoric.
"Required" community service should never be a part of the government's plan for it's citizens, though efforts to spur people to greater community and social responsibility are laudable as we all should be concerned about how our efforts result in positive influences and results for our fellow man.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.
Attributed to several people though I tend to think it was Thomas Jefferson.
You want the government big enough to give you everything you want while libertarians and conservatives are looking that the "take everything you have" part of the equation. It's all fine and dandy at the start, but what happens when the government gets so big and takes that one step too far for you and you find it is already too late to rise up against it?
Posted by: Eyago on September 7, 2009 07:12 PMThe Attorney General can prosecute the President? No, he cannot. You're quite wrong. It cannot happen, and never has, and never will without constitutional amendment.
That's why Nixon had Cox fired: Cox was investigating the criminal acts of which Nixon had known and approved.
Cox was not the Attorney General. Bork, by the time Cox was fired, was Acting Attorney General. But Cox's position makes no difference, as the point is that Cox was in the Justice Department, which is under the President, and therefore had no authority to prosecute the President, because while you can investigate yourself (though the results certainly must be examined thoroughly), you cannot prosecute yourself.
If any action were to be taken against the President, it would have to be done by Congress, not the Justice Department, not Cox.
Article II also defines the President's duties as ensuring the faithful execution of our laws ...
Your statement here regarding Nixon has nothing to do with the scope of executive power or the large topic at hand, as best I can tell, and therefore I am ignoring it.
We also have laws prohibiting our government from producing propaganda; indoctrination materials would certainly fall under this prohibition.
We also have a Tenth Amendment, and Obama works very hard to violate that as often as possible. If your argument is "Obama wouldn't do this because it is against the law," it's a poor argument, indeed.
Because you wrote this:
... so? I never said Obama and his people were competent. It is not a valid argument to say, "this couldn't be an attempt at indoctrination because if it were, it would be done very poorly." That's as nonsensical as your apparent argument that Obama wouldn't do it because it would violate the law.
Seriously, do you really think that encouraging them to ask "any questions they have" somehow exempts negative questions?
No. I never implied that. I simply pointed out that YOU were guilty of the equivocation fallacy by implying that it explictly meant negative questions. It doesn't exclude them, of course, but you implied that it INTENDED the questions to be negative. You were incorrect in that implication, based on the words in the document.
In fact, there's not a single word or phrase or sentence in that document that encourages people to be critical of the President. You falsely implied otherwise.
By the way, I rescind my previous credit to you for having read the whole document.
Shrug. I disregarded that when you wrote it, so rescinding it now has no affect on me. (I don't mean to imply that I disregarded it because it was from you; I generally disregard compliments from whatever source during argument, as they have nothing to do with the points at hand.)
in fact, your original line implies other parts of the document support your claim of indoctrination:
All I said was that people have just cause to be concerned. And I stand by that, fully.
"...and so on." Quote another statement from the document, and show how it encourages indoctrination.
I never said it encourages indoctrination. I said people could be concerned that it would. And sure, there's lots of lines. I'll give you one, as you requested: "What is the President asking me to do? What new ideas and actions is [sic] the President challenging me to think about?"
(As a side note, I find it funny that there's grammatical errors in the two quotes I provided from the study materials that came from the Department of Education.)
Again: I am not saying this document "encouraged indoctrination." But people with legitimate concerns might reasonably come to such a conclusion. I'd disagree with it, but that's beside any point I've made.
Posted by: pudge on September 7, 2009 09:01 PM"admits"? Um, the POINT of the post was that the language was modified. Read the headline! "Obama Requires Community Service and Removes his Agenda from Website After Scrutiny."
(Better yet, that site shows the draft appearing on the web site for "The Office of the President-Elect", and the posting date was November 9th, 2008, so it's 9+ months out of date, and counting.)
Um. How is this in any way relevant?
It seems you think anyone is saying, has said, or has in some way implied, that Obama's web site still says that there would be such a requirement. Are you really that bad at reading? I said right up front, "Obama's own web site last year said that. ..." I said that it was at least 9 months ago, and I implied that it no longer says it. Which you are only now coming to realize ... ?
I simply don't recall the outcry when President G.W. Bush asked for us to volunteer for community service
He never said it would be required. Obama did.
I think you are missing the point, and choosing specifically to avoid seeing the point. In a sense, you seem to be arguing that as long as the government uses some other penalty besides the "point of a gun" then it is not enforcing anything. There are many ways of penalizing people besides threat of death, which, of course would be too drastic of a step toward totalitarianism that would turn even left leaning people like you against Obama. Instead, if the government can eat the elephant one bite at a time, it will get eaten much more thoroughly than if it tired to do it in one mouthful and you and your like will stand there saying:
"Well it's not like he's doing any more than eating a foot. That's not the same at all as eating the head. If he were eating the head, THAT would be worth protesting."
How easy is it for someone to get a job without the high school diploma? How would you feel if you spent $40,000 on a college education only to be denied the diploma that certified your efforts? These would be real consequences with real personal impacts. And before you use some silly argument like "taking trigonometry", you can't be so foolish to think that the actual understanding of educational material that any employer should expect you to have mastered as evidenced by your degree is even remotely analogous to any kind of service time or labor which is NOT a necessary component of your degree, can you?
How can you say "cannot exist?" when the very crux of the argument is that the requirement for service itself "cannot exist" yet you still are more than willing to let it happen. I say again, you are blinded by the ends and are ignoring the implication of the means. It's not enough to simply like the results of community service, you have to also make sure that the method is legal. And given the track record of liberals, I am sure 5 years or so form now, when the next "great idea" comes along that takes an even greater step toward socialism, this community service "requirement" will be the argument you use to justify it saying "well, required community service is legal so...." And so after the feet we begin on the legs.
And you also again fail to understand the difference between the federal government and its violation of the constitution and any other entity. It might very well be just as illegal for a school to require community service, I really don't know. I am much more certain of the illegality of the Federal Government, however, and that is the point we are arguing. As for a college, one can most often opt to go to another college that does not have those requirements, so it is not analogous at all, and if secondary schools were not such the government monopoly now, even they would be subject to consumer choice.
If you are dense enough to not understand the difference between Government authority and all other institutions it might very well explain your blithe willingness to place your very liberty into the hands of strangers who may decide they know better than you what to do with your time, money and property even if right NOW you think they are in accord with your current philosophy. Very trusting of you.
HYPOCRITES!
Posted by: pbj on September 8, 2009 05:49 AM"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
Posted by: pbj on September 8, 2009 05:51 AMNope. What I wanted to do -- what I did do -- was demonstrate that due to past statements and actions by the Obama administration, concern by parents and teachers was rational.
Well, I hope that after the speech is given today, you will see how much it was a big woop-de-do about nothing and offer an apology for getting it wrong.
I got nothing wrong. You will not find a single implication from me that Obama WOULD try to do anything wrong in the speech. Only that concerns that he MIGHT were rational.
Of course, maybe you believe that a President should encourage kids to work hard and stay in school.
No, he shouldn't. It's a waste of federal government resources. I agree with the Democrats (under Bush) on this.
But that is separate from whether the speech is political propaganda, which I never thought it would be, and never implied it would be, despite your false claims to the contrary.
Further, it has been demonstrated in studies in Louisiana that hearing the message about staying in school and working hard to be whatever you want to be from Obama does work, at least when it comes to the black community. As Bill O'Reilly put it Obama's story of being raised by a single mother and his work, himself, to get where he is, is a compelling story of inspiration to all children. If we believe we are a land of opportunity where anyone can grow up and be president, then why is it controversial for this president to share exactly that. Bill O'Reilly was correct in his Parade article.
Posted by: tc on September 8, 2009 09:37 AMI never said there would be. Please stop pretending otherwise.
The teaching materials ... were revised to remove the controversial line ...
... which is completely beside any point I made.
The only controversy I can find may be with the economics of it, but that was decided back when HW gave his speech.
Well, not "decided," no. I reject that just because it was OK for someone else, that makes it OK for you. So I don't let Obama off the hook. That said, I also dislike the message from Obama that everyone should stay in school and everyone should go to college, but that's not specific to this speech alone.
Presidents speak in schools everyday.
They should do it a lot less. Most of what the government does should be done a lot less.
So, where exactly is the big waste of money.
I never said it was a big waste.
Further, it has been demonstrated in studies in Louisiana that hearing the message about staying in school and working hard to be whatever you want to be from Obama does work ...
I don't care. Lots of wrong things "work." I disagree with Obama's belief -- as expressed in his State of the Union address -- that we should not look at HOW things are done, but only whether they "work."
As Bill O'Reilly put it ...
I don't care what O'Reilly says.
If we believe we are a land of opportunity where anyone can grow up and be president, then why is it controversial for this president to share exactly that.
Please stop so blatantly misrepresenting the controversy. That level of dishonesty undermines everything else you may wish to say. As has been pointed out to you already, and has been clearly demonstrated in the comments of the detractors here and elsewhere, the main point of controversy was what people were concerned Obama MIGHT say, not what he in the end ACTUALLY SAID.
Pointing to what he actually said and saying, "well, you were wrong to be concerned!" is idiotic. You are only wrong to be concerned if the reasons why you were concerned were invalid; but clearly, they were not. We know Obama's web site said he would require community service, something I hope you would agree is wrong. We know Obama's Education Department said students should write about how they can "help the President," something you DID agree should not have been in there. These are obviously valid reasons to be concerned about what he might say to students.
That he did not go to those places in his speech is a good thing, but doesn't in any way demonstrate that the concern was unfounded.
At the very least and it's very hard of me to speak good about hippies, their concerns were actually based in reality.
Posted by: Lenny on September 8, 2009 09:58 AMUmmmm. What are you talking about? All I said was that you didn't actually say anything. You said, "The idea that Obama is going to brainwash children into becoming little communists is just so full of stupid."
But you gave no reason for anyone to think it is stupid, and you didn't actually say who are what you were actually responding to anyway.
At the very least and it's very hard of me to speak good about hippies, their concerns were actually based in reality.
And you do it again. You give no reason for anyone to care what you have to say.
I actually provided facts, real reasons, why people might be concerned. You could address them directly; pretending they don't exist is poor argumentation.
Regarding the teaching materials, you are incorrect. The Department of Education didn't draft them, teachers (outside the department) drafted them. The Dept. of Ed's fault was not properly reviewing them from a political lense prior to posting and asking themselves how they may be viewed, especially given the current climate in the country to hyper-sensationalize anything for potential political points.
Finally, you keep bringing up points that are not pertinent to the argument (like the revision to campaign materials). A pertinent point would be where since Obama has been in office, when did he change his actual speech from the posted (official) pre-speech text or comments. In this controversy, none of the supposed "political" motives (like promoting socialist agenda) where ever spoken by the White House, nor the Dept. of Education. It was a fabricated controversy, made up without any evidence to back it up. Yet, since it fits your belief about Obama, you choose to give audience to the controversy instead of refuting it like the birther's claims. This controversy is just like the birthers and deathers. The "indoctrinators" have no basis for their conspiracy. How many of these fringe groups need to be given audience before conservatives wake up and realize that they are doing their cause harm, instead of good. Where is Buckley, Reagan, and Tower to denounce these groups, like they denounced the Birchers?
Pudge, you want to promote conservativism, which you should be applauded. I may disagree with you on politics, but I don't disagree with your cause in promoting conservatism. So, why do you give audience to the fringe consipiracy nuts, like in this case? It would be like the left glorifying the Cindy Sheeans (sp?), or Michael Moores, which they did and were thus defeated (in 2004). The more conservatives cow-tow to these fringe groups the more the middle (politically) will view them as the same as the fringe and not vote for them. Elections, especially, Presidential are won in the middle, not the ends.
Posted by: tc on September 8, 2009 10:24 AMWhat exactly is so scary about the president promoting personal responsibility and how is different from every other president from the past 100 years?
Posted by: Lenny on September 8, 2009 10:54 AMYou compare this to "birthers," except that the evidence presented is fact! You're being an idiot. You can disagree with the conclusions, but the facts are clear: Obama has given people very clear signals -- intentional or not -- that he wants to require schoolkids to implement his political agenda. THIS IS A FACT. There's no way around this fact. And as such, concern over what Obama might say in a speech to schoolkids is rational.
Ergo, you support these types of controversies.
Wow. Explaining that a view is reasonable is not supporting the view. I've explained that liberal views I disagree with are reasonable, in the past. Don't be so stupid.
You didn't, therefore, you believe some of the claims, which proved to be untrue.
You're lying. Not a single claim I mentioned or promoted was proven untrue.
The Department of Education didn't draft them
You're lying. I never said they did. Everything I said about the Department of Education's materials was accurate.
Finally, you keep bringing up points that are not pertinent to the argument (like the revision to campaign materials).
First, they were not campaign materials. It was on his President-Elect web site. Second, of course it's pertinent. It proves, as fact, that many people are justified in believing that Obama wants to force his policies on our schoolkids. He may not actually believe that, but it is reasonable to believe he believes it, BECAUSE HIS WEB SITE ACTUALLY SAID IT.
Yet, since it fits your belief about Obama, you choose to give audience to the controversy instead of refuting it like the birther's claims.
You have not given a single claim that should be refuted. Not a one.
I defy you to show an actual claim that I've made that should be refuted. Not your false interpretations of what I've said, but actually what I've said.
Did you not read what I actually wrote? Or any of the ensuing discussion? I think it's been perfectly clear that no one was expressing concern about that. People were expressing concern that Obama might push his political agenda in his speech.
He didn't -- for the most part -- and that's great. But that doesn't mean the concern he MIGHT do it was unjustified.
I take that as you stating that the idea of students writing the president as coming from the Dept. of Ed. I sure you will twist it some other way, but above is what you stated.
As far as "indoctrination", in your original post you wrote "I do know, however, that when a parent or politician expresses concerns that Obama might try to indoctrinate them with socialist propaganda, there's good reasons for it."
I take what you wrote at your word. You were speaking to indoctrination claim vice what you stated in @130, where you stated "No one here, no one I've seen, is saying that Obama's speech was political indoctrination."
You state "evidence presented to you as fact." I am not sure what evidence you are referring to. The evidence that the FL congressman, one of the originators of the indoctrination conspiracy, had was nill. When confronted he could not produce any evidence to back up his claim. Even your claim of the change in website does not speak to the "indoctrination" charge. If you look at the screen shot from the original page (linked in the article you linked to), the text reads as follows:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school ..." [emphasis added by me]
This is not a requirement as you allude to. Further, this in essence is already happening in some communities. In my kid's school disctrict, all kids are required to peform a senior project that has a community service act as part of the project. I don't remember the hours requirement, but community service is part of the requirement. So, is what you are stating that we shouldn't teach our kids proper community involvement? Flip the argument and see what you are actually arguing, which is that children should not be called upon to be involved in their community helping out, being good citizens. When I grew up this was a very basic value taught in schools. Schools would often offer service to the community and children taught to think beyond themselves. This was the 60's and 70's. How far we have come when this idea is twisted into some sort of "evil" socialist plot.
Posted by: tc on September 8, 2009 11:46 AMUmmmmmm ... no. I never implied anything about where the IDEA came from. I just STATED who SAID it. That is what I ACTUALLY wrote: "We know Obama's Education Department said students should write. ..."
I sure you will twist it some other way ...
I will "twist" my claim that "the Education Department said" something into a claim that it is what the Education Department said?
Wow, you're an idiot.
I have been very explicit that just because Obama says something (like that he would require students to perform community service), that doesn't mean he intended it, or that the idea originated with him. Why would I hold the Department of Education to a completely different standard? All I said was that they SAID it, which is A FACT. Pull your head out.
As far as "indoctrination", in your original post you wrote "I do know, however, that when a parent or politician expresses concerns that Obama might try to indoctrinate them with socialist propaganda, there's good reasons for it." You were speaking to indoctrination claim vice what you stated in @130, where you stated "No one here, no one I've seen, is saying that Obama's speech was political indoctrination."
Wow. So you think I had inside knowledge of the contents of the speech before the speech was released? Or do you not realize thsat I was speaking to the situation BEFORE THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH WAS RELEASED, due to the fact that it had not yet been released when I said it? And also due to the fact that I EXPLICITLY said in the original post that what Obama ended up saying might be innocuous?
Incredible, tc. Just incredible.
You state "evidence presented to you as fact."
No, I didn't. I never used that phrase.
I am not sure what evidence you are referring to.
Since I didn't say that, I don't know what YOU are referring to, either. And I can't imagine caring at this point.
Even your claim of the change in website does not speak to the "indoctrination" charge.
I never said it did. I said the fact of the speech itself, coupled with what Obama's study materials said, could imply indoctrination. What he said on his web site last year was a hint at what he could be trying to indoctrinate our children WITH.
If you look at the screen shot from the original page (linked in the article you linked to), the text reads as follows:
"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school ..." [emphasis added by me]
Yes. He said he will develop a plan to REQUIRE community service.
This is not a requirement as you allude to.
Ummmm. Dude. You just quoted it. It's right there. What the hell is wrong with you?
see what you are actually arguing, which is that children should not be called upon to be involved in their community helping out, being good citizens
You're a damned liar, tc. I am saying no such thing.
But now comes word that simply confirms what conservatives have said could happen with NEA funding. The Whitehouse has been caught in what looks like they are trying to rally the arts community in a conference call to do what many will jokingly call "commie" art--they are trying to get artists to use their talents and skills to "help" the president on "important issues", such as health care, etc. What???? All we can say is "told you so."
Posted by: Michele on September 8, 2009 01:25 PMRegarding the indoctrination point: Yes, I would expect if you are writing about the controversy then you would at least have been familiar with its orgins, what the Whitehouse had put out prior to the text being released yesterday. This has been in the news for many days prior to your post. There was a lot of information already stated. The Whitehouse had already specified what the speech would and would not contain. The Florida congressman who was one of the initiators of the controversy simply had no evidence to back up his claim. It was all pure speculation on his part. Politifact called him on it and gave him a "pants on fire" rating regarding the falsehood of the claim. Are you stating Pudge that you didn't know any of the background prior to posting? If so, then your post is even worse in regards to spreading smears and falsehoods than it appears on the surface. It is basically taking something and running with it without checking it out first.
Posted by: tc on September 8, 2009 03:10 PMI am tired of you lying about what I stated.
You stated what you stated.
Yes, and what I stated was that the Education Department SAID it, not that they drafted it or came up with the idea for it, as you falsely claimed.
I will admit I missed the "required" in the quote, but that still doesn't agree with your premise on the point.
Right! When I write that the Department of Education said something, it doesn't mean I wrote that they said it. And when I write that Obama's web site said the community service would be required, it doesn't mean that the web site said that the community service would be required!
Who do you think you are fooling?
Your follow-on point was "violation of constitutional prohibition on slavery." How does requiring community service equate to slavery?
Slavery is forced labor. Forced community service is forced labor. Therefore ... this is not difficult.
I've already discussed the comparison to "graduation requirements" which are a different situation, and I won't re-discuss them, except to point out the fact that Obama never said it would be graduation requirements or part of any curriculum. He simply said it would be required. You can think he meant graduation requirements, that he would put pressure on states to enact those requirements ... but then where does his requirement for college students come in? Certainly most colleges won't make it a graduation requirement, so this implies to me that it was not intended to be the same as graduation requirements you're talking about.
Maybe that is what they meant. Maybe they actually believe they could make it a graduation requirement. But it is obviously not -- despite your claim -- clear that this is what he meant. It reads to me and many others that he was intending to make it a federal requirement regardless of graduation requirements, that you would be doing it not to get a diploma, but just because the federal government was forcing you to.
Which is, to me, slavery.
Why is community service such a big taboo that you make it out to be?
Why are you lying? I never made out community service to be bad, at all, in any way. Ever. I have been EXTREMELY clear that I object only to the fact that Obama would REQUIRE it. You're just lying. Again.
Regarding the indoctrination point: Yes, I would expect if you are writing about the controversy then you would at least have been familiar with its orgins, what the Whitehouse had put out prior to the text being released yesterday. This has been in the news for many days prior to your post.
So you agree with me that the text of the speech had not been released ... so you have no point.
The Whitehouse had already specified what the speech would and would not contain.
And? People didn't take their word for it. Why should they? This is a complete non sequitur.
I utterly defy you to show an example of anyone doing that. Just one example. You're making it up. No one here said that, certainly.
Expressing concerns about what MIGHT BE in a speech that has not yet been released, is not the same as describing a speech that HAS BEEN released.
waldo: Silly, foolish stuff. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take conservatives seriously.
And you base this on ... what? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer, but to help you out: to make this into an actual point any intelligent person would care about, you'd have to show that anyone said anything that was silly or foolish, and then you'd have to show that these people represent conservatives.
You likely are incapable of doing either, but, good luck to you!
Of all the silliness in the right-wing statements here, my prize still goes to the original post, which implies that "indoctrination", nay, "brainwashing" (!) can happen in a single session. (Those big words really confuse you guys, hm? Perhaps you should have set higher educational goals for yourselves...)
I'm sure President Obama's political folks are laughing too hard at you to compose the thank-you note they'll never send anyway, but I can thank you. As a supporter of President Obama, I still hope we liberals can work with him on truly progressive outcomes, which move our great nation forward in our century. If we do succeed, I'm sure you'll scream as loudly then as you did just now. Enjoy the silence after your echoes fade away, and next time choose "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", instead of "The Pet Goat", for your Presidential text.
Posted by: tensor on September 8, 2009 07:35 PMI have noticed that pisses me off because it is the big LIE.
The Democrat leadership and Obama all accuse the Republicans of being the party of "No" and not proposing to do anything about it.
The TRUTH is that the Republicans have proposed many alternatives to the House and Senate bills, such as; Tort reform on Malpractice, the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, and other ways to lessen the impact of Insurance companies, while keeping the government away at the same time.
The other TRUTH is that the Dems have not voted any of these proposals out of committee, so they can dupe a large number of sheeple - lacking critical thinking skills into believing that the opposition has tried to block and hasn't proposed anything. In reality, The Dems do not want a bipartisan bill, as they have beat back these alternatives - more like its their way or the highway, which reflects their attitude toward the people they serve.
Posted by: KDS on September 8, 2009 08:19 PMNo one here did any of that. I saw not a single comment here that, in preparation to the actual speech or in response to it, acted with extreme negativity. You're making it up. The negative comments were based on the rational concern for what he MIGHT say, in ADDITION TO urging them to get educations and work hard.
As usual, you're being extremely dishonest.
... my prize still goes to the original post, which implies that "indoctrination", nay, "brainwashing" (!) can happen in a single session.
Um. No, I never said that. You're lying. As usual.
As a supporter of President Obama, I still hope we liberals can work with him on truly progressive outcomes, which move our great nation forward in our century.
So why do you work on efforts to push us BACKWARD, like central, anti-liberty, control of our businesses, our health care system, and so on? That's regressive, not progressive. True progress is through actual liberty (not made-up liberties like the "right" to take things from other people).
Of course, true progress also comes through honesty, and we know you don't care about that.
I do know that EVEN IF some doctor somewhere amputated for the money, instead of trying to prevent the need for amputation -- which has -probably not ever happened -- then that certainly would be the extremely rare exception to the rule, and not a problem to be addressed through health care legislation, but through criminal statutes.
I reailzed the confusion just now. Obama said that the SURGEON gets $30,000 or more, when in fact, that's the TOTAL COST. The surgeon gets a small chunk of that. Most of it goes to other aspects of care, like hospitalization, recovery, drugs, use of equipment, anesthesiologist, and so on, and so on.
What he meant to say is that if our current system emphasized preventative care, and disease management, and helped pay for THOSE services, that we could avoid far more expensive services...like amputations and ER visits. Just common sense.
Yes, his point is that doctors are not "incentivized" enough to help prevent amputations, which is utterly ridiculous.