Liberals are being relatively quiet because Obama is president. If Bush tried this..

No, it's irrelevant and you know it's irrelevant because we are not discussing about liberals in this topic. And somehow I find it hard to interpret to what you are saying: What do you mean "enough"? If you meant to add an "are" before enough, or rephrased it "Do you think those morons who believes that 'Doing well in School' is a bad message? I still don't understand since you asked that I "think them morons enough to think 'Do well in school' a bad message"? Damn it, the word "enough" ruins it so much, I can't understand it. And, do you have any idea what a helicopter parent is before I ever mentioned that term?

As for your edit, in parenthesis is simply to insult both parties, even if you mentioned indoctrinated republicans is worse. Is that even necessary to unnecessarily flame the democrats in THIS discussion?

Speaking of liberals, Bush Sr. did it, but it's far worse what conservatives complained today and a few days ago than what democrats did to Bush Sr's speech then, since conservatives make it seem very controversial in such comparison.

Also, the democrats criticized Bush Sr after his speech, unlike the conservatives and helicopter parents who immediately judged Obama's speech and plans when it was first announced, days before his speech.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 9 2009, 4:22 am by KrayZee.

Why does anyone give a damn? Some poor reporter just found the most ridiculous people he could to get quotes so his story would make the news, there isn't actually anything controversial going on.

Fix't. We all know it's the government's job to attempt to control, takeover, and generally grab a piece of everyone's pie as much and as often as possible. If they can do so at the child level, the adults they grow into will be so used to it, they won't notice when it happens.

Case in point: the greenhouse act, bill, whatever: gassy link!

well, the gov'ment can' have any of my pie, it's mine, all mine...

And you know what they say, gov't mind control begins at birth when they put that chip into your head.

Omgosh, did you guys see during the speech when he showed his true form for a second?!?!1?!


Crazy, no!?!1

I saw absolutely nothing wrong with his speech...

People (particularly conservatives and some independents) only think it's "controversial" because they don't like the liberal man Obama is. No matter who or how "great" a person is, people will always find a way to make him or her sound bad. You people have to get use to this reality.

If you had a problem with it(I know a bunch of hics from my town did), you're fucking retarded.

Centreri, liberals did not oppose this in any way shape or form; Conservatives did.

Falkoner, your bias and poor humour is biased and not funny.

I'd like to take a moment to tell all you people saying Cent is stupid because he's mixing Conservatives and liberals is rather dumb. The right wing in Europe is the left wing in America, and the left wing in Europe is the right wing in America. It makes sense in Europe because of their historical background, and in America it makes sense because of their historical background.

Also, I agree with Vrael.

Alot of times it feels a hell of a lot like the liberals are putting themselves out as the greatest party standing for everything good and righteous, and then acting like all conservatives are a bunch of idiot hicks. I just think it's suprising that alot of people that claim to be free of the medias influence and bias, the same ones that think they're nonconformists and being their own person, all follow a liberally biased media, and believe most everything it says.

That's not really aimed at anyone in particular, just a mini rant.

For a moment when I read Centreri's first post about liberals opposing possible undertones of Federal influence on education I thought he was spot on.

Then I realised he was using 'liberal' in the American sense. Liberal and conservative are such vague, nebulous terms in American usage. People opposed to apparent central government control over the education system could be described as 'liberal' because a classical liberal believes in freedom of the individual and the market and that government shouldn't interfere in the lives of the people.

However, the American 'definition' of liberal seems to mean a group of people with progressive social views who want to effect change through the initiative of federal government. So I don't understand why this kind of liberal would oppose the speech of a socially progressive president who is possibly encouraging a stronger federal role in education.

Politics really can't be boiled down into the absurd Liberal-Conservative dichotomy. I may make a topic about this.

Fake pic. If It was real he'd be throwing up the Devil Horns with his hand that is pointing.

Here's an analogy video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I in the United States. Although I read news, I hardly watch the media opinion on politics, ever. Unless I want to hear both sides of the arguments if I somehow read some conservative complaint, then I'd watch.

I think you're confusing liberal with libertarian.

No, he's right. Classical liberalism is closer to Modern American Libertarianism than American liberalism. Think of it like the metric system: we don't use it.

The speech was a tremendous waste of time. Is Obama really so pompous as to think that just because he said stay in school, drop-out rates will plummet? Unlikely. And to all the liberals out there, consider an alternate situation: Bush is still president and has announced that in a week he will address all public school students, and doesn't say anything about what the speech will be about. Is it safe to assume the 9/11 nutjobs will jump to the conclusion that Bush is indoctrinating the children to cover up 9/11? And then after a week of hysteria, Bush gives a generic speech? And then the right gets to ridicule liberals for being lunatics.

dumbducky, as I said before, Bush Sr. had addressed a speech to students but democratic criticism was after his speech and drew controversy, not before his speech. Which in today's case, conservatives immediately criticized Obama as soon as the White House announced it, which was before his back-to-school speech. Since before and after are absolutely different, the aftermath is reasonable because you heard him said the speech, but before is simply judging a book by its cover. Since they judged a book by its cover, where are the aftermath criticism from the conservatives?

Plus, I wouldn't consider it a tremendous waste of time if the speech is suppose to inspire students, and it did its job.

I'M CERTAINLY INSPIRED. NORMALLY, I HAVE TO WAIT FOR OBAMA TO TRY AND REMAKE AMERICA AND TAKE OVER TV WITH A PRESS CONFERENCE TO BECOME INSPIRED.

I'm so glad a president has fulfilled the constitutional role of Inspirer-in-Chief. Lately, presidents have been ignoring that part of their office.
I'm sure somebody criticized Bush for giving a speech to children before he gave it. It just probably didn't get as much publicity. But you want a criticism valid after he gave the speech, so here's one: Obama is the president and has more important things to do than talk to children.

My first post used liberal in the proper term (probably the one you agreed with), I distorted it later on. Because in America, liberals support a big, interfere-in-my-life government and conservatives support a small government and a n unregulated economy. Freaky. I tried to associate the general liberal and the American liberal, and my argument fell apart. Alas.

As my argument about this topic touched on liberals (my argument being that its their fault), I believe my post valid. You're alone in your condemnation of that particular aspect of it. As for my parenthesis, what, I'm not allowed to post my opinion on matters I touched upon in my post in the null forum, in a parenthesis? You're really getting worked up over what you see as my little transgressions. If you don't like my views on republicans and democrats (Why the hell are these two groups polarized on every issue?), either learn to deal with me occasionally expressing them - or ignore me (there's a feature like that, right?).
I think we can agree that the situations of Bush Sr. and Obama are rather different. Otherwise, what do you want me to do here? Ask for a source? You think that where there was such a huge controversy when Obama did it (two articles on CNN!), there was none when Bush Sr. did it?

The speech wasn't changed, but it was originally planned for the kids to write a letter to themselves explaining how they can help the president. I don't see what's wrong with this, but everyone got pissed off, so they changed it to having the kids write a letter to themselves about how they can help themselves accomplish their goals.

lol texas http://current.com/items/90902017_school-district-refused-obamas-speech-but-will-bus-children-to-see-bush-speak.htm

So, he can't spend a small ten to fifteen minute speech in that School broadcasting to hundreds of thousands of students? Of course he has more important things to do, but you're telling me he can't devote a few precious minutes trying to inspire students? Obama himself believes conservatives thinks he's doing too much in a matter of months in office. Aside from the sarcasm you attempted, it's just one speech and all of a sudden you believe he devotes more time in students than problems that are going on. Plus, what the hell is wrong with a President trying to keep in touch with students who "happens to be America's future"?

Come on, it's already ridiculous enough how conservatives and helicopter parents were concerned before the speech, and now you're telling me this? Sigh.

Yet, are the liberal democrats complaining about Obama's speech in this discussion? Plus if making any relevancy to what you are trying to say, Bush Sr. on the other hand provided that speech in 1991, why would there suddenly be a modern article reviewing controversy and 1991 news of the past?