Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats

Bill Dog's Journal: why I would've kept my kids home 23

Journal by Bill Dog

From:

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn't have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school.

I guess it's open with an appeal to get the audience to sympathize with the speaker. Why?

Now I've given a lot of speeches about education. And I've talked a lot about responsibility. I've talked about your parents' responsibility [...] I've talked a lot about your government's responsibility [...]

Yes, he talks a lot. And he's very much about himself -- I thought this was supposed to be about the kids?

And it may be "my govt." in that I'm stuck with it, but it's not "my govt." in that I didn't vote for most of the crap it does. But another nice psychological ploy.

[...] for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren't working where students aren't getting the opportunities they deserve.

I'm against all of this. I don't see how the federal govt. has any valid basis for being in the education business, I don't believe in supporting teachers and principals when it comes to the waste and abuses of their union stranglehold on and bureacracy in education, and I'm not for turning around schools that aren't working, I'm for closing them down.

You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment.

I don't want to protect our environment any more than it already is. I think it's protected enough, so no, our kids won't need the knowledge and problem-solving skills to do that, but thanks for implying that there's a consensus on that which there is oh so not.

You'll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.

Except what he means by "more fair and more free", and prolly what is taught in history and social studies in the schools, is "less fair and less free". I don't want our kids to fight homelessness. Do a study and figure out why people are homeless, and enact some (big govt.) programs to address it. Should take no more than 20 people a few months, not a generation making careers out of it. Same for discrimination. But thanks for trying to tell kids that they'll need to adopt Liberals' various pet causes to be good and successful adults for their country.

I get it. I know what that's like. My father left my family when I was two years old, [...]

And here we are already back on him again. I guess he gets withdrawal symptoms if he goes too long without talking about himself.

My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama. [...]

Who, BTW, hated America, until it looked like a huge Leftward sweep was happening. But I guess he didn't think the kids should know about that, about "their First Lady".

What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

Hopefully nothing. Us doing things for our country is not what this country is about. It's about a place to come to be left alone, to realize your dreams or not. I reject his whole "let's instill in everyone and esp. the younguns a sense of duty for public service" meme. My life was not granted to be handed over to the country unless I do so voluntarily. I will not nor would I allow my kids to be "community organized". I reject categorically the notion of "giving back to the community". The community gave me nothing, and it does not take a village -- my parents sacrificed to give to me, and my giving back will be to them.

So while overall it was a good message (excepting what you'd expect from the pathological deliverer), if I had kids I would've kept them home yesterday, given them an executive summary version without the trickery into accepting Left-wing values, and told them that except for paying your taxes and doing your jury duty, you don't owe your country a damn thing, and except for securing your rights, your country doesn't owe you a damn thing. And that there is a force in America, that is surging right now, that believes completely different than that. And it's un-American.

A couple more before closing this out:

I'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn.

Total utter bullshit -- he's not only doing nothing to stop the leeching of money from getting to the classrooms, but he's actively catering to the force that's the problem.

[...] don't let [...] your country [...] down.

Go fuck yourself.

I won't even start on the DOE suggested lesson plan that was to accompany the speech.

And I would be against this all and just as much if it were a Right-winger doing it. What if Bush 43 planned an event asking teachers to challenge their students to decide how they're going to support Bush (and not if), and if he sprinkled his speech with references to the WOT and how of course everyone has to study hard and go into fields like making bombs or must feel compelled to join the military, else they're letting their country down.

That would be absurd and outrageous, but we're so numbed by Liberal absurdity and outrageousness due to the sheer volumes of it, that most people are confused by the objections to what the Obama administration was trying to pull here. Even some nominally on the Right.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

why I would've kept my kids home

Comments Filter:
  • Hopefully nothing. Us doing things for our country is not what this country is about. It's about a place to come to be left alone, to realize your dreams or not.
     
    The exact opposite of John F. Kennedy.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Jimmy_Slimmy (1499943)

      I remember what some used to say not so many months ago;

      either you support the President and his programs;

      or you are one of them...

      Terrorists hate our Country, and our President, and what we stand for. Haters like that Saddam Hussein, who tried to kill GHWB.

      Terrorists.

      • by Bill Dog (726542)

        A most excellent point -- patriotism is not defined by supporting a President's politics. Patriotism is love of country, not love for a particular leader or his/her agenda.

        GW too was guilty of trying to transform America, to some extent, post-9/11, into something totally not what America is all about (such as freedom from govt. surveillance).

        • Whoosh...

          On my post:

          GWB's cronies used to say, either support our goals, or you are a terrorist.

          When a President says something wrong, it is wrong. When a President says something right, it is right.

          What Kennedy said, was right.
          It appears to me that for you, what Obama says is wrong. But your reasons appear quite weak.

          On your post:

          Sympathize? OR tell you, this is not your previous President(s)?

          So it is not about the kids?

          Hey, you might not have voted _for_ it, but you voted _on_ it. So suck it up with t

          • by Bill Dog (726542)

            Whoosh...

            Okay, I can accept that the excellent point I inferred from your comment was only accidently implied. ;)

            What Kennedy said, was right.

            It could not be right because he was setting up a false choice -- as if all the things we must decide from are either of being demanding/expecting or being enslaved. (When obviously in a pair of binary choices, there are actually a total of four possibilities.)

            JFK's false dichotomy is like the Bush admin.'s "either you're with us, or for the terrorists" ploy. Can you

            • In your journal that set this thread off,

              Didn't you say country, rather than government?

              Now you keep saying gubermint.

              • by Bill Dog (726542)

                I can't tell why you're keying off this distinction, but, in general when Liberals say "serve your country", they mean "serve the society", which means "serve the govt.", because they think the society should be run by the govt., and then of course the govt. run by them. ("For the greater good.")

                I am very anti-govt. But only as it is in its current form -- too big and powerful. I'm against other things that are too big and powerful as well. But nothing's bigger and more powerful in America today than govt.

                • 'in general when Liberals say "serve your country", they mean "serve the society", which means "serve the govt."'

                  In general, you are wrong.

                  Take it from a liberal.

                  • by Bill Dog (726542)

                    I could've been clearer in describing what I know to be true -- make that: Liberals mean for the people to get used to being subservient to the society, and hence also govt., as what you guys generally feel should be the (and that there should be in the first place a) director of society. And getting the masses into the mindset of serving, as an obligation, is a prelude to the ultimate goal of obediant worker ants, living for the hive and denying their individual independence. I.e. a more easily controllabl

                    • Weird. I do not know any liberals like that. We must travel in much different circles. Funny thing is, I know a lot of liberals very well.

                      Or maybe we interpret things differently when presented with the same information. I think given the same observables, your and my interpretation would be much different. I wonder if you extrapolate much more than I do? Or maybe there is some other difference.

                      Thanks for sharing!

                      Ciao;

                      James

                    • by Bill Dog (726542)

                      Funny thing is, I know a lot of liberals very well.

                      Me too -- they're in my immediate and extended families, and live here in town, and we're all fairly close. (Despite philosophically being *vastly* different.) Close enough that we speak openly about things. Did your Liberal associates attend Berkeley or a place like that where they'd get exposed to the writings and ideas of the Left's historical thinkers and leaders? Do they work in the biotech industry or another that is predominately Secular Progressives

                    • Well, since you ask what I am assuming is not a rhetorical question;

                      I mangle this quote by interspersing my bolded responses...

                      Funny thing is, I know a lot of liberals very well.

                      Me too -- they're in my immediate and extended families, and live here in town, and we're all fairly close. (Despite philosophically being *vastly* different.) Close enough that we speak openly about things.

                      Did your Liberal associates attend Berkeley or a place like that where they'd get exposed to the writings and ideas of the Left's historical thinkers and leaders?

                      Some

                      Do they work in the biotech industry or another that is predominately Secular Progressives and also highly intelligent and educated and politically-motivated and hence filled-in and understanding of what's going on?

                      This seems to be a question that includes many assumptions, and I am not sure what a yes or no answer might mean; but I certainly know liberals whom I could agree are "Secular Progressives and also highly intelligent and educated and politically-motivated and hence filled-in and understanding of what's going on"

                      Do they subscribe to mailing lists of Left-wing organizations that send out action alerts?

                      Well, I know some are subscribed to organizations that some would call liberal, like Move-On.org and the Sierra Club and the NAACP and such, but I think you would have to define "_L_eft-wing" organizations.

                      Do they attend "impeach Bush" rallies and completely cover the bumpers of their Prius's with anti-Bush stickers?

                      My boxy Camry has a lot of bumper stickers, the vast majority about getting to peace. I do not think I know anyone with a Prius. BMW, Saab, etc. I buy my car used with cash based on Consumer Reports.

                      Do they give money to Greenpeace, PETA, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood, or organizations like that? These are the Liberals I know personally.

                      I know many like that too.

                      Solid Liberals who, while being merely of the "Rank and File Liberal" category themself, are completely in touch with and at least mostly support what the "Ruling Liberal Elites" are up to and why.

                      This all sounds to me like a conspiracy theory, and I am one of the card carrying dupes. Ouch.

                      If we interpret things differently, it may be in what we mean by a Liberal. Simply put: If you haven't yet realized the futility in waiting to honestly convince people to go along with your side's ideas, then you're not a *real* Liberal.

                      That would be me, but I thought I was a liberal. But I think part of my concern with your posting is the loose use of Liberal with all sorts of adjective preceding it that seem to have derogatory meanings. Yet you also seem to be able to say that liberal is not always a dirty word, if it has the right adjectives in front of it. So maybe it would help avoid these discussions if there was another noun for those adjectives.

                      (Indeed you don't appear to be nasty/vicious enough to be a real Liberal.)

                      I am proud to call myself liberal, but thanks if you just tried to offer an olive branch.

                    • by Bill Dog (726542)

                      Interesting. I'm a Religious Right man myself, and some in my group do some pretty egregious things. But if most of them routinely acted reprehensibly, I would still believe in my principles, but would not exactly be proud to call myself by an associating name.

                      Yes I have a lot of animosity towards Liberals, much more than I show here even. But I can handle differing of opinion on the issues (and do at frequent family gatherings), but what I can't is the undercurrent of fascism. It's core of modern American

    • Yeah. I'm loving it, AND I got myself a new sig in the process! Life sure can be sweet.

      One last, quick hint for Bill Dog: Yes, Obama does seem to be building up to be an even bigger loser than Nixon, Carter and Bush 2 COMBINED, but you keep punching in the wrong places. It's like watching Tyson lose a boxing match to a Girl Scout. Pathetic and hilarious at the same time.
      • by Bill Dog (726542)

        Thanks for the moment of fame. And I stand by it: Govt. is to serve the people, not vice-versa. And the country/nation is not some entity that has rights (the Left does over govt. what the Right is guilty of with corporations -- practically personifying, and then elevating over people), only people do. America is just a vehicle or vessel for an environment where people should be able to live free. The angle of "saving the society" is just a variation of the creation-worship-over-Creator-worship notion of "s

    • by Bill Dog (726542)

      Bill Dog, Anti-Slave

      Fixed that for ya. See my responses to others for why/how, if interested. (Here's a hint: The Statue of Liberty says "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, [...]", not "Give me your energetic and brainwashed masses so that they may come and serve me as master as they used to in a foreign land".)

      But since you're a believer I'll bring up with you the angle and caveat I left out, and that is that this all is in regards solely to my principles on Americ

  • by dedazo (737510)

    My sister had reservations about this at first, mostly from the retarded propaganda around the whole thing. But in the end she didn't have a problem with my nephews and niece showing up at school and hearing this.

    Too much noise around this I think. There was no agenda as far as I could see, which I would have objected to even if I happened to agree with it. I don't have a problem with the President addressing kids with a positive, non-propaganda message.

    And keep in mind they attend a private catholic school

    • by Bill Dog (726542)

      There was no agenda as far as I could see

      But have you looked far enough?

      Call it having done so, or just brainwashed by "retarded propaganda", but I've gotten to the point where I know that certain kinds of people in certain circumstances rarely do not have an agenda, and I think they're in charge these days.

      It may even be fair to say that, like with schemes on the Internet, I prolly don't even know the half of it.

The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.

Working...