President to speak to the nation's kids

[parrothead216]

No head exploding here, just LOLing at history repeating itself. My o my, how quickly we forget.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 94347.html

The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.

Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech. "The hearing this morning is to really examine the expenditure of $26,750 of the Department of Education funds to produce and televise an appearance by President Bush at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC," Ford began.

That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event

Lost in all the denouncing and investigating was the fact that Bush's speech itself, like Obama's today, was entirely unremarkable.

All of that may be true, but was there all the talk of taking kids out of school to avoid hearing the leader of our nation?

The answer is NO !


Maybe the day of decent people who really want to make a difference in our country and Leaders who feel the same, is long over!


I also find it interesting that people from both sides that LIKE to argue! Seem to be armed with all these links and statements and quotes and such, to support their arguments at the drop of a hat!

Is this all you have to do?...."Stir The Pot and see what rises to the top"!OR Is this your hobby?

[ph4ever]

my butt hurts

Why?

The question here is not Why but do you really want to know?

[Conolulu]

my butt hurts

Why?

The question here is not Why but do you really want to know?

Not really...I'm pretty sure I don't know & I don't care applies here.. But thanks for offering, Connie...

[tattedgator]

The problem is not Republican or Democrat or liberal or conservative, it is this individual ideology.

I couldn't let this go unnoticed. The term individual ideology can be taken different ways. You surely see it in the most negative of light. I see it as the thing that inspired the Founding Fathers of this Nation. The individual is the cause for the freedom that we have today. The Constitution was formed to see that no person's life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness be impeded by anyone, government or individual. I don't believe one person or group should let their personal beliefs or religion dictate LAW of a nation. Example, around here you can't be liquor on a Sunday. Why is that? Religious belief forced into LAW. Drugs are illegal for many reasons, NONE of which are because a 50 year old dude smoking weed in his own home is some kind of threat. Gays not being able to get married, also rooted in religion.

If everybody was so down on the concept of individualism, we wouldn't have Capatalism and we'd still be subjects to the Crown. What my statement meant is that sure, you have the right to be a loser, lazy and not wanting to work. But in my world, you'd suffer the consequences of that attitude - such as starving to death. The individualistic ideology of the 1700s made us what we are. Your anti-individualism attitude is what is destroying this country, because no one wants to work for themselves anymore. They want it handed to them. Let's take a look at your fellow anit-individualism folks and their thoughts:

I couldn't let this go untouched. So it's the individual that's creating our problems today? Funny, I thought it was the individual and idea of personal freedom that CREATED this country, not the ones who are destroying it. Let's take a look at some of your fellow haters of individualism and their thoughts:

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)]

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." [Adolph Hitler, 1933]

There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. [Benito Mussolini]

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]

Fascist ethics begin ... with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. [Mario Palmieri, "The Philosophy of Fascism" 1936]

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." [Ayn Rand]

[parrothead216]

my butt hurts

Why?

The question here is not Why but do you really want to know?

Not really...I'm pretty sure I don't know & I don't care applies here.. But thanks for offering, Connie...

Hi Little Lulu........Just another day in Paradise?

Same here my stature challenged friend!

Little LULU, getting better everyday ...in everyway!

[Big Phan]

Again I ask, is there anyone else who is attacked because of their occupation?

Absolutely, on a daily basis sometimes. Gotta keep a thick skin and kind heart.

And Jack, for the record, my red ink pen went empty before I finished reading the article.

[UAHparrothead]

This is the only person I was thinking about
“’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

And Acts 2:44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

[tattedgator]

1) I call them like I see them. If you don't like the way people react to your words perhaps you should rephrase them. You stated "The strong survive and the weak fail. There will be casualties, but it's better for the long term prospects of the nation." That to me sounds like exactly what I said, natural selection right?. You talk about personal responsibility, how about the responsibility we have for one another? Again, perhaps you should rethink your words. It was not an attack it was a rebuttal.

2) You call me a hypocrite and then turn around and attack me with the same hypocrisy, if not worse. You've been on this board for exactly one day. Maybe you should try to get to know some people before making rash attacks on them.

1) You took one sentence and used it to serve your purpose. If you read the entire paragraph as a whole, I think my intentions are quite clear. But I'll say this, we have no "responsibility" to one another. None. Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government have the right to take from me and give to those who don't want to practice personal responsibility? I do things for charity and I do help others, but I do it out of my own free will, not some sense of misguided "responsibility" or force by a government agency. I do it because I want to.

2) It's not hypocrisy on my part. I didn't claim to be nice and cheery in one post and then insult someone in the other. I could take it a step further by saying, as a pastor, I'd expect hypocrisy to be fairly absent, not apparent immediately in "exactly one day". Which has actually been off and on for 4 years, I just lost track of my login names.

[UAHparrothead]

Again I ask, is there anyone else who is attacked because of their occupation?

Absolutely, on a daily basis sometimes. Gotta keep a thick skin and kind heart.

And Jack, for the record, my red ink pen went empty before I finished reading the article.

On this board? Just for expressing an opinion?

[UAHparrothead]

1) I call them like I see them. If you don't like the way people react to your words perhaps you should rephrase them. You stated "The strong survive and the weak fail. There will be casualties, but it's better for the long term prospects of the nation." That to me sounds like exactly what I said, natural selection right?. You talk about personal responsibility, how about the responsibility we have for one another? Again, perhaps you should rethink your words. It was not an attack it was a rebuttal.

2) You call me a hypocrite and then turn around and attack me with the same hypocrisy, if not worse. You've been on this board for exactly one day. Maybe you should try to get to know some people before making rash attacks on them.

1) You took one sentence and used it to serve your purpose. If you read the entire paragraph as a whole, I think my intentions are quite clear. But I'll say this, we have no "responsibility" to one another. None. Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government have the right to take from me and give to those who don't want to practice personal responsibility? I do things for charity and I do help others, but I do it out of my own free will, not some sense of misguided "responsibility" or force by a government agency. I do it because I want to.

2) It's not hypocrisy on my part. I didn't claim to be nice and cheery in one post and then insult someone in the other. I could take it a step further by saying, as a pastor, I'd expect hypocrisy to be fairly absent, not apparent immediately in "exactly one day". Which has actually been off and on for 4 years, I just lost track of my login names.

How did I insult you exactly?

[tattedgator]

This is the only person I was thinking about
“’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

And Acts 2:44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Yeah, see, this is forcing your personal religion on society and trying to dictate their lives and behavior by that personal belief. It's inherently wrong and unconstitutional. There is a reason that many of our Founding Fathers were Deists and considerably anti-organized religion, as well as having contempt for the Bible. Yes, that is fact, not allegations. There's more than enough direct quotes from guys like Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, etc that express this sentiment.

[ph4ever]

1) I call them like I see them. If you don't like the way people react to your words perhaps you should rephrase them. You stated "The strong survive and the weak fail. There will be casualties, but it's better for the long term prospects of the nation." That to me sounds like exactly what I said, natural selection right?. You talk about personal responsibility, how about the responsibility we have for one another? Again, perhaps you should rethink your words. It was not an attack it was a rebuttal.

2) You call me a hypocrite and then turn around and attack me with the same hypocrisy, if not worse. You've been on this board for exactly one day. Maybe you should try to get to know some people before making rash attacks on them.

1) You took one sentence and used it to serve your purpose. If you read the entire paragraph as a whole, I think my intentions are quite clear. But I'll say this, we have no "responsibility" to one another. None. Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government have the right to take from me and give to those who don't want to practice personal responsibility? I do things for charity and I do help others, but I do it out of my own free will, not some sense of misguided "responsibility" or force by a government agency. I do it because I want to.

2) It's not hypocrisy on my part. I didn't claim to be nice and cheery in one post and then insult someone in the other. I could take it a step further by saying, as a pastor, I'd expect hypocrisy to be fairly absent, not apparent immediately in "exactly one day". Which has actually been off and on for 4 years, I just lost track of my login names.

you must have a lot of email addresses

[tattedgator]

1) I call them like I see them. If you don't like the way people react to your words perhaps you should rephrase them. You stated "The strong survive and the weak fail. There will be casualties, but it's better for the long term prospects of the nation." That to me sounds like exactly what I said, natural selection right?. You talk about personal responsibility, how about the responsibility we have for one another? Again, perhaps you should rethink your words. It was not an attack it was a rebuttal.

2) You call me a hypocrite and then turn around and attack me with the same hypocrisy, if not worse. You've been on this board for exactly one day. Maybe you should try to get to know some people before making rash attacks on them.

1) You took one sentence and used it to serve your purpose. If you read the entire paragraph as a whole, I think my intentions are quite clear. But I'll say this, we have no "responsibility" to one another. None. Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government have the right to take from me and give to those who don't want to practice personal responsibility? I do things for charity and I do help others, but I do it out of my own free will, not some sense of misguided "responsibility" or force by a government agency. I do it because I want to.

2) It's not hypocrisy on my part. I didn't claim to be nice and cheery in one post and then insult someone in the other. I could take it a step further by saying, as a pastor, I'd expect hypocrisy to be fairly absent, not apparent immediately in "exactly one day". Which has actually been off and on for 4 years, I just lost track of my login names.

How did I insult you exactly?

Mamabear I could talk about so many things that find contemptible and pitiful with your statement, but you won't hear it anyway so I won't waste my time or yours

You find my sentiments pitiful, that is calling me pitiful. You also assume I'm incapable of rational thought, understanding, or hearing another person's well-informed rebuttal, be it out of ignorance or intolerance. Whatever your reasons, you displayed your own ignorance and intolerance in that very assumption.

[UAHparrothead]

I'm going back into BN retirement.

[UAHparrothead]

1) I call them like I see them. If you don't like the way people react to your words perhaps you should rephrase them. You stated "The strong survive and the weak fail. There will be casualties, but it's better for the long term prospects of the nation." That to me sounds like exactly what I said, natural selection right?. You talk about personal responsibility, how about the responsibility we have for one another? Again, perhaps you should rethink your words. It was not an attack it was a rebuttal.

2) You call me a hypocrite and then turn around and attack me with the same hypocrisy, if not worse. You've been on this board for exactly one day. Maybe you should try to get to know some people before making rash attacks on them.

1) You took one sentence and used it to serve your purpose. If you read the entire paragraph as a whole, I think my intentions are quite clear. But I'll say this, we have no "responsibility" to one another. None. Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government have the right to take from me and give to those who don't want to practice personal responsibility? I do things for charity and I do help others, but I do it out of my own free will, not some sense of misguided "responsibility" or force by a government agency. I do it because I want to.

2) It's not hypocrisy on my part. I didn't claim to be nice and cheery in one post and then insult someone in the other. I could take it a step further by saying, as a pastor, I'd expect hypocrisy to be fairly absent, not apparent immediately in "exactly one day". Which has actually been off and on for 4 years, I just lost track of my login names.

How did I insult you exactly?

Mamabear I could talk about so many things that find contemptible and pitiful with your statement, but you won't hear it anyway so I won't waste my time or yours

You find my sentiments pitiful, that is calling me pitiful. You also assume I'm incapable of rational thought, understanding, or hearing another person's well-informed rebuttal, be it out of ignorance or intolerance. Whatever your reasons, you displayed your own ignorance and intolerance in that very assumption.

Arguing with you is like punching myself in the nuts, I'm done.

[ph4ever]

1) I call them like I see them. If you don't like the way people react to your words perhaps you should rephrase them. You stated "The strong survive and the weak fail. There will be casualties, but it's better for the long term prospects of the nation." That to me sounds like exactly what I said, natural selection right?. You talk about personal responsibility, how about the responsibility we have for one another? Again, perhaps you should rethink your words. It was not an attack it was a rebuttal.

2) You call me a hypocrite and then turn around and attack me with the same hypocrisy, if not worse. You've been on this board for exactly one day. Maybe you should try to get to know some people before making rash attacks on them.

1) You took one sentence and used it to serve your purpose. If you read the entire paragraph as a whole, I think my intentions are quite clear. But I'll say this, we have no "responsibility" to one another. None. Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government have the right to take from me and give to those who don't want to practice personal responsibility? I do things for charity and I do help others, but I do it out of my own free will, not some sense of misguided "responsibility" or force by a government agency. I do it because I want to.

2) It's not hypocrisy on my part. I didn't claim to be nice and cheery in one post and then insult someone in the other. I could take it a step further by saying, as a pastor, I'd expect hypocrisy to be fairly absent, not apparent immediately in "exactly one day". Which has actually been off and on for 4 years, I just lost track of my login names.

How did I insult you exactly?

Mamabear I could talk about so many things that find contemptible and pitiful with your statement, but you won't hear it anyway so I won't waste my time or yours

You find my sentiments pitiful, that is calling me pitiful. You also assume I'm incapable of rational thought, understanding, or hearing another person's well-informed rebuttal, be it out of ignorance or intolerance. Whatever your reasons, you displayed your own ignorance and intolerance in that very assumption.

you're Mamabear? Why post under 2 different user names?

[C-Dawg]

This thread is most un-Buffetty

[tattedgator]

you must have a lot of email addresses

I have 3 that I currently use every day. I believe I was on aol years back when I first started posting here. I've had 2 different ISP's since then and cycled through those addresses, and old work email address.

Pretty simple, I think.

[ph4ever]

you must have a lot of email addresses

I have 3 that I currently use every day. I believe I was on aol years back when I first started posting here. I've had 2 different ISP's since then and cycled through those addresses, and old work email address.

Pretty simple, I think.

so you're saying you normally log on here under different user names?

[Big Phan]

Again I ask, is there anyone else who is attacked because of their occupation?

Absolutely, on a daily basis sometimes. Gotta keep a thick skin and kind heart.

And Jack, for the record, my red ink pen went empty before I finished reading the article.

On this board? Just for expressing an opinion?

No, not on this board. I (usually) do not discuss controversial issues in a format such as BN. Just a choice I make.