GOP: We don't want the President talking to schoolkids

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

GOP: We don't want the President talking to schoolkids

Post by wayfriend »

!!!

I see that the anti-Obama-ism has no limits. This doesn't verge on ludicrous - it has crossed over and built a house there.
Educators take heat over Obama school speech

(CNN) -- The White House found itself on the defensive Friday over what would ordinarily be considered the most uncontroversial of events: a back-to-school speech for children.
The White House said the address, set for Tuesday, and accompanying suggested lesson plans are simply meant to encourage students to study hard and stay in school.

Many conservative parents aren't buying it. They're convinced the president is going to use the opportunity to press a partisan political agenda on impressionable young minds.

"Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me," suburban Colorado mother Shanneen Barron told CNN Denver affiliate KMGH. "I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now."

School administrators are caught in the middle of the controversy. Some have decided to show the president's speech, while others will not. Many, such as Wellesley, Massachusetts, superintendent Bella Wong, are deciding on a class-by-class basis, leaving the decision in the hands of individual teachers.

"At a minimum, it's disruptive. No. 2, it's uninvited. And No. 3, if people would like to hear his message they can, on a voluntary basis, go to YouTube or some other source and get it. I don't think he needs to force it upon the nation's schoolchildren," he told reporters at the Minnesota State Fair.

Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer released a statement this week accusing Obama of using taxpayer money to "indoctrinate" children.

"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," Greer said.

"The idea that schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans ... is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power."

Nonsense, the White House replied.

"The goal of the speech and the lesson plans is to challenge students to work hard, stay in school and dramatically reduce the dropout rate," an administration spokesman said. "This isn't a policy speech. It's a speech designed to encourage kids to stay in school."

White House officials noted that Obama's speech, which will be available for anyone to view on the Web on Monday, is not unprecedented. President George H.W. Bush delivered a nationally televised speech to students from a Washington, school in autumn 1991, encouraging them to say no to drugs and work hard.

In November 1988, President Reagan delivered more politically charged remarks that were made available to students nationwide. Among other things, Reagan called taxes "such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper ... because they have to give so much to the government."

Charles Saylors, president of the national Parent Teacher Association, said the uproar over Obama's speech is sad.

"The president of the United States, regardless of political affiliation, should be able to have a presentation and have a pep talk, if you will, to America's students," he said.

Some of the controversy surrounding Obama's speech stems from a proposed lesson plan created by the Education Department to accompany the address. An initial version of the plan recommended that students draft letters to themselves discussing "what they can do to help the president."

The letters "would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals," the plan said.

After pressure from conservatives, the White House said the plan was not artfully worded, and distributed a revised version encouraging students to write letters about how they can "achieve their short-term and long-term education goals."

A number of the president's critics, however, were not placated.

"As far as I'm concerned this is not civics education. It gives the appearance of creating a cult of personality," said Oklahoma state Sen. Steve Russell, a Republican.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the whole dispute Friday as part of "the silly season."

The administration, while acknowledging it made a mistake with the initial lesson plan, has been frustrated by the controversy, said Ed Henry, CNN senior White House correspondent .

It was a much different atmosphere when Bush made similar remarks 18 years ago, Henry noted.

"Let's face it. You didn't really have blogs. You didn't have as many cable networks out there as you do now," Henry said. "I think people just sort of take something and blow it out of proportion in this environment right now."

The controversy is the latest example of how sharply polarized political debate has become.

"Ninety percent of Americans who identify with the president's party approve of him, but 85 percent of those who belong to the opposition party disapprove," said Keating Holland, CNN polling director.

"In that kind of environment, almost nothing Obama does is immune from politics."

"The president of the United States has asked us to facilitate his outreach to students. And in that vein, we have decided to honor the request," Wong said. "We'll trust in his judgment."

Republican leaders have not shied away from the debate. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a possible contender for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, said Friday the classroom is no place to show a video address from Obama.
.
User avatar
dlbpharmd
Lord
Posts: 14460
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:27 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by dlbpharmd »

GHWB made a similar speech to school children in '91, and got blasted exactly the same way. It's always politics as usual here in this country. Libs are no better than cons, it's time you realized that. Anti-Bushism was just as rabid, if not more so.
Image
User avatar
Savor Dam
Will Be Herd!
Posts: 6154
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Savor Dam »

Yes, both Reagan and Bush the Elder also gave televised addresses to school kids and received critical remarks afterwards for content that strayed from "education is important - stay in school" and contained policy-oriented portions intended less for student ears than for TV sound bites.

My reason for posting is not about the purity of the message. It is entirely possible that Obama will also have some content in his speech that will touch on policy matters. This would not surprise me in the slightest, and his opponents would be within their rights to rebut that content.

My point is that the current pre-speech reactions are not "exactly the same", but different in timing, in substance, and in tone.

The current objections are not after the fact because of any problematic content; they are occurring prior to the speech, challenging the right of the President to address the students.

There seems to be a slight hysteria running underneath, illustrated by the quote from a Colorado mother in the article above"Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me. I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now."

I understand that there are now, and always will be, differences in policy views. However, what I am seeing in this country is a subculture of people who are in denial as to the legitimacy of the elected leadership of the nation. Some of this is being fomented by political foes, but there is a deeper problem, a total unwillingness to accept him as President.

This is very different than the opposition that existed to the younger Bush because of how he first came to office or how his administration handled various matters. It is different than the revulsion to the personal morality of Clinton, different than the questions about how Reagan and the elder Bush misled us about arming Iran and Iraq and using the proceeds to finance other adventures that Congress would not support, different than Nixon lying to us about his domestic political shenanigans.

In all of those cases, some seblance of respect for the Presidency remained. Now we have repeated attempts (i.e. "birthers") to find any means whatsoever of undercutting the very right of this man to be President and attempts to deny him even the simple right to address the youth of the nation.

I am disturbed and worried by this pattern of absolute rejection of Obama as a properly elected President.
Cybrweez
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4804
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Jamesburg, NJ

Post by Cybrweez »

Yes, I believe the trend got worse during Bush, and now Bush supporters feel its time for payback, and payback is usually "worse". And I can imagine it continuing.
--Andy

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7383
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

"Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do to help the president."
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Savor Dam
Will Be Herd!
Posts: 6154
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Pacific NorthWet
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by Savor Dam »

HLT, that is not nearly so bad as "Ask what asinine plot you can come up with to hinder the President", now, is it?
Love prevails.
~ Tracie Mckinney-Hammon

Change is not a process for the impatient.
~ Barbara Reinhold

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.
~ George Bernard Shaw
ParanoiA
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:51 pm

Post by ParanoiA »

Savor Dam wrote:There seems to be a slight hysteria running underneath, illustrated by the quote from a Colorado mother in the article above"Thinking about my kids in school having to listen to that just really upsets me. I'm an American. They are Americans, and I don't feel that's OK. I feel very scared to be in this country with our leadership right now."

I understand that there are now, and always will be, differences in policy views. However, what I am seeing in this country is a subculture of people who are in denial as to the legitimacy of the elected leadership of the nation. Some of this is being fomented by political foes, but there is a deeper problem, a total unwillingness to accept him as President.
I have noticed the same thing. There's a new tone of anti-federalism synthesized with the standard partisan counter babble that has resulted in a questionable legitimacy theme. While I do enjoy an awakening of anti-federalism, I don't enjoy the partisan hack work that's using it.

I'm afraid the libertarian-ish movement is just being used. Wouldn't be the first time, I guess, but it's just disappointing to get my hopes up when I hear Ron Paul's voice out of another Congressman's vocal box only to realize they're just seasonal alliances.

Honestly, I don't have an unwillingness to accept Obama as the legitimate president, any more than GWB, or any of the other jokers that have occupied the office of late, but I do have an unwillingness to accept the expansion of government power and so will ultimately stand against the current occupier as illegitimate action. Subtle, but distinctive.
User avatar
finn
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4349
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:03 am
Location: Maintaining an unsociable distance....

Post by finn »

So just under half the population go to the polls to elect their man but he loses. However they are not happy with that outcome so they do whatever they can to undermine him, question his legitimacy, carry on with their own agendas regardless.

Of course I'm talking about Afghanistan.................... hang on, did you think I meant America?
"Winston, if you were my husband I'd give you poison" ................ "Madam, if you were my wife I would drink it!"

"Terrorism is war by the poor, and war is terrorism by the rich"

"A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well."

"The opposite of pro-life isn't pro-death. Y'know?"

"What if the Hokey Cokey really is what its all about?"
User avatar
Farsailer
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: The Public Employee Unions' Republic of California

Post by Farsailer »

Savor Dam wrote:I understand that there are now, and always will be, differences in policy views. However, what I am seeing in this country is a subculture of people who are in denial as to the legitimacy of the elected leadership of the nation. Some of this is being fomented by political foes, but there is a deeper problem, a total unwillingness to accept him as President.

This is very different than the opposition that existed to the younger Bush because of how he first came to office or how his administration handled various matters. It is different than the revulsion to the personal morality of Clinton, different than the questions about how Reagan and the elder Bush misled us about arming Iran and Iraq and using the proceeds to finance other adventures that Congress would not support, different than Nixon lying to us about his domestic political shenanigans.

In all of those cases, some semblance of respect for the Presidency remained. Now we have repeated attempts (i.e. "birthers") to find any means whatsoever of undercutting the very right of this man to be President and attempts to deny him even the simple right to address the youth of the nation.

I am disturbed and worried by this pattern of absolute rejection of Obama as a properly elected President.
I fail to see how this is different from the liberals foaming at the mouth because of the way the younger Bush assumed the presidency though Gore had more popular votes. There existed a sizable subset of voters who felt that Bush should not have become president under the circumstances and so they felt free to shower him with disrespect for 8 years. Today there's a sizable subset of voters who feel that Obama is not a legitimate president and so they feel free to shower him disrespect for the next x years.

Sorta sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? Did Obama really expect to escape the shots that Bush took?
A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have.
User avatar
Kaydene
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:17 am
Location: CA

Post by Kaydene »

High Lord Tolkien wrote:"Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do to help the president."
What would a presidency be doing if it wasn't brainwashing children? :LOLS:
"This is the room where Jezebel frescoed her eyelids with history's tragic glitter." ~Tom Robbins

Image
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61746
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Post by Avatar »

dlbpharmd wrote:GHWB made a similar speech to school children in '91, and got blasted exactly the same way. It's always politics as usual here in this country. Libs are no better than cons, it's time you realized that. Anti-Bushism was just as rabid, if not more so.
Agreed Dlb. Maybe not more so, but certainly equally so. I think this time round it just started off at a higher pitch, because of how vehement it was against Bush by the end.

--A
Cybrweez
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4804
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:26 pm
Location: Jamesburg, NJ

Post by Cybrweez »

Exactly Av.

Farsailer, I was thinking the same thing. Countless bumper stickers of the theme that Bush wasn't real President. Those who want to make a bigger deal out of anti-Obama are off base. Its no different, just their guy. But, not sure how many here think of Bush as their guy either.
--Andy

"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.

I believe in the One who says there is life after this.
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?
ParanoiA
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:51 pm

Post by ParanoiA »

Farsailer wrote:I fail to see how this is different from the liberals foaming at the mouth because of the way the younger Bush assumed the presidency though Gore had more popular votes. There existed a sizable subset of voters who felt that Bush should not have become president under the circumstances and so they felt free to shower him with disrespect for 8 years. Today there's a sizable subset of voters who feel that Obama is not a legitimate president and so they feel free to shower him disrespect for the next x years.

Sorta sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? Did Obama really expect to escape the shots that Bush took?
Even worse, the liberals didn't even have a legitimate complaint about popular votes. The president is elected by state legislators, not by the people. This is misunderstood since all the states defer to a popular vote to determine their electors - which even then, only pledge to support a certain candidate.

I'm not so sure I like a popular vote for the president. Similar to the senate, I don't think it's a good idea for every political office to pander to the whims of the people. That's what representatives are for. The senate and the presidency are supposed to be a buffered representation to better attract real statesmen and avoid the sales culture we have today.

This is why presidents notoriously promise everything under the sun when campaigning while delivering very little once elected - they depend on emotional attachment with the public as opposed to a healthier professional relationship with the congress. The presidency is the executor of the legislature and is supposed to "execute the instructions of congress" - not another teir of public representation.

We seem to have drifted from that philosophy so it's not surprising that most americans seem to think their popular vote of the presidency means something.
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

Farsailer wrote:
Savor Dam wrote:I understand that there are now, and always will be, differences in policy views. However, what I am seeing in this country is a subculture of people who are in denial as to the legitimacy of the elected leadership of the nation. Some of this is being fomented by political foes, but there is a deeper problem, a total unwillingness to accept him as President.

This is very different than the opposition that existed to the younger Bush because of how he first came to office or how his administration handled various matters. It is different than the revulsion to the personal morality of Clinton, different than the questions about how Reagan and the elder Bush misled us about arming Iran and Iraq and using the proceeds to finance other adventures that Congress would not support, different than Nixon lying to us about his domestic political shenanigans.

In all of those cases, some semblance of respect for the Presidency remained. Now we have repeated attempts (i.e. "birthers") to find any means whatsoever of undercutting the very right of this man to be President and attempts to deny him even the simple right to address the youth of the nation.

I am disturbed and worried by this pattern of absolute rejection of Obama as a properly elected President.
I fail to see how this is different from the liberals foaming at the mouth because of the way the younger Bush assumed the presidency though Gore had more popular votes. There existed a sizable subset of voters who felt that Bush should not have become president under the circumstances and so they felt free to shower him with disrespect for 8 years. Today there's a sizable subset of voters who feel that Obama is not a legitimate president and so they feel free to shower him disrespect for the next x years.

Sorta sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, doesn't it? Did Obama really expect to escape the shots that Bush took?
Bingo.

It's a bitch when the chickens come home to roost, ain't it?

Meanwhile, the whole country is embroiled in a Red vs. Blue argument that completely takes away from actual issues.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Tjol
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:11 am

Re: GOP: We don't want the President talking to schoolkids

Post by Tjol »

wayfriend wrote:!!!

I see that the anti-Obama-ism has no limits. This doesn't verge on ludicrous - it has crossed over and built a house there.
I think thou protesteth too much. ;)
"Humanity indisputably progresses, but neither uniformly nor everywhere"--Regine Pernoud

You work while you can, because who knows how long you can. Even if it's exhausting work for less pay. All it takes is the 'benevolence' of an incompetant politician or bureaucrat to leave you without work to do and no paycheck to collect. --Tjol
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Re: GOP: We don't want the President talking to schoolkids

Post by Cail »

wayfriend wrote:!!!

I see that the anti-Obama-ism has no limits. This doesn't verge on ludicrous - it has crossed over and built a house there.
Nope, they bought the house from the anti-Bushies. Thanks to the current housing market, I'm betting they got a good deal on it too.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Kaydene
<i>Haruchai</i>
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:17 am
Location: CA

Re: GOP: We don't want the President talking to schoolkids

Post by Kaydene »

Cail wrote:
wayfriend wrote:!!!

I see that the anti-Obama-ism has no limits. This doesn't verge on ludicrous - it has crossed over and built a house there.
Nope, they bought the house from the anti-Bushies. Thanks to the current housing market, I'm betting they got a good deal on it too.


:LOLS:
"This is the room where Jezebel frescoed her eyelids with history's tragic glitter." ~Tom Robbins

Image
User avatar
lucimay
Lord
Posts: 15044
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:17 pm
Location: Mott Wood, Genebakis
Contact:

Post by lucimay »

Cail wrote:Meanwhile, the whole country is embroiled in a Red vs. Blue argument that completely takes away from actual issues.
YES! YES! YES! absolutely! thankyou! :thumbsup:

nothing wrong with debating and discussing issues and possible solutions to problems in this country. nothing wrong with disagreeing on those issues or raising questions about this or that solution or idea for solutions.
nothing wrong with voicing opinions about what the issues are.

but i'm sooooo damned sick and tired of this whole "you dems blah blah blah" and "you cons/pubs blah blah blah"! blame for this and blame for that. blame passing. "well if you cons hadn't screwed this or that up" "well if you dems hadn't screwed this or that up"
omg the freakin blame game. its USELESS. POINTLESS. COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
it's not even worthy of being called dissent!
it belittles our common humanity.
its the biggest red herring of all.

while everyone sits arguing about red this or blue that the country
goes to hell in a handbasket.



okay. rant over.
you're more advanced than a cockroach,
have you ever tried explaining yourself
to one of them?
~ alan bates, the mothman prophecies



i've had this with actors before, on the set,
where they get upset about the [size of my]
trailer, and i'm always like...take my trailer,
cause... i'm from Kentucky
and that's not what we brag about.
~ george clooney, inside the actor's studio



a straight edge for legends at
the fold - searching for our
lost cities of gold. burnt tar,
gravel pits. sixteen gears switch.
Haphazard Lucy strolls by.
~ dennis r wood ~
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19636
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

Luci, I can sympathize with the desire for people to get along. I wish discussions like this didn't contain so much ridicule and disdain. However, I think the desire for others to get along with you perhaps increases once your political party gains control of the government. It's not a coincidence that this is the time when Dems would like for the arguments to settle down. We didn't see this sentiment expressed by the Left when they were the ones comprising The Dissent. They didn't seem to think it was counter-productive, useless, and pointless when it was helping them to discredit Bush, win the 2006 congressional elections, and ultimately the presidency.

So while I can sympathize it, I believe it is self-serving. For you to say, "it's not even worthy of being called dissent!" reveals an implicit blame game of your own, because the dissenters in this case are those who disagree with you and your party. And while you ostensibly feel frustration for the entire situation, this statement seems to imply that you aren't really frustrated with the arguments from both sides, but only with those coming from one side: the conservatives. And even worse, it unfairly misconstrues legitimate political dissent as something petty and childish.

It's not our fault that our complaints are going to be aimed primarily at the Democrats . . . they are after all the ones controling our government, and the ones responsible for fixing our problems. I have criticisms for the Republicans, too. I wish they would get off their butts and propose true market reform of the health care industry. I wish they would practice what they preach. I wish they weren't corrupted by the same influences of lobbyist and the temptations for pandering that all politicians share. I wish they hadn't messed up so bad in the last 8 years.

But right now, if we're going to deal with the present and not play a blame game over the past, dissent means criticizing the Dems. There's no way around that.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
finn
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 4349
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:03 am
Location: Maintaining an unsociable distance....

Post by finn »

Sorry Malik but I don't hold with that, in fact I think that what you say is used by many as an excuse to justify staying inside the comfort zones that the Red/Blue paradigm offers. So many topics in the tank get down to a Dem/Rep impasse (even though we are not all Americans) then fizzle out because at that point there is no longer discussion: only dissent.

Dissent comes (in my view) when discussion is no longer possible. Dissent trumps discussion in the same way as calling someone a xxxx'ist' trumps whatever they might actually be saying: this is in itself can be a form of passive-aggressive censorship. Opposition parties in politics seem to believe that dissent is their duty, when in fact its often just hinderance.

But despite all that, there is a point where dissent does have a place, against injustice, intolerance, abuse of power; places and times where discussion has clearly failed. However, much as dissent can throw a fire-blanket over discussion and debate, the opposite is far more difficult to achieve. Once dissent has dug itself in to its familiar foundations, dislodging it in favour of discussion is all but impossible.

What seems to be the position in so much of the world (including our bit of it as represented in the Tank) is that dissent becomes the default position and that discussion gets a go only if that dissent can be categorically proved wrong. You are not the only one and certainly it's not something you do all the time Malik...(I'm not picking on you.... really - and I'm sure I am not entirely blameless myself) but your response to Lucimay is an example of this. The topics at hand get derailed as soon as someone takes a party position on them, usually by declaring the opposite position to be bad or undemocratic or unpatriotic and the thread is doomed from there on in.

Its lazy in my view as it does no-one credit to parrot slogans and pre-packaged dogma instead of looking at issues with a bit more of an open mind. Does anyone here REALLY think that one party has the exclusive patent on wisdom? If the answer is no then surely the party line has no place except to compare against AFTER discussion and debate. Does anyone here REALLY think they have an informed and expert view on every subject their party has a stance for and agrees with that stance as a result?

I think its our responsibility to question everything including ourselves and most especially anyone who wants something from you: like your vote!
"Winston, if you were my husband I'd give you poison" ................ "Madam, if you were my wife I would drink it!"

"Terrorism is war by the poor, and war is terrorism by the rich"

"A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well."

"The opposite of pro-life isn't pro-death. Y'know?"

"What if the Hokey Cokey really is what its all about?"
Locked

Return to “Coercri”