http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html?bl&ex=1252296000&en=aca08736a6e52505&ei=5087%0A

From my understanding, the speech he'll be delivering next week is strictly voluntary and the message is suppose to be about staying in school to stress the importance of a good education. So why is this causing an uproar among some people? He's not advocating his policies such as his health care reforms (or "socialism"). Telling kids to stay in school is a positive message and President Bush did a similar live broadcast speech way back then.

Transcript of Obama's speech for September 8, 2009

I think it's just bad timing. He is already being perceived as doing everything he can to convince people to buy off on an agenda they don't agree with so it is not going to look right that he is also doing this school speech at the same time.

Yes, but President Bush was the president then. You were supposed to respect the office, even if you didn't respect the man.

Now that a democrat's president you don't have to respect the office anymore.

Silly boy, what are you going to ask next, why Obama's health care plan isn't met with USA-wide jubilation and why theres people scared of fabled death committees?

Is that supposed to make any sense at all?

I mentioned this in the chat but I think it warrants discussion here.

I bet a sociologist would look at this debacle in the same light they view the debate over teaching evolution, or sexual education, in schools. By this I mean to suggest that it has very little to do with the actual message, and much more to do with the impression that an 'outsider' - someone who does not self-identify with the same social groups that the parents self-identify with - is harming their children in some fashion, or coercing them to conform to those social groups.

For evolution and sexual education there is a fair bit of fear of Christian persecution: the ideas are 'atheist' and anti-Christian. I believe Shakespeare had good words for this situation, considering the general atmosphere of contempt and distrust for both atheism and intellectualism among the conservative Christian working class. "Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind."

In this particular instance I am suggesting that the message would be more well-received if it were not being delivered by a black man.

It's exactly what the republican party did, overnight they stopped saying "As a Patriot you must support the white house" to "As a Patriot you must ***** and moan about the white house!"

It's something a Republican I know used to say. Of course he's not really a Republican - none of them are. He claims to be a Libertarian or some-such. But we all know better.

When the good Republican George W. Bush is the President, we are supposed to respect the office even if we don't respect the man. He may look like a monkey, he may sound retarded, we may disagree with his policies but by God He is the President and His Word is Law. Praise Jesus.

When Obama is President... **** Obama. Imma bring me rifle to a Presidential speech. Threatening his life aughta teach him a thing er two.

I'm pretty sure there were just as many people whining about Bush as there are people whining about Obama.

When did that happen?

And WTF is up with your first line? First you say he's not really a Republican, and then you say that none of them are - and then you say that he claims to be affiliated with another party - "But we all know better" meaning what, that he is in fact a Republican, when you just said that he wasn't? Or that he is not in fact a Republican, which is what he told you?

On a side note, I heard that Obama has had the biggest approval drop for one year in the history of any US president. Something like 80% to 40%. Can anyone verify?


I honestly feel bad for the guy, he's mostly a figure head and everyone expected him to be the messiah. Worst job in the world if you ask me. Deal with americas woes 24/7 for 400k a year? Screw that.

You didn't notice all the gun toting crazies?

Considering the fact that 71% of the American public disapproved of Bush, while only 38% of people disapprove of Obama, I would suggest to you that perhaps many times more people were (as you put it) "whining" about Bush.

But you're missing the point. While Bush was in power, Republicans asserted that Bush deserved respect for reasons of simple patriotism: Bush was President, the leader, like it or not. Respect the office.

Now that a Democrat is in power, Republicans are staging enormously disrespectful and even outright offensive campaigns to marginalize the man and discredit the office. Such delightfully intellectual contributions to this debate include the notion that Republicans are being taxed without representation, per their humorous reenactments of the Boston Tea Party, and graphics illustrating how Obama can be photoshopped to look like Hitler or the Joker.

The Republicans are hypocrites.

Several people stood outside of a presidential event with AR-15s. They were legally allowed to carry them and I believe they were trying to make some sort of point, but where I'm from (human civilization) arming yourself when it is not necessary is a blatant attempt at coercion through intimidation (i.e. a death threat.)

A pseudo-intellectual would never be caught dead calling himself a Republican. It's not cool to be a Republican. They're all 'libertarians' or 'registered independents.'

Republicans use euphemistic language to conceal their sins. This is in stark contrast to the Democrats, who use euphemistic language to conceal their incompetence.

Not really fair to compare approval ratings at the end of Bush's second term to Obama's less than a year into his term/

Jon'C is so full of ****. We Republicans (the conservative ones anyway) want Obama to fail [in enacting his agenda]. We don't disrespect the office of the presidency because he is now the president. I respect the office of the president as much as I ever had even though I haven't found one policy position of his I agree with. I do think that President Bush treated the office with greater respect than President Obama does but the relaxed attitude Obama has towards the office was some of the appeal he generated so it is what it is.

You *******s trying to get each other to fail. instead of you know, working together when things get bad. are what is going to collapse your entire country.

you don't support the president! HOW UNPATRIOTIC.

this just proves jonc's point.

lol you guys are *****ing about the wrong bush. it was the first one (h.w.) that did the tv broadcast ('90 or '91), and he was stressing the importance of not doing drugs.

As long as children aren't forced to watch it, I really don't care what Obama does. A Republican made a good point that the video will be up on Youtube seconds after it's out regardless, so if they want to watch it they can go and watch on their own time during their free period. Bottom line (and the Democrats agree) is that no one should be forced to watch it. Leave it up to the teachers.

I just don't get the point of the whole thing. I was told to study hard and get good grades all through school by my teachers, as well as my parents. I don't need a President to tell me this. To me it just seems like some shameless plug.

Also, Jon'C, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that right now approval ratings of Obama vs Bush are pretty similar with the current snapshot. Latest numbers are "Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove." IIRC, that's actually lower than where Bush was pre 9/11.



So what are you?

Don't pander to him. He doesn't have a clue other than what he reads on the internet. He's not even an American so he doesn't fall in either the Republican or Democrat catagory as well. He's just a bitter little internet bully that acts oh so enlightend with his big words.

Well he basically lumped "libertarians" or "registered independents" as Republicans, so if he's not Republican, Democrat, libertarian, or an independent, I just wondered what he was, hahah.

Convinced that the system is broken, and it's largely thanks to fellows like Wookie06.

I think it's very telling that you consider the previous president's conduct to be more respectful of his office than someone with a simple casual attitude.

I guess you don't consider it very significant that he used signing statements to rewrite legislation contrary to the will of the House, or relegated dissent to designated 'free speech zones' contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Perhaps you will change your mind in 2012, when the statute of limitations has expired and Dick Cheney feels comfortable publishing his memoirs.

While we're waiting, let's play a little game:

Well that's a cop out

No it isn't. Blithely prescribing to a static economic or political philosophy in a dynamic world is a cop out.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I have very little to do with whatever problems you are having with the system in Canada. Unless you think that Americans like me with conservative values are what are behind the droves of Americans fleeing to Canada.



I'd be very interested in the Vice President's memoirs but beside that you can play this little game all day. I suppose you don't consider it significant that even Democrats are disturbed at President Obama's propensity to annoint an increasing number of "czars" evading congressional oversight as the traditional positions require. But that wasn't my point. I was referring much more specifically to the higher level of formality in the previous administration.



The fact that you are Canadian and therefore not a member of an American political party has nothing to do with your race. I don't have a problem with people of other races. In fact I think it is refreshing that we finally have a clean, articulate black man on the presidential stage.

Party affiliation is not the same as ideology or philosophy. If it was Obama wouldn't have any problem getting his agenda passed.

And why does that matter?

It's not like politics doesn't exist elsewhere.

Combined, since these paragraphs are really dealing with the same issue.

1.) You are convinced that a Canadian cannot possibly know even the slightest bit about your own country. I suggest that you are really projecting your own ignorance about the world outside of America onto others. Your ignorance is your own, and your assumption is incorrect. There are many Canadians who understand more about your country than you do; these include scholars, historical or specifically Constitutional, immigration lawyers, international business lawyers, and everyday people who simply happen to read the news that concerns them personally.

2.) You also give the impression that each country exists as a closed microcosm of the larger world around it, insulated from each other and impervious to foreign influences. This is incorrect. Canada is the United States' largest single trading partner, and vice-versa: social and economic unrest in the United States is of extreme concern to Canadians and a significant portion of our population makes an effort to remain aware of American policy.

3.) Our 'game' was a very simple test for discriminatory language. You failed the test. More importantly, you cite your satisfaction with Obama's clean and articulate manner (which you suggest is atypical for black people) as an example of how you aren't racist. That's pretty racist, dude.

Obama's use of advisors is a rather interesting issue for the scholars to resolve, but the Constitution specifically states that the President is allowed to choose lower officers and advisors as he sees fit. I suppose it would be more of an issue if the 'czars' had direct authority, in which case they would legally need to be approved and would probably be called something funny like 'secretaries,' right?

It's still very interesting that you consider a casual attitude more disrespectful than using your political office to commit crimes.

A redundant and largely irrelevant reply, but that's not too surprising. I agree that party affiliation and ideology are distinct concepts.

Yes, but he can't be a member to any of the parties to which he was questioned about which he was (and evaded answering).

No, I'm just convinced that you don't know jack. It's sort of a combination of your extremely negative attitude towards traditional American values and combined with the fact that you are, presumably, not even a resident of my country I dismiss you. I'm sure there are plenty of insightful and intelligent Canadians. In fact, I know there are. Many are serving next to me in the United States Army.



Absolutely. Please don't confuse my dismissing you because of the reasons I listed above as any misunderstanding that we live in a quite interconnected social and economic environment.



No, you failed the test. I was paraphrasing Mr. Obama's selection for Vice President. I thought someone so enlightened on Foxnews and Republican talking points would have caught that.



Wow, you are so enlightened and always willing to acknowledge the interesting issues that scholars can look back upon...



but them scholars already got that criminal W figured out!



Well, when you were asked which party you belonged to you punted and then further added "Blithely prescribing to a static economic or political philosophy in a dynamic world is a cop out. "

So the Democrats are whinning that they're met with an equally pissed off people as Bush was met with?

Come on now. Bush was met with world wide humiliation, from comedians, general people and all around the world.

Obama's dissaproval rating is around 53%, with 44% approval and 3% undecided. The fact that people are changing opinions has nothing to do with "THE EVIL REPUBLICANS", it has to do with people looking at the mess and going "I don't approve of this idea". I am actually VERY happy that my nation is participating in deciding its own future, instead of turning a blind eye to everything the politicians do.

Obama's cabinent is really creepy. He has surrounded himself with corrupt people, comunists, and otherwise bad reputation people. It doesn't take much more than looking at his people and seeing how they endorse or admire anti american ways.

Returning to healthcare. I think that some ideas that have been proposed are excellent. And others suck.

Honestly, inter-state competition will do the health insurance business a lot of good.

But really, if Obama wanted to do something good for his career, he'd drop the whole healthcare business. The more he pushes it, the more he looses popularity. The people feel that they aren't being heard. The opposers of the bill are ignored on their suggestions and contributions, some of which were excellent. Of course, all true hardcore unmovable democrat will deny these allegations, just like every true nazi would say the concentration camps were enemy propaganda.

Of course, Democrats are doing the same thing that the Republicans were doing when Bush is in office now that Obama is in office. The fact that so many people can't see the unthinking, reactionary nature of their opinions is sickening.

I don't even watch the news, and every time the latest sham of a controversy filters through to me want to puke.



Your mom is a bad reputation people.

Kids don't always listen to their parents or teachers. However, they may be easily swayed more by celebrities such as the U.S. President or famous cartoon characters.




Yeah tell me about it, reminds me of the "rabble rabble rabble" from South Park.

Ahahaha.

These kids are not going to listen to THE MAN anymore than they do anyone else.

Does joncy have a mullet in that picture?

haha this made me laugh, cause Obama is kinda like a famous cartoon character

That's complete bull. If there was a legitimate threat against the President, it would have been dealt with.

Do I agree with them openly carrying firearms in such a manner? Eh, they have a right to do it, but it's not something I would do. However, it's not a "blatant attempt at coercion".

Have you ever met any of the Secret Service guys in Presidential protection? I have. They don't screw around.