I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with, isolating
children from presidential speeches is an inadequate answer.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i

Ignoramus30623 wrote:
I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with, isolating
children from presidential speeches is an inadequate answer.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i


Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:54:46 -0500, Ignoramus30623
wrote:

I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with, isolating
children from presidential speeches is an inadequate answer.


Why?

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Pehaps. But with Liberal teachers hammering Leftwing crapola into your
kids brain every day...how do you make the determination..or even know
what they are being told?

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

So you will be allowing your kids to go to an American Nazi Party
fiesta next week?

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i

Coming from an ex-russian..sometimes I wonder about you. You are far
far too accepting of things the Government pulls. Perhaps it IS
because you are an ex russian.....and again...it makes us even more
concerned about our children..

Gunner

"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On 2009-09-03, John R. Carroll wrote:
cavelamb wrote:
Ignoramus30623 wrote:
I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with,
isolating children from presidential speeches is an inadequate
answer.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i


Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

Is "propaganda" something that is evil universally? Or is Democratic
propaganda more evil than Republican propaganda? Or the reverse? Would
you want to isolate your children from both kinds of propaganda? Would
you expect that isolating children from "propaganda" may make them
resistant to it when they encounter it?

Would it not be a good idea to expose children to various age
appropriate political topics and discuss those topics with kids in a
respectful fashion?

For example, I do not like George W Bush, but if he wanted to make a
speech to children, I would not want to hide the speech from them --
but I would discuss it critically afterwards.

i

"Ignoramus30623" wrote in message
...
On 2009-09-03, John R. Carroll wrote:
cavelamb wrote:
Ignoramus30623 wrote:
I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with,
isolating children from presidential speeches is an inadequate
answer.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i


Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

Is "propaganda" something that is evil universally? Or is Democratic
propaganda more evil than Republican propaganda? Or the reverse? Would
you want to isolate your children from both kinds of propaganda? Would
you expect that isolating children from "propaganda" may make them
resistant to it when they encounter it?

Would it not be a good idea to expose children to various age
appropriate political topics and discuss those topics with kids in a
respectful fashion?

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.


For example, I do not like George W Bush, but if he wanted to make a
speech to children, I would not want to hide the speech from them --
but I would discuss it critically afterwards.

Bush speeches are good for you. They're a cautionary tale about getting
"C's" in school. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On 2009-09-03, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 10:54:46 -0500, Ignoramus30623
wrote:

I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with, isolating
children from presidential speeches is an inadequate answer.


Why?

Because it makes them unaware of important things.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Pehaps. But with Liberal teachers hammering Leftwing crapola into your
kids brain every day...how do you make the determination..or even know
what they are being told?

I would ask them what are they being told. Part of parenting.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

So you will be allowing your kids to go to an American Nazi Party
fiesta next week?

I would not mind going if it was nearby. It is educational. I would
prefer to be outdoors, and not enter any buildings, however.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i

Coming from an ex-russian..sometimes I wonder about you. You are far
far too accepting of things the Government pulls. Perhaps it IS
because you are an ex russian.....and again...it makes us even more
concerned about our children..

Perhaps, but I try to do my best at finding the best understanding of
reality, and then live with said understanding. I try to do my best
and live with the result.

i

cavelamb wrote:
Ignoramus30623 wrote:
I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with,
isolating children from presidential speeches is an inadequate
answer.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i


Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

I think you are right.
He's probably going to teach them the Kenyan version of a secret Muslim
handshake.
The one reserved exclusively for Marxist's.

--
John R. Carroll

Ignoramus30623 wrote:
I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is going
to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the president
would say something with which a parent would disagree with, isolating
children from presidential speeches is an inadequate answer.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything, highlight
differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those who
expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

It is a parents responsibility to shield their children from input that
the parents feel may be harmful to the child. that's the reason for
parental control features on electronic media.
I think the problem here is that the Obama administration has
injected partisan politics into everything they do, to the extent that
most of the citizenry suspects ulterior/partisan motives in everything
they attempt.
If BHO had made any attempt to live up to the transparency he
promised us, we might feel differently.

Ignoramus30623 wrote:
On 2009-09-03, John R. Carroll wrote:
cavelamb wrote:
Ignoramus30623 wrote:
I cannot believe it that people are afraid that a president is
going to make a speech to their children. Even assuming that the
president would say something with which a parent would disagree
with, isolating children from presidential speeches is an
inadequate answer.

The better approach would be to explain to the children that not
everyone has to agree with the president about everything,
highlight differences between your opinion and the president's etc.

Trying to hide the president's speech from children is similar to
sticking one's head in the sand when you hear bad news. It is not a
productive approach and leads to living in an imaginary world.

Let's wait until the speech and then we can see if it is as evil as
some are expecting it to be. If it will be the case, then I will
adjust my understanding of reality, and if it is not, then those
who expected it to be evil, should adjust theirs.

i


Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

Is "propaganda" something that is evil universally? Or is Democratic
propaganda more evil than Republican propaganda? Or the reverse? Would
you want to isolate your children from both kinds of propaganda? Would
you expect that isolating children from "propaganda" may make them
resistant to it when they encounter it?

Would it not be a good idea to expose children to various age
appropriate political topics and discuss those topics with kids in a
respectful fashion?

For example, I do not like George W Bush, but if he wanted to make a
speech to children, I would not want to hide the speech from them --
but I would discuss it critically afterwards.


OK Ig, but I didn't post that.
I, tongue in cheek, posted this:

"He's probably going to teach them the Kenyan version of a secret Muslim
handshake. The one reserved exclusively for Marxist's."

What Obama is learning, or has learned, is that it wasn't Clinton that
fringe Republicans hated irrationally, it's anything not them.
That fringe, BTW, ia about all that's left of the Republican party.

--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what parents say
and what they do.


Richard

cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The
idea is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're
not allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer
preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what parents
say
and what they do.

I subscribe to what Iggy said about it. Holding kids back from school so
they won't be exposed to a speech by the President is an obvious statement
that presidents are up to no good and aren't to be trusted, to begin with. I
don't think that's a good place to start with a kid's civil education.

And the kid will wonder why his friends saw it but he didn't. That isn't
going to be a plus for his view of his parents.

Finally, Iggy's point that it's something that can best be dealt with by
discussing it with the kids is exactly the approach I've always thought was
best, and which I adhered to while raising my son.

--
Ed Huntress

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The
idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer
preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what
parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

They're probably how your critical thinking skills came about. Also, your
belief that you can make your own decisions.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The
idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer
preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what
parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

They're probably how your critical thinking skills came about. Also, your
belief that you can make your own decisions.

Probably not, as I've had those skills from day zero. I've been
exercising those skills and making my own decisions regardless of any
external pressure pretty much since I had language.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program.
The
idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're
not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's
the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be
funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer
preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what
parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

They're probably how your critical thinking skills came about. Also, your
belief that you can make your own decisions.

Probably not, as I've had those skills from day zero.

I think that's a self-contradicting remark. d8-)

I've been
exercising those skills and making my own decisions regardless of any
external pressure pretty much since I had language.

That's remarkable, Pete. There's probably some graduate student who would
like to study you for a thesis. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 3, 4:21*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ed Huntress
I just do not think it is one of the powers delegated to the Federal
Government. I think that is one of my powers.

Great. Now, why aren't you doing it?

Ed Huntress
Great, it is much worse than I thought. *Ed has found a way to know
exactly what I do. *Is that from a government database or some
commercial one?

?? Are you going to deliver a speech to the nation's school kids about
working hard and being responsible? That's what you're responding to. You
said it was "one of your powers."

Ed Huntress

I was responding to the Federal government teaching about working hard
and being responsible. I am saying that teaching moral values to my
kids is one of my powers. And that delivering a speech about working
hard and being responsible is usurping my ability to teach moral
values to my children. I think it is the parents responsibility to
teach moral values to their kids. I do not think teaching moral
values is some thing delegated to the Federal government by the
Constitution. Teaching moral values comes extremely close to teaching
religion. Again not something I want the Federal government teaching.

Working hard is not something I value. Working intelligently is not
the same thing. I would rather have my children question how thing are
done and find better ways, than to value working hard. Hard work is
greatly overrated.


Dan

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:00:38 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

Powers delegated from where exactly?

The citizens, who rightly hold the power to live their lives in the
manner of their own choosing. Duh.

Maybe you should look it up.

Good Luck!
Rich

On 2009-09-03, wrote:
Working hard is not something I value. Working intelligently is not
the same thing. I would rather have my children question how thing are
done and find better ways, than to value working hard. Hard work is
greatly overrated.

Very well said.

i

wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 4:21 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ed Huntress
I just do not think it is one of the powers delegated to the Federal
Government. I think that is one of my powers.

Great. Now, why aren't you doing it?

Ed Huntress
Great, it is much worse than I thought. Ed has found a way to know
exactly what I do. Is that from a government database or some
commercial one?

?? Are you going to deliver a speech to the nation's school kids about
working hard and being responsible? That's what you're responding to. You
said it was "one of your powers."

Ed Huntress

I was responding to the Federal government teaching about working hard
and being responsible.

This isn't a matter of Federal powers. This is the President excercizing his
right to free speech. We all have that power, president or
candlestick-maker. Do you deny him that right?

I am saying that teaching moral values to my
kids is one of my powers. And that delivering a speech about working
hard and being responsible is usurping my ability to teach moral
values to my children.

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

I think it is the parents responsibility to
teach moral values to their kids. I do not think teaching moral
values is some thing delegated to the Federal government by the
Constitution. Teaching moral values comes extremely close to teaching
religion. Again not something I want the Federal government teaching.

This isn't the Federal government teaching moral values. This is the
President voicing his opinion about the positive consequences of staying in
school and of studying hard. If you want to make a morality play out of it,
go ahead. But it just sounds like common sense to me, and it's a matter of
efficacy rather than one of morals.

There is no reasonable or sensible objection to that. As usual, Dan, you're
more interested in confounding a perfectly sensible thing with the most
bizarre arguments one could imagine.

Which tells us that this is not your real objection. Whether you know what
your real objection is remains an open question. I suspect it's that you
don't want anything to confer legitimacy to anything Obama says, in any way
you can think of. But that's only a suspicion.

Working hard is not something I value. Working intelligently is not
the same thing. I would rather have my children question how thing are
done and find better ways, than to value working hard. Hard work is
greatly overrated.

Well, I could say that tells us a lot, but I'll restrain myself. g If you
want to tell your kids that, tell them. Tell them why you disagree with the
President's point. Tell them to avoid working hard, for all I care.

But there's nothing to prevent you from telling them that all you want. If
you think your kids won't be exposed to ideas you disagree with, you are
nuts. And if you want to prevent someone else from saying those things, you
don't really believe in Constitutional principles.

I think you're blowing smoke, that all you want to do is de-legitimize the
President, both in the eyes of kids and that of everyone else, no matter
what he says. The thing you fear the most is that he's successful and that
people come to believe in his ideas. But that's just an opinion, as you say.

--
Ed Huntress

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:00:38 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

Powers delegated from where exactly?

The citizens, who rightly hold the power to live their lives in the
manner of their own choosing. Duh.

Maybe you should look it up.

I am not a member of their society and I have not ceded any sovereignty
to them.

Ed Huntress wrote:

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Free speech rights do not extend to captive audiences.

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Free speech rights do not extend to captive audiences.

Really? Then all teachers should just shut up and send the kids home?

Where do you get these wacky ideas, Pete?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Free speech rights do not extend to captive audiences.

Really? Then all teachers should just shut up and send the kids home?

Where do you get these wacky ideas, Pete?

Why do you think teachers are being arrested for proselytizing their
ignorant superstitions in public schools? Free speech rights do not
apply in the classroom, they have limits such as board approved lesson
plans.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:40:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 4:21 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ed Huntress
I just do not think it is one of the powers delegated to the Federal
Government. I think that is one of my powers.

Great. Now, why aren't you doing it?

Ed Huntress
Great, it is much worse than I thought. Ed has found a way to know
exactly what I do. Is that from a government database or some
commercial one?

?? Are you going to deliver a speech to the nation's school kids about
working hard and being responsible? That's what you're responding to. You
said it was "one of your powers."

Ed Huntress

I was responding to the Federal government teaching about working hard
and being responsible.

This isn't a matter of Federal powers. This is the President excercizing his
right to free speech. We all have that power, president or
candlestick-maker. Do you deny him that right?

What? Forcing all school kids to listen to him is "free speech"? In
what country, Ed?

Say, how easy would it be for you or me to speak to all school kids,
hmm? We have free speech in the USA, too, don't we?

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech
you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free
speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Free speech rights do not extend to captive audiences.

Really? Then all teachers should just shut up and send the kids home?

Where do you get these wacky ideas, Pete?

Why do you think teachers are being arrested for proselytizing their
ignorant superstitions in public schools?

I wasn't aware that they are. How many are there, out of the 6.2 million
teachers in the United States?

Free speech rights do not
apply in the classroom, they have limits such as board approved lesson
plans.

I don't think the school boards are in charge of what the president of the
United States can say. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech
you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free
speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Free speech rights do not extend to captive audiences.

Really? Then all teachers should just shut up and send the kids home?

Where do you get these wacky ideas, Pete?

Why do you think teachers are being arrested for proselytizing their
ignorant superstitions in public schools?

I wasn't aware that they are. How many are there, out of the 6.2 million
teachers in the United States?

Recently in the national news, Florida case I believe. The perpetrators
in the case were already under court order to refrain from the offending
activity and couldn't stop themselves, so they were arrested.


Free speech rights do not
apply in the classroom, they have limits such as board approved lesson
plans.

I don't think the school boards are in charge of what the president of the
United States can say. g

Probably not, however as I said, free speech rights do not extend to
captive audiences.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:40:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 4:21 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ed Huntress
I just do not think it is one of the powers delegated to the Federal
Government. I think that is one of my powers.

Great. Now, why aren't you doing it?

Ed Huntress
Great, it is much worse than I thought. Ed has found a way to know
exactly what I do. Is that from a government database or some
commercial one?

?? Are you going to deliver a speech to the nation's school kids about
working hard and being responsible? That's what you're responding to.
You
said it was "one of your powers."

Ed Huntress

I was responding to the Federal government teaching about working hard
and being responsible.

This isn't a matter of Federal powers. This is the President excercizing
his
right to free speech. We all have that power, president or
candlestick-maker. Do you deny him that right?

What? Forcing all school kids to listen to him is "free speech"? In
what country, Ed?

Nobody is "forcing" anyone to listen, Larry. Parents can keep their kids at
home. Teachers and administrators can decide not to show it. School boards
can make the same decision. I'm just saying they're foolish and
narrow-minded if they do, and they probably aren't doing their kids any good
by doing so.

Dan said it wasn't in the government's "power" for Obama to make the speech.
The free-speech issue hinges on that: he damned well DOES have the power.


Say, how easy would it be for you or me to speak to all school kids,
hmm? We have free speech in the USA, too, don't we?

Go for it. I've spoken before classes many times, in high school, once in
elementary school, and for some lectures I gave at William Patterson
Univerity. If you think people would be interested in what you have to say,
nothing is stopping you from asking. The thing is, a great many more people
*are* interested in what the president of the United States has to say. Too
bad. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech
you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free
speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Free speech rights do not extend to captive audiences.

Really? Then all teachers should just shut up and send the kids home?

Where do you get these wacky ideas, Pete?

Why do you think teachers are being arrested for proselytizing their
ignorant superstitions in public schools?

I wasn't aware that they are. How many are there, out of the 6.2 million
teachers in the United States?

Recently in the national news, Florida case I believe. The perpetrators
in the case were already under court order to refrain from the offending
activity and couldn't stop themselves, so they were arrested.

So, how many "perpetrators" are we talking about?

It sounds like an insignificant issue, a trivial case based on the
separation of church and state. Regardless, it's because of that separation,
and the Court's decisions regarding the separation, that the activity is
illegal. As far as I know, there's no Constitutional issue in telling kids
they should stay in school and work hard.



Free speech rights do not
apply in the classroom, they have limits such as board approved lesson
plans.

I don't think the school boards are in charge of what the president of
the
United States can say. g

Probably not, however as I said, free speech rights do not extend to
captive audiences.

I'd be interested to hear a real-life example, but we're going around in
circles. No one is forcing the parents, the schools, or anyone else to
listen.

--
Ed Huntress

"Pete C." wrote

Why do you think teachers are being arrested for proselytizing their
ignorant superstitions in public schools? Free speech rights do not
apply in the classroom, they have limits such as board approved lesson
plans.

One of the attendees at a family reunion this past weekend was a relative
from Arizona, retiring this year with 30 years. We had a very interesting
discussion about what things were like thirty years ago versus now. He said
he wanted to teach until mandatory retirement, but just couldn't stomach any
more of the way his teaching was controlled and micromanaged by the
illuminati. And so it is. The good teachers are leaving, being replaced
with robots who will do what they are told, vote Democratic, get their
retirement, and really don't give one whit about the kids.

Strange, but true.

Steve

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:

How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech
you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free
speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Free speech rights do not extend to captive audiences.

Really? Then all teachers should just shut up and send the kids home?

Where do you get these wacky ideas, Pete?

Why do you think teachers are being arrested for proselytizing their
ignorant superstitions in public schools?

I wasn't aware that they are. How many are there, out of the 6.2 million
teachers in the United States?

Recently in the national news, Florida case I believe. The perpetrators
in the case were already under court order to refrain from the offending
activity and couldn't stop themselves, so they were arrested.

So, how many "perpetrators" are we talking about?

It sounds like an insignificant issue, a trivial case based on the
separation of church and state. Regardless, it's because of that separation,
and the Court's decisions regarding the separation, that the activity is
illegal. As far as I know, there's no Constitutional issue in telling kids
they should stay in school and work hard.

I believe two persons were arrested in the case in question.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:47:28 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:40:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 4:21 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ed Huntress
I just do not think it is one of the powers delegated to the Federal
Government. I think that is one of my powers.

Great. Now, why aren't you doing it?

Ed Huntress
Great, it is much worse than I thought. Ed has found a way to know
exactly what I do. Is that from a government database or some
commercial one?

?? Are you going to deliver a speech to the nation's school kids about
working hard and being responsible? That's what you're responding to.
You
said it was "one of your powers."

Ed Huntress

I was responding to the Federal government teaching about working hard
and being responsible.

This isn't a matter of Federal powers. This is the President excercizing
his
right to free speech. We all have that power, president or
candlestick-maker. Do you deny him that right?

What? Forcing all school kids to listen to him is "free speech"? In
what country, Ed?

Nobody is "forcing" anyone to listen, Larry. Parents can keep their kids at
home. Teachers and administrators can decide not to show it. School boards
can make the same decision.

Come now, Ed. That's political suicide for a teacher, admin, or board
member to make that statement. It would be as warmly welcomed as an
AR at a political rally.


I'm just saying they're foolish and
narrow-minded if they do, and they probably aren't doing their kids any good
by doing so.

Perhaps, but which is worse, censorship or propaganda?


Dan said it wasn't in the government's "power" for Obama to make the speech.
The free-speech issue hinges on that: he damned well DOES have the power.


Say, how easy would it be for you or me to speak to all school kids,
hmm? We have free speech in the USA, too, don't we?

Go for it. I've spoken before classes many times, in high school, once in
elementary school, and for some lectures I gave at William Patterson
Univerity. If you think people would be interested in what you have to say,
nothing is stopping you from asking. The thing is, a great many more people
*are* interested in what the president of the United States has to say. Too
bad. d8-)

You sneaky, sidestepping critter, you. You know perfectly well that I
was referring to the ability to speak to ALL CLASSES IN ALL SCHOOLS IN
THE USA AT ONCE, just like the President can. We could never do it,
so we don't have the same 'free speech' that the President does.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:19:28 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

Out of curiosity, what religion are you and what religion are/were
your parents?

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:36:23 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The
idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer
preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what
parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

They're probably how your critical thinking skills came about. Also, your
belief that you can make your own decisions.

Probably not, as I've had those skills from day zero. I've been
exercising those skills and making my own decisions regardless of any
external pressure pretty much since I had language.

Either you are "funnin us" or you must have been a truly obnoxious
brat.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 17:47:28 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:40:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 4:21 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Ed Huntress
I just do not think it is one of the powers delegated to the
Federal
Government. I think that is one of my powers.

Great. Now, why aren't you doing it?

Ed Huntress
Great, it is much worse than I thought. Ed has found a way to know
exactly what I do. Is that from a government database or some
commercial one?

?? Are you going to deliver a speech to the nation's school kids about
working hard and being responsible? That's what you're responding to.
You
said it was "one of your powers."

Ed Huntress

I was responding to the Federal government teaching about working hard
and being responsible.

This isn't a matter of Federal powers. This is the President excercizing
his
right to free speech. We all have that power, president or
candlestick-maker. Do you deny him that right?

What? Forcing all school kids to listen to him is "free speech"? In
what country, Ed?

Nobody is "forcing" anyone to listen, Larry. Parents can keep their kids
at
home. Teachers and administrators can decide not to show it. School boards
can make the same decision.

Come now, Ed. That's political suicide for a teacher, admin, or board
member to make that statement. It would be as warmly welcomed as an
AR at a political rally.

Apparently not. That's part of what this thread is about. Quite a few school
districts are debating whether to show it.



I'm just saying they're foolish and
narrow-minded if they do, and they probably aren't doing their kids any
good
by doing so.

Perhaps, but which is worse, censorship or propaganda?

Censorship. Free speech will survive propaganda, but it won't survive
censorship.


Dan said it wasn't in the government's "power" for Obama to make the
speech.
The free-speech issue hinges on that: he damned well DOES have the power.


Say, how easy would it be for you or me to speak to all school kids,
hmm? We have free speech in the USA, too, don't we?

Go for it. I've spoken before classes many times, in high school, once in
elementary school, and for some lectures I gave at William Patterson
Univerity. If you think people would be interested in what you have to
say,
nothing is stopping you from asking. The thing is, a great many more
people
*are* interested in what the president of the United States has to say.
Too
bad. d8-)

You sneaky, sidestepping critter, you.

Moi? g

You know perfectly well that I
was referring to the ability to speak to ALL CLASSES IN ALL SCHOOLS IN
THE USA AT ONCE, just like the President can. We could never do it,
so we don't have the same 'free speech' that the President does.

When you get elected as president, you get a much bigger audience. Tough.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 3, 9:40*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This isn't a matter of Federal powers. This is the President excercizing his
right to free speech. We all have that power, president or
candlestick-maker. Do you deny him that right?

No, I do not deny him that right. However in this case he is not
speaking as an individual. He is speaking as the President, that is
he is speaking as the head of the executive branch of the
government.


How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Certainly not. But the right of free speech for individuals is not
the same as the rights of a government official. Or at least I think
it is. An example is that one has the right to put a cross in ones
yard, but a government official does not have the right to put a cross
in a federal building or to put words from the Koran or Bible on the
walls of a government building.

This isn't the Federal government teaching moral values. This is the
President voicing his opinion about the positive consequences of staying in
school and of studying hard. If you want to make a morality play out of it,
go ahead. But it just sounds like common sense to me, and it's a matter of
efficacy rather than one of morals.

Obviously we differ here.


Which tells us that this is not your real objection. Whether you know what
your real objection is remains an open question. I suspect it's that you
don't want anything to confer legitimacy to anything Obama says, in any way
you can think of. But that's only a suspicion.

It is more that I believe in States Rights. And do not want the
Federal government to expand it roles. I think you can find I have
had this belief during George W. Bushes terms as well as during Bill
Clintons terms of office.

Working hard is not something I value. *Working intelligently is not
the same thing. I would rather have my children question how thing are
done and find better ways, than to value working hard. *Hard work is
greatly overrated.


But there's nothing to prevent you from telling them that all you want. If
you think your kids won't be exposed to ideas you disagree with, you are
nuts. And if you want to prevent someone else from saying those things, you
don't really believe in Constitutional principles

I do not object to individuals expressing ideas. In fact I believe in
the " marketplace of ideas ". But do not want any officials of the
Federal government to express views on topics that I do not believe
are in the area of the Federal governments business.
..

I think you're blowing smoke, that all you want to do is de-legitimize the
President, both in the eyes of kids and that of everyone else, no matter
what he says. The thing you fear the most is that he's successful and that
people come to believe in his ideas. But that's just an opinion, as you say.


I do not understand why you thinik I would want to de-legitimize the
President. I can not see how that would benefit me. I hope he is
successful in many things.
I just do not agree with all his ideas and hope he is not successful
in those things that I disagree with. I am still allowed to have
opinions, aren't I ?


--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


I subscribe to what Iggy said about it. Holding kids back from school so
they won't be exposed to a speech by the President is an obvious statement
that presidents are up to no good and aren't to be trusted, to begin with. I
don't think that's a good place to start with a kid's civil education.

And the kid will wonder why his friends saw it but he didn't. That isn't
going to be a plus for his view of his parents.

Finally, Iggy's point that it's something that can best be dealt with by
discussing it with the kids is exactly the approach I've always thought was
best, and which I adhered to while raising my son.

--
Ed Huntress



It's a shame that the Democrats did even worse when Bush was in office....

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0721053bush1.html
JULY 21--A New York woman claims that she was forced from her teaching
post by an elementary school principal who objected to her Republican
activism and last year ordered the removal of a portrait of President
George W. Bush from the educator's Long Island classroom.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0510-06.htm
Cop Makes Midnight Raid of Teacher's Classroom

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000184.html
Shiba Pillai-Diaz, a middle school teacher
in New Brunswick, New Jersey walked out of her class after being
instructed by her supervisors to remove a picture of the President of
the United States from her classroom or be fired.

http://www.scoopthis.org/2009/06/kan...-conservative/
Tim Latham – wrongfully fired for being a Conservative!


http://snipurl.com/rl4bl
Gephardt Called Bush's Speech to Students 'Paid Political Advertising'

As Barack Obama prepares a nationwide broadcast to America's students
next Tuesday, it has been revealed that Democrats complained in 1991
when then President George H. W. Bush broadcast a speech from a
Northwest Washington junior high school.

In fact, the House Majority leader at the time, Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.),
said "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political
advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce
smarter students."


--
Steve W.

wrote:

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:19:28 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

Out of curiosity, what religion are you and what religion are/were
your parents?

I'm a devout atheist. I was questioning religion pretty much from the
time I had language and totally rejected it by the time I was 5 or so.
Indeed trying to foist the absurdity of superstition on me destroyed any
credibility my parents might have had and made me question and validate
anything else they told me. The age old control game backfired big time.

wrote:

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:36:23 -0500, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ed Huntress wrote:

"Pete C." wrote in message
ster.com...

cavelamb wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Unless, of course, they see it as protecting their children from
political propaganda...

You're being much too reasonable here, Iggy. Get with the program. The
idea
is to teach your kids that the president is evil, and that they're not
allowed to listen to him because your little mind can't take it.

That's how you raise good little narrow-minded conservatives. It's the
American way.

We were both mumbling over a tongue in cheek.

But what you wrote here, probably also TiC, is way too true to be funny.

This is exactly how biases are passed from one generation to the next.
Racism, hatred, political posture, heck, even TV shows and beer
preferences.

Children learn by watching (and listening to) parents.

And the cleaver little brutes can tell the difference between what
parents say
and what they do.

Richard

The funny thing is, I watched and listened to my parents, exercised my
critical thinking skills, and made my own decisions. I adopted very
little from my parents actually.

They're probably how your critical thinking skills came about. Also, your
belief that you can make your own decisions.

Probably not, as I've had those skills from day zero. I've been
exercising those skills and making my own decisions regardless of any
external pressure pretty much since I had language.

Either you are "funnin us" or you must have been a truly obnoxious
brat.

Nope, it's true, and I wasn't obnoxious. I am now that I'm old and
crotchety however.

"Steve W." wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


I subscribe to what Iggy said about it. Holding kids back from school so
they won't be exposed to a speech by the President is an obvious
statement
that presidents are up to no good and aren't to be trusted, to begin
with. I
don't think that's a good place to start with a kid's civil education.

And the kid will wonder why his friends saw it but he didn't. That isn't
going to be a plus for his view of his parents.

Finally, Iggy's point that it's something that can best be dealt with by
discussing it with the kids is exactly the approach I've always thought
was
best, and which I adhered to while raising my son.

--
Ed Huntress



It's a shame that the Democrats did even worse when Bush was in office....

snip


http://snipurl.com/rl4bl
Gephardt Called Bush's Speech to Students 'Paid Political Advertising'

As Barack Obama prepares a nationwide broadcast to America's students
next Tuesday, it has been revealed that Democrats complained in 1991
when then President George H. W. Bush broadcast a speech from a
Northwest Washington junior high school.

In fact, the House Majority leader at the time, Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.),
said "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political
advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce
smarter students."


--
Steve W.

A whole list of Dems made stupid remarks about that Bush speech, which
sounds like it was closely parallel to what Obama is doing. They called it
political, inappropriate, propaganda, etc. Just like we're hearing now.

I think Newt had the best take on it (Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1991, page
A14):

'House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) dismissed the criticism. "Why is
it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?"
he said. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a
nonpolitical audience.... They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the
maximum effect to improve education."'

The Dems who complained at the time were real assholes...just like the
Republicans who are complaining now.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 9:40 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

This isn't a matter of Federal powers. This is the President excercizing
his
right to free speech. We all have that power, president or
candlestick-maker. Do you deny him that right?

No, I do not deny him that right. However in this case he is not
speaking as an individual. He is speaking as the President, that is
he is speaking as the head of the executive branch of the
government.


How is a speech denying your ability? Does that apply to all speech you
don't agree with? Are you suggesting that others' rights to free speech
don't apply if you don't like the speech?

Certainly not. But the right of free speech for individuals is not
the same as the rights of a government official. Or at least I think
it is. An example is that one has the right to put a cross in ones
yard, but a government official does not have the right to put a cross
in a federal building or to put words from the Koran or Bible on the
walls of a government building.

But he has a perfect right to speak those words -- as many (probably all)
presidents have done, and as most political officials do regularly. And
that's despite the separation of church and state as it's been established
in law.

This isn't the Federal government teaching moral values. This is the
President voicing his opinion about the positive consequences of staying
in
school and of studying hard. If you want to make a morality play out of
it,
go ahead. But it just sounds like common sense to me, and it's a matter
of
efficacy rather than one of morals.

Obviously we differ here.


Which tells us that this is not your real objection. Whether you know
what
your real objection is remains an open question. I suspect it's that you
don't want anything to confer legitimacy to anything Obama says, in any
way
you can think of. But that's only a suspicion.

It is more that I believe in States Rights. And do not want the
Federal government to expand it roles. I think you can find I have
had this belief during George W. Bushes terms as well as during Bill
Clintons terms of office.

I don't think that exhorting school children to do their best in school is
an expansion of the federal government's role. You may take issue with
federal funding and regulating of education, but that isn't what's at issue.


Working hard is not something I value. Working intelligently is not
the same thing. I would rather have my children question how thing are
done and find better ways, than to value working hard. Hard work is
greatly overrated.


But there's nothing to prevent you from telling them that all you want.
If
you think your kids won't be exposed to ideas you disagree with, you are
nuts. And if you want to prevent someone else from saying those things,
you
don't really believe in Constitutional principles

I do not object to individuals expressing ideas. In fact I believe in
the " marketplace of ideas ". But do not want any officials of the
Federal government to express views on topics that I do not believe
are in the area of the Federal governments business.

I believe that it is impossible for a president to fulfill his role without
doing so. The whole history of our establishment of the office of president
is that he (or she) is to be a leader, not a bureaucratic operative who
works in silence and says nothing. With the passage of time, leadership
inevitably involves leading change to adapt to changing circumstances. It
involves explaining and encouraging action by the public. It requires
exhorting Congress to take action. How one would lead without speech, to the
whole country or segments thereof as they're relevant, is hard to imagine.
..

I think you're blowing smoke, that all you want to do is de-legitimize
the
President, both in the eyes of kids and that of everyone else, no matter
what he says. The thing you fear the most is that he's successful and
that
people come to believe in his ideas. But that's just an opinion, as you
say.


I do not understand why you thinik I would want to de-legitimize the
President. I can not see how that would benefit me. I hope he is
successful in many things.
I just do not agree with all his ideas and hope he is not successful
in those things that I disagree with.

That sounds like you don't want him to be successful in his effort to lead
change in education. But that's one of the issues on which he campaigned,
and on which he was elected. It's his responsibility to lead those
changes -- and that requires speech.

I am still allowed to have opinions, aren't I ?

Of course. As is the President. And both of you are free to express them.

--
Ed Huntress