The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So, lacking any evidence to the contrary is it not reasonable to assume the simpler explanation that the kooks on the right (and previous kooks on the left) are home grown within their own movements? There is a word for believing that for which there is no evidence but simply because it is an explanation that makes you feel better.

And therefore, that regardless of whether they were manipulated into it or cam up with it themselves, those who put forward these ideas, or refused to treat them with the ridicule they deserved are either extremely stupid and therefore unworthy of their positions as visible philosophical leaders of the movement or acting with mendacious intent to subvert reasonable debate and therefore continuing to let them lead the movement is morally reprehensible?

Of course it is reasonable to assume some kook came up with it, but I don't think most, regardless of their political outlook, are smart (or devious) enough to look at a bill, say "wow! this could be twisted to say we are going to have death panels". It typically comes from a single source and spreads. Someone has to come up with the idea first.

I also do not know if I would call them stupid. The political pundits all have their own agendas as well, whether Beck or Olberman or Hannity or....the Cajun bald guy....drawing a blank for some reason, so if there is a possible interpretation, they might choose to run with it. I would suspect they also bring up budgets and cost overruns and problems with funding existing programs and whatever else. That's why I read Thomas Sowell and Wlater Williams and, to the dismay of some here, the Heritage Foundation website, because I find them to be quite reasonable as well as scholarly.

Morally reprehensible? Perhaps. Politics in general is morally reprehensible. There are not many politicians or pundits or journalists that I don't find to be morally reprehensible. I will admit that I would rather the conservative ideas that I prefer be touted rather than liberal ideas that I don't be misrepresented.

[SacTown Chronic]

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Limp-wristed libs can't even properly subvert the kids.



In my day - if you wanted to scar the children with a live televised event - you gathered them in a classroom and watched a teacher get scattered over the Atlantic Ocean.

And you did it together, as a country.

Terrible. Funny, but terrible.

And submitted to quotes.

[Strangler Lewis]

Today my children came home and asked what was for dinner.

A dinner they would not make and had no intention of paying for.

DAMN YOU, OBAMA!!!

[Mousey Girl]

The Boy saw the speech today at school. He lived.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm really tired of hearing about death panels. End of life counseling/living wills are a good idea for everyone. I should have one.

And I don't see anything wrong with revisiting it every 5 years for older people. Things change; at age 60 you might want all possible measures taken, but at age 65, maybe you've been diagnosed with something bad, and you want to change your status.

[innerSpaceman]

ok, with all the broohaha over the education speech, why aren't there pages of outrages of the healthcare speech? I hope scaeagles hasn't been in an accident.

[scaeagles]

Didn't watch it, haven't read it.

I am not outraged over the President making a speech. Presidents do it all the time. Like I said after reading the speech that was to the captive audience, I said I had no problems with the content, but stood by my concern over the teachers and their biases leading the post speech discussion as was in the plans.

I have a feeling his health care speech was nothing new, and that all it was was an attempt to rescue the failing (in public opinion) plan. Clinton did the same thing with his attempt.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I said I had no problems with the content, but stood by my concern over the teachers and their biases leading the post speech discussion as was in the plans.

Why must you assume that teachers are automatically going to be biased and push their political agenda on their students? For that matter, why must you assume teachers are going to have a political agenda or be unprofessional enough to do it.

Most importantly, were you worried about teachers pushing their bias when it was "your guy" in office?

Do you really remember your teachers pushing their political agenda on you?

I sure don't.

No wait. I take that back. I remember on 9/11/01 my math teacher talking to us about the importance of staying in school because if there was reinstatement of the draft you could be delayed because you were in school. (and he was an obvious aging hippy working for the establishment. It was awesome). Hell, I couldn't even tell the leanings of my political science teachers in high school or college.

Do you really think that kids are going to turn on their parents? And is that a bad thing?

I actually called my dad last night and thanked him for raising me to look at both sides, objectively. For always explaining to me why he was voting the way he did, why he agreed/disagreed with a particular candidate over the issues. For never blanketly saying "I just don't trust him" or "I have a bad feeling about her". For never bad-mouthing "the other guy". For showing me by example that just because he didn't agree with something they were still our elected officials and deserved respect.

I hated GWBush, but he was still the POTUS and that title deserves respect.

We're raising a generation of kids who are learning that they don't have to respect or listen to people they disagree with. Scary. Very, very scary.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Why must you assume that teachers are automatically going to be biased and push their political agenda on their students? For that matter, why must you assume teachers are going to have a political agenda or be unprofessional enough to do it.

Most importantly, were you worried about teachers pushing their bias when it was "your guy" in office?

We're raising a generation of kids who are learning that they don't have to respect or listen to people they disagree with. Scary. Very, very scary.

Let's try this for the 100th time.

I said I had no problem with my HS age daughter to watch it or discuss it because she has the critical thinking skills necessary to deal with any form of bias. I said I'd watch the speech with my younger kids. My younger kids do not have the critical thinking skills necessary to disagree on abstract concepts with their teacher.

I do not think there was a situation for me to worry about with agendas being "pushed" in an organized fashion with lesson plans provided to teachers by the administration. So no, I wasn't concerned about it.

I didn't say they would necessarily push their bias. However, even the most objective have biases that come through, whether teachers, judges, journalists, whomever, and it comes through. As far as professionalism, there are literally dozens of stories here in AZ of teachers having sex (or doing something sexually inappropriate) with their junior high or HS students in the last couple years. Everyone in the profession is not professional.

I do recall both political bias (when we were reading 1984 in 1984, my junior year) and religious bias (My 8th grade algebra teacher was a Muslim and I can recall him saying many time "There is no God but Allah").

Did you read the earlier link I posted about bias? Anecdotal, certainly, but I also said you could find examples and i could find many more.

To think there is bias that comes through is not unreasonable.