Quote :

"FORCED TO SING A SONG BY SCHOOL FACULTY"

Quote :

"parents were sent the lyrics of the song in advance, as is standard procedure with performances of this sort, and that no one voiced any concerns about it. He noted the performance took place in February, shortly after the inauguration of the 44th president, when Obama's popularity ratings were riding high."

9/27/2009 10:22:13 PM

^^No, actually they are both hazy examples of indoctrination, except one is actually a problem.

For evidence, see the dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrination

And I apologize if I offended you. I didn't realize there would actually be a Glen Beck fan on here.

9/27/2009 11:19:49 PM

^^ bigun20 has never been one to let facts get in his way, why would he start now?

9/28/2009 12:27:40 AM

Quote :

"parents were sent the lyrics of the song in advance, as is standard procedure with performances of this sort, and that no one voiced any concerns about it. He noted the performance took place in February, shortly after the inauguration of the 44th president, when Obama's popularity ratings were riding high."

not true at all, this parent is pissed:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/09/26/snow.obama.song.controversy.cnn

9/28/2009 9:06:22 AM

Breaking the Godwin's Law in the OP does you no good, OP.

9/28/2009 9:33:02 AM

Quote :

"not true at all, this parent is pissed: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/09/26/snow.obama.song.controversy.cnn"

well if they were indeed sent the lyrics before hand, and they didn't take the opportunity to say anything about it then (or more likely didn't bother to read it in the first place), why should anyone care that they are mad now?

9/28/2009 9:37:44 AM

Because it makes good headlines?

9/28/2009 9:39:29 AM

Quote :

"this parent is retroactively pissed"

It's not the school's fault the parent didn't read the permission slip.



And taking a step back-- where's the connection between this event and the White House? People are comparing Obama to the Nazis when he had nothing to do with it. He can't help it that some crazy teachers took it upon themselves to do this.

9/28/2009 9:39:50 AM

If you don't understand that we're now living in a Communist's dream, a Socialist paradise run by a Nazi administration bent on Fascism, then you obviously hate America.

9/28/2009 9:41:52 AM

Quote :

"What it is is a tactic for dealing with a Congress that seemed unwilling to make certain compromises. Right now, I'd say that it backfired -- going directly to the people created an environment that allowed for even stronger polarization on both sides."

The parallels aren't quite the same here. In Grumpy's examples, the President was invoking public pressure to encourage congress to pass something he felt was desired by the public. In this example, the President had to give a pep-talk to congress to get them to vote for something that is controversial at best.


This is separate, though similar, to the whole cult of personality issue which really only exists amongst his supporters. He hasn't proven to be particularly adept at working with congress and I don't think Nancy Pelosi is one bit intimidated by him. She'd probably still be running the show if she didn't have a habit of putting her foot deep down her esophagus in public. It is ironic that the Speaker of the House has to be kept away from microphones lest she accuse her political enemies of being liars (the CIA) or Nazis (health care protesters).

Quote :

"He can't help it that some crazy teachers took it upon themselves to do this."

I don't blame the administration for this, I blame the crazy teachers. Sure, Barack Obama enjoys this cult of followers and I think his public image is deliberately crafted to encourage this, but I don't think he's sending out lyrics for public group-sings.

I also find it ironic that some of the same people who refuse to hold borrowers responsible for signing loans for massive amounts of money are jumping all over parents who may or may not have read the lyrics to a song sent out in a permission slip.

9/28/2009 10:21:14 AM

I think the difference between holding the borrowers responsible and the parents is that in a loan scenario the loan officer is there to certify how much you can borrow and supposedly has more experience and a more accurate representation of what is realistic. In this situation no one is supposed to know more about your children than you.

9/28/2009 10:36:16 AM

I've always been taught that you never sign something you don't feel confident you understand. When you put ink to paper you're making a physical representation of the fact that you understand and agree to the document you're signing.

I agree, there were unscrupulous loan officers and there were well intentioned but misguided loan officers, but the point of signing paper is . . . well . . . to accept responsibility.

9/28/2009 10:44:43 AM

Quote :

"^^ bigun20 has never been one to let facts get in his way, why would he start now?"

Quote :

"And I apologize if I offended you. I didn't realize there would actually be a Glen Beck fan on here."

Did I mispeak? Yes. When I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

But surely, even you guys can tell the difference between voluntary and involuntary indoctrination.....Pointing this out dosent mean I'm a "fan of Glenn Beck".

"And I apologize if I offended you. I didn't realize there would actually be college educated individuals stupid enough to draw that conclusion from the words I said"

9/28/2009 11:25:01 AM

So you don't enjoy watching Glenn Beck?

Or you maybe watched it by accident and found yourself gayloving him a little?


I'm an empath (the crazy sexy kind), and I'm just saying, I'm picking up on some serious loooove vibes.

9/28/2009 11:57:00 AM

Quote :

"I also find it ironic that some of the same people who refuse to hold borrowers responsible for signing loans for massive amounts of money are jumping all over parents who may or may not have read the lyrics to a song sent out in a permission slip."

The scenarios aren't analogous:

- Complexity of a permission slip v. complexity of a mortgage

- Consequences: losing your home v. OMG singing about Obama

- I'm not sure many people have risen up to defend bad financial choices. Speaking for myself, I favor loan adjustments simply because it's financially stupid to do otherwise.

9/28/2009 12:05:01 PM

Quote :

"Complexity of a permission slip v. complexity of a mortgage"

Gravity of signing a mortgage v. gravity of signing a permission slip to sing a song.


Personal responsibility is personal responsibility. If you chose to take it lightly, you chose to take the concurrent consequences. Unless the homeowner was deliberately mislead, the analogy is the same.

9/28/2009 1:10:40 PM

Quote :

"Unless the homeowner was deliberately mislead"

Isn't that the entire issue?

9/28/2009 1:13:10 PM

In the event that the homeowner was told one thing and signed something that said that but then the bank did something against that contract, then sure thats misleading and the banks should be punished. Or maybe if they said it was a traditional 30 year fixed but then gave them an ARM.

The people with no credit who went in and got magic loans at super low rates were just idiots that got duped. Yes the banks knew they were going to jack the fuck out of those interest rates and that the people who took those loans wouldn't be able to pay, but the people taking these loans are the same idiots who spend $texas calling psychic hotlines. We dont make that shit illegal. The psychics just have to brand it as entertainment and they're gtg. If these people read their contracts or knew what ARMs were to begin with they'd have known what to expect. This type of lending was encouraged by past administrations on all sides in the name of getting people into houses. Theres plenty of blame to go around, but to say the consumers are completely innocent is wrong.

If we had let these institutions fail they'd be far less likely to use ARMs or other "tricky" loans in the future. Instead we ended up consolidating the industry into a few really large banks and we must now depend on the governement to fix the problem. As far as I see the best way to prevent it in the future would be to ban giving credit to people who cant afford to pay it back. Create strict lending rules that say for x ammount of credit the applicant must have a credit score of A, collateral of B, years of employment C, and income of D. If they dont meet that requirement they cant get credit. If someone does give them credit, they get fined and lose their license. It would make it very hard for people who cant pay it back to get credit, but would make the system much more stable.

9/28/2009 2:01:38 PM

I don't think it's fair to just talks about banks and consumers.

The whole general tone of materialism, spurred on by marketing and advertising, is out of control.

I mean, you guys talk about stupid people getting duped. I know two people who have walked away from their homes and stopped paying their mortgages. I know two other people who are considering doing the same. They've all been laid off and they all owe more than their houses are now worth. Another similarity between the four of them: they all own way more home than they actually need: "Oh, and this is going to be my office." Your office? I thought you had one of those at work???

Back in the day, you had one extra room, and it was an office/baby room/guest room/home gym/crafts room. You don't have separate rooms for all these purposes. You have one room. Now, middle market, average homes are boasting two extra rooms on top of all the prepurposed guest rooms and offices just cause they can.

And all the people I know in dire financial straits still think I'm crazy for living in a cheap dump. They're on the verge of bankruptcy, and they question my character, wondering what my defect is that I'm not on board the spending train. It's baffling.

We can prevent these lunatics (that make up a majority of this country) from getting more loans. We can raise their credit card minimums and lower their limits. But we can't make them live modestly and save for retirment. We can't decrazify them. These people are going to end up costing us a lot of money (they're insatiable), and it's just as unsavory to me as the damn banks and corporations.

I mean, as long as we were paying out for the poor, pitifully uneducated people, I was cool. Those people aren't irresponsible with money...they're just really fucking poor, and I want them to have full bellies and air conditioning. But the motherfucker with a college degree and two jet skis? No, I don't want to pay for him. And I don't want to see his numbers grow as we let advertisers walk all over us and destroy everything that made sense about our system.

I have a paper to write, and I'm procrastinating. Thanks for tolerating my nonsense lately, guys.

9/28/2009 2:49:53 PM

Just for shits and giggles, I found this in a TWWers gallery:

9/29/2009 1:28:38 PM

Yes, both sides make stupid Godwin arguments. That doesn't make yours any less stupid.

9/29/2009 1:29:31 PM

Quote :

"Bush was compared to Hitler often. Where was this outrage then?"

Go read the news and get back to us.

9/29/2009 11:41:51 PM

Quote :

"As JCASHFAN has already pointed out....Bush was compared to Hitler often. Where was this outrage then?"

From my earlier post that you didn't read:

Quote :

"(Yes, even those that compared Bush to Nazis. You are just like those assholes. Congratulations.)"

Quote :

"Hyperbole has been going on since our republic started. It'll be around long after were gone. Get used to it."

Umm...OK? That means nothing...?

9/30/2009 9:32:44 PM