You guys are frigin nutz.

…says the troll without a pair! really, Wankertized! If this lame, misspelled drivel is all you’ve got, why do you even bother to show up?

Or is that the Wankertized version of “intelligent debate”?

You have always got “wankers” and “sausages” on the mind….eh Poof?

Only when I have to deal with a wanker like you, Han-job!

And, might I remind you it was the Wanker who brought up “sausages”, not I!

More projection from Han-job!

Fergus Falls is an extremely liberal community. I commend Superintendent Ness for his actions which show a true concern for the curriculum of the students. This isn’t about wanting to deny school children an address by the President, it’s a concern about what he’s going to say. These kids are already being shown their favorite celebrities “pledge to be a servant to the president.” How can we be sure that political agenda doesn’t creep in unless the speech is pre-screened?

Seems to me that Superintendent Ness acted within the scope of his duties and responsibilities. Something ed schultz has absolutely no concept of, in any manner.

I guess that just politics.

True, true…

Isn’t that what makes this all so much fun?

Complaining about it is one thing. Censoring is quite another.

Why on earth would anyone even remotely describe this cesspool of a land mass as a country? Why do we persist in wanting to keep it alive?

It died a long time ago.

Why on earth would anyone even remotely describe this cesspool of a land mass as a country? Why do we persist in wanting to keep it alive?

– I’m sorry, but I have to ask. Who are you talking to? What are you talking about?

Conservative you hit the nail directly on it’s propagandizing head. This shit isn’t even original, though I’ll bet a great many in his inner circle think it is. Goebbels made great use of such manipulation way back when. But why the outrage, our teachers have been teaching a socialistic, Marxist, slant for years. When, if ever, was a student told to take off his “CHE” T-shirt? He’d be kicked out of school for wearing a “Nobama” t-shirt, though. BTW: no country on earth has more virulent racism than CUBA. Sixty five per cent of their Blacks are unemployed. Check out therealcuba.com. It’s dominated by the “white” Spaniards, as the Castro bros. are. Rep. Watson was probably dicked by the biggest prick in Cuba in order to say what she did. Probably brought him back under a new law she wrote also.

The reality that for Obama, every speech is a campaign speech evades his supporters, obviously.

I think that the objections to the President’s speech to the school children is evidence that there are more loons in America than I previously thought.

Zany.

I think that the objections to the President’s speech to the school children is evidence that there are more loons in America than I previously thought.

It’s only “evidence” that you are biased against real Americans who don’t want their parenthood bypassed by a guy who they don’t trust. Obama failed to persuade the adults, so now he’s trying to go straight to the kids, who are much more vulnerable to his superficial messages and feelgood chatter.
BTW, protesting any administration was OK when Hillary was shrieking about it during the Bush administration, now partisans like you describe real Americans as “loons”. Double standard, Mike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

Adamson: The OBJECTION was the way the lesson plans and suggested activities that went with the broadcast seemed to be designed to make this all about helping Lord Obama make CHANGE in America, to get them to get their parents to help Lord Obama, it was designed to get children to worship the 1984 styled Great Leader, it was not originally about a general encouragement to study, but a partisan attempt to encourage Obama worship.

As long as it is a general study hard, work hard and be a part of helping America by being a good citizen, it was no big deal. But, used to get children to follow Lord Obama was wrong.

I don’t think real Americans have any problem with the President addressing kids on the virtues of hard work and dedication.

Mike, you’re right so long as his message sticks to stay in school and study hard, don’t do drugs, don’t put chewing gum in your sisters hair, etc. The problem is when a government agency starts suggesting a curriculum the teachers follow after the speech that reeks of something you’d expect from Joseph Stalin or Nikita Khrushchev to brainwash children. If you were up to speed with the subject you’d understand why so many people are pissed about this.

Isn’t elementary school a little early for poli-sci discussions?

How much of Bill Ayers’ post- post-graduate writing have either of you read?

None! I refuse to look at pornography!

Mike, you’re right so long as his message sticks to stay in school and study hard, don’t do drugs, don’t put chewing gum in your sisters hair, etc.

But of course nobody chirped about indoctrination when Reagan talked to kids about cutting taxes..

You guys are frigin nutz.

Hey, Obama;leave those kids alone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw

You guys are frigin [sic] nutz.

… and you are a friggin failure at trying to sound cool…

In a nutshell…..the vast majority dont trust Obama.

Its sunk in that who Obama has associated with in the past (Farakhan, Ayers, Wright, Alsinky, F.M.Davis), who he has put in or attempted to put into his admin ( Rahm, Van Jones, Holdren, Dr.E.Rahm etc)….

his attempt to push thru very radicalized health care—that was turned on by 1 statement by S. Palin….

People simply have lost trust……..which actually now makes him more dangerous than ever…..

I remember people trying to sell NOBAMA as a centrist or a moderate and I told people the evidence does not support the claims, look at how he surrounds himself with, thugs, liberal activist and anti-_____ insert what ever you want because he is against the things that made our country great.

…In a nutshell…..the vast majority dont trust Obama.

Its sunk in that who Obama has associated with in the past (Farakhan, Ayers, Wright, Alsinky, F.M.Davis), who he has put in or attempted to put into his admin ( Rahm, Van Jones, Holdren, Dr.E.Rahm etc)….

Who the hell is Al-sinky? Goddamned arab terrorist plumbers, filling our precious infrastructure with subersive muslim juices!

…

…Oh, Alinsky! Right, one of those left-wingers Obama was palling around with.

Small note for you Sbark.

Barack Obama was born in 1961… Saul Alinsky died in 1972. Unless you’re going to make the claim that eleven-year-old Barack Obama was community-organizing in his elementary school, in Honolulu, in a country he had been in for less than a year, you’re talking from your ass.

But it’s ok, I’ll bet you couldn’t tell me the first thing about Saul Alinsky without looking him up, besides the words “radical socialist”, and “the alinsky way”.

his attempt to push thru very radicalized health care—that was turned on by 1 statement by S. Palin….

People simply have lost trust……..which actually now makes him more dangerous than ever…..

Yeah. That’s right, Palin’s the reason Americans don’t like public-option healthcare. Just ask Alaska, she’s only getting more popular!

You ARE half right though. Americans have lost trust, in politics, not just Democrats.

Barack Obama should be criticized meaninfully, logically, and rationally for his policy blunders. Equating America to Germany 1939, and Obama to Hitler does nothing but make you seem just as crazy as the fringe internet-left.

It’s a televised broadcast by the president. Parents should have the right to exempt their children from it, but Jeez. People throw a shit-fit about stuff like this, and it distracts people from real issues.

But it’s ok, I’ll bet you couldn’t tell me the first thing about Saul Alinsky without looking him up, besides the words “radical socialist”, and “the alinsky way”.

…..thing that sticks in my mind most about Saul-baby: in his opening to his book 10 rules for Liberal democrats…uh i mean radicals……

he had a statement making a tribute to the 1st Liberal…uh i mean Radical……a tribute to Lucifer : again a easy google

Everything one wants to know about Obama/Saul-baby
http://www.americanthinker.com/search/?cx=016417505616455789357:mttpazkfree&cof=FORID:9&ie=UTF-8&q=saul+alsinky&sa=Search#913

You have always got “wankers” and “sausages” on the mind….eh Poof?

Barack Obama was born in 1961… Saul Alinsky died in 1972. Unless you’re going to make the claim that eleven-year-old Barack Obama was community-organizing in his elementary school, in Honolulu, in a country he had been in for less than a year, you’re talking from your ass.

This would mean something if Obama hadn’t went out of his way to associate with Alinsky’s ideas and tactics. No one points out that Christ died almost 2000 years ago to Christians, so Alinsky’s death means little to someone who follows his rules.

You are becoming boring, and really making the criticism about your age seem relevant.

Bat One…the only thing I recall reading is Rules For Radicals and that was 25 years ago. I was impressed by his rejection of doctrinaire political ideology, his call to empower those members of society whose interests and aspirations aren’t represented by society’s political leadership and institutions and his recognition that the values advanced by Judeo/Christian morality and democratic ideals can’t be realised in a structure where power flows from the top rather than from the bottom. I wasn’t impressed by his dedication of the book to Lucifer but I attributed it to a quirky sense of humour.

Conservapedia doesn’t agree.

Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972) was a liberal community organizer in Chicago who developed a method of local organizing that was widely copied by Democrats, and influenced Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. He is credited with the term “community organizer.” His most well-known accomplishment was the book Rules for Radicals. He wanted reform inside the system by pressuring government officials to take into account the needs and wants of neighborhood residents. We was opposed by far-left radicals who wanted to destroy capitalism and who feared that Alinsky was strengthening it by resolving the issues most important to the poor.

Life is rarely black and white and Alinsky provides a good example IMO. He was no doubt influenced by Marx but then he was influenced by Abraham Lincoln as well. I can understand how defenders of the Republican/Democratic status quo would feel threatened but I’m of the opinion that Alinsky is another thing among many that conservative agitators throw against the wall in the hope that something sticks. Alinsky is certainly no conservative but he’s no Marxist either, as a reading of his book plainly bears out.

I think a mistake was made in calling him out before his speech. Now he has a chance to revise his speech (and retract the “curriculum”) and say, “See, I didn’t do anything wrong.”

r108…that “book” is the conservative version of wikipedia. The reason Alinsky isn’t described as a “communist agitator” is because he wasn’t one. When one’s philosphical framework is “us versus everybody else” then it’s not surprising that you can’t see the difference but your critique of Alinsky would be more meaningful if you offered something more than slagging him as a communist.

Is your problem with Alinsky a belief that he harboured secret communist views or that his efforts aided the cause of communism or do you question his premise that the disadvantaged in society need to have a place in political decision making? Of course I could be over thinking this and you believe Alinsky to be a communist, lack of evidence be damned.

Mike:

&heellip;

Born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. He never joined the Communist Party but instead, as David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left.

[…

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314

Marx and Alinsky both believed that all humans are locked into a class struggle that defines everything, including economics. They both divided humans into competing groups and used the lowest achievers as instruments to gain political power by stoking class division and preaching victim entitlement. Both believed in a “fixed pie” economic model, where one person’s wealth is achieved at the expense of others, which therefore entitles the “have-nots” to take wealth away from others.
The premise is false, but it is the basis for both Marxism and Alinskyism. The difference between the two is a matter of methodology; Marx believed in “violent overthrow” and Alinsky preached political subversion through divisive activism. Neither man favored individual independence, which is the cornerstone of the American Way, and so both are inimical to the basic precepts of this country.

That book was obviously written by an conservative stuck in the eighteenth century. It’s interesting though that your position has evolved to a place where Alinsky shared the same goals as Marx but differed on the methods, that he may not have been a Marxist but he was certainly a fellow traveller. If you continue to grow then you may reach the stage where Alinsky’s goal was the inclusion of the disenfranchised in the existing democratic system, Alinsky as a reformer and not a revolutionary, a program which threatened the position of the political and economic elites but not the system itself, somebody to disagree with but not demonise.

Dreaming is free.

I don’t consider them to be different in terms of their outcome, which is an overthrow of the United States and individual independence.

Is the absence of such a sentiment in Alinsky’s book evidence that he was a sneaky Marxist through and through?

I’m not ignoring the obvious, the obvious just isn’t in the book. The only way Alinsky is a Marxist is if you broaden the deinition of Marxism to include anyone who doesn’t accept the status quo. I think calling anyone you disagree with a Marxist is very lazy.

Hanny, SIGH!!!, AGAIN w/ the “BUT the OTHER kids did it!” piss-poor ‘excuse’. I don’t buy that BS from kids, not from Dino & not from you either. Besides that being a piss-poor ‘excuse’ it is the same as with GWB, I do NOT recall Mr. ’86 Amnesty RR planning on having assignments be given to students that ask them to say what they were going to do FOR HIM as opposed to FOR THE NATION. B/C of that ’86 BS TRAITOROUS Amnesty I can’t stand RR, HOWEVER, to try & compare RR talks to students to what BHO has/had planned is what is “frigin nutz”. Anyway, EVEN IF previous POTUS’s had done so that would NOT be an excuse for BHO to do the same, period, end of story.

Budsmoke, the only problem w/ BHO changing what he’s going to say/do is that it’s too late for ppl WITH BRAINS to buy that since the WH has already acknowledged that the “What can I do to help the president?” & etc assignments was suggested to the schools to give the students. NOTE I said “WITH BRAINS” & unfortunately there will be ppl that just might buy that BS given the fact that so many have ALREADY been buying BHO’s BS for a good bit of time now… But anyway, even if he does make the changes then I see that as a good thing b/c @ least in this case ppl got him to “back down” & MAYBE JUST MAYBE that will start a trend of doing that to him.

These came into my email all out of order. Weird.

Bud, ” Now he has a chance to revise his speech (and retract the “curriculum”) and say, “See, I didn’t do anything wrong.” this is because people are paying attention. A lot of attention to everything coming from this Admin right now. With Congress cranking back up on Tues, and a willing media, the deluge of stupidity will pick up pace again, giving cover for other idiocy du jour to arise.

In his books, other writing, public speaking, his teaching, pretty much everything. He was a Marxist, he called himself that, and many other things as the years progressed. Changing the meanings of words and phrases is a PRIMARY point of Alinsky’s proselytizing, he was a religious missionary, just like any Catholic or Baptist, and his religion was Marxism. He prettied it up, switched this or that phrase or word, spun it in several directions at once. In the end he was a Marxist, nothing more.

If I wear my pants like that it won’t be long till the style is retired.

it is fear bordering on paranoia. Obama is making the wingnuts dance like puppets. He controls you. All he has to do is float something out there to get you ranting, looking fringe and coming off as benign, like he will on this school speech.
Dance puppets dance.

Or the simpler explanation could be true.

It could just be that OBama is proving to be immensely unpopular.