School district: Don't listen to Obama, listen to Bush

Story here

Quote :

The Arlington Independent School District, which passed on airing President Barack Obama's live classroom address, has announced that some students will be bussed off campus to hear a message from former President George W. Bush on Sept. 21.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Wasn't eight years of him as president (plus four years of him as governor) bad enough?

Quote :

District officials said it's part of a Cowboys Stadium field trip that the North Texas Super Bowl Host Committee invited 28 fifth-grade classes to attend several months ago.

So our current president isn't good enough to listen to, but the last one is worth spending a bunch of money to bus kids to a football stadium?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

"I do not understand the duplicity in this situation," [Senior Baptist minister Dwight] McKissic said in a news release from the church. "I believe the students and the public deserve and need to have these differences explained."

It's simple, actually: someone screwed up.
Fortunately, They realized their mistake and apologized.

Quote :

"I am encouraging teachers to use President Obama’s speech on the importance of education and personal responsibility as an educational resource in their classrooms when and how they deem most appropriate for their students," said [Superintendant Jerry McCullough.

Quick! Assemble the spin doctors!
As one comment states...

Quote :

Sorry, too little too late. That apology is so contrived only a fool would believe there is any sincertiy in it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Stuff like this makes me glad I don't have to attend school anymore.

I was debating posting this in the Schoochildren thread and saying something witty like "the boot is on the other foot", but it's not quite the same. It takes more class time (+1 Obama). On the other hand, I doubt the lesson plans will be as adulatory for Mr. Bush.

I agree that we shouldn't force the children to go listen to Bush. It's a double Standard to suggest otherwise.

Quamp wrote:

Wasn't eight years of him as president (plus four years of him as governor) bad enough?

DIAF.
He was elected by the standard method, twice, and his approval rating was loads higher than that of Obama this far into the presidency. (Even comparing 9/10/01 to 9/10/09)
(IMHO, it's better to have a conservative retard than a liberal/socialistic tyrant in the Oval Office. Especially when Congress has a majority in both houses of the same political affiliation.)

unskilled78 wrote:

(IMHO, it's better to have a conservative retard than a liberal/socialistic tyrant in the Oval Office. Especially when Congress has a majority in both houses of the same political affiliation.)

Obama is not a socialist. He's a centrist. By the standards of somewhat socialist countries, he's a conservative.

unskilled78 wrote:

Quamp wrote:

Wasn't eight years of him as president (plus four years of him as governor) bad enough?

DIAF.
He was elected by the standard method, twice, and his approval rating was loads higher than that of Obama this far into the presidency. (Even comparing 9/10/01 to 9/10/09)

*snickers*

Bush and Obama's approval ratings at this time in their presidencies are roughly equal, accounting for the margin of error (Bush was just slightly above 55% in August 2001, Obama just slightly below it as of August 25th, with a +/- of 4%).

That's not "loads higher" - it's a statistical dead heat.

Quote :

(IMHO, it's better to have a conservative retard than a liberal/socialistic tyrant in the Oval Office. Especially when Congress has a majority in both houses of the same political affiliation.)

*sighs* When the head of the American Socialist Party says he's not even close to being a socialist, and when Bernie Sanders of Vermont (the only elected Socialist in the United States Congress) says Obama's no socialist...I tend to believe them.

As for this story, all I can do is shake my head sadly and move on.

Hrm... I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but yeah, schools taking partisan sides is stupid. Obama's speech wasn't partisan anyway, so I'm not sure why exactly the school system thinks there's an issue.

Comic sans? Really?

unskilled78 wrote:

a liberal/socialistic tyrant in the Oval Office

:hair: Rush Limbaugh called. He wants his hogwash back.

If Obama is a tyrant, then what the holy flying fudge are Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il?

:lolinsane: Obviously there should be exceptions to the two consecutive terms thing, so Bush could be President foreverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Keith Fraser wrote:

If Obama is a tyrant, then what the holy flying fudge are Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il?

More powerful tyrants, obviously

unskilled78 wrote:

Keith Fraser wrote:

If Obama is a tyrant, then what the holy flying fudge are Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il?

More powerful tyrants, obviously

Or at least more tyrannical tyrants?

unskilled78 wrote:

Keith Fraser wrote:

If Obama is a tyrant, then what the holy flying fudge are Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il?

More powerful tyrants, obviously

That's what you think, Comrade.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Comic Sans is a hero.

Psy-4 wrote:

Comic Sans is a hero.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Bamshalam wrote:

Comic sans? Really?

Is that all you can say about this?

"ZOMG HE USED A DIFFERENT FONT IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!1!1!1!ONE!!1" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

As for Obama, the main reason he's losing popularity is this:
he is proceeding slowly and doing some thinking before he acts. Our society has been so indoctrinated that things have to be done right now and when they aren't everyone gets all hacked off.
Give the man time. Bush dug him a mile deep hole. He's not going to be able to fill that in overnight.
Besides, if we don't support his half-hearted attempts to get things going the right way again, it'll only lead to us going back to Bushinomics. If we do support it, it can lead to things going back the right way.

quamp wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Comic sans? Really?

Is that all you can say about this?

"ZOMG HE USED A DIFFERENT FONT IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!1!1!1!ONE!!1"

Apparently, you've never seen Bamshalam rant about fonts. She despises Comic sans.

quamp wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Comic sans? Really?

Is that all you can say about this?

"ZOMG HE USED A DIFFERENT FONT IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!1!1!1!ONE!!1" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

Oh, honey. A simple statement=/=mountain.

theweirdkind wrote:

quamp wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Comic sans? Really?

Is that all you can say about this?

"ZOMG HE USED A DIFFERENT FONT IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!1!1!1!ONE!!1"

Apparently, you've never seen Bamshalam rant about fonts. She despises Comic sans.

Naw, I don't hate it, I just don't like it used in things it's entirely inappropriate for. Like serious news stories about unwarranted backlash against our president, for example.

Forget any partisan angle: this whole situation looks bad because of one simple fact:

One is the current President, the other is an ex-President. One is relevant to the country right now, the other is basically, legally, nothing more than any other private citizen.

The school administration looks petty and partisan saying "We'll ignore the current President, but pay to take the kiddies to see the former President." It'd look just as dumb if it happened eight years ago, and they were blowing off a Bush speech to take the kids to see Bill Clinton.

In their defense, if that was the case, Clinton was much more fun to listen to. I'd have probably opted out of a chance to see Bush speak, not based on our differing politics, but because he was so damn boring.

Lapin wrote:

In their defense, if that was the case, Clinton was much more fun to listen to. I'd have probably opted out of a chance to see Bush speak, not based on our differing politics, but because he was so damn boring.

I dunno, there was always the chance of him getting his foot firmly lodged in his throat while having his head stuck up his ass... amazing contortionist act, I hear. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's Texas. Why would they want to listen to the president of the US, when they can listen to the honorary president of Texas?

saeku wrote:

It's Texas. Why would they want to listen to the president of the US, when they can listen to the honorary president of Texas?

Heyheyheyheyhey... I take offense to that. :hmm:

Lapin wrote:

In their defense, if that was the case, Clinton was much more fun to listen to. I'd have probably opted out of a chance to see Bush speak, not based on our differing politics, but because he was so damn boring.

. . .

Obama is also boring.

Clinton not so much. He flails too much to be boring. He's irritating.

Lysander wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Clinton not so much. He flails too much to be boring. He's irritating.

*defuses North Korea crisis*

*gets called "irritating"*

Eh, to be fair, he only got the chance because Kimmy realized that no one was listening to his inane tantrums and grabbed at the chance to look even a little bit better to the rest of the world/have more propaganda material for his own people. But that's neither here nor there.