Obama's Political Speech to Brainwash Our Kids

[HAL 9000 96]

If you care to read back (you won't, likely)you'll notice whom started the thread with a very clear sarcastic implication that perhaps, due to political hackery, you may have missed.

The speech is not a brainwashing attempt. Get over it. Its news because of the ignorance behind the entire thing. Not something exactly surprising given the volatile and ridiculously silly nature of the reactionary sour losers apparently prevalent in this country at the moment.

Still haven't mastered the quotation function yet? Until you do so I don't know what you're referring to (that's most of the time). Mystery not clarity defines your writing style.

Sarcasm's ok in my book and not beyond you so quit crying about it.

Still whining?

[rebeccajo 14]

I will agree though, that posing such awkward questions can be fun, for a while

Hey, I just asked a question because I figure anybody whose got THAT strong of an opinion about what kids should and shouldn't be seeing in school has probably got a vested interest - you know like A KID IN SCHOOL.

Instead of a simple yes or no, we get voodoo BS about his 'seed'.

Whaddya think?

[HAL 9000 96]

IMO he doesn't have to tell anyone anything either way about wether he has kids/no kids to contribute an opinion. I think calling him a deadbeat dad was kind of OTT too. I took what he said to mean he didn't have to answer questions about his kids/or lack of to give his opinion.

That's just how I read it, anyway.

I realize you're bored, Michele. Go find another playground.

is no one else allowed to say what they think? He did, I did and you most certainly do; but I really do think your 'deadbeat dad' comment was uncalled for. You don't. We disagree. That's all.

Yeah RJ... that wasn't that cool...

Besides isn't there enough whining in this thread already to up the drama?

[The Dude 206]

If you care to read back (you won't, likely)you'll notice whom started the thread with a very clear sarcastic implication that perhaps, due to political hackery, you may have missed.

The speech is not a brainwashing attempt. Get over it. Its news because of the ignorance behind the entire thing. Not something exactly surprising given the volatile and ridiculously silly nature of the reactionary sour losers apparently prevalent in this country at the moment.

Still haven't mastered the quotation function yet? Until you do so I don't know what you're referring to (that's most of the time). Mystery not clarity defines your writing style.

Sarcasm's ok in my book and not beyond you so quit crying about it.

That's quite funny that you call someone out about using quote tags when you yourself can't seem to master it. It's quite a simple task to quote other posts so that it will include the quoted person's name and time of their post. You however are lazy or simply don't know how to do it. In either case, the irony of your post is palpable.

[HAL 9000 96]

If you care to read back (you won't, likely)you'll notice whom started the thread with a very clear sarcastic implication that perhaps, due to political hackery, you may have missed.

The speech is not a brainwashing attempt. Get over it. Its news because of the ignorance behind the entire thing. Not something exactly surprising given the volatile and ridiculously silly nature of the reactionary sour losers apparently prevalent in this country at the moment.

Still haven't mastered the quotation function yet? Until you do so I don't know what you're referring to (that's most of the time). Mystery not clarity defines your writing style.

Sarcasm's ok in my book and not beyond you so quit crying about it.

That's quite funny that you call someone out about using quote tags when you yourself can't seem to master it. It's quite a simple task to quote other posts so that it will include the quoted person's name and time of their post. You however are lazy or simply don't know how to do it. In either case, the irony of your post is palpable.

Its called whining over minutiae. Ironically, Dave might not know that different computer systems and different internet browsers treat forum code differently depending on the privacy settings and other considerations.

[Peikko 1,575]

I will agree though, that posing such awkward questions can be fun, for a while

Hey, I just asked a question because I figure anybody whose got THAT strong of an opinion about what kids should and shouldn't be seeing in school has probably got a vested interest - you know like A KID IN SCHOOL.

Instead of a simple yes or no, we get voodoo BS about his 'seed'.

Whaddya think?

I think he does it because he lacks any credible argument and prefers to wrangle red herrings

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Ok - stop it with the bickering . . . discuss the topic of the thread but leave the personal insults and innuendos behind. They really add nothing to the discussion.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Kathryn41

[HAL 9000 96]

... So... what was it that Obama apparently said that is brainwashing?

[Peikko 1,575]

No idea. I don't like political speeches so I don't really care either.

[HAL 9000 96]

No idea. I don't like political speeches so I don't really care either.

I did find this graphical word analysis:

Obama's 9/8/09 speech

Bush speech 10/1/91

Reagan speech 11/14/88

All based on word-weight frequency analysis.

[rebeccajo 14]

IMO he doesn't have to tell anyone anything either way about wether he has kids/no kids to contribute an opinion. I think calling him a deadbeat dad was kind of OTT too. I took what he said to mean he didn't have to answer questions about his kids/or lack of to give his opinion.

That's just how I read it, anyway.

I realize you're bored, Michele. Go find another playground.

is no one else allowed to say what they think? He did, I did and you most certainly do; but I really do think your 'deadbeat dad' comment was uncalled for. You don't. We disagree. That's all.

Yeah RJ... that wasn't that cool...

Besides isn't there enough whining in this thread already to up the drama?

-1 for me then.

I know who likes to post after me just to stir the pot.

[The Dude 206]

IMO he doesn't have to tell anyone anything either way about wether he has kids/no kids to contribute an opinion. I think calling him a deadbeat dad was kind of OTT too. I took what he said to mean he didn't have to answer questions about his kids/or lack of to give his opinion.

That's just how I read it, anyway.

I realize you're bored, Michele. Go find another playground.

is no one else allowed to say what they think? He did, I did and you most certainly do; but I really do think your 'deadbeat dad' comment was uncalled for. You don't. We disagree. That's all.

Yeah RJ... that wasn't that cool...

Besides isn't there enough whining in this thread already to up the drama?

-1 for me then.

I know who likes to post after me just to stir the pot.

Just put a positive spin on it. He's not an imbecile who is incapable of making a coherent point, he's a fan.

[Peikko 1,575]

No idea. I don't like political speeches so I don't really care either.

I did find this graphical word analysis:

Obama's 9/8/09 speech

Bush speech 10/1/91

Reagan speech 11/14/88

All based on word-weight frequency analysis.

That is pretty cool - even I can get behind that

[rebeccajo 14]

Just put a positive spin on it. He's not an imbecile who is incapable of making a coherent point, he's a fan.

Ooooh. You've got a point there.

[HAL 9000 96]

IMO he doesn't have to tell anyone anything either way about wether he has kids/no kids to contribute an opinion. I think calling him a deadbeat dad was kind of OTT too. I took what he said to mean he didn't have to answer questions about his kids/or lack of to give his opinion.

That's just how I read it, anyway.

I realize you're bored, Michele. Go find another playground.

is no one else allowed to say what they think? He did, I did and you most certainly do; but I really do think your 'deadbeat dad' comment was uncalled for. You don't. We disagree. That's all.

Yeah RJ... that wasn't that cool...

Besides isn't there enough whining in this thread already to up the drama?

-1 for me then.

I know who likes to post after me just to stir the pot.

Well you are pretty blunt sometimes. And sometimes it rocks.

No idea. I don't like political speeches so I don't really care either.

I did find this graphical word analysis:

Obama's 9/8/09 speech

Bush speech 10/1/91

Reagan speech 11/14/88

All based on word-weight frequency analysis.

That is pretty cool - even I can get behind that

Socialist evildoer...