I don't feel there would be any need to "go on and on with this for years" due to the fact that you never cite facts.

Please feel free to present a copy of the objectionable speech. You know, the one that was never delivered.

As for the Bush address, I suppose you can doubt history, but that does not change history. Don't take my word for it. http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=3450&year=1991&month=10

We could go on and on with this for years and you would not accept that Obama was forced to change his speech because of parent and school board complaints (even though articles detailing the change have been in every major newspaper). Nor would you accept the logic of saying that parents and schools should screen material before their children are subjected to potentially objectionable material. You would not propose to give elementary children books like Lolita and then try to re-educate them about moral life choices, fo example. The speech by George Bush (if there was one) probably should have been treated the same way even though he did not have the same habit Obama has of hanging out with racist pastors, admitted bombers of government buildings and convicted felons. the point is parents and school boards have a responcibility to protect their charges and in this case I think they did a good job of it.

Well, if you were actually interested in open discussion, which you obviously are not, then you would want to offer up facts to support your assertions. In not doing so, your claims appear to lack foundation, and are easily dismissed.

You seem to be the one bent upon assumption. First you assume I am a Democrat, then you go on to make broad assumptions on the content of the speech you purport Obama was going to give.

What did you think about George Bush's address to school children in 1991? Were his aims solely politically motivated as well? Could it be instead that two sitting US presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, wanted to stress the importance a good education to our nation's youth?

As for Senator McCain's campaign stop, I personally think it was a wonderful chance for kids to see the political process firsthand. Of course, any campaigning politician is going to be employing campaign rhetoric, but as I have pointed out before, this allows parents an excellent chance to instill the values of critical thinking in their children. That way they will know the value of research and fact that stands behind to promises, some of them baseless, made by campaigning politicians, pundits, media, or bloggers.

Metro, I could tell you very specifically where I get my facts, but why should I? Everyone knows facts mean nothing to Democrats! If they did, Democrats wouldn't be complaining about man-made global warming (there has been no global warming for 11 years; man-made or other-wise). It facts meant anything to Democrats, they would have quit saying that George Bush was selected not elected in 2000 by now. If Democrats cared about facts, we could have a normal conversation about issues. As it is, Democrtats simply ignore inconvenient truths and make up their own "facts".
Had Obama given the speech he intended to give to students, it would have been a very political, indoctrinating speech. Parents and school boards did exaactly the right thing by complaining in the first place and by not allowing their charges to listen to the speech until after it was given.
It was very likely that there would be objectionable material in Obama's speech. Why should they have let their children listen/watch it and then respond to the objectionable parts. Better to preview it and not allow the children to see it if it was partisan.
The difference between the events mentioned was that the McCain event was billed as a political rally and evreyone expected Mr. McCain to be campaigning. The speech Obama gave was disguised as non-partisan address to children. But people who saw the advance material found out what he had planned and raised a fuss. I for one am glad they did.

rkp, from where are your "facts" gathered?

You assert that the speech would have been "brainwashing" however, as I have said before, Parents have much greater access to their children, and if they disagreed with points that the president had made, they have a much greater opportunity to instill their own views. Of course, to do so would require a parent to examine the speech and form a cohesive response to that which they find objectionable.

Ultimately, it was cheer-leading to work hard and stay in school... Just what is so objectionable about that?

Now that the facts about this speech are out, we know the Defiance Schools administration made the right decision. When the plans for this speech were first made known, it was supposed to be a very partisan speech. The National Education Associqation by-passed elected boards of education and supplied directions and work sheets directly to teachers' unions. The speech, as planned, would have enlisted students to praise Obama and teachers were supposed to ask students to write essays explaining how they could help Obama further his socialist objectives. Enough stink was raised that those plans were almost totally scrapped. As a result, schools that decided not to have their students indoctrinated by Obama look a little foolish because the speech came off as non-partisan.
But, had every school blindly kept their mouths shut and let Obama;s speech go off as planned, our children would have been subjected to brain-washing of the worst kind.
Even so, Obama lied to them by telling them that personal responcibility was important. He does not believe that! Every program he proposes down-plays personal responcibility in favor of government intervention in our lives.
The schools made the right decision. Given Obama's past associations, they were right to listen to the speech BEFORE letting the students hear it. I'm sure our brothers and sisters on the left would have advocated such a policy had President Bush or Dick Chenney wanted to talk directly to students.

Listen here Twiddle-Dee and Twiddle-Dumb! Neither one of you have a lick of sense. Obviously, small noodles, narrow minded, short sticks, full of gas, shoots and stinks all in the wrong direction; oh no, Cheney twins! Over compensation will not makeup for your "short" comings.

Three hots for a cot? Try something else "Shorty" it won't work here.

DLB, talk is cheap and so are you. You wouldn't know ie or ei; or ORC or OAC; lo or low; sense or cents. Your intelligence is just as long as your stick and just as narrow as your sight. When women say size matters, it really does extend to the brain. Decimate? Lessons learned?

Although I respect your opinions and I gladly argue mine, but you DLB, are by far a complete oaf! Take it as you wish, but arguing one's opinion is merely expressing ones ideas. Discussing the points, maintaining integrity and truth yet remain open to new possibilities, ideas or suggestions. You have not the common sense or vigor to debate sensibly and you choose to use deleterious attacks to detract from your arguments that clearly have no foundation or merits, and are at best characterized as an unimaginable lump with no conscionable reason only to lie and wait, as only any cancer does. Those BAMA degrees you keep spouting about must have been earned through ACME USA and not an accredited college. No matter what DLB, this will not have any baring on your bias', character, personality, views, or ideas; because you will never get past you.

You have issues with Oakwood that's your problem! You think I'm stuck up so what! Nobody cares! Besides, the only reason that you do is 1. I'm a person sticking up for what I believe in and do so with some degree of snuff; 2. I'm a woman that doesn't have a problem telling someone like you that you are a complete oaf and I continue to stay steadfast to those beliefs; 3. Obviously, you have issues with women who tell people like you that you are a complete oaf and use ridiculous and outlandish information only to detract from the original issues. 4. Although commendable, those degrees don't mean a hill a beans if one lacks the ability to use them; 5. By attacking me, who I am or where I live, how have they any meaningful purpose to the issues? It doesn't! It's the only way you can argue. There's a saying, "Throw enough crap on the wall and something will stick", it's nothing more than a splat of stink; 6. If you can't stick to the "facts" or "argument' and attack me personally for no apparent reason just remember, if I'm wrong I humbly eat crow, if you are wrong you become crow.

In terms of the Defiance school administration, not knowing all the facts, I would hate to speculate as to the reasons why but keep this in mind, that nearly every president has at one point talked to students for one reason or another. Not sure but isn't there a famous picture of a young William Clinton with President Kennedy who had just given a speech on the benefits on volunteering? Reagan's war on drugs, etc. If there are legitimate issues, then by all means, let us bring them out and discuss, but merely bringing up false claims to negate the real issues is a total injustice to the America people and future generations.

DLB,
Congratulations for a fine comment. You are qualified to state intelligent opinions. I believe that we have a right to be respected whether we are the minority or the majority. I could make some nasty remarks, but I won't out of respect. I do think we should be "fired up". It seems that Democrats have turned on Obama. The House voted 429-2 against Obama, who tried to evade the law by "signing statements". Democrats are included in that vote. The Senate voted 83-7 to cut off funding to ACORN. Obama and ACORN are synonymous; he trained them and he tries to send money their way. Again, Democrats are included in that vote.
I appreciate that you went to the protest, and I appreciate that you speak out here. Keep up the good work!

Duh huh DLB buckwheet!!! Dhats rite. I juz thogt I wood speek yor languag sinz dhats alll yu know. Otay buckwheet! Obvusly, yuz has somting to prov too bad yuz came upz short. Beter lucke netz time.
Otay buckwheet! Duh huh! Duh huh!

Aint nophing abot mez yuz the one talk'n abot yuzselph and alll. juz looksie arond an myz kin ship saild in thes partz manyy hundred yrz ago or lived in US of A alredy but alll of'em proud peeple yuz know. Simple nozbodyz lik judgez, law officerz, docz, Marines and Army, farmerz, School superz and teacherz, and manyyz morz but mes Iz nevr said Iz done anythag and qite frankly nozbodi carez except yuz. Soz yuz go onz anz entertain uz soms more cuz itz funny! yuz cracken mes up! Yuz take carez noww. Otay buckwheet! Oh, redz not yorz color tryz on black.

Most Humbly,
CLWest

Point by point, clwest, I decimated your laughable arguments in our last encounter. Yet here you are again. At least this time you're saving yourself the embarrassment of being proven wrong in everything you say and going right to the redneck, racist, misogynistic line. You know, it must really suck to be so mentally incompetent and so completely ignorant of the facts underlying the issues that you must continually resort to your pathetic tactics. If I'm so stupid, where the heck does that leave you? Know the issues before you open your mouth or shut your stupid trap.

Since you are so fond of swimming in the gutter, allow me to join you. In your rant about "natinal' health care, you challenged me about my resume. Well I now issue that challenge to you. What the heck have you ever done but live your entire live in Oakwood, redneck central if I've ever seen one, servicing your husband for your three hots and a cot? And that's not an insult to women, it is a specific insult to a pathetic, do-nothing bumpkin proclaiming her superiority despite having nothing to back the claim. What have you ever done, where have you ever been in your entire life?

You're welcome to come to my home so I can show you my Bachelor's degree and my Master's degree. I'll be happy to show you my transcripts and explain to you how, unsatisfied with a 3.51 as an undergrad, I buckled down and achieved a 3.67 in grad school. Then I'll introduce you to my wife, who also has a Bachelor's degree, and you can talk to a woman who knows how to balance career and family. And if I'm not busy cooking dinner, dropping my daughter off at school, or picking her up after Girl Scouts, I'll introduce you to my biracial son, who's mother also happens to believe that the president has surrounded himself with communists. It's the Czars, you idiot, that I said have communist leanings, not Acorn.

So go ahead and yuk it up all you want in Oakwood. Surround yourself with idiots your entire life and I'm sure you'll keep thinking how much smarter you are then everyone around you.

By the way to the other posters, after having seen the reports and feedback about his message AFTER the transcripts were posted, there really was nothing wrong with it. The problem that many had was the Obama curriculum that had the appearance of indoctrination. Had the man had the common sense to release the transcripts at the first sign of public questioning and to retract the curriculum, he could have squashed the nonsense. Instead, he released them on Labor Day, long after administrators had to make their decision.

Now beins I doesn't geet out of the trailor park too often, I don't know the administrators at Defiance Schools. But I doubt very seriously that they would not have taken the kids to see Obama had he bothered to show any interest in Defiance.