Whattaya think of this?

[j2k4]

Harmless?

Or Little Red Book-like?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/elementary-school-students-reportedly-taught-songs-praising-president-obama/

[Skiz]

I think politics should be taught at home.

Reminds me of another story that came out yesterday. The real substance starts at 2:00 in.



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

[j2k4]

Yeah, but hey, it's Foxnews, so nobody saw it but us, and on top of that, it's Foxnews, and, in case you weren't aware, nobody watches Foxnews without the YouTube filter.

Foxnews had it, nobody else cares.

Not CNN.

Not CBS

Not ABC

Certainly not NBC.

Even the State net (PBS) gave it a miss, eh?

[Skiz]

Of course.

In my Googling to find that video, I found none of your latter mentioned news outlets reporting that bit of news.

The source isn't even attempting to calm the storm by downplaying their intentions. They're actually quite proud of their socialist work (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dpike/detail??blogid=161&entry_id=48228).

[j2k4]

Maybe we'll get to see how proud they can afford to be under another administration.

[devilsadvocate]

Yeah, but hey, it's Foxnews, so nobody saw it but us, and on top of that, it's Foxnews, and, in case you weren't aware, nobody watches Foxnews without the YouTube filter.

Foxnews had it, nobody else cares.

Not CNN.

Not CBS

Not ABC

Certainly not NBC.

Even the State net (PBS) gave it a miss, eh?

CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5335819.shtml

msnbc must have covered it because the MRC complained about them http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090924060922.aspx

I can't be bothered looking for the rest, but I 'm pretty sure your accusation is about as reality based as this

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/105636/original.jpg


The kids shouldn't be singing this stuff without permission from the parents, but of even greater concern to me is someone put video of children online without permission from the parents.

You do realize that Obama didn't have anything to do with this?

[clocker]

You do realize that Obama didn't have anything to do with this?

Of course they're aware of that but it doesn't matter.

Much like the recent brouhaha about "czars", it's worse when Obama is President.

Socialism amplifies everything, dontcha know.

[Skiz]

Don't deviate. No one said Obama was behind this. No one mentioned his name or even insinuated the Presidency.

J2's question (of sorts) was whether or not that type of thing is harmless.

[devilsadvocate]

Don't deviate. No one said Obama was behind this. No one mentioned his name or even insinuated the Presidency.

J2's question (of sorts) was whether or not that type of thing is harmless.

Okay I promise no deviation from the subject of if it's harmless or not.



Other than to not talk about if it is harmless or not and instead post an unconnected video and complain (mistakenly) that nobody but fox covered it, because that's acceptable.

[Skiz]

I'm just saying that because every single thread here recently gets derailed and on to some Obama nonsense.

The video I posted is not directly related to the video J2 posted but, it's on the same topic of indoctrinating children in school.

[j2k4]

They don't mind the idea of indoctrination, Skiz, and as long as these types of things are arranged by SHITHEAD's surrogates, SHITHEAD maintains deniability.

[clocker]

I'm just saying that because every single thread here recently gets derailed and on to some Obama nonsense.

The video I posted is not directly related to the video J2 posted but, it's on the same topic of indoctrinating children in school.


They don't mind the idea of indoctrination, Skiz, and as long as these types of things are arranged by SHITHEAD's surrogates, SHITHEAD maintains deniability.
Why don't you two talk amongst yourselves and work this out.

[j2k4]

Fine - take the other guy with you when you go.

[devilsadvocate]

Does this count, or is it "different"?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/


At the annual White House Easter Egg Roll (http://www.whitehouse.gov/easter/2006/), children from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:
http://wsj.com/public/resources/images/OB-AB021_whiteh_20060417190727.jpg
Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!

[j2k4]

Does this count, or is it "different"?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/


At the annual White House Easter Egg Roll (http://www.whitehouse.gov/easter/2006/), children from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:
http://wsj.com/public/resources/images/OB-AB021_whiteh_20060417190727.jpg
Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!



It is different.

See if you can tell us how.

[clocker]

It is different.

See if you can tell us how.
Easy.
Bush isn't black.

[Snee]

Harmless?

Or Little Red Book-like?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/elementary-school-students-reportedly-taught-songs-praising-president-obama/

I still don't agree with your constant "Obama = socialist" issues. Thinking of the "Little Red Book"-reference here (well, that'd make him communist really, but I know it's pretty much all the same to you, and we've had THAT discussion already).

Which would be a good thing if he was one, as I quite like certain socialist ideals.

Obama's economic policies, on the other hand, are increasingly Keynesian, which is liberal (and that's not socialism) through and through.

If socialism included Keynesian economics, it'd be off-putting.

As for the rest, well, it's creepy, and stupid, and very american. Don't really see what the big deal is, though. I assume society's goal is still to produce individuals that can think for themselves over there. Some singing shouldn't be able to change that.

[Skiz]

Does this count, or is it "different"?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/


At the annual White House Easter Egg Roll (http://www.whitehouse.gov/easter/2006/), children from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:
http://wsj.com/public/resources/images/OB-AB021_whiteh_20060417190727.jpg
Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!


I see it as being similar in that it's on the same path.

I wouldn't say it was anywhere near the content of the recent affairs though which is far more 'in depth'.

Why do you bring it up?

[j2k4]

It is different.

See if you can tell us how.
Easy.
Bush isn't black.

True enough.

The ironic part is that, according to your liberal template, neither is Michael Steele.

Nor is Clarence Thomas.

Nor Thomas Sowell.

Nor Walter Williams.

Nor Armstrong Williams.

Nor Janice Rogers Brown.

Nor Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Nor Shelby Steele.

Nor Larry Elder.

Nor Roy Innis.

Now, that was easy.

[j2k4]

Edit: dbl post

[clocker]

That wasn't clever enough to warrant a double post.

[j2k4]

Harmless?

Or Little Red Book-like?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/elementary-school-students-reportedly-taught-songs-praising-president-obama/

I still don't agree with your constant "Obama = socialist" issues. Thinking of the "Little Red Book"-reference here (well, that'd make him communist really, but I know it's pretty much all the same to you, and we've had THAT discussion already).

Which would be a good thing if he was one, as I quite like certain socialist ideals.

Obama's economic policies, on the other hand, are increasingly Keynesian, which is liberal (and that's not socialism) through and through.

If socialism included Keynesian economics, it'd be off-putting.

As for the rest, well, it's creepy, and stupid, and very american. Don't really see what the big deal is, though. I assume society's goal is still to produce individuals that can think for themselves over there. Some singing shouldn't be able to change that.

So, then-

Do you suppose things would be better for you, where you are, if the U.S. adopted a socialist system?

Do you think we might resist socialism as the mideast resists democracy?

Do you think we should "bow to the inevitability" of socialism?

BTW-

I make the communist references for the reason of SHITHEAD's inclusion of unabashed communist content in his appointment of "czars", etc.

I am not mixing apples and oranges, so just drop that idea.

[j2k4]

That wasn't clever enough to warrant a double post.

I wasn't aiming for clever, I was aiming for correct.

Good morning, btw; I seem to have underslept.

[devilsadvocate]

Turns out this was back in February and was part of black history month and during the presentation other presidents were mentioned.

Add to this the full script with the lyrics was sent home to the parents before the event and there were no complaints. So I now withdraw my concerns about the singing. This is no more indoctrination than learning the tale of Washington and the cherry tree.

I still have a problem with a video of children being posted online without the full consent of all the parents, assuming not all the parents did agree.

[clocker]

I make the communist references for the reason of SHITHEAD's inclusion of unabashed communist content in his appointment of "czars", etc.


What does this even mean?

Probably nothing, but thought I'd give you the opportunity to explain...

[j2k4]

Snee believes I am overstating when I link SHITHEAD's appointments with the causes they have espoused over the years.

[Snee]

I still don't agree with your constant "Obama = socialist" issues. Thinking of the "Little Red Book"-reference here (well, that'd make him communist really, but I know it's pretty much all the same to you, and we've had THAT discussion already).

Which would be a good thing if he was one, as I quite like certain socialist ideals.

Obama's economic policies, on the other hand, are increasingly Keynesian, which is liberal (and that's not socialism) through and through.

If socialism included Keynesian economics, it'd be off-putting.

As for the rest, well, it's creepy, and stupid, and very american. Don't really see what the big deal is, though. I assume society's goal is still to produce individuals that can think for themselves over there. Some singing shouldn't be able to change that.

So, then-

Do you suppose things would be better for you, where you are, if the U.S. adopted a socialist system?
I'd expect no real difference, tbh. Your culture would still be what it is at its core. You'd just have a different market, and a different way of running health care and whatnot.

Most likely actual socialism couldn't be adopted wholesale, and you'd have a social democrat system. Kinda like us.


Do you think we might resist socialism as the mideast resists democracy?

I'm sure you have issues enough with it for that to be possible as far as yourself is concerned. As for the US as a whole, I'd assume a notable majority in favour of it, for it to be adopted, so on a nation wide -scale, no.


Do you think we should "bow to the inevitability" of socialism?

Hardly. But it's a choice some societies make, and others don't. Inevitable it isn't.

It's not dangerous either.



BTW-

I make the communist references for the reason of SHITHEAD's inclusion of unabashed communist content in his appointment of "czars", etc.

I am not mixing apples and oranges, so just drop that idea.
Fair enough.

[Snee]

Also, I don't even know wtf kind of acronym you've amusingly turned around there. Can't really be bothered to look it up, either.


EDit: And for the record: Czars = not communist or socialist.

[j2k4]

Also, I don't even know wtf kind of acronym you've amusingly turned around there. Can't really be bothered to look it up, either.

Me, either...haven't the slightest idea what you're on about, there.


: And for the record: Czars = not communist or socialist.

Okay, for the record:

I am well-aware the appellation "czar" has naught to do with communism or socialism, but is rather purely a Russian reference - however, "czar" is used by the administration itself, as well the media.

Who am I to contradict.

[Snee]

Me, either...haven't the slightest idea what you're on about, there.


They don't mind the idea of indoctrination, Skiz, and as long as these types of things are arranged by SHITHEAD's surrogates, SHITHEAD maintains deniability.


I make the communist references for the reason of SHITHEAD's inclusion of unabashed communist content in his appointment of "czars", etc.

Snee believes I am overstating when I link SHITHEAD's appointments with the causes they have espoused over the years.

:dabs:


Okay, for the record:

I am well-aware the appellation "czar" has naught to do with communism or socialism, but is rather purely a Russian reference [...]

Oki doki then.

[Snee]

Just going off on a tangent, and adding something about this, btw:

So, then-

Do you suppose things would be better for you, where you are, if the U.S. adopted a socialist system?

I think you might do better at communism than the Soviet Union did.

Like this guy (http://dbzer0.com/blog/misunderstanding-communism-its-not-ussr), I don't think it actually was socialist and/or communist for very long. And if his (and others') claim, that communism needs to start off with a dysfunctional mode of capitalism is true, the US comes a lot closer to being a good starting point. (I'm not sure I agree with their supposition, but it's one point of view.)

And for it to be implemented at all, like I said, I'd expect wide-spread acceptance, and if come by by a revolution, not a bloody one, as that never seems to work that well. I mean, that's how we got France :dabs:

[j2k4]

Well, that is precisely why communism doesn't work - sooner or later, human frailty weighs in, and communism has no mechanism for dealing with dissent, apart from the gulag and the pogrom.

I've said it before - communism works terrifically well on paper; it just doesn't work on people...who are either oppressed or corrupt.

[papushika]

cool

[bigboab]

Well, that is precisely why communism doesn't work - sooner or later, human frailty weighs in, and communism has no mechanism for dealing with dissent, apart from the gulag and the pogrom.

I've said it before - communism works terrifically well on paper; it just doesn't work on people...who are either oppressed or corrupt.


We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?:whistling

[j2k4]

Well, that is precisely why communism doesn't work - sooner or later, human frailty weighs in, and communism has no mechanism for dealing with dissent, apart from the gulag and the pogrom.

I've said it before - communism works terrifically well on paper; it just doesn't work on people...who are either oppressed or corrupt.


We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?:whistling

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.

[bigboab]

We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?:whistling

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.
Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

[Snee]

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.
Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

I think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)

Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.

By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.

This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.

Is that about right, Kev?

EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.

[j2k4]

Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:


Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.


Those are MY words.
Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

Quit playing dumb, Robert.




Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

I think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)

Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.

By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.

This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.

Is that about right, Kev?

EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.

You too, Snee.

Following your "Randroid" comment with that^ smacks of a particularly non-Snee-like disingenuity.

For you even to be participating here is a treat; however I am disappointed you can't muster your laser-like intellect for the occasion.

Perhaps some really strong coffee...

[Snee]

Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

Quit playing dumb, Robert.




Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?

I think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)

Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.

By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.

This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.

Is that about right, Kev?

EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.

You too, Snee.

Following your "Randroid" comment with that^ smacks of a particularly non-Snee-like disingenuity.

For you even to be participating here is a treat; however I am disappointed you can't muster your laser-like intellect for the occasion.

Perhaps some really strong coffee...

I don't do coffee :snooty:

But that did come off as too strong, it did.

To put it another way: I find that your view on what's right and proper often point towards a bias for rational egoism. I, on the other hand, often lean towards utilitarism (which is almost at the opposite end of the spectrum). Given that inclination, it does help help to try and look at it from what I percieve to be your perspective, when it doesn't make sense from mine.

I reckon that capitalism very much agrees with you. And I also reckon that capitalism in it's purest form is as close as you can ever come to seeing what's the very best thing according rational egoism in practice.

Looking at it from my point of view, capitalism capitalizes on human frailty in a way that works for people who are doing alright inside of the system, although not for those who don't really have the proper killer instinct to really profit from working the system (the frail?). There's room for the latter inside of the system, but it's at the bottom of the pyramid, if that makes sense. But that's ok, because everyone can't live at the top.

I think capitalism needs people to inhabit the lowest point, else there'd not be enough consumers, and not enough motivation to strive upwards.

[Snee]

It just hit me how very little the above post has to do with the original topic :pinch: :lol:

[j2k4]

I reckon that capitalism very much agrees with you. And I also reckon that capitalism in it's purest form is as close as you can ever come to seeing what's the very best thing according rational egoism in practice.

Looking at it from my point of view, capitalism capitalizes on human frailty in a way that works for people who are doing alright inside of the system, although not for those who don't really have the proper killer instinct to really profit from working the system (the frail?). There's room for the latter inside of the system, but it's at the bottom of the pyramid, if that makes sense. But that's ok, because everyone can't live at the top.

I think capitalism needs people to inhabit the lowest point, else there'd not be enough consumers, and not enough motivation to strive upwards.

I'll start by saying MY version of capitalism doesn't countenance the predatory practices you find so upsetting - I find them to be problematic as well, and would work to eliminate them.

Funny, though:

The current secular modus looks askance at any attempt to "lay a guilt-trip" on the guilty, reasoning that such horrible social mores are the work-product of the "insane religious right".

You can see the difficulty of making these things work properly, but I always thought humans could manage some solutions, wouldn't you agree?

Another thing-

I don't know how one goes about eliminating the "bottom" rung of the social ladder; you can broaden it with certain financial practices and government programs, but it's still the bottom.

Let me try to distill things properly here, relative to your predilection for painting me with the brush of Randianism:

In a world where results cannot be guaranteed, but where a striving to widen opportunity will have guaranteed benefit, why would you want to institute entitlements that steal the one thing an otherwise unadorned individual can choose have - a drive or work ethic for it's own sake?

If I have the ability to run faster than you, or throw farther, or work longer before exhaustion, or think better or more creatively, why should my talents go unrewarded, relative to someone with less drive or talent?

If they CANNOT, then society should provide.

If they CAN but choose NOT to, what claim have they to any more than they earn or produce?

Many of the latter are spurred from laziness by a desire for greater comforts or more goods.

Motivation is where you find it.

I could go on, but.

[j2k4]

It just hit me how very little the above post has to do with the original topic :pinch: :lol:

Yeah, but that's why we do this, and I have it on good authority the thread's author is totally ok with the fact.