Republicans don't want Obama talking to children?

[Numanoid]

Conservative media take note: Reagan preached tax cut gospel to America’s students
September 03, 2009 1:09 pm ET by Matt Gertz

Putting aside possible ulterior motives, the conservative freak-out over President Obama’s planned speech to students urging them to stay in school and work hard is due to fears that Obama will use his platform as an opportunity to push his agenda on unsuspecting students. Ironically, that’s exactly what President Reagan did two decades ago.

On November 14, 1988, Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marlin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “t o schools nationwide on three different days.” Much of Reagan’s speech that day covered the American “vision of self-government” and the need “to keep faith with the unfinished vision of the greatness and wonder of America” but in the middle of the speech, the president went off on a tangent about the importance of low taxes:

Today, to a degree never before seen in human history, one nation, the United States, has become the model to be followed and imitated by the rest of the world. But America's world leadership goes well beyond the tide toward democracy. We also find that more countries than ever before are following America's revolutionary economic message of free enterprise, low taxes, and open world trade. These days, whenever I see foreign leaders, they tell me about their plans for reducing taxes, and other economic reforms that they are using, copying what we have done here in our country.


I wonder if they realize that this vision of economic freedom, the freedom to work, to create and produce, to own and use property without the interference of the state, was central to the American Revolution, when the American colonists rebelled against a whole web of economic restrictions, taxes and barriers to free trade. The message at the Boston Tea Party -- have you studied yet in history about the Boston Tea Party, where because of a tax they went down and dumped the tea in the Harbor. Well, that was America's original tax revolt, and it was the fruits of our labor -- it belonged to us and not to the state. And that truth is fundamental to both liberty and prosperity.

During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Reagan returned to the topic, this time telling the students that lowering taxes increases revenue:

Q My name is Cam Fitzie and I'm from St. Agnes School in Alexandria, Virginia. I was wondering if you think that it is possible to decrease the national debt without raising the taxes of the public?


PRESIDENT REAGAN: I do. That's a big argument that's going on in government and I definitely believe it is because one of the principle reasons that we were able to get the economy back on track and create those new jobs and all was we cut the taxes, we reduced them. Because you see, the taxes can be such a penalty on people that there's no incentive for them to prosper and to earn more and so forth because they have to give so much to the government. And what we have found is that at the lower rates the government gets more revenue, there are more people paying taxes because there are more people with jobs and there are more people willing to earn more money because they get to keep a bigger share of it, so today, we're getting more revenue at the lower rates than we were at the higher. And do you know something? I studied economics in college when I was young and I learned there about a man named Ibn Khaldun, who lived 1200 years ago in Egypt. And 1200 years ago he said, in the beginning of the empire, the rates were low, the tax rates were low, but the revenue was great. He said in the end of empire, when the empire was collapsing, the rates were great and the revenue was low.

The students probably didn’t know any better, but this is an idea that has been rejected by virtually every economist not named Larry Kudlow.

Do Sean Hannity and the folks at NewsBusters think President Reagan was engaging in Maoist indoctrination? Do Glenn Beck and WorldNetDaily think Reagan was pulling a Mussolini or attempting to assemble his own Hitler Youth? Or is it possible that the conservative media has decided that if Obama is for it – whether “it” means “universal health care” or “stay in school” – they’re against it?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020

I'm sure this will be lost on the Republicans.

And I absolutely adore how the same people that were shouting "You're either with us or against us" and "If you don't support the President, you're siding with the terrorists" are now balking at the idea of supporting the President.

[Obey The D]

I love how they mention ending slavery several times, yet they pledge to be a servant to the president.
It's also great to know that now that we have a black president many black people are going to apparently drop the "african" from "african-american".

[arminius]

Originally Posted by sracer

The pledges in that video are about as meaningful and will be as effective as "Just say no" was for drugs, or "abstinence only" for premarital sex. What they all have in common is the mistaken belief that people are basically good.

Pledge allegiance to the president?! President Kennedy called for people to the greater vision of doing good for the country. Obama's followers make it about the man, Obama himself. But that difference is lost on his supporters.

When Bush supporters claimed that supporting the war in Iraq was patriotic, detractors cried "Fascism"... many still hold to that claim. And THAT was simply because of a call to rally around a cause. What do you call it when the rallying cry is for a particular individual?

Il Duce, Der Fuhrer, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. No good can come of this.
Cult of personality does not fit in with this country.

[TheBigDave]

Originally Posted by Numanoid

And I absolutely adore how the same people that were shouting "You're either with us or against us" and "If you don't support the President, you're siding with the terrorists" are now balking at the idea of supporting the President.

Or how the folks that were shouting "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism" are now calling dissenters "domestic terrorists".

[RagingBull80]

I think it's quite obvious why all of this is happening, he is black. No one wants a darkie trying to impose his witch doctor ways on their kids; which is obviously his agenda.

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by RagingBull80

I think it's quite obvious why all of this is happening, he is black. No one wants a darkie trying to impose his witch doctor ways on their kids; which is obviously his agenda.

Thanks for your insightful opinion, Now run along, adults are talking.

Look! A butterfly!

[Brack]

Originally Posted by mhg83

I could recall dozens of times when members of this forum would bring up "Well when Bush did this" The left does this more than the right.

When Bush did what? Care to describe an instance where they were accusing Bush of doing something that they also did themselves?

[Brack]

Originally Posted by TheBigDave

Or how the folks that were shouting "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism" are now calling dissenters "domestic terrorists".

It's these sort of arguments, saying some people said this about some other people that doesn't really describe the consensus of most people. That seems like a better barometer concerning national attitudes, not just these small groups of people.

[mhg83]

Originally Posted by Brack

When Bush did what? Care to describe an instance where they were accusing Bush of doing something that they also did themselves?

I dont know if we're on the same page or not. I was referring to the times when the right says something negative about Obama the left sometimes brings up Bush.

[BKenn01]

Originally posted by Numanoid

I'm sure this will be lost on the Republicans.

And I absolutely adore how the same people that were shouting "You're either with us or against us" and "If you don't support the President, you're siding with the terrorists" are now balking at the idea of supporting the President.

Nothing lost about it. The piece was obviouly written by a Liberal because he had to take time to bash Reagans policies.

[Thor Simpson]

I like how, once again, this is being painted as the opinion of all Republicans.

[Brack]

Originally Posted by Thor Simpson

I like how, once again, this is being painted as the opinion of all Republicans.

by just some people, or everybody else?

[RagingBull80]

Originally Posted by crazyronin

Thanks for your insightful opinion, Now run along, adults are talking.

Look! A butterfly!

I'm sorry? Oh that's right, you probably know everything. My mistake.

[Numanoid]

Originally Posted by BKenn01

Nothing lost about it. The piece was obviouly written by a Liberal because he had to take time to bash Reagans policies.

How does that change the fact that it happened?

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by RagingBull80

I'm sorry? you...know everything. My mistake.

Nice of you to put it in print. Now run along, little troll. I hear that your argument is rather popular on FARK. Why don't you go play with your brethren.

"U dont liek teh prezzident cus he R a darkie!!! Hurr Hurr!!! Derp!!!!eleventy!

[arminius]

Originally Posted by crazyronin

Nice of you to put it in print. Now run along, little troll. I hear that your argument is rather popular on FARK. Why don't you go play with your brethren.

"U dont liek teh prezzident cus he R a darkie!!! Hurr Hurr!!! Derp!!!!eleventy!

Who you calling a hobbit?

[Brack]

[BKenn01]

Originally Posted by Numanoid

How does that change the fact that it happened?

How do we know it happend. The link is to an article written by a liberal. Where is the link to an official source.

And so what if it did? I was a kid at that time. I never saw it. I am responsible for my kids now.

If it is going to be a work hard and study speech fine. But I dont want him talking about health care or the environment or whatever. Because I dont agree with his methods to resolve these issues.

[General Zod]

Originally Posted by Brack

I knew it!

That was great.. Thanks for posting.

[RagingBull80]

Originally Posted by crazyronin

Nice of you to put it in print. Now run along, little troll. I hear that your argument is rather popular on FARK. Why don't you go play with your brethren.

"U dont liek teh prezzident cus he R a darkie!!! Hurr Hurr!!! Derp!!!!eleventy!

First of all, I don't know what FARK means. Second of all, what's your problem? Third of all, you're being a complete dick-bag. Fourth of all, I would never type anything that remotely resembles the gibberish you typed up there.

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by RagingBull80

First of all, I don't know what FARK means.

Here ya go

Second of all, what's your problem?

Dumbassery in general. People who needlessly throw out the race card in particular.

Third of all, you're being a complete dick-bag.

Thoust wit has pricked me verily to the heart. Shall we now debate Wittgenstein over a fine port?

Fourth of all, I would never type anything that remotely resembles the gibberish you typed up there.

Yes. Yes you did.

[Pharoh]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Do people not understand just how horrific the Nazis were? Lately -- the past decade or so -- it seems like people throw around comparisons to Hitler as if the Holocaust were just something mildly bad, and not evil on an unprecedented scale. I mean, I get that people want to paint the other side as bad, but there's regular bad and there's genocide bad, and the two are nowhere near the same league.

Bah. Ignore me. I'm just pissy that we live in a world where Pat Buchanan can write a column blaming Poland for forcing Hitler to invade them without any repercussions to his media job.

I agree.


And I have made my views well known regarding the piece of shit that is buchanan, but I think I missed the article referenced here. I knew only of the glorious Russians blaming Poland with a straight face. Have a link?

[crazyronin]

Originally Posted by Pharoh

I agree.


And I have made my views well known regarding the piece of shit that is buchanan, but I think I missed the article referenced here. I knew only of the glorious Russians blaming Poland with a straight face. Have a link?

http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068

[Dimension X]

Originally Posted by BKenn01

How do we know it happend. The link is to an article written by a liberal. Where is the link to an official source.

Good point. There are no links in the article to support anything he says, and if you paste parts of it into Google, all you get are links to people spamming forums with quotes from the article (many including the same typos).

Edit: Found a transcript: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...88/111488c.htm

Edit again: No wonder I couldn't find it before. The "Cam Fitzie" mentioned in the article is actually named "Cameron Fitzhugh" according to this transcript. Way to go Matt Gertz.

Originally Posted by Numanoid

Seems to me this comparison would be more valid had Reagan addressed students in 1981 instead of 1988.

[VinVega]

Originally Posted by RagingBull80

First of all, I don't know what FARK means. Second of all, what's your problem? Third of all, you're being a complete dick-bag. Fourth of all, I would never type anything that remotely resembles the gibberish you typed up there.

mod warning - These kinds of personal attacks will not be tolerated here. Any further attacks against fellow posters will result in a political exile or a general suspension of posting privileges.