Like I said, "fairness" and "freedom" mean very different things to different people. The president may have his ideas on what that means, and conservative parents could have different ideas. My own ideas probably fall more in line with the president's, frankly. But I think there is room for legitimate disagreement there. And, yes, based on that disagreement, it's reasonable to question how the President plans to make the nation more fair, more free.
Let's also question him if he wants it to be "prosperous" or "healthy." Is there any word in the English language that one couldn't parse exactly as you did above and that pastor did before you? Jesus H Christ! Now he's getting criticized for saying the country should be fair and free?! Are you freaking kidding me? It takes a lot of work and a lot of nerve to pretend to find something wrong with that (as the pastor did). I don't even know what it takes a lot of to find that "reasonable" as you did but, to be frank, it blows my mind even more than anything the pastor said.
The full sentence from the speech: "You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free." He is talking about fairness and freedom in a liberal sense, which is fine by me but others may see things differently. He associates freedom with fairness and fighting poverty, etc. When he encourages kids to work to make the nation "more fair and more free", he's putting that in a certain context which I'm not surprised conservatives would question. They will read it as: "He's encouraging our kids to make the nation more fair/free by devoting their ideas and energy towards the collective good." What sort of values might kids take away from that? What sort of policies would it encourage kids to look positively at? What I'm saying is that questions of this sort are reasonable, regardless of where one may fall politically I'm not saying that Obama was wrong to put it in his speech, but I understand why some may have a problem with it.
but isn't "devoting their ideas and energy towards the collective good" very American? if Bush or any previous president said the above statement, I don't think they will have a problem with it..
Okay, as the father of a third grader who actually watched the speech at school today, I have a first hand review: Me: Hey bubba, how was the president's speech? Dylan: Borrrriinnggg. There you have it. He did say that at one point he was a little disoriented, but I'm not sure if it was the boredom or the subliminal programming taking effect.
That's not right! "Go **** yourself, I got mine." (Hard to believe he really made those villain expressions, constantly -- no photoshop.)
What’s crazy is this was a speech that Cheney would applaud. It was a very conservative speech. Personal responsibility, hard work, effort, citizenship. Are republicans against these things now?
Accepting your premise, what is wrong with making the nation more fair and free for the collective good?
Durvasa, respectfully (and I mean it; you're a great poster here) - you're really reaching. Only the most biased and partisan of listeners could construe "the collective good" as anything other than american success. The word collectivism or similar variants has been thrown around occasionally as of late in reference to Obama, but there is an enormous difference between that term (which is used incorrectly anyhow) and 'working towards the collective good'. You have parsed the words of the president's speech rather eloquently, but you have not parsed in a similar fashion the rationale one would need to construe this is anything but a reminder of social ethics and responsibility. Put another way, if the notions of "fairness" and "fighting poverty" invoke a questioning of one's agenda - I don't think we should be honoring that sides motivation as honorable, just, or worthy of consideration.
I don't know, but if Democrats are for it, esteban is against it. esteban, why don't you want students working hard in school?
So I just had somebody tell me that this was Obama's attempt at creating his version of the Hitler Youth. At first I thought she was just really bad at sarcasm, but it turns out that she's actually just bat sh** crazy.
obama said: I want you to fight homlessness and poverty. I want you to fight crime and descrimination. I want you to make our nation more fair and more free. (Compound sentence with three independent clauses) they read: I want you to fight homelessness and poverty, crime and descrimination in order to make our nation more fair and more free. (Compound-complex sentence with two independent clauses, and one dependent clause) As long as the three phrases remain independent from each other, they imply so such thing. They are three separate goals. What parents should be doing is dissecting the speech in this manner, discussing each of those goals with their kids individually, and teaching them how to correctly interpret and analyze the English language - rather than teaching them to put words in people's mouths to fit their own agenda.
Fringe nut job translator: A Republican says 'Do something for you country.' = Patriotic. A Democrat says 'Do something for your country.' = Commie mind control BS.
Some people would argue that true freedom and "fairness" are conflicting ideals. I don't disagree with this. Let me be clear. The pastor undoubtedly is trying to tear down Obama and argue that this was purposeful indoctrination. That is not what I'm defending. But the question of how Obama thinks we should go about making our nation more fair and more free still stands as perfectly reasonable to ask. Note how he puts fairness and freedom on equal footing in that sentence. From his perspective, that might make total sense. For someone with different leanings, such as the pastor or many conservative parents, fairness should be a secondary (if that) consideration. I'm not commenting on Obama's intentions here, but the effect of those words on children who consider it deeply would be to sway them away from the Republican platform. I personally don't have a problem with that, but I understand that others would and I consider it reasonable for them to question what Obama means by a more fair and more free nation.
For Obama, all those things go together. They are not independent ideas. Freedom requires fairness, and fairness requires dealing with poverty, crime, discrimination, etc. Not everyone sees it that way, but I'm pretty sure Obama does.
