Obama writes girl a note for missing school

[Name Lips]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31271867/


Obama writes girl a note for missing school
President’s message to teacher: ‘Please excuse absence. She’s with me’

GREEN BAY, Wis. - Ten-year-old Kennedy Corpus has a rock-solid excuse for missing the last day of school: a personal note to her teacher from President Barack Obama.

Her father, John Corpus of Green Bay, stood to ask Obama about health care during the president's town hall-style meeting at Southwest High School on Thursday. He told Obama that his daughter was missing school to attend the event and that he hoped she didn't get in trouble.

"Do you need me to write a note?" Obama asked. The crowd laughed, but the president was serious.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

On a piece of paper, he wrote: "To Kennedy's teacher: Please excuse Kennedy's absence. She's with me. Barack Obama." He stepped off the stage to hand-deliver the note — to Kennedy's surprise.

"I thought he was joking until he started walking down," Kennedy said after the event, showing off the note in front of a bank of television cameras. "It was like the best thing ever."

The fourth-grader at Aldo Leopold elementary in Green Bay already knew what she was going to do with the note: frame it along with her ticket to the event. She said she'd make a copy for her teacher.

Kennedy said she had never seen Obama before. "He's really nice," she said.
All politics aside, boy can that man milk a photo op. :tongue: That's just awesome. It would be awesome no matter what President did it, frankly - that girl's going to have a great memory and memento - though Obama's pretty quick on his feet and knows how to work a crowd. Bush always seemed awkward when he was off-script... but each leader has to play to his own strengths.

I've heard amused conservative pundits observe that Obama seems to have failed to notice that the election is over - it's like he's still campaigning. I wonder if this strategy will pay off in 2012.

[shiningbrow]

After the last 8 years, almost everything this guy does or says is refreshing. I agree he's one charming man and that kid is really lucky, both because her father cares enough to speak out about the horrible health care crisis, and because he thought to include his children in this example of democracy at work. The president's sweet note only puts icing on the cake.

[Megamieuwsel]

I've heard amused conservative pundits observe that Obama seems to have failed to notice that the election is over - it's like he's still campaigning.
Mind if I read that as: "Conservative pundits shooting themselves in the foot with a hollow-point..."?

[PWD]

Mind if I read that as: "Conservative pundits shooting themselves in the foot with a hollow-point..."?

Sure, if you replace foot with ass, and hollow-point with exploding dildo.

[Megamieuwsel]

Sure, if you replace foot with ass, and hollow-point with exploding dildo.

A glass one, I assume?

[PWD]

A glass one, I assume?

You sir get a cookie.

[Trainz]

I've heard amused conservative pundits observe that Obama seems to have failed to notice that the election is over - it's like he's still campaigning. I wonder if this strategy will pay off in 2012.

Heh.

It's like conservative pundits are on a perpetual quest to see who can act the most douchebagest.

In my mind, they're all "winners".

[Utrecht]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31271867/


All politics aside, boy can that man milk a photo op. :tongue: That's just awesome. It would be awesome no matter what President did it, frankly - that girl's going to have a great memory and memento - though Obama's pretty quick on his feet and knows how to work a crowd. Bush always seemed awkward when he was off-script... but each leader has to play to his own strengths.


Actually it is the opposite - Bush tended to be a better off the cuff kind of guy - he was always very stilted in formal speeach. Obama (and his teleprompter) are fairly famous at this point. That is not to say that Obama is bad off the cuff - he is just not as affable as Bush was.


I've heard amused conservative pundits observe that Obama seems to have failed to notice that the election is over - it's like he's still campaigning. I wonder if this strategy will pay off in 2012.

Certainly a big part of this is sour grapes - but underneath it there are some kernals - his big speeches recently do sound like his campaign speeches - in that he builds up strawmen arguments through moral equivelance and the presents himself as the moderate.

In addition, for one who is already elected president - he refers to himself quite a bit in speaches (Cairo had 68 refereances, His anti-Cheney speech had 147, heck his D-Day speech had 10 reference - 8 more than anyother national leader there)

[PWD]

Certainly a big part of this is sour grapes - but underneath it there are some kernals - his big speeches recently do sound like his campaign speeches - in that he builds up strawmen arguments through moral equivelance and the presents himself as the moderate.

I've called on you to back up this assertion before and you declined.

http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=98955&postcount=11

Care to this time?

[Radu]

Actually it is the opposite - Bush tended to be a better off the cuff kind of guy - he was always very stilted in formal speeach. Obama (and his teleprompter) are fairly famous at this point. That is not to say that Obama is bad off the cuff - he is just not as affable as Bush was.

Can you give me an example of Bush being "affable" and "off the cuff?" I can't think of a single instance that didn't seem awkward, but my memory has been proven a bit unreliable (see: Cheney on gay marriage). Secondly, you're not bringing up that teleprompter business again, are you? I find it refreshing we have a leader who can actually perform well in speeches and is inspiring to listen to. Preparation and comfort in front of an audience, for someone who is often referred to as "the most powerful man in the world?" No, I'll take socially awkward cowboy phrases over smooth and calm oration any day. :rolleyes:

Certainly a big part of this is sour grapes - but underneath it there are some kernals - his big speeches recently do sound like his campaign speeches - in that he builds up strawmen arguments through moral equivelance and the presents himself as the moderate.

I cede the floor to PWD, who has already made an argument here.

In addition, for one who is already elected president - he refers to himself quite a bit in speaches (Cairo had 68 refereances, His anti-Cheney speech had 147, heck his D-Day speech had 10 reference - 8 more than anyother national leader there)

Are we nitpicking oratory style now instead of content? This seems to be a continuation of the teleprompter absurdity. How about we discuss actual ISSUES like the policies President Obama outlines in his speeches instead of arbitrarily declaring him to be in perpetual campaign mode?

Furthermore, what's wrong with being in "campaign mode?" He's the President, and when you're a candidate you want to convince the voters that you have the best and most appropriate policy to respond to their needs. Does this change suddenly as President? Is he only responsible to the voters BEFORE an election, or should he assume that once elected he has no obligation to inform or convince anyone? Come back when you have some real argument or objection, Utrect, and I'll treat you as more than a talking points parrot.

[Utrecht]

I've called on you to back up this assertion before and you declined.

http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=98955&postcount=11

hmm, I certainly don't remember declining - and quite frankly thought the Cairo speech was good - and saw no need to answer your question.

So very simply for you

Settlers not nearly as bad as Suicide Bombers - linking them is a moral equivelance strawman

Treatment of Coptic/Druze in the Middle East much much worst than treatment of Muslims in the west - linking them is a moral equivelance strawman

Even suggesting that the treatment of women in the west ("meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life.")
is as bad as treatment of women in the muslim word is a moral equivelance strawman.

This is then generally followed by his taking the two "extremes" and places his approach in the middle. Similar examples can be found in nearly every policy speech of his.


Can you give me an example of Bush being "affable" and "off the cuff?" I can't think of a single instance that didn't seem awkward, but my memory has been proven a bit unreliable (see: Cheney on gay marriage). Secondly, you're not bringing up that teleprompter business again, are you? I find it refreshing we have a leader who can actually perform well in speeches and is inspiring to listen to. Preparation and comfort in front of an audience, for someone who is often referred to as "the most powerful man in the world?" No, I'll take socially awkward cowboy phrases over smooth and calm oration any day. :rolleyes:


On the teleprompter - not sure what you are meaning by again.... and to ensure there is no confusion: USING THE TELEPROMPTER IS GOOD. OBAMA GIVES GREAT SPEECHES. My issue here is that the emperor (or rather president) has no clothes. They are great inspiring speeches (all be it misleading as I mention above) but I am not sure I can believe them - or even that he beleives them - but rather what people what to hear.

I can appreciate why people like them - and there is nothing wrong with that.

on Bush - nothing specific - nor do I care to look them up - all that I would point to is the "would rather have a beer" opinion polls.

and again one more time in case you miss it - OBAMA IS A PHENOMENAL COMMUNICATOR - PERHAPS THE BEST AMERICA HAS EVER HAD!!!!


Are we nitpicking oratory style now instead of content? This seems to be a continuation of the teleprompter absurdity. How about we discuss actual ISSUES like the policies President Obama outlines in his speeches instead of arbitrarily declaring him to be in perpetual campaign mode?


Potentially on the nitpicking. Please remember I was responding to the comment that Obama seems to be in perennial campaign mode - and a primary part of this is self referance. Not to the content.


Furthermore, what's wrong with being in "campaign mode?" He's the President, and when you're a candidate you want to convince the voters that you have the best and most appropriate policy to respond to their needs. Does this change suddenly as President? Is he only responsible to the voters BEFORE an election, or should he assume that once elected he has no obligation to inform or convince anyone?

NOTHING - again I was commenting on what some of the conservative folks were saying - providing examples of why this is so - I was not saying that there was anything wrong with the approach (I do have an issue with the moral equivelancy)

Good fucking god - If you have such a man crush on Obama you get your dick in a wringer everytime you perceive someone dissing your man you are going to have a long 4 years.


Come back when you have some real argument or objection, Utrect, and I'll treat you as more than a talking points parrot.

No - come back when you can actually follow an argument (again - not dissing your man - but rather stating were the comments on perennial campaigning is coming from)

and before you have a heart attack here - generally I think that Obama is doing more good than harm and I am glad that he got elected over McCain (who I voted for)

[PWD]

hmm, I certainly don't remember declining - and quite frankly thought the Cairo speech was good - and saw no need to answer your question.

You saw fit to throw your assertion out there, repeatedly as it turns out here, and saw fit to ignore the question asking you to substantiate your claim.

So very simply for you

I'm all ears. Well, reading ears. Eyes.

Settlers not nearly as bad as Suicide Bombers - linking them is a moral equivelance strawman

No it is not. Acknowledging that both are contributing to an ongoing problem is not a moral equivalence statement let alone a strawman.

For example: American jingoism and colonialism in the middle east and muslim terroism are both parts of the same problem. That's not a moral equivalence statement. It's an acknowledgment of involvement on both sides, and that there's blame to go around. The blame may well still lie 99% terrorists 1% USA. That's hardly an equivalence.

Similarly, there's no claim that the settlers are 'as bad' as the suicide bombers. That would be stupid. That you see that claim hiding in the statement suggests you need to step back and re-evaluate how you're approaching this.

Treatment of Coptic/Druze in the Middle East much much worst than treatment of Muslims in the west - them is a moral equivelance strawman

Again, it is not. I'm not familiar with his actual statements here nor the situation, so I'm open to revisiting them, but your recap certainly does not constitute moral equivalency.

Even suggesting that the treatment of women in the west ("meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life.")
is as bad as treatment of women in the muslim word is a moral equivelance strawman.

No, no it is not. He's not suggesting the western experience is even remotely comparable, only that the west for all its enlightenment still has work to do as well. That's not establishing equivalence, it's called not speaking down from a position of false authority. Women's place in the west is far better off and one would have to be a fool to argue otherwise, but similarly one would have to be a blithering idiot to assert that the job's finished and full equality has been achieved.

He then takes this two "extremes" and places his approach in the middle. Similar examples can be found in nearly every policy speech of his.

That's fair. It's also a trademark of people who're trying to establish a basis for discussion. "We're perfect and you suck", the Bush model, never really worked so well.

Seriously dude. If you ever want to be taken seriously as more than a conservative puppet, go back to school and learn some rhetoric. You demonstrate here that you have no concept what a moral equivalency argument is. It's a very different thing from acknowledging faults on both sides of an issue, or acknowledging that the west has not reached end of job. Involvement does not imply equivalence. Equivalence means same.

Any moral equivalency argument would need to make the assertion that both sides are equally morally bankrupt. Not that both have some non-white in them. Both white, both black, or both the same shade of gray. That's equivalence.

[Utrecht]

You saw fit to throw your assertion out there, repeatedly as it turns out here, and saw fit to ignore the question asking you to substantiate your claim.

that..... or I dont live on the board and once a topic drops off I forget about it....


No it is not. Acknowledging that both are contributing to an ongoing problem is not a moral equivalence statement let alone a strawman.


Yes they are - Obama by linking them in his speech is saying this one is bad and the other one is bad without providing any sort of context/level around them. i.e. equivelancy.

Had he said something like - Once can understand Palestinian frustrations around the Settlements and we the US see them as an obstacle to peace - but they dont justify suicide bombings - then there would be no equivelancy.


For example: American jingoism and colonialism in the middle east and muslim terroism are both parts of the same problem. That's not a moral equivalence statement. It's an acknowledgment of involvement on both sides, and that there's blame to go around. The blame may well still lie 99% terrorists 1% USA. That's hardly an equivalence.


True - but that is not what Obama is doing - he is utilizing the one one hand...on the other hand.... approach - this inherently links them and as I mentioned above without some sort of measurement of degree - makes them equivelent in the speech.


Similarly, there's no claim that the settlers are 'as bad' as the suicide bombers. That would be stupid. That you see that claim hiding in the statement suggests you need to step back and re-evaluate how you're approaching this.


That you don't see the speech writers tool in this really suggest that you need to take a speech class her. And before you get pissy - it is a good technich - it works - but is as dishonest as truths of omission.


Again, it is not. I'm not familiar with his actual statements here nor the situation, so I'm open to revisiting them, but your recap certainly does not constitute moral equivalency.

Look up the treatment of the Druze of Syria/Lebanon and the Coptics of Egypt - lets just say, they don't enjoy the same level of protections that Muslims have in America. Now had he linked the Druze to say the Israeli treatment of Palestines - they would have been in the same ball park



No, no it is not. He's not suggesting the western experience is even remotely comparable, only that the west for all its enlightenment still has work to do as well. That's not establishing equivalence, it's called not speaking down from a position of false authority. Women's place in the west is far better off and one would have to be a fool to argue otherwise, but similarly one would have to be a blithering idiot to assert that the job's finished and full equality has been achieved.


But he is - Here is the quote

"Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world."

The key word there is Meanwhile

and while I agree with you about a womans place in the west - do you think many of the folks in Saudia Arabia other Wahabiast would agree with us?



That's fair. It's also a trademark of people who're trying to establish a basis for discussion. "We're perfect and you suck", the Bush model, never really worked so well.


Other than the gross simplification of the Bush model... I agree with you - this one of the biggest reasons why I like Obama as president.


Seriously dude. If you ever want to be taken seriously as more than a conservative puppet, go back to school and learn some rhetoric. You demonstrate here that you have no concept what a moral equivalency argument is. It's a very different thing from acknowledging faults on both sides of an issue, or acknowledging that the west has not reached end of job. Involvement does not imply equivalence. Equivalence means same.


Honestly, I could give two shits whether you or others think I am a "conservative puppet"

Finally, yep - I certainly do undertand moral equivelancy and how it can be used as an effective tool - I used it many times myself. Your explanations above try to explain way what Obama did - and if that was actually what he did you would be right but he often uses the equivelancy crutch -

here is a classic example of it (the use of the same verb is the give away - which reinforces the "same" argument) "It's easy to point fingers -for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond"

Here is another (please note the use of the same verb) "In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostagetaking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians."

There are several others.


Any moral equivalency argument would need to make the assertion that both sides are equally morally bankrupt. Not that both have some non-white in them. Both white, both black, or both the same shade of gray. That's equivalence

A moral equivelency argument can simply rely on relating two desirable or undesirable behavoirs (of potentially different scales) and like them through consistent verb usage - very easy.

[Trainz]

True - but that is not what Obama is doing - he is utilizing the one one hand...on the other hand.... approach - this inherently links them and as I mentioned above without some sort of measurement of degree - makes them equivelent in the speech.

He didn't NEED to be that precise. Everyone with half a brain knows for a damn fact that should you bother asking Obama this question, i.e. are they as bad, he would smirk and say no.

You nitpicker you. Your guy lost. Get over it.

:-p

[Varaj]

Utrecht I can't help but wonder if this just a case of you seeing a negative that you want to see?

[TiQuinn]

I've heard many Bush supporters talk about his affability before. I never saw it: He always sounded like a dunce. So I suppose I don't blame those same supporters from not seeing Obama as well as I see him. I think there's a lot of sour grapes right now, as well as lame attempts to find a weakness that they can exploit in the media.

Edit: I also think that his speeches always sound like campaign speeches, in part because it's become expected. When people are saying you're the best political orator we've had in years, you don't go changing the formula. Over time, I'm sure all of these things will drive those on the right absolutely nuts. And I'm perfectly happy with that too. :)

[Random Encounter]

I think he feels that he has to sell his policies to the American people. He's not campaigning for reelection (per se) he's campaigning for his agenda.
I kind of like it. It's nice to have a leader who wants to keep us in the loop and who tries to explain unpopular decisions instead of trying to hide them.

[Utrecht]

and before you have a heart attack here - generally I think that Obama is doing more good than harm and I am glad that he got elected over McCain (who I voted for)


You nitpicker you. Your guy lost. Get over it.

:-p

Please read my posts before calling me out about my Obama hate.....


Utrecht I can't help but wonder if this just a case of you seeing a negative that you want to see?

I point you to my above statement

Second, I can understand where you are saying - but no, I am not seeing the negative - hell I am praising the man for his ability.

I truly think that many on this board really don't read posts - but read into them what they want to. So let me be very clear here for everyone.

I THINK OBAMA IS DOING A PRETTY DARN GOOD JOB. SURE THERE ARE ELEMENTS THAT I DISLIKE ABOUT HIS PRESIDENCY (COUGH *DEBT* COUGH) BUT I THINK HE IS DOING A BETTER JOB OF IT THAN MCCAIN WOULD HAVE - AND AM GLAD HE BEAT THE GUY I VOTED FOR.

so take that and shove it up your conservative puppet pipe and smoke it :D

[Cat of Ulthar]

that..... or I dont live on the board and once a topic drops off I forget about it....

Slacker. :tongue:

[Trainz]

Please read my posts before calling me out about my Obama hate.....

Please read mine more carefully before knee-jerking:

-------------------

You nitpicker you. Your guy lost. Get over it.

:-p <------- see that? This means my reply was a cheap jab.

[Utrecht]

Please read mine more carefully before knee-jerking:

-------------------

You nitpicker you. Your guy lost. Get over it.

:-p <------- see that? This means my reply was a cheap jab.


unwarrented - hence the call out :cool:

Plus - it was an unrecognized smily :D

[Trainz]

unwarrented - hence the call out :cool:

Plus - it was an unrecognized smily :D

Unrecognized? UNRECOGNIZED???

Back in my BBS days, we didn't have those fancy little round things, we had to do it all with ASCII you youngun...



/My lawn
//Get off of it

[TiQuinn]

Regarding moral equivalency, I find it preferable right now to the moral absolutism arguments that we heard from the Bush administration. Again, I can understand why they drive folks on the right nuts. In my opinion, when you eliminate the middle ground, and argue only from the poles of good and evil, right and wrong, black and white, you severely hamper diplomacy as a solution, and force yourself and others into a more confrontational approach.

In regards to Israeli settlements versus suicide bombers, are they morally equivalent? No.

Do we need to understand that many Palestinians do see them as morally equivalent? I think so.

Now, that too is incredibly simplistic and reductive. It's not as if suicide bombing occurs strictly because of Israeli settlements. The reason it doesn't bother me is because I think there needs to be a policy that recognizes the greivences that Palenstinians have rather than pre-supposing that we'll simply support Israel's stance in its entirety.

[PWD]

I THINK OBAMA IS DOING A PRETTY DARN GOOD JOB. SURE THERE ARE ELEMENTS THAT I DISLIKE ABOUT HIS PRESIDENCY (COUGH *DEBT* COUGH) BUT I THINK HE IS DOING A BETTER JOB OF IT THAN MCCAIN WOULD HAVE - AND AM GLAD HE BEAT THE GUY I VOTED FOR.

so take that and shove it up your conservative puppet pipe and smoke it :D

Let me be equally clear: You wouldn't know a moral equivalency if it bit you on the ass, because you're too used to the polar opposites approach that recent conservative windbags like so much in lieu of diplomacy.

Puppet.

Kidding ;) You're not a total mouthpiece like an Izrador, but you do have a certain knee-jerk love and comfort level for the easy talking points that can't withstand casual questioning let alone serious argument. You're clearly a smart guy, and there's nothing wrong at all with conservative beliefs, so I question why you do. You're capable of much more nuanced positions. Being able to appreciate the Obama speech at all demonstrates that you're open minded when you want to be.

It makes it that much more infuriating when you do reach for something you can't substantiate (i.e. moral equivalency) when there are very good points you could be scoring instead.

That's what I'm calling out here, not some impression of you as a complete conservo-tard. Clearly you're not.

[AZRogue]

Frankly, I have no problem with the way Obama is handling his foreign diplomacy. I think his speech in Cairo was amazingly well played and, as a first step, stole the thunder from a huge segment of the extremist population there. He did it by being honest, but by also holding up Israel as responsible for much of the ill will that they now suffer under. It may seem too close to making suicide bombing Hamas as guilty as Israeli settlers for some, but it was an effective speech for that reason, too. It skirted the line, more than many would like, but the effectiveness of the tactic is clear, IMO, and worth the sublte slap that Israel suffered from the comparison. He prefaced his comments with a reiteration of our unbreakable bond with Israel, so that, in my book, helps reaffirm our loyalty to their nation and gives him the room he needed to be creative with the olive branch.

It was masterfully done. No matter what anyone says, I think it's clear that Obama is a master politician. He can do a lot of good for that reason; he has the authority and political capital to do things that many other politicians in his position could not.

That doesn't mean that I agree with him on his policy decisions. The amount of spending and debt we are building, while obviously welcome by some, scares the Hell out of me. The really frightening thing is that I don't believe the other party, the Republicans, would have spent much less. They might not have reached the crazy numbers we're seeing now, but they are not the party of fiscal conservatism. They are big government as well, just with a different budget priority list. And I want a fiscally conservative option, damn it. Unfortunately, I wonder if we can ever expect to see a real option anymore, someone willing to walk in and close Homeland Security, cut Welfare, shut down entire departments, take a pen and cross out huge swaths of foreign aid, etc.

[Utrecht]

It makes it that much more infuriating when you do reach for something you can't substantiate (i.e. moral equivalency) when there are very good points you could be scoring instead.


On this one I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You cite examples why you think Obama is not doing it - I cite examples where he is - best we meet in the middle and think he is doing a fine - to a darn good job. (and I too thought the Cairo speech was very good and effective.)


That's what I'm calling out here, not some impression of you as a complete conservo-tard. Clearly you're not.

I dont deny that I lie on the right side of center on fiscal/foreign policy - and quite frankly feel that I adequently back up my arguments with facts - but also feel that being one of the few who do lie on that side of the line, my comments stick out.

oh, and the puppet comment left little doubts on the where you say me on the conservo-tard line. :cool:

[PWD]

On this one I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You cite examples why you think Obama is not doing it - I cite examples where he is - best we meet in the middle and think he is doing a fine - to a darn good job. (and I too thought the Cairo speech was very good and effective.)

I think it was pretty good, but there certainly is validity to the idea that in reaching out he needs to be careful not to go too far. There's plenty of valid debate on where that line lies.

I'm still troubled at the reaching for moral equivalences that aren't being set up, and that's all I'm poking at. It's been all too often a talking point in recent years to quell any discussion that touches upon american fallibility, and it deserves to be pushed back against. If you can back it up with an "America is no better", "Israel is no better", etc, then let's hear it. Until then, all you're complaining about is the recognition that there is a spectrum upon which both parties lie.

Well shit, that's what it is. When you can't back it up with anything other than that the spectrum was acknowledged, I'm not going to walk away impressed, nor am I going to think there's a point lurking there other than the talking point.

I dont deny that I lie on the right side of center on fiscal/foreign policy - and quite frankly feel that I adequently back up my arguments with facts - but also feel that being one of the few who do lie on that side of the line, my comments stick out.

Again, I've no issue whatsoever with the conservative side of the aisle. You don't see me and AZR butting heads, do you? Limper? Others? Just back up what you say with facts, not talking points or we'll have words on the days I'm feeling particularly ornery from reading too much of the same yammering by Izrador on other sites. If you can substantiate a claim, fantastic!

oh, and the puppet comment left little doubts on the where you say me on the conservo-tard line. :cool:

Smiley dude, smiley.

[Atropine Mama]

All debate aside, when I saw this clip, my first thought was "He's such a DAD!" :D

He probably just warmed the soft and squishy hearts of a bajillion parents. Maybe pissed off a few teachers, though. I dunno.

[Cat of Ulthar]

Cause, yeah, how on earth are you going to keep kids in school if you got the president running around distributing absence notes?

[Brynja]

All debate aside, when I saw this clip, my first thought was "He's such a DAD!" :D

He probably just warmed the soft and squishy hearts of a bajillion parents. Maybe pissed off a few teachers, though. I dunno.\


Nah...that the kid had a note at all warmed me :)

[Pigs in Space]

You know what? If I was the school principal, I don't think I'd accept that as a decent excuse.

Skipping school to attend a political rally? Not good enough.

[Utrecht]

You know what? If I was the school principal, I don't think I'd accept that as a decent excuse.

Skipping school to attend a political rally? Not good enough.

Understand what you are saying - but if I was that parent I would have a big eye roll for the principal and have my kids take the unexcused absence - they likely learned more during the political rally than they would during a day of school.


It is not like the kid was down by the lake goofing off.

[AZRogue]

Frankly, if I would, as a parent, take my kid out of school, that school can fuck themselves in the ass as to the reason. Why? Because I felt like it. "Now, go back to ogling the kids in gym class, you sick fuck."

I have a way with people, though, so it wouldn't even be an issue.

[Brynja]

Glad to see you both think we do fuck all here at school.

[AZRogue]

Glad to see you both think we do fuck all here at school.

No, just the fictional principle in the example above, or anyone more in love with the bureaucracy than teaching children. Most teachers I've met care deeply about their kids and their education, but I've also met a handful that I can only describe as Hall Monitors on the payroll, strutting around like little Ceasars, and I have no patience for them. Hasn't mattered in a while, as my niece whom I helped take care of is older and I don't interact with her school anymore, or not as often.

[TiQuinn]

You know what? If I was the school principal, I don't think I'd accept that as a decent excuse.

Skipping school to attend a political rally? Not good enough.

I think that would be "Big Fish in Small Pond Thumping His Chest" syndrome.

[Name Lips]

Glad to see you both think we do fuck all here at school.

You know what they mean. Some things are once-in-a-lifetime experiences for kids.

[Brynja]

I do know what they mean.