It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama SOTU was for 8th graders!!!

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I'm glad to see that the president's State of the Union is falling in line with how the United States fairs education wise in the world. At the rate the US is going, Presidents in the future will have to sound like a toddler to get the masses to understand! I think this is why so many people have become disenchanted with politics. If our leaders are talking to use at junior high school levels of complexity, what's the point in listening???

www.politico.com...




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
If Obama is successful in his second term with his education goals, perhaps his next SOTU will be aimed at high school seniors.



Obama's use of simple language is in part a reflection of his audience: the American voter in an election year. And it's part of a larger trend in simpler State of the Union language as the speech as transitioned from a simple address to Congress into a prime-time televised event.


It's nice to know that if high school students tuned in for the SOTU, they would have no trouble understanding him. They are the future. By the end of his second term, these kids will be entering college or the work force. I don't really see any problem with his speech to the nation being something that most in the nation would understand...

I enjoy hearing Obama give speeches, but when he talks off the cuff, he drives me nuts.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Drew99GT
 

The sad part is that average joe is pretty much at that level these days thanks to the dumbing down of America that has been going on for years.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Oh gosh. I can't even listen to this.
It's a joke really.
We know that this isn't working.
The question is:
Why do we continue playing the game?

edit on 25-1-2012 by spinkyboo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Luckily this was the last (hopefully) SOTU we will have to hear from Obama....so no worries.

I've never supported Obama or his policies, but at the beginning I still enjoyed to hear him speak. Now, however, I can't even stand to do that.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Drew99GT
 


I thought this was common knowledge. I read somewhere years ago that all political speeches (and any other advertisement) are written at 8th grade level.

This is exactly why Paul has a disconnect with the people, he doesn't lower his intellect to reach the masses.

I'm sure Obama's speech writers are well aware of the research that helps them to reach and connect with the widest audience possible.

My brother was watching last night, and he has a Master's Degree in Economics and an Undergrad in Physics, and he was THRILLED with the speech. I didn't watch, but we exchanged text messages the whole time, and all I could tell him was, "Obama is a brilliant speaker, it doesn't mean anything. Obama has the best speech writers in the nation, it doesn't mean anything. Obama is most comfortable behind a podium with a teleprompter, it doesn't mean anything."


That is precisely the reason I don't watch. I don't care what he has to say, in a yearly, televised, dumbed down for the masses appearance. I care what his record says, and his record says he didn't close Gitmo, he didn't reform the Healthcare Industry, he didn't shrink our global military footprint, he didn't create the public works projects he promised, he didn't create any jobs with his bailout, and instead......... he only furthered the erosion of liberties that Bush started with the Patriot Acts, and he moved our military into Libya, Syria, Israel, and Australia! He increased our debt exponentionally, he favors corporate cronyism, and he is a complete failure on all of the key issues that made me vote for him the first time.

The speech was worthless, because it is just pretty words. He won't have my vote, because he already fooled me once.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Only problem is that there was absolutely no content in the speech. He used big words for nothing like with the promise of green energy. Brags about how green energy is going to power 3 million households, which is just a tiny part of the 300+ million who lives there. Even here in tiny country of Norway we have more households powered by completely green energy than his promise.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Aren't 8th graders the only voter block* that still believes in what Obama says?

Hmmm. . . . .

*Cook county, Chicago.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
If the O regime get's 4 more years, 8th graders will not even understand him. The speech will need to be dumbed down even further.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I think you may be right. Anyone who has lived in this country for last 3 1/2 years knows better than to believe anything Obama says.

Great campaigner....terrible President.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
From what I understand, a speech that is intended to reach all Americans should be written a level that nearly all can understand. This should be something well-known and common practice as there are many far above the 8th grade level, but also many far below. There are also many Americans who are still new to the English language and are grateful for the speech to be written in such a level.

It seems that certain individuals are attempting to make this into an issue, when in fact it is not. We should commend the POTUS for keeping the language clear, simple, and easy to understand to ensure it reached as many people as possible.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Drew99GT
 


Well you should just read what people "HEARD" and derived from his speech:

This thread www.abovetopsecret.com... outlines why
his speech should have been written for deaf 1st graders, eight grade was aiming
way too high IMHO. Just read it, the people are not only not able to hear, comprehend
or discern, many are pathological as well.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJM8507
From what I understand, a speech that is intended to reach all Americans should be written a level that nearly all can understand. This should be something well-known and common practice as there are many far above the 8th grade level, but also many far below. There are also many Americans who are still new to the English language and are grateful for the speech to be written in such a level.

It seems that certain individuals are attempting to make this into an issue, when in fact it is not. We should commend the POTUS for keeping the language clear, simple, and easy to understand to ensure it reached as many people as possible.


Obama!
Obama's got "electrolytes"(?)


Nice BUT: We are facing very "un-childlike" problems...I'm glad for you he used small words and a friendly tone...Makes the world seem "simple" doesn't it? and "simple" is easy.Not a continuum of choices and views and even a liitle fudged truth every now and again....
"He ended a war and stuff"( He followed the status of forces agreement between the Bush administration and the new Iraqi govt).
"well hes' got what we need! he's got electrolytes"...

edit on 25-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
There is more substance in 8th grade

And 8th graders are smarter than congressman and the potus



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
well if you want an in-depth analysis, ralph nader gives you a good one...




edit on 25-1-2012 by Stryc9nine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Drew99GT
 


The speech was written to an 8th grade level because they didn't want the awkwardness of the nation seeing Joe Biden ask John Boehner to explain something to him every few seconds. They really should have enacted a new policy when this administration took office that moved Biden out from behind Obama and sat him off camera.

In all seriousness, this is purely a manifestation of how the Democratic leadership feels about America. They all talk down to the people. From Nancy Pelosi and her school marm "Tsk, tsk, tsk, we will have to pass the bill before you people can find out what is in the bill" condescending attitude to Obama's arrogance, I've had it with them all. This is your leadership, America... a bunch of high-asses who think your only value in life is to pay ever higher tax dollars unquestioningly to fund their excesses. The same human zilches that will stand there and lecture the American people on having to tighten their belts, skip the family vacations for awhile, and adopt stricter budgets... all so the same American families can manage to send more money to DC to fund the never ending vacations for them and their families.




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
There is an irony so rich in nuance, and so riddled with emergent behavior that it is as if the irony itself is ironic. There has been, for any truly educated person paying attention, a clear and present strategy by federal, state, and local governments to create a public educational system that is tantamount to indoctrination centers. This indoctrination is so blatant and inexplicably resolute that the emergent behavior would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

As just one example of the indoctrination I speak of, I tutor students on a college level for extra cash. About a year ago, I was tutoring a student seeking his masters degree. He was taking a class in critical thinking. It was not so evident to either one of us why he felt the need to seek out a tutor for this class because he is a very sharp individual and not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. I suspected that the reason he needed a tutor was not because he was lacking any skills necessary to grasp the principles of critical thought, but because his professor probably lacked skills in either communication, or worse, critical thought.

Shortly after I began working with him he was assigned a paper. The assignment was to take two infamous cases of tort law largely considered to be frivolous law suits, analyze them and determine whether they were frivolous law suits or not. The two cases were Liebeck v. McDonald's (the infamous coffee law suit) and Pearson v. Chung which is the lesser known of the two involving an administrative law judge who sued his dry cleaners demanding $67 million for an alleged lost pair of pants.

As we discussed how he should approach writing this paper I recommended he use the Hegelian dialectic because that form seemed to be germane to legal arguments. The Hegelian dialectics form is Thesis, Antithesis, and Resolution. My client had no idea what the Hegelian dialectic was. I was a bit annoyed that a graduate student had no idea what the Hegelian dialectic was, but we both agreed that perhaps this was the class he would learn of Hegel's form, so we looked first in the indexes of his two text book, and because we could not find what we were looking for, we searched through, he on one, I in the other, for any sign that the Hegelian dialectic was even discussed in either of the text books. We were unable to find any sign.

I taught him this form and explained how Thesis, Antithesis, and Resolution somewhat duplicated two attorneys making their closing arguments to a judge who ultimately renders a decision. He wrote a paper where the Thesis argued that both Liebeck and Pearson were frivolous law suits. The Antithesis argued that one probably qualified as frivolous (Pearson) but the other (McDonald's coffee suit) was not frivolous and based upon sound legal principles. The Resolution was that both had elements of a frivolous law suit, but one more so than other. I thought it was a well written paper and that my client was truly grasping critical thought, understood the Hegelian dialectic, and had learned valuable lessons in law.

He received a 79 for the paper. Worse, his professor wrote a vitriolic attack on the paper insisting he had ignored the syllabus, in essence ignored the assignment, and created his own assignment that had nothing to do with what she assigned. I asked my client to show me his syllabus. I had looked at it when he first came to me but couldn't remember anything in it that somehow countered or contradicted the idea of using the Hegelian dialectic as a form of debate over the issues of frivolous law suits. We both looked at the syllabus looking for some indication, any sign of language that would support his professors accusation. The syllabus did not support his professors contention that my client ignored the syllabus in this regard.

It was clear that his professor had no idea what the syllabus actually stated, but worse, far worse than this, that professor quite clearly had no idea that my client had even used the Hegelian dialectic. I urged my client to take her to arbitration. He did. In arbitration it became undeniable she had no idea who Hegel was let alone what the Hegelian dialectic was. My client argued in arbitration that he was in a critical thinking class with a professor hell bent on suppressing critical thought. He won and got his A.

The good news is that through arbitration there were signs that his academic institution cared about actual education. The bad news is he had no idea what arbitration was (a graduate student!) and I had to explain it to him. Most students in college have no idea an arbitration system is there for them to challenge grossly incompetent or bad faith teachers. How many of that incompetent professors student in my clients class alone walked out of that class with her understanding of critical thought?

Even, in the end, simple dumbed down language is useless without fundamental thinking skills.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That was certainly not written at an 8th grade level, and I'm afraid you'll never make it in politics.


Otherwise, GREAT story!



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





I'm afraid you'll never make it in politics.


That is without a doubt the nicest thing you've ever said to me, and one of the nicest compliments I've received in a while. Thank-you.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
the sotu was a pat on their (obama, reid, pelosi, etc) s back and nothing more, that is who the campaign speech was for. The average eighth grader would probably not care what obama says and if his supporters still support him he might as well just lie low and let them revote for him because the other people hearing the speech but whom it is not meant for (people who see through the lies) just see more of the same garbage.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join