MSNBC: Your Kids Don't Belong To You, They Belong To The Community

[The2ndAmendment]

​

Here is the RAW transcript of the Promotion Ad:

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind-of-a private notion of children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;

5. and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES;

6. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.

Here is the transcript edited to fix her inability to speak proper English (Special thanks to Lone Laugher for pointing this out to me):

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we have always had a private notion of our children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We never had a collective notion that these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families.

5. We must recognize that kids belong to the WHOLE COMMUNITY;

6. Once it is everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's [responsibility], we will start making better investments.

Ok, she states a problem: We're not investing enough/correctly into education.

Then she diagnoses the cause of the problem,

Then she proposes the solution.

She says her solution will better our investments into education.
---------------------------

Here are the Questions:​

Instructions: Only use the Transcript to answer these questions.

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

3: What is her solution to the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? [It is your job to answer this]

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem. This is derived from Line 6.

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

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? That parents are sovereign over their children - From Line 1, Line 2

3: What is her solution to the problem? To make government sovereign over your children - From lines 3 and 5

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? To break (force) the idea of parental sovereignty over their children - From line 4

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem - This is derived from Line 6.

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

In depth answers:

1: This promotion ad starts with the premise that we are not investing enough into education; however, statistics show (that are well agreed by both liberals and conservatives) that we spend more than any nation on earth per student, and get the worst return on that money as well.

But, if we look at the end of line 6, she says "we'll make better investments," so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her problem is that we don't invest CORRECTLY into education, instead of not investing enough.

2: She immediately identifies what she believes is the Cause of the problem. She says in Line 1:
"beCause we have always had a private notion of our children."

Thus, she claims the Cause of the problem is that Americans believe in parental sovereignty over their children, unless someone can else can dispute what "private notion" means.

Then, in Line 2, she mocks and derides the idea of parental sovereignty:
[Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

Thus she believes that any person who believes that their kid is theirs, that they have sovereignty over their children, who believes that they are ultimately responsible for their child, is a person who should be derided.

3: Her solution to the problem is that we must declare that the government is sovereign over our children, not the parents, that parents may only have their children as a PRIVILEGE that is graciously extended to us by government, a privilege that can be revoked for any or no reason (such as teaching them something against the government's values).

We get this from Line 3 and Line 5:
"We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children."

So, since we've translated "private notion" to "parental sovereignty," then we must translate "collective notion" to "government sovereignty." Although it is easy to see how "notion" is being used as euphemism for "sovereignty," how are we translating "collective" to "government?"

Well, she talks about "public education," with public education being the entire premise of her very short speech. Unless you know some form of public education that is NOT run by government, I cannot see how the word "collective" (which itself is often associated with Marxist ideology) can be construed to any other meaning.

Now let's investigate Line 5,
"and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES; "

First, we must draw our attention to the word "Community." So far, she has talked about Public Education, and thus, Government; she has also invoked the idea of "government sovereignty." People often confuse society and government, and will use the word "community" to mean either when they cannot decide which term [society or government] to use, or to conceal which one they actually mean.

In the words of Thomas Paine (Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one;

However, we're not here to engage in discourse on Common Sense, I quoted this to show the difference between society and government.

So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.

If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.

Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.

Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.

Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.

Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.

Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"

This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.

2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.


Finally, she says that once her solution is implemented, our failed investments will magically better themselves, because the government will now have sovereignty over your children, instead of the parents. The problem isn't the Government, it's You!
----------------------------
If you don't agree with my interpretation, ask yourselves the following:
Did she say that we weren't investing correctly into education? The obvious answer here is yes, however, I'll let you privately answer the rest of the questions.

Ok, since she says we're not investing correctly into Public Education, who does she blame the problem on, the government, or the people?

Furthermore, she never even said why our investments have failed. Has she mentioned that there are children whose schools are decrepit and dilapidated? Has she mentioned that there are children without desks? Without textbooks? With paper? Without computers? Without pens and pencils?

No, she says that the "people" are the problem, not government, and that government can fix the problem.

No, she never mentions that children are missing proper supplies, or that their educational facilities are either too small or not maintained correctly (or both), she says that YOU having the final authority over your children is the problem.

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

Overall, this is a very well designed and intentionally deceptive script. It conveys MILLIONS of words by only using hundred; it presents a dangerous and repulsive ideology, whilst masquerading a caring and loving philosophy.

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

However, if Progressives would like to give me their alternate explanation of the TRANSCRIPT, by using the TRANSCRIPT in their explanation, please, do so, I don't' want to think that this is what MSNBC (Progressive Headquarters) was trying to preach.

 

[poet]

You have looked like an embicile through this whole thread.

Its really funny how some folks who cant follow the logic always resort to grammar maven and spelling Nazi.

So laugh all you want, idjit. The joke is on you, you just dont get it.

The laugh's on you, you stupid mother fucker.

 

[gslack]

Learn how to spell your insults, dummy.

She was SIMPLY suggesting that we need to work together more for the benefit of our children.....you know American children. The policies that we enact impact them......all of them. You assholes are so afraid of someone taking what is yours.....any time the word "ours" is used, you freak out.

Yes...he had enough because he was not willing to explain the words he was putting into my mouth. You have had enough as well. I have three kids. They are my responsibility.....but I am thankful that our community values their education and provides ALL OF THE COMMUNITY's CHILDREN with great schools and libraries. I could never do that on my own.

Get it? You fucking imbecile.

No she said what she meant tool..

No one put words in your mouth dumbass, you just came in spouting off without knowing what you were spouting off about. I called you on it and you showed your ignorance..

You said you had enough, I agreed with you and reiterated as much.. Don't like being the idiot in the thread, don't speak before knowing what you're speaking about problem solved..

Now quit crying..

Maybe if you declare victory a few more times, you will believe that you won something.

Your failure to grasp the concept that Perry introduced in her ad is a you problem. I said YOU had enough. Please...try harder.

What victory? You are an idiot who can't be bothered to check on what he's arguing about, I'd hardly consider calling you on it a victory. More like correcting an idiot..

 

[LoneLaugher]

No she said what she meant tool..

No one put words in your mouth dumbass, you just came in spouting off without knowing what you were spouting off about. I called you on it and you showed your ignorance..

You said you had enough, I agreed with you and reiterated as much.. Don't like being the idiot in the thread, don't speak before knowing what you're speaking about problem solved..

Now quit crying..

Maybe if you declare victory a few more times, you will believe that you won something.

Your failure to grasp the concept that Perry introduced in her ad is a you problem. I said YOU had enough. Please...try harder.

What victory? You are an idiot who can't be bothered to check on what he's arguing about, I'd hardly consider calling you on it a victory. More like correcting an idiot..

You really don't follow discussions well. You have been off track from your first post to me. You still don't realize it though.

 

[gslack]

Maybe if you declare victory a few more times, you will believe that you won something.

Your failure to grasp the concept that Perry introduced in her ad is a you problem. I said YOU had enough. Please...try harder.

What victory? You are an idiot who can't be bothered to check on what he's arguing about, I'd hardly consider calling you on it a victory. More like correcting an idiot..

You really don't follow discussions well. You have been off track from your first post to me. You still don't realize it though.

Nah, I been right on with you... You have shown you are a crybaby and whiny little punk-bitch, who got caught talking shit...

Quit crying already, you got called on it, grow up.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What are you talking about?

 

[gslack]

What are you talking about?

Still lost troll?

Sorry to hear that, but not my problem...

 

[gslack]

Its really funny how some folks who cant follow the logic always resort to grammar maven and spelling Nazi.

So laugh all you want, idjit. The joke is on you, you just dont get it.

The laugh's on you, you stupid mother fucker.

No, I for one am definitely laughing at you and the rest of the troll brigade..

 

[francoHFW]

So taking a few words out of context- she wants more money for education- means liberals want your kids and are commies- just like a couple of knuckleheads at an obscure English university fixing some figures- probably their stupid ass'ts- means gobal warming is proved a hoax. How dumb can dupes and Dr Sean Rushbeck GET?

 

[gslack]

So taking a few words out of context- she wants more money for education- means liberals want your kids and are commies- just like a couple of knuckleheads at an obscure English university fixing some figures- probably their stupid ass'ts- means gobal warming is proved a hoax. How dumb can dupes and Dr Sean Rushbeck GET?

That wasn't what she said. That's what progressive kiss-azzes keep telling us what she meant.. Well she can freaking say that then can't she? Lots of ways to make that claim, and none of em require telling me my kids aren't my kids, they are the communities kids..

Why don't you guys call her on her stupidity if that's what she meant or should have said? Man the fuck up, grow a pair and start expecting more from your talking heads..

You won't, you can't, we know..

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Gslack, notice they have yet to cite the transcript. When you force them to defend the transcript, based only the transcript itself, they are clueless.

 

[francoHFW]

Jeebus you're dumb. Ever heard of metaphor, brainwashed twits? LOL All RWers think of is cutting their taxes and OTHER people's pay, and everything is someone else's problem. Way to ruin the country and yourselves.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Jeebus you're dumb. Ever heard of metaphor, brainwashed twits? LOL All RWers think of is cutting their taxes and OTHER people's pay, and everything is someone else's problem. Way to ruin the country and yourselves.

You still have yet to produce an answer based on the transcript itself.

 

[gslack]

Jeebus you're dumb. Ever heard of metaphor, brainwashed twits? LOL All RWers think of is cutting their taxes and OTHER people's pay, and everything is someone else's problem. Way to ruin the country and yourselves.

Okay a dumb metaphor, a false metaphor, a retarded metaphor... So she spoke metaphorically now... Again... This time...

So when I say it was an ignorant and false metaphor and poor choice of words, you will agree? No?

Went through this already, you guys tried this excuse and when we asked said it was a poor choice of words, the argument changed back to being the kids are the communities again..

So you gonna call her on her stupidity and poor choice of words now, or change the complaint again and reiterate the communities ownership??

 

[buckeye45_73]

So taking a few words out of context- she wants more money for education- means liberals want your kids and are commies- just like a couple of knuckleheads at an obscure English university fixing some figures- probably their stupid ass'ts- means gobal warming is proved a hoax. How dumb can dupes and Dr Sean Rushbeck GET?

Franco, you're a fucking moron...first she SAID those words. Second we all know it takes a village correct? So all these things add up and we all know you want the government to raise people.....in fact you'd rather the masses be like the ones in the Matrix...just shut up and let the government do what it wants...

 

[francoHFW]

You win, no one is actually saying the OP....ZZZZZZZZZZ LOL Except the entire Pub propaganda machine and a 1/3 of the country. She's an idiot, never heard of her, or half the people you all bring up endlessly on the Pub echo chamber. Change the channel.

 

[gslack]

You win, no one is actually saying the OP....ZZZZZZZZZZ LOL Except the entire Pub propaganda machine and a 1/3 of the country. She's an idiot, never heard of her, or half the people you all bring up endlessly on the Pub echo chamber. Change the channel.

So then you are saying what exactly?

 

[buckeye45_73]

You win, no one is actually saying the OP....ZZZZZZZZZZ LOL Except the entire Pub propaganda machine and a 1/3 of the country. She's an idiot, never heard of her, or half the people you all bring up endlessly on the Pub echo chamber. Change the channel.

Franco you and the rest of the tards need to shut up.....the AP (left wing) just hired NK propaganda minister....so yeah it's the left that is Goebels like, not the right my friend.

 

[LilOlLady]

I raised by kids without food stamps, medicaid, welfare grants, subsidized housing and sent them to college without any grant,etc and without any help from the government or neighbors so I earned the kids and be damned if anyone else is going to take credit for it. Well, the government did give me a job but I paid for that also.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I raised by kids without food stamps, medicaid, welfare grants, subsidized housing and sent them to college without any grant,etc and without any help from the government or neighbors so I earned the kids and be damned if anyone else is going to take credit for it. Well, the government did give me a job but I paid for that also.

So if true, why do you support the leftwing crazy shit? I love people who swear they didnt get government help, then think everyone needs it......