That video is suppose to be edited like that. Its showing the similarity betweem ****'s singing for Hitler and those kids singing for obama.
Quote from the actual video:
"A warning from history, many youths are being brainwashed into serving in obama's neo **** army! the similarities are disturbing."
So basically its saying that these kids are brainwashed to praise obama, just like the ****'s were brainwashed to praise Hitler.
Was pretty clear to me when you saw a little girl singing, but it sounded like a choir of men.

 

And the first video?

 

Don't see how the first video is photoshopped at all. Pretty hard to photoshop kids marching around, (believe it's actually called stepping) and chanting obama stuff. For a second, looked like they were reading the papers off the wall, but not sure as I didn't care much to rewind it to look.

 

Do I really need to point out the obvious glaring difference between the children singing for Hitler and the children singing for Obama?

I don't seem to remember any conservatives getting upset about brainwashing in the thread about the kid getting sent home for wearing an anti-Obama T-Shirt. In that thread, you all seemed concerned about the child's civil rights. These kids recorded this on a Saturday, on their own time, with their parents permission. If these kids are getting brainwashed, then so is the T-shirt kid, the only difference is the Obama kids are singing a sticky-sweet song and the McCain kid wore an inflammatory T-Shirt. What does that tell you?

 

Stepping yes......... but chanting obama stuff?

 

No, of course not, we know that Obama is black.

The kid with the shirt had a better sense for politics and humor?

 

Lumadar & Others:

I really was not trying to start a food fight here, I was more aiming at making a social commentary post.

In that sense, I posted a little out of context in that I was not just posting about those two videos.

There were a couple of other videos that you could watch that were linked by the original two and I looked at several of those and those linked to others etc. etc. ad infinitum. I probably wasted a half an hour following the various links just because it was interesting in a macabre sort of way.

Some were "straight videos" much like I guess the young singers and the black guys and some were obviously "PhotoShopped".

The longer version of my social commentary goes like this, in my personal opinion, remember.

In the past 5 years or so, roughly, two rather revolutionary opportunities have been made available to virtually anyone in the world with access to a computer and the internet. Sorry, also a digital camera and a high quality digital video camera also.

Photoshop and it's predecessors and it's competitors of today.
YouTube and it's predecessors and it's competitors of today.
I will use those two as my examples as it is my understanding that they are tops in their respective fields.

Using PhotoShop, virtually anyone who can understand and use the techniques can enhance, change, manipulate or whatever any image they can get into the program. Such possibilities prior to PhotoShop used to be the exclusive domain of a relatively few photography experts who used very complicated and expensive equipment and techniques. Sort of a Black Art.

Even I, amongst the most computer challenged, can do some neat things with my older version of the program.

Regarding videos, I don't deal with those and I do not know if people use PhotoShop or some video equivelant to accomplish the same task with a video.

Up until the creation of sites such as MyFace, MySpace and now YouTube, almost all of those photo and videos ended up on sites and forums such as this one and that is where they stayed. Or.. maybe PhotoBucket or the like.

Using YouTube as my example, now, anyone with the wish to do so can become an instant celebrity. Certainly, almost all on that site are videos but also a lot of stills, such as "Fail", "Owned" etc. etc.

A lot of these videos are funny, harmless and intended to amuse.
Some folks like to show videos of their parents 50th wedding anniversary when Uncle Milton fell off the stage drunk as a sailor or Mary and John's wedding when someone stepped on Mary's trail and stripped her bare naked.

Others are less helpful as when some Dude thinks it is a smart idea to post a video of him porking his girl friend, a good idea, NOT.



More to the point of my post, YouTube also has given individuals and organizations of whatever stripe an opportunity never before offered to get their message out to a huge public. Religious organizations, political organizations, business organizations and yes....even Terrorist organizations have, at least on the first posting, unfettered access to millions of viewers.

For someone my age, it is revolutionary if that is the correct word.
When I was the age of the kids in the singing video, we did not have a TV.
We got our news from the newspaper, the radio and yes......the movies.
In the 1940s, every movie at your local movie house (remember, all were double features) was preceded by a news broadcast of the news of the week.
Edward R. Murrow was my favorite.

Anyway, all I was trying to point out is that we will see a lot more of this type of very narrow, slanted sort of stuff on the YouTube type of site.

And...there are a lot of, to me, rather scary people who seem to still be able to mould the opinion of youngsters in a way that I find rather frightening but I suspect that has been going on forever but they just did not have an outlet such as YouTube to get it out to a huge and diverse audience as they do today.

Enough.

Bill

 

You are a funny sumbitch sometimes, I gotta give you that. Of course, I'm sure you meant the kids PARENTS had a better sense for politics and humor.

 

Hi Bill,

The video that most have a problem with is the -actual- Hollywood filmed video. The others, yes, they were cut to draw a parallel. To me those are just noise. The "real" video, oddly enough, I find the creepiest of them all.

momalle1,

I highly doubt those kids did that of their own free will and choice. I'M also sure a fair ammount of social pressure from the parents had -something to do with it-. They are not old enough to understand the situation they were being put in. I also don't think they were prepared for the backlash, something those children now need to be protected from.

As those kids were looking for the approval of thier mothers and fathers, the same parents were looking for the same approval from the Obama campaign.

 

I only said they did it willingly to point out that it wasn't done on school time, I agree, the kids are too young to know any different, no difference between them and the kid with the anti-Obama shirt though. Nothing except the level of malice. Then again, how far shall we go with the brainwashing thing? Maybe parents shouldn't bring their kids to church, after all, they are not old enough to understand the situation they are being put in.

Honestly, right-wingers have been doing this to kids for a long time, it's either right or wrong, not wrong because it comes from the left.

 

You're refering to this?
http://coloradoindependent.com/8932/...-obama-t-shirt

1- IF, and that's a BIG IF, the kid wrote the saying himself, then YES the childs right to free speech WAS violated. If the father wrote it, and had the child wear it to "shirt" day... then I agree with you. The child might not understand the implications of his slogan... but he does have a right to say it. As unpopular it may have been, there is nothing obscene about it.


I don't think there is any "malice"... just some very inappropriate actions on part of the school teacher and the parents involved in that little "sing along".
Spin it how ever you want... it's creepy (putting it nicely) and has no place in a society such as ours. I agree with those that think this behaviour is better suited for China and North Korea... I still think there is something fishy about that Obama banner...

You're going to equate the "Sing for Change" children to that of organized religion... usualy based on moral fiber and faith? That's a stretch, and an obvious attempt to spin.

Honestly? Ummm no.
You're gona' have to back that claim up with some verified facts...

 

If the kid wrote it himself, where did he get the idea? From his parents, same as the kids singing for Obama, no difference.

Perhaps malice is the wrong word, but one is sweet and one is rude. If the T-Shirt kid wore a "Go McCain" shirt that he or his father made, then I think the school would be wrong. What he wore was intentionally abrasive, and school is no place for that.

No stretch my friend, you indoctrinate young, impressionable minds with ideology. I'm not saying it's wrong to bring your kids to church by any stretch of the imagination, but there is little difference between teaching, your children your religious beliefs and teaching them your political beliefs.

Jesus Camp, young kids at KKK rallys. Honestly, the large Evangelistic churches have been doing it since the 1970's at least. This is common knowledge, both sides have been "teaching" their children since the dawn of time.

Do you disagree that it's either right or wrong, not wrong because it's from liberals?

 

I'm you saw I was only kidding

 

The "steppers" are from a charter school; can't remember where off the top of my head where though. The instructor that worked with them and taught them the "steps" and chants has been suspeneded. Not sure the details of the suspension, but the school obvious took some offense to the video.

 

Who is the authority on the subject? who gets to choose what is offensive and what is not? It’s all rather subjective, wouldn't you say?

Yet… there is still a difference.
You have to choose one or the other... it's either right or it's wrong to bring your kids to church.
You'll call being brought up in a faith an "indoctrination" which by definition you'd be correct.
The context in which you are using the word, is where we differ.

These kids are getting a big dose of Alinsky / Obama

Religious kids get a big dose of God.
Do I really need to say which “ideology” I’d rather teach my kids?

Yes... some parents do questionable things with their children.
You can now add Sing for Change to that list. Some how pointing out other abnormalities in society makes the Obama "thing" better or some how legitimizes it? It doesn’t.
Since when did “large evangelical churches” become social pariahs? “Evangelical Church” is a large brush… care to be a little more specific? Just who is it common knowledge with? So in 1970 or there about… and since then… what have we been teaching our children…what?


We're getting a little myopic on this though. Let’s get back to the big picture… The Dems are trying to elect Obama... the fact of the matter is, this issue brings campaigning to an all time low. All the other videos drawing a parallel to other unsavory historical events and what these kids were made to do, are not that far off base.

This particular instance it is wrong, and it is from Liberal Democrats.

I still want to see an example where a "Right-Winger" used kids for nefarious purposes.