Obama Speech Reactions

[KingBroly]

I was wondering what everyone's reactions to the speech and delivery of said speech were. I think there were some good points, bad points and stupid points. Let's start with a stupid point.

- Obama said McCain wouldn't go to the cave where Bin Laden was hiding in.
My Response: Would Obama go to Bin Laden's cave? I think we know the answer to this.

Bad point
- He's saying the average household income has gone down over $2,000 since Bush took office.
My Response: Due to the increase in the amount of the US population, especially those of illegal immigrants dramatically lowering the income average. (If he tied it into illegal immigration, then it would've been good, but he didn't)

Good point
- He said he'd balance the budget by eliminating useless programs
My response: If he had thrown in 2 or 3 specific programs then I would've liked this part even more.

So yeah, that's just part of what I thought. I don't think he delivered it quite as well as he could have, especially in the beginning.

[dmaul1114]

I thought it was a fantastic speech, among the best I've heard.

It did everything it needed to do in terms of standing up to McCain and differentiating himself from him. Of establishing that he is not weak on national security and is ready to lead. To outlining his plans in more detail than his speeches usually do (though there's plenty of details on his website) and saying how he'd pay for them.

In all he made a strong statement to people on the fence on who to vote for. It will be interesting to see how well McCain responds at the RNC next week.

[Koggit]

Bad point
- He's saying the average household income has gone down over $2,000 since Bush took office.
My Response: Due to the increase in the amount of the US population, especially those of illegal immigrants dramatically lowering the income average. (If he tied it into illegal immigration, then it would've been good, but he didn't)

Illegals aren't included -- income stats are compiled using IRS data, which, of course, excludes illegals. Increase in population shouldn't cause a decrease in median income.


Overall his speech was unimpressive, but I don't see how that comment of his was in any way off the mark.

[Thomas96]

I enjoyed the speech, immensely. He did make one mistake that I'm sure Rush will make fun of. But it was good that he said that there were going to be benefits for small businesses. Because Rush, and Hannidy have been making seem like they were going to suffer. He addressed the McCain celebrity commercial. Saying that the election was not about him, and that it was about the people, I feel was a good point to make. Mccain had been trying to turn Obama's success against him.

Overall though, I don't we'll see anyone give a better speech for a very long time.

[Msut77]

Point 1) Perhaps you took the cave thing a bit to literally.

Point 2) The decline of well paying jobs and the rise of income inequality in this country has many more factors than population growth or immigrants, much more than can be put into a speech or even this thread.

Point 3) Obama will do his best to try and balance the budget he is after all a Liberal and does not have a vested interest in causing huge deficits to foster a fiscal crisis.

I watched the speech with my grandfather and the speech knocked everything out of the park so hard it changed him from a fence sitter to a Obama fan.


My personal favorite:

"It is time for them to own their failure."

[KingBroly]

But yet illegal immigrants are counted in the U.S. census and through statistics, can be manipulated in anyway you want. Which I think is the case here.

It was one of those comments, to me at least seemed off. Unclear. If I wanted to go with overall themes, I'd say he gave mixed messages that left me puzzled.

[Dead of Knight]

I enjoyed the speech, immensely. He did make one mistake that I'm sure Rush will make fun of. But it was good that he said that there were going to be benefits for small businesses. Because Rush, and Hannidy have been making seem like they were going to suffer. He addressed the McCain celebrity commercial. Saying that the election was not about him, and that it was about the people, I feel was a good point to make. Mccain had been trying to turn Obama's success against him.

Overall though, I don't we'll see anyone give a better speech for a very long time.

Why do you pay any attention to what Rush Limbaugh and Hannity say, even if you disagree? You must have a higher tolerance for listening to bullshit than me.

[greydt]

Wouldn't your "stupid point" be attributed to McCain, since he's the one who originated that stupid statement, and Obama was calling him out on it?

Source on your "bad point"? I work in advertising and work with population numbers, HH income, etc. alot (including a one year stint on hispanic advertising), eand don't see this population flood that would attribute this to them.
Also, it depends on how Obama's people came to their numbers. Would illegals even show up in officially counted numbers? (which would render your point entirely moot?) I have no idea what their source of data is, and since you seem to be able to render such an opinion, I assume you know the data source? Hence, please share your source?
Edit: Never mind, looks like you were just making stuff up. I generally questions quoted numbers too, but please don't waste people's time with fiction.

Otherwise, I would be interested to see if Obama would "Manhattan Project" America's shift from it's dependence on foreign all. Increase # of teachers + increase their pay (which would hopefully draw more talent to teaching).

What resonated for me was: as a person who doesn't see things black and white, I liked how Obama stated that doing one thing does not necessary mean you can't do another. For example, I tell people that I'm "Pro Choice but not Pro Abortion". There's a nuance to it that some people will get, and that's how I think the world is: a HUGE series of nuance. Hence, I am mildly hopeful that we might have leaders who can see in nuance and no the "extreme everything" we've had for the last 8 years.

Still jaded on government, but will keep an eye out to see what promises are kept.

[KingBroly]

Limbaugh is more tame than you think and he tries to make it entertaining (and says as much). At least he's not trying to be on a cardboard box like most conservative talk show hosts.

I'm listening to reactions. Independents are mixed, democrats are drooling, and nothing from republicans (besides Rove) yet. I saw McCain's ad which was a 'good job Obama' sort of thing. Don't really get it, especially after the way Obama talked about him.

EDIT: For the stupid point, I'm saying it's something that shouldn't have been brought up. It's not the smart thing to say, because you will always be criticized for saying something extreme, even if it was to a response that most people didn't hear.

[Msut77]

Limbaugh is more tame than you think

That is only when he has overdosed on painkillers. Otherwise he is a reprehensible piece of work.

I'm listening to reactions. Independents are mixed, democrats are drooling...,

Do you consider yourself an independent or have we finally got ourselves a bonafide W/McCain fan?

Don't really get it, especially after the way Obama talked about him.

Did Obama compare him to Nicole Richie? Because I think I missed that part.

[dmaul1114]

Wow, even Pat Buchanan was raving about how good the speech was on MSNBC just a minute ago....

From what a person on another forum could recall after hearing it (and this seems to be about all I can recall as well) Buchanan said it was:

Magnificent
Outstanding
Possibly the best acceptance speech ever.
A speech that goes to the heart of America. Not a liberal speech AT ALL.
It was beautiful.

[Unickuta]

An amazing speech. I feel proud to be an American.

I'm from an area that was really big on Clinton...and even before this speech, when I went to the local diner yesterday, the same guys that earlier had said they would never vote for Obama were talking about how it's all changed.

Then again, I'm from a heavily Irish area, so it might just be the addition of Joe Biden to the ticket. :D

[Frogurt.man]

It seemed like he had a little bit of trouble of controlling the crowd in the beginning but that would be expected when you have a FOOTBALL STADIUM full of people. Sheeesh I still can't get over that.

[KingBroly]

That is only when he has overdosed on painkillers. Otherwise he is quite a piece of work.

Do you consider yourself an independent or have we finally got ourselves a bonafide W/McCain fan.

Did Obama compare him to Nicole Richie? Because I think I missed that part.

Come on, now. Personal attacks? I think we have some kind of dignity here. Unlike some other gaming forums NeoGaf, Gamefaqs

Here's why I don't like John McCain: He'll sell you up the river to appease someone else. As for Bush, as the first Presidential candidate I ever voted for, I can't help but be disappointed.

Comparing McCain to Nicole Richie? I definitely missed that. I'd have to say if it was true it'd be bad for Obama because it'd be ridiculous.

[Koggit]

I saw McCain's ad which was a 'good job Obama' sort of thing. Don't really get it, especially after the way Obama talked about him.

That was released much earlier today, much before Obama's speech. What's not to get? It's an ad by a presidential candidate, intended to sway public opinion in their favor. It's not nearly as ugly as his campaign has been lately, but it's still nothing but an ad.

[greydt]

Comparing McCain to Nicole Richie? I definitely missed that. I'd have to say if it was true it'd be bad for Obama because it'd be ridiculous.

First the cave thing, and now this. I think your achilles heel might be understanding sarcasm... ;)

[Msut77]

Personal attacks?

Why not? It is not as if there is going to be any substance in one of your threads, for example your "drooling democrats" foolishness.

Comparing McCain to Nicole Richie? I definitely missed that. I'd have to say if it was true it'd be bad for Obama because it'd be ridiculous.

It obviously flew over your head but I was making a comparison to the McCain ad where Obama was compared to Paris Hilton and yes it was totally ridiculous.

[KingBroly]

I know the McCain ad where it was shown after (where the majority of people were going to watch it) was a move to get some good graces going his way. Whether it worked or not...eh, I don't know.

Sarcasm weakness aside, it will roll through peoples' heads and make them wonder the same thing, even for a split second. I still stand it shouldn't have been said. It's a stupid comment for him to make in a serious atmosphere.

EDIT: I guess drooling was a bad word to use. Democrats loved the speech. Does that sound better to you?

[Msut77]

I guess drooling was a bad word to use. Loved the speech? Does that sound better??

Why don't you run a focus group and get back to me?

Also do you plan on voting for McCain or not?

[KingBroly]

I honestly can't make up my mind. I had this dilemma in 04 with Bush and Kerry. I probably would've voted for Kerry until he went all personal against Cheney's family.

You see, I think in terms of practicality most of the time. What I like to hear, what I don't like to hear. But yet, I know the world of politics enough to see what games they're playing, what's working, what isn't. That being said, I think you'll see an 8-10 point bump for Obama in a couple of days. I never trust morning after polls. They seem so...forced and unnecessary.

[Koggit]

I know the McCain ad where it was shown after (where the majority of people were going to watch it) was a move to get some good graces going his way. Whether it worked or not...eh, I don't know.

Sarcasm weakness aside, it will roll through peoples' heads and make them wonder the same thing, even for a split second. I still stand it shouldn't have been said. It's a stupid comment for him to make in a serious atmosphere.

I think you miss the point. His ad wasn't sarcastic at all. He was congratulating Obama, a black man, for making it this far -- and pointed out that he won't attack Obama today, the anniversary of MLK's speech and the first day that we have a black presidential candidate. He didn't approve of Obama's speech, campaign or beliefs. He just congratulated him for making it here.

McCain's campaign has been extremely aggressive in the past month and this is done, in part, to prevent his campaign's aggression from giving him the image of a dirty politician.

[Msut77]

I probably would've voted for Kerry until he went all personal against Cheney's family.

I must have missed that, you cannot possibly be referring to the time Kerry mentioned Cheney's openly gay daughter could you?

You must not have a problem with a politician going after someones family since you voted for Bush. You know the guy whos campaign went after McCain's daughter spreading rumors about her etc.

[dmaul1114]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/28/obama.transcript/index.html

A transcript of the speech if anyone cares to peruse it.

[KingBroly]

I must have missed that, you cannot possibly be referring to the time Kerry mentioned Cheney's openly gay daughter being gay could you?

You must not have a problem with a politician going after someones family since you voted for Bush the first time around as well. You know the guy whos campaign went after McCain's daughter spreading rumors about her etc.

Uh...I wasn't a registered voter in 2000. What gave you that impression? I see everyone running for President, in office or not, as a candidate.

[lawdood]

Great speech, I think the Democrats really hit a home run this week. Let's hope it can carry them through the fall and this election. I truly hope America is smart enough to reject another 4 years of failed Republican policies and fear mongering.

[Hex]

Let me put it this way- I loved it. This and the possibility of Barack being president almost makes me want to reconsider my immigration to Alberta.

Almost.

[Ugamer_X]

Am I the only one who thought that the McCain ad was filled with racial undertones? I think that ad was designed to make McCain look civil but remind everyone that Obama is black and his nomination was enough of an accomplishment.

[Thomas96]

Why do you pay any attention to what Rush Limbaugh and Hannity say, even if you disagree? You must have a higher tolerance for listening to bullshit than me.

I like Rush, however Hannity, omg sometimes I have to turn my whole radio off.

[Msut77]

Uh...I wasn't a registered voter in 2000. What gave you that impression

Mea culpa.

I see everyone running for President, in office or not, as a candidate.

Well that is.... great. But even though I was off by one election the point still stands you voted for someone who went after another guys family instead of Kerry who did not.

[dmaul1114]

Well that is.... great. But even though I was off by one election the point still stands you voted for someone who went after another guys family instead of Kerry who did not.

But if he wasn't a registered voter in 2000 (assuming he was too young) he probably paid no attention and wasn't aware of Bush/Cheney's past attacks on McCain's family when he voted in 2004.

Point being it could be a case of ignorance (meant as not knowing rather than lacking intelligence) rather than hypocrisy.

[Hex]

I like Rush

:shock:

A Rush fan? I wasn't aware people that crazy existed. :D

[Msut77]

But if he wasn't a registered voter in 2000 (assuming he was too young) he probably paid no attention and wasn't aware of Bush/Cheney's past attacks on McCain's family when he voted in 2004.

Point being it could be a case of ignorance (meant as not knowing rather than lacking intelligence) rather than hypocrisy.

I would also bet on ignorance. I could not vote in 2000 either, I just happen to read a lot.

[KingBroly]

But yet you think I knew about it in 2004. At the time I was not as heavily entrenched in the political world as I am now. I knew who was running, and that was about it. I watched a Presidential debate, but that was about it.

I did watch the election coverage though. I found it funny seeing every news station screw up so badly

[Msut77]

But yet you think I knew about it in 2004. At the time I was not as heavily entrenched in the political world as I am now. I knew who was running, and that was about it. I watched a Presidential debate, but that was about it.

I did watch the election coverage though. I found it funny seeing every news station screw up so badly

To think how clueless you must have been then if you consider yourself deeply "entrenched in the political world" now.

Tuning into Rush Limbaugh every once in a while is not enough, perhaps you should try harder. Reading is fundamental, you can learn things like McCain has teamed up with some of the very same people that slimed his daughter. Classy.

[mykevermin]

I sat in on a two hour conference call and missed the whole bloody thing.

I'll have to read the transcript.

[KingBroly]

I don't really listen to Rush anymore. I mean, I can, but I kinda try and read newspaper articles and dissect from there. Also some extremist blogs (both sides) every now and again for laughs. But I can say that Limbaugh is the one that turned me off TV news.

I wasn't entirely clueless. I just didn't pay attention to the details, only listening to what the mainstream media gave me 30 minutes a day a couple of days a week. I knew stuff like taxes, abortion, etc, but not the details.

[Msut77]

I don't really listen to Rush anymore. I mean, I can, but I kinda try and read newspaper articles and dissect from there. Also some extremist blogs (both sides) every now and again for laughs. But I can say that Limbaugh is the one that turned me off TV news.

I wasn't entirely clueless. I just didn't pay attention to the details, only listening to what the mainstream media gave me 30 minutes a day a couple of days a week. I knew stuff like taxes, abortion, etc, but not the details.

I can recommend some books they are all written by America hating commies but that kind of goes with the territory when it comes to literacy.

[KingBroly]

I think I'll take a raincheck on that for now.

[dmaul1114]

If anyone is feeling generous after the speech, you can get an Obama-Biden car magnet for making a donation of $15 or more. I sent $100 his way myself.

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/vpmagnet?source=featuregraphic

I sat in on a two hour conference call and missed the whole bloody thing.

I'll have to read the transcript.

There are also videos already up on www.cspan.org and I'm sure other sites as well.

[Ugamer_X]

I sat in on a two hour conference call and missed the whole bloody thing.

I'll have to read the transcript.
I'm sure it'll be uploaded to Obama's or some other news site within a day.

Ignoring Obama's politics and my feelings towards him, it was a really effective speech. There were some excellent lines and overall the speech had teeth. But not in the sense that he was attacking, more so that he defended himself and the Democrats from the generic Republican charges that Democrats are gutless and don't have the pride in America that conservatives do. It was something that wasn't done properly by the two previous candidates and it will pay off for Obama.

[Msut77]

I think I'll take a raincheck on that for now.

I thought you would.

[dmaul1114]

There were some excellent lines and overall the speech had teeth. But not in the sense that he was attacking, more so that he defended himself and the Democrats from the generic Republican charges that Democrats are gutless and don't have the pride in America that conservatives do. It was something that wasn't done properly by the two previous candidates and it will pay off for Obama.

That's exactly why I like it so much. It was a strong speech that strongly warded off the republican attacks, and attacked McCain's stance on the issues rather than attacking McCain's character or resorting to divisive partisan nonsense.

See more of my views on this, and an excerpt from Obama's speech that I thought especially drove this issue home, in the Kucinich thread a few threads down.

[Unickuta]

kOdIqKsv624

I still think this speech was better than Obama's, in that it was more groundbreaking.

[Kandal]

I dropped tears listening to his speech.

[Krymner]

It was a good speech, but we all know Obama can give a good speech. I thought he should have included more specifics myself, but eh, there's only so long you can talk to a crowd that big and expect them to pay attention.

Oh, and about the earlier discussion about OP's bad point about the average household income:

There was a NY Times article Monday (August 25) (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/business/economy/26income.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) that talks about the avr. US income has actually risen, but the numbers are only in up to 2006. I assume it takes a couple years to compile all the data. I have no idea whatsoever where Obama got his $2000 number from, cause it sounds to me like he just pulled it out of his ass.

Average income fell sharply in 2001 and in 2002, when it dropped to $51,870, off nearly 10 percent from 2000, tax data show. The average grew slightly in 2003.
Average income grew significantly in 2004, rising $2,291, and again in 2005, when the average increased by $2,210. Income growth continued in 2006, but at a much slower pace, increasing by $1,369 over the 2005 average once inflation is taken into account.
It's possible the avr. income has fallen in the last 2 years, but an average drop of $2000 really doesn't seem that important seeing as it seems to flucuate around that marker over the last few years anyway.

[greydt]

It's possible the avr. income has fallen in the last 2 years, but an average drop of $2000 really doesn't seem that important seeing as it seems to flucuate around that marker over the last few years anyway.


Perhaps there's also inflation and buying power involved? I have a feeling gas prices by itself might account for a "wage decrease"/dollars in pocket.

[johnnypark]

I dropped tears listening to his speech.

Honestly, I got a little choked up too. He's the 1st politician in a long, long time who seems to truly care about the things he's saying. I think Al Gore was the last one, I really believed in him in 2000 (and still do).

And props to him to say he wants to run a campaign that doesn't question the character or patriotism of anyone. Granted, he wouldn't be very successful doing so against a war veteran like McCain, but if there's one thing he's been entirely consistent on, it's a refusal to engage in divisive tactics like that. Hilary tried some of the same shit, and Obama never fired back in the same way. He defends the (often outrageous and unfounded) claims made by his opponents but never resorts to the same type of attacks.

I really don't know what McCain could say that would possibly make him seem like the better candidate now, IMHO. I'll admit my mind was made up before I ever heard either of them speak, but now there's no doubt in my mind that he's the man for the job.

[Mr. 420]

Just call him black jesus. If you don't see the choice is clear, you have a lot to fear.

[RAMSTORIA]

Just call him black jesus. If you don't see the choice is clear, you have a lot to fear.


I try not to get my polical insight from someone with a name like Mr. 420 with an avatar with women wrestlers.

[The Crotch]

Let me put it this way- I loved it. This and the possibility of Barack being president almost makes me want to reconsider my immigration to Alberta.

Almost....

Alberta?

You can do better than that.

[Mike23]

...

Alberta?

You can do better than that.

Yeah, that's a couple provinces too far West. You think you know Conservatism now, Alberta has elected a provincial Conservative government since 1971 and currently has 32 Federal MPs from the Conservative Party of Canada.

It's the same as if the state senate and every representative of the state in Washington was Republican.

---

Anyway, Barack's speech was great. Substantive, yet had all the inspiration of a typical Obama speech.

[trq]

Well, there was one thing that Obama said that I disagreed with: "America, we are better than the last eight years. We are a better country than this."

Chalk this up to my disillusionment with the Bush reign of error, but I believe that people get the politicians they deserve, and the more I interact with "the other side" in this debate, the more convinced I am that it's true.

Guess we'll know come November.

EDIT: Buchanan's commentary. Nobody is more surprised than I am that I'm agreeing more and more with Pat, since Dubya took office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Fru4dZLGA

[RAMSTORIA]

EDIT: Buchanan's commentary. Nobody is more surprised than I am that I'm agreeing more and more with Pat, since Dubya took office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Fru4dZLGA

Probably because Pat has abonded the republican party in favor of true conservatism (well, more true).

[The Crotch]

Yeah, that's a couple provinces too far East.Did we get a new province west of BC?
You think you know Conservatism now, Alberta has elected a provincial Conservative government since 1971 and currently has 32 Federal MPs from the Conservative Party of Canada.

It's the same as if the state senate and every representative of the state in Washington was Republican.Now, to be fair, I'm pretty sure there's one Liberal MP from Alberta.

...

This has been a Canadian Moment.

[evanft]

I honestly can't make up my mind. I had this dilemma in 04 with Bush and Kerry. I probably would've voted for Kerry until he went all personal against Cheney's family.

You see, I think in terms of practicality most of the time. What I like to hear, what I don't like to hear. But yet, I know the world of politics enough to see what games they're playing, what's working, what isn't. That being said, I think you'll see an 8-10 point bump for Obama in a couple of days. I never trust morning after polls. They seem so...forced and unnecessary.

Alright, I'm gonna be honest; fuck you. Seriously, if you can't make up your fucking mind between two fundamentally different ways of thinking, you're either uninformed or stupid. Please don't vote.

[mykevermin]

This has been a Canadian Moment.

http://sctvguide.ca/programs/images/gwn.jpg

[Koggit]

http://imnotboredanymore.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/quz0jyigpd49vvcdtlqvflar-500.jpg

[mykevermin]

That's gotta be fake.

[thrustbucket]

Great speech, I think the Democrats really hit a home run this week. Let's hope it can carry them through the fall and this election. I truly hope America is smart enough to reject another 4 years of failed Republican policies and fear mongering.

Almost every single one of your posts contains the popular DNC pamphlet buzzwords "fear mongering". Now that's fine, if it makes you feel witty, but I'd like to point out that the only reason that's such a fun word to throw around today is because you haven't had a real reason to fear anything in 8 years. (and I'm not endorsing anyone, just an observation)


As for OP:
I hate to be negative Nancy but speeches don't mean shit. I mean seriously, how many presidents have we had that actually came through on even half of what was talked about in their acceptance speech? Shit, not even presidents, but any elected official in general. We tend to vote on speeches, which sucks, but that's about all we have to go on. Bush is a fine example of someone that didn't live up to almost any of his promises from the last campaign, and in some cases completely reversed (e.g. immigration)

Obama is a master speech giver. Nobody denies that. He is brilliant at speeches. But being good at talk and being good at action are two different things, only one of which he's proven on, which makes him a gamble for those that love what he says.

Being fantastic at making steering speeches yet being ultimately impotent in action just makes you a top 5 talk radio show host. I guess we'll see where this goes.

My big issue with Obama is my concern with how much he'd sacrifice and compromise for the party. As we've seen with Bush, it's tragic for the whole country when a president blatantly ignores, reverses stance, or blocks legislation because of party loyalty or what's good for the party. The real test of Obama, imo, will be how much he can stand on his own principles, hell or high water, regardless of his party's positions.

[dmaul1114]

Almost every single one of your posts contains the popular DNC pamphlet buzzwords "fear mongering". Now that's fine, if it makes you feel witty, but I'd like to point out that the only reason that's such a fun word to throw around today is because you haven't had a real reason to fear anything in 8 years. (and I'm not endorsing anyone, just an observation)


Are you serious? You bashing someone for using rhetoric when a large majority of your posts contain buzz words like "socialist" and you seldom offer anything but bullshit conservative rhetoric?

As for the latter point, was as american's have a hell of a lot more to fear after the last 8 years that we did before.

-9/11 was only 7 years ago next month, so it's within this 8 year window you're referring to
-we've increased animosity in the middle east and made it easier for terrorist recruiting
-we've alienated allies and have less international support we can count on
-our military is stretched thin, leaving us very vulnerable if there's a major international crisis
-the economy sucks and people fear losing their jobs, homes, retirements tied up in the falling stock market
-etc. etc.

Get a grip man!

[thrustbucket]

Are you serious? You bashing someone for using rhetoric when a large majority of your posts contain buzz words like "socialist" and you seldom offer anything but bullshit conservative rhetoric?
America is becoming more socialist. But what you fail to acknowledge is that I blame both parties. One party is just less shy about it's socialist goals. Why do you care though? If I recall, you have essentially said in many posts before that you prefer more socializing to to "fix" things, haven't you?

As for the latter point, was as american's have a hell of a lot more to fear after the last 8 years that we did before.
I don't disagree.

-9/11 was only 7 years ago next month, so it's within this 8 year window you're referring to
True. I was off a year, sue me. I was referring to 9/11. Maybe you have a short memory but right after 9/11 nearly everyone was afraid. And the majority of people were ok with signing away their rights out of fear. I'm simply pointing out that now, as time has passed, and we are back to our 90's safety thinking, it's fun and trendy to point fingers about our lost rights.

-we've increased animosity in the middle east and made it easier for terrorist recruiting
First part arguable. Second part is your own guess/hope.

Let's pretend your right - We increased animosity with Japan in the 1940's, is that proof we were wrong? In hindsight, I guess we should have talked our differences out then too....

-we've alienated allies and have less international support we can count on
Who? The U.N.? The big, bad, intimidating U.N.?
Name a country we have alienated that we've ever relied on "support" from and received since WWII.

-our military is stretched thin, leaving us very vulnerable if there's a major international crisis
I agree with this. But I don't believe that's a partisan issue.

-the economy sucks and people fear losing their jobs, homes, retirements tied up in the falling stock market
-etc. etc.
So? What does that have to do with fear mongering? Oh wait, you mean when Democrats try and scare people into thinking one party is responsible for such things and it will only get worse if not voting Democrat? You mean that fearmongering?

[Ecofreak]

Being fantastic at making steering speeches yet being ultimately impotent in action just makes you a top 5 talk radio show host. I guess we'll see where this goes.

My big issue with Obama is my concern with how much he'd sacrifice and compromise for the party. As we've seen with Bush, it's tragic for the whole country when a president blatantly ignores, reverses stance, or blocks legislation because of party loyalty or what's good for the party. The real test of Obama, imo, will be how much he can stand on his own principles, hell or high water, regardless of his party's positions.

We all agree that speeches don't amount to a pile of beans - it's all about actions.

So when Senator Obama holds an economic panel on July 29th with broad bi-partisan participation I believe he'll do just fine. He's no slouch when it comes to hearing opinions contrary to him. In fact, I believe he'll be just like the other great president from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, who filled his cabinet with people of the other party. They'd disagree like hell, but at least he could see the whole picture when making decisions.

Unlike President Bush with his cabinet full of psychopathic "Yes Men" and "Yes Women."

From Mail & Guardian (Australian Newspaper) (http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-07-29-obama-confronts-us-economic-emergency)
Obama's economic panel included former treasury secretary Robert Rubin, former Federal Reserve chairperson Paul Volcker, billionaire investor Warren Buffett and Google chairperson Eric Schmidt.

Boosting Obama's appeal for a break with partisan politics, two ex-members of President George Bush's administration -- treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and securities and exchange commissioner William Donaldson -- also attended.

[The Crotch]

Who? The U.N.? The big, bad, intimidating U.N.?
Name a country we have alienated that we've ever relied on "support" from and received since WWII.Well... Canada, for one, has provided support in assorted foreign adventures post-WWII. And as far as most of us are concerned... well, yeah, you've gone and alienated us - quite a mighty accomplishment, I must say. Not our leaders, sure, but that's a whole other thread for me 'n Mike here if anyone's interested (short version: leader unpopular, but at least isn't a fucking idiot). And while this ain't the sort of thing anyone would base their vote on, the whole lot of us would think you guys are absolute batshit insane if Obama isn't elected.


Now, if you wanna be a sticky-stickler you could say that you've never "relied" on Canada since WWII except maybe in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

[Msut77]

America is becoming more socialist. But what you fail to acknowledge is that I blame both parties. One party is just less shy about it's socialist goals. Why do you care though? If I recall, you have essentially said in many posts before that you prefer more socializing to to "fix" things, haven't you?

Thrust has never come close to anything resembling a point in anyone one of his posts ever, is it too much to ask for him to make a coherent argument or have some command of facts at all?.

The Republicans and their con lackeys have used the concept of a "free market" as justification to thoroughly trash or sell to the highest bidder nearly everything in this country. These attempts at dismantling the government and programs that the vast, vast majority of Americans approve of has been Republican policy for a generation now. To sit there and attempt to foist the results of decades of con incompetence on both parties or "socialism" (which means nothing the way you use it) is a sign of how out of touch with reality you are.

I once compared his idiocy and lack of self awareness to that of a goldfish, I should have instead compared thurst to a monocellular organism.

[The Crotch]

Dmaul weeps.

[Msut77]

Crotch can be so nonchalant about it because these creeps are not currently ruining his country.

[dmaul1114]

America is becoming more socialist. But what you fail to acknowledge is that I blame both parties. One party is just less shy about it's socialist goals. Why do you care though? If I recall, you have essentially said in many posts before that you prefer more socializing to to "fix" things, haven't you?


My point is not that I'm offended by people using such rhetoric.

My point was:

1. You can't complain about other's using rhetoric when you toss that kind of stuff all the time. Unless you don't mind being a hypocrite.

2. Such rhetoric adds nothing to the discussion and just makes people disregard your views. Take the time to post well thought arguments, explain your stances and intelligently challenge points you disagree with. Rather than just a bunch of "blah blah blah socialist blah blah blah." Same goes for liberals who post a bunch of insults and personal attacks rather than substantively arguing issues.

[mykevermin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv8eiDvrHJ4

The whole thing if'n you want to see it again.

[evanft]

It really was fucking epic, wasn't it?

[thrustbucket]

My point is not that I'm offended by people using such rhetoric.

My point was:

1. You can't complain about other's using rhetoric when you toss that kind of stuff all the time. Unless you don't mind being a hypocrite.

2. Such rhetoric adds nothing to the discussion and just makes people disregard your views. Take the time to post well thought arguments, explain your stances and intelligently challenge points you disagree with. Rather than just a bunch of "blah blah blah socialist blah blah blah." Same goes for liberals who post a bunch of insults and personal attacks rather than substantively arguing issues.

That's fine. And mostly true. I don't disagree that it might dilute my arguments throwing around words like "socialist". But as long as the other side loves to throw out words like "neo-con" and "fascist", I don't think I am doing anything other than staying at their level.

It really was fucking epic, wasn't it?
No.

[dmaul1114]

But as long as the other side loves to throw out words like "neo-con" and "fascist", I don't think I am doing anything other than staying at their level.


My whole point is that people should be better than that and not respond to partisan rhetoric with their own partisan rhetoric. But really it's a lost cause, there's just no hope for reasonable discourse on politics, especially on the net. And especially a lost cause with you if that's the way you feel.

Too many people don't think independently or have the capacity to put out well articulated arguments.

Most people are just sheep entrenched in partisan rhetoric and have no interest in considering opposing arguments and offering thought full critique and explaining why they disagree. They're just all rah, rah, rah touting blind allegiance to their party line over and over and insulting everyone who has a different view.

But at any rate, if you are fine "staying at their level" the shut the fuck up with being a hypocrite and calling others out for posting at that level. If you want to call people out for doing something, you can't do it yourself all the time.

[Thomas96]

My whole point is that people should be better than that and not respond to partisan rhetoric with their own partisan rhetoric. But really it's a lost cause, there's just no hope for reasonable discourse on politics, especially on the net. And especially a lost cause with you if that's the way you feel.

Too many people don't think independently or have the capacity to put out well articulated arguments.

Most people are just sheep entrenched in partisan rhetoric and have no interest in considering opposing arguments and offering thought full critique and explaining why they disagree. They're just all rah, rah, rah touting blind allegiance to their party line over and over and insulting everyone who has a different view.

But at any rate, if you are fine "staying at their level" the shut the fuck up with being a hypocrite and calling others out for posting at that level. If you want to call people out for doing something, you can't do it yourself all the time.

partisan rhetoric is just more entertaining, than well articulated arguments. Running for president is like running for high school class president.

[evanft]

Except the hot english teacher you want to fuck is actually running.

[thrustbucket]

But at any rate, if you are fine "staying at their level" the shut the fuck up with being a hypocrite and calling others out for posting at that level. If you want to call people out for doing something, you can't do it yourself all the time.

Fine. No reason to be all socialist about it.