Obama Speech Reactions

[quote name='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.[/quote]...

Alberta?

You can do better than that.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']...

Alberta?

You can do better than that.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
[quote name='Mike23']Yeah, that's a couple provinces too far East.[/quote]Did we get a new province west of BC?
[quote name='Mike23']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.[/quote]Now, to be fair, I'm pretty sure there's one Liberal MP from Alberta.

...

This has been a Canadian Moment.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']This has been a Canadian Moment.[/QUOTE]

gwn.jpg
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']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)
[/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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?[/quote]
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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.[/QUOTE]

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)
[quote name='Mail & Guardian.com']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.[/quote]
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
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.[/quote]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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']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?
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='evanft']It really was fucking epic, wasn't it?[/QUOTE]
No.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket'] 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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']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.[/QUOTE]

partisan rhetoric is just more entertaining, than well articulated arguments. Running for president is like running for high school class president.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
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.[/QUOTE]

Fine. No reason to be all socialist about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top