|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 29, 2008 15:04:13 GMT -5
I didn't hear him explain how he was going to pay for any of it and I watched the whole speech. In fact during the post speech punditry Susan Estrich commented that the speech laid out the "Mondale like laundry list" of Democrat points, but that he had made absolutely no indication of how it was all to be paid for. Pretty sharp criticism from one of the farthest left political operatives wandering around these days. Juan Williams, a very liberal, black man who I've always held in high regard because he is a straight shooter, was equally unpraiseworthy. Of the Fox punditry only Bill Kristol thought it a good speech with substance... and he's an elitist conservative. What little of the MSNBC and CNN punditry I watched was effusive, as would be expected. The major networks were somewhat mixed in their reviews. The biggest empty suit moment of the night for me was when he attacked McCain for doing nothing about energy independence for the 26 years he's been in Congress. He didn't bother to mention that he and his running mate, Joe Biden, have a combined 39 years in the Senate (Biden having 36 of those years) and they haven't done a damned thing either. And 85,000 attended..... well some 20K of that was convention delegates and the party faithful who were seated on the field. The masses in the cheap seats and up in nosebleed country were lured, in part, by the star studded multi-act concert given prior to the event. Just like Berlin and just like Portland. Obama is getting maybe a three point pop in the daily tracking polls, when he should be getting ten to fifteen. While there may be some judgement being withheld (particularly by independents) until after the Republicans meet next week, the numbers don't lie. The Kool Aid he is peddling is not selling. If you didn't catch how he was going to pay for it start the video at the 27 minute mark. I also saw the Fox News analysis after the speech. It was laughable. While other networks were swooning over Obama's speech the Fox pundits were lukewarm about it. All except, as you mentioned, Bill Krystol. Krystol, an influential writer for the Weekly Standard, adviser to President Bush, and the biggest neocon of the bunch, gave credit where credit was due. The rest are just hacks for a pathetically biased news station. It is obvious that You choose to live in denial while I'm counting the days to the election. McCain is going down in flames with his new VP choice and our nation will rebound from the last 8 years. |
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Aug 29, 2008 15:10:41 GMT -5
It is obvious that You choose to live in denial while I'm counting the days to the election. McCain is going down in flames with his new VP choice and our nation will rebound from the last 8 years. And IF this puppet charlatan is elected..and there is no great rebound.. And NO Unicorn Factories and NO Machinery Powered by Love And NO Strawberry scented welfare checks...... WHO WILL YOU BLAME THEN? Then your tired and PREDICTABLE MANTRA will become... "Well 4 years is not enough time to un-do bla bla bla....drivel bla bla".... mark my words. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 29, 2008 15:44:25 GMT -5
In case you missed his speech last night here it is. It give you all the reasons you need to vote for the Democrat this year. Pay special attention when he details what "change" means and explains how he will pay for these changes. As you can see he is no empty suit. I am going to smite you for every youtube video you embed. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 29, 2008 15:59:44 GMT -5
In case you missed his speech last night here it is. It give you all the reasons you need to vote for the Democrat this year. Pay special attention when he details what "change" means and explains how he will pay for these changes. As you can see he is no empty suit. I am going to smite you for every youtube video you embed. You can't handle the truth? Nearly 40 million people watched Obama's speech last night. MSNBC had to cut away from Pat Bucanon because he was beside himself with praise for Obama's speech. Goes to show, Obama is a uniter like our country has never seen. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 29, 2008 16:08:52 GMT -5
LOL, yeah, 40 million watched. Doesn't mean they agree. I bet 40 million watch American Idol and other such clap trap, too. The number of people watching doesn't mean a thing other than that they want to see what is going to happen. Hell, I get Brady Bunch and Million Moms notices - doesn't mean I agree with their powerful and well financed anti civil rights lobby. I just want to know what they are saying.
Yes, he does give a REAL pretty speech. He is one of the best orators in a while. BUT giving a speech that is devoid of any content doesn't make a person qualified to be president.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 29, 2008 16:27:01 GMT -5
You keep saying he is an "empty suit" and "devoid of content" but what exactly do you mean by that. He has said specifically what changes he will bring and how he will pay for them. You might not agree with his views but he is certainly not devoid of content. I won't embed it to avoid bolverk's smite, here is Pat Buchanan's reaction to Obama: www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Fru4dZLGA# |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 29, 2008 17:15:51 GMT -5
Exactly what I'm saying. If you read the stuff on his website, and actually LISTEN to his words when he talks, and then THINK about them, there is NO content, NO plan other than tax, NOTHING.
Yeah, humor, cadence, good oratory, beautiful. Note that Pat was talking about the DELIVERY and how it SOUNDED and the EMOTIONS. But as with all of Barry boys talks, there is nothing there in the middle. The hole in the doughnut has as much actual content as Barrys little talks.
added: Actually, there is one bit of content - Barry does come out in favor of "reasonable gun control" and his idea of "reasonable" is no firearms in civilian hands. Period. He wants only the State to have that power. Seems that he really does not trust We the People.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 29, 2008 17:22:06 GMT -5
What?? Where does he say that?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 29, 2008 17:38:17 GMT -5
santurele, you're going to have to do better than that. i, also cannot find much in the speech that tells me " how" he will pay for all these dreamy ideas. i did hear him say that he will eliminate capital gains taxes on small business owners. unfortunately, small biz owner don't pay capital gains, they pay income taxes just like you and me. all of their business profits (i know that's an evil word to you socialist types) are reported as income. so, aside from making a dreamy promise, he isn't helping small biz owners at all. in fact, he will hurt them when he raises their income taxes. naturally, they will be forced to cut some of their employees and .....well, you can figure out the rest. also, obama says he will cut taxes on 95% of "working families." can someone pulheeeeze define "working family" for me? for some strange reason i get the feeling that my wife, daughter, son, and i who work hard everyday of the week won't be included as one of barak's "working families."  |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 29, 2008 19:20:20 GMT -5
Saunterelle, you need to check that yourself on his website. I'm not going to give his Chicago Machine any of my email addresses. I read his positon on guns before you had to sign up to get into his site, and did not copy or bookmark it. I then checked what he has said publicly about guns and how he voted on anti-civil rights laws. Heck, he supported a bill that would outlaw gun shops within 5 MILES of a school or park and eliminate most gun shops in the US. Yet he would not support a law that would prohibit adult bookstores within 1000 feet of schools or parks because it wasn't the job of government to control things like that. the rest of his record, the times that he didn't just vote 'yeah, I'm here', shows a consistant pattern of more and more restrictions on honest citizens. And he constantly uses the phrase 'reasonable gun control' which is the anti-civil rights lobbys code phrase for banning all private ownership of firearms (or placeing enough restrictions on it that it becomes a de facto ban, even if not de jure - basically all the politicians and their rich and powerful friends could still have theirs - like Don Perata with his CCW while working hard to make sure no ordinary citizen could buy a gun. Or DiFi and her "I need a gun because I'm important" when asked why she kept her CCW while pushing to ban ownership of firearms by honest citizens. Or Sarah Brady bragging about her straw purchase of a high powered long range sniper rifle for her son while using her well financed lobby to deny guns to everyone else.)
He was on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which throws much of the weight of its almost billion dollars in assets into efforts to remove guns from the hands of private citizens. That is pretty much a constant in his political history - a constant attempt to deny civil rights to honest citizens.
Yeah, he says in public that he supports the RKBA and that the Constitution "grants" (his word, and he calls himself a constitutional scholar. The Constitution PROTECTS a pre-existing RKBA, it does not 'grant' it.). His record says otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 29, 2008 19:43:23 GMT -5
With economic growth spurred by low taxes, reduced environmental regulation, and affordable domestic oil. Harpman1, can you give me some examples or at least one per? |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 29, 2008 19:46:45 GMT -5
|
|
