Nice speech, No Substance
Published on August 29, 2008 By Island Dog In Democrat

I forced myself to watch the spectacle last night, and I have to admit I was expecting a much better speech.  It really wasn't that great as it was a typical liberal speech filled with DNC talking points, and all about what the government should be doing to take over every aspect of your life.

So lets analyze some of his speech.

"Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit cards, bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government’s making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush."

Of course, had to start off blaming Bush for Americans lack of personal responsiblity.  Failure to respond?  Don't you mean the "failure" of the government to give hand-outs to people who spend beyond their means?

"… that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes."

Don't you mean the state and local government that failed to act?  Trying to play to the victim crowd here.

"He said that our economy has made great progress under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

And when one of his chief advisers, the man who wrote his economic plan, was talking about the anxieties that Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a mental recession and that we’ve become, and I quote, “a nation of whiners.”

Ummm.....the fundamentals are strong.  Did you not get the memo yesterday that the GDP grew 3.3% and the jobless rate was down?  As as being "whiners", well what is inaccurate about that?  I have seen people at democrat townhall events where they complain about not having health insurance or their own home, but actually admit they don't want to work for it.

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
(APPLAUSE)
We will do this. Washington — Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years. And, by the way, John McCain has been there for 26 of them."

I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels — an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

10 years?  That is quite a fantasy you have their, especially when you have to side with your environmentalist buddies who oppose pretty much everything.  Oh, how long has Biden been part of the "do nothing" government  you speak of?

"I’ll invest in early childhood education. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange, I’ll ask for higher standards and more accountability.
And we will keep our promise to every young American: If you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education."

Oh goodness.  So he will get kids hooked on government education at an even earlier age, just for babysitting purposes.  Once again, how are you going to pay for all this, including paying for college?

"If you have health care — if you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves."

Government involvement will only make the problem worse Obama, haven't you realized that by now?  How are you going to lower premiums?

"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime: by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.
But I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less, because we cannot meet 21st-century challenges with a 20th-century bureaucracy."

Um.....no you haven't.  Your spending plans are too huge to even calculate, and closing loopholes in tax laws won't even come close to paying for it.  You really do live in fantasy land don't you?

"If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have."

Please...please....please!  I can't wait until you go one-on-one with McCain without a teleprompter.  Umm.....errr....umm.....errr.......

"We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don’t tell me that Democrats won’t defend this country. Don’t tell me that Democrats won’t keep us safe.'

No sir.  You are the party of appeasement, the party of weakness, and I have no problem telling you that democrats won't keep us safe.

" So I’ve got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first."

OK.  Then please explain your associations with domest terrorists Ayers, and why you (and the media) have been covering up that relationship.  Also tell us why your campaign has been trying to forceably silence people who are telling this story?  Why do you also associate yourself with anti-American people like Wright?

"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.'

Nice way to move around the issue.  You sir, haven't supported the killing of babies, even in late terms.  You sir, advocate murder.  Don't bullshit us with your "we may not agree" nonsense, tell us your real stance on abortion and will your government health care pay for it?

"The — the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals."

Can you be any more vague?  What is your stance on the 2nd Amendment?  What is your stance on the rights of citizens to carry weapons?  Can you ever answer a damn question or tell us a straight answer?

Overall, this speech makes the same mistakes the DNC has made for years.  They are running against George Bush, not McCain.  I was up late last night and I have to say Obama did accomplish one thing.  He has made conservatives and republicans rally around McCain like I have never seen before.  Obama, you may have the Facebook, entitlement generation behind you, but you will never gain with Americans who value work, and value keeping their money instead of it being wasted on government social services.

 


Comments (Page 1)
on Aug 29, 2008

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.
(APPLAUSE)
We will do this. Washington — Washington has been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years. And, by the way, John McCain has been there for 26 of them."

I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power, and solar power, and the next generation of biofuels — an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.

Well this is a very interesting comment. Maybe he or his followers here can explain how he will end the dependance on foreign oil. Will he "drill, drill, drill" (which goes against everything he and the Democrats have always said)? Will he create new alternative fuels?

But even more important, how will he make sure the world economy (which depends in part on this oil he seems to dislike so much) does not crash and burn while he tries to end the dependance in 10 years? And how exactly will he help Americans change their current vehicles for alternative fuel vehicles? I just bought my car, will he simply pay off my car payments and then give me money to purchase a new "alternative fuel" car? Where will the money come from? More taxes? Will he pass a law that will keep these new vehicles cheap for us? Have I finally pointed as to how stupid all this is yet?

And I have to wonder, if 5 million more jobs will be created, what will happen to the ones who come from the oil we use that he wants to change for alternative fuels? How many jobs depend on the foreign oil we import? How many jobs depend on the materials created by oil? How many jobs would be lost if our oil industry is eliminated while we switch over to alternative fuels in 10 years (according to Obama)? Who do think will be filling those 5 million positions he claims will be created? Am I still failing to point out how idiotic his rhetoric is? Are there that many blind people in this country?

on Aug 29, 2008

As a non-American, some of the finer points of U.S. internal politics are lost on me. I am sure, that if I lived in the U.S. I would rate as a liberal, allthough by Danish standards I am conservative. Weird world we live in

I would like to ask you this ID: What is so wrong with looking out for the poor? Surely it would be possible to devise a system where you keep people existing on bare necessities, while at the same time preventing them from having to go to bed hungry? The model we use in Denmark allows unemplyed people a small amount of money each month (enough to pay rent on a small appartment, buy enough food to survive ,and pay their electricity/water etc.) But it's not free money. To get the money they have to show that they are actively hunting for jobs, and they have to show up every morning and do chores for the local authorities (sweeping streets etc.) What would be so wrong with implementing a similar system in the U.S.?

Now, I am not advocating a spending spree here. All I am saying is that if you secure those people who are unable to secure a job, I am betting that it would affect crime rates too. Those who are unwilling to work...well let's just say that I have no sympathies for them. The same goes for people who have been spending more money than they earn. No sympathies there either. But I just don't see what's wrong with helping those who can't get a job for what-ever reason.

As for Obama and the 2nd amendment. My views there are, I guess, very Scandinavian. How more guns can be a good thing, well that I just plain don't understand. I know that many Americans will say that they need the guns to defend themselves against robbers/thieves/murderers. To them I will just say: You have tried it this way. Why not try it the other way. Let's see if reduced access to guns wouldn't lower the rate of gun-related crimes in the U.S. A rate which is far too high, as I am sure that even conservatives will agree.

Morten

 

on Aug 29, 2008

I would like to ask you this ID: What is so wrong with looking out for the poor?

Why should hard working Americans (like myself) have to give over money to people who for the most part, don't take care of themselves?

 

What would be so wrong with implementing a similar system in the U.S.?

We have a similar system, it's called welfare, and has been a disaster.  It only breeds reliance on government, and has for generations.  People are rewarded for doing nothing. 

 

How more guns can be a good thing, well that I just plain don't understand. I know that many Americans will say that they need the guns to defend themselves against robbers/thieves/murderers. To them I will just say: You have tried it this way. Why not try it the other way. Let's see if reduced access to guns wouldn't lower the rate of gun-related crimes in the U.S. A rate which is far too high, as I am sure that even conservatives will agree.

No personal offense, but that is just plain stupid.  The places that have very strict gun laws are the places that have the worst violent crime rates.  Why does someone think that taking guns away from legal, law-biding citizens will somehow stop criminals from getting guns.....they are criminal, they don't care about the law.

I carry a 9mm handgun whenever I leave the house, and I have no fear to use it if my family is in danger.  People like Obama want to take that right away from me.  That doesn't make sense.

on Aug 29, 2008

Surely it would be possible to devise a system where you keep people existing on bare necessities,

it already exists.  American "poor" have, on average, a house, and 2 cars, several TVs, cell phones, etc. They are only poor by the standards of wanting everyone to be rich, not by any standard found anywhere else in the world.

A conservative Dane?  I hope you post more.  It will be good to see your viewpoint of us crazy colonials.

 

 

on Aug 29, 2008

We have a similar system, it's called welfare, and has been a disaster.  It only breeds reliance on government, and has for generations.  People are rewarded for doing nothing.

Because the system was screwy. It's a hell of a bargain for those who want to live off of it, what we need is a system that encourages them to find work; Help them help themselves. (Key word: Help. Not support)

it already exists.  American "poor" have, on average, a house, and 2 cars, several TVs, cell phones, etc. They are only poor by the standards of wanting everyone to be rich, not by any standard found anywhere else in the world.

Perhaps we need to revise our definition of poor? I sure as hell have no car, barely a working TV, no cell phone, and I rent my place, plus pay bills. Does that make me poor, or just disadvantaged? I should call the democrats! Kidding, kidding...

 

No personal offense, but that is just plain stupid.  The places that have very strict gun laws are the places that have the worst violent crime rates.  Why does someone think that taking guns away from legal, law-biding citizens will somehow stop criminals from getting guns.....they are criminal, they don't care about the law. I carry a 9mm handgun whenever I leave the house, and I have no fear to use it if my family is in danger.  People like Obama want to take that right away from me.  That doesn't make sense.

I'm not a fan of them, but I'm glad I was raised around them. At least I know not to jump in fright when i see one, unlike my brethren blue.

Actually, Obama's - from what I've read- been all over the place on it, but seems to be in the middle, sort of. So really he's neither for nor against. I guess, ugh, getting headache trying to explain him.

 


~L

on Aug 29, 2008

ID, you are much too far to the right. last night's speech was not a 'liberal speech' at all. obama could've gotten much more liberal if he had wanted to.

8 years ago, i would've voted for mccain without hesitation but he's aligned himself with the far right religious wing of the republican party now. our forefathers stated there should be a seperation of church and state for a reason, don't you think? they were right, too!

i'll bet you a thousand dollars that the speeches given next week by the republicans will be attack speeches far worse than any speech given this past week by the democrats. with an underling of karl rove running mccain's campaign, mccain can't help but campaign in a dirty fashion.what aggravates me is the fact that mccain himself was a victim of this type of campaigning back in 2000 during the south caolina primary and he now approves of it versus obama.

his campaign's constant criticism of obama's patriotism is getting old. obama is every bit as patriotic as mccain, bush, clinton, reagan, you, and myself.

on Aug 29, 2008

I should call the democrats! Kidding, kidding...

on Aug 29, 2008

Why should hard working Americans (like myself) have to give over money to people who for the most part, don't take care of themselves?

Some people are hard working and simply can't take care of themselves with their family in mind.  Ever heard of minimum wage and how it wasn't touched until the Democrats came back into majority of congress recently?  At least that's a step in the right direction away from so much dependence by the poor on welfare.  Characterizing the poor on welfare as unwilling or unable to take care of themselves when they could do so at any time is just insane.  Take a stroll through some crime ridden neighborhoods and other low-income areas sometime.  You might notice it's a little harder to escape than just saying "I want to get a job that pays more" or "I want to go to college and come out with massive debt because I can't pay off the loans to get me through on minimum wage."  Last time I checked, here in America we don't like to kick people when they're down.

on Aug 29, 2008

Actually, Obama's - from what I've read- been all over the place on it, but seems to be in the middle, sort of. So really he's neither for nor against. I guess, ugh, getting headache trying to explain him.

Obama's stance is clear in his record, which I have detailed before.  He is one of the strongest advocates of strict gun laws.  Look at his speech last night, he couldn't even get into specfics because he's not sure who not to offend today.

his campaign's constant criticism of obama's patriotism is getting old. obama is every bit as patriotic as mccain, bush, clinton, reagan, you, and myself.

I question Obama's patriotism.  And I will until I hear a real explanation of how his political career was started with the help of a domestic terrorist (Ayers).  I notice in his video last night he left out Ayers, and his time spent in Indonesia, Pakistan, and Harvard. 

Ever heard of minimum wage and how it wasn't touched until the Democrats came back into majority of congress recently?  At least that's a step in the right direction away from so much dependence by the poor on welfare.

Raising the minimum wage is a political tactic, nothing more.  The people who voted democrat are still poor today, democrats have done nothing to help them as they always claim.

Characterizing the poor on welfare as unwilling or unable to take care of themselves when they could do so at any time is just insane.  Take a stroll through some crime ridden neighborhoods and other low-income areas sometime.  You might notice it's a little harder to escape than just saying "I want to get a job that pays more"

I tell you what.  Stand outside a welfare office and ask people why they aren't working.  You will hear some really good stories. 

I have been through plenty of "crime ridden" neighborhoods from here down to Miami.  I can take you on a ride and show you the cars with $4000 wheels on them, or maybe the stereo systems worth more than I make a month. 

on Aug 29, 2008

Shh, don't tell anyone!!  It's a secret to everybody...there will always be people who spend their money poorly and do not deserve to be bailed out.  Though, I do have a hunch that you are getting at this ID -- That you would rather see your money put to good use to help with the unfortunate circumstances of others.  Would you agree with a systematic reform of the welfare policy to keep track of spenditures and hold those accepting it very accountable for utilizing those resources? For example the money could have requirements to be spent for their survival and investment in their future or the future of their family?  I don't like putting my money out there for people to just waste either; abuses of help programs in the U.S. are despicable.

 

on Aug 29, 2008

ID, if you don't mind, I would like to take a crack at these comments questioning your article and posts.

By most ideals and opinions (especially some of my co-workers) I am technically "poor". I make just over 25 thousand a year and my wife makes just over 20 thousand. We struggle to pay our bills and for many years we drove vehicles that seemed to be fond of oil leaks and duck tape. My funiture has never been new, always used, broken and somewhat dirty. I have no college degree because I could not afford school. I have 2 children and am not married. Fast food has become a way of life for us.

But just how poor am I really? I have a 2007 vehicle now. My job, while not a high paying job, is a great job in a big international corporation. We have 3 TV's, a Nintendo Wii, 3 computers and will soon be getting better furniture. All this, because we made it our goal to better ourselves. I look forward to going to school soon to get some kind of degree in computers, my goal is to be part of the IT Dep in my company. Poor? Not a chance, I get to enjoy some of the finer things in life because, while at one point I made a mess of things, I was able to get myself organized and start on the path to better my life and that of my family. And just in case, I have barely ever used Gov't assistance thru out my years as an adult, because every time I got on it, I felt useless, like a begger. I felt lazy and I did not want to be seen that way.

Most people here are poor because they wanna be poor. There are so many programs to assisten with rent, finding jobs, putting food on the table and even to educate yourself, but many prefer to milk the system. Why work when you can get paid to do nothing, or even better, get an under the table job and get paid twice. I have lived in some of the rughest neightborhood s in Miami, and let me tell you, there is great potential for great workers and college students. What they lack is motivation. Giving them things for free is not a motivation, making them earn it is.

What is so wrong with looking out for the poor?

There is nothing wrong with helping poor people. We do it all the time. There are plenty of charities, churches and Gov't progams that provide assistance to "poor" people. The problem we have is not with helping, but with giving it away without having them earn it creating a dependent person not an independent person. Not everyone is lucky to start a business or get a great job and never lose them. But we want them to try again not never again.

 

Perhaps we need to revise our definition of poor? I sure as hell have no car, barely a working TV, no cell phone, and I rent my place, plus pay bills. Does that make me poor, or just disadvantaged? I should call the democrats! Kidding, kidding...

We should revise it, but we should also grow out of this idea that "poor" people are some kind of handi-cap that needs to be treated.

on Aug 29, 2008

Snidely Whiplash



8 years ago, i would've voted for mccain without hesitation but he's aligned himself with the far right religious wing of the republican party now. our forefathers stated there should be a seperation of church and state for a reason, don't you think? they were right, too!

I dont' follow politics with a lot of scrutiny, but I pay attention. This comment has me baffled. How is McCain "aligned" with the religous wing and how is he trying to unite government and religion?

on Aug 30, 2008

Would you agree with a systematic reform of the welfare policy to keep track of spenditures and hold those accepting it very accountable for utilizing those resources? For example the money could have requirements to be spent for their survival and investment in their future or the future of their family?  I don't like putting my money out there for people to just waste either; abuses of help programs in the U.S. are despicable.

I would prefer if welfare were completely disolved, but as with all government social programs, no politician has the courage to do it, even though it would be widely supported.

I will write more about this later, but I would like to see welfare severely reformed.

 

on Aug 30, 2008

But just how poor am I really? I have a 2007 vehicle now. My job, while not a high paying job, is a great job in a big international corporation. We have 3 TV's, a Nintendo Wii, 3 computers and will soon be getting better furniture. All this, because we made it our goal to better ourselves.

From what you tell us, I wouldn't consider you poor.  Actually, my hat goes off to you for trying to better your life.  If more people would do that, many problems would be solved.

on Aug 31, 2008

You sound like Bill Kristol. THAT SPEECH WAS SO GENERIC

SO WAS THAT ONE

THAT SPEECH SUCKED BECAUSE IT WAS SO GENERIC

Meta
Views
» 934
Comments
» 19
Category
Sponsored Links