Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 08:20 pm:
Who can explain the mormon religion to me ?
I'd pick a Mormon.
Not even close to my faith, mind you, but they put on a great play at the Hill, and there are a few very wise teachings.
Bear in mind that Islam also has some wise teachings. They have parables about hospitality. If you give a stranger your salt, he is under your protection. A stranger comes upon your camp, ( they are a nomadic people, a people of caravans and the lonely places ) you feed him and shelter him. Then men come with a beef with your new guest. You are obligated to protect him, even if he is guilty of crimes to others. It gets more complicated than that, a structure of obligations on both sides. You may have to fight the legit forces of the law to save a con man. There are multiple stories to teach these things. Worth looking at, imho.
( if you don't understand the "salt" reference, look it up, or if you wish to remain ignorant of human customs these last few thousand years, why are you concerned with politics? )
The Mormons insist you have a store of food, grains, roots, etc. to help your family through hard times. Good advice without a deity involved. They have a tradition of both the tithe, and of charity.
The worshipers of the Holy State also grasp the idea of tithe, but charity is not an individual thing, but a thing of the collective. ( this IS Obama's faith )
Like Islam, I can admire the good, while not caring about the weird, as long as I am not forced to obey some others invisible being. Or be a slave to anothers religion. I'm comfortable with my own, and, as an American, insist that I be allowed to worship as I see fit.
And you be allowed as you see fit.
I will defend to their death your right to do so.
Unless you have a legit beef with that church, ( and some do, with that, and other churches ) using a man's faith to attack them, having done no harm to you, is pretty petty and amoral.
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 08:22 pm:
"banks aren't lending"
They're lending to Mitt
Goldman Sachs $676,080 JPMorgan Chase & Co $520,299 Morgan Stanley $513,647 Bank of America $510,728 Credit Suisse Group $427,560 Citigroup Inc $363,015 Barclays $349,400 Wells Fargo $320,025 Kirkland & Ellis $309,042 Deloitte LLP $286,110 PricewaterhouseCoopers $266,650 UBS AG $259,200 HIG Capital $220,495 Blackstone Group $219,525 Bain Capital $172,500 Elliott Management $172,475 General Electric $158,800 Ernst & Young $156,425 Marriott International $154,837 Bain & Co $145,800 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N 00000286
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 08:31 pm:
>>>To be fair they're playing both sides but they're putting way more on Mitt than on Obama
And Obama is asking REALLY hard and having problems. Rahm Emmanuel resigned from the Obama campaign and go to work for the Super PAC to try to exert more pressure on just about the precise list cited above.
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 09:24 pm:
Fluke the poster child for Idiot women.
I have an argument with that statement.
I'm a Libber. Raised that way, got some funny stories about it, and truly, deeply believe that a woman is my equal. ( actually, I think they are better.. but don't you tell them that )
I'm not however an ideologue about it.
Reality shows bell curves. In my prime I could bench press far more than most women. Bad news is I'm well up the curve in the fat part, so a big percentage of other men can lift more than I. That curve overlaps the bench press curve for women, and a bunch of them can press more than I. Does that make me a wimp? ( don't answer, obviously, it's yes. ) Does that make gals that can press more freaks?
No, it just makes me seem more of a wimp.
So it goes in many things, so saying anything resembling "girls can't play football because they are too weak" is Bull. A lotta guys can't play either... Curves.
Do love them curves... Uh, what were we talking about?
Oh, yeah, Fluke...
There is a saying, "with great power comes great responsibility". Good saying.
Before we became a bit more enlightened with people being equal, a woman was the property of her father, then her husband, then.. the customs differ. In some she is given to the dead husbands brother, in others burned alive with her husbands corpse, in others she inherits....
But she was property. Her owners were in turn obligated with her well being.
Now, in a modern society, when you reach the age of majority, your parents no longer own you, or have obligation. You are an adult, and free to live, love, lose, learn and fail.
So now when a woman becomes an adult she too has the rights, and the problems, her brothers do. That is, simply, freedom.
I'm all for it. You partner with a wife, not own her. Your obligation is one of mutual concern as partners not master and chattel. Much prefer it.
But there is a price to be paid. To be free is to accept your responsibilities along with your rights.
The narrative that is pushed by Fluke ( a professional champion of rights without responsibility, it seems ) is not one of adults, but of children. They simply substitute Big Brother for Daddy.
Her tale is not one of freedom, but of deliberate manipulation. She went to a Catholic School by choice. She insists the uptight, medieval idiocy of the Church bow to her will and violate it's most sacred teachings. ( And I even agree that some of those teachings are medieval idiocy! )
By appealing to the child in people Fluke wants to change a 2 thousand year old church, by using the power of the State to do so by force.
Darn it, the statement (poster child).... wins.....
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 09:26 pm:
"You know, I’m getting tired of this whole corporate greed $hit. It wasn’t corporate greed and the pursuit of higher and higher profits that shifted factories overseas as much as it is consumer greed that demanded cheaper and cheaper prices."
Me too. I might also add, if you wish to make a 5% profit as a corporation in the US you have to charge your costumers 40% over your costs because... The government will take the first 35%!
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 09:26 pm:
To be fair... you would have included the verbiage from OpenSecrets.org that precedes the list you copied and pasted above. Emphasis mine:
quote:
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 09:33 pm:
quote:
Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 10:12 pm:
quote:
DLA Piper is an Anglo-American multinational law firm with 77 offices across 31 countries and around 4,200 lawyers.[1] It is the largest law firm in the world measured by number of lawyers.[4] In 2011 DLA Piper had total revenues of US$2.25 billion (£1.42 billion) and average profit per equity partner of US$1.225 million (£773,000).[2]
DLA Piper was formed in January 2005 by a merger between three law firms: San Diego-based Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich LLP, Chicago-based Piper Rudnick LLP and London-based DLA LLP. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLA_Piper
quote:
Deloitte LLP: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited ( /dəˈlɔɪt/), commonly referred to as Deloitte, is one of the Big Four professional services firms along with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Ernst & Young, and KPMG.
Deloitte is the second largest professional services network in the world by revenue and has 182,000 employees in more than 150 countries providing audit, tax, consulting, enterprise risk and financial advisory services.[2] In FY 2011, Deloitte earned a record $28.8 billion USD in revenues, ranking second behind PwC's record $29.2 billion.[3]
In 2012, it is reported that in the U. K. Deloitte has the largest number of clients amongst FTSE 250 companies.[4]
Sidley Austin LLP, formerly known as Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, is the sixth-largest U.S.-based corporate law firm with approximately 1700 lawyers,[4]annual revenues of more than one billion dollars, and offices in 18 cities worldwide, with the most recent addition of Houston, Texas in February 2012.[5] It is a full-service law firm, with broad experience in transaction and litigation matters. Its original predecessor firm was founded in 1866 and had former first lady Mary Todd Lincoln, then the widow of President Abraham Lincoln, among its earliest clients. The firm was formed as the result of the merger of two firms: the Chicago-based Sidley & Austin, founded in 1866, and the New York-based Brown & Wood, founded in 1914. The merger was completed in May 2001. The firm's headquarters is at One South Dearborn in the Chicago Loop, Chicago.[6] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidley_Austin
quote:
Skadden, Arps et al: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates (often shortened to Skadden Arps, Skadden, or SASM&F), founded in 1948, is a prominent law firm based in New York City. With nearly 2,000 attorneys, it is one of the largest and highest-grossing law firms in the world.[4] Forbes magazine called Skadden "Wall Street's most powerful law firm".[5] In most jurisdictions, the firm is organized as a limited liability partnership (LLP). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadden,_Arps,_Slate, _Meagher_%26_Flom
quote:
National Amusements Inc: National Amusements, Inc. is a privately owned theater company based in Dedham, Massachusetts, United States. The company was founded in 1936 as the Northeast Theatre Corporation by Michael Redstone.
National Amusements is now owned by Michael Redstone's son, Sumner Redstone, who holds 80% of the company, and Sumner's daughter, Shari Redstone, who owns the remaining 20%. Through National Amusements, the Redstones control both the CBS Corporation and Viacom through supervoting shares.[1]
The City Center 15 Cinema De Lux in White Plains, New York's City Center includes a waiting area with a TV, newspaper rack and sofas (left), a piano (center), and a bar and grill restaurant (not pictured). The company operates more than 1,500 movie screens across the United States, the United Kingdom, Latin America, and Russia under its Showcase Cinemas, Multiplex Cinemas, Cinema de Lux, and KinoStar brands.
Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2012 - 10:13 pm:
The spin they BOTH weave to meet their agenda.
Yep. Amazing isn't it?
I've not watched one minute of the conventions. I've been working, dumped cable, and Actually read instead. ( gotta get cable again for Football! )
I have, however heard a lot of the speeches.
A pundit plays a few minutes and then tells me how stupid/wrong/brilliant/right the speechifier is. It's been quite entertaining to observe the righteous indignation, the moral outrage, and the petty vindictiveness. Just amazing.
I've noticed a few things. We can laugh, or cry, at the DNC adopting a carefully crafted platform that gives their base and extreeems what they wanted. ( as has the RNC )
Then the DNC finds that the exclusion of support for Israel is a show stopper. Gotta give some credit for clever folk, since they managed not to talk about that at all.
The DNC leaders instead jumped on the "god" problem, and gave us some great sound bites of idiots getting "upset" at "being called godless". The only ones using the phrase, "godless" are them! It's a great ploy, accusing your questioner of racism, unfair attacks, etc. when he doesn't do so. The questioner is forced to defend himself against the indefensible.
The point is, you are not talking about the real issue. This was brilliantly done with Clinton, they made his issue be about sex, not the other reasons long forgotten.........Qapla!
Machiavellian as all heck, eh?
Then we get to the "vote"... at the DNC.
(Now, RNC fans don't get too pleased, there were "the opinion of the chair the ayes have it" moment in there too. Don't recall what for, Anyone find the video, post it, please )
The footage I saw was focused on a couple with her holding a "Arab something minority something something" sign and him yelling No! and getting upset at the bogus "vote". Don't know the source, great bit of "news" cinematography. They picked out the likely hot spot, and mixed it well, A technical triumph. Cudos to the Producer. ( has no bearing on if it's honest footage, just judging on the success at capturing and creating emotion )
Ducxl, I see what you mean. They way they manipulate, bitch and carp.....It's enough to make a sane man cynical, and I'm starting at derision of these scum....
I do urge you not to vote for BHO.
I'm doing the "vote for the other guy thing" myself, Didn't like any of the guys going for the job on the R side, don't like the guys we got, don't expect to like the ones that run, and don't expect any of these guys to agree with everything I like.
I suggest you enjoy the snark, go for the comedy...
Sounds likes a good list to start with FB when Shakespeares prediction comes true!
Dark look back through the news you will find scandal ruin and manipulation of people and governments by these firms. That pack has destabilized more countrys than the CIA and KGB combined.
FB not a bad list. A lot of smart people at those companies
I was casting no aspersions by posting up some details of the folks on the list, simply educating myself as to the organizations whose names I didn't recognize, and sharing that information here.
Interesting that three of the groups I focused on represent lawyers/attorneys.
I also found this interesting: Through National Amusements, the Redstones control both the CBS Corporation and Viacom through supervoting shares.
It would be valuable to do some research into how CBS spins their news (I don't do TV). I assume they present their news in the image of the Redstones. Looks like I need to do some research on them, too, and see which side of the political fence they're on. I suspect I - and you - already know.
Also, anyone know what Viacom actually is? Yeah, I recognize the name, but what pies do they actually have their fingers in?
Interesting also, as Cityslicker noted, to see the US Government represented on the list of O's biggest supporters.
Anyway, just trying to better understand the big picture, and pass that info along here.
Speaking of, I watched the Big Sermon from Charlotte last night (shown live on the 'net, just as all the speeches from the RNC were).
If I didn't know better, I'd say that O is actually a Republican!
He sure used a lot of conservative talking points to make his case for reelection.
Well, he did harp on moving "forward" a lot, and I got a not-nice chill down my spine when he emphasized that we're a nation of "citizens." Scared me when he said that, but it sure seemed to bring the listeners to their feet in a hurry.
But beyond that, he sounded like a staunch conservative! Really, listen to his sermon and tell me most of it couldn't have been written for a Republican candidate. Seriously.
Also, he made sure to tell us, again, how robust the recovery has been under his leadership, how many people are back to work, etc. He also said he's got a plan to reduce the national debt by four trillion in his next term.
Sorry, sir, but I gotta call bullshit on this one. You have a lousy track record re the national debt (and, well, everything else). You might want to consider removing this talking point from your campaign between now and November. Just sayin.'
He also dropped S. Willie's name often. No surprise, considering SW's speech and support Wednesday night. Must be galling for the Pres to have to use SW as chum, but, well, he knows he up against the ropes politically speaking, and needs all the help he can get.
Even if that help was impeached along the way. Pity that we all have such short memories.
And/or low standards.
The Big Guy also managed to throw Jews a small bone, and closed by invoking God. Good call on his part, both, but he sure didn't seem sincere in either case.
Mostly, he seemed to plead a lot. He's a pretty good orator (it's what got him elected in the first place, after all), but there was definitely an element of strained desperation in his voice last night. Fear, perhaps. He was PLEADING with us to reelect him. More time, says he. I just need more time. Pay no attention to the actual numbers, just please, please, PLEASE believe me when I say things are actually quite peachy under my leadership, and if I simply had more time, I could make things even peachier!!
Wow, dude, I don't think American can afford any more of your peachiness. Like, does the number 16,000,000,000,000 mean anything to you?
He DID say that this election boils down to a choice between two distinctly different versions of America. I think it's the only thing he said last night that's actually is grounded in reality.
I wish he'd be totally honest with us, however, and stop beating around (and on, actually) the Bush: His vision of America looks nothing at all like the Founding Fathers' vision of America, in spite of his sermon to the contrary last night.
No thanks, amigo. You just don't smell like a Patriot to me. You duped a lot of Americans the last time we danced this dance.
In the intervening four years we've all had a chance to get to know you better.
Which, I guess, explains why you pleaded so much last night.
Here's a scathing summation of the big speech last night:
quote:
Change You Can't Believe by Joel B. Pollak, Sep 6, 2012
The lies began even before President Barack Obama started speaking. The introductory video claimed that Obama had been affected--and roused to action--by “watching [his] mother die.” Obama, while very emotive about his mother, neglected to visit her before she died of cancer--a mistake he admitted and regretted. Yet he has repeatedly lied about her in his speeches, including the lie that she died without health insurance.
In the speech itself, Obama told the nation that he ran for President because he “saw that basic bargain slipping away,” that “by 2008 we had seen nearly a decade in which families struggled with costs that kept rising but paychecks that didn’t.” In fact, until the last few months of 2008, Americans had enjoyed a rising and widely-shared prosperity that contrasts sharply with the high unemployment and low paychecks of Obama’s term.
Obama continued with the half-truth that he has “cut taxes for those who need it,” but he has also raised taxes on the middle class, including the taxes in Obamacare. He then lied flagrantly about the proposals of his opponents, suggesting that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan had proposed “firing teachers” and “kicking students off financial aid.” There is no basis for that claim; in fact their policies would do, and have done, the opposite.
The President then repeated a claim that has been a refrain throughout this convention: that he “reinvented a dying auto industry that’s back on top of the world.” But GM is in trouble; Chrysler is foreign-owned; and the “reinvented” green cars that Obama pushed have failed to sell. Contrary to his repeated claims, tonight and elsewhere, Obama did not save the industry from bankruptcy but sent it there after looting it for his cronies.
As for what fuels those cars--with gas prices soaring across the country to levels vastly higher than at his inauguration in 2009--Obama said that his strategy had “opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration.” But he also blocked new exploration--often in defiance of the courts, and basic scientific sense, and the expansion that occurred in shale and gas happened in spite of President Obama, not because of him.
Obama made several outlandish claims about education, once again mischaracterizing his opponent’s policies (“gut education,” “crowded classroom,” “crumbling school”) while exaggerating his own achievements. He touted the federal government’s takeover of the student loan market, pretending that he had solved the problems of “a system that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars” instead of ensuring that those problems worsen.
From then, it was on to foreign policy. Obama once again lied about his predecessor’s policy, implied that George W. Bush did not care to pursue “the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.” And for all the talk this week about how Romney should have said more about the troops, Obama displayed callous indifference to rising U.S. casualties when he declared, falsely, that he had “blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan.”
Obama lied about key elements of his foreign policy agenda, asserting that “we have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings” when in fact his administration has shunted human rights aside in favor of reconciliation with hostile regimes. He also said that the U.S. had “reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers,” rather than allowing U.S. power to decline as China rises.
On the deficit, Obama cited “experts” who said that his policies “would cut our deficits by $4 trillion”--this after his own administration projected deficits and debt rising to infinity in what economists euphemistically call the “out” years. President Obama’s surrogates had suggested he would tackle entitlement reform tonight, but he said nothing specific about what he would do--after accusing his opponents of not presenting any new ideas.
The President barely mentioned his most important domestic achievement, referring to Obamacare only by accusing his opponents (again, falsely) of wanting to “eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans who are poor, elderly, or disabled--all so those with the most can pay less.” Repealing Obamacare would do none of the above--in fact, Obamacare will burden many public health services to the breaking point.
“We don’t think government can solve all our problems,” Obama said--and he has said that before, many times, prior to taking office, but his singular focus has been to expand the range of issues into which government intrudes. In an attempt to echo Kennedy, he said: “America is not about what can be done for us...the election four years ago wasn’t about me. It was about you.” This from the man who has built a virtual personality cult.
Obama tried to make up for his “you didn’t build that” gaffe--which was repeated over and over last week at the Republican National Convention--by telling his audience they had been responsible for creating the “change” in his administration: “You did that,” he said. He warned that “change will not happen” if he loses--but change always happens. His opponents simply believe change should be driven by individuals, not the state.
Towards the end of his address, Obama attempted a gesture at humility, saying that he knew he didn’t “have all the answers.” Yet the repeated pattern in Obama’s governance is to ignore the sincere suggestions of others--in his own party and the opposition--who have different answers from his. He quoted Jeremiah 29:11 indirectly, citing its promise of a “future filled with hope,” leaving out the context: a warning against false prophets.
His soaring conclusion ended with a thud: “I never said this journey would be easy.” But he did, of course. His nomination in 2008 was the moment, he told us, when the planet would begin to heal. He also promised, in his victory speech that November, to end the “partisanship and pettiness” in American politics. Tonight’s weak address, with its paper-thin promises and falsehoods, was unworthy of the commitments he made that night.
US economy adds 96K jobs, unemployment rate falls to 8.1 percent Associated Press, Sep 7, 2012
WASHINGTON – U.S. employers added 96,000 jobs last month, a weak figure that could slow the momentum President Barack Obama hoped to gain from his speech Thursday night to the Democratic National Convention.
The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July. But that was only because more people gave up looking for jobs. People who are out of work are counted as unemployed only if they're looking for a job.
The government also said Friday that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in July and June than first estimated. The economy has added just 139,000 jobs a month since the start of the year, below 2011's average of 153,000.
...Friday's report was discouraging throughout. Hourly pay fell, manufacturers cut the most jobs in two years and the number of people in the work force dropped to its lowest level in 31 years.
...In addition to those who've given up looking for work, many young Americans are avoiding the job market by remaining in school. All told, the proportion of the adult population that's either working or looking for work fell to 63.5 percent.
That's the lowest level in 31 years for the so-called labor force participation rate. The rate peaked at 67.3 percent in early 2000.
...The weak pace of hiring is the latest sign that businesses are reluctant to make big investments or add more workers. Europe's financial crisis has pushed the region's economy to the edge of recession. And a set of tax hikes and spending cuts scheduled to take effect at the beginning of the year have created uncertainty about future growth.
No president since Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression has been re-elected with a jobless rate over 8 percent. This year's election will likely turn on whether voters see the economy as improving or remaining stagnant or getting worse under Obama.
There are many Badwebbers who are Democrats. Their refusal to explain why they support Obama is reminiscent of the collapse of the McCain campaign in 2008. They know they have already lost and are in denial so they don't want to talk about it. If this is incorrect, then please chime in. Respect has been shown to virtually everyone who expresses an opposing opinion here. Please educate me as it is puzzling why anyone would support a man who has added $6 TRILLION dollars to our debt in only 3.5 years and shows zero interest in curbing this trend. History yells in our face that a nation can not do this. Why do you think we are any different?
Romney/Ryan is pro-business and will restore confidence in the private sector. When that happens, money becomes unleashed and the economy grows. Pretend for a minute, that you own a business and you have money assets. Would you grow your business when all the Federal government does is place obstacles and uncertainty in your path? Would YOU hire if you didn't know the costs of taking such an action? Remember, this is YOUR money. Wouldn't you wait until there was a friendlier political climate that doesn't ostracize you for your hard work and success? Think about it and then think some more.
gave up - if it werent for overseas work - I would be unemployed, and as I am noones entitlement niche ; living in a tent down by the river (the van would of course have to be repossessed)
LA Mayor AV needs to take some spin lessons from DWS:
Mr. Mayor, THIS is how it's done:
Nice work the other night, by the way. Have you seen the pic on the internet of the teleprompted-script you were reading from when you affirmed that there had been a two-thirds majority vote?
What, exactly, do you think the delegates were booing about when the two amendments "passed" after the third vote? (As a side note, dude, you sure looked flustered!)
Not one delegate came forward and protested afterward? Are you SURE this is true?!? Come on, you can level with us. (PS: I heard a rumor the entire facility was locked down for two hours the other night and everyone, including credentialed media, except DNC and security personnel were forced to vacate the building. What was THAT all about?!?)
No worries, though, your leadership skills saved the day. Bravo to you and the entire Democratic party for giving the rest of us such a good look inside the Collective.
OK, for all you folks who don't think I love America and cringe (or worse) every time another "political" post e-mail lands in your in-box, I am going to TRY to take the weekend off.
But...
...not before leaving you with this:
quote:
Delusional: White House Says 'Economy is Continuing To Recover' By John Nolte, Sep 7 2012
In the wake of today's heartbreaking jobs numbers, the White House released the following statement:
"While there is more work that remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. How stupid does the 0 administration think we are? Rhetorical question, please feel free not to answer.
quote:
This year, the average number of jobs created per month has decreased from 2011's average of 153,000 to 139,000 -- and if today is any indication, that average is only going to get lower.
The unemployment rose to 8.3% between May and August, and the only reason it went down to 8.1% today was due to an astonishing number of people, 368,000, who gave up any hope of finding a job and left the workforce.
"Further evidence" indeed.
quote:
Here's a scary thought: If Obama truly believes we're headed "forward" and in the right direction, where is he intending to take us?
Chant with me now, won't you:
"Forward! Four more ears! Four more ears! Four more ears!"
quote:
We are the BORG (Barack Obama Redistribution Group).
I wanna call ya an idiot . . but I know you're not.
But you appear very confused.
When I read ""And so does the $300,000,000 Romney has raised over the last 3 months." I laughed aloud.
Do you have the same concerns about the $1,000,000,000 Obama raised in the last election.
I have a little secret for you . . . almost ALL of it came from Wall Street. In fact, the moment he was elected he hired a ton of the folks who'd donated from Wall Street firms.
The mud you tried to toss splattered on ya big guy.
Court
P.S. - Someone please explain to Carolyn Kennedy, who has never accomplished a thing, that she's never been relevant and isn't now. She makes Clint Eastwood look like a wizard of intellect.
... continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression."
Lies, damn lies and politicians.
I'll be happy to bitch about what a pol actually does that is wrong, happy to point out what a pol didn't do he should have... ( imho, and with my limited understanding of the situation I didn't get briefed on for weeks as the pol did... ) But I do object when people lie to smear a pol.
After 8 years of hearing D pols complain the Bush made this "the worst economy since the great depression" and it being a lie, for 8 years, I have little faith that now that it IS the worst economy since the great depression, that I shall hear that mantra again until a R takes office.... then, oh yes! Then! we will hear it again. ( it may or may not be true, next year, or in 5 years, but dishonest people WILL lie, won't they? )
This is a sampling of journoistic opinions re last night's Big Speech from Charlotte, compiled by the Atlantic Wire and posted-up on Yahoo News. It begins with commentary on the speech by Dashiell Bennett from the Atlantic Wire:
quote:
What Are They Saying About Barack Obama's Big Speech Today?
Convention season came to a close tonight with President Obama's second acceptance speech as the Democratic nominee. So how did he do?
Well, the overall reaction from both conservatives and liberals is ... unimpressed. In contrast to Bill Clinton's barn burner the night before, or Joe Biden's emotional testimony a few minutes earlier (or even Jennifer Granholm's wild gesticulating before that), critics seemed to agree that the President's speech was safe, predictable, and mostly uninspiring. After leaving attacks to his surrogates — he barely mentioned Mitt Romney — and the policy details to Clinton, Obama chose to focus on his hopes for the future, driven by the American people who he says inspire him. There were some rhetorical flourishes, but nothing on par with the more celebrated speeches of his career.
Will he regret not going bigger or harder, or was playing it safe the right move? Only November 6 will tell. Here's more of what the pundits had to say:
Obama gives up on demand — Matthew Yglesias, Slate President Obama's speech seemed like a very confident front-runner's speech.... There's a forward-looking economic vision here, but it's entirely a vision of structural transformation. A better health care system. Better schools. More domestic energy production, both renewable and natural gas. Better schools. Immigration reform. That's all good stuff, though I continue to find Obama's obsession with manufacturing to be a bit daft. But it's simply not responsive to the short-term jobs problem. If you're an unemployed adult, then reforming high schools or creating quality early childhood education isn't going to help you.
Why Obama's Speech Fell Short - Ron Fournier, National Journal It was a great speech – and yet, it fell short. Obama still has work to do with the vision thing. Convincing voters that he has a credible, practical plan to turn the nation around is a process, not a speech.
A pedestrian speech greeted as a barn-burning sermon — Timothy Carney, Washington Examiner I’m not alone in seeing President Obama’s renomination speech tonight as a bit pedestrian. It sounded like a regular stump speech. But in the Time Warner Center, the crowd treated the speech as a rip-roaring sermon. Any little applause line ignited a standing ovation.
Obama Phones It In For DNC Finale — Kevin Drum, Mother Jones Overall, it was a decent wrapup. It was a decent defense of his first term. It was a decent appeal for votes. But there was nothing memorable, nothing forward looking, and nothing that drew a contrast with Romney in sharp, gut-level strokes. Obama was, to be charitable, no more than the third best of the Democratic convention's prime time speakers in 2012.
Obama's Convention Anticlimax — Molly Ball, The Atlantic The president, that legendary orator, vaunted crowd-mover, well-known sweeper-away of audiences in general and political conventions in particular, gave a warmed-over rehash of his stump speech, right down to the exit music, Bruce Springsteen's "We Take Care of Our Own," that generally plays him out at campaign events.
Behind the Enthusiasm Gap, a War-Weary Obama? — Garance Franke-Ruta, The Atlantic That is the truth at the core of his oddly flat convention speech, and at the center of his technically skilled but strangely bloodless reelection campaign. Whoever Obama was when he was elected president has been seared away by two active wars, the more free-ranging fight against al-Qaeda, the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, and the endless grinding fights with Washington Republicans -- and even, I am sure, activists in his own party.
Obama’s Lame, Unconvincing Speech — Josh Barro, Bloomberg Overall, the speech sounded really odd coming from someone who is already president. When you’ve been in office for four years, you have to tell us what you’ve done for us lately, and what you’ll do in the future. Obama should have taken some notes from Clinton on how to do that convincingly.
Three Quick Points on Obama's Speech — James Fallows, The Atlantic On the speech overall: I thought it was not one of his best but that it did the job. "The job," in this sense, was having the party leave the convention feeling as if they had a case to present
Trading Places — Jamelle Bouie, The American Prospect And so, to square this circle, President Obama has taken an unusual approach—he’s positioned himself as the challenger. He's not holding the line in hopes it won't break; he's mounting a charge against the other side. ... In the Democratic narrative ... Mitt Romney is a force for the status quo.
Obama's convention evolution complete — Ben Feller, Associated Press On this night, gone was the excitement of someone new that was felt during his two previous convention appearances. And Obama, the graying incumbent, didn't try to recreate it.
Character, Not Audacity - David Brooks, The New York Times There were parts of his speech that raised the old expectations. I liked the emphasis he put not on himself but on the word “you” — the idea that change comes organically from the bottom up. I liked his extraordinary self-awareness, his willingness to admit that often life on the campaign trail requires candidates to do silly things. I liked the sense of citizenship that pervaded his address, the sense of mutual obligation. But what I was mostly looking for were big proposals, big as health care was four years ago. I had spent the three previous days watching more than 80 convention speeches without hearing a single major policy proposal in any of them.
The President Plays It Safe — Ross Douthat, The New York Times I think that while this convention helped the Democrats overall, the president himself delivered one of the weakest major performances of his career.
Obama’s Convention — Yuval Levin, National Review He surely could have done better than he did. He gave the fourth best speech of the Democratic convention, and the three better ones—Bill Clinton’s, Michelle Obama’s, and (rather surprisingly, at least for me) Joe Biden’s—weren’t spectacular. And he gave a speech that couldn’t rank near the top tier of his own presidential speeches.
Obama’s Fizzle — Rich Lowry, National Review This wasn’t a speech that would have fit a stadium and barely fit the arena. It was mostly limp and tinny, and sounded very familiar. He has lost the capacity to surprise or interest.
A Recycled Speech of Failed Ideas and Many Straw Men — Erick Erickson, RedState It was boring. It was unoriginal. And it was filled with promises when he hasn’t kept his past promises. Clint Eastwood’s empty chair could have given a better speech than what Barack Obama offered up. And to think he wanted to give that in a stadium.
Obama's convention speech no game changer —Douglas E. Schoen, Fox News There was nothing aspirational, there was nothing really future-oriented in the president's steadfast defense of the path he's been pursuing for the past four years.
Who could have predicted a president who said he would punish anyone who was rich and anyone who produced energy or used it would have the opposite affect of growing the economy?
