Obama’s Acceptance Speech; My Thoughts
by Big Dog on Aug 29, 2008 at 00:36 Political
Let me start off by saying I think Barack Obama gave a great speech tonight. I don’t mean that he told the truth or answered the nagging questions voters still have. What I mean is he had great delivery and he knows how to effectively communicate. I get the impression that, much like Bill Clinton, Obama could sound great reading the phone book.
His speech content though, lacked a few items. He tried to address what his change was by giving us a laundry list of things he would do. He will end oil dependence in 10 years. If he gets elected twice he will only be in office for 8 so how will he do this. The list was nothing more than the basic Democratic talking points that we hear at every convention. He told us what he would do but failed to say how, considering that we have been told this before, he would do it. I would not expect details in an acceptance speech but if he says that he will tell me how he will effect change I expect the how, not the what.
I noticed that he addressed the attacks from John McCain. He did a good job of striking back but by doing so he presented himself as a typical politician and not an agent of change. He explained that Republicans used fear to sway voters and then told us all the horrors we face and how we would get more of them if we elected McCain. Sounded like fear mongering.
He tried to smooth over the debacle of his abortion answers by saying that we can disagree on abortion but all agree that we should reduce unwanted pregnancies. Obama is not qualified to discuss abortion or to disagree with anything. He made it clear that the determination of when life begins is above his pay grade. If he cannot determine when life begins he cannot argue abortion. How will he know when you can and when you cannot if he does not know when life begins. At least abortion supporters will say life begins at birth. They have a foundation upon which to base their position. Obama lacks that because it is above his pay grade.
Obama also said we could disagree on guns but that we could uphold the Second Amendment by allowing guns in rural areas while keeping AK 47s off the violent streets of Chicago. First of all, it is illegal to own an AK 47 without a special license because it is an automatic weapon. Criminals who are killing with AK 47s are breaking the law and the Second Amendment is a moot point. They are not allowed to possess that weapon (or any weapon because they are criminals). The second thing I want to know is why Chicago has so much gun violence. The city has one of the toughest gun laws in the country so, if gun control works, there should be little to no gun violence. How about we uphold the Second Amendment for law abiding citizens, the ones who do not use guns to murder?
Obama also said that the average annual income in the US has gone down over $2000 under Bush’s administration. The fact is it did go down after 9/11 but it has been up and this year it was a little over $700 above the 2000 level. This is not great but it is not a $2000 loss.
The speech was well delivered but it lacked a lot of truth (like Obama was raised by his mother or that he came from a meager background. Granny was able to put him in private school). It lacked substance and was designed to allow him to hit back at McCain and try to revive his image as an agent of change.
At one point he said that politicians had been promising something (I think oil independence) for 30 years, and by the way McCain was there for 26 of them. He did fail to mention that Joe Biden was there for all 30 and then some. I imagine that might have taken away from the attack and negated the entire agent of change thing he had going on.
John McCain, Obama said, wants to privatize Social Security. He wants to gamble with your money. Obama plans to raise SS taxes (though he failed to mention that he would raise taxes, he just said he would fix it) in order to rescue it. My question is, if government is not a gamble why does SS need to be rescued.
I will say this. John McCain has his work cut out for him next week. There are a lot of people in this country who pick style over substance and one thing is for sure; McCain is no match for Obama on style. McCain lacks the communication skills that Obama exhibits so effortlessly. McCain had better have writers working overtime to produce something dynamic or he might add more to the expected Obama bounce. The one thing McCain has going is that debates are not scripted and there are no teleprompters. Speaking f debates, Barry said that if McCain wanted to debate who had the temperament to be Commander in Chief, that is one debate he was willing to have. McCain invited Obama to 10 Town Hall debates over the Summer and Obama declined and has ducked the issue (no teleprompter). Part of McCain’s speech should be a challenge to that debate within 10 days and in a Town Hall format. Then we will see how willing the Sainted One really is.
Nice speech Barry. Next time try adding a little truth and some detail.
I wonder if the Broncos will be able to play football there anymore? The One was in the middle of the field and 85,000 smelly liberals infested the place. Denver will probably go 6-10 this year because of this curse…
Tags: attacks, change, denver, hope, lies, Obama, speech
Please don’t ever start a Blog Posting off with “Let me start off by saying I think Barack Obama gave a great speech tonight.” and end with “Nice speech Barry. Next time try adding a little truth and some detail.”
It’s like a republican or democrat acting like they can be “fair.” Just blog your opinion, and don’t patronize.
It was not patronizing. The speech part (speech means speaking, the way it sounds etc) was great. The content (the part that makes up a speech) needed improvement.
I can be fair. It is fair to say it sounded good but lacked in some elements.
Just like Hillary gave the best speech of her life (a truth) but did only as much as she had to to appease Obama )another truth).
I have to agree that BO certainly sounds good, he has an even tone and all that. But I personally could not find anything worthwhile in the little that I heard (I admit that although his voice may be soothing his BS annoyed me so I didn’t listen to much of it). All he really seemed to do was to try and address each and every possible voting segment in one way or another. That’s wonderful but hardly informative. We all know these things – they’ve been saying the same stuff for years. I agree that he should have had more substance than feel-good for this one.
I also have to say that I was a tad offended by Mrs. BO’s speech. Again, I only heard part of it but in the 15 minute or so segment that I listened to she mentioned grace, prayer, and faith more than a few times. I find it very disconcerting when the same people that advocate for allowing children to die and fight to take the commandments off of our government buildings and God from our pledge use religious connotations in their campaign speeches. How hypocritical is that?
Anywa, IMHO the only thing we can do is HOPE he doesn’t get elected or there will be nothing but CHANGE left in our paychecks.
“The city has one of the toughest gun laws in the country so, if gun control works, there should be little to no gun violence. How about we uphold the Second Amendment for law abiding citizens, the ones who do not use guns to murder?”
Not to stir hornets but when crime is high in a place like CHI or DC and you’ve said several times that gun control is high and gun crime is still high so the gun control isn’t working. Isn’t that almost to imply that if gun control was reduced that gun violence wouldn’t go up even higher? Are there studies in gun control work looking at?
I don’t much care for guns but being an ole Southern Liberal from a family of hunters I think about gun issues a lot more than some people…
[…] them on their historic moment and DC Thornton critiques Obama’s More Leftist Dogma. Big Dog and Bits Blog do a bit of fact […]
Adam – I don’t think that is the implication of the statement. I think that one has to realize that criminals do not follow the law, that is why they are criminals. Gun laws only work on the law-abiding citizens. In that instance, criminals are far more likely to be armed than their victims. Let’s just say that everyone was permitted to carry (I know, it’s a stretch but work with me). It may in fact decrease crime (not just gun-related crimes) if the mugger (or rapist, etc.) was not sure if their intended victim was carrying or not. They might think twice (maybe not, but it’s just a hypothetical).
What did you think of the speech last night?
Adam, I understand your thoughts and a lot of people have them. Gun violence by CRIMINALS might go up or not because they do not obey the law. Law abiding citizens who own firearms do not use them to commit crimes (I am sure there are a very few but then they are no longer law abiding citizens).
In states where the gun ownership is in line with the Constitution there are fewer crimes and fewer gun murders. John Lott has studied this extensively and written about it.
When you outlaw guns only people who don’t obey laws get them (and they do so illegally).
Pavoratti singing “Row, row, row your boat”.
“The speech was well delivered but it lacked a lot of truth (like Obama was raised by his mother or that he came from a meager background. Granny was able to put him in private school).”
I’d hate to tell you this, but more than a few children from “meager” backgrounds attend private schools. In fact, there are tens of thousands of them. See, there are these things called scholarships and other forms of financial assistance that allow children who otherwise couldn’t afford them to attend private schools.
Just thought I’d add a little truth to a blog that lacks much of it at all.
PEACE
correction:
Just thought I’d add a bit of truth to a blog that contains so little of it.
PEACE
Let me help you Bunny. Scholarships are for secondary schools. Obambi was sent to private elementary schools. If he went on grants and stuff that would be like a voucher system that he opposes. Or does he not oppose it if he benefits from it?
His grandmother was not poor and was better off than he makes out.
Scholarships are granted to students of all ages (elementary and secondary). I know several people who attended elementary schools on scholarships.
You’re wrong. Again.
PEACE
And they had those in the 1960’s. I don’t recall seeing that option then and I am a bit older than Obama.
His grandmother had a little money. It was not the dire example they make it out to be. They must have had some money because Barry could afford drugs.
Why would someone who (if what you say is true) got a scholarship to attend private school oppose others going to private school and support such a wasteful and broken system as public education? Obama sends his kids to private school but does not want that option for others as he opposes vouchers. He is firmly behind public education except for him and his children.
I would like to see some evidence that he went on a scholarship.
I do know this, when he registered at that school his guardian listed his religion as Muslim.
Most drug users do not get the $ to buy drugs from their parents, last I checked.
I never said that Obama went to the school on scholarship, only that many kids do.
Uh oh. The Muslim smear again. Be afraid America, be very afraid.
PEACE
Then you have no idea how he went to private school. That was no smear. I only include it to show that information can be very different from 40+ years ago.
I am sure Obama is not a Muslim (though there are interesting questions about how he left that religion without being killed). Though many Muslim leaders who support him have said he was a Muslim so is it a smear from them as well?
I am also sure he is not a Christian. He can claim to have accepted Christ but his beliefs are contrary to Christian beliefs.
“I am also sure he is not a Christian. He can claim to have accepted Christ but his beliefs are contrary to Christian beliefs.”
So are the beliefs of anyone whom supports the death penalty. Like you, I’m guessing.
PEACE
Not correct. The death penalty is quite well established and it is not contrary to any teaching. It is a punishment for a crime. Killing is not a sin and it is not a crime. Murder is a sin and a crime. The commandment is Thou Shall not Murder.
God inspired many to kill in His name. The punishment for murder is the death penalty and that is acceptable (though there are religious groups that oppose it) because it is not contrary to any religious principle. An eye for an eye.
Abortion, on the other hand, is MURDER. a child is being murdered. I am always amazed at the number of morons who will protest at a prison to keep a convicted murderer from being killed and then will protest to allow women to keep murdering babies. How do they reconcile that?
I’m going to bed. Your nonsensical arguments are tiring me. I’ll answer your questions tomorrow. Have a good one, Dog.
PEACE
I checked with a priest that I know and he informed me that any true Christian is opposed to both abortion and the death penalty. I should point out that this man is a Catholic priest since many of your readers likely do not consider Catholics Christians. The Roman Catholic Church uses the translation “thou shall not kill” rather than “thou shall not murder”.
PEACE
So it is OK for you to ignore the thoughts on abortion but agree with those on murder.
Your imaginary priest is incorrect. Thou shall not murder is the original text.
Romans 13 is pretty clear about the authority of man to punish. The Church maintains that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Who cares? It is a punishment and that is what it does. Locking someone up for robbing a store does not deter others from robbing stores but we do not abolish jail time…
Who said that I ignore the thoughts on abortion?
“Imaginary” priest? I guess I was “imagining” the man leading the mass that I attended this morning.
PEACE
You as in the generic you (Democrats).
OK, you priest leading mass this morning is incorrect. The commandment is thou shall not MURDER.
The rest stands as it is. There is no rule against the death penalty and if the Catholic Church is against it they go against scripture.
Attention all Catholic readers: Big Dog dismisses our faith and is a typical Catholic-hating (r)epuke.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
PEACE
You can link to any site that uses the word kill but the original interpretation from Hebrew is MURDER.
I have not dismissed our faith and am not Catholic hating. I am merely pointing out that they are wrong in this position. They were right when they supported the death penalty as a form of retribution and punishment. Now they are wrong as pointed out in Romans 13.
Thou shall not MURDER.
The link is to the VATICAN’s website. Must I explain to you what the Holy See is? A friend of mine teaches CCD classes every Thursday evening. Would you like me to sign you up?
PEACE
I don’t care who it links to, it is incorrect.
The Vatican has been incorrect on a lot of things, like remaining silent as Jews were exterminated in WWII.
Murder and Kill are different and the Hebrew words used in the ORIGINAL OT make that clear.
The Church has changed its position on the death penalty so when was it wrong? The major opposition is to the non deterrent effect.
You referred to Catholicism as “our” faith in an earlier comment. Was that a typo or do you consider yourself Catholic? If you are claiming to be Catholic, I think that the Archdiocese of Baltimore should deny you communion for doubting such a basic principle of our faith.
PEACE
I was raised Catholic and served as an altar boy. I went to Catholic school for my education. I was not married Catholic as they wanted six months of classes to ensure my marriage would last and the Army did not afford that amount of time. 28 years later and I am still married (yes to the same person) and that is better than more than 50% of the people who attended those classes.
If the Church wants to deny me communion that is fine. There are many Christian churches and I worship God regardless of which Christian religion is involved. I can worship in a Lutheran church as easily as a Catholic one. I have been to many non denominational services in the Army. I had no problem communicating with God.
The Catholic church should get its act together. Have they denied communion to all the pedophile priests or are they still providing them cover?
I hear that, Dog. You’ll get no defense of pedophile priests from me. I think they should lock them up and throw away the key.
PEACE
Bunny – you actually believe that a person should be locked up for life for his sexual preference but people that commit heinous, unconscionable crimes should be treated the same way? As a man with a para-philia? I find that very interesting and telling. Before you get your panties in a bunch I am asking a serious question so do your best to answer it without your usual insults and rhetoric.
The reason I ask this is because most left leaners believe that homosexuality is a sexual preference and genetically linked. If this is the case, pedophilia may have to be considered as the same since it is a sexual preference as well. Would this make it OK?
For the record, I don’t believe that pedophiles can be cured because it is a sexual preference and, for the most part, the recidivism rate for these crimes is outrageously high. I think they should be locked away for life with regular criminals (especially the violent kid-loving ones).
Potsy,
You must be a Rick Santorum follower. He likens homosexuality to bestiality. Like Ricky, your arguments make no sense.
No, I don’t think that pedophilia is “OK”. Homosexuality IS a sexual preference and IS genetically linked. Would Larry Craig/Ted Haggard/Mark Foley have “chosen” to be homosexual, knowing the level of hatred that their fellow (r)epukes have for gays? I think not.
Equating homosexuality to pedophilia proves once again how foolish you are. Someone close to you must have come out of the closet at some point in your life and let you down. This would explain your misunderstanding of human sexuality and your hatred of gays. Calm down, sweetie. Everything’s gonna be alright.
PEACE
Wrong again, roadkill. Based on studies done using homozygous twins, there is not a scientifically proven genetic link to homosexuality. It is considered a sexual preference – preferring same sex partners. Pedophilia is the preference of preferring children as the sexual object. Being a cop, you should know your sexual paraphilias better. Of course, what can I expect? You prove your lack of intelligence over and over for all to see.
I don’t hate anyone because they are gay. That is their choice, their preference and they will have to answer for their actions like I do my own. Unlike you, I have never insulted anyone or called anyone out of their name based on their choice (like being a libtard or a repuke, for example).
Why I even try to initiate some intelligent conversation with such an obvious atavistic cretin is beyond me. I will go back to ignoring your pointless vomit.
Potsy-
Why would Craig, Foley, and Haggard have “chosen” to be gay???
PEACE
whats ur name?
Me? Bunny Colvin’s the name. I thought that much was obvious. Guess not.
Potsy- please answer my question.
PEACE
Are you saying that choosing to be gay is a bad thing? I ask the same question all the time, why would anyone choose to be gay?
If there is any genetic link to homosexuality it would be an abnormal trait since normal people are born without it. Therefore, homosexuality would be abnormal in the eyes of science and the homosexual community has made it clear that it is normal.
Never said that, Dog. I asked why Craig/Foley/Haggard would choose to be gay when it would obviously be detrimental to their career aspirations for them to do so. It’s a simple question and I’m waiting for Potsy to answer it.
PEACE