The President's Speech

[Guest]

The President's speech this evening struck me as odd. Listening carefully, I could find no news nor did it contain any specific idea ideas on how the nation should go forward. If it was there, I missed any call for a unity of purpose in this nation.

The speech was delivered in a virtual monotone and without emotional force. Can anyone tell me the purpose of this speech?

[Guest]

I didn't see it but it was most likely purely political. Obama was against the surge that turned Iraq around. Bush had already negotiated the timetable for Iraq to take over before Obama was elected president. Just not a lot there for him to toot his own horn over from what I see.

[Guest]

I didn't see it but it was most likely purely political. Obama was against the surge that turned Iraq around. Bush had already negotiated the timetable for Iraq to take over with before Obama was elected president. Just not a lot there for him to toot his own horn over from what I see.

I Agree. Political posturing. What's with the pictures in the background? Did he mention Bush at all?

[Guest]

I Agree. Political posturing. What's with the pictures in the background? Did he mention Bush at all?

According to Fox News, this is where he mentioned W

"It's well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset," he said. "Yet no one could doubt President Bush's support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I have said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq's future."

[Guest]

How about a different interpretation from "political posturing":

A good portion of the speech, especially the final segment, was a detailed reminder to us of the critical role of our armed forces, and the sacrifice they make. It was a strong tribute, deserved and necessary. For this day to pass without that kind of national message would have been disrespectful.

There have been over four thousand funerals, but no strong national memorial of the collective effort. It's the President's job to lead, and he has started the memorial. It's our job to carry on that tribute, especially to provide the support so many Iraq vets and their families will need for a long time.

[Guest]

is the general consensus of this speech. Here is a link for the Minority Leader:

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/John-Boehner-iraq-speech/2010/08/31/id/368888

Here is his opinion of the Surge, which he opposed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

I thought it was very well done especially his obvious high respect for the US Military. President Obama is an eloquent speaker and very dedicated to the future of this country and everyone in it to include the rich and the poor. Thank you Mr President.

[Guest]

He is working on his acceptance numbers which he knows are dredging bottom.

Because almost everything he says turns out to be either wrong, or re-stated the next day or he backs off what he said or what he meant or one of his lemmings clarifies what he meant, I do not take much stock in anything he says....when I happen to hear him speak. His prepared speeches are the worst. A robot could do as well. I do not watch him for all those reasons.

And since he is a full time campaigner, I view his support of the troops merely as an opportunity to gain votes....as his reputation confirms.

The man has earned his position in my opinion of him.

I gave him his first year....he blew it and continues to do so. He simply is not, has not and most likely will not deliver on substance during his one term.

btk

[Guest]

I thought it was very well done especially his obvious high respect for the US Military. President Obama is an eloquent speaker and very dedicated to the future of this country and everyone in it to include the rich and the poor. Thank you Mr President.

You know, most of what he had to say could have and much WAS said by the former President !!! That includes his remarks on Afghanastan, which is pretty much what Bush said about Iraq !

As to your last part....he is interested in redistribution of wealth in this country and that I oppose, thus he will never win me over. His "stimulus" bill exceeded all the spending on war in the last 8 years..most of which was redistribution, NOT to save the economy !!!

[Guest]

I thought it was very well done especially his obvious high respect for the US Military. President Obama is an eloquent speaker and very dedicated to the future of this country and everyone in it to include the rich and the poor. Thank you Mr President.

:agree:

What he didn't do is deliver speech in his flight suit with "Mission Accomplished" sign in background.

[Guest]

I know it is very unpopular but I support redistribution of wealth to a point. Not near what most understand it to be, but rather Distribute the top 2 % of wealth to the top 20 % of current earnings and they unlike the top 2 % of earners will put the money to good use in hiring and jobs creation etc.

[Guest]

:agree:

What he didn't do is deliver speech in his flight suit with "Mission Accomplished" sign in background.

That's because Obama does not have a flight suit because he never served in the Armed Forces. You must be a citizen to enlist.

[Guest]

i liked your retort, villa...i think more should have been said about the gains made in iraq, which is now a democracy. but that would annoy the arab support which our president seems to value more than that of his own countrymen.

[Guest]

That's because Obama does not have a flight suit because he never served in the Armed Forces. You must be a citizen to enlist.

Villa2,

I have read enough of your posts to know you are far to intelligent to believe that doltish red neck drivel.

[Guest]

Villa2,

I have read enough of your posts to know you are far to intelligent to believe that doltish red neck drivel.

You are right, of course, but if the left insists on blaming everything on President Bush, well, the right can dish it out too.

Examples:

Left-Bush dumb= ratings drop
Right-Obama not citizen=ratings drop.


See how it works?

[Guest]

You are right, of course, but if the left insists on blaming everything on President Bush, well, the right can dish it out too.

Examples:

Left-Bush dumb= ratings drop
Right-Obama not citizen=ratings drop.


See how it works?

OK.

[Guest]

I know it is very unpopular but I support redistribution of wealth to a point. Not near what most understand it to be, but rather Distribute the top 2 % of wealth to the top 20 % of current earnings and they unlike the top 2 % of earners will put the money to good use in hiring and jobs creation etc.

You support redistribution of wealth to a point...what point? The point that it isn't your wealth being taken and redistributed. Where did that comment come from anyway?

[Guest]

You support redistribution of wealth to a point...what point? The point that it isn't your wealth being taken and redistributed. Where did that comment come from anyway?

Don't kid yourself, its not yours either.

[Guest]

Don't kid yourself, its not yours either.

Regardless of whose it is Lou, it isn't mine or yours to take from anyone else.

EXODUS 20:15: You shall not steal.

EXODUS 20:17: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

[Guest]

Don't kid yourself, its not yours either.

Not sure I even understand this,and don't you think we are REDISTRIBUTING the wealth through the myriad of social programs already in place ?

[Guest]

Not sure I even understand this,and don't you think we are REDISTRIBUTING the wealth through the myriad of social programs already in place ?

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.

[Guest]

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.


You see, THAT Lou is the constant liberal answer to make others feel guilty or less than you who care opposed to us who do not.

This is a very giving country...those with already do give and I get very miffed when I hear someone say what you say. Of course, I think the greatest majority of us give much....more in percentage than many of those who judge us who oppose redistribution as NON CHARITABLE.

Please dont judge me or anyone else...it is not fair and you have absolutely no idea of what I, or any other person on this earth does for charity ! And to be against redistribution is not an indication of less caring than you so it should not even be part of the discussion

[Guest]

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.

It has been proven many times that capitalism will raise the standard of living for everybody. Communism has been a dismal failure every where it has been tried.
If this system,in the USA fails, the whole country will be in poverty. We are bankrupting the country right now by redistributing the wealth. How much more can we stretch???
If business doesn't get a break soon, more jobs will be lost. The real key to prevent poverty is employment, not handouts.

You feed a person a fish, he eats for the day

You teach a person to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

[Guest]

Yes we are, but there is so many more people that need our help. Should we not have a little guilt when we are doing so well and so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance. If we that have give more, they can have a better life.

Lou, I think it is admirable you want to give to those less fortunate than you. Honestly, I really do think it is great of you to do that. Since you are so well off and feel guilty that "so many of Gods children are hungry, homeless and in need of mental and medical assistance." I say, give my friend. Tithes, give to charities, hand it to them on the streets. What ever means you decide. You give to your heart's delight.

I remember you talking about the beggers in TV. Quote from Lou, "I drove up and down 14th street through Washington DC for 6 years. There was one begger that was there on the same corner only in the morning, but at about 6:30 am when I went thru, he was more reliable than my workers. He only had a very small sign that said HELP PLEASE. For six years, every morning, and I would see maybe one out of every 5 or 6 cars had him something. Never a bag of food or a blanket, but hand to hand most likely change. Lights changed at about 3 minute intervals. Figure if he only got 50 Cents in Change per donation, 20 times per hour, thats 10.00 dollars tax free per hour. I feel it was probably a lot more than 10 dollars. Why work for min wage with that kind of take for just standing up with your hand out."

[Guest]

Back to the subject of the thread....this from a man who is often times a supporter of the current President....Richard Cohen in today's Washington Post...

an excerpt...actually the final sentences speaking of the speech...

"The love of troops has become the mindless trope of our times. It squelches both thought and criticism. And while the troops do deserve support, surely the best way to support them is to make sure that they are used wisely. This was not the case in Iraq, and Tuesday the president did not convince that it is in the case in Afghanistan. This was a bad speech, lacking both content and emotional wallop. The best that can be said for it is that it suited the Iraq war itself. Like the war, it should not have been undertaken."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/what_was_obamas_oval_office_ad.html

I found myself searching for the subject of the speech myself last night....as this writer mentioned, a speech from the oval office normally carries some messages and not sure what this message was.

And again...when will this President hold an open press conference instead of the staged ones where he preaches ??

[Guest]

To understand the importance placed on this speech, I suggest the following sites: The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/. No mention of the speech in the lead section. Obama did get mentioned for his calls to Israel and Palestine.


The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/ Again, no mention of the speech, but the Middle East Conflict again got a major story.

The Chicago Tribune - http://www.chicagotribune.com/ No mention of the speech.

The Wall Street Journal - http://www.chicagotribune.com/ No mention. The print version did have a small front page under World Wide News. Small print, no headline.

It as if the President threw a party and nobody came. The first three papers/syndicates listed have a distinct liberal bent. The WSJ has a center/right position in its editorial pages, but is scrupulously objective in its news coverage. This accounts in part for its growth and profitability when contrasted to the other three that are shrinking and losing money.

Without any of the papers out, I will go out on a limb and say, Steve Jobs will get more coverage in tomorrow’s news than Obama received in today’s coverage. Why? Steve Jobs has real news about Apple’s new products. Obama took prime time to announce that he had no news. A good maxim is, “If you have nothing to say, say nothing.” The classic line for this is attributed to George Better – “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Barack Obama would have been better off if he had remained silent.

[Guest]

The people want Bush back for third term.

http://dailymail.com/blog.html

[Guest]

OK OK OK. So we give to much already. I could use a second golf cart. What about slowing down the growth of the population. Lets encourage more young women and men to get sterilized. We know that the majority of people on government programs come from second, third and fourth generation welfare families. We could have neutering clinics that bring em in the front door, perform the procedure and give them about $5,000 on the way out the back door for the contribution to help lower taxes. That would be a lot cheaper and humane than allowing them to continue to breed and bring more government dole recipients into the world. The next generation would be slimed down and everyone could find a job and get off the street corner. Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money and I would see a lot less suffering in the world. You would cut down on abortions dramatically. Sounds like a win win to me.

[Guest]

OK OK OK. So we give to much already. I could use a second golf cart. What about slowing down the growth of the population. Lets encourage more young women and men to get sterilized. We know that the majority of people on government programs come from second, third and fourth generation welfare families. We could have neutering clinics that bring em in the front door, perform the procedure and give them about $5,000 on the way out the back door for the contribution to help lower taxes. That would be a lot cheaper and humane than allowing them to continue to breed and bring more government dole recipients into the world. The next generation would be slimed down and everyone could find a job and get off the street corner. Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money and I would see a lot less suffering in the world. You would cut down on abortions dramatically. Sounds like a win win to me.


I find your implication absolutely INSULTING...your implication that in your mind conservatives want to keep all their money and liberals are the giving folks is just so whacko and out of touch but so very typical of liberals.

"Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money..."

I really wonder about folks like you who use a tag...conservative in this case....to determine the good in someones heart. Who are you to pass judgement on any group ?

[Guest]

I find your implication absolutely INSULTING...your implication that in your mind conservatives want to keep all their money and liberals are the giving folks is just so whacko and out of touch but so very typical of liberals.

"Then the fine conservative folks could keep all their money..."

I really wonder about folks like you who use a tag...conservative in this case....to determine the good in someones heart. Who are you to pass judgement on any group ?

Nothing is definite and I did not mean all conservatives, but conservatives tend to lean to the its all mine side of money handling and liberals tend to be more kind and giving. Thats all I meant bucco. No offense meant. Please don't take this the wrong way. I do not even know which party is right on this issue. I may be way off the mark on this one. Its just that I would give it all away to help the needy and that does not include the guy on 14th street that would not work if you handed it to him on a silver platter. He was probably a conservative since he wanted a lot of money and did not pay any taxes.

[Guest]

Nothing is definite and I did not mean all conservatives, but conservatives tend to lean to the its all mine side of money handling and liberals tend to be more kind and giving. Thats all I meant bucco. No offense meant. Please don't take this the wrong way. I do not even know which party is right on this issue. I may be way off the mark on this one. Its just that I would give it all away to help the needy and that does not include the guy on 14th street that would not work if you handed it to him on a silver platter. He was probably a conservative since he wanted a lot of money and did not pay any taxes.

Lou, you need to use emoticons like :jester::loco::laugh::icon_wink: when you are being sarcastic or trying to be funny. I say this as you cannot possibly make a statement like "conservatives tend to lean to the its all mine side of money handling and liberals tend to be more kind and giving" and be serious.

[Guest]

Lou, you need to use emoticons like :jester::loco::laugh::icon_wink: when you are being sarcastic or trying to be funny. I say this as you cannot possibly make a statement like "conservatives tend to lean to the its all mine side of money handling and liberals tend to be more kind and giving" and be serious.


Of course it is sarcastic. I have been tagged as the LIBERAL and that means I am a second class citizen on any Conservative Web site. I am one of only 3 liberals on this site and there are thousands of conservatives. What I say on here really has no effect other than giving conservatives an opportunity to lash out at what they perceive as non-GOP. Without at least one liberal they would bore themselves to death. So I give myself up as a sacrifice. I have tried to gravitate toward the conservative viewpoint in several threads, but have been slapped right back to the left. So if its an opponent rather than an supporter that is wanted out of me, who am I to deprive them of that.

SERIOUS: I do believe and support most conservative views. I am hung up on the people that try but just can't get a foothold on a decent life and that clouds my line of sight. Give me a solution and I would be happy. I do believe also that many conservatives like Glenn Beck have wonderful information on whats wrong with the world, but no solutions. I guess you could say he wants us to turn it over to God, but I think earthly issues are for man to work out.

:throwtomatoes:

[Guest]

To understand the importance placed on this speech, I suggest the following sites: The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/. No mention of the speech in the lead section. Obama did get mentioned for his calls to Israel and Palestine.


The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/ Again, no mention of the speech, but the Middle East Conflict again got a major story.

The Chicago Tribune - http://www.chicagotribune.com/ No mention of the speech.

The Wall Street Journal - http://www.chicagotribune.com/ No mention. The print version did have a small front page under World Wide News. Small print, no headline.

It as if the President threw a party and nobody came. The first three papers/syndicates listed have a distinct liberal bent. The WSJ has a center/right position in its editorial pages, but is scrupulously objective in its news coverage. This accounts in part for its growth and profitability when contrasted to the other three that are shrinking and losing money.

Without any of the papers out, I will go out on a limb and say, Steve Jobs will get more coverage in tomorrow’s news than Obama received in today’s coverage. Why? Steve Jobs has real news about Apple’s new products. Obama took prime time to announce that he had no news. A good maxim is, “If you have nothing to say, say nothing.” The classic line for this is attributed to George Better – “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” Barack Obama would have been better off if he had remained silent.


Here's another angle on Obama's speech. Did you see this in the
NY Times ?

Iraqis’ Reactions to President Obama’s Speech

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/iraqis-reactions-to-president-obamas-speech/

[Guest]

or another.
Why are so many not able to formulate a position without the use of a party affiliation?
Are they unable? Are they not capable of presenting a position they firmly believe in without the talking points distributed by a particular party.

The left, right and middle are just political assignations for a numerical distribution called a normalcy curve.

Just stand up and be counted without the political, race or religious scoring.
You will feel a lot better and you will be genuine...not just a parrot.

btk

[Guest]

That's because Obama does not have a flight suit because he never served in the Armed Forces. You must be a citizen to enlist.


Plleeeease!...Let's NOT go there!....

[Guest]

Villa can't get the insult right. You do NOT have to be a citizen.


In order to join the US Military, you must either be a US citizen, or you must be a legal permanent immigrant, physically living in the United States, with a green card.


That's from 10 U.S.C. 3253 and 8253 which cover the Army and Air Force.

From the US Army Info site:

There is no equivalent statute limiting enlistment in the Regular Navy and Marine Corps, but they usually apply the same citizenship requirements as those required for the Army and Air Force.


There's ONE caveat if you're not a citizen:


Applicants who have been residents of countries considered hostile to the interests of the United States require a waiver.

[Guest]

Villa can't get the insult right. You do NOT have to be a citizen.



That's from 10 U.S.C. 3253 and 8253 which cover the Army and Air Force.

From the US Army Info site:


There's ONE caveat ifen:

You are right again. I served with lots of men and women from other countries that were enlisted into the United States Army without US citizenship.

I would have said that before, but I can't get away with that type comment even if it is the truth.

[Guest]

Liberals talk about helping the needy, but don't do it.

Conservatives do it and don't talk about.

All statistics show that conservatives give voluntarily 2 to 1 or more than Liberals do.

[Guest]

Plleeeease!...Let's NOT go there!....

Sir: When you start throwing mud around in the playground, expect some of it to be directed your way.chilout

What he didn't do is deliver speech in his flight suit with "Mission Accomplished" sign in background.
Reply With Quote