POLITICAL VOICE

thoughts on obama's speech...

1. his opening video is all about struggle and his hard work, getting himself from a lower-middle class family to a "successful" "hardworking" upper class man. he then proceeds to talk about his grandmother who worked so hard and put her all into making sure he was taken care of and she was able to get out of poverty and live a comfortable life. inspiring story.

"And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me."

so, obama...if you have been through that struggle yourself, and have successfully gotten out of the lower middle class with hard work and determination, why then are you preaching that the government should intervene and hold everyone's hands to make sure they get by. obviously its possible to pick yourself up from poverty in the united states, he did it, his grandmother did it, so is the rest of the american people too stupid to do the same?

you're preaching about how the government needs to help those who are in the lower class, when its obvious that we don't need the government to do so. people who WANT to succeed, in reality CAN with determination. having the government spoon feed us will make the united states as a country lazy and unwilling to work hard for themselves because 'the government will take care of it'.

"Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps — even if you don't have boots. You're on your own." your grandmother did it, you did it, why can't we?

AND HIS MOTHER DID IT! "In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships." it seems pretty easy..

2. "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power."

so NOW he wants to drill for oil domestically AND start using nuclear power?! when did this "change" happen? i find it rather disturbing how obama switched views and adopted the energy plan that he once bashed when mccain proposed it! obama had his whole NO DON'T DRILL IN THE UNITED STATES all during his campaign and NOW he changes his mind and sides WITH mccain?!

3. "I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class."

tax cuts to 95% of people...why not 100%? Sure, punish the wealthy for having more property? it doesn't matter if they deserve it or not, that is their property and they should be taxed the SAME as the rest of the country. we can't take money from the rich to give to the poor. that's not fair obama, come on now.

4. schooling and economy...he talks a big game about the public school system...he believes in it, he wants to give it MORE money and pay the teachers MORE...yet...he sends his children to private schools. our economy could be better, but obama fails to acknowledge that the latest report on the economy in the last quarter grew at a 3% yearly rate...which is as good as its average growth rate during the clinton years.

5. 'i'd love to debate mccain'...EXCUSE ME?! you want to DEBATE mccain on the issues? then why did you run with your tail between your legs from the many townhall meetings in which mccain was all set to do just that? if you really wanted to debate him...then why DIDN'T you?!

6. "What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you."

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME IT'S ABOUT YOU!!!! are you kidding me? obama...you actually said this ALOUD when you were standing on a high podium in front of a 20 foot "O" logo...unless the O stands for the o in yOu..i'm not convinced this isn't about you. if it was about us, then what's with his pompous campaign?

7. "John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the gates of hell — but he won't even go to the cave where he lives."

do you expect john mccain to physically go to the caves of afghanistan and have hand-to-hand combat with bin laden? nice try.

8."I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11"

i need more clarification on which situations he's FOR a surge and when he's NOT for a surge...actually, i think HE needs more clarification.

-----
"We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job — an economy that honors the dignity of work." ...nice touch.

i'm worried about this candidate..
"I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington." i agree...

Well, we've all heard Bushisms and 'senior moments' from John McCain...so why not poke a little fun at Obama's stupid remarks? Hey buddy, stick to those powerful teleprompter speeches so you don't rake up a huge collection of idiotic remarks. Just for a good laugh...

It seems that now that the war in Iraq has been recognized, by both parties, to be a success it is no longer a selling point the democrats have against John McCain. Newsweek released a magazine featuring President Bush on the cover saying 'What Bush Got Right.' That's right, whether you supported it from the get-go or not, the war is considered a successful mission by even the media!

Now? Obama's view on the war is barely even mentioned because he was at first 'always opposed to the war' and then he decided he didn't know enough about the war to really make a call. He even stated that after seeing the success of the surge himself during his visit to Iraq, and knowing what he knows now, he'd STILL oppose the war.

And now? The democrats would rather not discuss the success of the war they used as a huge stepping stone for Obama's gaining of popularity among those 'peace keepers' out there.

The democrats are now strongly attempting to combine Bush and McCain into one mystical and downright evil person. Hillary Clinton actually said she can't even tell them apart sometimes, which to me is no big deal. Who cares if Hillary isn't intelligent enough to distinguish them? I sure don't. Not gonna sway my vote. The McCain More the Same slogan is really cute though.

I find it fascinating how much of a brand Obama and his whole campaign has become. With all the little slogans and icons and Obama being portrayed as such a fantastic African-American hero, it's hard to not get caught up in all the hype. It seems like people are starting to forget the ideas of Obama, and instead are drawn to this cult following of his brand.

So now what? Iraq is no longer a part of Obama's ammunition and their selling point is now... universal healthcare? Well, good luck with that one.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present, except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.



'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

-Obama

Not only would he be the first black president, but he'd be the first President who refuses to salute his own country! That a boy Obama, keep making the list of 'firsts'!

“I’m in this race to end our dependence on Middle East oil...”

Senator Obama, if you want to end dependence on Middle East oil, why then should we not drill in the United States? Ah, yes...the inconsistent liberal once again does not follow through with what he preaches. Obviously if Obama wanted to end dependence on the Middle East for oil, if he legitimately meant what he said, he wouldn't have opposed the idea of drilling in the United States... causing less dependency on the Middle East and lower oil prices. Why if someone believed in something, would they then oppose the action to fulfill it?

Not only does he oppose to drilling in the United States, or off the coast of the United States, etc. Obama also opposes building nuclear power plants. Yes, once again, another solution to the dependence of foreign oil. Obama must have some really impressive plan to fix this problem that scientists, economists, engineers, Exxon, and any other breathing human hasn't come up with yet. It's not fair to claim a position on something, and then when realistic solutions are introduced, oppose them and not support them.

Solar and wind energy. Really? Does Obama really think that just because domestic drilling would only show beneficial five or ten years after beginning drilling, its not worth it? How long has the United States used oil? In ten years, can we really completely stop using oil and run everything on solar panels and wind? Is that the CHANGE? Is that the trick Obama has up his sleeve, to magically turn the United States into a wind and sun powered country by 2018?

Let's be serious when we come up with solutions, Obama, because there are morons out there eating this all up. Sure, environmentalists don't want to drill for oil, they'd love to see Obama's plan for running the country on wind and solar energy succeed, as would I. But to realistically fix the problem, we need to use realistic solutions. If the oil is extracted domestically, it would generate local jobs, replace imports, and lower prices. The US continental shelf alone has about 6 trillion dollars worth of oil and 3 trillion dollars worth of natural gas.

An article written in April 2006 predicts, "Let gasoline hit $4 a gallon and the demand for more oil exploration is going to get pretty loud. Let gasoline hit $6 a gallon and I expect to see oil rigs going in within site of the expensive coastal houses owned by rich folks." (Randall Parker) Well, it's 2008 and gas prices are getting closer and closer to 6 dollars a gallon.

It's been said that by 2020, twelve years from now, the oil reserves in Russia and Iran will get depleted. Therefore, in twelve years, the price of oil is projected to sky rocket. Funny, because if domestic drilling starts in, let's say 2009, by 2017 (according to Bush's energy department) we'd reap the benefits, saving us from those outrageous prices.



Obama, you're not one to call out people on changing their positions. Obviously, with today's oil prices, McCain needed to adjust his plan to make it more realistic to the situation.

Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today...that's right Obama. But neither would your plan, which doesn't seem as though it would reap benefits until two decades (if not more) after acting on it. McCain isn't going to install pipelines that run from the Gulf Coast right into your gas tank...Obama needs to be patient and understand that sometimes there isn't a quick fix. God forbid we think about what's good for the future.

Lastly, in this video Obama says he has a plan that would do this and that. A plan that will provide immediate relief, with long term benefits. Did I miss it? WHAT IS THE PLAN?

Warmonger - probably the only thing Obama supporters can come up with in an attempt to find a legitimate reason why McCain would be the lesser choice for President. Unfortunately, it seems that this issue with McCain's view on the Iraq situation can actually hurt Obama more than McCain. Here's why...

This is what McCain said in response to the statement, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years…" in an interview:

"Maybe 100. We’ve been in South Korea… We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me, as long as Americans… as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

What portion of the previous makes McCain a warmonger? He very clearly stated that as long as Americans aren't being injured or killed, he'd stay in Iraq to stabilize it and protect the United States from the terrorist threats of those in the area. This does not mean that regardless of how things develop in Iraq, he will keep troops there. Democrats distorted his perfectly clear and rational idea to portray McCain as supporting 'an unnecessary war in Iraq'.



How about Obama? Once firmly stating that he would withdraw from Iraq if elected, he now says that he is willing to 'refine' his plans for Iraq after he visits Baghdad later on in July. Obama is quoted saying the following to CBS:

"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies. I have been consistent, throughout this process, that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.”

Firstly, if a trip to Baghdad is what was needed for Obama to have a clear policy on the Iraq situation, should he not have done so earlier than four months before the election? Also, if he has not yet enough information on what the current situation is, then how can he preach a policy of withdrawing for months prior? Secondly, why must Obama always try to squeeze the term 'consistent' in every 'heartfelt and powerful' speech he makes? Has he not kept track of his own record, and his consistent inconsistency?

When Obama preaches consistency about his ideas, he should follow up with actually sticking to what he says.

After talking to many people about this upcoming election, its clear that more than half of the Obama supporters don't even know why they're supporting this media character in the first place. It seems irresponsible to not research the candidates before deciding who's the best qualified. The only thing these uninformed, media guzzling people say is 'we need a change' and 'Obama will change the country.'

This raises the question, what change?! What positive change will Obama bring to the country? When people can't give a direct answer to this question, then it seems the media succeeded in thrusting this fairy-tale like character onto those unwilling to search for actual information. It gets frustrating when the only reason people seem to be supporting Obama is this abstract, open-ended idea of a 'change' that has yet to bring to surface anything that seems remotely beneficial to us as American citizens.

Obama is in fact a pompous man, who preaches his fabricated life story to all the media saps who are willing to listen. He toots his own horn in his autobiography and continues to do so throughout his campaign. He had the audacity to take the Presidential seal and personalize it to stick in front of a podium. It's obvious that not only do his followers see him as a hero, but he sees himself as one, too. Luckily for him, he doesn't even need to state any of his actual ideas because his supporters will continue to talk in circles and never directly answer the question 'what change will Obama bring?' As he continues to speak in abstract language that never directly addresses an issue, Obama will continue to have these people's support.

For those who support Obama, wouldn't it be nice to be able to defend your decision without only saying 'powerful speaker' and 'change'? Understandably, Obama supporters can't provide any further argument due to the fact that there are no specific details that back the idea that Obama will improve the United States if elected.
If you don't know why you're voting for someone, don't vote. If you want to vote, take the time to do your own investigation of the candidates instead of letting the media pinch your nose and shove Obama down your throat.

Everyone will agree that the media today is biased. Liberals say that the media, especially Rupert Murdoch's FOX network, is swayed toward the right wing. Before liberals start pointing fingers at the media, claiming networks are reporting biased news geared toward conservatives, let's consider the facts:

In 2007, a study was conducted involving 222 journalists. Only 6% of those involved in the study claimed to be conservative, and an additional 2% identified themselves as being 'very conservative'. On the other hand, 24% said they were liberal, with another 8% very liberal. The majority of journalists, 53%, said they were 'moderate', claiming to hold the middle position between the two parties, but rather seem to be very liberal themselves.

So, to the liberals that believe there are politically biased news being reported on major networks, you're right. However, even though the left believes the media is catered to conservatives, liberals still control more news sources such as CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and major newspapers such as the New York Times.



Today's media is strictly profit-driven and does not report on issues relevant to the American people. Instead, the media resorts to junk news and bashing public figures. There have been cases in which the government tries to appease the media because they know that the media has the American people wrapped round its finger, thus having the power to control the many aspects of government action. For instance, in 1996 President Bill Clinton passed the law allowing for media consolidation, known as the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Through this, Clinton gave the publicly owned digital spectrum to the already existing major corporations, instead of auctioning the spectrum for money. Thus, robbing the American people of a hundred billion dollars' worth publicly owned property. To keep the American people silent, the media only reported on this large-scale theft for an approximate total of 17-19 minutes.

However, there are some who remain somewhat optimistic about today's media because there are more outlets for people to share and receive their news. In an interview with Johnathan Alter, he states, "The big change in journalism in the last 25 years is the Internet. Its akin to the development of radio or TV. The good news is that the web has democratized the news business by allowing a lot more people to engage in a conversation once limited to a few. The bad news is that this rewards people mouthing off even when they have nothing to say. Talk is cheap; real reporting is expensive. So we get more of the former than the latter." The media may be corrupt and bias, but if you're willing to search for your information, you don't need to rely on what the mainstream media is force feeding you.


JOURNALISM STUDY: http://newsbusters.org/node/19969/print

NOAM CHOMSKY "WHO RUNS AMERICA?": http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19990401.htm

ROBERT MCCHESNEY: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/CorpMedia_McChesney.html

Last month, Obama claimed to visit 57 of the 60 states in the Unites States. I wonder if those extra seven heard Obama telling the story of how his uncle liberated Auschwitz as part of the American brigade...even though his mother was an only child. And wasn't it the Soviets who liberated Auschwitz? I think so... Re-writing history is a new tactic in the Obama campaign.

With gas prices reaching an all-time high, and so many people looking for jobs, unable to attain any, people have decided that the thing we need is more government interference with the American economy. Wrong.

The United States is a capitalist country, a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. It is natural for an economy to fluctuate, having good economic growth, and other times in which the economy struggles temporarily. MORE government interference?

Of course it would be the easiest way out to just knock on Washington's door saying, 'hey can you fix this?', which many people are actually wanting to do. During this election season, many believe electing Obama will bring a "change" to the economy. His change will ultimately take Americans steps farther from a capitalist economy to a socialist, government run, economy.

The current economy is unfortunate, however, taking the "easiest" way out is what liberals are opting for. Far leftists want to hand over all control to the government, refusing to accept the fact that the government has no right to interfere with the private property of individuals or the private businesses they own. Unfortunately, we can't expect Washington to baby us through life, nor can they expect they have the right to do so. We have to work hard for ourselves as citizens, struggle is what allows people to grow and learn, rather than depending on the government to hand everything to us. The government can't provide perfect lives for everyone, nor do they have the responsibility or right to do so.

The idealist state of capitalism is one in which there is no government interference, an impossible thing to achieve in any society, and it revolves around the free trade of privately owned property. America is not completely capitalist, it's a fact, but when we start moving closer and closer to socialism, one starts to wonder, is this freedom?

The government has no right to meddle with the personal property of the American people. It was created as a way of governing the states to protect the citizens. However, a majority of liberals believe that it's the government's responsibility to play a sort of 'Robin Hood', taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Although, the government, if (God forbid) controlled by the left wing, won't take solely from the rich, they're going to take money from middle-class families who can't afford higher taxes.

Who says that one person deserves money over the other? What right does the government have to take away personal property and ration it among people? Do we not work to support ourselves, our own families?

Ideas such as universal health care do not follow the free market, democratic way of life. Democracy is slowly being taken away because it revolves on the concept of choice... something that the liberals are trying to take away from us. Universal health care takes away from the capitalist notion of competition: the desire to work harder, do better, to improve - thus the quality improves.

Social security is no longer relevant, it was an idea created to help the United States out of the depression, but once again, it is another way the government is controlling our spending. It is the individual's sole responsibility to save for retirement and handle his/her own property, the government's job is not to hold the hands of Americans and make the decisions for them.

Why do liberals support letting the Bush tax cuts expire? Those cuts are saving middle-class families, the people that feel the burden of taxes more than any, thousands of dollars a year. I can see how the government may want to let them expire...but why do people who are saving money they worked hard for opposed to the tax cuts?

It's going to come down to McCain and Obama this November, and the only "change" I can see if Obama gets elected, is the change resulting in higher taxes, a lower quality of health care, and our money being spent for obscure programs. Liberals want to force charity upon the American people through taxes, and if this 'charity' is what they strive for, why elect Obama who has contributed little to nothing of his personal money to charity. Isn't it a little hypocritical to force other people to give up their money when he's reluctant to give any of his own?

If you really feel the desire to help those who need aid in paying for health care, or education, etc. then by all means, help them. Charity is a great thing to do, but its voluntary. The government has no right to interfere with the private property of an individual and give it to another person. The rich are rich because they own all of that property, and taking it from them or taking away their freedom is STEALING.

"Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?"
(James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

The only Robin Hood that can get away with taking from the rich and giving to the poor is the storybook character. However, it seems that the Robin Hood that takes from the rich and gives to the government, is not going to be an issue to the left wing.

Hillary Clinton, who recently announced she is going to suspend her campaign, will continue to haunt the Democratic party by endorsing Obama. Obama is beginning to feel pressure to choose Hillary as a running mate, which can ultimately 'make or break' his chances of being elected.



If Obama supporters still haven't realized his inability to handle a simple controversy over the Trinity United Church of Christ, let alone handle international affairs, then this upcoming decision can prove to be Obama's third strike...even three strikes is being a little generous.


Choosing Hillary as a running mate will, once again, illustrate Obama's spinelessness. We all saw how Obama stuck with his church of twenty years after the Reverend Wright controversy, stating that the church has more substance than...I suppose, preaching anti-American ideas. But then, he drops that very same church he supported after Pfleger goes on a wild rant claiming Hillary thought the Presidential nomination was hers because of "white entitlement"...which was interesting to listen to while Pfleger, a caucasian male, put on his fake accent and blurted out anti-white statements. Obama stayed strong with his church after Rev. Wright's controversy, but apparently his twenty years of being a member that he once held so high in esteem, became worthless as he ditched the church because it became a 'hassle' on his campaign. Where did that loyalty go?

For all those who still give Obama their support, this can ultimately be his third strike. I find it hard to believe that someone who can't handle his own controversies, can handle terrorism issues and international affairs...I don't have high hopes for the 'let's sit down and discuss why your people are attacking my people over dinner' idea Obama seems to be preaching.


With so much support, I begin to wonder, what other mistakes can Obama get away with? He's already showed his spinelessness, and he's basically planning to force every citizen to give charity by raising taxes for all of these programs...yet he's only donated 1% of his income to charity...easier said than done, huh? It aggravates me that when I approach other people asking why they support Obama, "he's a good speaker with a powerful message" is the most common answer.


We're not electing the national motivational speaker, it's time to look past a good speaker and speeches written by hired writers, and look at what's really important. Hillary's knocking at your door, Obama...are you going to cave under pressure again?

In a fair world, there wouldn't have to be a choice between freedom and equality...but in today's America, where we are steering toward socialism with every 'brilliant idea' that comes out of the mouths of people like Obama, it's got to be one or the other.It is said that conservatives favor individual freedom, while liberals favor equality among individuals.

In order to accommodate to freedom, the notion of equality needs to be somewhat sacrificed because freedom is based on the concept of an individual deciding his or her own future. To accommodate to the desire for equality among all, we have to sacrifice the very freedom our country was founded on.

Congratulations Obama, I'm glad to hear that you have a good speaking voice and tell your speech writers that they are the only reason why you won the nomination for the Democratic party. It's nice to know that there are thousands of people eating his speeches right out of his under-qualified, socialist hands.

With a candidate that believes in universal health care and against the Bush tax cuts, why do we even need to give it any thought? Liberals like Obama are trying to take away my freedom, for "equality." With freedom comes competition and a strive to work hard and the free market.

The government has no right to take money from a wealthy person, who may or may not be deserving of his/her fortune, simply because they have a lot of it. Like it or not, that fortune is that individual's property...just like a house, car, dog, anything. It seems ludicrous to allow the government to tell me how and when to use my money...it's mine.

Truth is, we're not equal and can never be completely equal in social classes. Everyone does in fact have equal rights, but as for income and education and living situations...sorry, but the Constitution never said they would promise everyone a spot in the working middle class (who happen to be the ones suffering the most from all of the socialist concepts Obama is preaching). It's impossible to ensure social equality because classes are socially constructed and do not always revolve around income. We do have equality as citizens, the only difference is some took more advantage of their rights than others.

We are promised equal rights in the Constitution, which we have...but we were also guaranteed freedom. It is completely unconstitutional for the government to take away our freedom, telling us what to do with our private property in order to achieve this unrealistic, fantasy notion of equality. Liberals believe in this concept of taking from the rich and giving to the poor in order to create one, stagnant, government dependent society. They see the government as being responsible for dictating what the citizens should do with their individually earned property, almost like an elected "king" controlling the country without the people's consent.

And isn't that why we left England anyway?