Post #362,286
9/7/12 7:31:24 AM
|
One word: Citizenship.
That's really what it's all about.
http://www.npr.org/2...convention-speech
[...]
This is the choice we now face. This is what the election comes down to. Over and over, we've been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way, that since government can't do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can't afford health insurance, hope that you don't get sick. (Murmurs of disapproval.) If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that's the price of progress. If you can't afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent's advice and borrow money from your parents. (Laughter, mixed cheers and boos, applause.)
You know what, that's not who we are. That's not what this country is about. As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk- takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world's ever known.
But we also believe in something called citizenship  (cheers, applause)  citizenship, a word at the very heart of our founding, a word at the very essence of our democracy, the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations.
We believe that when a CEO pays his autoworkers enough to buy the cars that they build, the whole company does better. (Cheers, applause.)
We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can't afford, that family's protected, but so is the value of other people's homes  (cheers, applause)  and so is the entire economy. (Applause.)
We believe the little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the next Steve Jobs or the scientist who cures cancer or the president of the United States  (cheers, applause)  and it is in our power to give her that chance. (Cheers, applause.)
We know that churches and charities can often make more of a difference than a poverty program alone. We don't want handouts for people who refuse to help themselves, and we certainly don't want bailouts for banks that break the rules. (Cheers, applause.)
We don't think the government can solve all of our problems, but we don't think the government is the source of all of our problems  (cheers, applause)  any more than our welfare recipients or corporations or unions or immigrants or gays or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles  (cheers, applause)  because  because America, we understand that this democracy is ours.
We, the people  (cheers)  recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense. (Cheers, applause.)
As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together  (cheers, applause)  through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That's what we believe.
So you see, the election four years ago wasn't about me. It was about you. (Cheers, applause.) My fellow citizens  you were the change. (Cheers, applause.)
[...]
That's what it's all about.
He's the real deal. Let's make sure he wins again.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,287
9/7/12 8:16:15 AM
|
It's all in the votes.
If he gets enough votes, he could be the president in January. On the other paw, if he hadn't gotten a spine transplant from a jellyfish, he could be president NOW!
I was steeling myself to hold my nose and vote for him and he went and preemptively caved at his own convention because the republicans might say something bad about him. Why? Because the fucking REPUBLICANS wanted him to put a plank in his platform involving deities and internal affairs of another country (Israel.) He may not get enough votes, not because the republicans don't like him, but because his own base is coming to despise the brilliant but cowardly orator.
The country is knackered. And I'm too old for violent revolution. Fuck me.
|
Post #362,288
9/7/12 9:04:21 AM
|
He picks his battles.
The Republican MO for decades has been to pick an issue to rile people up that really has little to do with their agenda. Flag Burning!!!11
Putting a few words back in the platform about Jerusalem or God gets it out of the news after a day or so. It's not going to change his actual policies about them. It takes the issue away from the Republicans and doesn't feed their noise machine. It lets him concentrate on the big issues.
Don't get distracted. Look at the big picture and the obvious differences his or Rmoney's administrations would make in the direction the country takes.
My $0.02.
Hang in there.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,290
9/7/12 9:08:07 AM
|
Romney might be good for the country in one respect.
Creative destruction.
|
Post #362,293
9/7/12 11:38:19 AM
|
Yes, it would auger this low flying...
country right into the ground as if it were flying high!
If the Republican's had just let the damned banks fail... we would have already broken the country and got to keep both pieces... and glued them back together by now.
Yes, I know the democrats aren't much better... but at least they aren't as friggin out of touch and "look at this voodoo doll" (or hey lookit this shiny...) as the Republicans appear to be.
Meh.
|
Post #362,289
9/7/12 9:05:48 AM
|
I shouldn't have read that.
I watched Warren's speech and was on the threshold of voting for him. I purposefully did not watch his speech because I knew what would happen. And it did happen when I read what you'd posted: his stunning hypocrisy made me queasy. Does he ever say anything he actually believes?
A couple of examples from your post:
We believe that when a CEO pays his autoworkers enough to buy the cars that they build, the whole company does better.
Um, two-tier wage scale, anyone? That was a condition of getting bailed out to the tune of several thousandths of the amount his administration gave banks without conditions attached.
We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can't afford, that family's protected, but so is the value of other people's homes  (cheers, applause)  and so is the entire economy.
The "entire economy" apparently does not apparently include the 15% unemployed, or the families in the 1 million homes that have been foreclosed upon this year. But, hey, Wall Street closed at a 4 year high, so all is well with his real constituency, right?
If you can't afford health insurance ...
Too frickin' bad, Sparky. I'm mandating that you buy it from a for profit entity linked to my very good friends in the Health Insurance, Big Pharma and Wall Street industries.
Yeah, a real "man of the people." The more I hear him, the more likely I am to sit the charade out.
|
Post #362,294
9/7/12 12:07:04 PM
|
You're confusing his ideals with practical governing.
Does he ever say anything he actually believes?
He's about the most consistent politician I know of who says, year after year, the same things about what he believes.
Does that mean all of the policies of the federal government follow those ideals? Of course not.
He's not a Benevolent Dictator. He's the President.
"A man's got to know his limitations." Obama does. He understands his role. On policy, he can only do what Congress gives him the money and the authority to do, what the Constitution says he can do, and what existing laws say he can do.
For example: One of his first acts was to set in motion the closing of Guantanamo. Congress blocked that.
He wanted civilian trials for al Qaeda people in NYC. Congress and Bloomberg blocked that.
Etc.
He's consistent about his ideals - amazingly so. He tells you where he would like to go with great clarity. But he can't get there without the votes in Congress. (You know the rest of my spiel that goes here...)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #362,296
9/7/12 1:18:17 PM
|
Nice flailing.
Really, Scott, you're dangerously close to becoming an apologist. I know we differ on some key matters - most notably the USA PATRIOT Act, but he's not "a benevolent dictator" and stays within the confines of the US Constitution? Really? In the face of the fact that he, and he alone, can literally decide who gets assassinated by a killer drone, notwithstanding the target's US Citizenship status?
Warren said (paraphrased) "We believe those responsible for the collapse should be held accountable." I concur with her. President Obama doesn't. Goldman Sachs investigation dropped ring any bells? Or don't you think the AG and, consequently, the DOJ answer to the President?
He's among the most disingenuous individuals I have ever heard speak - and I was around for Breshnev and Nixon. Ever heard the expression, "Actions speak louder than words"?
I know I'm in a state that's been written off (not unjustifiably, imo). But I also know that a vote against Romney here is valuable. And make no mistake, if I somehow manage to not hear the President speak again between now and November, I might feel compelled to cast my anti-Romney vote. If that happens, that's all it will be. I expect there to be very little in the way of real change arising out of this election no matter who wins.
|
Post #362,299
9/7/12 1:54:49 PM
|
I think we're beyond convincing, but...
In the face of the fact that he, and he alone, can literally decide who gets assassinated by a killer drone, notwithstanding the target's US Citizenship status?
It's a bit more complicated than that...
https://ecf.dcd.usco...doc?2010cv1469-31 (83 page .PDF of the judge's ruling dismissing the case brought by his father).
Or don't you think the AG and, consequently, the DOJ answer to the President?
I believe their comments that they didn't think they had enough evidence for a criminal conviction on these issues in this case at this time. If they were in the banks' pockets, there wouldn't have been a DOJ investigation in the first place. They didn't have to do what Levin asked:
http://www.reuters.c...BRE8781LA20120810
"The department and investigative agencies ultimately concluded that the burden of proof to bring a criminal case could not be met based on the law and facts as they exist at this time," the Justice Department said in a statement late on Thursday.
Righteous indignation is righteous, but life is complicated...
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
