He capitalized Creator, and he (or at least his mother) was quoting the Declaration of Independence.
That doesn’t make any sense. How can you be endowed with rights by rights?
Whoever said this was either a great American and richly deserves to be President, or a evil tyrant wannabe who deserves scorn, depending on which party he belongs to.
Regards,
Shodan
I wanted to comment on this.
I think they can. I really have a dread that conservatives will be so afraid of what they see as the liberal side of Obama that they will foolishly elect McCain as the lessor of two evils. Now that the bullshit false information machine has started to crank out it’s lies the average hard working citizen who doesn’t take the time to do much research will be affected by the dishonest emotional appeal. The fed Ex driver at work is a great guy. He commented that Obama is the most liberal senator and I objected.
“Well his voting record is his voting record”
Sure it is, but don’t you think you need to know why he voted a certain way and what was attached to a certain bill that he found unacceptable.
“Well, that’s true.”
I think good guys like him and many of my conservative friends will understand if they are reached in an honest respectful discussion. I asked him if he’d rather have an honest liberal he could talk to, or another dishonest politician who said one thing and did another.
I think conservatives will respond to honesty and the need to return politics to an honest debate of the actual issues rather than irrational emotional BS. They will also be concerned about what they see as Obama’s liberal agenda such as UHC and other exspensive programs. Those doubts must be addressed directly and I think Obama got that in here
This speaks to the heart of the honest conservative who sees the liberal problem as income redistribution in the name of equality.
Those are excellent comments, cosmosdan. Like you, I believe that there are conservatives — particularly those of the Goldwater mold — who are sharp thinkers, and won’t equivocate about the intrinsic value of patriotism or its relation with symbols. With respect to the “bullshit false information machine” (nice phrase), I’ve begun a new thread to discuss one of its opening salvos of the campaign.
Well, those are McCain’s words , but your dichotomy is nonsense. One of the admirable aspects of Obama’s speech is his effort to remove questions about either candidate’s patriotism from this campaign. I think that’s a good idea.
He’s not implying it…that is exactly what he said.
Unfortunately I do not think many people listen critically enough to parse what that means.
He is not saying that wearing a pin by itself is a bad thing but that wearing a pin, in and of itself, is not patriotism. Calling out people who do not wear a pin as somehow being unpatriotic is likewise bogus.
Your patriotism is defined in other, more meaningful ways. A pin is just a pin and wearing one no more makes you a patriot than wearing a Red Sox cap proves you are a Boston baseball fan.
I noticed. I try to encourage every caring citizen to reject those dishonest tactics for the sake of moving America forward. The choice this election isn’t between two men , one with a conservative POV and one with a liberal one. Every citizen must reject dishonest smear tactics as a reasonable part of our political spectrum. In doing that we must encourage and engage in honest debates about the issues at hand based on where we are in reality rather than just argue the idealogical correctness of our perspectives.
Once we head in that direction we can begin to find real solutions, but we need to take those first steps.
Good speech. Unfortunately, we’ve reached a time in American political history when patriotism has become a bludgeon with which to pummel one’s opponent (and IMHO, this has been done almost exclusively by Republicans). McCain and Obama have each now said that his opponent is a patriot; I hope Obama’s speech will go a long way towards closing that line of debate. Both men obviously love their country; they ought to now have an honest and robust debate on what direction the country should take, and what policies the Federal government should follow.
I like this one. If only we had remembered it 5 years ago.
Just about the best reply to Goering, as if his thinking required one.
Jesus was a facist? Who knew?
Goering was right, and so was Orwell. That’s how it is.
Or, rather, was. We live in a different time now, dealing with very different situations, and an American pacifist is not objectively pro-Islamist – because war is not obviously or unambiguously the most appropriate or effective way to deal with the Islamists.
I agree. That’s why I support the removal of dictators and the promotion of democratic rule. Religious fascism is a disease best fought with concepts of individual freedom and choice.
And thats going so well, too! You must be so proud!
Jesus didn’t live during World War II.
Mmm-hm. Got a way to pull that off without war? Or, for that matter, with war? Because nothing yet tried either way seems to work in the MENA.
Please elaborate. I don’t think that that Orwell quote is necessarily a reply- obviously, if two nations are at war, and one side is promoting pacifism in the populace of the other side, the pacifist could be seen as collaborators. But Goering was talking about how to raise support for war among the populace before the fighting began. He was a brilliant, but evil, politician, as were many other Nazis.
Or, Orwell was talking about in specifics, Goering in generalities.
As with most of Obama’s speeches, he seems a little smarter, a little more knowledgeable, and a little more willing to take on our sacred cows than most presidential candidates. But he also seems to be drifting more and more into that fortune cookie language where everything sounds thoughtful and profound and upbeat but when parsed doesn’t seem to mean much of anything. For example, when he says:
I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
…what does he mean by ‘the singular greatness of our ideals’? I mean, I’m a big fan of the ideals this nation was founded on, but it seems like there are a couple dozen other countries that are at least in the same ballpark ideal-wise. Is there really something singularly great about our ideals, or is this just playing to the home crowd?
so we bombed the living fuck out of them with concepts did we?
What is singular is that America was first, and thus inspired the others as Obama suggests. The idea of a nation conceived in liberty grew out of 17th and 18th century philosophies, most notably John Locke’s natural law. Locke’s second treatise on government served, according to Jefferson, as the main inspiration for the Declaration of Independence.
He’s saying realizing we have flaws and wanting to work on them is an equal part of patriotism, and he’s saying he doesn’t agree with those who seem to constantly want to point out our flaws and failings. The speech IMO io to redefine patriotism in more realistic terms and to disarm his opponents who will define it much more narrowly.
I think for some conservatives it seems that liberals just see America’s flaws. Blame America first and all that. He’s saying he doesn’t agree with those that treat America that way, and demonstrating that it isn’t true for him and some other liberals.
I’d say that phrase is akin to “we’re the greatest nation in the world” which might be argued but seems to be necessary in political speeches. Overall I think he’s saying patriotism is working to live up to the ideals we were founded on, seeing and acknowledging problems and overcoming the obstacles. Changing our direction when we see we’ve strayed from those ideals.