The Un-Edited Obama
February 14th, 2008 at 11:46am Mark Noonan
From Obama’s website:
I should not be here today. I was not born into money or status. I was born to a teenage mom in Hawaii, and my dad left us when I was two. But my family gave me love, they gave me education, and most of all they gave me hope – hope that in America, no dream is beyond our grasp if we reach for it, and fight for it, and work for it.
Because hope is not blind optimism. I know how hard it will be to make these changes. I know this because I fought on the streets of Chicago as a community organizer to bring jobs to the jobless in the shadow of a shuttered steel plant. I’ve fought in the courts as a civil rights lawyer to make sure people weren’t denied their rights because of what they looked like or where they came from. I’ve fought in the legislature to take power away from lobbyists. I’ve won some of those fights, but I’ve lost some of them too. I’ve seen good legislation die because good intentions weren’t backed by a mandate for change.
Now, Obama’s actual speech:
I should not be here today. I was not born into money or status. I was born to a teenage mom in hawaii. My father left us when I was two. But my family gave me love, they gave me an education and most of all they gave me hope - hope that in america no dream is beyond our grasp. If we reach for it and fight for it and work for it.
Understand this, hope is not blind optimism. Hope is not ignorance of the barriers and the challenges that stand between you and your dreams. I know how hard it will be to change America. I know it won’t be easy to provide healthcare for all Americans like I’ve proposed. If it was easy it would have already been done. I know that it won’t be easy to change our energy policy. ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They don’t want to give those profits up easily. I know how hard it will be to alleviate poverty that’s built up over centuries. I know how hard it will be to improve our schools. Especially because improving our schools will involve more than just money, it will require a change in mindset. A belief that every child counts. That it’s not somebody else’s problem. A belief that parents have to parent and turn off the TV set and put away the video game. And that our students have to raise their standards of excellence. That’s not easy to do changing attitudes, changing culture. I know it’s hard because I fought those fights. I fought on the streets of Chicago as a community organizer to bring jobs to the jobless in the shadow of a steel plant. I fought in the courts as a civil rights lawyer to make sure people weren’t denied their rights because of what they looked like or where they came from. I fought in the legislature to take away power from lobbyists and to provide healthcare to those who didn’t have it and to fix a criminal justice system that was broken and I’ve won some of those fights, but I’ve lost some of them too because I’ve seen good legislation die when good intentions weren’t enough. When they weren’t backed by a mandate for change.
Here’s a link to the un-edited Obama speech. On the video over at Obama’s website, most of the speech is skipped over.
Now, why would Obama want to expurgate the bit about Exxon’s profits and their unwillingness to disgorge? Why would Obama want to excise the bit about poverty built up over centuries? About the need to change our mindset in education? I mean, this isn’t just changing a couple words to make the text version flow a little better - this is major editing to remove whole concepts from the speech.
Could it be that Obama is trying to hide a bit of his ultra-liberalism? Up on a high over his victory, his liberalism really started to shine, but now in the cool light of day, he doesn’t want to show his cards? You tell me…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats
70 Comments
1. The Bane | February 14th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
It’s the teleprompter!
With the teleprompter dictating exactly what to say Obama is an inspirational motivating speaker; without it he’s another angry leftist.
My wife pointed out that Obama isn’t a litigator (née John Edwards); he’s unable to speak off-the-cuff without fumbling. As Law Review and a law teacher was able to carefully craft an argument or theory (like Almiranta), but unlike a litigator (or Almiranta) he is unable to deliver a response unless he has time to prepare. This is why his debate performances have been uninspiring and his speeches (with teleprompter) have been, conversely moving and inspirational.
Doesn’t that put Obama squarely in the style over substance camp? Didn’t those now singing the priases of a fine delivery over substantive thought claim much the same vis-à-vis Reagan? Just delivering prepared lines like a trained animal act?
Interesting paradigm.
2. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“Could it be that Obama is trying to hide a bit of his ultra-liberalism?”
Duh. Do ya think?
While McCain is trying to convince the nation that he is a true conservative, using the word over and over again, do you see Obama—or Clinton, for that matter—proudly announcing “I am a Liberal!!”?
They run and hide from that word as if it were the magic bullet that would end their political hopes in a heartbeat.
Oh, wait…it IS the magic bullet that would end their political hopes in a heartbeat.
The Liberals are faced with the dilemna of trying to appease the far Left radicals by promising just enough radical “reforms” to keep them happy, while at the same time not scaring off the moderate Dems who want nothing to do with radical Liberalism.
Why would Obama redact a section discussing “poverty built up over centuries..” Because if there IS “poverty built up over centuries” it is in the Dem-created ghettos where poor people have been given just enough to get by on, told they have to keep voting Dem to get even that much, and been manipulated by fear and hatred and ignorance into forming a valuable leg of the Dem party–to their detriment. Get those people out into the workforce, starting to support themselves and find their self-respect and human dignity, and they just might learn that capitalism is better for them than socialism. Ouch.
Why would Obama excise comments on “..the need to change our mindset in education..”? Well, there is the all-powerful teachers union which must be placated, and of course there is also the threat that truly excellent education poses to the radical Left. It’s such a threat that even college-aged students have to be ‘protected’ from the dangers of free speech, from the potential hazards of being allowed to hear different points of view, resulting in organized boycotts, protests, intimidation, and even violent interruptions of even vaguely conservative speakers.
No, we will continue to see the word Liberal disguised in a variety of ways, hidden, even denied. Hmmmmmm…. While conservatives are proud to be conservatives, even under the onslaught of lies about conservatism spread so far and wide in frantic efforts to counter its influence.
3. MorrisMajor | February 14th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
When did Obama ever try to hide his liberalism? As far as angry people go, check yourselfs conformist cons!
4. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Morris,
When? Errr..right now, today, on his website with his major edit-job on his Tuesday speech, that is when Obama tried to hide his liberalism.
5. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Almiranta,
That is my view on it - just hiding; and I guess he’s expecting the MSM to keep such phrases deep down in the Memory Hole…too bad there’s a blogosphere, huh?
6. MorrisMajor | February 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Oh really,, so Obama is running as a Con? Since he made that speech, obviously there will be a records of it everywhere. Will all those horrible liberal fascists go around and beating the data out of your database?
7. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Oh brother…… in the last 2 days. 7 posts about Obama. I used to think you had an insane amount of anti-Hillary posts (and you still do), but now that Obama is the leader in delegates I guess you need to get your shots in on him too.
Meanwhile, the only real McCain posts have been to try and convince conservatives he is conservative-enough. Even the McCain post this afternoon turned into a rant on how Obama doesn’t know what Hope is and he doesn’t know this or that.
Let’s recap…
2/14 – The Un-Edited Obama
2/14 – McCain on Hope — This started out as pro-McCain, but turned into an anti-Obama post
2/14 – Barak is My Keeper?
2/13 – If Obama Runs on his Liberalism, and Wins…
2/13 – Obama’s Message of Hope… for the Terrorists
2/13 – RNC Looks at Facing Obama in November
2/12 – Obama Will Have to Disavow These Obama Supporters
Hey… it’s your blog, you can post whatever you want. It just seems like a TON of anti-Dem posts vs barely any pro-Repub posts….. even when the Repubs were in control of Congress, it was still anti-Dem and not so much pro-Repub.
My point is that people can’t debate on positives and what their person/party has done. It has all come down to the other party did this or the other party did that.
I stand by my point that you should change the name of the blog to “Blogs for Democ(r)ats Defeat”
As for this post, I don’t know why it is different. Are you insinuating that all his speeches are edited before posting?
Maybe the speech was written and that is what was posted to his site. When he was giving the speech he went off the cuff and spoke on his own without the written stuff.
Just a thought.
8. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
He wants to “take those profits…….”.
Where have I heard that before?
It’s not just ExxonMobil’s profits he wants. It’s all profits. Why stop at ExxonMobil? He feels, like many other socialist liberals (Hillary included), they should be able to dictate what is fair.
He talks about working for success, but fails to mention that those who work and succeed will have to give up their earnings from that hard work and give it to someone who didn’t.
Why doesn’t he mention that?
To normal people, they teach their children that you work hard you succeed. To a liberal, you don’t work hard you can succeed and we’ll make sure that happens - just vote for us.
9. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Joe,
Don’t like it when we puncture your guy, huh?
Man, you gotta grow a thicker skin…
10. The Bane | February 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
As an aside, Hillary was a corporate litigator; this is why (s)he wants to debate Obama a dozen more times before the convention; the Clintons know Obama has a problem defending his liberal positions without flowery misdirection like hope and change. By contrast, Billary has had years of experience ducking and dodging, fast talk and loose construal.
11. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
…and I count 9 pro-McCain posts in the last four days…
12. Tractatus | February 14th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Oh brother…… in the last 2 days. 7 posts about Obama. I used to think you had an insane amount of anti-Hillary posts (and you still do), but now that Obama is the leader in delegates I guess you need to get your shots in on him too.
Well, they’re really scared of him.
And of course, the best way to hide something is to announce it in a speech.
13. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Deleted - off topic
14. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
but fails to mention that those who work and succeed will have to give up their earnings from that hard work and give it to someone who didn’t.
How very Christian of you ToLBS.
Make your own money and forget about those not smart enough or talented enough to make their own money.
I don’t know about you, but yes… I teach my daughter to be the best she can be and work as hard as she can to succeed. I also teach her that not everyone is as lucky as we are and lots of people need help. We volunteer and donate all the time.
You people are all about keeping all you can. How about keeping a bit more than what you need and help others that need help.
15. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Deleted - off topic
16. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Mark -
Even if I stretch the meaning of “pro-McCain” posts, I count 6 going back to 2/10. That is stretching the meaning of “pro-McCain”.
And it isn’t that I don’t like it that you are bringing up Obama all these times. I have no problem with it. I just find it odd that you have so many. I guess that means you are gearing up to face him in November.
But that is not the point of this thread, so I will leave this be.
Anyway…. back to the original point of the thread……
It does seem like you are trying to make something out of pretty much nothing. Like I said, a lot of speeches are written before they are given. So maybe when he gave the speech, he was speaking off the cuff. They just posted what was written for him.
17. Timmy J. Rooter | February 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Scared of him? You bet!
It’s hard to not get sucked in to the hope and change and a truly inspirational story of a man who succeeded from the most humble of beginnings to rise to inspire the best America has to offer and the best we can be to one another.
But, once we see the glimpses of the real Obama; the Obama that wants the profit of our labors for massive government redistribution schemes; the Obama that tells us he’ll freely be humiliated by tin-pot dictators with no conditions; the Obama that doesn’t understand the basic responsibilities of the Federal Government, it scares the $hit out of us. This lunatic could get elected; if that doesn’t scare you you’re not paying attention.
18. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Joe,
So, you’re contention, then, is that Obama’s web people are incompetant in not being able to put up the correct speech?
Fine - bunch of idiots over at Obama ‘08…but why, then, does the video provided at Obama’s website skip over most of the speech?
19. The Bane | February 14th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
They just posted what was written for him.
Are you saying they can’t trust Obama to just say what he’s told to say?
btw, Mark.
I spotted several posts that are attempting to hijack the thread, will you use your veto pen on the “McCain~torture” and “Bush~veto” Posts?
20. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Oh come on, Timmy, you are being a total drama queen. He’s not a lunatic. That’s a comment someone would make were they not “paying attention” as you put it. You are possibly paying a little too much attention to the hatred that is pointed at him rather than facts and truth. And I don’t mean the facts and truth that you “feel” is truth and fact. Colbert calls that “truthiness”.
21. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Are you saying they can’t trust Obama to just say what he’s told to say?
Huh??
I’m saying a lot of times speeches are written for public officials BEFORE they give the speech. If the thing claims to be a transcript of what he said, then you can make the case that it was edited. If that is just a copy of his speech, then it was probably written for him, they posted it. He followed the just of the speech, then spoke off the cuff.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
22. Dennis | February 14th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
You guys are splitting hairs. Not to belabor the obvious, but most experienced speakers do a certain amount of ad libbing.
Unlike the current occupant of the White House Barack Obama is capable of thinking and speaking spontaneously without embarrassing the nation. It may take you some time to wrap your minds around this - but it’s actually a good thing.
As for the website I’m sure whatever is posted will change frequently, as there will be new appearances and often parts of any given speech have been said and published already in other venues.
23. Timmy J. rooter | February 14th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Who is Colbert?
I read analysts and pundits, read blogs, watch news broadcasts and listen to the candidates’ speeches; you know, pay attention. Obviously you’re getting your information from less-than-reliable sources, you know not paying attention.
Tell me, where in the Constructional duties of the President is pay for teachers covered? A candidate advocating “we will reward them (teachers) for their greatness, with more pay” is a lunatic.
24. Ohio Guy | February 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Dudes - you really crack me up. The unedited speech is better!
Forget all your ideological stuff and your fantasies about how liberal he is — given you think Johnny Mac is a Marxist, that doesn’t count as much as you think.
Read the unedited version carefully. Imagine being in the room. It sounds like something Bobby Kennedy would have crafted — or rather RFK’s spechwriters. It sounds like Dr King at his stem-winding best. More to the point, it sounds authentic.
When was the last time we had authentic?
Certainly not in Mitt Romney’s campaign. Certainly not in Hillary’s or Bills. You heard authentic last in Barry Goldwater.
This is the connection. This is the source of his power with kids, who have heard all the market-tested bullsh** since they were babies and avoid it like a rapid dog.
I get that Obie’s prescriptions come out of Democrat central, just as Johhny Macs come out of the GOP standard playbook too.
But if this race becomes about authenticity and trying to find common ground, without conceding one’s core beliefs then you are looking at Ronald Reagan’s old style book.
Obama is an open admirer of Reagan’s for a lot of reasons. You are beginning to see them played out as the primaries roll along.
Libs learned to live with Reagan. Conservatives may get to learn how to live with 8 years of European/Canadian-style liberalism. delivered with a smiling face, in front of an adoring crowd.
25. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
OhioGuy,
You really think that Obama’s rhetoric isn’t poll tested all to heck and gone?
And, you’re right, the un-edited speech is better - if you’re an ardent leftist, such as Obama is, but doesn’t want the majority of Americans to find out about…
26. Dennis | February 14th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Deleted - off topic
27. js | February 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
All this stuff from Obama like justice and peace and the American way.
But what did he vote for when it comes to abortions?
If Obama doesnt even care about the weakest of these little ones in our society, that are killed with out a single thought as to thier civil rights, what makes anybody think he gives a hoot about anybody?
Obama will say whatever it takes to get your vote. It doesnt mean anything besides the fact that he is nothing more than a 2 bit politician without a single original idea about how to cure our problems.
28. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
js — But what did he vote for when it comes to abortions?
It is almost a given that you people will bring up abortions over and over again. Doesn’t even matter what the topic of the thread is.
Obama will say whatever it takes to get your vote.
HA! I don’t think so. Prove that one. Don’t even tell me you voted for Romney if you are against pandering.
29. Dennis | February 14th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Js can rant about abortion and accuse Obama of being a 2-bit politician, but when I post news about former GOP Senator Lincoln Chafee endorsing Obama, it is off topic?
Please tell us exactly where the lines are delineating this thread topic.
30. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Js,
Just one question, where do you stand on the death penalty?
31. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 14th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Ahhhh Mark-
How times have changed. Simply calling someone a liberal doesn’t carry the power punch it did say 10 or 15 years ago. Those salad days of movement conservatism are long gone I’m afraid. A large part of the weakening of the “Lib” label is due to hard core conservatives terrible performance over these many years. Now the pendulum is swinging back and it’s conservatives who are begining to back away from the “conservative” label. Why, just look at the crop of GOP contenders and you can see. Not a “rock ribbed Con” amongst them or at least not any that had a serious shot.
No Mark, times are changing, why I think it may only be a couple of more years till the phrase “conservative” becomes as strong a pejorative as you Conservatives tried to make the name Liberal.
Obama is liberal and is gaining strength and popularity everyday in this country because of it. Let’s here McCain start espousing some of those those rock ribbed conservative beliefs of his.
What?………. (crickets)
32. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
NiP
Nice try, but all through the GOP primaries the contest centered around who was most conservative and who had the best Reaganite cred..on the Donk side, a bunch of uber-liberals went around saying ANYTHING other than that they are uber-liberals.
You just go ahead and convince Obama or Hillary to run as a liberal…we didn’t quite get the 50-State sweep in 1984, but we’d like to try and get it again…
33. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
This is a political blog. It is, it really is. Check it out. It was not a landscaping blog (Blogs for Bushes) and now it is not a sports blog. It is, always has been, and has been clearly labeled as such, a political blog.
So Joe is whining because so many of the posts are about the up-and-coming new face of the Democrat Party, the guy who may take the nomination away from the heiress apparent.
So what do YOU suggest a political blog concentrate on, Joe?
I have a good recipe for cranberry oatmeal cookies, and I have a lot to say about what I learned this week about changing filters in a New Holland skid steer.
Anyone?????
Because Joe thinks there is something wrong, or at least suspicious, about posting about the leading political candidates, on a political blog, in a national election year.
While the rest of us think that it is our obligation, as Americans, to actually learn about the candidates before we vote. What better way than to examine the candidates’ own words? Better yet, to examine the rough draft of a speech and compare it to what finally passed muster.
Mark is right—you CAN learn a lot from what is not said, at least of one considered saying it and then changed his mind.
And please, Lefties, point us to the speech in which Obama referred to himself as a liberal, to to his projected policies as liberal. In the meantime, the references by McCain to his conservativism are many, are public, and are easily found.
34. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Good rant Almiranta.
If you read the post, the point (that Mark got and you failed to get) is that the name of the blog is Blogs for Victo(r)y
One would think it would be about the good things about the Republicans and all the good they’ve done… ya know… why you will get a victory. Instead there is a lot about how awful the Dems are and if you can just make them look bad enough, you may get your victory. Way to set the bar so high. Nothing like forcing a race to the bottom. “Our guy is less bad than your guy!”
But anyway… back to the issue at hand……..
35. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Mark,
Delete away.
It’s a sign of your mental state when you “delete” reality so it won’t invade your fantasy reality you envision.
36. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
37. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Bah, blockquote code erg.
I just don’t understand. You guys want to say that Obama changed his wording. I’m saying that your guy, McCain, a man who was once a POW voted against banning waterboarding, an illegal act that is toture.
It’s just nuts. I posted all of the links, quotes, and names of those involved in proving my point and they were deleted for being off topic.
Mark you are dillusional.
I’d rather you just ban me than just deleting selected posts.
38. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Nice try yourself. So if that is true than why oh why did they finally settle on the least “Reagan like” one? Come on ….McCain?!?!?!hmmmmmm….
And as for “uber” liberal, the phrase is laughable but I’ll go with it. So why then does Hillary invoke Johnson’s name and ideas in public if she’s ashamed of the name liberal. National Healthcare? Yep real middle of the political road stuff there huh Mark. Obama as well has made a consistant pledge to move America away from this conservative nightmare. No Mark, you just can’t accept it yet that the country is turning away from your political persuasion. November will just be another splash of cold water for you just like 2006 was.
39. Jeremiah | February 14th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Obama as well has made a consistant pledge to move America away from this conservative nightmare.
Not good!
and … nightmare?!?!?
Wow! I didn’t know freedom was a nightmare!
What a dangerous mind you have, my friend!!
–Jeremiah–
40. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Liberalism defined:
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law
Yeah, that’s what you guys say is so horrible?
41. Jeremiah | February 14th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.
Used too! Not anymore.
They’ve shifted away from true liberalism, into equality of outcome … and how do they do that? By ensuring that everybody is enslaved to the government for handouts. Thus, equality deprivation across the board…that is.
–Jeremiah–
42. bongoman | February 14th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Deleted - off topic.
43. DM | February 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Almaranti,
I’d be interested in some of those cookie recipes – LOL.
44. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
SteaM,
Real Liberalism Defined:
The sooner you liberals realise what a bunch of crass, anti-common-sense fascists you really are, the better we’ll all feel.
45. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche | February 14th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Jeremiah-
Who ever said that conservatism had anything to do with freedom or that conservatives are the sole protectors/providers of said freedom? I believe the only place such an arrogant idea exists is in that little space between your ears my friend.
I would suggest you bone up on your history books particularly the role liberalism and humanism played in the Enlightment but we already know that in your view God hates a thinker.
46. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
…with widespread ballot-box stuffing and intimidation of right-of-center-views, where “the people” are best defined as “anyone not hated by liberals”.
I didn’t want to highlight everything, so I only took a bit of it.
HA HA!!! Mark, where the hell did you get that from some other right-wing blog or did you just make that up?
I’m sure I can find something somewhere that does a similar job of describing “Conservatism”.
Mark, please… you have to share where you got that from! That looks like one funny site whatever it is!
47. winnowhead | February 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Mark:
I’m not sure what point you’re supposed to be making here.
He hardly “hid” anything, in fact he expanded greatly on the theme that “change is hard work.”
I was at this speech. It was very conversational and it was clear he was speaking off the cuff in many circumstances. What an odd “criticism” to make that he didn’t stare at a teleprompter and read verbatim like Bush would. As you so accustomed to poor oratory skills that an eloquent public speaker is suspicious?
For what it’s worth, some friends of mine were sitting behind and above the podium, and claimed there was no teleprompter at this speech. (Of course, they may have missed it.)
48. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Winnow,
If you can’t see that the hard left parts of Obama’s speech was the part removed, then there’s not much I can do for you here…
49. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Again Mark….. you go out and state as fact that “parts were removed”.
How do you know that? Was the speech on his website a transcript of what he said or was it a speech that was written for him and he ad-libbed some?
50. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Let me clarify Joe. I forgot you need things spelled out for you.
I give to the poor and teach my children about those less fortunate. I teach them the importance of helping them as well by also volunteering and giving to charities.
“but fails to mention that those who work and succeed will have to give up their earnings from that hard work and give it to someone who didn’t.”
By that, we will have to give up not by choice but by the power of an overreaching government.
I also teach my children that when the going gets tough, they should work hard, do without and making it themselves and not be quick to put their hands out. That’s the difference between me and people like you.
“How about keeping a bit more than what you need and help others that need help.”
THAT SHOULD BE MY CHOICE AND NOT SOME POLITICAL PARTY TRYING TO BUY VOTES!!!
You’re about sucking money from others, by force, and giving it to others, just to make you feel good. When you need more, which you always do, you just take more, regardless of whether or not we can afford it. In all cases, it’s to buy votes.
YOU PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GENEROUS WITH SOMEONELSE’S MONEY.
Now, USELESS IDIOT, grow a spine or go away.
51. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Joe,
Because the video at Obama’s website also skips over the hard left bits…look, I know you are directed to come here and defend Obama tooth and nail, but don’t make yourself look like a fool - its clear that Obama didn’t want an easily accessible record of his hard left views.
52. winnowhead | February 14th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I know you’re not interested in facts, Mark, but there was nothing removed. Obama used the speech as a template but also spoke extemporaneously. They posted the text of a speech on the web site (AND the video. wow they did a good job of “hiding” it).
Liberals are able to speech extemporaneously. Why is it such a foreign concept to you?
You’ve got 9 more months to continue with the attacks… eventually you’ll get something that sticks. Don’t give up.
53. Joe | February 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I love that “USEFUL IDIOT” thing you add to EVERY freaking post. From now on at the end of every post to you, I will conclude with “JACKASS”.
You see… that is the difference between Dems and Repubs I guess.
You say I made mine, you can go screw. If I want to give anything, then I will decide to do it.
Dems say, some people need assistance. Whether it is job training, college assistance or help in affording to put food on the table or oil in their furnace.
Believe me, every able-bodied American should go out and get a job regardless what the job is. The true fact however is that there is always some level of unemployment and there are jobs that just do not pay enough to pay for basic necessities. The true fact is that people are living longer and need assistance to live.
If the Government doesn’t doesn’t take care of them, you certainly can’t count on individuals to do it.
That isn’t being generous with someone else’s money, that is taking care of your fellow Americans in need. To give everyone a chance to do something with their life.
54. Retired Spook | February 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Liberalism defined:
ROTFLMAO, SteaM; you’ve defined Conservatism, not Liberalism.
Let’s look at your definition piece by piece.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Liberalism emphasizes “group rights.”
and equality of opportunity.
Wrong again. Liberalism emphasizes equality of outcome.
generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech
Yeah, I guess all those college campus “speech codes” and constant references to “hate speech” must be the realm of the Young Republicans Club. And “hate crimes”? Don’t even get me started on that. Can you say “thought police”?
the rule of law,
Is that the rule that allows dead people to vote, or the one that allows a vote recount to occur only in the counties that are most likely to give you the desired outcome?
the free exchange of ideas
As long as they have a Leftist bent, and only on a Conservative Blog like this. Go check out the free exchange of ideas over at KOS.
a market or mixed economy
Not sure exactly what you mean by a “mixed economy”, but a free market economy is anathema to liberalism.
and a transparent system of government
LOL, you’re joking, right?
Ever since you started posting here, SteaM, I’ve given you the benefit of a doubt that you were just an idealistic youngster, but I take that back. You really are one dumb son of a bitch.
55. Tractatus | February 14th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I’m sure I can find something somewhere that does a similar job of describing “Conservatism”.
Best one I’ve seen recently:
“Conservatism is the belief that government, like God, should only be used to punish people.”
The funny thing is it’s every bit as accurate as Noonan’s paranoid rewriting of what liberalism is, which is to say not particularly…but I’m sure Noonan won’t get that. He’s convinced that despite the actual definitions of words, he’s got the true definition, sort of like no matter what the actual facts are, he’s got the true facts (despite their nonfactual standing). It’s sort of like an extension of the Goldberg Principle: You can prove any thesis as long as you get to define the terms.
The sooner you liberals realise what a bunch of crass, anti-common-sense fascists you really are, the better we’ll all feel.
Worried that Almiranty has edged ahead of you in the Projection Championship, Noonan?
56. Mark Noonan | February 14th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Winnow,
And when did you speak to Obama and get that clarification from him?
You want to know how I came across this?
I had watched Obama’s speech on Tuesday night and was intending on Wednesday to say something about his comments on Exxon’s profits and poverty built up over centuries - but I wanted to quote Obama verbatim. So, I went to his website - and, hey!, the comments weren’t there!
I was pretty sure I had it right, but I also figured that I might have got it wrong - lots of speeches in an election cycle and I might have conflated two of them, right? So, I clicked on Obama’s video - only to find that only the first few and last few phrases of the whole speech were there! Really, really strange…so, I started checked ’round the blogosphere and found the quote I was looking for and thus knew I had it right, and that same blog kindly provided me a copy of the original video.
He’s hiding his leftwing views. Period. End of story - your mental backflips to try and justify the missing portions of the speech are, well, asinine.
57. neocon | February 14th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
>>You really are one dumb son of a bitch. - Spook<<
OK Spook, you owe me a root beer. I laughed so hard at that I knocked over my last Mug. Damn.
Re: the thread, why should Exxon have to fight to keep their profits? Does Brak want to nationalize oil? Is he consulting with Hugo?
58. SteaM | February 14th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Getting a little defensive there, eh?
You do realize you look like a fool when you try to turn my definition of liberalism into a definition of conservatism.
Are your harsh words directed at me because I might be right and it really upsets you?
I might be a youngster but I’m no fool.
59. winnowhead | February 14th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Keep divining his intent. The 20,000 of us at the Kohl Center and the overflow crowd watching on television in an adjacent building, plus national television crews, find it a bit odd to claim that he’s “hiding” something.
But, golly, he should be hiding it! It’s such an unpopular position to mention the record oil profits coming down on the backs of working class people. Or the 50 million without health insurance. What a left-wing wacko! Wouldn’t want to let anyone hear him mention that, would we?
60. Retired Spook | February 14th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I might be a youngster but I’m no fool
If you have to deny it, well ……………. Reminds me of the old saying, “when someone says i’ts not about the money — it’s about the money.”
Aside from that, I’m not sure how you get “fool” out of “dumb son of a bitch”. Only a fool could do that, heh.
Beware, the “First Rule of Holes”, SteaM.
neocon, sorry about the root beer. Did any of it come out your nose? I hate it when that happens, particularly if you’re sitting at the computer at the time.
61. Fmr Marine | February 14th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
RS
The “first role of holes” for steam is to fill them.
ask NAMBLA
62. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
“when someone says i’ts not about the money — it’s about the money.”
HAHAHAHAHA
How about “when someone says it’s not about the oil - it’s definately about the oil”
But I suppose ignorance is bliss until it bites you in the ass. Heres a real beer to november!
63. Ricorun | February 14th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Back in 2004 during the Bush/Kerry campaigns, I remember a comparison similar to the one highlighted in this topic — i.e., between the speech as it was written versus how it was delivered by the candidate. At that time the candidate was Kerry. And the difference was hilarious. The written version was nice and tight. But the delivered version was a mess. He kept going off on irrelevant tangents until you could all but hear the crowd starting to yawn.
In Obama’s case I like the delivered (i.e., the “unedited”) version better. It’s more personal, more forceful. I’m not sure it was more liberal though. Suggesting parents should engage in parenting is liberal? As for the oil company profits and them not wanting to part with them easily, I guess there are a number of ways one could take that. For example, an ambitious initiative to render oil obsolete would certainly cut into their oil profits, but it could greatly benefit the rest of us. Additionally, the petroleum industry is currently enjoying billions of dollars a year in tax breaks and subsidies. Eliminating those doesn’t sound like a liberal idea either.
I’m not saying these issues are unique to Obama. I assume that McCain will eventually address them as well. But if he doesn’t it will certainly affect my inclination to vote for him.
64. Almiranta | February 14th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Thre is a determination on the far Left to try to convince us that their newly radical heavily Socialist agenda is really just plain old liberalism.
Nice try. After all, if you look up the word “liberal” you find all sorts of nice warm fuzzy concepts—open-minded, progressive, tolerant, inclusive, free speech, genuine concern for the downtrodden, ….
But the hard cold fact is that this new brand of liberalism has nothing in common with old-fashioned liberalism other than an effort to hijack the name.
This new movement is hard-edged, callous, mean-spirited, and much more in the line of the bitter and repressive Socialism of old. This is why I refer to it with a capital L—Liberal.
The new Liberalism is, as Spook so accurately pointed out, anti-individual and pro-collective. Freedom of speech? Ask any conservative who has tried to speak at what used to be bastions of liberalism and are now fortresses of Liberalism—they are threatened, boycotted, those who want to hear them often have to run gantlets of jeering protesters trying to stop them from entering the lecture halls, and sometimes the speakers are actually put in physical danger if hecklers are not successful in drowning them out and choose to rush the stage instead.
Freedom? Hardly. The New Liberal is intent on delivering as much control as possible into the hands of the State. From establishing Thought Police, imposing rules and punishments for thought rather than action, to dictating our medical care, to telling our children to go to State officers instead of taking their problems to their parents, to undermining religion through a combination of ridicule and restrictions, to confiscating our private property for redistribution by officials of the State, the list of intended impingements upon our freedoms goes on and on and on.
If you want to see examples of Liberal tolerance for opposing views, just read their posts on this blog. If you want to see the quality of their actual political discussions on issues, read these posts and see if you can find anything other than attacks—attacks on our administration, attacks on conservative posters, attacks on the organizers of the blog, it’s one negative after another but never anything of substance. When a rabid Liberal posts something that is supposed to represent objective fact, it is always in support of some other attack.
What they call PROgressive (also hijacked from true liberals) is really REgressive—-either moving backward, as to the often-proved failures of Socialism, to remaining stagnant in other proved failures such as our public education system and Social Security. They cheerfully claim to be PROgressive as they block school vouchers, SS reform, and efforts to unring the bell of federal entitlements and get more government back to the individual states, as required in the 10th amendment.
One carps that conservatives can’t really love the Constitution, as they want to change it through amendments. ????? This is what passes for intellectual commentary on the radical Left—-sneering at those who suggest that legal and constitutional means be taken to make changes in that Constitution, while at the same time supporting the unconstitutional thwarting of legislation by unelected justices and judges who just summarily overturn legislation which is not in lockstep with their political agendas.
If there was one single true liberal posting here, it would be refreshing. But what we see are the radicals, and now the professional agitators who are called in to quell dissent and intimidate those with conservative positions.
And I contend that the vicious and hateful persona of radical Liberalism is going to do more to move people to the Right than anything else. These are distinctly unpleasant people, and scare reasonable people in the other direction.
This is what passes for reasonable and intellectual political discourse from the rabid Left: Tract sneers: ““Conservatism is the belief that government, like God, should only be used to punish people.”
65. Some Assembly Required | February 14th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Congradulations Alm, after reading your last post everyone should shave a couple points off of their IQ. Well done.
66. Tractatus | February 14th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
This is what passes for reasonable and intellectual political discourse from the rabid Left: Tract sneers: ““Conservatism is the belief that government, like God, should only be used to punish people.”
Which I then said is an inaccurate portrayal of conservatism just as Noonan’s little paragraph was an inaccurate portrayal of liberalism. It’s right there in plain English. Christ, woman, could you at least try to not embarrass yourself like this? It may be a futile effort, but at least give it a shot. You’re getting so bad that I’m actually getting embarrassed for you.
Also, you should look up the definition of the word “fact.” You use that term a lot, but you don’t seem to know what it means.
67. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 14th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Joe, go ahead and sign everything JACKASS.
That is the difference between Republicans (Elephant) and Dems (JACKASSES). The only thing you got right.
Joe, you forget one little important thing - the Constitution does not authorize Congress to take care of people. But, since when do liberals let that piece of parchment get in the way of their agenda. If you believe they are “taking care” of people you are a fool. It’s vote buying plane and simple. There is no end in sight, they want to provide cradle to grave care for everyone and that is what they fail to mention.
You ask what is wrong with Obama’s web page leaving off text of a speech. One reason is once it is in writing there is no question to what he said. When it is only said verbally it is harder to prove what he said. It is also misleading to those who rely on the website for info.
Also, I wrote USELESS idiot before, which proves you are a moron.
“That isn’t being generous with someone else’s money, that is taking care of your fellow Americans in need. To give everyone a chance to do something with their life.”
It’s not? You are indeed a fool to believe that. Redistribution of wealth or “taking care of fellow Americans” is another way to give politicians power. If you believe otherwise, you are indeed a USELESS idiot.
68. Ricorun | February 14th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
ToLBS: You ask what is wrong with Obama?s web page leaving off text of a speech. One reason is once it is in writing there is no question to what he said. When it is only said verbally it is harder to prove what he said.
Apparently you didn’t watch the video.
69. SteaM | February 15th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Obama ‘08
70. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Obama ‘08