GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/21/oh-if-obamas-inaugural-address-were-this/trackback/

  1. Great last sentence.

    I had not read Washington’s second inaugural speech before, but now that I have, I can see why so many historians regard Washington as the greatest president. If only we were so fortunate.

    Comment by Kurt — January 21, 2013 @ 10:55 am - January 21, 2013

  2. “Instead, we will hear the droning on of cliches and platitudes with no meaning and no firm plans to help American’s get back to work.”

    So in other words it will be like every politician’s speech since after Reagan? Call me unsurprised.

    Comment by Neptune — January 21, 2013 @ 12:13 pm - January 21, 2013

  3. President Obama’s address failed to deliver on promises earlier in the day by senior political adviser David Axelrod that the speech would sound themes of national unity on a day of national “consecration.” Instead, the president sounded combative themes familiar from his divisive first term, albeit wrapped occasionally in the lofty rhetoric of “hope” and “tolerance,” and punctuated by the repeated refrain: “We, the People.”

    Link

    Comment by V the K — January 21, 2013 @ 1:14 pm - January 21, 2013

  4. Obama is why to petty and petulant to give a speech like that and if he did, we would all know he didn’t actually mean it.

    He is full of fluffy sayings but zero action in that direction.

    Comment by Just Me — January 21, 2013 @ 2:50 pm - January 21, 2013

  5. And if you look over at the ABC News website, you will see this listed as the worst of inaugural addresses. Apparently brevity and the serious of the position just eludes the left. I am crying today and trying to avoid a discussion with my strongly left leaning partner.

    Comment by Scott Lassiter — January 21, 2013 @ 7:32 pm - January 21, 2013

  6. Bruce
    Maybe you do this intentionally and you are trying to be funny.
    But I find it incrediblly revealing that you use the same language as the left to show your hatred/paranoia of Obama as they showed their hatred of Bush:
    http://www.progressive.org/node/1261
    mutantpoodle.wordpress.com/2007/…/george-bush-boy-king/
    http://www.harikari.com/politics/george-w-bush-torturing-tyrant-king-of-america.html
    http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2006/06/why_george_w_bu.html

    Perhaps you are simply being be ironic, unfortantly such humor is often lost on me. – I was never in the “in” crowd!

    For me, the problem is, many folks on this site and others seem to parrot such characterizations as fact. On this day as Obama starts his 2nd term of 4 more years of president, perhaps the ideologues on both sides can look at themselves in the mirror and shed their paranoid fears…

    Comment by mike — January 22, 2013 @ 5:10 am - January 22, 2013

  7. Throughout King Barack’s First term, the left dismissed as “paranoid” the notion that “Obama is coming for your guns.” Now that “coming for our guns” is the number one policy objective of King Barack’s second term, that belief seems a lot less “paranoid.”

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 7:18 am - January 22, 2013

  8. All too often conservatives let the liberals set the tone of the debate without any push back. One of the ways this happens is with the choice of labels that liberals assign to participants. These labels can go unchallenged and when they do conservatives start on the defensive.

    Take for example this recent Fact Checker article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-stale-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/01/20/e42ec050-629a-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_blog.html). It is looking at the recent “40% of gun sales lack background check” statements by Obama and Biden. At the end it refers to “congressional foes of gun control”.

    What the hell is a “congressional foe of gun control”?

    The second amendment is clearly stated and unambiguous. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Seems to me that someone who is fending off attempts to limit the second amendment should be called a “defender of the second amendment” or better yet a “defender of the Constitution”.

    Isn’t that what Congress and the President are sworn to do? Defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Comment by David — January 22, 2013 @ 7:33 am - January 22, 2013

  9. The Right to Bear Arms is a Civil Right; therefore, gun control is a civil rights issue. The MFM/DNC complex will never present it that way, tho’

    Comment by V the K — January 22, 2013 @ 8:47 am - January 22, 2013

  10. V, didn’t you get the memo? “Civil Right” = “Rights I want the masses to claim, to keep them docile and happy.”

    I’m waiting for the little fascist to show up and tell us how we’re all supporting killing children or something.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 22, 2013 @ 12:34 pm - January 22, 2013

  11. On this day as Obama starts his 2nd term of 4 more years of president, perhaps the ideologues on both sides can look at themselves in the mirror and shed their paranoid fears…

    Here are my paranoid fears:

    •Senate has not passed a budget for the past three years.

    •Senate will continue to duck its Constitutional duty.

    •Explain in one paragraph suitable for educating a high school student just how Obamacare became law.

    •Explain how recess appointments are Constitutional when the Senate is not in recess.

    •$10.6 trillion national debt on January 20, 2009; $16.4 trillion national debt on January 20, 2013

    •7.3% unemployment in December 2008; 7.8% unemployment in December 2012 after being in double digits during the four years.

    •8,332,000 Americans age 16 or older decided not to work or seek a job during the last four years. Labor participation rate plummets to 63.6% in December 2012, the lowest since 1981 when Carter left office.

    •1,385,418 people started collecting federal disability insurance during the Obama first term and now there is one person collecting disability for every person working full-time. That is up from 1 to 51 in 1968.

    $50,521. This is the amount of new federal debt accumulated in Obama’s first term which equals approximately $50,521 for each of household in the country and has been added on top of what each household already owed before Obama took over.

    I could go on, but this is the easy stuff.

    What is Obama’s plan for cleaning up the foregoing mess? It was not in the Second Inaugural Address. It was not in all his campaign rhetoric. Where to we paranoid ideologues on the right go for clear answers?

    I humbly submit that gun paranoia, homophobia paranoia, contraceptive paranoia, leaving the sick oppressed on the side of the road to die paranoia, starving grandma paranoia, dooming the children paranoia, collapsing infrastructure paranoia, feeding the greedy rich paranoia, putting black people back in chains paranoia can not be factually substantiated in a manner of the foregoing.

    I would be interested in learning about how my stated paranoia is all malarkey and in hearing the evidence for your paranoia being sound and justified.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 22, 2013 @ 1:18 pm - January 22, 2013

  12. Axelrod is right, they want unity, in otherwards become a one party nation. Obama´s prime mission is to make the Republican Party go the way of the Whigs. By makiing the Republican Party irrelelvant, if not disappear, he will have overcome the opposition. He appears to be using Hugo Chavez´s gift as his playbook. Then like a good marxist create a fiscal crisis that will cause riots, like the OWS did in Oakland, around the nation. Then he can proclaim martial law and that by suspending The Constitution, he alone can bring order out of chaos. Behind his smiling demeanor beats the heart of a dictator. Can anybody see the similarity between the Weimar Republic and the U.S. Fed printing funny money to buy the debt?

    Comment by Roberto — January 22, 2013 @ 2:25 pm - January 22, 2013

  13. Maybe you do this intentionally and you are trying to be funny.
    But I find it incrediblly revealing that you use the same language as the left to show your hatred/paranoia of Obama as they showed their hatred of Bush:

    Comment by mike — January 22, 2013 @ 5:10 am – January 22, 2013

    You mean the language that Barack Obama and the Obama Party used, mike.

    And since you voted for, and fully endorsed and supported, Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party, what is clear is that you supported and endorsed such “hatred/paranoia”.

    So why should Bruce, or any GOP member, behave differently? Clearly you reward and support “hatred/paranoia”, and have no problem voting for, supporting, and endorsing it. Indeed, you blather on about how Obama, who used such language to describe Bush, is a “good man”.

    Answer that, mike: why do you scream about and criticize behavior from conservatives that you reward, support, and endorse on the left and from the Obama Party?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 22, 2013 @ 2:33 pm - January 22, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.101 Powered by Wordpress