Why does Obama want to scare little girls?
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/08/06/sot.obama.asked.why.running.cnn
In this clip Barack Hussein Obama explains to a seven year old girl his reasons for running for President. He gives himself a little time to think about his response by beginning his answer with a funny, joking remark that draws laughs from the crowd. After this comment however, he flails around searching for words which is unusual for Obama. In my opinion, Obama paints a portrait of an
And Reverend Wright info here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUHc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8&feature=related
5 comments:
agreed that it seems as though obama is painting a picture of an america in decline. but im not sure if he is wrong to say so. i actually agree (as do a lot of statistics) with what he says. i do think he could have chosen his words a bit better, especially when he said that america is not what it once was or somethign like that.
as far as bill ayers, i read most of that wikipedia on him. i have no problem with political extremists (ever heard of the boston tea party?). it takes extremity to get things done, especially in a democracy. democracy is based on compromises. so, to illustrate let me use a scale that goes from -2,-1,0,+1,+2. if on a particular issue, party A is trying to accomplish -1, and party B is trying to accomplish +1, knowing that they will have to compromise in the end, party A will campaign for -2, and party B will campaign for +2, and in the end, they will likely end up somewhere near 0, which is not intended to represent nothing, but just the middle road. those who are typically considered "extremists" are typically those who disagree with the government, and are usually (though to an "extreme" extent) standing up for human rights and individual liberties that i enjoy having. while small extremist groups will always be around and may be fighting for unjustified causes, usually when there is a large extremist uprising, such as those that bill ayers took part in, they are justified. these kinds of large uprisings can only occur when a massive amount of people are convinced that govt is not doing a good job of keeping their best interests in mind. since democratic government "is" the people, this makes their assumption intrinsically true. governments need to be kept in line. to support governments that would attempt to eimenate political extremists would be supporting the elimenation of those who stand up for your own personal freedoms against the government. im not out there protesting, but im glad someone is. to not appreciate protesters is to not appreciate one of your most powerful ways of influencing change for your benefit, political and otherwise. if you are not a powerful politician, and dislike seeing protesters, than government can likely convince you of anything it wants.
what i am saying is that bill ayers is not anti american at all, but is probably more american than i am. all i do is live my life and try not to let the government catch me doing anything that i do that it considers wrong enough to punish me for. people like bill ayers go out and stand up for my personal freedoms, which is what all us americans take so much pride in ourselves for, is it not??
revererd wright seems a bit nuts. it is a bit surprising that obama would have him as such a big part of his campaign. however, what i disagree with is the use of anti-american to describe him. anti-american government i can see. however, he is very passionate about his care for at least the black people of america. "america" is the people, not the government (thouogh i concede that they are, in theory, one in the same in a democracy). the black people in america are a large part of that. he is merely representing a minority of the population, by using a relatively extreme personality, and a lot of negativity. however, this blog seems to be all about the most negative aspects findable of barak obama. even consistently including his middle name hussein, as if his last name is not unfortunate enough on its own, and as if it all means that he has ties to middle east human rights attrocities and terrorists. i have to assume that the author is not the most positive person either, and is simlpy excersizing his rights as an american to try to effect change in the government (the change that he personally desires) through means negative or positive. this is something that the author may have in common with the reverend, though i am sure they would both disagree heartily with me.
To take the view of Bill Ayres as a reformer that simply used violent events and large-scale property damage to push his anti-war agenda is your prerogative. But, to compare actions of the Weather underground to the Boston Tea Party is a stretch that borders on ridiculous. The weather underground consisted of a handful of people, perhaps two dozen that was able to organize at most a riot of 300 people for their grandest most participatory anti-war rally. In a nation of hundreds of millions this is barely a fringe movement and a proportionately tiny portion of the population pushing an agenda that the vast majority of the Nation was in no way in line with. All the while, forcing those with different points of view to pay for the damage to public buildings through hard-earned tax dollars. You stated “ while small extremist groups will always be around and may be fighting for unjustified causes, usually when there is a large extremist uprising, such as those that bill ayers took part in, they are justified.” Here are the names of the members of the “large extremist uprising” you refer to:
• Diana Oughton
• Terry Robbins
• Kathy Boudin
• Mark Rudd
• Ted Gold
• Naomi Jaffe
• Cathy Wilkerson
• Jeff Jones (activist)
• Eleanor Raskin
• David Gilbert
• Susan Stern
• Bob Tomashevsky
• Sam Karp
• Russ Neufeld
• Joe Kelly (radical)
• Laura Whitehorn
• Bernardine Dohrn
• Bill Ayers
• Daniel Shakespeare
• Judith Clark
• Sam Melville
• Kit Bakke
• John Jacobs
• Brian Flanagan
• Mark Perry
I think the public consensus against British rule at the start of the Revolutionary War had a broader base of support…In any case, this is exactly my point. If you believe this is a good example of democracy I respectfully disagree. If every group of 25 people that shared an opinion chose to blow up statues and buildings and such to push an agenda would you support that? What if it where the K.K.K.? There are undoubtedly far more members in this organization so, would you agree with them if they began blowing up buildings to get attention? Or, should they have one vote per person and peaceful demonstrations to voice an opinion like the rest of the populace? Moreover, which opinion should the future President of the United States hold?
bill ayers- apparently i didnt do my homework well enough. it seems mr. obama has made some politically poor decisions about who he hangs out with.
Post a Comment