President Obama's speech ?
 

He is the anti - Reagan . Any questions about him being a progressive socialist have been answered by the man himself.
I was waiting to hear about jobs and the economy but it must have slipped his mind

I should go to his or Deval Patricks' office and ask for a job :hs:

it's a real shame what has happened to this country since Ronald Regan

It is pretty obvious that he wants to pull the wealthy down to spread
the wealth around. The same people who create the jobs. Quick fix, so he
thinks.
Trust me, in the end, the middle class will end up paying for his programs.
He continues to divide people by anyway he can. He's a divider, not a uniter
and this country will go nowhere with the current divisions he has created
since day one.

Phil Mickelson (resides in CA):

"If you add up all the federal and you look at the disability and the unemployment and the Social Security and the state, my tax rate's 62, 63 percent," Mickelson said. "So I've got to make some decisions on what I'm going to do."

For those that don't know, he hits this little white ball around..

Newt remarked that aside from a few lines he thought it was a very good and American address.

I haven't seen it but did any of you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well we all know how much you love Newt 😅
I couldn't watch it, I have a job but I did read a transcript of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think he actually read Newt's comments...

Gallup: American Optimism Hits Lowest Point Since Carter Administration

January 22, 2013

Gallup: American Optimism Hits Lowest Point Since Carter Administration CBS DC

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160046/am...ts-future.aspx

To hear Obama quoting the Declaration of Independence and pontificating on the "founding principles" of this Republic it reminded me of Alan Dershowitz discussing Bill Clinton:

"When Clinton talked brilliantly about education reform, Social Security, and the budget, I knew why I had supported him for president. When he talked passionately about better child care for working parents, I knew why I liked him as a friend. But then he said something that made me explode with anger toward the man I voted for, admired, and liked. He talked about saving our "disintegrating American treasures," like the Bill of Rights. The President was referring, as it happens, to the physical preservation of the original document of 1793. But the ambivalence of this phrase was grating. Here was Mr. Clinton, who had done more to destroy the values reflected in the Bill of Rights than any president in recent memory, piously worrying about an old piece of paper. Talk about elevating form over substance"

Alan Dershowitz Penthouse Magazine, Advise & Dissent, September 1998, speaking of Clinton's 1998 State of the Union speech

________________________________________

he, or whoever writes the words on his teleprompter for him is a gifted sophist and revels in deceptive language, manipulation and dishonesty... it's a game, as it is with so many of the smug progressives, they think it makes them smart but what it does is make them evil:).....

this is excellent, you should read the whole thing

American Liberty, But…
By Charles C. W. Cooke

January 23, 2013

Drawing on their boundless linguistic ingenuity, the British have worked out a neat little trick to take the edge off when endorsing restrictions on individual liberty. “I believe in freedom of speech,” members of parliament or representatives of advocacy groups will say with real poise. And then they will add the word “but” and explain disjointedly why they don’t. For some inexplicable reason, this is startlingly effective. Human ears, it seems, couch the truthful second statement in the more people-pleasing first. The preamble to the “but” makes what follows all the more persuasive, even when the statements are contradictory. It’s quite brilliant...................

Apparently, The Trick has now found its way across the Atlantic. Witness yesterday’s inaugural speech, in which President Obama regularly lionized the Republic’s axiological philosophical principles just moments before articulating his own, antithetical, ideology. A lovely example:

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, these are constants in our character.

“These are constants in our character” seems a pretty straightforward proposition. Yet then, as if by clockwork, came the “but”:

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.


Those “constants” in our character, then, “must change.” And our “individual freedoms” require “collective actions.” In other words, black is white, up is down, and left is right. Individualism is collectivism if you’ll only use the magic word “but.”

Within reason, the president is entitled to advocate for whatever philosophy he chooses. But “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” as the Declaration puts it, would dictate that he do so honestly and without confusion. However one couches it, individualism is not collectivism; guaranteeing free speech is not restricting speech; constants cannot be changed to suit the times. Were progressivism popular enough on its own, it would not need to be swaddled in the idioms of liberty. But it is not, and, for now at least, that means we’ll likely be stuck with that dastardly little conjunction whenever progressive salesmen are at work.



American Liberty, But? - National Review Online

People actually watch that crap?

Yup. I watched both Bush inaugurations as well. I think regardless of party lines, it's still a pretty cool process.

It's only Jan 23 and I've already had enough political smoke blown up my ass to last me through the next 3 elections.

If there's one thing that can be banked on, it's that anything said in these speeches is a load of crap, filled with 'feel-good' verbiage that panders to their voting base.

How can someone "inspire the nation" one minute and then divide that nation almost immediately after walking off the stage?

How does someone promise to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" and then systematically rip it apart and ignore the Bill of Rights?

Easy, if that was your agenda from day one.

lol! Yep.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnnyD for president!!!Really.

You can't get any more accurate and to the truth than with that statement.That is exactly what I took away from that speech.

Someday, the next 8+ yrs will be viewed as the dark ages of America.

You've made it most of the way, what's stopping you from just crossing the border?

-spence

good call Buck :uhuh:

"(February 24, 2009). It was, I wrote at the time, “the boldest social-democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president.”

Monday’s address also served to disabuse the fantasists of any Obama interest in fiscal reform or debt reduction. This speech was spectacularly devoid of any acknowledgment of the central threat to the post-industrial democracies (as already seen in Europe) — the crisis of an increasingly insolvent entitlement state.

On the contrary. Obama is the apostle of the ever-expanding state. His speech was an ode to the collectivity. But by that he means only government, not the myriad of voluntary associations — religious, cultural, charitable, artistic, advocacy, ad infinitum — that are the glory of the American system."

Obama is no Clinton. He doesn’t abolish entitlements; he preserves the old ones and creates new ones in pursuit of a vision of a more just social order where fighting inequality and leveling social differences are the great task of government.

His mission is to redeem and resurrect the 50-year pre-Reagan liberal ascendancy. Accordingly, his second inaugural address, ideologically unapologetic and aggressive, is his historical marker, his self-proclamation as the Reagan of the Left. If he succeeds in these next four years, he will have earned the title.

Obama: Reagan of the Left - National Review Online

His speech was insincere and childish!

Spence, where I live is more American that you'd ever imagine. We actually value freedom here, free enterprise and individual rights. Its not a gimmick, its real. You're part of the country is turning back to the same place the pilgrims fled.

Coupe DeVille is really making go in that direction.

"If we have an adult conversation about taxes..."

Like he's an adult robbing anyone over 102K in income to build a heavy rail to NB?
Please, leave now.

Yes, there are still a lot of parts of our country where common sense
prevails and the love of individualism,country and freedom reign.
Nice down to earth people too.

In bold letters, thats just so the druggies and malcontents can get back to Fall River and New Bedford after they rob someone without having to steal a car. Because if your a chitty looking character the guy on the train wont bother asking you for a ticket.

This is what's been happening with the Red Line in Quincy. The S#$tbags mug someone getting off the T in N. Quincy, then they hop right onto the Red Line to JFK.

Here's a short version of the swearing in:

"Inauguration 2013: A Bad Lip Reading: ? A Bad Lip Reading of Barack Obama's Inauguration - YouTube!

blaaaaahhh...haaaaa.haaaaaaa

that pretty much sums it up :uhuh::rotf2:

I just read the transcript. To be honest I think aside from a few lines Reagan would have liked it.

-spence

If perceived in a vacuum, without acknowledging Obama's last 4 years in office.

As someone that enjoys it when Obama blows smoke up your ass, I'm not surprised you'd think that. Obama's actions are so far from what he campaigned for in 2008, the only people I can understand defending him are bleeding-heart liberals.

you are repeating yourself...don't speak for Reagan...please...of all people:) what they said may have "sounded" similar...but even a dumbass knows that what they mean(t) by saying these things are two entirely different things:uhuh: this president is deeply deceitful...and you keep propping him up and applauding him.....:claps:

If your erection last over 3 hrs you should go see a doctor, Spence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device