McCain recently called a “crisis commission” to brainstorm solutions for the current economic crisis. Obama, true to ridiculous form, responded:
“This isn’t 9/11,” Obama told a noisy crowd of more than 2,000 at the Colorado School of Mines, dismissing the idea of a need for study. “We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I’ll provide it. John McCain won’t.” [source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CANDIDATES_ECONOMY?SITE=KTVB&TEMPLATE=HOME.html&SECTION=HOME]
Personally, i cannot fathom even entertaining the idea of voting for a president so ignorant, lazy and reliant of ‘fame’ over serious planning and research. Obama seems to be walking around expecting these issues to fix themselves. Obama seems to think that blaming someone else for a problem is going to fix it. How can he be so freaking stupid? Clever at his public speaking (i’m sure the remarks above were delivered to an explosion of applause … because in the excitement of the moment, people probably didn’t realise that Obama isn’t providing a solution, Obama isn’t addressing the real issue … he’s simply deflecting it, placing blame on prior administrations and parties, punctuating his “response” with a mindless cliche’.
I don’t want to go religion-bashing, but there are some religions out there who elevate excitement and entertainment above gospel substance. despite scriptural evidence to the contrary, they seem to have mistaken, for generations now, adrenaline for ‘the holy spirit’.
Are these the kind of people carrying this man on their shoulders? It seems the ‘democrats’ have now mistaken adrenaline for leadership. Where before there were some with reasonable intellect, it now seems they’ve all gone the way of the liberal – allowing emotion to severely handicap analytical thought. These kinds of people … those taken by emotional response so strong it clouds their reason … are dangerous! They are those who light fires, smash windows, attack policemen. they are those which seek to tear apart our Constitution: taking away our gun ownership, taking away our freedom of religion, asserting their ‘right to free speech’ while editing, censoring and interrupting others.
I know there’s got to be some who think i’m an idiot for accusing ‘passion’ of retarding intellect. When was the last time you did well on a test in school while you were in “fight” mode? How well did you pay attention during your lectures while you were tragically wounded by a recent ‘break-up’? Are people talking in class good listeners? Would you rather have a teenage boy head-banging to Korn flying down your street when your 3 year old runs into the street to catch the puppy, or a little old lady with both hands on the wheel and light music playing in the background? There is a certain … and obvious … measure of inattention associated with intense emotion. That’s partly why Hitler was so successful. His energy and theatrics distracted from his message, while building up adrenaline in the listener … and most of those listeners mistook the thrill for something substantial, when it was not.
Liberals serve their place … without them, there may occasionally be one thing or another not addressed, brought to the forefront of people’s attention, etc. Things might get done more sluggishly.
But overall, i think a ‘conservative’ approach to anything serves better in the long run. If we leap blindly with no forethought, we do get ahead pretty quickly … but eventually we fall, and never complete the race. A conservative approach usually seems to get off to a slow start because there is an element of ‘fact-gathering’ that goes on. in a liberal approach, the communal trust bypasses the ‘fact gathering’ phase, instead receiving ‘facts’ from unreliable sources (biased parties, MoveOn.org, etc). Because the facts are not gathered in the ‘first person’, they’re often about as sturdy as an urban legend. This leads to many, many examples of liberal policies failing, or seeming to work at first, then causing a huge and crippling backlash. Clinton shutting down military bases left us weak and unprepared for war in Iraq. a lot of troops were injured or died because of lack of armor on vehicles and personnel. This year, corn crops are screwed up … a result of forced ethanol experiments. The national debt is largely due to two things; democrats ‘pork barrel’ spending, and the selfish ‘gotta have it now, so i’ll buy on credit’ culture that was invented by liberals. Welfare problems are a result of an ‘over burdened welfare system’ which is directly caused by the flaws in this liberal program: it teaches people to go for a handout and doesn’t teach people to work. Though it was probably wise to enact child-labor laws and laws to protect disabled persons from discrimination, there are bad side effects from these too … fewer small businesses can accommodate some kinds of disabilities, families in need of assistance can’t use their own existing resources (why is it that a 12 year old can’t work, but a 14 year old can?). FDR’s “new deal” had some successes … and certainly would never work now … but some historians point out that the ‘new deal’ was what started the national debt, and they’re right.
a “liberal” president cannot represent the majority, because by nature, liberalism cannot embrace steadiness, caution, planning, consistency, or the common good as readily as conservatism can, yet conservatism can and does embrace the solid liberal programs as they appear.
i’d love to see some serious debate between Obama and Mccain … and, honestly, it would be best (for those concerned with the actual issues) if that debate was held live, on television, with no audience applause of feedback. Obama’s words will be revealed as thin and without substance when the cheer-track is eliminated from his speaking.