1 edit
Originally posted by mbakuninDo you think he should have addressed the problems in Norway as well? Or greet all the Norwegians watching the speech just so they could feel included?
i was pointing to the sign-off as a symptom of what's wrong with the us, namely the exceptionalist attitude. as for the message of the speech, although it was filled with cliches, i still feel that if he's serious about half of it, there might be some improvement, though he's probably gonna have a really hard time fulfilling his promises.
Would a better sign-off have been "God bless us, every one"?
(Yes, I am being facetious.)
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
1 edit
The best part about the speech was that he recognized non-believers.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."
Along with that is the rejection of the notion that America is a 'Christian nation.'
I caught that, and hope that means he will be stepping away from the religious extremism that has seeped into politics of late. Religion has a place but it's not at the exclusion of other religions and of non-believers. That is the true tolerance that many believers need to have but are irrationally to fearful to practice.
Originally posted by rwingettThat sounded a little unusual from that particular podium. I think it was the first time a President acknowledged in a major speech that some Americans are Muslims and Hindus. I recall that unbelievers have been included alongside Christians and Jews in the past, but Obama is not working from that binary.
The best part about the speech was that he recognized non-believers.
"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."
Along with that is the rejection of the notion that America is a 'Christian nation.'
Carried far enough, this language might erode the exceptionalist nonsense that Mikhail Bakunin complains of.
Originally posted by WulebgrAll religions have been recognized countless times in presidential speeches.
That sounded a little unusual from that particular podium. I think it was the first time a President acknowledged in a major speech that some Americans are Muslims and Hindus. I recall that unbelievers have been included alongside Christians and Jews in the past, but Obama is not working from that binary.
Carried far enough, this language might erode the exceptionalist nonsense that Mikhail Bakunin complains of.
Originally posted by LudovicianIs this the change you're talking about?
It's an inaugural speech. It's designed to excite and inspire the public. I found it to be extremely well written, relevant and an excellent preface for the period of change the U.S. is about to endeavor upon.
What exactly were you expecting or hoping for and what would you re-write if you had the opportunity to?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1
The federal government estimates that it will spend roughly $49 million on the inaugural weekend. Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland have requested another $75 million from the federal government to help pay for their share of police, fire and medical services.
And then there is the party bill.
"We have a budget of roughly $45 million, maybe a little bit more," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the inaugural committee.
And check out this gem:
The biggest group of donors were none other than the recently bailed-out Wall Street executives and employees.
Change you can roll around in!
Originally posted by MerkIn a general sense, I think you're right. But I don't recall hearing Muslims and Hindus specifically named in an inaugural address. I rather suspect as well that you'll find the term unbelievers rather than nonbelievers.
All religions have been recognized countless times in presidential speeches.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The speeches are all on the web. Give me the link and text. I'll be back at my computer in three hours or so.
Originally posted by WulebgrI suppose if we're talkin semantics, then yes, you two are correct.
In a general sense, I think you're right. But I don't recall hearing Muslims and Hindus specifically named in an inaugural address. I rather suspect as well that you'll find the term unbelievers rather than nonbelievers.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The speeches are all on the web. Give me the link and text. I'll be back at my computer in three hours or so.
Originally posted by FMFWhat a pompous horse's rear end you are. One simply cannot see things from your perspective as one's head can't get as far up one's rear as yours is.
On the contrary, I though it was smothered in cliches and platitudes. Nasty. Very disppointing. Cloying Americanist rhetoric. Massive let down.
Your simple minded dislike of the United States has several components. Among them is jealousy and dismay over America's eclipse of whatever jerkwater background you come from. But your primary antagonism springs from your fundamental dislike of liberal democracy.
What you most disliked was when Barak told you and others who would wish us or do us harm that you cannot outlast us and that the United States would defeat you.
That must stick in your craw like the bitter pill it is and you just can't seem to swallow it, living as you do in history's shadow.
Whatever our present problems, however great the task before this country, I and millions of my countrymen here in Washington DC on this great day experienced a kind of transformative moment that comes but once in a lifetime.
But you, poor, miserable wretch that you are, merely carp because you are not part of this, and one is confident you never have nor will you ever experience the likes of what I and my fellow Americans saw and felt this day.
Have a nice day, fool.
Originally posted by MerkI'm now leaning towards your side. With respect to nonbelievers, I'm still looking. But in 2001 and 2005 Bush acknowledged Muslims.
I suppose if we're talkin semantics, then yes, you two are correct.
Bush 2001:
"Church and charity, synagogue and mosque lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres66.html
Bush 2005:
"That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before—ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever." http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres67.html
Originally posted by WulebgrActually, he specifically did mention unbelievers as part of the mix of Americans.
That sounded a little unusual from that particular podium. I think it was the first time a President acknowledged in a major speech that some Americans are Muslims and Hindus. I recall that unbelievers have been included alongside Christians and Jews in the past, but Obama is not working from that binary.
Carried far enough, this language might erode the exceptionalist nonsense that Mikhail Bakunin complains of.