Pandering 101

[Fern]

*Raises Hand*

I'm one of those who back then urged that the rules be followed. And felt that it wouldn't be fair if Hillary got those FL & MI delegates seated in time to vote for her. Notwithstanding the (slim) possibility of shennanigans at the convention, the vote of the MI & FL delgates for the nominee is now moot - as the *punishment* by the DNC dictated. The nomination process is over, so that whole issue of sanctions is over, IMO.

Again, they were just to be punished in the nominee vote. However, I'm betting there are other important votes to held at the convention; such as a vote on the Dem platform.

Does it makes any sense for the Dems to continue to punish their own by precluding them from participating fully in the convention and stripping their vote (or at least a 1/2) in other matters? I say it's smart to remove the scarlet *letter* from their chests (1/2 vote only designation) and let them particpate as normal delegates. No reason to humilate them by making them *special* convention delegates.

They need to put this issue behind them, and I don't see a better way to do that.

Fern

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I see one of your kneejerk hack posts.

Hello pot? This is kettle...

Originally posted by: Vic
you're just a fundie nutjob.

Nice try, but it doesn't stick. But good to see I'm right since you are obviously so riled up when someone calls you out on your falling all over yourself to slam anyone against the black Jesus.

[/quote]

Ahh, how nice, one of the fundie drones who lapped up McCain's latest stupid attack ad

"Everyone Run, Obama the Antichrist is coming to Eat your children, only the righteous Right Hand of God, Mighty McCain can stop him."

I have to scratch my head, wondering how John McCain believes that airing commercials that show nothing but his opponent in front of cheering crowds is going to help his own campaign. The same thing about the "Celeb" ad... how can showing video of your Opponent standing in front of huge crowds chanting his name be a smart tactic? "way too many people like this guy! How could he possibly be ready to lead them?"

Obama's campaign should respond with a commercial that shows McCain speaking to half empty rooms, crickets chirping in the background. The tag at the end could say something like "John McCain says he's ready to lead. Too bad for him that America is too smart to believe it."

I used to admire the guy in 2000 for the way he carried himself as an unconventional conservative. The more you look at his record before 2000, and the more you look at his behavior today, it becomes clear that his act in 2000 was just that. He's a tired old man who feels he deserves to be the president.

The Republicans are accusing Obama of having a Messiah complex when their President Bush actually told people he thought God had chosen him to be President. McCain has confused himself again. The person who thinks he's anointed by God nowadays is George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. Of course, pathetic attacks seem to be McCain's forte. He dwells on fantasy comparing his opponent to Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and now to Jesus Christ.

For evangelicals who believe in the Rapture and dispensationalism, this does seem to be pushing a lot of "Don't vote for the Antichrist" buttons. For anyone not familiar with that set of beliefs, it just appears to be beating the same "Obama's full of himself" drum. Obviously Bush, as god's chosen liaison on earth, takes his orders from above, and then carries out the divine plan for our benefit.

Portraying Obama (with Biblical language, no less... "it shall be known..." etc.) as a self-appointed Messiah is no coincidence if McCain is trying to appeal to ultra-conservative religious groups, particularly Evangelicals who believe that we're living in the "end times." These groups believe that there will be self-proclaimed false Messiahs, and also believe that there will be one significant false Messiah who will capture the attention of millions - that is, the anti-Christ.

This ad appears to be of code language to Evangelicals that McCain has their back, so to speak, and is calling Barack Obama out as the Anti-Christ of the Book of Revelation.

There is a massive email going around about some Revelations quote that says a man of Muslim descent will rise up and be the anti-Christ. Never mind that it doesn't exist in Revelations. Never mind that the Muslim religion came after the creation of Christianity. This ad is to reinforce and get out the vote of the right wing nut jobs. Do not forget those nut cases went out en masse for Bush, twice.

So far they have been luke warm on McCain. This one is for them. Forget who McCain is, they want to believe Obama is the anti-Christ!

Pathetic...

 

[Vic]

Looks like McCain hasn't forgotten that the Fundies called GW Bush "the Moses of his people" back in 2000.

For all his talk, I swear that McCain has never ran a clean campaign in his entire political career. Say what you will about Obama, McCain is pure unadulterated slime.


edit: Oh yeah, BTW, has anyone else read the latest George Will piece? I found it particularly enlightening that he quoted a passage from Paine's 'Common Sense,' arguably THE document that set off the American Revolution, and called it (and I quote), "... the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher." He even says this while he noted that this line was beloved and frequently spoken by Ronald Reagan, which IMO only goes to show how far conservatism has abandoned its most basic principles in the past 20 years.
This line BTW was arguably the one which set off the American Revolution. "We have it in our power to begin the world over again." And despite the fact that our Founding Fathers then did exactly that within but a few short years after Paine wrote it, Will answers with "No. We. Don't."

Fsckin Tories, go back to England if you don't like here.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
I always have laugh over those who keep crying Mr. Obama is a messiah - it seems to be the rightwingers who keep crapping that one out...........

It's *always* the right-wingers or bitter Hillary supporters. The Hillary supporters chosen queen lost to Obama so they're bitter toward him. The right wingers? Well, they have McCain to represent them so I can understand their bitterness too. :laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Oh yeah, BTW, has anyone else read the latest George Will piece?

Why, yes I did and it seems you left out the good bits ( ) such as:

But polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party's surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming. Surely this fact is related to anxieties about his thin résumé regarding national security matters, the thinnest of any major party nominee since Wendell Wilkie's in 1940.

But the fact also might be related to fatigue from too much of Obama's eloquence, which is beginning to sound formulaic and perfunctory.

Even an eloquent politician can become, as Benjamin Disraeli described William Gladstone, "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity." (This was the quote I enjoyed)

Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs -- someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

And no more locutions such as "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship." ....Otherwise, "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship" are, strictly speaking, nonsense. Citizenship is defined by legal and loyalty attachments to a particular political entity with a distinctive regime and culture. Neither the world nor the globe is such an entity.

In Berlin, Obama neared self-parody with a rhetoric of Leave No Metaphor Behind. "Walls"? Down with them. "Bridges"? Build new ones between this and that. "A new dawn"? The Middle East deserves one. And Berlin was the wrong place to vow to "remake the world once again." Modern Berlin rose from rubble that was the result of the last attempt at remaking "the world."

Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities -- often of wars, sometimes of people determined to "remake the world." Wise voters -- polls might be telling us that there are more of them than Obama imagines -- hanker for candidates whose principal promise is that they will do their best to muddle through without breaking too much crockery.

And I believe this would be the bit you are referring to:

Of course, from Obama, such tropes, although silly, are not menacing, any more than they were from Ronald Reagan, who was incorrigibly fond of perhaps the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher, Thomas Paine's "we have it in our power to begin the world over again." No. We. Don't.

The world is a fact, and facts are indeed stubborn things

I find him less a "Tory" and more an unbeliever in "Hope and Change".

Fern

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Vic
I get told I love 'the black Jesus' by some hack who would eagerly go down on both McCain and Bush at the same time if he ever got the chance?

Nice duh-version. Try staying on topic.

And again, you add to the long list of misconceptions about myself that you are completely wrong about. I'm hardly a McCain supporter, nor do I have homosexual tendencies. But nice deflection.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Oh yeah, BTW, has anyone else read the latest George Will piece?

Why, yes I did and it seems you left out the good bits ( ) such as:

But polls taken since his trip abroad do not indicate that Obama succeeded in altering the oddest aspect of this presidential campaign: Measured against his party's surging strength in every region and at every level, he is dramatically underperforming. Surely this fact is related to anxieties about his thin résumé regarding national security matters, the thinnest of any major party nominee since Wendell Wilkie's in 1940.

But the fact also might be related to fatigue from too much of Obama's eloquence, which is beginning to sound formulaic and perfunctory.

Even an eloquent politician can become, as Benjamin Disraeli described William Gladstone, "a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity." (This was the quote I enjoyed)

Does Obama have the sort of adviser a candidate most needs -- someone sufficiently unenthralled to tell him when he has worked one pedal on the organ too much? If so, Obama should be told: Enough, already, with the we-are-who-we-have-been-waiting-for rhetorical cotton candy that elevates narcissism to a political philosophy.

And no more locutions such as "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship." ....Otherwise, "citizen of the world" and "global citizenship" are, strictly speaking, nonsense. Citizenship is defined by legal and loyalty attachments to a particular political entity with a distinctive regime and culture. Neither the world nor the globe is such an entity.

In Berlin, Obama neared self-parody with a rhetoric of Leave No Metaphor Behind. "Walls"? Down with them. "Bridges"? Build new ones between this and that. "A new dawn"? The Middle East deserves one. And Berlin was the wrong place to vow to "remake the world once again." Modern Berlin rose from rubble that was the result of the last attempt at remaking "the world."

Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities -- often of wars, sometimes of people determined to "remake the world." Wise voters -- polls might be telling us that there are more of them than Obama imagines -- hanker for candidates whose principal promise is that they will do their best to muddle through without breaking too much crockery.

And I believe this would be the bit you are referring to:

Of course, from Obama, such tropes, although silly, are not menacing, any more than they were from Ronald Reagan, who was incorrigibly fond of perhaps the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher, Thomas Paine's "we have it in our power to begin the world over again." No. We. Don't.

The world is a fact, and facts are indeed stubborn things

I find him less a "Tory" and more an unbeliever in "Hope and Change".

Fern

Careful what you're defending here, Fern. Will's column here was thinly veiled anti-Obama rhetoric pulled straight from chain e-mails, followed by the utter damning of Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense,' arguably the most influential document of the American Revolution.
I don't care much about the first part, but the second is akin to if he had spoken ill of the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution IMO. Could you imagine the outcry if Will had done that? If he had said that the DoI was "the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher?" This is pretty much the same IMO. I was so pissed I almost considered posting a thread on it.

Maybe you don't see it because Will took it entirely out of context to suit his purposes. Let me fix that by posting that part of Common Sense in its entirety. (edit: Text of Common Sense)

I shall conclude these remarks, with the following timely and well intended hints. We ought to reflect, that there are three different ways, by which an independancy may hereafter be effected; and that one of those three, will one day or other, be the fate of America, viz. By the legal voice of the people in Congress; by a military power; or by a mob: It may not always happen that our soldiers are citizens, and the multitude a body of reasonable men; virtue, as I have already remarked, is not hereditary, neither is it perpetual. Should an independancy be brought about by the first of those means, we have every opportunity and every encouragement before us, to form the noblest purest constitution on the face of the earth. We have it in our power to begin the world over again. A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand, and a race of men, perhaps as numerous as all Europe contains, are to receive their portion of freedom from the event of a few months. The Reflexion is awful?and in this point of view, How trifling, how ridiculous, do the little, paltry cavellings, of a few weak or interested men appear, when weighed against the business of a world.

As anyone can see, Paine was arguing that this beginning of the world over again would occur because it would be brought about by a legal democracy and the implementation of the rule of law as opposed to by any other means. Which is BTW exactly what did happen in a few short years after Paine wrote it.
So if you or anyone else here have been looking for a reason why I'm backing Obama this cycle, it's because McCain supporters like Will and others make these kind of horrifically un-American statements while (in grossest Orwellian fashion) pretending themselves patriots (when they are clearly Tories of the rankest, most cowardly sort).
Spin this however he wanted you to, George Will pretty much took a steaming sh!t on Mom and the Apple Pie and then wiped his ass with the American flag. Please allow me to keep my respect for you by you not doing the usual McCain fan bit of cheering such horrors on.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
I get told I love 'the black Jesus' by some hack who would eagerly go down on both McCain and Bush at the same time if he ever got the chance?

Nice duh-version. Try staying on topic.

And again, you add to the long list of misconceptions about myself that you are completely wrong about. I'm hardly a McCain supporter, nor do I have homosexual tendencies. But nice deflection.

And I don't love 'the black Jesus' either. :roll:

Wow, how stupid can you be?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Vic
-snip-
Careful what you're defending here, Fern.

While I began with no intention of defending G Will (I often find his writing style a bit tedious and pompous, as though he's compensating for the lack of a good point with fancy prose)

I tend to think he's only *dissing* one quote of Paine's, and by extension Obama's call for (apparently painless and rapturous) change.

Thomas Paine's "we have it in our power to begin the world over again." No. We. Don't.

He explains his position by opining such changes are usually brought about by calamitous events such as war. As was indeed the case in the American Revolution and other momentous events (e.g., ending of slavey here).

I.e., "we have it in our power to begin the world over again" isn't painless, without sacrifice or easy. IMO, It's just part of his central critism that Obama is a shallow *feel good* politician, employing lofty platitudes without an understanding of the true meaning or consequences. To that end, I'm not sure if he's being more critical of Obama, or his supporters?

BTW: I don't want to debate whether he's correct or not. Just saying how I interpret Will's remarks. I've no dount he's criticizing Obama, but don't think he's entirely dissing T Paine (just those who misunderstand him).

Fern

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I see one of your kneejerk hack posts.

Hello pot? This is kettle...

Originally posted by: Vic
you're just a fundie nutjob.

Nice try, but it doesn't stick. But good to see I'm right since you are obviously so riled up when someone calls you out on your falling all over yourself to slam anyone against the black Jesus.

[/quote]

You mean you aren't a fundie nutjob?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I see one of your kneejerk hack posts.

Hello pot? This is kettle...

Originally posted by: Vic
you're just a fundie nutjob.

Nice try, but it doesn't stick. But good to see I'm right since you are obviously so riled up when someone calls you out on your falling all over yourself to slam anyone against the black Jesus.

You mean you aren't a fundie nutjob?

Lets be honest, liberals like yourself, Vic and others here consider ANY Christian a fundie nut job.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I see one of your kneejerk hack posts.

Hello pot? This is kettle...

Originally posted by: Vic
you're just a fundie nutjob.

Nice try, but it doesn't stick. But good to see I'm right since you are obviously so riled up when someone calls you out on your falling all over yourself to slam anyone against the black Jesus.

You mean you aren't a fundie nutjob?

Lets be honest, liberals like yourself, Vic and others here consider ANY Christian a fundie nut job.

not really, just literalists

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I see one of your kneejerk hack posts.

Hello pot? This is kettle...

Originally posted by: Vic
you're just a fundie nutjob.

Nice try, but it doesn't stick. But good to see I'm right since you are obviously so riled up when someone calls you out on your falling all over yourself to slam anyone against the black Jesus.

You mean you aren't a fundie nutjob?

Lets be honest, liberals like yourself, Vic and others here consider ANY Christian a fundie nut job.

Actually that would be an EXTREMELY dishonest statement. I am highly supportive of the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, to the point where I have (more than once) been accused of being religious nut job here on these forums. Also, I grew up in a religious household, and have studied the Bible and can quote chapter and verse. So anytime you want to play that game, let me know.
Where I am critical of religion is of that minority of sects that constantly seeks to push their beliefs into law and legislation, thus violating the 1st amendment rights of everyone else, including believers of other Christian sects. And it's not a fine line here. Your religion does not belong in our government.

BTW, is it possible for you to make some kind of rebuttal without lying, being completely ignorant, or using the word 'liberal' as though it were an insult? I seriously want to know.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern
While I began with no intention of defending G Will (I often find his writing style a bit tedious and pompous, as though he's compensating for the lack of a good point with fancy prose)

I tend to think he's only *dissing* one quote of Paine's, and by extension Obama's call for (apparently painless and rapturous) change.

Obama has never said that change would be painless or rapturous. I really don't know where people get this stuff from. I've seen dozens of Obama speeches where he has said exactly the opposite, that sacrifice would be required, etc.

He explains his position by opining such changes are usually brought about by calamitous events such as war. As was indeed the case in the American Revolution and other momentous events (e.g., ending of slavey here).

I.e., "we have it in our power to begin the world over again" isn't painless, without sacrifice or easy. IMO, It's just part of his central critism that Obama is a shallow *feel good* politician, employing lofty platitudes without an understanding of the true meaning or consequences. To that end, I'm not sure if he's being more critical of Obama, or his supporters?

BTW: I don't want to debate whether he's correct or not. Just saying how I interpret Will's remarks. I've no dount he's criticizing Obama, but don't think he's entirely dissing T Paine (just those who misunderstand him).

Fern

I don't think that Will talking about Paine saying, "the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher," is open to much misunderstanding.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic


BTW, is it possible for you to make some kind of rebuttal without lying, being completely ignorant, or using the words 'liberal' as though it were an insult? I seriously want to know.

Oh the irony here is so strong it hurts.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, is it possible for you to make some kind of rebuttal without lying, being completely ignorant, or using the words 'liberal' as though it were an insult? I seriously want to know.

Oh the irony here is so strong it hurts.

Oh hey, did you dig up those old threads like I asked?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Vic
Actually that would be an EXTREMELY dishonest statement. I am highly supportive of the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion, to the point where I have (more than once) been accused of being religious nut job here on these forums. Also, I grew up in a religious household, and have studied the Bible and can quote chapter and verse. So anytime you want to play that game, let me know.
Where I am critical of religion is of that minority of sects that constantly seeks to push their beliefs into law and legislation, thus violating the 1st amendment rights of everyone else, including believers of other Christian sects. And it's not a fine line here. Your religion does not belong in our government.

Thanks for proving my point. My statement was just as honest as yours calling me a fundie nutjob.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Thanks for proving my point. My statement was just as honest as yours calling me a fundie nutjob.

Originally posted by: Corbett on 07/30/2008 10:00 PM Text
I'd rater be a "Fund A Mental Case Social Interventionist Conservative" than a closet liberal like yourself. But hey, at least you've [Red Dawn] finally admitted that ATPN is just as biased as Free Republic.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Vic
...
Obama has never said that change would be painless or rapturous. I really don't know where people get this stuff from. I've seen dozens of Obama speeches where he has said exactly the opposite, that sacrifice would be required, etc.
...

Haven't seen it in a while but it could have been from the rnc. I've been at some ultra-republican's (read, rnc donor) houses and seen 'special' literature that has precisely this kind of rhetoric - how to respond when the opposition says a particular thing, etc.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett
Thanks for proving my point. My statement was just as honest as yours calling me a fundie nutjob.

Originally posted by: Corbett on 07/30/2008 10:00 PM Text
I'd rater be a "Fund A Mental Case Social Interventionist Conservative" than a closet liberal like yourself. But hey, at least you've [Red Dawn] finally admitted that ATPN is just as biased as Free Republic.

Apparently you are confused...

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
The OP is Trolling 101.

You can set your watch to how long it takes a Obamabot to post something like this.

Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I see one of your kneejerk hack posts.

The OP has been trolling this same crap for months. And every time he intentionally misrepresents the circumstances and situation. Kind of like you do with all your posts, but he's an angry Hillarybot and you're just a fundie nutjob.

As it is, the only thing Lupi is upset about here is what he had been told would happen months ago. It's like he created this thread for the purpose of owning himself.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, is it possible for you to make some kind of rebuttal without lying, being completely ignorant, or using the words 'liberal' as though it were an insult? I seriously want to know.

Oh the irony here is so strong it hurts.

Oh hey, did you dig up those old threads like I asked?

Sorry skippy, you may be one of BHO's bitch lap dogs but I ain't doing any bitch leg work for ya.

Besides, we already have people admitting in this thread they said the very things we have pointed out were said, so yeah it's kinda pointless.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern
While I began with no intention of defending G Will (I often find his writing style a bit tedious and pompous, as though he's compensating for the lack of a good point with fancy prose)

I tend to think he's only *dissing* one quote of Paine's, and by extension Obama's call for (apparently painless and rapturous) change.

Obama has never said that change would be painless or rapturous. I really don't know where people get this stuff from. I've seen dozens of Obama speeches where he has said exactly the opposite, that sacrifice would be required, etc.

He explains his position by opining such changes are usually brought about by calamitous events such as war. As was indeed the case in the American Revolution and other momentous events (e.g., ending of slavey here).

I.e., "we have it in our power to begin the world over again" isn't painless, without sacrifice or easy. IMO, It's just part of his central critism that Obama is a shallow *feel good* politician, employing lofty platitudes without an understanding of the true meaning or consequences. To that end, I'm not sure if he's being more critical of Obama, or his supporters?

BTW: I don't want to debate whether he's correct or not. Just saying how I interpret Will's remarks. I've no dount he's criticizing Obama, but don't think he's entirely dissing T Paine (just those who misunderstand him).

Fern

I don't think that Will talking about Paine saying, "the least conservative, and therefore the most absurd, proposition ever penned by a political philosopher," is open to much misunderstanding.

Are you getting sick of having to counter things that people are just making up in their heads yet? Strangely enough, things that are somehow considered equally valid debating points to actual facts?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Vic
Yeah, I'll keep that in mind the next time I see one of your kneejerk hack posts.

Hello pot? This is kettle...

Originally posted by: Vic
you're just a fundie nutjob.

Nice try, but it doesn't stick. But good to see I'm right since you are obviously so riled up when someone calls you out on your falling all over yourself to slam anyone against the black Jesus.

[/quote]

Let me get this straight, you come into a thread throwing around goofy "labels" such as "Black Jesus" when refering to Obama, and your "outraged" that some refer you to a "fundie"?!.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh hey, did you dig up those old threads like I asked?

Sorry skippy, you may be one of BHO's bitch lap dogs but I ain't doing any bitch leg work for ya.

Besides, we already have people admitting in this thread they said the very things we have pointed out were said, so yeah it's kinda pointless.

Originally posted by: lupi
Yeah, let's just not bump the dozens of threads where you schmucks were screaming "what about the rules!". This is just another is a seemingly endless stream of examples of your messiah doing nothing more than saying hope and change while playing with smoke and mirrors; hoping that the gullible masses don't notice the smoke and mirrors.

IOW, you got nothing.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
Are you getting sick of having to counter things that people are just making up in their heads yet? Strangely enough, things that are somehow considered equally valid debating points to actual facts?

I must assume you are addressing that question to me.

I've seen a lot of Obama speeches. I've googled for those I may have missed.

Yes, he's briefly mentioned the word "sacrifice", but has never elaborated on it IMO, nor decribed it as anything of a severe or serious nature in the least.

Fern