Obama gave the State of the Union speech last night, and it was beyond promising. Obama has made many successes as President, even in a time of economic disasters and plummeting employment rates. The State of the Union notes just that, and what Obama is planning on doing next. Viewable here, the video states that Obama has helped create over 3.2 million jobs in private sectors.
He also speaks of moving the final troops out of Iraq, and necessary quality education for all students of America. I agree with both of these decisions. America has other priorities for the military than just Iraq, things with more importance such as genocide in Darfur or the Palestine-Israeli conflict, situations that definitely NEED military aid. And when it comes to education, everyone as a U.S. citizen deserves the right to one, as well as one of equal quality. I don't know how feasible this idea is for him, especially since he as president needs to focus on things on a much larger spectrum. He wouldn't truly be able to control what's being taught or by whom, but his stress on the subject as well as his willing to do anything to improve it should be respected and taken into account in this upcoming election
All of these accomplishments and interesting information that deems valid might be biased, however. This is pretty much another campaign speech for the President, to give him a second chance. The speech will obviously have a pro-Obama bias and persuasive rhetoric. Who knows what will happen?
Also note how serious John Bayner looks throughout the entire speech, maybe he fears another term with Obama as President? Only time will tell.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Mitt Romney: The Entitlement Theory
I recently came across an opinion news article (here) that stated that Romney feels entitled to the presidency (or should i say his throne?).
The article states it quite ridiculous that Romney said that he "supports an opportunity society, free people living under a limited government." Well, to me, that sounds like any other old Republican. The prevalent liberal bias of the article is annoying, but I can't help but notice some of the truth behind the raging opinion.
Romney IS a flip-flopper, he HAS made dishonest attacks on Obama, and he IS extremely wealthy and doesn't understand the feeling of being impoverished. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney pivoted t the center in the general election, if he makes it that far.
Romney's entitlement campaign is interesting, but may lose him popularity. Democrats are terrified of his pro-free-market fundamentalism, and tax cuts that are skewed towards the top. We all know Romney pays a significant amount of tax on all his millions, but he gets away with a large percentage due to investing and hiding.
It's a known fact. Romney is bleeding diamonds. He is rich beyond belief. How are we supposed to trust a man who doesn't know true challenges and solely knows about entitlements and his own "opportunity" in America.
The article states it quite ridiculous that Romney said that he "supports an opportunity society, free people living under a limited government." Well, to me, that sounds like any other old Republican. The prevalent liberal bias of the article is annoying, but I can't help but notice some of the truth behind the raging opinion.
Romney IS a flip-flopper, he HAS made dishonest attacks on Obama, and he IS extremely wealthy and doesn't understand the feeling of being impoverished. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney pivoted t the center in the general election, if he makes it that far.
Romney's entitlement campaign is interesting, but may lose him popularity. Democrats are terrified of his pro-free-market fundamentalism, and tax cuts that are skewed towards the top. We all know Romney pays a significant amount of tax on all his millions, but he gets away with a large percentage due to investing and hiding.
It's a known fact. Romney is bleeding diamonds. He is rich beyond belief. How are we supposed to trust a man who doesn't know true challenges and solely knows about entitlements and his own "opportunity" in America.
Hello Florida, Hello Hardships
Florida: a state known for its diversity of people, palm trees, and the highest high school drop out rate in the country.
Based off of this knowledge, this will be one of the hardest states for the GOP candidates to win, and this is definitely NOT a winner take all situation. This will be tough.
I don't find it surprising that Ron Paul isn't even trying in this state. Yes, there will be other ones. And Florida is expensive for not a lot of profit, like the cheap tans the civilians get when they could just sit in the sun.
This article sates just what the candidates need.
Florida may have different regions (a conservative retired north, booming liberal cities, and several immigrants) but they all aren't truly focusing on social issues in this election. They are all focused on the issues of job creation and the housing market.
Santorum, to be honest, does not have a chance in my opinion in this election. Most of his policies and beliefs are based off of abortion and gay marriage. This will definitely be another fight-to-the-death Romney-Gingrich scenario, as it will play out.
I think Romney will win this battle, with his suave opinions that could cater to several demographics and his large campaign allowance. He will win the battle, but maybe not the war.
Based off of this knowledge, this will be one of the hardest states for the GOP candidates to win, and this is definitely NOT a winner take all situation. This will be tough.
I don't find it surprising that Ron Paul isn't even trying in this state. Yes, there will be other ones. And Florida is expensive for not a lot of profit, like the cheap tans the civilians get when they could just sit in the sun.
This article sates just what the candidates need.
Florida may have different regions (a conservative retired north, booming liberal cities, and several immigrants) but they all aren't truly focusing on social issues in this election. They are all focused on the issues of job creation and the housing market.
Santorum, to be honest, does not have a chance in my opinion in this election. Most of his policies and beliefs are based off of abortion and gay marriage. This will definitely be another fight-to-the-death Romney-Gingrich scenario, as it will play out.
I think Romney will win this battle, with his suave opinions that could cater to several demographics and his large campaign allowance. He will win the battle, but maybe not the war.
Gingrich Defeat Over Media
As Gingrich continues to get endorsed by big players in the POTUS campaign, the media that once trumpeted over him is slowly dissipating into the background.
Although this article describes Gingrich's attack plan, I don't find these tactics necessary. We all already know that Gingrich wasn't faithful to his wife. We all know that he sticks true to his beliefs, no matter how radical they are or the majority's beliefs. I respect this.
The media has no more dirt.
What we know as a good tactic, however, is Gingrich's proof that Romney is a flip-flopper, and flip-floppers can't be President. Studies are showing that Gingrich is gaining a loyal following, and momentum is on his side. He has a greater chance than ever before, and he's taking it. The article describes this, too. Bashing the news media and not directly attacking anyone like a child is "endearing him to voters." Gingrich is playing the game better than anyone else could dream.
The media shouldn't even be attacking Gingrich anymore. The battle is over and Gingrich has won.
Although this article describes Gingrich's attack plan, I don't find these tactics necessary. We all already know that Gingrich wasn't faithful to his wife. We all know that he sticks true to his beliefs, no matter how radical they are or the majority's beliefs. I respect this.
The media has no more dirt.
What we know as a good tactic, however, is Gingrich's proof that Romney is a flip-flopper, and flip-floppers can't be President. Studies are showing that Gingrich is gaining a loyal following, and momentum is on his side. He has a greater chance than ever before, and he's taking it. The article describes this, too. Bashing the news media and not directly attacking anyone like a child is "endearing him to voters." Gingrich is playing the game better than anyone else could dream.
The media shouldn't even be attacking Gingrich anymore. The battle is over and Gingrich has won.
POTUS Sings, FLOTUS Talks
Okay. I understand that you are campaigning and winning the PRESIDENCY is somewhat of a big deal.
But I am honestly disappointed in America.
Why do we choose Presidents based off of how cool they are? I honestly assume that Obama will win the title of POTUS again, but not because of hard work, not because of a stable economy, not because he's furthering the country.
He is going to be President based off of the fact that he can sing on American idol Michelle Obama is beautiful, sculpted woman who occasionally debuts on talk shows.
It is heinous, OUTRAGEOUS, that WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS make these types of points their top priorities? Shouldn't we be fixing the country? Shouldn't we be altering regulations on environmental issues? Shouldn't we be improving welfare?
The article gives no nod as to how ridiculous this is. This shouldn't even be considered politics.
Sorry, Michelle, but no one really cares about your White House kitchen garden, save for the author of this article.
When the POTUS stops appearing on Jay Leno, and starts getting bills passed, I will vote for him.
When did the presidential campaign become a popularity contest? Why?
link
But I am honestly disappointed in America.
Why do we choose Presidents based off of how cool they are? I honestly assume that Obama will win the title of POTUS again, but not because of hard work, not because of a stable economy, not because he's furthering the country.
He is going to be President based off of the fact that he can sing on American idol Michelle Obama is beautiful, sculpted woman who occasionally debuts on talk shows.
It is heinous, OUTRAGEOUS, that WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS make these types of points their top priorities? Shouldn't we be fixing the country? Shouldn't we be altering regulations on environmental issues? Shouldn't we be improving welfare?
The article gives no nod as to how ridiculous this is. This shouldn't even be considered politics.
Sorry, Michelle, but no one really cares about your White House kitchen garden, save for the author of this article.
When the POTUS stops appearing on Jay Leno, and starts getting bills passed, I will vote for him.
When did the presidential campaign become a popularity contest? Why?
link
GOP Congress vs. Gingrich
It's interesting that a surprisingly hefty percentage of Republicans is anti-Gingrich for the presidential candidacy. It's true that Gingrich helped lead the economy onto a new peak when he was Speaker of the House. It's true that he's starting to win caucuses and debates amongst his peers. So why all of the Republican hatred?
The answer lies in this video...link
The video states that the people who know him best, or those Republicans in Congress, are the ones who are not supporting him. One Congressman, when asked why he's endorsing Mitt Romney, stated that he simply KNOWS Mitt.
Where are the details? Why are all of these senators implying horrible deeds, and yet not really saying anything. This all seems a little fishy to me.
Supposedly, the house under Newt is scary to many. One even said: "You can feel the nervousness from Republicans around town that Gingrich could actually bring the craziness back of his speakership from the 1990s. It's everywhere."
I don't think members should be too worried however. Without their endorsements or their votes, Gingrich will not be likely to go anywhere. His damaged reputation and hypocritical beliefs against Clinton will definitely speak to the people. In my opinion, there is a slim chance of Gingrich in the White House.
The answer lies in this video...link
The video states that the people who know him best, or those Republicans in Congress, are the ones who are not supporting him. One Congressman, when asked why he's endorsing Mitt Romney, stated that he simply KNOWS Mitt.
Where are the details? Why are all of these senators implying horrible deeds, and yet not really saying anything. This all seems a little fishy to me.
Supposedly, the house under Newt is scary to many. One even said: "You can feel the nervousness from Republicans around town that Gingrich could actually bring the craziness back of his speakership from the 1990s. It's everywhere."
I don't think members should be too worried however. Without their endorsements or their votes, Gingrich will not be likely to go anywhere. His damaged reputation and hypocritical beliefs against Clinton will definitely speak to the people. In my opinion, there is a slim chance of Gingrich in the White House.
Friday, January 6, 2012
S.E. Cupp's Santorum Craze
S.E. Cupp, author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV, is completely infatuated with Rick Santorum. She even goes on to talk about his sweater vests. She states that his morals directly relate tot he economy, and his strong American values should be respected. She also states that he focuses on moral consequences for the country, based on economic decisions, and that this is hard to do when most people are only focused on jobs.
Where is she even coming from? His moral issues and religious values should be seen as important once America is out of a recession. Honestly we as a country do not have time to think about same sex marriage and the private affairs of the candidates when a large percentage of our nation is striving to get out of unemployment and put food on the table.
She also states that this "is his moment," he should milk it for all it's worth. The Iowa caucus, however, is nothing like the debates and campaigning for the 49 other states. A large percentage of Iowa shares Santorum's religious backgrounds and family roots. If Santorum was going to win anywhere, it would be Iowa. I personally believe that that was Santorum's fifteen minutes of fame, and he won't last in the upcoming elections.
S.E. Cupp has an obvious republican bias, she even wrote a novel titled "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She's only supporting Santorum because she shares similar values as him, not for what he is planning on doing for our country. She only writes on his social views, not on how Santorum will get the country back on track.
The article is interesting, however, because CNN has a liberal bias typically. This article is one of the most socially conservative viewpoints I have read, so it's refreshing to see it on the cover of CNN's website.
You can read the article here.
Where is she even coming from? His moral issues and religious values should be seen as important once America is out of a recession. Honestly we as a country do not have time to think about same sex marriage and the private affairs of the candidates when a large percentage of our nation is striving to get out of unemployment and put food on the table.
She also states that this "is his moment," he should milk it for all it's worth. The Iowa caucus, however, is nothing like the debates and campaigning for the 49 other states. A large percentage of Iowa shares Santorum's religious backgrounds and family roots. If Santorum was going to win anywhere, it would be Iowa. I personally believe that that was Santorum's fifteen minutes of fame, and he won't last in the upcoming elections.
S.E. Cupp has an obvious republican bias, she even wrote a novel titled "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She's only supporting Santorum because she shares similar values as him, not for what he is planning on doing for our country. She only writes on his social views, not on how Santorum will get the country back on track.
The article is interesting, however, because CNN has a liberal bias typically. This article is one of the most socially conservative viewpoints I have read, so it's refreshing to see it on the cover of CNN's website.
You can read the article here.
Hotter Lawmakers Get More TV Time
Research has shown that the more physically attractive a member of Congress is, the more network television coverage they get. The study was done by two Israeli professors from the University of Haifa, Professor Israel Waismel-Manor and Professor Yariv Tsfati. The research was concluded from a survey of students that rated Congress members on attractiveness, avoiding top leadership posts and presidential candidates. They found that those who were more attractive received more TV time, but not more print or radio time than other Congress members. They also found other factors. Congress members who were female, black, more radical in thought, or came from larger states also had more television time, while tenure in office and bill sponsorship weren't seen as factors at all.
A professor at Princeton refuted this study, stating that most members of Congress, regardless of how attractive they are, don't typically get on network television. It may also be a subconscious reflex to choose to put on air someone who is better looking, rather than a less attractive individual, to interest viewers. Professor Wald from Columbia University went even farther to say people usually look at more attractive people, rather than hideous people. That's just known.
The article seems pretty valid, but somewhat obvious. Of course the network televisions want to put a variety of people on the air, people that attract attention. Attractive, smart Congresswomen will do that, and will probably get more viewers for the network. I have to admit, this article was refreshing to read after viewing article upon article on the GOP campaigns and caucuses.
Read it
A professor at Princeton refuted this study, stating that most members of Congress, regardless of how attractive they are, don't typically get on network television. It may also be a subconscious reflex to choose to put on air someone who is better looking, rather than a less attractive individual, to interest viewers. Professor Wald from Columbia University went even farther to say people usually look at more attractive people, rather than hideous people. That's just known.
The article seems pretty valid, but somewhat obvious. Of course the network televisions want to put a variety of people on the air, people that attract attention. Attractive, smart Congresswomen will do that, and will probably get more viewers for the network. I have to admit, this article was refreshing to read after viewing article upon article on the GOP campaigns and caucuses.
Read it
Santorum on Same-Sex Marriage
Earlier this week in New Hampshire, Santorum was grilled by a group of liberal college students on his religion and views on same-sex marriage. One student stated that "all men are created equal," so anyone should be able to have the same rights to happiness/the same rights to marriage. Santorum made a strong rebuttal by stating if anyone had the right to marry anyone else, polygamy would also be valid. The crowd of students became enraged with the statement.
Honestly, I think that everyone DOES have a right to be happy and if they need "to marry five other people," I'm okay with that, as long as those five other people are fine with that as well. My raging liberal social views may be getting in the way of this point, but Santorum's statement to the dubious college student was perfectly correct. If she believes that everyone should have any marriage rights they want, then she is also allowing polygamy. The crowd then refused to talk about polygamy in any sense, refuting it and just stating it's "different." Although Santorum is against both gay marriage and polygamy, we do share the view that if one wants the rights to happiness in marriage in any form, both of those relate. What makes either of them wrong or right if all parties agree to it, if it's justified in an individual's happiness? It's not like they're harming anyone.
The clip is unbiased, and is just a recording of Santorum's interviews and debates with the college students. You can view it here.
Honestly, I think that everyone DOES have a right to be happy and if they need "to marry five other people," I'm okay with that, as long as those five other people are fine with that as well. My raging liberal social views may be getting in the way of this point, but Santorum's statement to the dubious college student was perfectly correct. If she believes that everyone should have any marriage rights they want, then she is also allowing polygamy. The crowd then refused to talk about polygamy in any sense, refuting it and just stating it's "different." Although Santorum is against both gay marriage and polygamy, we do share the view that if one wants the rights to happiness in marriage in any form, both of those relate. What makes either of them wrong or right if all parties agree to it, if it's justified in an individual's happiness? It's not like they're harming anyone.
The clip is unbiased, and is just a recording of Santorum's interviews and debates with the college students. You can view it here.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Perry's Hurt Pride
Perry must have thought he would have been successful at the Iowa Caucus, but according to his official remarks (view HERE)after his loss he doesn't know if he'll be continuing his campaign. I admit that it was somewhat of a surprise, knowing that Perry's strong Christian background is reflected in the voters in Iowa.
At least Perry was very cordial and respected the few voters he did have in Iowa, unlike his contender Michele Bachmann. He was very eloquent and thanked everyone in Iowa as well as those who travelled do participate in the caucus. He may have finished fifth in the caucuses, but it seemed as if he had finished second.
Although he nods to continuing to caucus in South Carolina, he has gone back to Texas to reassess his campaign with his staff. Admitting defeat gracefully might be the best thing for Perry. His "Strong" ads definitely were his downfall,with millions upon millions of views and millions upon millions of dislikes. He should back out now if he wants to save money and save his pride.
He said that being president wasn't "his purpose in life." It's his "duty to run." Why, then is he running, if he knows he won't become the president?
At least Perry was very cordial and respected the few voters he did have in Iowa, unlike his contender Michele Bachmann. He was very eloquent and thanked everyone in Iowa as well as those who travelled do participate in the caucus. He may have finished fifth in the caucuses, but it seemed as if he had finished second.
Although he nods to continuing to caucus in South Carolina, he has gone back to Texas to reassess his campaign with his staff. Admitting defeat gracefully might be the best thing for Perry. His "Strong" ads definitely were his downfall,with millions upon millions of views and millions upon millions of dislikes. He should back out now if he wants to save money and save his pride.
He said that being president wasn't "his purpose in life." It's his "duty to run." Why, then is he running, if he knows he won't become the president?
Romney Stands Still
Newt Gingrich recently this week stated that Romney has hit the ceiling. Although Romney won the Iowa caucus, he won by 8 votes from Santorum and won with only 25% of the vote. Maybe Gingrich is right. He can't break out of the 25%. He always only gets 25%, and that's not enough to win the presidential election. He still doesn't have 3/4 of the entire Republican party; they continue to wander towards any candidate except for Mitt.
Although Gingrich does talk down Romney a bit, he still is stating an inconvenient truth: "How can you take someone seriously who, with that amount of time and money, flattens out at 25 percent?"
The truth is...you can't.
It might be true that Gingrich is retaliating from several of Romney's attack ads, but Gingrich is still acting like a campaigner. He isn't cracking under the pressure, and is rising to the challenge. He's refusing to run similar attack ads on Romney, and would rather win the fair way. This gives me more respect for him, and makes me somewhat tired of Romney.
Read more
Politico, an official site with news stories on all of the hot topics in the GOP campaigns is proving to have the best information with the least bias. All of the articles have block quotes from the candidates with little to no additional statements save for several facts. This allows readers to really get a feel for who the candidates are without aligning with one side's bias.
Although Gingrich does talk down Romney a bit, he still is stating an inconvenient truth: "How can you take someone seriously who, with that amount of time and money, flattens out at 25 percent?"
The truth is...you can't.
It might be true that Gingrich is retaliating from several of Romney's attack ads, but Gingrich is still acting like a campaigner. He isn't cracking under the pressure, and is rising to the challenge. He's refusing to run similar attack ads on Romney, and would rather win the fair way. This gives me more respect for him, and makes me somewhat tired of Romney.
Read more
Politico, an official site with news stories on all of the hot topics in the GOP campaigns is proving to have the best information with the least bias. All of the articles have block quotes from the candidates with little to no additional statements save for several facts. This allows readers to really get a feel for who the candidates are without aligning with one side's bias.
Personal Attacks in the GOP
The GOP candidates sure know how to throw a verbal punch, but personal insults on personal insults are starting to get old. Everyone loves especially to hurl on Newt Gingrich, whether it's about his infidelity to his first wife (which Perry and Santorum's morals just cannot handle) or the recent attack by Ron Paul on Newt's avoidance of the Vietnam War. Can't these candidates focus on more important things such as how they're going to fix the country? Can't they put personal decisions and the past in the past? It seems that they can't.
Paul states: "I don't want to fight a war that's unconstitutional and I'm the dangerous person? You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that, he got deferments and didn't even go...he has no business talking about danger because he is putting other people in danger."
I respect Ron Paul's support from the military and agree with several of his views, but these statements made me lose a lot of respect for him. There is no need to push others down in order to pull yourself up. Gingrich may have had other reasons for not going to Vietnam, and a personal decision is PERSONAL. Paul should start focusing on how to describe his foreign policy, not disrespect the other candidates.
The article is not biased at all, and only really takes block quotes from Paul on his stance on Gingrich and his ambiguous foreign policies.
Paul states: "I don't want to fight a war that's unconstitutional and I'm the dangerous person? You know, when Newt Gingrich was called to service in the 1960s during the Vietnam era, guess what he thought about danger? He chickened out on that, he got deferments and didn't even go...he has no business talking about danger because he is putting other people in danger."
I respect Ron Paul's support from the military and agree with several of his views, but these statements made me lose a lot of respect for him. There is no need to push others down in order to pull yourself up. Gingrich may have had other reasons for not going to Vietnam, and a personal decision is PERSONAL. Paul should start focusing on how to describe his foreign policy, not disrespect the other candidates.
The article is not biased at all, and only really takes block quotes from Paul on his stance on Gingrich and his ambiguous foreign policies.
Jesus led the vote...the Iowa Caucus
Although it may have been surprising to big-city and suburban dwellers that Rick Santorum received second place in the Iowa caucus, trailing behind by only 8 votes, the voters speak for themselves, literally.
This isn't a surprise if one knew that evangelicals accounted for a little less than 60% of the caucus electorate. These voters call themselves born-again Christians and fundamentalist Christians...nothing like the rest of the American population. Of course several of them rallied behind the candidate known for his strict religion and strong family morals and values. Santorum was recognized to have over one third of this evangelical vote.
This caucus, though, will definitely not reflect the rest of the country. Santorum has been campaigning in Iowa for years now, and his hard work and dedication has shown through the outcomes. Santorum has done over 380 campaign events in the one state alone since 2009; this should be respected. He does deserve this small victory, for other more industrialized, diverse states will not treat him well. Hard work and a strong campaign, no matter what state, however, will pay off.
READ
This isn't a surprise if one knew that evangelicals accounted for a little less than 60% of the caucus electorate. These voters call themselves born-again Christians and fundamentalist Christians...nothing like the rest of the American population. Of course several of them rallied behind the candidate known for his strict religion and strong family morals and values. Santorum was recognized to have over one third of this evangelical vote.
This caucus, though, will definitely not reflect the rest of the country. Santorum has been campaigning in Iowa for years now, and his hard work and dedication has shown through the outcomes. Santorum has done over 380 campaign events in the one state alone since 2009; this should be respected. He does deserve this small victory, for other more industrialized, diverse states will not treat him well. Hard work and a strong campaign, no matter what state, however, will pay off.
READ
Everybody Hates Bachmann
The Iowa Caucus votes are in...and Bachmann has finished last with only 5%. If it were a caucus anywhere else, it wouldn't have been a surprise, but Iowa is the candidate's home state. She should have at least been in the top three. Admitting defeat, Bachmann stated: "there are many more chapters to be written on the path to our party's nomination."
At least she is staying positive, looking forward to caucuses in the Carolinas as well as other states.
She did make some mistakes in her losing speech, saying: "I'd prefer to let the people of the COUNTRY decide who will represent us." With that quote, she offended the Iowans who did support her, as well as make an idiotic remark. The people of Iowa are still the people of America, aren't they? We all know Bachmann is a beautiful woman, but she's not the brightest. She attended several mediocre universities, and her campaign has reflected that.
People still dislike her. There isn't even press for Bachmann as a woman, as her being possibly the first woman president...maybe because no one truly thinks she'll win the election. The question really is, can she afford to continue?
VIEW
At least she is staying positive, looking forward to caucuses in the Carolinas as well as other states.
She did make some mistakes in her losing speech, saying: "I'd prefer to let the people of the COUNTRY decide who will represent us." With that quote, she offended the Iowans who did support her, as well as make an idiotic remark. The people of Iowa are still the people of America, aren't they? We all know Bachmann is a beautiful woman, but she's not the brightest. She attended several mediocre universities, and her campaign has reflected that.
People still dislike her. There isn't even press for Bachmann as a woman, as her being possibly the first woman president...maybe because no one truly thinks she'll win the election. The question really is, can she afford to continue?
VIEW
Obama's Empty Promises
We knew it all along, but Obama has proved himself AGAIN to be a flip-flopper.
On New Year's Eve, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, an act that he went against during his campaign. He said in 2008 that he would do anything in his power to rid of the restrictions in the act on Guantanamo Bay detainees, and now he supports them.
We can't listen to his promises, and instead should learn that he does exactly the opposite of what he says he's GOING to do.
Although he stated that he had serious issues with the bill, he still signed it. His words make up for nothing. If he had problems, he shouldn't have signed the bill.
Maybe more events like this will turn out a member from the GOP in the oval office. Ron Paul and Romney are gaining a lot of loyal followers and Obama continues to lose them with heinous acts such as this.
Our country is ready for actual change.
READ MORE
On New Year's Eve, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, an act that he went against during his campaign. He said in 2008 that he would do anything in his power to rid of the restrictions in the act on Guantanamo Bay detainees, and now he supports them.
We can't listen to his promises, and instead should learn that he does exactly the opposite of what he says he's GOING to do.
Although he stated that he had serious issues with the bill, he still signed it. His words make up for nothing. If he had problems, he shouldn't have signed the bill.
Maybe more events like this will turn out a member from the GOP in the oval office. Ron Paul and Romney are gaining a lot of loyal followers and Obama continues to lose them with heinous acts such as this.
Our country is ready for actual change.
READ MORE
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)