• http://www.mamabean.ca Mama Bean

    Everyone has potential, and the right to the opportunity to express it. Suppressing that right (suppressing opportunity) denies potential, to the detriment of that individual, his or her community, and ultimately, the nation. Maybe that’s what a fair shot means – shelter/food, health, and education. But I’m not a US citizen, so I won’t speak to the rest.

  • Ami

    The Declaration of Independence says that citizens of our country deserve “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I don’t feel it’s the government’s job to line up opportunities like sitting ducks for people to half heartedly partake of. Instead WE, as individuals, must pursue opportunities to find happiness. Pursuing something is hard work, so as Americans we deserve hard work, it’s our ‘right.’
    Of course, this is just my interpretation.

  • http://www.facebook.com/greg.yochim.1 Greg Yochim

    In regards to the President’s opinion that everyone deserves a fair shot I think I would have to agree with him on that point. i interpret him to be saying that everyone should have the same opportunity. If you look at the redistribution of wealth in the last 30 years in the US the numbers are quite staggering in terms of how the wealth has concentrated to a few people. So did those people just start to work harder and smarter that people had in the prior 200 years or was the game rigged in their favor? I’ve worked hard all my life and due to the economic downturn I had to close my business and I’ve been living off investments, invested in my local community. However, I have to declare my income as regular income not ‘carried interest’ like people like Mitt Romney do and I also have to pay payroll taxes. Why? Because the game hasn’t been rigged to favor people like me – I’m not wealthy enough. The government has made the system favor the wealthy and that’s what the President is speaking about when he talks about everyone having a fair shot.

  • http://profiles.google.com/eaandfaith Hannah Thomas

    I’m not so sure I can hand Obama the Rose Garden comment. If he truly believed what he said – as he claims now – he would have kept on point. He hinted at it more or less I guess in that one mention there that he wishes to own now. But then called it something else throughout the Rose Garden presentation. It was an ‘attack’, and not a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden.

    Then they moved on to the video, some protest, etc. They roasted the people in the video meantime, and SURE he mentioned our ‘free speech’ in his global speech shortly afterwards. Free speech is what should have been concentrated on afterwards MORE than the video itself. Yes the video was awful is fine, but free speech is where the point needed to end. Its ONE of the cornerstones of our country. They handed people some scapegoat, and if all the facts were not in yet? He should NOT have given them the scapegoat to begin with.

    Then you have the non-existent protest, and they have video of the compound of that day. They couldn’t tell it didn’t happen? (giggles – come on!)

    Then you have the hearings that I watched, and found they did indeed ask for more man power. They were ignored.

    The leader of Libya hinted and owned the ‘terrorist attack’ label WAY before our leader did!

    Now they wish to say it was a communication issue. Why not just say they blew it big time! I mean MOST people – no matter which side you are ON can agree with that. Why? Because they did.

    I see no one except maybe Hillary weeks later attempting to own that one. Meanwhile, our Leader of the free world is claiming he is Sargent Klink from Hogan’s hero’s….I know NOTHING!

    It ticks me off. lol can you tell?

    The debate to me was a draw.