Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tag: politics

Donate

If you like my work, please consider a donation. Thanks!

Reverse Speech Analysis of Barack Obama From The State of the Union Address 2010

Barack Obama From The State of the Union Address 2010
Barack Obama The State of the Union Address 2010

What Does Reverse Speech Analysis Reveal?

He mostly appears to be not congruent in reversals. His reversals seem to be indicating the course of action(s) he is taking, will not work in helping the U.S. economy. And it doesn’t matter to him. Even if a course of action on a subject is the right thing to do, it will not happen if that means he and others in his circle won’t get what they desire.

Leave a Comment

Although Osama Bin Laden Speaking In Arabic, His Reverse Speech Is In English.

Osama Bin Laden, in a tape obtained by Al Jazeera on January 24, 2010, claimed responsibility for the failed bomb attack on a U.S. bound airliner on December 25, 2009.

On Christmas Day, Nigerian Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up his flight as it approached Detroit Metro Airport. But the explosive powder he was hiding in his underwear failed to detonate. He told federal agents he had been trained and given the explosives by an affiliate group of Al Qaeda in Yemen.

Throughout 2009, Osama Bin Laden’s messages have concentrated on the situation of the Palestinians in attempt to rally support from Muslims around the world.

In the tape, Osama Bin Laden warns the U.S. that there will be more attacks unless there is a solution to the Palestinian crisis.

Leave a Comment

Miscellaneous Reverse Speech Examples From Barack Obama – 2001-2010

WBEZ Radio Interview 2001

“…If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so [that now I would have the right] to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in this society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf…” They were behind the weapon. (He is referring to “they” as being the Warren Court which stood “behind” the Constitution in their decisions, and the Constitution of the U.S. is a “weapon”! Weapon: As in an instrument to be used against someone.)

1 Comment