[smacintush]

YouTube - Obama Gaffe
YouTube - Obama gaffe
YouTube - Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States
YouTube - Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong
YouTube - Empty Suit Barack Obama "Americans Liberated Auschwitz"??
YouTube - Obama Gaffe
YouTube - Obama: 10,000 dead from tornado in Kansas, give or take 9,98
YouTube - Obama - I don't want my daughters "punished with a baby"

This is why McCain is so adamant about using the town hall format. Obama has a lot of trouble speaking without a script. Much like our current President.

[Eug]

Obama:




Bush:

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

slew of Obama gaffes...

You can tell when he begins to look at the ground, one of two things is about to happen; either he is going to tell one whopper of a lie or he's absolutely clueless how to weave his next array of BS. Next time I see him look at the ground, I'm hitting 'record'.

In comparing prepared speeches on the evening of Obama's delegate win, I thought certain Obama would sweep this thing. I'm not so sure now. While Americans may be quick to say they want a change in direction, few can offer a truly unique direction in which to take us. Americans don't want a change in direction as much as they want solid, energetic, passionate, positive, and effective leadership. They use representation in public as a measure. Obama was stumbling all over the place. The debates will only be prepared to the extent that they can be. Declining offers for town hall meetings won't look good, but Obama clearly has a weakness when the prompter's not available. He bungled many an issue in the debate against Hillary, one on one. Notably, his tax policy.

This is quite an impressive collection so early on. This goes beyond Bush and straight to rain man.

[Tiresias]

Given the amount of pressure he is under, and how much talking he has done in the last couple of months, and that all of it has been recorded, it doesn't surprise me that you are able to glean together 8 mistakes. Hell, I probably make that many mistakes in a single day.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Given the amount of pressure he is under, and how much talking he has done in the last couple of months, and that all of it has been recorded, it doesn't surprise me that you are able to glean together 8 mistakes. Hell, I probably make that many mistakes in a single day.

So... dishonesty is the product of exhaustion? This excuse didn't work for Hillary and I dare say it will likely not work for Obama either. Especially if at any point he appears more "tired" than McCain in his 70's.

[Tiresias]

It is only dishonest if he knows what he is saying is incorrect while he is saying it. I'm not sure you can prove that's the case.

And even if you can, it's easy and natural to unconsciously massage the truth in such situations. Haven't you ever been to a job interview?

"I had a number of resource-management responsibilities." (I stacked shelves at Big Mart).

[besson3c]

Oh yeah, we should nail his ass to the wall for saying 57 states rather than 54 states/territories/electoral areas, or however many were included in the primaries...

Are we supposed to post clips of McCain stumbling too? What is the point here?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is why McCain is so adamant about using the town hall format. Obama has a lot of trouble speaking without a script.

It's not so much trouble speaking as it is he just doesn't know his stuff. While GWB will struggle speaking at times, the content is always consistent with what he said yesterday, last week, last month, etc.. This is not the case with Obama.

I've been saying for a while that Obama is a disaster when off teleprompter. Conversely, McCain performs poorly on teleprompter.

It's no surprise that he's ducking McCain's Town Hall challenge, and it's unfortunate, because it indicates that he is afraid to be questioned in public and that his handlers know that he would be unacceptable to much of America once they witness his lack of knowledge.

It's not a coincidence that Obama's last debate w/ Clinton was the only national, network broadcasted debate he participated in (Philadelphia). He crapped the bed in front of the nation and was exposed as being unknowledgeable on numerous issues. After that, he quit debating.

I expect that Obama will only debate McCain under a slew of conditions that are drawn up to hide his deficiencies.

[art_director]

Another pointless thread.

( ( Yawn. ) )

[besson3c]

spacefreak: Obama replied to the town hall challenge by offering a Lincoln/Douglas style debate. Wouldn't a debate like this illuminate on these flaws you are claiming even more than a town hall debate?

Obama does write his own speeches, so I think this also accounts for why they see more prepared than Bush's... I haven't really studied McCain's mannerisms with his prepared speeches yet.

[Macrobat]

No, Obama steals other people's speeches, then calls them his own.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, Obama steals other people's speeches, then calls them his own.

Wow, are you guys still on that phrase that was borrowed from that Deval guy that gave Obama permission to use this phrase?

If Obama attributed the author's quote, would this be okay with you? I wonder how many speeches given by any candidate in modern times would be nothing more than a string of attributions? I'm sure if you dig back through public records of speeches, I'm sure you'd find that most campaign rhetoric is not unique.

Can you not see how these sorts of arguments are unreasonable? I know you are heavily invested in a Republican winning in November, but please, let's try to have a reasonable conversation as best we can about something that actually means something important?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

spacefreak: Obama replied to the town hall challenge by offering a Lincoln/Douglas style debate. Wouldn't a debate like this illuminate on these flaws you are claiming even more than a town hall debate?

No, because this style involves predetermined topics. It may as well be scripted.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Obama does write his own speeches, so I think this also accounts for why they see more prepared than Bush's... I haven't really studied McCain's mannerisms with his prepared speeches yet.

McCain isn't too good with scripts, or at least the public reading of them.

Just because Obama says he writes his own speeches doesn't mean that he does. It was only after the exposed plagiarism that there was this big, coordinated push to claim Obama writes all his speeches. If in fact Obama did write all his own speeches, he would have replied (in debate) immediately and ferociously when accused of lifting lines. Instead, we get some after-the-fact explanation that he actually co-wrote the lines delivered a year earlier by someone else (D. Patrick) who happens to be a supporter (and who had the same campaign manager/speechwriter).

I have no doubt he goes over them, suggesting edits here and there, but considering both the frenetic pace of campaigning that he has gone through over the past 10 months, and the fact that Axelrod is perhaps one of the best speech writers ever, it just doesn't seem likely. Much more likely is that Obama works on the delivery of the speeches.

Why don't we see Obama looking into a camera and stating "I write all my own speeches?" instead of hiding behind others and prompting them to make the claims. If I wrote all my speeches and faced similar accusations, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to look into every camera and state the truth. Perhaps he did and I missed it.

For all the conspiracy theories and misportrayals embraced by the left, it's stunning to see these people take every Obama claim as unchallenged truth. It's even more stunning when one considers how blatant the Obama screw-ups are. I mean, how many times must Obama have to say the day after a flub "What I meant was..."? Why can't he just get it right the first time? It's more than the occasional mistake. It's a recurring pattern on a wide range of topics.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is a phenomenal speech giver. Not as good as Reagan, who made listeners of all political persuasions proud of their country, but ridiculously talented nonetheless.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

No, because this style involves predetermined topics. It may as well be scripted.

Are you familiar with the format of the Lincoln/Douglas debate? If you were, I don't think you'd be saying this...

Just because Obama says he writes his own speeches doesn't mean that he does.

He doesn't, many people have said this, including William Saffire. Obviously Obama doesn't write *all* of his speeches (no candidate does), Jon Favreau is a known writer of some of his speeches, but like Bill Clinton he writes many of them, including his brilliant race speech. I say "brilliant", because no matter what your political persuasion is, it was brilliant, and there are few pundits that would disagree. Saffire, who was Nixon's former speechwriter, referred to it as one of the best speeches in several generations. I'm fairly sure Barack also wrote his convention speech, but I'd have to do some more reading to be confident in my recollection of this...

It was only after the exposed plagiarism that there was this big, coordinated push to claim Obama writes all his speeches. If in fact Obama did write all his own speeches, he would have replied (in debate) immediately and ferociously when accused of lifting lines. Instead, we get some after-the-fact explanation that he actually co-wrote the lines delivered a year earlier by someone else (D. Patrick) who happens to be a supporter (and who had the same campaign manager/speechwriter).

Do you realize how counter productive combing over everything a candidate says for plagarism would be? Do you think that Obama is the first candidate in the history of the world to campaign on change?

I have no doubt he goes over them, suggesting edits here and there, but considering both the frenetic pace of campaigning that he has gone through over the past 10 months, and the fact that Axelrod is perhaps one of the best speech writers ever, it just doesn't seem likely. Much more likely is that Obama works on the delivery of the speeches.

Again, Axelrod does not write Obama's speeches. Google is your friend.

Why don't we see Obama looking into a camera and stating "I write all my own speeches?" instead of hiding behind others and prompting them to make the claims. If I wrote all my speeches and faced similar accusations, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to look into every camera and state the truth. Perhaps he did and I missed it.

It would be a virtual impossibility to write absolutely *all* speeches, wouldn't it? Look at how many different speeches any candidate has had to give in the last while - the Israel thing, Obama's victory, Hillary's concession, Obama's economic speeches, McCain's green screen speech, etc. Look at all of the prepared statements that candidates have to give each day... They all have their speechwriters. The point is, when it comes to preparing a key speech like Obama's race or convention speech, Obama will write his own.

For all the conspiracy theories and misportrayals embraced by the left, it's stunning to see these people take every Obama claim as unchallenged truth. It's even more stunning when one considers how blatant the Obama screw-ups are. I mean, how many times must Obama have to say the day after a flub "What I meant was..."? Why can't he just get it right the first time? It's more than the occasional mistake. It's a recurring pattern on a wide range of topics.

I don't take everything Obama says as unchallenged truth - far from it. I just find little focus and point to your arguments... We could scrub through statements made by any candidate and find these so-called gaffes. What is different between Obama and Bush (or McCain) is that when it comes to prepared statements and speeches as opposed to off-the-cuff remarks (e.g. Obama using the term "sweetie"), Obama fares quite well, relatively speaking. You can disagree with Obama's positions all day, and you should, but comon, you have to give him this.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is a phenomenal speech giver. Not as good as Reagan, who made listeners of all political persuasions proud of their country, but ridiculously talented nonetheless.

Many people have compared him to JFK... Sometime it might be fun to go back and listen to a JFK or Reagan speech just for fun. I truly admire any well crafted speech or argument, regardless of whether i agree or disagree with what is being said. It literally makes my brain explode listening to Bush, I hope people realize how incredibly BAD with a capital B-A-D he is at articulating anything.

[TheWOAT]

Never noticed this about Obama, but will pay more attention during live debates.

But checking the box scores..

Obama is a militant black christian, closet muslim, terrorist loving, speech stealer, real estate swindler, naive, cunning, slow witted, and ashamed of his white gran-mama. Chain emails rule. Did you hear about Tommy Hilfiger beign a racist?

And the campaigns havent gone into full gear yet.

If Obama is horrendous thinking on his feet, WE will all find out, you cant hide this. These debates will determine who I vote for, but until then I wont pay attention to accusations found online or in chain emais. I recall McCain saying the word "Gook" during his 2000 campaign, and the media didnt do much with the story, Does that mean that JMcCain is a racist? NOPE. Doesnt bother me much, nor does him marrying up like John Kerry, or the savings and loans fiasco. Im pretty much giving both guys a clean slate from now until the election. Just MHO.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you familiar with the format of the Lincoln/Douglas debate? If you were, I don't think you'd be saying this...

Are you claiming that topics are not known before the debate? Are you claiming that LD debates' topics are not predetermined?

Axelrod does not write Obama's speeches.

I was wrong. I was thinking about old man Sorenson. But yes, Favreau is much more involved. Thanks for pointing that out.

The point is, when it comes to preparing a key speech like Obama's race or convention speech, Obama will write his own.

I would hope so, though I'm sure the brain trust will contribute. After all, that's what they're these for.

I just find little focus and point to your arguments... We could scrub through statements made by any candidate and find these so-called gaffes.... It literally makes my brain explode listening to Bush, I hope people realize how incredibly BAD with a capital B-A-D he is at articulating anything.

For many of these, "gaffe" is a mild word. There are historical inaccuracies involved, constitutional errors, a lack of knowledge of economic concepts. It's the pattern that concerns me (along with Obama's penchant for changing his views depending on the audience of the moment. Other than the typical leftist stances, I just don't feel he's totally out as an authentic individual. THere's a lot of packaging and protection around him, and his handlers make it extremely hard to peel that stuff away and see exactly who this guy is. McCain on the other hand is well known and well documented, so I feel like I'm seeing the real thing.

As for Bush, it's no doubt he has some deficiencies in public speaking, yet his context and the points made within are always consistent. You may not like his speaking, and you may not like his position, but you always know exactly where he stands. GWB doesn't have to go out over the next few days to explain to the public, "What I meant was...".

Besides, we're not electing a public speaker. And Bush isn't a candidate. I wouldn't expect much more speaking prowess from McCain, however. He'll be a bit more off-the-cuff, perhaps with a little edge. But an Obama-esque speaker he'll never be.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

I recall McCain saying the word "Gook" during his 2000 campaign, and the media didnt do much with the story, Does that mean that JMcCain is a racist? NOPE.

He used that term in his 1973 article for Newsweek that documented his 5.5 years as a POW in Vietnam.

In the article, when he first mentions it, I recall him writing that "gook" is what he and his fellow POWs referred to their captors as. The article is out there.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Are you claiming that topics are not known before the debate? Are you claiming that LD debates' topics are not predetermined?


I was wrong. I was thinking about old man Sorenson. But yes, Favreau is much more involved. Thanks for pointing that out.

I would hope so, though I'm sure the brain trust will contribute. After all, that's what they're these for.


For many of these, "gaffe" is a mild word. There are historical inaccuracies involved, constitutional errors, a lack of knowledge of economic concepts. It's the pattern that concerns me (along with Obama's penchant for changing his views depending on the audience of the moment. Other than the typical leftist stances, I just don't feel he's totally out as an authentic individual. THere's a lot of packaging and protection around him, and his handlers make it extremely hard to peel that stuff away and see exactly who this guy is. McCain on the other hand is well known and well documented, so I feel like I'm seeing the real thing.

As for Bush, it's no doubt he has some deficiencies in public speaking, yet his context and the points made within are always consistent. You may not like his speaking, and you may not like his position, but you always know exactly where he stands. GWB doesn't have to go out over the next few days to explain to the public, "What I meant was...".

Besides, we're not electing a public speaker. And Bush isn't a candidate. I wouldn't expect much more speaking prowess from McCain, however. He'll be a bit more off-the-cuff, perhaps with a little edge. But an Obama-esque speaker he'll never be.

Space: I still have some liberal blogs in my RSS feeds (they were much better at coming up with delegate counts and predictions than mainstream media sources), and trust me, video clips of McCain ranging from silly to severe are posted *constantly*. In the area of silly, very ironically right before I read this I accidentally stumbled across this stupid CNN story about a McCain gaffe:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain: ‘I will veto every single beer’ � - Blogs from CNN.com

Yes, I know this story is retarded, but trust me, if you combed through McCain and Clinton's records you could find many other misspeakings... I remember ones about McCain misquoting the constitution and property rights (on more than one occasion), being unprepared to answer something about abortion, and McCain speaking about Iran incorrectly and being corrected by Lieberman (on more than one occasion), just for starter examples... Of course, there was also the Clinton Bosnia thing as well.

I'm saying this not to score points, but simply to point out that if candidate misspeakings are the name of your game, you have *plenty* to choose from across the entire board. My conclusion is that this is probably normal for election season, the candidates are only human.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Given the amount of pressure he is under, and how much talking he has done in the last couple of months, and that all of it has been recorded, it doesn't surprise me that you are able to glean together 8 mistakes. Hell, I probably make that many mistakes in a single day.

I agree!

I just enjoy watching the same people who STILL blast Bush every time he misspeaks defend Obama now.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Oh yeah, we should nail his ass to the wall for saying 57 states rather than 54 states/territories/electoral areas, or however many were included in the primaries...

Are we supposed to post clips of McCain stumbling too? What is the point here?

To point out a couple of things:

1. Obama ain't quite as smoove as people seem to think.

2. The hypocrisy of all of you who make fun of Bush for the same exact thing.

[Macrobat]

And Mario Cuomo's DNC Keynote in 1984, the FIVE speeches he has ripped from Duval Patrick, JFK, the Founding Fathers, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc. etc. etc.

Besides, Axelrod supposedly "writes" Obama's speeches.

Sorry to burst your bubble in re your Messiah.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

For many of these, "gaffe" is a mild word. There are historical inaccuracies involved, constitutional errors, a lack of knowledge of economic concepts. It's the pattern that concerns me (along with Obama's penchant for changing his views depending on the audience of the moment. Other than the typical leftist stances, I just don't feel he's totally out as an authentic individual. THere's a lot of packaging and protection around him, and his handlers make it extremely hard to peel that stuff away and see exactly who this guy is. McCain on the other hand is well known and well documented, so I feel like I'm seeing the real thing.

As for Bush, it's no doubt he has some deficiencies in public speaking, yet his context and the points made within are always consistent. You may not like his speaking, and you may not like his position, but you always know exactly where he stands. GWB doesn't have to go out over the next few days to explain to the public, "What I meant was...".

I really don't understand your position. "What I meant was..." moments happen all the time with Bush, have you just managed to miss them? Usually it is a White House spokesman not Bush himself giving the correction.

"Historical inaccuracies involved, constitutional errors": Perhaps, but McCain can't remember the difference between Shiites and Sunnis (although Lieberman keeps reminding him). Even very smart people make these kinds of mistakes---how you tell that they are smart is by how they fix them. Bush never fixes his mistakes when he is speaking. Obama and McCain both usually do. "Lack of knowledge of economic concepts" I think has to be judged by policies, for which Obama has the clear advantage over McCain.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

To point out a couple of things:

1. Obama ain't quite as smoove as people seem to think.

2. The hypocrisy of all of you who make fun of Bush for the same exact thing.

It's not hypocrisy, it's 7+ years of material, not only showing a lack of comfort in his subject matter but also in the English language, and having a record of sheer incompetence to accommodate all of this. The Daily Show will surely miss Bush.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And Mario Cuomo's DNC Keynote in 1984, the FIVE speeches he has ripped from Duval Patrick, JFK, the Founding Fathers, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc. etc. etc.

Besides, Axelrod supposedly "writes" Obama's speeches.

Sorry to burst your bubble in re your Messiah.

AFAIK Axelrod is Obama's campaign adviser, not a speech writer. If I'm wrong, do you have a source?

The Messiah comment was unnecessary.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

2. The hypocrisy of all of you who make fun of Bush for the same exact thing.

It is entertaining at that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Obama:




Bush:

Hehehe! This is funny because Bush's last name is a type of plant, while Obama's last name is nothing!!

Nicely done

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not hypocrisy, it's 7+ years of material, not only showing a lack of comfort in his subject matter but also in the English language

Yes, it is hypocrisy. People on the left were bashing Bush from day one. (with the exception of the brief hiatus after 9/11) When he screws up, he an idiot. When Obama does it, people either plug their ears and pretend they didn't notice or make excuses for him like those above.

It's not a big deal to me that he makes these gaffes. I don't even care about the obvious falsehoods like the liberation of Auschwitz or the fact that he implied that parents met because of a civil rights march that didn't happen until after he was born. All of that is just more of the same political claptrap that we hear every election season.

I have a problem all of the people who are under the delusion that because he can recite a speech as if it were his own, he is as smart as he seems and that because he is young and fresh he will somehow be different. Well, the "change" and "hope" rhetoric has been used before. In fact it's used ALL THE TIME. None if his ideas are anything even remotely new. In fact they are the same old liberal ideas that they have been talking about for decades.

[Eug]

Meh. I've been saying all along that Obama sounds like he doesn't have a very strong grasp of some issues, at least when he was debating against Hillary. However, I do agree that Obama "sounds better" when saying stupid things. Bush does come across as an idiot sometimes, perhaps just because of his personality. Obama has more charisma, which can mask n00bness on some subjects.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The Messiah comment was unnecessary.

Messiah: "One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator." American Heritage Dictionary

or if you'd like, the built-in OS X dictionary:

2. Leader of saviour of a particular group or cause.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Eug 

. Obama has more charisma, which can mask n00bness on some subjects.

I do agree there.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes, it is hypocrisy. People on the left were bashing Bush from day one. (with the exception of the brief hiatus after 9/11) When he screws up, he an idiot. When Obama does it, people either plug their ears and pretend they didn't notice or make excuses for him like those above.

That's because Obama is generally a great speaker and Bush is generally not. Similarly, if an NFL player has a bad day, I'm not going to go, "Oh, I could take that wimp!" We know he can do it, so when he occasionally stumbles, we're more apt to forgive than with somebody who hasn't proven himself competent.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes, it is hypocrisy. People on the left were bashing Bush from day one. (with the exception of the brief hiatus after 9/11) When he screws up, he an idiot. When Obama does it, people either plug their ears and pretend they didn't notice or make excuses for him like those above.

It's not a big deal to me that he makes these gaffes. I don't even care about the obvious falsehoods like the liberation of Auschwitz or the fact that he implied that parents met because of a civil rights march that didn't happen until after he was born. All of that is just more of the same political claptrap that we hear every election season.

I have a problem all of the people who are under the delusion that because he can recite a speech as if it were his own, he is as smart as he seems and that because he is young and fresh he will somehow be different. Well, the "change" and "hope" rhetoric has been used before. In fact it's used ALL THE TIME. None if his ideas are anything even remotely new. In fact they are the same old liberal ideas that they have been talking about for decades.

I see what you're saying, and I actually agree now that I fully understand what you meant... However, just to be clear, while I agree that there are those on the left who treat Bush's little slip ups as red meat, speaking for myself, I don't really give a crap either about the harmless misspeaking he does. I mean, it's embarrassing and worth a giggle that he makes up words like "misunderestimate", but it is very weak argumentative material.

Still, I gotta say, as a whole, taking everything into account, Bush still seems like a complete moron compared to any other candidate. Granted, this is just my gut feeling/perceptions, so I'm just saying this FFIW (which is probably not a whole lot)...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Messiah: "One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator." American Heritage Dictionary

or if you'd like, the built-in OS X dictionary:

2. Leader of saviour of a particular group or cause.

Messiah also has a religious connotation to it, somebody infallible and not of this Earth that will lead us to a wonderful place filled with rainbows and unicorns - a benevolent dictator. I hold much more reservation and doubt than that, and any optimism I feel is of the cautious variety.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

While GWB will struggle speaking at times, the content is always consistent with what he said yesterday, last week, last month, etc.

Yes it's easy to be consistently empty-headed and dumb.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

You've convinced me.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes, it is hypocrisy. People on the left were bashing Bush from day one. (with the exception of the brief hiatus after 9/11) When he screws up, he an idiot. When Obama do

The difference is that these are the occasional mistakes that Obama makes, like everyone. I don't think you could put together the same length of tape of Bush getting it right.

[besson3c]

Bush's "consistency" can easily be argued as a flaw of his, not a virtue - his ideology has remained exactly consistent even when things have proven to have not worked out or reality as we know it has changed. He has rarely, if ever changed course, and when he has it has often been too late...

- troop levels in Iraq: too late

- acknowledging global warming: took a long time, Bush's environmental benchmarks are not aggressive enough

- economy: trickle down economics have steadily make our economy worse in expanding the gaps between the rich and poor. This country is starting to become an aristocracy. Bush still hasn't figured out how to prevent going further into debt by streamlining government inefficiencies (e.g. earmarks). I know that many here will say that Clinton did too little about earmarks too, and to that I'd agree, but Bush does sign off on these budgets...

- FEMA: slow, ineffective, even to this present day (e.g. Indiana floods)

- No Child Left Behind: not working, reports from teachers fall upon deaf ears

- 9/11 Commission: ignored

- Afghanistan mission: not completed

- Report that came out last week that said that the Bush administration acted on faulty intelligence in instigating the Iraq war: was due out in 2005, will probably be ignored now

- Katrina warnings: ignored


Being consistent is great, but being so consistent as to be slow to respond and to be oblivious or in denial about reality is not a good trait....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You've convinced me.

For real. I've not seen such hatred for one man. One of our "progressives" suggested that Cheney should die in another thread. What the?!? Then, these hand cymbal-crashing monkeys get their panties wadded up at the suggestion that maybe their hatred knows no limits such as wishing perhaps we lose more soldiers in Iraq. After all this would help make their political point and really, given the above it's not that much of a stretch. Others who feel passionately about this and may be in general agreement with them should smack them down for perpetuating the generalizations.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You've convinced me.

Are you including yourself?

[Kerrigan]

The question that so many have asked of Bush is, Has this man obtained impeccable credentials through his own work, or is it the result of institutional bias? And if we are to value the intellect of the man in the oval office, then the very same questions must be asked of Obama.

[Macrobat]

If Obama's off the teleprompter, he's a moron:

YouTube - Sen. Obama Won't Vet The Vetters

And Besson3, messiah is the perfect term. You and others like you can find NO wrong with the man, despite the MOUNTAIN of evidence to the contrary.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

or if you'd like, the built-in OS X dictionary:

2. Leader of saviour of a particular group or cause.

Hey! You're misnomering the coolest application on OS X.

It is not a "built-in OS X dictionary." It's the Oxford Dictionary of English / New Thesaurus of English (2003) by Oxford University Press.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

If Obama's off the teleprompter, he's a moron:

YouTube - Sen. Obama Won't Vet The Vetters

And Besson3, messiah is the perfect term. You and others like you can find NO wrong with the man, despite the MOUNTAIN of evidence to the contrary.

A moron is someone who squashes ice creams into his forehead.

[ironknee]

happy days are here again...

no more spend and bomb

[art_director]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

- FEMA: slow, ineffective, even to this present day (e.g. Indiana floods)

According to this article FEMA is still botching the Katrina effort three years after the event.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

A moron is someone who squashes ice creams into his forehead.

[hyteckit]

McCain thinks Putin is the President of Germany.

YouTube - McCain thinks Putin is the President of Germany

Say what?

He was either lying about the whole event, mistaken Russia for Germany, or mistaken the President of Germany for Putin.

[Chuckit]

Or he got his names mixed up. My mom used to constantly call me by my brother's name, but I'm pretty sure she knew who I was.

[Eug]

Jean Poutine

[besson3c]

Yeah, sometimes I feel like calling Chuckit "Fred" for some reason, I can fully empathize...