The Guardian: The question that flummoxed the great orator

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

I've noticed a slow but steady increase in the number of articles and news stories that are critical, not of Obama necessarily, but of his policies.

Many of those who should have been more dubious of this guy from the get go are indeed finally beginning to peer through the veil. But all of those who knew, or hoped, all along what he was, are far too invested in his success to ever be truthful or honest about him.

Oakman wrote:

It is unfortunate, to my mind, that small-minded people like Troy concentrate on Obama's speaking ability - which is obviously heads and shoulders above either of the Bushs' or even Clinton's - and think somehow that they are saying something important.

Maybe, but I think too many make too much of Obama's oratory skills. Well practiced? Yes. Indicative of some innate intellectual depth? Hardly. When speaking off the cuff this guy struggles to get a coherent thought out as much as Bush ever did. In fact, even though I used to cringe a lot when listening to Bush, Obama is far more painful to listen to, and not just in content but in manner of delivery. What many confuse with introspective thougthfullness is actually little more than struggling to remember the correct moderate sounding script.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

What many confuse with introspective thougthfullness is actually little more than struggling to remember the correct moderate sounding script.

Or could it just be that he is trying to find the right diplomatic answer. A simple yes or no could potentially have far reaching implications back home.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Or could it just be that he is trying to find the right diplomatic answer. A simple yes or no could potentially have far reaching implications back home.

Which is just another way of saying "struggling to remember the correct moderate sounding script". This guy is the President of the United States, the correct diplomatic answer is always some version of - "We're great, you suck." How hard can that be to remember? The American people have sacrificed too much for the freedom, liberty and well being of the rest of the world to expect anything less from our leadership. The truth is that at G20, Obama got played like a fiddle by the leaders of the rest of the world. He proved himself to be precisely the weak, inexperienced leader, leftist leaning nobody many of us thought he was from the beginning. He groveled and prostrated himself before the arrogant Europeans, gave them nearly everything they wanted, apologized to them for the ignorant backwardness of the AMerican people, and got absolutely nothing in return.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Ilion]

Oakman wrote:

It is unfortunate, to my mind, that small-minded people like Troy concentrate on Obama's speaking ability - which is obviously heads and shoulders above either of the Bushs' or even Clinton's - and think somehow that they are saying something important.

You're such a lying fool. As we all know: 1) I'm mocking the worship of the Obamaessiah 2) Mr Obama cannot speak unless he has something to read ___(in his favor, most people, including myself, can't read aloud as smoothly as he does) 3) Mocking the attitude which uncritically (as in, *refused* to examine the man) put such a dangerous man into the office is always a good thing 4) That mocking thses things provokes such anger in fools such as you is also always a good thing

[Ilion]

Stan Shannon wrote:

The truth is that at G20, Obama got played like a fiddle by the leaders of the rest of the world. He proved himself to be precisely the weak, inexperienced leader, leftist leaning nobody many of us thought he was from the beginning. He groveled and prostrated himself before the arrogant Europeans, gave them nearly everything they wanted, apologized to them for the ignorant backwardness of the AMerican people, and got absolutely nothing in return.

And he *bowed* to the Saudi king. American citizens do not bow to princes! American officials assuredly do not bow to princes!

[Brady Kelly]

Ilíon wrote:

And he *bowed* to the Saudi king.

Methinks he doth protest too much at seeing the President's arse raised before his hungry eyes. :laugh:

[Stan Shannon]

Ilíon wrote:

American citizens do not bow to princes! American officials assuredly do not bow to princes!

Apparently, this is some of the "change" we were all supposed to hope for. I suppose bowing and scraping will be part of the curriculum for American students from now on.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Ilion]

Stan Shannon wrote:

The truth is that just as Bush could do nothing correctly, Obama can do nothing wrong. Those in control of spin, aside from those few with sufficient intellectual honesty to at least acknowledge the obvious, will make sure of that.

Amusingly, The Guardian is the British version of the NYT.

[Stan Shannon]

Ilíon wrote:

Amusingly, The Guardian is the British version of the NYT.

Some of the British press, at least, still appear to have a smidgen of journalistic integrity left. There is none to be found anywhere in the US. There is a tightly controlled leftist intellectual cabal in control of the democrat party, the educational institutions, the news media, and much of the entertainment industry. One can only wonder who they are all actually answering to.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

None of that I presume. More like following etiquette guidelines by exercising common courtesy. You should read nothing into any act of bowing. Perhaps the concept of "while in Rome..." is relevant? Anyhow, using terms like "We're great, you suck." is arrogant and will not win you many friends.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

You should read nothing into any act of bowing.

To an American bowing to some political authority is the most offensive gesture one could be expected to make. Our entire revolution was about not being required to do that. It sort of defines us as a people. Why can't that be respected by the rest of you? Just checking around, I found this[^] picture. Is Bush bowing? Or lowering his head enough for the old guy to get the medal on? Either way, it is offensive enough. But Obama has gone far beyond that.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Anyhow, using terms like "We're great, you suck." is arrogant and will not win you many friends.

I already have all the friends I need. I will never think of my country as being a nation among equals. If the rest of the world didn't suck, so many people would have never made the nearly suicidal effort to get here to build this country in the first damn place. I have no desire to re-integrate into it as an equal. To do so is the grossest imaginable insult to the people who built the US. Obama and his minions can kiss my butt.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well practiced? Yes. Indicative of some innate intellectual depth? Hardly.

Nor is it indicative of a lack of same. Dutch Reagan was the epitome of the ability to deliver a speech brilliantly - and he was the architet of his administration's triumphs and failure - but he had no particular ability to speak off the cuff without pausing for ers and umms and backtracking as much as Obama does. The ability to deliver a speech well is a good thing for a politician to have. And it is unfortunate that since Reagan the Republican party has not been able to come up with a candidate for President who could do so. But, per se, it does not win you elections - ask Eugene McCarthy, or Adlai Stephenson both of whom were brilliant public speakers both with written material and off the cuff. Let us focus on what Obama does and leave his use of the teleprompter to those who cannot comprehend the more important matters.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Ilíon wrote:

American citizens do not bow to princes!

Obviously you have never been introduced to the queen.

Ilíon wrote:

American officials assuredly do not bow to princes!

If we take Bush as our example, American officials kiss princes and hold their hands. Why do you waste our time with such pettiness? Have you nothing important to say?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Ilíon wrote:

I'm mocking the worship of the Obamaessiah

As Christian said, you make yourself out to be a fool, not Obama.

Ilíon wrote:

That mocking thses things provokes such anger in fools such as you is also always a good thing

I'm not sure you have ever made me angry, Troy. You've made me laugh -at you, not with you - many times. Bored me often, possibily irritated me with your constant links to other people's opinions when you have nothing to say for yourself, but actually angry? Possible, I suppose, but I can't remember it.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

One can only wonder who they are all actually answering to.

Maybe Eisenhower is still alive. :~

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Nobody is suggesting that the United States should be "Europe version 2". As such, neither should you consider yourself superior to the rest of the world, and vice versa. Thus the question of equality is only relevant if you are comparing like with like.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Obama and his minions can kiss my butt.

But would they want to :-\

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Maybe Eisenhower is still alive.

Hey, I'm willing to believe anything at this point.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm willing to believe anything at this point.

I've noticed.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Nor is it indicative of a lack of same.

But one wonders when the great intellect will actually make itselk known. Dispite a rather lackluster life in terms of actual accomplishments, we keep being told that he is some kind of intellectual giant among men. Well, I want to see actual evidence of it. Sure, he is the very living embodiment of liberal intellectual principles, but that doesn't mean squat to me.

Oakman wrote:

Dutch Reagan was the epitome of the ability to deliver a speech brilliantly - and he was the architet of his administration's triumphs and failure - but he had no particular ability to speak off the cuff without pausing for ers and umms and backtracking as much as Obama does.

I seem to recall that he was actually rather glib.

Oakman wrote:

The ability to deliver a speech well is a good thing for a politician to have. And it is unfortunate that since Reagan the Republican party has not been able to come up with a candidate for President who could do so. But, per se, it does not win you elections - ask Eugene McCarthy, or Adlai Stephenson both of whom were brilliant public speakers both with written material and off the cuff.

I think any speaker will do better when acutally voicing the things they believe in. The problem with republicans is that they are trying really hard not to offend anyone becuase of how it will be used in the media. But, point taken, there are no great conservative orators in public office these days. Obama, for his part, actual speaks quite articulately when talking about how wealth needs to be redistributed, or how the US sucks, or some such collectivist mantra that he is more comfortable with. It is when he tries to portray himself as some kind of moderate centrist that he has problems finding the right words.

Oakman wrote:

Let us focus on what Obama does and leave his use of the teleprompter to those who cannot comprehend the more important matters.

Sorry, but my ethnic propensities prevent me from rising to that level of maturity. These assholes picked the ground to fight on, and I intend to do everything I can to oblige them. I read this post on a site dealing with similar subject matter, and it summarises my feelings quite eloquently: I am already tired of all the manufactured excitement

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that the United States should be "Europe version 2".

I think that is essentially exactly what is not only being suggested, but demanded. Otherwise, why would there be so much international angst over, hostility towards, and fear mongering about any of the traditional principles of American civilization otherwise known as 'conservatism'.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.