HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Did Obama really say that?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did Obama really say that?

post #1 of 80
5/22/08 at 6:04am
Thread Starter 
So Scotch and Tech have decided to derail another thread and I thought i'd try and lead the lost sheep to a new promised land.

Here is what Obama has said:

Quote:
All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of “potatoe.” The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush’s questions about new scanner technology at a grocers’ convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy’s a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil-rights movement as a whole.”

Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multibillion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup: “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense-authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear-waste site.

Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama’s Dreams from My Father: “Then, there’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don’t exist, say the magazine’s own historians.”

And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

Barack Obama — promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah — is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
Hmmmm, nothing in there about what Scotch and Tech are arguing over.

Pretty silly stuff though.
Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
Educational videos for new investors!
e-mini S&P Futures Trading
post #2 of 80
5/22/08 at 1:54pm
Let's talk about gas prices and tootsie rolls....



.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 80
5/22/08 at 8:35pm
Hey, let's derail this thread too!

What happened in the other thread was quite different. First, a comedy writer wrote a spoof of a campaign speech. Then Republican bloggers took this spoof and attributed it to Obama. Then someone here quoted Obama as having said something he never said, which lead to a debate over whether the comment was defensible.

So if I derailed the thread by interjecting truth...no, I'm not going to apologize. It was already derailed.

As for the above quotes, most of these do seem authentic, but give the guy a break if he mispeaks now and then. Didn't McCain confuse the Sunnis and Shiites recently? I'm sure one could compile quite the list of gaffes for any public figure, and if you put them all together you can make anyone seem like a "walking, talking gaffe machine".

But take any individual speech by either McCain or Obama, and they come across like what they are: vastly more articulate and knowledgeable than the current guy occupying the oval office. Who actually IS a "walking, talking gaffe machine" who can barely read a teleprompter properly.

Pretty much the ding against Obama in the list above that has any substance are his comments on Iran, which are taken out of context. He was defending his willingness to talk to these countries by pointing out (correctly, IMO):

"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take."
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 80
5/22/08 at 9:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchfaster View Post
Hey, let's derail this thread too!

Pretty much the ding against Obama in the list above that has any substance are his comments on Iran, which are taken out of context. He was defending his willingness to talk to these countries by pointing out (correctly, IMO):
Democrats have been talking and blabbering since 1948 when
Arabs first said they would fight to the death to wipe out Israel.

Jimmy Carter got two of them marked for death at Camp David.

Clinton kept sending Albright to do a man's job, that really
pissed off the Arabs...

end result:
No changes in the attitudes to wipe
Israel off the face of the earth.

So, THE CHOICES ARE:
Quote:
“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and
radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them
they have been wrong all along. "
or....

Is it the Democrats just like to hear themselves talk ENDLESSLY?




.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 80
5/22/08 at 10:13pm
Speaking of gaffes

Did you guys hear McCain accidentally call himself a liberal a few months ago....LOL!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 80
5/22/08 at 10:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchfaster View Post
As for the above quotes, most of these do seem authentic, but give the guy a break if he mispeaks now and then.
I believe you're right, we ought to give public speakers a break if they mispeak every now and again.


Quote:
Didn't McCain confuse the Sunnis and Shiites recently?
He did, for about 5 seconds, then he corrected himself.

Quote:
I'm sure one could compile quite the list of gaffes for any public figure, and if you put them all together you can make anyone seem like a "walking, talking gaffe machine".
Yep, we are agreed on that. Only, for some reason, this agreement is only applied to liberals and more importantly, Democrats.

Quote:
But take any individual speech by either McCain or Obama, and they come across like what they are: vastly more articulate and knowledgeable than the current guy occupying the oval office. Who actually IS a "walking, talking gaffe machine" who can barely read a teleprompter properly.
See what I mean? This is 100% innacurate. However, because Obama will continue to get breaks and so will McCain, because he's a "maverick" which means he likes to stick his thumb in the eye of conservatives and Republicans, they'll never appear as bad as President Bush because they won't hang the "mission accomplished" sign around their necks three times a week every week for the rest of their careers. Instead, they'll excuse Obama's gaffes just as you have.

Quote:
Pretty much the ding against Obama in the list above that has any substance are his comments on Iran, which are taken out of context. He was defending his willingness to talk to these countries by pointing out (correctly, IMO):
A sucker is born every minute and you are one of them if you believe this garbage.

It's a distraction, not a defence of his willingness to talk to these countries. The criticism which Obama attempts to avoid is not his "willingness to talk to these countries" as Obama has duped you into believing. The criticism is his willingness to talk to the leaders of these countries "without preconditions".

Quote:
"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take."
Of course, just like most other dishonest politicians, he's already taken the above back by subsequently saying:

Quote:
I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.
As a matter of fact, the more Obama speaks about history in this regard the more he puts his foot in his mouth. He thinks that Kennedy meeting with Kruschev is a good example of Presidents meeting with enemy leaders. He also thinks when that meeting took place we were on the brink of Nuclear war.

How ignorant of history is this guy?

The Cuban missle crisis didn't happen until over a year after Kennedy met with Kruschev. Not only that, but we were on the brink of nuclear war over a year later with the Cuban missile crisis because Kennedy met with Kruschev. Kruschev found Kennedy to be so weak a leader that he thought he could get away with intimidating the United States.

Fortunately for us, Kennedy grew a spine and Kruschev impression of Kennedy was wrong. But it is indisputable historically that Obama's example of Kennedy meeting with Kruschev was somehow a good example. It is exactly what we ought to avoid, not emulate.

But let's keep pointing out A: Obama's silly gaffes because B: You and the MSM aren't going to give Conservatives a break when they commit similar gaffes, as you demonstrated above with President Bush.

Case in point, Obama has made these several gaffes in less than a year. President Bush has had 8 years to make his gaffes and Obama is surpassing President Bush already.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 80
5/23/08 at 4:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi
Case in point, Obama has made these several gaffes in less than a year. President Bush has had 8 years to make his gaffes and Obama is surpassing President Bush already.
That's just silly.

Baggi, I enjoy a compendium of GWB gaffes as much as the next guy. It's funny when he lets loose a whopper like "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" or "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." When it comes to verbal missteps, GWB is king. And this is why, in my opinion, that he's had the fewest press conferences of any president in the age of TV.

Obama has actually been campaigning day after day, giving countless speeches and endless debates. It's an apples to oranges comparison, and not even a good one.

But at the end of the day, do I care if Bush announces that "Too many Ob-Gyns aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country"? No. I care more that he spoke in length about how he sacrificed the game of golf for the troops. I care about the video showing him using a woman as a Kleenex to clean his glasses. I care that he sold the repeal of the Estate Tax as a measure to help family farms, and he said this with as much conviction as I've seen him display over any issue. I care about these things because I think it actually shows a psychological disorder, characterized by a complete lack of empathy.

Ultimately though, I don't care about any of these things - and I DON'T jump on him for his miscues the way you've jumped on Obama (who incidentally, also corrected himself for his mistake in the Kansas speech). I care about his policies, or rather, his administration's policies, which I think have been harmful to the vast majority of this country.

I fully expect that a McCain presidency would be little different from a Bush presidency in many ways, but McCain shows an intelligence and a command of the English language that GWB just doesn't possess. Your charge that "You and the MSM aren't going to give Conservatives a break when they commit similar gaffes, as you demonstrated above with President Bush" just doesn't stick. First, I don't go out of my way to point out that George W. Bush sounds like a dumbass, and secondly, this has nothing to do with his politics.

But you want to talk politics now?

Yes, I expected you'd say that diplomacy wasn't what prevented nuclear war, it was toughness, or outspending the USSR, or whatever. The truth is that we did all of the above. Some treaties were ratified as a result, and I do think the meetings did ratchet tensions down between the two countries. So why all of a sudden are we not willing to talk to our enemies? What do we gain from refusing to talk to North Korea, Cuba or Venezuela? Note that I'm not saying "give concessions to", I'm saying talk with them.

You suggest that "we were on the brink of nuclear war over a year later with the Cuban missile crisis because Kennedy met with Kruschev." This is speculation, and so I'll speculate further that we'd have been a lot closer to the brink of nuclear war many times over if we'd refused to have meetings with the Soviet Union. But we're both just speculating. Perhaps Khrushchev would have deployed missiles in any case.

However, part of the reason Khrushchev gave for supplying missiles to Cuba was to prevent us from launching another Bay of Pigs-style attack. In other words:
  • We attempted regime change in another country
  • It failed, turning the people against us
  • Our greater enemy saw an opportunity and took advantage
  • The result was increased tensions and less security

That's how I read history. I think we would have been much better off talking to Castro...and besides, we've gotten in bed with far worse (Pinochet, Saddam, etc).
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 80
5/23/08 at 5:29pm
Thread Starter 
Actually, you are mischaracterizing my position. More on that in a minute.

Quote:
Obama has actually been campaigning day after day, giving countless speeches and endless debates. It's an apples to oranges comparison, and not even a good one.
It is an apples to oranges comparison, that you started. Indeed, President Bush has campaigned probably 10 times or maybe even 50 times more frequently and often than Obama. Not only did he campaign in Texas twice but he has already gone through two Presidential primaries which get more coverage and two Presidential general elections, which get more coverage, plus he has campaigned for Republicans around this country as President during the off season.

It's just silly to think that Obama has had more time for gaffes and made fewer than Bush. Obama is half the intellect of President Bush and twice the gaffe machine. But he's a black man and a Democrat, so you'll never notice.

Quote:
No. I care more that he spoke in length about how he sacrificed the game of golf for the troops.
This is not what President Bush said, this is Keith Olbermann's spin of what President Bush said.

Quote:
I care about these things because I think it actually shows a psychological disorder, characterized by a complete lack of empathy.
It's Democrats and liberals who hate President Bush so much that they cannot see clearly who have the psychological disorder. The man was being empathetic when he quit playing golf. President Bush quit playing golf a long time ago but we only realized it recently, because he didn't parade it on the news to score points. Obama is the type of fellow who wouldn't really quit playing golf but would tell us he did and you Democrats would cheer him for being empathetic.

Quote:
fully expect that a McCain presidency would be little different from a Bush presidency in many ways, but McCain shows an intelligence and a command of the English language that GWB just doesn't possess.
For now he gets a break because he hasn't won yet. If he becomes President, the hatred folks like you have for President Bush will be supplanted by your new hatred for McCain, who, like President Bush, will be 10 times worse than that last guy, whatsisname? and the new devil incarnate.

Now, back to the lack of knowledge that Obama has of American History.

Quote:
Yes, I expected you'd say that diplomacy wasn't what prevented nuclear war, it was toughness, or outspending the USSR, or whatever.
This is a complete mischaracterization of what ive said. Actually, its sucking up Obama's spin completely without even a filter.

Diplomacy is definately needed. Tough diplomacy especially. Bolton was one of the United States greatest diplomats and I hope someday he returns to the U.N.

Meeting with world leaders like those of Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela, without preconditions is the problem. Not diplomacy.

Quote:
The truth is that we did all of the above.
Yep, we did.

Quote:
So why all of a sudden are we not willing to talk to our enemies?
Has this lie gotten halfway around the world yet? It's time for the truth to put its shoes on.

We are willing to talk to our enemies and have been. It's ignorance to state otherwise. We do have diplomatic relations with Iran, as an example.

However, our head of state, President Bush, will not sit down with these guys like Obama wants to, because it will be a propaganda victory for these guys and just like the Cuban missle crises, it will lead to more trouble for the United States, not less.

Quote:
You suggest that "we were on the brink of nuclear war over a year later with the Cuban missile crisis because Kennedy met with Kruschev." This is speculation,
Really? Is there any history professor in the United States that would disagree with this?

I find it hard to believe that you are as ignorant of history as Obama is. Search on the left and the right and tell me the name of a historian who believes otherwise.

Quote:
and so I'll speculate further that we'd have been a lot closer to the brink of nuclear war many times over if we'd refused to have meetings with the Soviet Union.
Again, it isn't refusing to meet with other countries that is at issue here. Once again you mischaracterize the issue I and others have with Obamas unseriousness and lack of knowledge about history.

Having diplomatic relations with folks like Russia is perfectly acceptable. Even necessary. Having meetings with heads of state (Which are our enemies and seek our harm) without preconditions by our President is utterly foolish.

He will meet without preconditions with these guys because he believes, in his heart, like a lot of Democrats and liberals, that American is evil and we need to follow the rest of the world. That's why he says asinine things like:

Quote:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.
In Obama's world, leadership is meeting, without preconditions, with these folks, then coming back to the American people and telling us that we need to stop using energy, stop driving SUV's and stop eating as much as we want.

Good luck with that.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 80
5/23/08 at 5:35pm
Thread Starter 
More history. Obama seems to think him and President Kennedy are in agreement. This just shows what an ignoramous Obama is.

From the second Kennedy-Nixon debate.

Quote:
MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Vice President, according to news dispatches Soviet Premier Khrushchev said today that Prime Minister Macmillan had assured him that there would be a summit conference next year after the presidential elections. Have you given any cause for such assurance, and do you consider it desirable or even possible that there would be a summit conference next year if Mr. Khrushchev persists in the conditions he's laid down?

MR. NIXON: No, of course I haven't talked to Prime Minister Macmillan. It would not be appropriate for me to do so. The President is still going to be president for the next four months and he, of course, is the only one who could commit this country in this period. As far as a summit conference is concerned, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I would be willing as president to meet with Mr. Khrushchev or any other world leader if it would serve the cause of peace. I would not be able wou- would be willing to meet with him however, unless there were preparations for that conference which would give us some reasonable certainty - some reasonable certainty - that you were going to have some success. We must not build up the hopes of the world and then dash them as was the case in Paris. There, Mr. Khrushchev came to that conference determined to break it up. He was going to break it up because he would - knew that he wasn't going to get his way on Berlin and on the other key matters with which he was concerned at the Paris Conference. Now, if we're going to have another summit conference, there must be negotiations at the diplomatic level - the ambassadors, the Secretaries of State, and others at that level - prior to that time, which will delineate the issues and which will prepare the way for the heads of state to meet and make some progress. Otherwise, if we find the heads of state meeting and not making progress, we will find that the cause of peace will have been hurt rather than helped. So under these circumstances, I, therefore, strongly urge and I will strongly hold, if I have the opportunity to urge or to hold - this position: that any summit conference would be gone into only after the most careful preparation and only after Mr. Khrushchev - after his disgraceful conduct at Paris, after his disgraceful conduct at the United Nations - gave some assurance that he really wanted to sit down and talk and to accomplish something and not just to make propaganda.

Frank McGee then asked Kennedy for his response:
MR. KENNEDY: I have no disagreement with the Vice President's position on that. It - my view is the same as his. Let me say there is only one uh - point I would add. That before we go into the summit, before we ever meet again, I think it's important that the United States build its strength; that it build its military strength as well as its own economic strength. If we negotiate from a position where the power balance or wave is moving away from us, it's extremely difficult to reach a successful decision on Berlin as well as the other questions. Now the next president of the United States in his first year is going to be confronted with a very serious question on our defense of Berlin, our commitment to Berlin. It's going to be a test of our nerve and will. It's going to be a test of our strength. And because we're going to move in sixty-one and two, partly because we have not maintained our strength with sufficient vigor in the last years, I believe that before we meet that crisis, that the next president of the United States should send a message to Congress asking for a revitalization of our military strength, because come spring or late in the winter we're going to be face to face with the most serious Berlin crisis since l949 or fifty. On the question of the summit, I agree with the position of Mr. Nixon. I would not meet Mr. Khrushchev unless there were some agreements at the secondary level - foreign ministers or ambassadors - which would indicate that the meeting would have some hope of success, or a useful exchange of ideas.
I find it amazing that people might think that Obama actually has a similar outlook on foreign policy to Kennedy.

It makes me sad to think how ignorant of history our society is and that they might be getting their information from Obama stump speeches.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 80
5/23/08 at 5:57pm
Baggi, the question is not whether Khrushchev shipped missiles to Cuba after he met with Kennedy. The question is whether he shipped missiles to Cuba because he met with Kennedy. Do you honestly think the failed attempt at regime change in Cuba had nothing to do with it? Do you honestly think Khrushchev decided to put missiles in Cuba simply because Kennedy made the mistake of meeting with him?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 80
5/23/08 at 10:51pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchfaster View Post
Baggi, the question is not whether Khrushchev shipped missiles to Cuba after he met with Kennedy. The question is whether he shipped missiles to Cuba because he met with Kennedy. Do you honestly think the failed attempt at regime change in Cuba had nothing to do with it? Do you honestly think Khrushchev decided to put missiles in Cuba simply because Kennedy made the mistake of meeting with him?
Yes, exactly right, the question is not whether missiles were shipped after, but if they were shipped because.

As to your first question, I never said it had nothing to do with it. In his own memoirs Khrushchev wrote that he was protecting Cuba from another U.S. invasion. He also wrote in those same memoirs that he thought Kennedy, because of that meeting in Vienna in 1961, was a lightweight and easily pushed around.

On the other hand, Obama seems to think he ought to have a repeat performance with Ahmedinijad of Iran.

Why can't you just admit that your guy was wrong? We were not "on the brink of nuclear war" as Obama said when Kennedy met with Khrushchev, the Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't until 15 months after that meeting.

When it comes to U.S. History and Foreign Policy, Obama is a lightweight. And the sooner he retracts his statement from the earlier debates where he said he would meet these leaders without pre-conditions and admits his ignorance about the Kennedy administration the sooner we get on with finding a candidate more suitable to be our commander in chief.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 80
5/23/08 at 10:56pm
Thread Starter 
Also, it isn't just gaffes that has me thinking Obama can't carry President Bush's water. The guy can't even own up to his own mistakes.

ABC news Political Punch. I found this quite revealing about Obama's character. Blame everything on someone else.

Quote:
We started covering Sen. Barack Obama's inability to hire good staffers in June 2007, when he blamed staffers for some opposition research trying to link Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to outsourcing in India; for injecting some venom in the David Geffen/Hillary Clinton fight; and for missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire.

In December, we noted again that Obama was blaming the answers on a 1996 questionnaire on a staffer; and was blaming his touring with "cured" ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (which antagonized gays and lesbians) on bad vetting by his staff.

Those five buck-passing incidents were apparently not enough.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 80
5/24/08 at 4:47am
Obama may make the occasional mistake, just like anyone. However, he didn't make the collosal mistake of the other two presidential hopefuls by thinking that authorizing the invasion of Iraq might be a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi
Obama is half the intellect of President Bush and twice the gaffe machine. But he's a black man and a Democrat, so you'll never notice.
Insulting and untrue. Face it - Reagan was called many things, but not dumb. Some goes for George senior. GWB is on video confusing his left hand with his right. Seriously now...I don't consider you stupid because your views are on the Right, but watching GWB trying read a teleprompter makes me cringe.

I'll add too that I've actually enjoyed watching John McCain in interviews and in town hall meetings, although I hope he's not elected president. He strikes me as a real person who is attempting to communicate rather than manipulate. I never had this impression of George W. Bush.

Obama has my support because his views most closely match my own. The fact that he is an intelligent speaker (more so in his interviews and debates than public speeches) is simply a bonus. My politics don't enter into that estimation at all.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 80
5/24/08 at 7:31am
Reagan the appeaser:

Reply
Reply
post #15 of 80
5/24/08 at 6:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by StockJock-e View Post
Reagan the appeaser:
The non-Project Stars wars was brilliant!
And the walls came tumbling DOWN!


.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 80
5/24/08 at 6:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotchfaster View Post
Insulting and untrue. Face it - Reagan was called many things, but not dumb. Some goes for George senior. GWB is on video confusing his left hand with his right. Seriously now...I don't consider you stupid because your views are on the Right, but watching GWB trying read a teleprompter makes me cringe.
How cool, calm and collected are you in front of a
camera and the entire world is watching you? It
takes either theatric training or a GIANT F**KING
EGO (like most Democrats...) to do it with panache.

I bet most people, including YOU & me would choke.
Bush does pretty good with a 25% choke rate. The
only people such as yourself that notice the screwups
is during the 25%.

Give it a rest, Opie.




.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 80
5/24/08 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
How cool, calm and collected are you in front of a
camera and the entire world is watching you? It
takes either theatric training or a GIANT F**KING
EGO (like most Democrats...) to do it with panache.

I bet most people, including YOU & me would choke.
Bush does pretty good with a 25% choke rate. The
only people such as yourself that notice the screwups
is during the 25%.
You're right - although most of us would not choke up so badly as to confuse our left with our right hands (and the sad thing is that looks to me like GWB practiced that particular gesture). Where Obama messes up is when he veers into hyperbole, which we ALL do, no exception. The Soviet Union never threatened to wipe us off the Earth ("we will bury you" apparently was intended to mean "we will outlast you"), except in the sense that they presented an enormous military threat than in a way did threaten to wipe us off the Earth. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't read Obama's comments as applying specifically to the Cuban missile crisis but instead to the Cold War in general.

However, start at the first posting and you'll see we've come full circle. The occasional gaffe isn't the issue, and I've said as much. It was Baggi who implied that if Obama didn't remember which magazine published an article he read when he was nine years old, he's unfit to lead.

This followed a similar pattern as another thread that went like this:

1. Conservative poster: "You liberals/MSM give Obama special treatment because he's black. You're racist."

2. Liberal poster: "How can you say Obama gets special treatment for being black when certain white candidates/former presidents are held to lower standards (examples cited)?"

3. Conservative poster: "See, you're just obsessed with race. Disgusting."

I'd personally much rather debate the substance than the style, but that's up to you guys.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 80
5/24/08 at 11:47pm
Thread Starter 
Actually, you misunderstood.

My point wasn't that Obama is gaffe prone, my point, as you continue to demonstrate, is that Obama is just as much, if not more so, gaffe prone than President Bush. However, he gets a free pass by you and the media because he, as you so eloquently put it

Quote:
Obama has my support because his views most closely match my own.
And they match 90% of the MSM too, so they are willing to overlook his gaffes.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 80
5/25/08 at 12:23am
Is this a contest to see who has said the most stupidist thing??? If so I want in on this! I once voted for Bush!!!! thank gawd i still have some friends.they didn't judge me
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 80
5/25/08 at 6:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
My point wasn't that Obama is gaffe prone, my point, as you continue to demonstrate, is that Obama is just as much, if not more so, gaffe prone than President Bush.
Actually, Baggi, you just fell into my trap with your last post. A perceptive reader like myself will clearly see that your posts conclusively prove that the Republican party is made up of four headed bisexual scaly green aliens with a taste for human flesh and cheez-its.

If you weren't so brainwashed by Faux News, you would see it for yourself.

Yeah, this style of debate is much more fun and saves a lot of time.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
Educational videos for new investors!
e-mini S&P Futures Trading
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Did Obama really say that?