Obama Without a Teleprompter!

[ban-one]

I once called my girlfriend of two years "Linda". Problem is, her name ain't Linda. But I had just gotten off the phone, after having a rather intense conversation, with a "Linda" - so she accepted that. Whether it's Palin, Bachmann or anyone else, we all make occasional gaffes. But not having a basic command of the facts is what I object to. Whether he is right or wrong on policy, I have no doubt that Obama has a basic command of the facts. His conclusions, now those are sometimes debatable.

But I saw Obama at the luncheon with the GOP members about five months ago. He had no teleprompter and he seemed to do just fine. I would challenge any of you to face Obama without a teleprompter. And at the same time I will face (both) Palin and Bachmann. Not because I think I'm so smart - just that I think they're so dumb. But I fully believe I could completely destroy the Idiot Queens (even after a night of heavy drinking). But I don't think anyone here could take on Obama. Especially not some of you who I've called out in the past for taking email chains that you've gotten from your right wing brothers & sisters... and reposted them as factoids. Do I need to name names, ladies & germs?

This teleprompter thing is about like the Birther thing: just another lame, childish exercise in mud slinging by the feeble minded, paranoid schizo radical right.

Yes, we are all prone to gaffs.

Does Obama have a basic command of the facts? Depends of who who ask, and what the 'facts' are.

Would you 'destroy' the 'Idiot Queens?' I doubt you could with them drunk and you sober.

Face Obama without a telepromter? I'd say I could do that. While you may not believe me, I think I'm doing pretty good pulling things from my memory and articulating my points on the fly.

Comparing the 'teleprompter thing' to the 'Birther thing?' Do you remember who started that? It was the Clinton Camp, and so what if some people have doubts about his citizenship? He didn't exactly help matters by waiting so long, now did he? The telepromter thing is to the right, what was calling GWB an idiot was to the left.

To your point about the talking points, both sides do that.

"Just another lame, childish exercise in mud slinging by the feeble minded, paranoid schizo radical right?" I'd give you more credit in two of those categories (and I'll let you guess which two) if you hadn't said that.

 

[PlumpRump]

R/C I'm disappointed in you.

You're letting him off the hook for not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem....proof positive of Georges' and Bachmann's assertions that he is unAmerican.:yesyes:

The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.

To salute, all persons come to attention. Those in uniform give the appropriate formal salute. Citizens not in uniform salute by placing their right hand over the heart and men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart.

When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.

http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html

Designation: The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.
Conduct During Playing: During a rendition of the national anthem:
When the flag is displayed:
All present except those in uniform should stand at attention with their right hand over the heart.[13]
Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder,
Members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present and not in uniform may render the military salute.
Individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code

It doesn't necessarily make him unAmerican, it just means that he has a lack of etiquette and doesn't choose to abide by generally agreed upon standards of respect for the flag.

Although, nowadays it seems like etiquette and respect are decidedly less and less American... so in a way, I guess not putting his hand over his heart during the anthem makes him more American. Go figure.

 

[ban-one]

Right.



http://www.mediaite.com/online/doub...eres-wikipedia-page-to-match-her-description/


Now please point out a similar instance where the 'left' did the same.

First of all, Sarah Palin was right. Even NPR says she got it right. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere

Secondly, Wikipedia is edited by any and everyone, so you should never put too much stock in what it says. Meaning, just because it wasn't there before it was added, didn't make it not true.

Thirdly, have you heard of man named Van Jones? Alotta his stuff has been erased or 'lost' by the media and people on the left.

But more to the point, your want for me to prove the left does it is a catch-22. If I can still find something because of people like Glenn Beck making copies and putting them on his show or the internet, then it is still out there to be seen, but only if you know where or to look. But if I can't find it, in large part because most of these things are never reported to begin with, how am I supposed to show you it happened and then was covered up? I don't attend these left-wing gettogethers to know what they say, or what was left out of the released material. And by definition, if you 'cover something up,' you ideally make it so no one knows it happened.

And don't just say "Well, that's your problem," because it is all of our problem if we are being lied to and misled.

Oh, and I like how you put left in quotes. Make it seem like it's some fictitious group I just came up with off the top of my head, and that there is no 'left.' Just 'center' and 'right' I presume?

 

[Hot Mega]

http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code

It doesn't necessarily make him unAmerican, it just means that he has a lack of etiquette and doesn't choose to abide by generally agreed upon standards of respect for the flag.

Although, nowadays it seems like etiquette and respect are decidedly less and less American... so in a way, I guess not putting his hand over his heart during the anthem makes him more American. Go figure.

Yeah, I'm pretty clear on the etiquette which is more to the point on the Pledge and not so much on the Anthem.

But so it comes down to him not being PC on it?:dunno:

 

[ban-one]

Pretty entertaining explanation. I didn't watch what you're describing here but I'd be willing to bet if I did...your explanation would read even funnier.

Not quite the belly laugh I was looking for but certainly chuckle-worthy.

Well, then maybe you should go watch it, because I did before commenting on it. Here's the link again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY

I gotta warn ya, it's close to 90 minutes, and watching politicians talk is really boring.

And on a side note, and this goes for both sides, cut to the damn chase and ask just ask your question already! No one cares about some fictional person you know you made up, and we know you made up, to try to make your point seem like it came from the common people.

 

[Hot Mega]

Well, then maybe you should go watch it, because I did before commenting on it. Here's the link again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1-jasxb7NY

I gotta warn ya, it's close to 90 minutes, and watching politicians talk is really boring.

And on a side note, and this goes for both sides, cut to the damn chase and ask just ask your question already! No one cares about some fictional person you know you made up, and we know you made up, to try to make your point seem like it came from the common people.

Afraid not ban...I'm not going to ever subject myself to a 90 min anything for the purposes of discovering whether someone's characterization of an event or statement is reasonable.

I got time..albeit less now...but that would be crazy man.:nono:

 

[PlumpRump]

So, he just wasn't being PC?:dunno:

Right. Just makes me laugh because usually its the dems that shove PC adherence down everyone's throats, crying racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, etc. etc. etc. for non-compliance. But, of course Obama gets a pass. Why wouldn't he? I get it. I just think its laughable that depending on the situation its either a political tool, or a non-issue.

Like I said, its not necessarily unAmerican, just more than a touch contradictory.

 

[PlumpRump]

Yeah, I'm pretty clear on the etiquette which is more to the point on the Pledge and not so much on the Anthem...

No, its actually US Code. 36 U.S.C. 301 to be exact, and it addresses specifically, the National Anthem. Good to see our President has either no knowledge of the code, or just simply refuses to observe it.

36 U.S.C. 301: National Anthem

Its not that big of an issue, considering. Just a lack of etiquette.

 

[Hot Mega]

Right. Just makes me laugh because usually its the dems that shove PC adherence down everyone's throats, crying racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, etc. etc. etc. for non-compliance. But, of course Obama gets a pass. Why wouldn't he? I get it. I just think its laughable that depending on the situation its either a political tool, or a non-issue.

Like I said, its not necessarily unAmerican, just more than a touch contradictory.

Which is funnier? People who are accused of making PC out of somethings not worrying about this being in line with PCism? Or those who tend to decry PCism on principle even mentioning Obama not adhering to the PC on this?:o

Which is the larger contradiction as they are not equal IMO.

No, its actually US Code. 36 U.S.C. 301 to be exact, and it addresses specifically, the National Anthem. Good to see our President has either no knowledge of the code, or just simply refuses to observe it.

36 U.S.C. 301: National Anthem

Its not that big of an issue, considering. Just a lack of etiquette.

What are the penalties for civilians failing to adhere to this?

 

[ban-one]

Afraid not ban...I'm not going to ever subject myself to a 90 min anything for the purposes of discovering whether someone's characterization of an event or statement is reasonable.

I got time..albeit less now...but that would be crazy man.:nono:

Then don't try to comment on something you know little or nothing about, or wag your finger at me, or say it was a "Pretty entertaining explanation. I didn't watch what you're describing here but I'd be willing to bet if I did...your explanation would read even funnier. Not quite the belly laugh I was looking for but certainly chuckle-worthy."

Atleast I had the good sense to watch (or read) something before I commented on it, or cracked jokes, even if it was 90 minutes long and boring as hell.

Beyond that, if you don't attempt to discover if someone's characterization of an event or statement is reasonable (or even accurate), how will you ever know if you can trust what they say? And that goes for what anyone says.

 

[Hot Mega]

Then don't try to comment on something you know little or nothing about, or wag your finger at me, or say it was a "Pretty entertaining explanation. I didn't watch what you're describing here but I'd be willing to bet if I did...your explanation would read even funnier. Not quite the belly laugh I was looking for but certainly chuckle-worthy."

Atleast I had the good sense to watch (or read) something before I commented on it, or cracked jokes, even if it was 90 minutes long and boring as hell.

Beyond that, if you don't attempt to discover if someone's characterization of an event or statement is reasonable (or even accurate), how will you ever know if you can trust what they say? And that goes for what anyone says.

There is a legal term; prima facie which amounts to mean 'on it's face'. Your post was funny on it's face to me and I didn't need to watch what it referenced.

Even if you were entirely accurate in your characterization the explanation STILL was entertaining to me.

You don't see how all of that can exist in the same space?

 

[ban-one]

There is a legal term; prima facie which amounts to mean 'on it's face'. Your post was funny on it's face to me and I didn't need to watch what it referenced.

Even if you were entirely accurate in your characterization the explanation STILL was entertaining to me.

You don't see how all of that can exist in the same space?

Then maybe you should have said "on the face" in your original response, so I would've known.

And yes, I can see how all of that can exist in the same space.

But just so we're clear, in what way was it 'entertaining' to you? I ask because I believe I took you to mean 'entertaining' in a negative connotation (i.e. false), and not a positive one (i.e. well done). It can sometimes be hard to tell the tone in something written, and not spoken, especially when politics are involved.

 

[PlumpRump]

Which is funnier? People who are accused of making PC out of somethings not worrying about this being in line with PCism? Or those who tend to decry PCism on principle even mentioning Obama not adhering to the PC on this?:o

Which is the larger contradiction as they are not equal IMO.



What are the penalties for civilians failing to adhere to this?

I see what you're saying, and I go to more than 70 sporting events a year and commonly stand the same exact way. I'm not faulting him for it, its just more pointing out that "that side of the aisle" usually goes apeshit over this kind of stuff. To me, its really a non-issue.

And I don't know the civilian penalty for noncompliance, its obviously not something that's soundly enforced. But do civilian penalties apply to the leader of the military anyhow?

 

[KillTheIndustry]

So I checked out what you were talking about and it turned out to be complete bullshit.

Well you can blame the OP for that, because as i said, that's what was shown in the video. It cuts off at that point. What can I say, kudos for taking the time to search the internet in an attempt to save your beloved moron to prove his comment was only mildly stupid, not totally stupid.

However one side has cornered the market on false equivalencies.

The point is, a republican says something stupid, they are mocked and ridiculed. Obama, the President, says something stupid and you say, "nuh-uh, you're stupid." That's not hypocrisy of the left?

Do you have an excuse for everything else he said too?

The fact that Bachmann has said something as stupid, or even more stupid, that does not make Obama less stupid. No, they're BOTH stupid. To say one is and the other isn't is biased.

I'm getting sick of people thinking I'm right-wing because I don't like Obama. I'm an Independent. I find both left and right sides to be half blind. Not everything is black and white. Fucking trolls.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Face Obama without a telepromter? I'd say I could do that.

This is the single most funny thing I have ever read on this site.

Thank you, kind sir. :hatsoff:

 

[abrogate]

Well you can blame the OP for that, because as i said, that's what was shown in the video. It cuts off at that point. What can I say, kudos for taking the time to search the internet in an attempt to save your beloved moron to prove his comment was only mildly stupid, not totally stupid.


The point is, a republican says something stupid, they are mocked and ridiculed. Obama, the President, says something stupid and you say, "nuh-uh, you're stupid." That's not hypocrisy of the left?

Do you have an excuse for everything else he said too?

The fact that Bachmann has said something as stupid, or even more stupid, that does not make Obama less stupid. No, they're BOTH stupid. To say one is and the other isn't is biased.

I'm getting sick of people thinking I'm right-wing because I don't like Obama. I'm an Independent. I find both left and right sides to be half blind. Not everything is black and white. Fucking trolls.

Valid point.

There is always an element of "If you aint with us, you're against us." out there.

Tough for me to compare Bachmann and Obama evenly.

http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/thebachmannrecoc.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wX1UnAtynU

I'm an Independent as well. I was a Republican until 2003 when Bush invaded Iraq.

It is tough to support a candidate that refutes science.

 

[Hot Mega]

Then maybe you should have said "on the face" in your original response, so I would've known.

And yes, I can see how all of that can exist in the same space.

But just so we're clear, in what way was it 'entertaining' to you? I ask because I believe I took you to mean 'entertaining' in a negative connotation (i.e. false), and not a positive one (i.e. well done). It can sometimes be hard to tell the tone in something written, and not spoken, especially when politics are involved.

Maybe. But in most cases it shouldn't be necessary as the point of it being funny 'on it's face' should have been clear based on me saying I didn't need to watch the vid and even if I did it most likely would be funnier.

The reason why it was funny and although negative connotation is a bit strong, I was laughing at it not with it (if you know what I mean) because if there was a visual of the post it would look like this:

(Like, you made allot of smoke but didn't seem to go anywhere important)...:dunno:

 

[Facetious]

Just so I'm clear. We're not bashing Obama over the economy, unemployment, or the war on terror

:search: helps

but we're concerned that he can't speak without a prompter?

We're concerned with all aspects of the presidency.

I dislike Obama as much as the next guy, but if you're going to attack him on something, at least make sure it matters. This is irrelevant bullshit.

Oh, come down off your high horse already, of course it matters, we're measuring his character, OK?

He's a great speaker

So all great orators are worthy of becoming potus? :dunno:
OK, he's a captive and charismatic speaker, I agree, but does he have to read everything verbatim? it sure looks that way to me.
Seriously, does Barry even review his prepared statements before he takes center court or does he rely solely on his teleprompter reading skills? I seriously doubt the former judging from some of his past 'performances'.

but if you make hundreds of televised speeches a year, you're bound to screw up a few of them. Is it really worth pointing out when he makes a mistake. What's the upside to that?

Bush was a punching bag for all sorts of stuff, from choking on a pretzel, crashing on his mountain bike and coming up with words such as ''misunderestimate'', so why is this particular democrat immune from criticism, what makes him so special?

What's likely to happen to the general undecided independent electorate if only one side was criticized and the other was not?

 

[cindy CD/TV]

Getting back to the original point about Obama and the teleprompter:

While some of us poke fun about his over-use of the teleprompter, it does seem to symbolize a certain lack of authenticity in the man. He's disturbingly one-tone, one note all the time. Even when he's NOT using a teleprompter, he still sounds like he's using one. I have difficulty in believing a president or any kind of leader can empathize with his people if he shows almost no human feeling. Even when he says he's upset/angry/pleased about something, he still SOUNDS EXACTLY THE SAME.
For example, a few weeks ago he was giving a nice speech during a Medal of Honor award ceremony. The words were eloquent and nicely delivered -- but Obama's words lacked any and all sense of FEELING the moment. You couldn't tell the difference if had been reading his grocery list. There he was, lauding this soldier's heroism and recounting his heroic deeds, and there was no change in Obama's emotion, tone, expression. It comes across as unfeeling. Like Mr. Spock. It's unsettling.

 

[bodie54]

This is the single most funny thing I have ever read on this site.

Thank you, kind sir. :hatsoff:

That WAS a dandy, Dirk.
But I'd submit this one was just as funny

those on the right, who are constantly challenged by the people on the left and in the media for their 'stupid and out-of-touch views,' are always checking to see if what they really believe is true, so they have conviction in what they say and believe, and don't just resort to name calling, and use logic and reasoning in the finding of their beliefs.

:rofl2:

This is the same right that's promulgated such an avalanche of lies and distortions about the president there are about three pages of them listed at snopes.

This is the same right who's mindless minions perpetually parrot these same lies and distortions even after they've been thoroughly debunked; in some instances years after.

The same right that gets much of their "news" from viral emails, and much of the rest from whores like Beck, Levin, Hannity et al, who's pay scale essentially depends on the degree of fear and dissension they're able to stir up.

The same right that claims the president is a non-citizen, anti-american, muslim marxist.

too damn funny :1orglaugh